General US Politics

[expshare]

I'm trained in mathematics, so when I don't say X, that doesn't mean I said not X. Enjoy your conversations elsewhere, because I'm putting you on ignore for misreading me. Also, America (voters and military) chose a happy medium between lots of dead children and no dead children. That doesn't negate anything I said. They knew they were killing children and continued to do so for the sake of a war that served plenty of political and financial interests. I'm not saying if it was right or wrong. I'm just pointing it out. You can decide in your own heart whether it was justified or not. Maybe that article I put up on casualty estimates is a good starting point. Take the benefits of the war, whatever those were, and see if those costs were "worth it" or not.

Edited August 28, 2018 by expshare

[Johann]

36 minutes ago, XRay said:

Guided missiles and commando units are a thing to take out important targets with minimal civilian casualty.

I'm not sure how precise you think those weapons and tactics are, but civilian causalities in our Middle East conflicts have been very sizable. Estimates have the amount increasing since Trump took office, in part because he's given commanders more freedom to act aggressively against ISIS. I am of the opinion (which many experts would agree with) that the collateral damage is fueling the fire for ISIS et al, and prolonging the effort to stabilize the region.

[blah the Prussian]

2 hours ago, expshare said:

I see a country that continued to keep bombing innocent civilians even after knowing that innocent civilians, including children, were dying. That's intentional. You don't drop bombs unintentionally. It's a calculated decision, and the go-ahead was given over and over again despite the costs to life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military–industrial_complex

So assuming you're a commander, what's your plan? Because we didn't win WWII without a hell of a lot more civilian casualties.

[Johann]

3 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

So assuming you're a commander, what's your plan? Because we didn't win WWII without a hell of a lot more civilian casualties.

There's a huge distinction between the level of necessity for engaging in WWII and starting the Iraq War. There's also a very strong argument against the need for the US to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[Slumber]

21 minutes ago, blah the Prussian said:

So assuming you're a commander, what's your plan? Because we didn't win WWII without a hell of a lot more civilian casualties.

The difference is that WWII is a war we were more or less dragged into, and a war where the really was a purpose to fighting.

You know what would have heavily limited civilian casualties in the middle east? Not invading most of the places we did. We didn't have any real reason to be there other than to make rich people even richer. Our stated goal of stopping the development of WMDs was a flat out lie, fighting al Qaeda led to arguably way more harm than good, and finding Osama was a needle in a haystack operation, and we finally got him somewhere where we weren't ever really trying to attack. We continued to be buddy-buddy with the Saudis, and ignored the obvious threats in the middle east while killing civilians and profiting while they died and our own soldiers died.

A lot of this is hindsight, but it was also something that should have been abundantly clear when Bush lied about the WMDs. People caught on pretty quick that 9/11 was an excuse to flex in the middle east, and was largely unnecessary. And the middle east is in worse shape now than it was then.

So yeah, that's probably what I would have done as a commander. In chief. I'd probably be court-martialed or something if I was anyone else and refused to deploy.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Slumber

[blah the Prussian]

2 hours ago, Johann said:

There's a huge distinction between the level of necessity for engaging in WWII and starting the Iraq War. There's also a very strong argument against the need for the US to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Eh, that argument is badhistory, but I see what you're saying.

I think the US was wrong to go into Iraq, partially because of the civilian casualties that resulted, but what I take issue with is the idea that those civilian casualties themselves were a separate issue. War is bad because it results in civilian casualties. The Iraq War was bad because it was based on a lie and caused pointless civilian casualties. Maybe this is just semantics, I don't know.

[eclipse]

4 hours ago, expshare said:

I'm trained in mathematics, so when I don't say X, that doesn't mean I said not X.

This is a false appeal to authority, unless you genuinely think that everyone else in here is too stupid to know how logic works.

4 hours ago, expshare said:

Enjoy your conversations elsewhere, because I'm putting you on ignore for misreading me.

This is really petty, and if you're going to show this level of immaturity, get out of this subforum.

4 hours ago, expshare said:

They knew they were killing children and continued to do so for the sake of a war that served plenty of political and financial interests. I'm not saying if it was right or wrong. I'm just pointing it out. You can decide in your own heart whether it was justified or not. Maybe that article I put up on casualty estimates is a good starting point. Take the benefits of the war, whatever those were, and see if those costs were "worth it" or not.

