Poll: Should We Execute Our Own Generals?

[Khedive Rex]

Yes, I believe I could. Joseph Stalin said it best:

One death is a tragedy, One million is a statistic.

Furthermore, I know that if the situations were reversed, they would have nuked us back in the '70s. We have showed compassion and restraint by not retaliating since they first attacked us back then, but I am tired of turning the other cheek. I have run out of cheeks to turn. This used to be about Israel and the Jews, now it is much more personal. They seek to destroy us, not just our lifestyle, not just our government, but each one of us, individually! If they want us dead, they can try to crawl out of the cinders and charred wreckage that used to be their homes to come and get me!

Despite my inclination to disagree with that argument, I say that you spoke insightfully and truly- I agree, in short.

The problem is, how can we get rid of all of the terrorists? I suppose the bigger problem is this: how can we get rid of the ideology of terrorism so that there won't be any more terrorists?

Can you do it by torturing civilians and cannon fodder for information? No? Question answered, torture is not justified.

It's really very simple. Breaking international treaties is fun and all but what do we gain from it? I realize a Us vs. Them mentality can justify pretty much any action you feel like taking but if you actually have to justify the actions you're taking what is the logical basis underlying the use of torture?

Is there one at all?

@Necro

9/11. It wasn't some random bombing. You're an idiot if you think so. It was a message. A message that they were ready and willing to stop at nothing to wipe us out. We simply brought the war to them before they could bring it any further onto our soil.

You missed a very important part of that message. Ready, Willing, ABLE. I can shoot the ground with a shot gun and then proceed to threaten to blow up the earth. Unfortunately, that doesn't make me a global threat, it makes me a lunatic. You aren't fighting superhero villians. You're fighting, poorly funded, poorly armed, understaffed rebels. They could genocide the US the same way I could cover the moon in highliter ink.

As for not replacing gaurds because we cou;dn't trust their replacements to do the job, The current gaurds have already demonstrated that they can't be trusted to do the job. What great catastrophe comes from switching them out? Their replacements fail as well?

 

[Brett Alex]

Well, there was that Embassy in Beirut in like '72... Looking for a coherent timeline right now...

Why yes, an embassy bombing does equate to genocide. I can see it now.

If the arabs/muslims/Iraqi's/non-whites really hate you that much, why do they readily accept our arms and advisors so readily? If they really hate us, why isn't every arab/muslim/Iraqi/non-white a terrorist?

Or do you think they're all sleeper agents, biding their time before they rise up and go and massacre all the local pensioners and kiddies then drink their blood?

I'll ask again, have you ever met a muslim?

Also, Stalin's Reign: The Game! 'For when a tragedy is too small and what you really want is a statistic.'

 

[Ruffythepirate]

Yes, I believe I could. Joseph Stalin said it best:

One death is a tragedy, One million is a statistic.

Furthermore, I know that if the situations were reversed, they would have nuked us back in the '70s. We have showed compassion and restraint by not retaliating since they first attacked us back then, but I am tired of turning the other cheek. I have run out of cheeks to turn. This used to be about Israel and the Jews, now it is much more personal. They seek to destroy us, not just our lifestyle, not just our government, but each one of us, individually! If they want us dead, they can try to crawl out of the cinders and charred wreckage that used to be their homes to come and get me!

Despite my inclination to disagree with that argument, I say that you spoke insightfully and truly- I agree, in short.

The problem is, how can we get rid of all of the terrorists? I suppose the bigger problem is this: how can we get rid of the ideology of terrorism so that there won't be any more terrorists?

How about stop fucking around with them.

 

[Graustein]

If torturing POW helps the General to save lives and win the war then so be it.

I'm trying and failing to come up with a scenario in which that could possibly be the case.

I can think of many. "Where the road side bombs are hidden" "Where a munitions store is hidden" "Where Nuclear Weapons are hidden" Hell where anything is hidden really. If you can find where the enemy gets his weapons from or from where he plans on attacking you then you gain an advantage in the war.

Assuming they know anything, which isn't guaranteed. Assuming they're actually INVOLVED with the terrorists, which isn't guaranteed. Assuming they have anything against America, which, again, isn't guaranteed but will be once you're through with them. And finally, assuming that this torture actually anything more than sadistic or, as Necroswanson puts it, "emotionally traumatised" guards abusing prisoners for kicks or to vent frustration. Which is what I'm talking about and, surprisingly, not guaranteed.

Not that I condone torture at all, precisely the opposite.

 

[Ruffythepirate]

Well, 9/11 was a call to arms AGAINST AMERICA!

