Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

An Eye for an Eye?Follow

#27 Feb 05 2015 at 5:17 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
By Smash's logic

Force should be a tool in diplomatic arsenal and not considered some magic antidote to negative situations. It's Clauswitz' logic, though, I can't take credit for it. "War is the continuation of politics by other means."

Edit: Really? Who wrote this filter? I can only assume a non English speaking 11 year old. I'm not using "bumsenal"

Edited, Feb 5th 2015 6:19pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#28 Feb 05 2015 at 5:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
There's a pretty long list of wars that only ended when one side was sufficiently defeated militarily

The British occupation of India? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Or did you mean the way we left Iraq? I'm confused.


Based on that list, yes, you are confused. I'd say you just tossed out a list of countries without even considering what they have in common and what they do not.

Quote:
One of us has studied military history and one of us has no fucking clue what he's talking about.


Ironically, that's the same person.

Quote:
If force alone was enough to solve problems, the world would be a utopia.


I didn't say force "alone" was enough to solve (all) problems. And only a complete moron assesses choice based on whether they'll result in utopia.
Driving to work wont result in utopia? Well, I guess there's no point in driving to work then. Yeah... Dumb.

Quote:
That people are still stupid enough to think so is sort of amazing. I guess it's all some people are capable of understanding.


That's got to be about the most ridiculous straw man I've seen you attempt on this board. Really? No one claimed that if only we used enough force we could obtain utopia, yet this is the standard you've chose to employ? And then you project your own ridiculousness onto those you're arguing against? WTF?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Feb 05 2015 at 5:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
By Smash's logic

Force should be a tool in diplomatic arsenal and not considered some magic antidote to negative situations. It's Clauswitz' logic, though, I can't take credit for it. "War is the continuation of politics by other means."


Without war, there can be no politics (well, diplomacy is the more accurate word here). Think about it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#30 Feb 05 2015 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
That's got to be about the most ridiculous straw man I've seen you attempt on this board. Really? No one claimed that if only we used enough force we could obtain utopia, yet this is the standard you've chose to employ?

I appreciate your continuing demonstration of irony. Good work. The point was that if force was as effective as you suggest, there would be far less strife. For example: If someone argued that penicillin was an effective treatment for flu, I might state "If that were true, we'd live in utopia where no one died of flu"

It would require a radical lack of understanding to counter with "I can't believe you are using utopia for the standard of how well penicillin works to cure flu!" Or, you know, cognitive impairment or physical neurological trauma, but we're working on the assumption that it's only about 50/50 that you've suffered a massive head injury.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#31 Feb 05 2015 at 5:27 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Without war, there can be no politics (well, diplomacy is the more accurate word here). Think about it.

Yes. This is pretty much painfully obvious to everyone. I'm not sure if you think it's insightful or if you are making a terrible joke. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Ha.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#32 Feb 05 2015 at 5:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I get that this is a hard concept for the PC obsessed to grasp, but in the history of the world, the one thing that has by far the most proven rate of ending violence has been... wait for it... opposing violence.
Wow, what a wonderful little bit of conservative bumper-sticker thinking Smiley: laugh
It also happens to be correct.

I'm sure that if you have a bumper-sticker slogan sized box in your mind then, yes, it does fill it snugly and leaves you feeling satisfied with how "correct" it is Smiley: smile
Quote:
Except I was the one responding to a post claiming the equivalent of "hammers are useless for home remodeling"

Well, that's not what he said but, when you have a bumper-sticker slogan sized box in your thinker, I suppose you quickly run out of room for nuance. But you still get the warm fuzzies of thinking it's correct so yay you!

Edited, Feb 5th 2015 5:32pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Feb 05 2015 at 10:46 PM Rating: Decent
**
902 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
There's a pretty long list of wars that only ended when one side was sufficiently defeated militarily

The British occupation of India? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Or did you mean the way we left Iraq? I'm confused.

One of us has studied military history and one of us has no fucking clue what he's talking about. If force alone was enough to solve problems, the world would be a utopia. That people are still stupid enough to think so is sort of amazing. I guess it's all some people are capable of understanding.



Part of the reason all of the military engagements you site ended the way they did is that there wasn't the political will to actually use the military force necessary to "win" the war. The Vietnam conflict is a cautionary tale for sending the military into a situation with a hand tied behind its back...meaning the military did not dictate policy, but rather the political leaders did.

Of course, the other common denominator is that all of these would have lead to occupations by the conquering force over long distances. The occupation of India and the Russian occupation of Afghanistan all ended poorly for the occupier, as most occupations have.

In the current scenario I think Jordan has the ability militarily to truly "punish" ISIS and severely reduce its ability as a militarily force, but certainly will not eradicate it. And that will leave what is left as a thorn in the side of the Jordanians.
#34 Feb 06 2015 at 7:23 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jordan bombing ISIS should work out well for the US.

