BF2S Forums Operation Together

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Well uh...  if said genocide only involves killing extremists and their allies...   I'm not exactly against it.

Eliminating people in the middle of nowhere whose only connection to the outside world seems to involve causing shitloads of trouble isn't exactly a thought I'm averse to.

The Taliban isn't just dudes in turbans with AK-47s, Turq. It's an entire tribal culture. Men, women, and children. And those women and children have the same belief system the men do. You gonna off them, as well?

The same could be said of the Nazies.  Every side we fight and that every other culture fights has women and children.  They die.  We both know that's how war is.

So yes.  I would off them if it means a better outcome for us.  If bombing these areas into nothingness so that the war ends once and for all, yes, I would do it.

In short, fuck their culture.

And you would be hanged for war crimes if your view was enacted as policy.

That's an interesting theoretical view, but can't stand the light of reality.

Kill every combatant? Sure. But you don't go through and kill the non-combatants simply because they believe the same way the combatants believe. That makes you no better than the guys who operated the ovens in Auschwitz, Turq.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

And you would be hanged for war crimes if your view was enacted as policy.

Only if we lost.

Valid point.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

That's an interesting theoretical view, but can't stand the light of reality.

It stood the light of reality when we firebombed Japan.  It stood the light of reality when we bombed Germany.  So yes, it is viable.  All it requires is the proper context.

Nuance: In Japan, means of production was the target. Individuals were producing war materiel in their homes (cottage industry), justifying under the law of armed conflict, the targeting of their homes. I shit you not. Germany was a whole different story. The bombing of civilian populations actually was not outlawed until after WWII...because of the horrors of WWII.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Kill every combatant? Sure. But you don't go through and kill the non-combatants simply because they believe the same way the combatants believe. That makes you no better than the guys who operated the ovens in Auschwitz, Turq.

And if you're making that assertion, that means the Allies were no better than the Axis.

See above. You have a point...to a degree.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Nuance: In Japan, means of production was the target. Individuals were producing war materiel in their homes (cottage industry), justifying under the law of armed conflict, the targeting of their homes. I shit you not. Germany was a whole different story. The bombing of civilian populations actually was not outlawed until after WWII...because of the horrors of WWII.

Would it be correct to assume that the tribes we're fighting have their families aiding the making and trafficking of weapons?  If so, then does that not justify the families as targets?

You can't really assume those sorts of things if you're going to start taking out civilians like that. Not in this day and age. In WWII, it was a total war scenario, totally unlike today. I would argue that even if today's war were a total war, that sort of thing simply wouldn't be tolerated in today's media environment. Even if it could be justified legally, there's no way the media environment would allow it to happen.

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Would it be correct to assume that the tribes we're fighting have their families aiding the making and trafficking of weapons?  If so, then does that not justify the families as targets?

You can't really assume those sorts of things if you're going to start taking out civilians like that. Not in this day and age. In WWII, it was a total war scenario, totally unlike today. I would argue that even if today's war were a total war, that sort of thing simply wouldn't be tolerated in today's media environment. Even if it could be justified legally, there's no way the media environment would allow it to happen.

There are ways to keep the media out of the area.  Controlling our own media is fairly simple if the right strings are pulled.

Controlling the rest of the world's media is a little more difficult.

Basically, if it became known that an area was about to get completely bombed to shit, then reporters are going to stay out of the area if they plan on living any longer.  For the ones that die in the bombing, we can simply point to the forewarning not to go there.

It always gets out, eventually. And the bottomline is that we don't need to bomb like that any more. We developed precision weaponry because we grew horrified at the carnage unleashed by the carpet bombing required to try to destroy a single point target. Much of the destruction of Germany was due to that--factories and other legitimate targets located in built-up areas that got carpet-bombed to ensure the factory was sufficiently damaged. The night bombing by the Brits was even worse because it was "best guess" based on night-time navigation, whereas US bombing was based on daylight "aimed" bombing.

Turquoise wrote:

Good points.

But there is another aspect to all this.  You said earlier that the extremists live in cultures that share their views.  If you know a group of people harbor views that are highly inducive to inspiring acts of terror and they recently have aided and abetted attacks (at the very least), then isn't this a group too dangerous to keep around?

It's kind of like waiting for an insane person to attack you, because they still have the weapons to harm you, and you know they hate you.

