• Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump supports waterboarding and will move to end it's "status as a war crime
    455 replies, posted
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;49701380]Robert McNamara thought this would work in Vietnam. Do you want to know how that turned out?[/QUOTE] Had we kept going it would've worked. Opposition domestically made that impossible though.
[QUOTE=wystan;49701343]Torturing a few people determined to kill innocents is not the same as killing thousands of actually innocent people.[/QUOTE] which the US routinely does with drone strikes [img]http://puu.sh/n0WOp/08a6445b95.jpg[/img] we've been bombing terrorists (as well as innocent men, women and children) for decades. answer me this: how do you think terrorists are created if we keep killing them?
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49701391]which the US routinely does with drone strikes [IMG]http://puu.sh/n0WOp/08a6445b95.jpg[/IMG] we've been bombing terrorists (as well as innocent men, women and children) for decades. answer me this: how do you think terrorists are created if we keep killing them?[/QUOTE] Collateral damage is unfortunate and it's not like we kill innocents on purpose. But how do you get rid of terrorists who aren't willing to accept a peaceful solution? You kill them.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49701092]Sooooooo, genocide, then. Because if I systematically started shooting each one of your relatives except you, at what point would you drop any plans for revenge and instead offer to move out of town to make the killings stop? No, seriously. I demand you answer this question. Defend the above quoted statement. How many killings do you justify? How many humans get to die in US custody without due process because President Wystan is in charge of the CIA and the military? What's the number?[/QUOTE] It's not genocide, but it's practically a form of total war. If you want to win a total war, you have to be prepared to completely destroy the enemy in such a way, that they won't rise again against you. It is morally heavy, but if you want to end a conflict for a really long time, it shouldn't be out of the question. That doesn't mean killing them all though, but you would have to destroy the entire system and organisation that the enemy believed in. And that it should be done as quickly as possible, since dragging out the conflict will not be a positive for anyone. The problem with that is though, as seen with the Middle East nowadays, that destroying a system and organisation and ditching it while it is still in utter ruin will create an even bigger clusterfuck, which is in my opinion, one of the biggest tactical blunders the US has ever made. While they still did make an effort for rebuilding and reorganising after the second Gulf War, they really shouldn't have pulled out. That said, there is always that moral question if the means justify the end. It's always a difficult topic. And it seems deeply rooted in the human mind to defend their means to an end. While torture is, of course, morally wrong, I think that there is that lingering feeling that torturing verified enemies can save lives on your side. Or at least, I guess that is how they will justify it most of the time. I think if someone gets told to waterboard, for example, a captured IS militant in the hopes that he will spit up some info that could possibly save lives, that most people in the conflict will not give a shit about how said IS militant will react to getting waterboarded or worse, as long they get the info from him. In times of conflict, the well-being of the enemy always comes in dead last.
[QUOTE=wystan;49701390]Had we kept going it would've worked. Opposition domestically made that impossible though.[/QUOTE] Yes, [i]killing literally everyone who disagrees with you and resists you[/i] will eventually mean that they lose. But in doing so you've committed genocide and managed to turn thousands of other people against you. What's the solution there? Keep killing? If we had slaughtered every single North Vietnamese man, woman, and child in order to protect a certain political ideology from a perceived threat, would we be in the right? Because all that would happen is that the Soviet Union and other countries would escalate, viewing those actions as despicable, and now we have some obligation to defend our ideology by [i]killing all the Soviets[/i], and then killing everyone else who tried to resist. You're calling for policing of ideology and belief via genocide. ISIS disagrees with us - those who act violently and kill others should expect retaliation, but saying that the solution to radicalization is to kill more (which leads to further radicalization), and then to kill more, which leads to further radicalization, and then to kill more - it's an endless cycle that leads to slaughtering everyone because of ideology.