I'd like to see an arm wrestle match between King Ab and Vlad the Rusky.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#35 Feb 06 2015 at 7:43 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Part of the reason all of the military engagements you site ended the way they did is that there wasn't the political will to actually use the military force necessary to "win" the war.

False.

Would you like to repeat some other bullshit theory you heard once that collapses like 1mm thick ice under any actual inspection?

I didn't read the rest of your post because it just seemed entirely impossible that it wouldn't be useless shit.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#36 Feb 06 2015 at 7:48 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
yenwangweh wrote:
Part of the reason all of the military engagements you site ended the way they did is that there wasn't the political will to actually use the military force necessary to "win" the war.

Well, given infinite wealth and people, I suppose you could win anything. Without those, there comes a point where you're bleeding your nation dry unnecessarily so you cease and people say you lost the political will to continue.

Technically, I guess you could win with just infinite people. Zerg the enemy with rocks!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Feb 06 2015 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,781 posts
Jophiel wrote:
yenwangweh wrote:
Part of the reason all of the military engagements you site ended the way they did is that there wasn't the political will to actually use the military force necessary to "win" the war.

Well, given infinite wealth and people, I suppose you could win anything.
At one point we were throwing resources at Vietnam as if they were unending. I like to think we lost in Vietnam because we shouldn't have won.

Re: Violence begets violence. ~MLK


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#38 Feb 06 2015 at 8:33 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
By Smash's logic,
Sardonicism is hard.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Feb 06 2015 at 9:51 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Except I was the one responding to a post claiming the equivalent of "hammers are useless for home remodeling"

Well, that's not what he said but, when you have a bumper-sticker slogan sized box in your thinker, I suppose you quickly run out of room for nuance.

Yet his posts could each cover every spare inch of a Humvee stretch-limo. Smiley: oyvey
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#40 Feb 06 2015 at 10:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Breadth doesn't indicate depth.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Feb 06 2015 at 10:11 AM Rating: Decent
**
902 posts
Jophiel wrote:
yenwangweh wrote:
Part of the reason all of the military engagements you site ended the way they did is that there wasn't the political will to actually use the military force necessary to "win" the war.

Well, given infinite wealth and people, I suppose you could win anything. Without those, there comes a point where you're bleeding your nation dry unnecessarily so you cease and people say you lost the political will to continue.

Technically, I guess you could win with just infinite people. Zerg the enemy with rocks!


Elinda wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
yenwangweh wrote:
Part of the reason all of the military engagements you site ended the way they did is that there wasn't the political will to actually use the military force necessary to "win" the war.

Well, given infinite wealth and people, I suppose you could win anything.
At one point we were throwing resources at Vietnam as if they were unending. I like to think we lost in Vietnam because we shouldn't have won.

Re: Violence begets violence. ~MLK





Actually, in the case of the Vietnam war we easily had the resources to defeat the NVA and the Vietcong. What we did have was political leadership that tried to run the war instead of the military. An example being we allowed the NVA to cross into Laos and Cambodia and the military was not allowed to follow. The political leadership couldn't come up with a consistent strategy about how to run the war. America could have easily ( and nearly did anyway ) crushed both the NVA and the Vietcong from a military standpoint. In the long run, not sure it would have changed anything.
We would have been stuck with a situation like the Russians found in Afghanistan...a population hating their occupier and draining man power, money, and resources. A lose/lose.
#42 Feb 06 2015 at 10:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
yenwangweh wrote:
In the long run, not sure it would have changed anything.
We would have been stuck with a situation like the Russians found in Afghanistan...a population hating their occupier and draining man power, money, and resources. A lose/lose.

So.... pretty much what I just said. I don't really see the point in saying that the US didn't have the political will to ignore borders or not throw enough bombs at the conflict just so we could then be in a position to sap more lives and money on an unsustainable occupation.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#43 Feb 06 2015 at 10:21 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Actually, in the case of the Vietnam war we easily had the resources to defeat the NVA and the Vietcong. What we did have was political leadership that tried to run the war instead of the military. An example being we allowed the NVA to cross into Laos and Cambodia and the military was not allowed to follow. The political leadership couldn't come up with a consistent strategy about how to run the war. America could have easily ( and nearly did anyway ) crushed both the NVA and the Vietcong from a military standpoint.

This just isn't true. It's not fucking close to true. The idea that "we could have won in Vietnam if we only tried harder" is an absurd fantasy people espouse to avoid dealing with the simple truth that WE LOST. We were defeated. Militarily. We fought a war, and we lost a war.