Welcome to every war ever, your appeal to emotion is not welcome.  Civilian/collateral damage can and will happen, and I seriously doubt that the US went into the Middle East just to kill off kids.

Go ahead and think that the war is unjustified - but don't use these kinds of tactics to debate your point.

3 hours ago, Slumber said:

The difference is that WWII is a war we were more or less dragged into, and a war where the really was a purpose to fighting.

You know what would have heavily limited civilian casualties in the middle east? Not invading most of the places we did. We didn't have any real reason to be there other than to make rich people even richer. Our stated goal of stopping the development of WMDs was a flat out lie, fighting al Qaeda led to arguably way more harm than good, and finding Osama was a needle in a haystack operation, and we finally got him somewhere where we weren't ever really trying to attack. We continued to be buddy-buddy with the Saudis, and ignored the obvious threats in the middle east while killing civilians and profiting while they died and our own soldiers died.

A lot of this is hindsight, but it was also something that should have been abundantly clear when Bush lied about the WMDs. People caught on pretty quick that 9/11 was an excuse to flex in the middle east, and was largely unnecessary. And the middle east is in worse shape now than it was then.

So yeah, that's probably what I would have done as a commander. In chief. I'd probably be court-martialed or something if I was anyone else and refused to deploy.

The reason why I brought up context is because wars don't happen overnight.  Without taking the factors that lead to the war into context, history will repeat itself.  Part of that is understanding public sentiment.  You don't have to agree with the thoughts/emotions at the time, but being judgmental isn't going to change the past (or the future).

[Tryhard]

Collateral damage is expected, but there was statistics out during the Obama administration that drone strikes during some periods killed 90% innocents over their intended targets. And Trump has increased drone striking by a large %.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff~
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

I don't care what cause this is for, that is unacceptable.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Edgelord

[XRay]

6 hours ago, Johann said:

I'm not sure how precise you think those weapons and tactics are, but civilian causalities in our Middle East conflicts have been very sizable. Estimates have the amount increasing since Trump took office, in part because he's given commanders more freedom to act aggressively against ISIS. I am of the opinion (which many experts would agree with) that the collateral damage is fueling the fire for ISIS et al, and prolonging the effort to stabilize the region.

My point is that it is a whole lot more precise than carpet bombing, where we just leveled entire cities like during WWII and the Vietnam War.

I agree that collateral damage is bad, but we shot ourselves in the foot when we removed Saddam Hussein from power. We cannot pull out of the country because shit like ISIS will pop up again, and we do not want to stay either because it is a drain on our soldier's lives and resources for little to no gain.

I think the correct action is to continue military occupation and spend money on Iraq to rebuild their infrastructure, but I do not think spending money like that is going to mesh well with voters at home though, especially Republicans.

6 hours ago, Johann said:

There's also a very strong argument against the need for the US to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Unless we knew the Japanese were going to surrender, I think it was justified to use nuclear weapons, at least the first nuke. The second nuke probably is not necessary since we could have given them more time for a response, although if we were in President Truman's shoes, I think using the second nuke would have been a no brainer to end the war as soon as possible.

[Etrurian emperor]

6 hours ago, Johann said:

There's also a very strong argument against the need for the US to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There is a theory that the bombs actually weren't meant as a warning to Japan but towards the Soviet Union. America could force Japan to make peace while at the same time intimidating the Soviets into good behavior. Two birds, one stone. 

[blah the Prussian]

1 hour ago, XRay said:

Unless we knew the Japanese were going to surrender, I think it was justified to use nuclear weapons, at least the first nuke. The second nuke probably is not necessary since we could have given them more time for a response, although if we were in President Truman's shoes, I think using the second nuke would have been a no brainer to end the war as soon as possible.

Based on what Truman knew at the time nuking Nagasaki was justified. The Japanese were going to surrender but didn't because of a coup attempt; however, he had no way of knowing this. For all he knew, they were stalling, so it makes sense to drop the bomb as scheduled.

[Karimlan]

4 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

There is a theory that the bombs actually weren't meant as a warning to Japan but towards the Soviet Union. America could force Japan to make peace while at the same time intimidating the Soviets into good behavior. Two birds, one stone. 