[QUOTE=wystan;49701428]Collateral damage is unfortunate and it's not like we kill innocents on purpose. But how do you get rid of terrorists who aren't willing to accept a peaceful solution? You kill them.[/QUOTE] Your killings are only breeding more terrorists You cannot stop an ideology that says "They are the bad guys! They kill our families!" by ignoring collateral damage as a necessary evil, then proceeding to kill their families
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49701450]Your killings are only breeding more terrorists You cannot stop an ideology that says "They are the bad guys! They kill our families!" by ignoring collateral damage as a necessary evil, then proceeding to kill their families[/QUOTE] How else do you stop them then?
[QUOTE=wystan;49701428]Collateral damage is unfortunate and it's not like we kill innocents on purpose. But how do you get rid of terrorists who aren't willing to accept a peaceful solution? You kill them.[/QUOTE] [i]This is the exact fucking mentality that ISIS has[/i]. How do you get rid of the oppressive USA who is killing our innocent families? Who won't accept a peaceful solution? You kill them. It's reciprocal death. US kills an innocent - others vilify the US as terrorists, and kill an innocent in retaliation. US vilifies the others as terrorists, and kills innocents in retaliation. How can you not see this? It's why Israel and Palestine has been in a deadlock of constant warfare for decades. It is not the right solution. It breeds radicals and breeds terror - both sides have the [i]exact same perspective[/i].
[QUOTE=wystan;49701390]Had we kept going it would've worked. Opposition domestically made that impossible though.[/QUOTE] Had we kept going we would have had a dozen more My Lais, plummeting morale, and with shit to show for it since the South Vietnamese government was a hopelessly corrupt clusterfuck that had no hope of standing on its own legs. .Isak. summarized even better why it wouldn't work, but I'm getting a little tired of the "IF IT WEREN'T FOR THOSE DARN LIBERALS WE'D HAVE WON SEVERAL TIMES OVER" narrative about Vietnam conservatives cling to so tightly.
[QUOTE=1nfiniteseed;49701492]Had we kept going we would have had a dozen more My Lais, plummeting morale, and with shit to show for it since the South Vietnamese government was a hopelessly corrupt clusterfuck that had no hope of standing on its own legs. .Isak. summarized even better why it wouldn't work, but I'm getting a little tired of the "IF IT WEREN'T FOR THOSE DARN LIBERALS WE'D HAVE WON SEVERAL TIMES OVER" narrative about Vietnam conservatives cling to so tightly.[/QUOTE] Hell, the idea of the Vietnam war was [i]containment[/i]. It was to hold back the perceived "spreading" of communism by interfering with local politics and forcing a democratic government in South Vietnam. Wystan isn't arguing containment. He's saying we should have just killed them for killing us. Not establishing a barrier democracy to hold back communism, as the conservatives of the time planned - he's advocating for just [i]killing the North Vietnamese because they were attacking us[/i]. The consequeneces of slaughtering the entire population of North Vietnam for attacking us, even if the entire war was in a shroud of secrecy from the American public, would be total warfare with most communist countries on the planet. It would have cemented the US as a genocidal country. Even ignoring morality - A 100% reciprocal, retaliatory foreign policy is fucking idiotic and escalates every situation no matter what.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;49701549]Hell, the idea of the Vietnam war was [i]containment[/i]. It was to hold back the perceived "spreading" of communism by interfering with local politics and forcing a democratic government in South Vietnam. Wystan isn't arguing containment. He's saying we should have just killed them for killing us. Not establishing a barrier democracy to hold back communism, as the conservatives of the time planned - he's advocating for just [i]killing the North Vietnamese because they were attacking us[/i]. The consequeneces of slaughtering the entire population of North Vietnam for attacking us, even if the entire war was in a shroud of secrecy from the American public, would be total warfare with most communist countries on the planet. It would have cemented the US as a genocidal country. Even ignoring morality - A 100% reciprocal, retaliatory foreign policy is fucking idiotic and escalates every situation no matter what.[/QUOTE] Quit trying to imply I'm ok with just killing innocent people and the entire population of a country. No don't kill every Northern Vietnamese, that's absurd. Kill as many combatants, kill the people trying to kill you, some rice farmer who isn't partial to any bit of the war has no reason to die and is a waste of life.
