A Question about American Politics

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

42 Replies - 2167 Views - Last Post: 08 March 2018 - 11:13 AM

#31 NeoTifa   User is offline

  • NeoTifa Codebreaker, the Scourge of Devtester
  • member icon





Reputation: 4210
  • View blog
  • Posts: 18,470
  • Joined: 24-September 08

Re: A Question about American Politics

Posted 05 March 2018 - 11:17 AM

What may seem like a good idea to some might be a bad idea to others. True there are no winners in war, and it's tragic no matter which side you're on. You came here to push a political opinion but not everybody is agreeing so you're ragequitting? k
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#32 BenignDesign   User is offline

  • holy shitin shishkebobs
  • member icon




Reputation: 7514
  • View blog
  • Posts: 12,100
  • Joined: 28-September 07

Re: A Question about American Politics

Posted 05 March 2018 - 11:24 AM

View PostUniverseIsASimulation, on 04 March 2018 - 11:28 PM, said:

Again, the American conservatives say they care about the rest of the world, and that America's involvements in wars brings people freedom and capitalism.


Let me just interject here to fan the already blazing flames of the current American political climate by saying that as one inside the bubble, conservatives say they care about a lot of things when in reality, they're pretty much only concerned with whatever is going to line their pockets the fastest.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#33 Radius Nightly   User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular

Reputation: 33
  • View blog
  • Posts: 291
  • Joined: 07-May 15

Re: A Question about American Politics

Posted 05 March 2018 - 12:30 PM

View PostUniverseIsASimulation, on 05 March 2018 - 07:04 PM, said:

Honestly, I hoped everyone here would agree with me that bombing the Belgrade was wrong, but that was quite of an unrealistic expectation.
Some people here seem to be interested in Croatia, but also seem to be a bit misinformed. What's wrong with me linking to a web-page about my Croatia-related research?

War between Serbia and Kosovo, NATO involved, talking about Croatia. I dont follow you. IDK for Kosovo, but i cant be misinformed.

Wrong or not wrong, you got my edited post, and you still dont understand simple principle in war. Its not only a payback or revenge, they kill innocent families, and wont stop. Main mission of all wars are to stop the war, no matter what, with less deaths and damage as possible, stopping it is success.
So what would you do?
-Offer pacification, again and again, so they can wipe ass with that paper. (High Damage - No Success)
-Do nothing, continue to count bodies as they continue. (High Damage - Low Success)
-Go in war, kill them, return home with dead mates, count way more bodies. (Very High Damage - No Success)
-Surrender and get killed, actually wiped out, like whole surname. (High Damage - Low Success)
-Attempt several assassinations on high ranked targets. (High Damage - Very Low Success)
-Same as they did, nuke innocent, blood for blood. (Very High Damage - Low Success)
-Aim ammunition, they got it unlimited from the east. (High Damage - No Success)
-Wipe them out, burn them to the ground with all you have. (Very High Damage - High Success)
-Nuke the sneak head, aim for capital city, high ranked leaders, less civilians as possible. (Minimal Damage - High Success)

If you pick the last one, boom, and war will end, everything else leads to more and more blood.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#34 astonecipher   User is offline

  • Senior Systems Engineer
  • member icon

Reputation: 2537
  • View blog
  • Posts: 10,169
  • Joined: 03-December 12

Re: A Question about American Politics

Posted 05 March 2018 - 01:37 PM

As a former solider, I don't know whether to be entertained by this or amazingly dumbfounded. Either way, this isn't the best forum to broadcast your war beliefs. War is a thing that movies are great at trivializing and romancing. It isn't. But, the bleeding hearts also need to stay out of it so what needs done can be, because shit happens.

Side note. I am a conservative and don't line my pockets. But, I also don't believe it is the job of the US Military to police the worlds problems either.

The irony of this whole thing is, my PTSD episodes have been becoming more and more frequent. So, that's all I am going to say to people armchair quarterbacking things they don't understand and haven't experienced.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#35 jon.kiparsky   User is offline

  • Beginner
  • member icon


Reputation: 11067
  • View blog
  • Posts: 18,903
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: A Question about American Politics

Posted 05 March 2018 - 02:53 PM

View Postastonecipher, on 05 March 2018 - 03:37 PM, said:

But, the bleeding hearts also need to stay out of it so what needs done can be, because shit happens.

We've definitely strayed off the topic of the US involvement in the former Yugoslavia, but since we've gone there I feel compelled to point out that the US Military is subordinate to the elected government, and this is a good thing. This implies that "bleeding hearts" and other interested parties should very much not stay out of it, but should be involved in decisions about wars. This is not about conservative or liberal or other political persuasions, it's about the proper role of an involved citizenry in a democracy.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#36 astonecipher   User is offline

  • Senior Systems Engineer
  • member icon

Reputation: 2537
  • View blog
  • Posts: 10,169
  • Joined: 03-December 12

Re: A Question about American Politics

Posted 05 March 2018 - 03:54 PM

I am not arguing over who is over the military. What I am saying is, war is not politically correct. When those deciding factions step into a very messy area, and say this is how you will do it, wars can’t be fought, but people can damn sure die. For instance, having rules of engagement that you can’t fire on a holy building. Well, when you are pinned down and can’t move because of fire coming from a holy building, fuck your stupid politically pandering bullshit. Wars are fought to hurt the other side. You don’t win war with “winning their hearts and minds” you win by utter destruction to make them not want to fight. But considering only a few of us here have faced it, we are back to the armchair quarterbacks saying what we should and shouldn’t do on their pedestal on high.