Interesting. The Russians never picked up this subtle hint anyway; worse, they continued expanding into other forms of warfare, having secured the factory that produced bombs filled with tabun nerve agent in what is now SW Poland (then Dyhernfurth) and literally transplanted it to Moscow, and got more than their share of the Nordhausen underground rocket factories after the army poached Wernher von Braun, Arthur Rudolph, and a few other engineers and scientists. IIRC, Stalin demanded greater reparations as the Russians had more casualties, and the US was pressed for time to get "these rare German minds" on their side of the fence.

Edited August 28, 2018 by Karimlan

[Shoblongoo]

...add telling the Japanese delegation "I Remember Pearl Harbor!" as a verbal jab to cap off failed trade negotiations to the list of shit Trump either doesn't know or doesn't care makes us all look like a bunch of retrograde assholes over here.

 http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/403985-trump-invoked-pearl-harbor-during-tense-meeting-with-japanese-prime

    



...you know I may not have liked everything Bush or Obama did policy-wise...

But boy--I sure do miss not having a toddler in charge of foreign relations. 

[XRay]

8 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...add telling the Japanese delegation "I Remember Pearl Harbor!" as a verbal jab to cap off failed trade negotiations to the list of shit Trump either doesn't know or doesn't care makes us all look like a bunch of retrograde assholes over here.

 http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/403985-trump-invoked-pearl-harbor-during-tense-meeting-with-japanese-prime

    



...you know I may not have liked everything Bush or Obama did policy-wise...

But boy--I sure do miss not having a toddler in charge of foreign relations. 

On the bright side, if recession hits during the next two years and a new president gets elected, that fact that Trump is not in the White House any more might be a small boon to businesses and dampen the recession.

[eclipse]

6 hours ago, Edgelord said:

Collateral damage is expected, but there was statistics out during the Obama administration that drone strikes during some periods killed 90% innocents over their intended targets. And Trump has increased drone striking by a large %.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff~
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147

I don't care what cause this is for, that is unacceptable.

As this is something specific to the current war, I'm fine with arguments like these.  It might be for the best that Trump is utterly obnoxious.  Hopefully he'll be tied to those drone strikes, and whoever's next will put a stop to it. . .ah, who am I kidding, it'll probably go on.

[expshare]

13 hours ago, eclipse said:

Welcome to every war ever, your appeal to emotion is not welcome.  Civilian/collateral damage can and will happen, and I seriously doubt that the US went into the Middle East just to kill off kids.

I never said that the US went to the Middle East just to kill off kids. In fact I specifically corrected someone else for saying that I said that. Also, pointing out that children were being killed and that this was known and barely discussed is not an appeal to emotions. It's pointing out relevant facts for the question on whether or not the war was justified. You have to take account of the positives and the negatives. I'm putting you on ignore for repeating a misreading of my writings and for telling me that my "appeal to emotion" is not welcome, as if you have some kind of authority over me, and as if I made a fallacious appeal to emotions. I got an A+ in advanced logic and I know how fallacies work. I made none. I'm taking my leave from this forum, as it has turned into a waste of my time and energy that is better spent elsewhere.

[Johann]

17 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Eh, that argument is badhistory, but I see what you're saying.

badhistory? Can you elaborate?

13 hours ago, XRay said:

I think the correct action is to continue military occupation and spend money on Iraq to rebuild their infrastructure, but I do not think spending money like that is going to mesh well with voters at home though, especially Republicans.

I generally agree with this part.

13 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

There is a theory that the bombs actually weren't meant as a warning to Japan but towards the Soviet Union. America could force Japan to make peace while at the same time intimidating the Soviets into good behavior. Two birds, one stone. 

I wouldn't doubt that that was at least taken into consideration.

12 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Based on what Truman knew at the time nuking Nagasaki was justified. The Japanese were going to surrender but didn't because of a coup attempt; however, he had no way of knowing this. For all he knew, they were stalling, so it makes sense to drop the bomb as scheduled.

Truman was under the impression that it would be an isolated attack on a military base with little to no collateral damage, I'm not certain he'd have approved their use had he known what they were capable of or lead to.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

 

16 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...add telling the Japanese delegation "I Remember Pearl Harbor!" as a verbal jab to cap off failed trade negotiations to the list of shit Trump either doesn't know or doesn't care makes us all look like a bunch of retrograde assholes over here.

 http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/403985-trump-invoked-pearl-harbor-during-tense-meeting-with-japanese-prime

    



...you know I may not have liked everything Bush or Obama did policy-wise...