I'd rather not get re-involved in this shitshow, but I do need to say something- You guys are taking arguments that you would win, and are using ad-homenim and hyperbolic statements when you don't need to, which really just weakens your (largely correct) argument. This is NOT the way to make someone see it your way. That just makes people double-down on their preconceptions. [editline]s[/editline] Like yeah his arguments for torture were shitty but he's not saying "yeah kill all those innocents yeearg I fucking love dead yellow people" but you're acting like that's what he's saying
[QUOTE=wystan;49701576]Quit trying to imply I'm ok with just killing innocent people and the entire population of a country. No don't kill every Northern Vietnamese, that's absurd. Kill as many combatants, kill the people trying to kill you, some rice farmer who isn't partial to any bit of the war has no reason to die and is a waste of life.[/QUOTE] Until you've bombed the shit out of so many combatants and caused enough collateral damage to infrastructure and innocent casualties that you've destroyed his way of life, so he has nothing left to live for except revenge, and now you've created another combatant to kill. And that is how this cycle of an eye for an eye becomes genocide, because civilians can decide to become combatants if given sufficient motivation, and seeing their countrymen brutally killed by invading Americans is a significant motivation.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49701627]Until you've bombed the shit out of so many combatants that you've destroyed his way of life, so he has nothing left to live for except revenge, and now you've created another combatant to kill. And that is how this cycle of an eye for an eye becomes genocide, because civilians can decide to become combatants if given sufficient motivation, and seeing their countrymen brutally killed by invading Americans is a significant motivation.[/QUOTE] I disagree but I don't want to argue over Vietnam because it's off topic and more nuanced and totally different conflict than what we were previously discussing. Vietnam seemed to turn out ok anyway, they even have McDonald's now, so I think we did end up winning that war, just took longer than expected.
[QUOTE=wystan;49701679]I disagree but I don't want to argue over Vietnam because it's off topic and more nuanced and totally different conflict than what we were previously discussing.[/QUOTE] I could be talking about Vietnam, or Afghanistan, or every round of war America's involved itself with in the Middle-East since 1990, and an eye for an eye just breeds more people looking to kill you for killing them. You disagree, then. Well, defend that. By what mechanism does the cycle of retribution end, short of one side being too dead to fight? [QUOTE=wystan;49701679]Vietnam seemed to turn out ok anyway, they even have McDonald's now, so I think we did end up winning that war, just took longer than expected.[/QUOTE] Forget Agent Orange victims, they've got McDonalds, that makes it okay then. There is a man in Vietnam who can take you to the beach on which he was rendered permanently deaf by American bombers bringing freedom and concussive force to his country.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49701818]I could be talking about Vietnam, or Afghanistan, or every round of war America's involved itself with in the Middle-East since 1990, and an eye for an eye just breeds more people looking to kill you for killing them. You disagree, then. Well, defend that. By what mechanism does the cycle of retribution end, short of one side being too dead to fight? Forget Agent Orange victims, they've got McDonalds, that makes it okay then. There is a man in Vietnam who can take you to the beach on which he was rendered permanently deaf by American bombers bringing freedom and concussive force to his country.[/QUOTE] How many times do I have to say collateral damage before you people realize it is unavoidable not something just exclusive to big evil imperalist America. The cycle ends when you kill enough to where the other side gives up, make it not worth the cost to keep wasting lives, another reason we left Vietnam.
[QUOTE=wystan;49701888]The cycle ends when you kill enough to where the other side gives up, make it not worth the cost to keep wasting lives, another reason we left Vietnam.[/QUOTE] That's working so delightfully in Gaza, isn't it? Care to give us your predictions for when Hamas will give up? [sp]Hint: Never[/sp]
[QUOTE=wystan;49701888]How many times do I have to say collateral damage before you people realize it is unavoidable not something just exclusive to big evil imperalist America. The cycle ends when you kill enough to where the other side gives up, make it not worth the cost to keep wasting lives, another reason we left Vietnam.[/QUOTE] They didn't give up when the US toppled regimes and introduced worse ones. They didn't give up when American intervention shattered what was left. They didn't give up when drones came to clean up the mess while making a bigger one. And they're not giving up anytime soon. Do you really think they'll just surrender? When they do, someone will call them weak. Someone whose country was destroyed and whose family was killed. And they will find others who lost their countries and their families, and form another group. There's no such thing as killing enough of them until they stop. This is an ideological war. You are not going to win it by feeding that ideology.