I agree, just what the Al Qaida wanted. They couldn't fight you on your own ground, so they drew you to Iraq, so that every single terrorist in the middle east could fight their jihad personally. You just cannot still possibly believe that this war is winnable?

 

[Brett Alex]

Well, 9/11 was a call to arms AGAINST AMERICA!

I'm not even sure what that was responding to, but the CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL was on so it must be right.

Congratulations! You do realise you've lost right? With that mentality you can never defeat the terrorists, because they've already won. You've given into fear, and panic and anger. You've abandoned all your principals, you've twisted your religion (I assume you are religious, correct me if I'm wrong.) You've broken your own laws. You've ignored your own treaties and agreements.

You've lost.

This thread is basically asking, 'Should we be held accountable for our own actions when our enemies aren't?'
Your saying no, and then espousing the infantile rhetoric "Remember 9/11! Their not held responsible, why should we be?"

Lets run law enforcement the same way. Cops shouldn't need to prove a suspects guilt, hell they should be able to gun them down where they stand.
Actually, fuck that, just 'neutron bomb' the building where you think the suspect might be. If he's not there, it doesn't matter because the people living their were probably criminals too, or worse still, they might have been muslims. And its all good, cause there was no structural damage.

Stalin's Purge your Own Circle of Friends Kit!-Worried that someone close to you is vying for supremacy in your group? Why not follow Stalin's example. Kit contains one Makarov PM and two clips of ammo.

EDIT:

If they weren't we'd be out of Iraq and Afganistan- you'll have to forgive me, I can't begin to fathom how to spell it properly.

Well in Iraq's case: Do you know how else you'd be out of there? If you hadn't gone their in the first place.

 

[Alex_P]

Stalin's Purge your Own Circle of Friends Kit!-Worried that someone close to you is vying for supremacy in your group? Why not follow Stalin's example. Kit contains one Makarov PM and two clips of ammo.

Lavrentiy Beria not included?

What kind of shitty game is that!?



-- Alex

 

[Brett Alex]

Stalin's Purge your Own Circle of Friends Kit!-Worried that someone close to you is vying for supremacy in your group? Why not follow Stalin's example. Kit contains one Makarov PM and two clips of ammo.

Lavrentiy Beria not included?

What kind of shitty game is that!?



-- Alex

He's sold separately, we are trying to make a profit remember?

 

[The Iron Ninja]

(all that stuff)

My respect for Armitage grows exponentially with each post.

 

[Alex_P]

@Darth: Exactly. We're not fighting a war. We're staving off our own genocide.

How in the world did you come to that conclusion?

-- Alex

9/11. It wasn't some random bombing. You're an idiot if you think so. It was a message. A message that they were ready and willing to stop at nothing to wipe us out. We simply brought the war to them before they could bring it any further onto our soil.

"They" is a very convenient word. Try "Al-Qaeda" instead.

"They" weren't a nation. "They" weren't a people. "They" were a multinational network, well- distributed and compartmentalized, driven by extremist Muslim ideology.

"They" don't have military, infrastructure, and civilians you can bomb into ash.

Terrorism is all about cultural disruption. Fighting terrorism is all about cultural disruption, too. You have to actively address the social forces behind the growth of Al-Qaeda in the first place. When we first came into Iraq we did the exact opposite, effectively re-creating all the different kinds of situations that lead to anti-American Islamic extremism. And, voila, suddenly we had a lot more people to fight!

-- Alex

 

[Khedive Rex]

No, that is why I advocate nuking it and leaving. Well, leaving then nuking.

I must say, it's late and I'm starting to feel like all my efforts to inject some reason into this argument are falling on deaf ears but ... Why?

What does nuking the country do for you precisely? Even if there was a way to kill every citizen in Iraq while leaving the oil wells standing, countries with actual territorial claims in the area and dug-in defenses will get the oil before we can.

Is it just to get rid of terrorists? Before adressing the idea that terrorist are plotting the genocide of the United States (or rather that we need to be even slightly worried about it) you do realize that nowadays most terrorist organizations are centered in Afghanistan and Pakistan right? And that nuking the place gaurantees more terrorists next generation (And that's even if you bomb the entire thing. If you make it as far as Turkey you will have east Balkan terrorist who will remember you genociding Turkey)?

Assuming you know that and that the goal is to eliminate the threat of irradication I say again that the idea terrorists could genocide the US is fictonal. Terrorist are underfunded, understaffed, outnumbered and out gunned. Even if terrorists got their hands on 3 nuclear devices and had the means of detonating them in major population centers (which, by the way, is so incredably ludacris an idea I feel almost dirty for mentioning it), that would still not consititue genocide. Lots of people would survive.