I guess my feeling on this is...   what's the point of allowing these kinds of cultures to exist?  They offer nothing positive to the outside world.

So you subscribe to Bush's preemption doctrine?

If there's a person you consider dangerous, but they haven't done anything yet, they should be locked up or killed simply because you think they have the potential to do something because they have professed to certain beliefs that are in line with someone else's beliefs who has done something dangerous in the past?

Seriously?

Last edited by FEOS (2010-02-20 11:08:03)

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Good points.

But there is another aspect to all this.  You said earlier that the extremists live in cultures that share their views.  If you know a group of people harbor views that are highly inducive to inspiring acts of terror and they recently have aided and abetted attacks (at the very least), then isn't this a group too dangerous to keep around?

It's kind of like waiting for an insane person to attack you, because they still have the weapons to harm you, and you know they hate you.

I guess my feeling on this is...   what's the point of allowing these kinds of cultures to exist?  They offer nothing positive to the outside world.

So you subscribe to Bush's preemption doctrine?

If there's a person you consider dangerous, but they haven't done anything yet, they should be locked up or killed simply because you think they have the potential to do something because they have professed to certain beliefs that are in line with someone else's beliefs who has done something dangerous in the past?

Seriously?

Ironically...  yes.  But only if they have a history of attacking us.  But yes, this actually does support the invasion of Iraq....  sort of.

There is one difference though.

The idea of pre-emption seems to work better when you are already committed to a war.

For example...  Invading Iraq wasn't necessary given the stalemate we had already established with Iraq.  We had Saddam where we wanted him, and he was not a threat to us.

Insurgents work differently.  When we invaded Afghanistan, we took out the government, but even after that, the survivors of that government who escaped were a threat.  So, logically, we had to continue fighting.  There was no suitable stalemate to keep things at a "holding position."

With Saddam, we did.

So technically, you can support pre-emption but still be against certain pre-emptive strikes.  This is why I still believe that invading Iraq was unnecessary but that pre-emptively striking these insurgents and their supporters is necessary.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Ironically...  yes.  But only if they have a history of attacking us.

But if that's the criteria, then you shouldn't have supported the invasion of Afghanistan, as the Taliban didn't attack us...Al-Qaeda did.

Touche...  but they did harbor people who attacked us.  That's justification enough for me.

FEOS wrote:

I agree that invading Iraq was unnecessary (in hindsight), but I disagree that taking out the entire Taliban culture is necessary. Taking out AQ is necessary, of course, but not the Taliban.

Why?

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

I agree that invading Iraq was unnecessary (in hindsight), but I disagree that taking out the entire Taliban culture is necessary. Taking out AQ is necessary, of course, but not the Taliban.

Why?

Our problem is with AQ. The Taliban's problem with with the central Afghan government.

But the central Afghan government is our ally.  As long as we are in the area, we have to eliminate threats to our allies as well.

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Our problem is with AQ. The Taliban's problem with with the central Afghan government.

But the central Afghan government is our ally.  As long as we are in the area, we have to eliminate threats to our allies as well.

So long as they request our help and it is in line with the Status of Forces Agreement. And laws of armed conflict...which killing women and children (non-combatants) would not be, btw.

I guess we have a few laws to change then...

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

So long as they request our help and it is in line with the Status of Forces Agreement. And laws of armed conflict...which killing women and children (non-combatants) would not be, btw.

I guess we have a few laws to change then...

Well, I think it's been made quite clear that international law has not kept up with the issue of non-state actors and terrorism...but I don't think that will quite scratch your genocidal itch.

I'm willing to accept a compromise of revising international law to properly address non-state actors as combatants.

I'm also willing to say "fuck you" to international laws until they change.

Either option works. 

FEOS wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Well, I think it's been made quite clear that international law has not kept up with the issue of non-state actors and terrorism...but I don't think that will quite scratch your genocidal itch.

I'm willing to accept a compromise of revising international law to properly address non-state actors as combatants.

I'm also willing to say "fuck you" to international laws until they change.

Either option works. 

The last Administration kind of did the second option. Didn't work out so well for them. But it was effective.

True.  Of all the things I blasted Bush for, it was never anything to do with international law.  I hated a lot of other things about him, but saying fuck you to the U.N. wasn't one of them.

Now we can go home?