[QUOTE=wystan;49701576]Quit trying to imply I'm ok with just killing innocent people and the entire population of a country. No don't kill every Northern Vietnamese, that's absurd. Kill as many combatants, kill the people trying to kill you, some rice farmer who isn't partial to any bit of the war has no reason to die and is a waste of life.[/QUOTE] You're missing the point. By killing combatants, you create more combatants. That is how terrorism functions. You kill a man, and the sons want revenge, so they kill your people to achieve that revenge. You kill them - their mothers and sisters and brothers and daughters all join in the fight, combating against what they view as an oppressive regime. Killing combatants leads to more combatants, which leads to more killing, which leads to more combatants. It's cyclical. I know you're not calling for a genocide of innocents - but the actions you've proposed [i]inevitably lead to a genocide[/i]. The rice farmer might not have a stake in the war. His impressionable young son, searching for meaning in life, joins ISIS. He's killed and ISIS shows up at his doorstep with the corpse. The father joins in. So do the brothers. This is what I'm trying to point out to you. Combatants don't just drop dead - they have relationships that join in each time one dies. This happened after 9/11 - except it wasn't even direct families. A ton of people joined the military because they wanted revenge for what the enemy had done to their country, their pride, and their people. Why? Vengeance. Glory. Honor. ISIS is using that exact same tactic to get recruits - and loved ones, innocent or not, dying at the hands of the US is an easy motivator to get people to fight back.
And yet no one has given a better alternative, if they are going to keep trying to kill us how else are we going to stop them without violence?
[QUOTE=wystan;49701993]And yet no one has given a better alternative, if they are going to keep trying to kill us how else are we going to stop them without violence?[/QUOTE] Look at how Germany was treated after WW1; forced into austere poverty with deep reparation debts, left to pick up the pieces of its shattered infrastructure. An ambitious young man grasped hold of the popular discontent and unrest in Germany at the time and promised them something better, and we all know how that turned out. Compare to the reconstruction efforts in Germany and Japan after WW2; they were costly, but post-WW2 West Germans grew up humbled by their parents' and grandparents' terrible follies yet did not want for basic infrastructure and needs. Post-war Japanese grew up with an America that, while occupying and restructuring their government along with helping rebuild their infrastructure, would soon withdraw and go on to form valuable business partnerships with them for decades. The USA's (and other Western nations') treatment of reconstruction in the Middle East after it's come over and made messes has been in line with the the WW1 Germany model, and now we have ISIS threatening everyone. Who could have possibly seen this coming? Trump is promising you that, in this troubled time with much discontent and unrest in America, that he knows how to provide you with something better.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49702080]Look at how Germany was treated after WW1; forced into austere poverty with deep reparation debts, left to pick up the pieces of its shattered infrastructure. An ambitious young man grasped hold of the popular discontent and unrest in Germany at the time and promised them something better, and we all know how that turned out. Compare to the reconstruction efforts in Germany and Japan after WW2; they were costly, but post-WW2 West Germans grew up humbled by their parents' and grandparents' terrible follies yet did not want for basic infrastructure and needs. Post-war Japanese grew up with an America that, while occupying and restructuring their government along with helping rebuild their infrastructure, would withdraw and form valuable business partnerships with them for decades. The USA's (and other Western nations') treatment of reconstruction in the Middle East after it's come over and made messes has been in line with the the WW1 Germany model, and now we have ISIS threatening everyone. Who could have possibly seen this coming? Trump is promising you that, in this troubled time with much discontent and unrest in America, that he knows how to provide you with something better.[/QUOTE] So you're in favor of occupation? Not saying that wouldn't work but it would certainly be costly.