America has 2/3rds of the worlds guns. In civilian hands. Podunk North Dakota is better equipped for war than some countries and you're worried that 200,000 revolutionaries on the other side of the world are going to destory us when the Soviet Empire couldn't?! When they already had the nukes!

Alright, I'm starting to rant. Lets return to the topic at hand.

Even if you're willing to run with all the assumptions you seem to be running with, how does torturing civilians help United States interest in any way shape or form?

 

[Brett Alex]

No, I am saying that we have tried to hold the moral high ground for 40 YEARS and it hasn't worked. It is time to start fighting fire with fire. Give me twenty nukes and I will make them rue the day they ever HEARD about guns. They will come to understand that if they want to end us, we are MUCH better equipped to end them FIRST. I don't WANT to commit genocide against them, I just feel that we have no other choice...

For someone who doesn't want to commit genocide you are awfully trigger happy. I don't see how "Remember the Beirut bombings!" is greatly different to "Remember 9/11!" either while where there.

Holding the moral high ground isn't a strategy to win anything, but it is knowing that you are better, knowing that you are right and knowing that you are different to your enemies.

We have been fighting fire with fire, (except for when you've been selling them the fire, to fight your fire with) guns against guns is a good comparison of fire against fire.

You don't want fire against fire, you want us to use a mack track against a squirrel.
No, I will not give you 20 nukes, right now I wouldn't trust you with a pellet gun.
You are not in the military or government are you, fine sir?

And also, have you ever met a muslim?

Introducing Stalin's Collective Farming Kit!-Because starving peasants are happy peasants! Glory to the Commissariat!

 

[Khedive Rex]

Yes, I believe I could. Joseph Stalin said it best:

One death is a tragedy, One million is a statistic.

Furthermore, I know that if the situations were reversed, they would have nuked us back in the '70s. We have showed compassion and restraint by not retaliating since they first attacked us back then, but I am tired of turning the other cheek. I have run out of cheeks to turn. This used to be about Israel and the Jews, now it is much more personal. They seek to destroy us, not just our lifestyle, not just our government, but each one of us, individually! If they want us dead, they can try to crawl out of the cinders and charred wreckage that used to be their homes to come and get me!

Despite my inclination to disagree with that argument, I say that you spoke insightfully and truly- I agree, in short.

The problem is, how can we get rid of all of the terrorists? I suppose the bigger problem is this: how can we get rid of the ideology of terrorism so that there won't be any more terrorists?

Can you do it by torturing civilians and cannon fodder for information? No? Question answered, torture is not justified.

It's really very simple. Breaking international treaties is fun and all but what do we gain from it? I realize a Us vs. Them mentality can justify pretty much any action you feel like taking but if you actually have to justify the actions you're taking what is the logical basis underlying the use of torture?

Is there one at all?

@Necro

9/11. It wasn't some random bombing. You're an idiot if you think so. It was a message. A message that they were ready and willing to stop at nothing to wipe us out. We simply brought the war to them before they could bring it any further onto our soil.

You missed a very important part of that message. Ready, Willing, ABLE. I can shoot the ground with a shot gun and then proceed to threaten to blow up the earth. Unfortunately, that doesn't make me a global threat, it makes me a lunatic. You aren't fighting superhero villians. You're fighting, poorly funded, poorly armed, understaffed rebels. They could genocide the US the same way I could cover the moon in highliter ink.

As for not replacing gaurds because we cou;dn't trust their replacements to do the job, The current gaurds have already demonstrated that they can't be trusted to do the job. What great catastrophe comes from switching them out? Their replacements fail as well?

Wether they're able or not, they're still trying very hard. If they weren't we'd be out of Iraq and Afganistan- you'll have to forgive me, I can't begin to fathom how to spell it properly.

Yes but trying doesn't constitute threat. A 3 year old tackling a 30 year old wouldn't give the 30 year old the right to shoot the kid through the head and claim "self-defense". You're dealing with terrorist, it's a given they want to kill you. However, simply genociding all of them and their families and anyone in a 20 mile radius is, perhaps you will agree, excessive and uncalled for.

 

[The Wooster]

EDIT:

If they weren't we'd be out of Iraq and Afganistan- you'll have to forgive me, I can't begin to fathom how to spell it properly.

Well in Iraq's case: Do you know how else you'd be out of there? If you hadn't gone their in the first place.

Oh yes, wonderful insight from a guy who doesn't even live in America. Don't go, you have no business there. Wonderful, what would you know of it beyond what you've read in the bias media?

Quite. The main prerequisite for having an opinion on Iraq is living in America.

 

[Khedive Rex]

I don't WANT to commit genocide against them, I just feel that we have no other choice...

A Final Solution of sorts?