Not because we didn't commit enough. Not because people protested the war. Not because of some minor rules of engagement issue, but because of broad in theater realities we couldn't overcome. The victory condition for the war was to end communist control in Indochina by installing a capitalist puppet state in Vietnam. We failed to do this.

We were wildly overconfident and continually assumed follow on strategic results of tactical victories that never materialized. It turned out Giap was a bonafide military genius. Surprise! We were outfought on every possible level *even while having a massive technological advantage*.

We gave up, not because of lack of "will". We gave up because we were getting our asses kicked, and it became apparent that it was impossible to achieve the victory condition.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#44 Feb 06 2015 at 10:23 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
yenwangweh wrote:
We would have been stuck with a situation like the Russians found in Afghanistan...a population hating their occupier and draining man power, money, and resources.
So us and the Middle East now.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#45 Feb 06 2015 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Technically, I guess you could win with just infinite people. Zerg the enemy with rocks!
Works for Russia.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#46 Feb 06 2015 at 10:34 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
We gave up because we were getting our asses kicked, and it became apparent that it was impossible to achieve the victory condition.

____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#47 Feb 06 2015 at 11:16 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
Part of the reason all of the military engagements you site ended the way they did is that there wasn't the political will to actually use the military force necessary to "win" the war. The Vietnam conflict is a cautionary tale for sending the military into a situation with a hand tied behind its back...meaning the military did not dictate policy, but rather the political leaders did.


Haha, you know jack **** about Vietnam and even less about British India. Which is definitely the odd one out there, as India made bank for the British Empire for a very long time whereas both the others are just straight up catastrophes.

It's cite, by the way.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#48 Feb 06 2015 at 4:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The point was that if force was as effective as you suggest, there would be far less strife.


And if force was as ineffective as you suggest, there would be far more strife. I'm not the one dismissing the middle here. You are.

Quote:
For example: If someone argued that penicillin was an effective treatment for flubacterial infections, I might state "If that were true, we'd live in utopia where no one died of bacterial infections"


And you'd still be wrong. Because nothing is 100% effective all the time. Your entire argument fails because the standard you use is impossible to obtain, thus failure to obtain it (ie: perfection) does not prove that the proposed action is useless. It doesn't even prove that the proposed action isn't the best action to take out of all the available actions.

Quote:
It would require a radical lack of understanding to counter with "I can't believe you are using utopia for the standard of how well penicillin works to cure flu!"


Good thing that's not what I'm countering with. I'm showing that the logic you are using fails even if we assume the action we're considering taking is the absolute best choice. Ergo, it cannot be used to assess any choice we might have before us. Do you understand that this is how you test logic?

Quote:
Or, you know, cognitive impairment or physical neurological trauma, but we're working on the assumption that it's only about 50/50 that you've suffered a massive head injury.


Or I actually understand logic, and you don't. Yeah. I'll go with that last one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Feb 06 2015 at 4:44 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Without war, there can be no politics (well, diplomacy is the more accurate word here). Think about it.

Yes. This is pretty much painfully obvious to everyone.


I don't think you actually understand what I'm saying. Maybe you do though. In any case, I'm not saying that diplomacy exists because war exists and is thus required to prevent said wars. I'm saying that without the ultimate threat of war, diplomacy cannot work. All laws, all sanctions, all legal systems, all penalties, all fines, are all ultimately underwritten with threat of violence. I get that this is a hard pill for some to swallow, but this is true and will remain true unless/until human nature itself changes radically.

You are correct that this *should* be painfully obvious to everyone. However, there are a heck of a lot of people who sure seem to act as though it's not.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#50 Feb 06 2015 at 5:13 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
There's a pretty long list of wars that only ended when one side was sufficiently defeated militarily

The British occupation of India? Vietnam? Afghanistan? Or did you mean the way we left Iraq? I'm confused.

One of us has studied military history and one of us has no fucking clue what he's talking about. If force alone was enough to solve problems, the world would be a utopia. That people are still stupid enough to think so is sort of amazing. I guess it's all some people are capable of understanding.


Smasharoo wrote:
This just isn't true. It's not fucking close to true. The idea that "we could have won in Vietnam if we only tried harder" is an absurd fantasy people espouse to avoid dealing with the simple truth that WE LOST. We were defeated. Militarily. We fought a war, and we lost a war.


Game. Set. Match. Smiley: lol

Edited, Feb 6th 2015 3:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#51 Feb 06 2015 at 5:23 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
All laws, all sanctions, all legal systems, all penalties, all fines, are all ultimately underwritten with threat of violence. I get that this is a hard pill for some to swallow, but this is true and will remain true unless/until human nature itself changes radically.


If you think this is news to a commie anarchist then you are astonishingly ignorant.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 325 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (325)