But boy--I sure do miss not having a toddler in charge of foreign relations. 

Remember that the EU had to use flash cards to explain trade to Trump and last year we already had confirmation of his childlike attention span. We're represented by a tantrum throwing man-child.

 

Good news: Joe Arpaio  and Kelli Ward have lost on their run.

Edited August 29, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[Moblin Major General]

1 hour ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Good news: Joe Arpaio  and Kelli Ward have lost on their run.

Thank God. I knew sanity existed somewhere in the US.

[Dr. Tarrasque]

40 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

Thank God. I knew sanity existed somewhere in the US.

Indeed. Still have to see how it turns out in November but that's certainly a sigh of relief. Also, please be respectful when a politician lies to your face. 

CHINA HACKED HILARY'S E-MAILS

Edited August 29, 2018 by Dr. Tarrasque

[blah the Prussian]

8 hours ago, expshare said:

as if you have some kind of authority over me

she kinda does dude

5 hours ago, Johann said:

badhistory? Can you elaborate?

19 hours ago, XRay said:

Sure. The idea that I think you're alluding to is that Japan surrendered mostly because of Operation August Storm, the Soviet invasion of Manchukuo. This idea has a grain of truth because it is true that Japan was hoping for Stalin to mediate a peace/form an "anti-imperialist pact". However, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria wasn't in and of itself enough to force Japan to peace. Given that even after the bomb there was an attempted coup, and that coup only lost a lot of support after the bomb, so its reasonable to assume that the bombs were needed.

[XRay]

23 minutes ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

CHINA HACKED HILARY'S E-MAILS

I think Trump is outright lying at this point to cover for Putin and hilariously failing, but the last quote is equally funny:

"“China is a staunch defender of cybersecurity. We firmly oppose and crack down on any forms of internet attacks and the stealing of secrets,” she added."

Maybe it is just me, but a simple denial sounds more convincing than trying to claim a moral high ground.

[Shoblongoo]

Some rare good news out of Texas today--finally got a guilty conviction at jury trial for a murderer-cop, in the shooting death of 15-year-old Jordan Edwards.



...Now the cop tried to use the old tried-and-true I discharged my weapon because I reasonably feared for my life defense that got the murderers off-the-hook in the cases of Philando Castile and Tamir Rice and Alton Sterling and--god--how many has it been now???

But the Texas jury wasn't buying it. As the evidence adduced  at trial showed Jordan was sitting in the passenger seat of a car full of black teenagers, when officer Roy Oliver rolled up responding to a call for underage drinking at a High School house party and fired three (3) unprovoked AR-15 semiautomatic rifle rounds through the vehicle's rear windshield.

Jordan was struck in the back of the head and died instantly.



^^^
Dallas County Sheriff's Department initially tried to cover for this guy with an official statement that Jordan was shot after an "altercation" with Officer Oliver in which either Jordan or Jordan's vehicle had been  "aggressively moving towards the officer."

But were forced to admit this story was false when the officer's bodycam footage clearly showed he fired through the back windshield of a vehicle that was moving away from him. (i.e. this case is posterchild for why every single cop-on-duty must have an active body cam at all times should be the law of the land in every jurisdiction)

There were audible gasps in the courtroom when the guilty verdict was read. No one actually thought the cop was going to be convicted this time.

Bittersweet day for the family and a good day for justice. 

Hope this racist POS does life in prison. 
 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Lord Raven]

4 hours ago, Dr. Tarrasque said:

Good news: Joe Arpaio  and Kelli Ward have lost on their run.

tbf living in arizona it's pretty clear to me that joe arpaio is hated

this state is gradually becoming more and more purple

[Slumber]

9 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

tbf living in arizona it's pretty clear to me that joe arpaio is hated

this state is gradually becoming more and more purple

Arizona's been hinging on a swing state for a little while. It hasn't gone truly blue yet and definitely leans red, but it gets closer and closer each election.

I think everyone is aware of how much of a monster Arpaio is, and Kelli Ward trash talking McCain after his death probably did no good for her. Which is great, because not only are these two terrible people, they look like they're human-shaped balloons ready to pop.

Edited August 30, 2018 by Slumber