People want to be safe, and shouldn’t know what it takes or the people that make it happen. Because we step into PC bullshit again where war is distasteful and upsets their delicate sense of self. When someone wants to kill you and is willing to die for their cause, make them die for their cause.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#37 jon.kiparsky   User is offline

  • Beginner
  • member icon


Reputation: 11067
  • View blog
  • Posts: 18,903
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: A Question about American Politics

Posted 08 March 2018 - 08:29 AM

View Postastonecipher, on 05 March 2018 - 05:54 PM, said:

People want to be safe, and shouldn’t know what it takes or the people that make it happen. Because we step into PC bullshit again where war is distasteful and upsets their delicate sense of self. When someone wants to kill you and is willing to die for their cause, make them die for their cause.


I must, with all respect, disagree with the claim that the people who are supposedly being "made safe" by these wars should not know what those wars require. There are people of voting age today who were toddlers when Bush started the current round of "keeping us safe". Some of those people will be the next to be sent into those wars. They should, and we all should, know exactly what it takes to "keep them safe", in every detail, because they, and we, are the ones who have to decide how long we're going to tolerate being "made safe" in this way, and how many more soldiers we're willing to see die in the name of this supposed safety.
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#38 h4nnib4l   User is offline

  • The Noid
  • member icon

Reputation: 1274
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,808
  • Joined: 24-August 11

Re: A Question about American Politics

Posted 08 March 2018 - 10:20 AM

I agree with both of you. I think the logical convergence of the positions is that the public should absolutely know what it takes to win a war, and should consider that before going to war, but once war is declared they need to accept those consequences and allow the military to win. The public needs to know that sometimes, schools have to be bombed to win wars. Many times, civilians have to die. So before going to war, those things need to be weighed. As Clausewitz pointed out, war is an extension of politics, the application of which translates into "is this dispute worth killing a lot of people over?" And if it is, then the military has to be free to bomb that school, because maybe the cost of not bombing it is higher. If it's not, then maybe we should work harder on other solutions.

We have deluded ourselves in America (we're certainly not the only ones, but it's endemic here) into thinking that wars can be clean, especially if we just add these few more rules of engagement. This, in IMO, is not only wrong but arrogant and even more dirty. No, we shouldn't firebomb every school and rape our enemies into submission - there is a place for dignity and humanity in war - but it can't be clean, and it can only be so dignified. For America, it's been so long since there's been fighting within our borders (and when it has happened, it's generally been internal) that we don't really have cultural memory of the cost of war where it's happening, but that's something that we need to rectify through education. It would certainly improve our relationship with much of the rest of the world.

This post has been edited by h4nnib4l: 08 March 2018 - 10:22 AM

Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#39 NeoTifa   User is offline

  • NeoTifa Codebreaker, the Scourge of Devtester
  • member icon





Reputation: 4210
  • View blog
  • Posts: 18,470
  • Joined: 24-September 08

Re: A Question about American Politics

Posted 08 March 2018 - 10:58 AM

Rules of engagement are important. For instance, you shouldn't shoot somebody who's taking a dump. That's just a d*** move.
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#40 jon.kiparsky   User is offline

  • Beginner
  • member icon


Reputation: 11067
  • View blog
  • Posts: 18,903
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: A Question about American Politics

Posted 08 March 2018 - 11:00 AM

View PostNeoTifa, on 08 March 2018 - 12:58 PM, said:

Rules of engagement are important. For instance, you shouldn't shoot somebody who's taking a dump. That's just a d*** move.


Technically, that's an a****** move, isn't it?
Was This Post Helpful? 1
  • +
  • -

#41 NeoTifa   User is offline

  • NeoTifa Codebreaker, the Scourge of Devtester
  • member icon





Reputation: 4210
  • View blog
  • Posts: 18,470
  • Joined: 24-September 08

Re: A Question about American Politics

Posted 08 March 2018 - 11:01 AM

touchee
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#42 astonecipher   User is offline

  • Senior Systems Engineer
  • member icon

Reputation: 2537
  • View blog
  • Posts: 10,169
  • Joined: 03-December 12

Re: A Question about American Politics

Posted 08 March 2018 - 11:04 AM

Shit (pun intended) that’s a prime target!
Was This Post Helpful? 2
  • +
  • -

#43 jon.kiparsky   User is offline

  • Beginner
  • member icon


Reputation: 11067
  • View blog
  • Posts: 18,903
  • Joined: 19-March 11

Re: A Question about American Politics

Posted 08 March 2018 - 11:13 AM

View Posth4nnib4l, on 08 March 2018 - 12:20 PM, said:

I agree with both of you. I think the logical convergence of the positions is that the public should absolutely know what it takes to win a war, and should consider that before going to war, but once war is declared they need to accept those consequences and allow the military to win. The public needs to know that sometimes, schools have to be bombed to win wars. Many times, civilians have to die. So before going to war, those things need to be weighed. As Clausewitz pointed out, war is an extension of politics, the application of which translates into "is this dispute worth killing a lot of people over?" And if it is, then the military has to be free to bomb that school, because maybe the cost of not bombing it is higher. If it's not, then maybe we should work harder on other solutions.


Yes, absolutely. And this is of course one of the main reasons why I say that the American public should never be kept in the dark about what soldiers do in our name. If we don't know what the war costs, in full, then we are likely to underestimate those costs, and this means that soldiers and civilians will die for a cause we did not feel was worth the cost. This does not go well for anyone - witness the Bush Wars, still ongoing, which were the product of an orgy of lying. If the American public had had a true understanding of the expected cost of these wars, politicians who voted for them would have been torn limb from limb by their loyal American constituents. As it is, we are in the second decade of a misadventure that has cost far too many lives, American and otherwise, a truly staggering number of whom were non-combatants who just happened to be in the way of our political calculus. No American wants to be in this war, and no American thinks that continuing it will lead to any gain worth having, and no American knows how to get out of it.

Ignorance kills.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (3 Pages)
  • +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3