[QUOTE=wystan;49701993]And yet no one has given a better alternative, if they are going to keep trying to kill us how else are we going to stop them without violence?[/QUOTE] Do you want me to get a statement from a military strategist for you to ignore? An ambassador's opinion that you can disregard? You don't trust interrogators and brain research professors when they talk about interrogations and brain research, why would this be any different?
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49702105]Do you want me to get a statement from a military strategist for you to ignore? An ambassador's opinion that you can disregard? You don't trust interrogators and brain research professors when they talk about interrogations and brain research, why would this be any different?[/QUOTE] And here you are trying to be so moral and tolerant about people who disagree with you, you used to contribute to the conversation, giving up on that now?
[QUOTE=wystan;49702125]And here you are trying to be so moral and tolerant about people who disagree with you, you used to contribute to the conversation, giving up on that now?[/QUOTE] You just ignored 11 pages of contribution
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;49702137]You just ignored 11 pages of contribution[/QUOTE] No I didn't.
[QUOTE=wystan;49702093]So you're in favor of occupation? Not saying that wouldn't work but it would certainly be costly.[/QUOTE] Killing them until they learn their place under America's dominance is [B]not fucking working[/B] and it can never work. Reconstructing a country after a decade plus of having the shit bombed out of it is not a fast process, and the current state of Iraq is proof that trying to rush it will result in failure. It's costly, but if you want to end the cycle of retribution, you must supply the unmet fundamental needs that fuel the flow of ordinary civilians into hostile extremists. If we want ISIS to die, we need to cut off their flow of new recruits, and that means helping rebuild the countries ISIS draws members from. Every Middle Eastern hot zone that's been bombed into a violent shithole has no functioning economy and as a result the entire fabric of society is destroyed. Someone needs to go in there and do the hard work of knitting the pieces back together and healing the shattered people that war creates. If not America, someone. Right now, that someone is ISIS, promising better by first needing them to join the fight so they can take back their country. This thread is 11 pages of you handing them bonus multipliers in their recruitment drives.
[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;49702162]Killing them until they learn their place under America's dominance is [B]not fucking working[/B] and it can never work. Reconstructing a country after a decade plus of having the shit bombed out of it is not a fast process, and the current state of Iraq is proof that trying to rush it will result in failure. It's costly, but if you want to end the cycle of retribution, you must supply the unmet fundamental needs that fuel the flow of ordinary civilians into hostile extremists. If we want ISIS to die, we need to cut off their flow of new recruits, and that means helping rebuild the countries ISIS draws members from. Every Middle Eastern hot zone that's been bombed into a violent shithole has no functioning economy and as a result the entire fabric of society is destroyed. Someone needs to go in there and do the hard work of knitting the pieces back together and healing the shattered people that war creates. If not America, someone. Right now, that someone is ISIS, promising better by first needing them to join the fight so they can take back their country. This thread is 11 pages of you handing them bonus multipliers in their recruitment drives.[/QUOTE] Nation building is hard, and very expensive. I agree with you we should fix it at the source. But there is also an issue with trying to "fix" a nation who doesn't want to be fixed, perhaps some nations should just be left excluded.
[QUOTE=wystan;49702177]Nation building is hard, and very expensive. I agree with you we should fix it at the source. But there is also an issue with trying to "fix" a nation who doesn't want to be fixed, perhaps some nations should just be left excluded.[/QUOTE] So we'll just treat them as uneducateable retards and torture and bomb them to keep them in line if they get any ideas of rising above their lowly station. :ok:
By excluded you mean dead right because you've already figured out you have to kill them all to stop them all Conscript, you can call us all sorts of things to talk about how ineffective and out of touch we are, but if you really think this is not worth an apology, then I'm not sure what it is from you. It's okay to hold these ideals, but God fucking damnit if someone's a liberal.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.