The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
This wouldn't work anyway, because the Taliban would then put out the word that anyone who is discovered to be an informant will be killed, as well as their families, and their friends' families.

The taliban absolutely would not have the power to follow through on this though. The U.S. government sure as hell would be able to keep up their end of the above argument.

You don't get it. When we start shooting 50 random people for every insurgent kill, EVERYONE would be an informant. It would be harder to find someone who wasn't. The taliban would be screwed.

Originally posted by truejedi
I admire the latter for their idealism, but sadly I don't think it works.

Actually, I think that's the fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives.

Originally posted by truejedi
[B]The taliban absolutely would not have the power to follow through on this though.

How do you know this?

You don't get it. When we start shooting 50 random people for every insurgent kill, EVERYONE would be an informant. It would be harder to find someone who wasn't. The taliban would be screwed.

Everyone would be telling you what you want to hear, not necessarily the truth; interrogation has been proven to not work very well.

So Blax... why are you arguing with the two murderous psychos?

Originally posted by Lucius
So Blax... why are you arguing with the two murderous psychos?

inflammatory.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
NOT killing members of extremist groups sends the wrong message to those groups, that we are weak and they are able to get away with their bullshit. Killing them causes far less damages than not. The problem, and you might completely disagree with this, is that we're too lenient with these groups. We don't unleash the full fury of our capabilities. Ever wonder why acts of terrorism or hostage are incredibly rare? Because the Russians don't mess around. There's no trial, they take you to the back and put a gun to your head. They cause far more collateral damage than we do but in the end, their method is extremely brutal, yet more effective.

I have moral problems with the idea of escalating the force, but moral discussions are bullshit and I don't feel the need to lord my morals over you. More importantly, I feel that escelation of force simply doesn't work. Russia got run out of Afghanistan with their tails between their legs, despite the fact that they had no qualms about killing civilians. You can't scare people who view death in war as the ultimate honor. The harder you push back against The Taliban the more they'll resist, and it'll end with you basically just killing everybody in the region. But then what's the point in doing it at all? If your military is going to just kill everything it comes across, then why waste your own resources instead of pulling back and letting the country kill itself?

Originally posted by Lucius
So Blax... why are you arguing with the two murderous psychos?

I was thinking the same thing,as a realize how lame this discussion's gotten. I'm doing so though because I got all of my wisdom teeth pulled out last Monday, so I've got nothing to do than sit around my house so drugged up that I can barely walk. So, yeah. Boredom I guess.

then what do you suggest?

Me, personally? I've already told you what I suggest, after which you and Nepythis balked at my suggestion and tossed a bunch of morality statements at me. Statements that I think are pretty funny now since you feel that lining people up and shooting them is the proper way to go about fulfilling the moral obligation of saving lives.

My suggestion is that since the only way to kill the The Taliban is to kill all of their recruitment pool (AKA pretty much the entire Afghan population), we should just pull out and let the region destroy itself. What difference does it make if we're doing the killing or they are?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Me, personally? I've already told you what I suggest, after which you and Nepythis balked at my suggestion and tossed a bunch of morality statements at me. Statements that I think are pretty funny now since [b]you feel that lining people up and shooting them is the proper way to go about fulfilling the moral obligation of saving lives.

You do me the disservice of misquoting me blax. I never said it was proper. I said it would be the fastest and most efficient, but I admitted it was indefensible.

My suggestion is that since the only way to kill the The Taliban is to kill all of their recruitment pool (AKA pretty much the entire Afghan population), we should just pull out and let the region destroy itself. What difference does it make if we're doing the killing or they are? [/B]

Can we guarantee no more attacks from the taliban will be staged against the U.S. on U.S soil?

Originally posted by truejedi
[B]You do me the disservice of misquoting me blax. I never said it was proper. I said it would be the fastest and most efficient, but I admitted it was indefensible.

My mistake. I don't think it would be efficient either, though.

Can we guarantee no more attacks from the taliban will be staged against the U.S. on U.S soil?

No, but there's no way to guarantee safety from terrorist plots either way. As long as there is a reason for those people to hate us, there will be terrorist plots. It goes hand in hand with what I said earlier about The Taliban and the people. The Taliban and the people are one and the same; you can't get rid of one without getting rid of the other, because the former is a bi-prooduct of the latter. The only you can stop "terrorism" is to get the people to not hate you. If the people are content then there is no need for rebellions and insurrections.

Originally posted by truejedi
inflammatory.

Lucien, what's your input for all this? You can't sit on the sidelines and toss out snark comments forever!

Originally posted by Lucius
So Blax... why are you arguing with the two murderous psychos?

Notice how you never contribute anything to the discussion other than retarded insults. Lol@murderous psychos. You definitely spent too long as a philosophy major, you forgot how to think. Perhaps we should invite the Taliban to a blackberry picking session where we can hold hands and sing Kumbayah!

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I have moral problems with the idea of escalating the force, but moral discussions are bullshit and I don't feel the need to lord my morals over you. More importantly, I feel that escelation of force simply doesn't work. Russia got run out of Afghanistan with their tails between their legs, despite the fact that they had no qualms about killing civilians. You can't scare people who view death in war as the ultimate honor. The harder you push back against The Taliban the more they'll resist, and it'll end with you basically just killing everybody in the region. But then what's the point in doing it at all? If your military is going to just kill everything it comes across, then why waste your own resources instead of pulling back and letting the country kill itself?

So first you want us to save the people instead of leading an offensive against the Taliban, and now you're suggesting we let the country die? That's not very idealistic or optimistic of you dear blax, you can't have it both ways. Collateral damage occurs precisely because we're trying to:

A. Kill off the extremists
B. Save the people

If we forego A, B isn't happening. I'm not sure how much more clear I can be. Furthermore, if we leave the Middle East, we're allowing the extremist groups to turn their attention to Israel, which they see as a symbol of the West. There is no easy solution for this so we're engaged in one that we think is the best one.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
[B]So first you want us to save the people instead of leading an offensive against the Taliban, and now you're suggesting we let the country die?

No, that's not true. I never suggested that we save the people, my own personal perspective is that we should pull out and let the country deal with its own problems. My point about saving the people was only in reference to TJ's belief that we have some kind of moral obligation to protect them. I don't share that belief.

That's not very idealistic or optimistic of you dear blax,

Contrary to your opinion, not all liberals are optimisitc, or idealistic. 😉

Furthermore, if we leave the Middle East, we're allowing the extremist groups to turn their attention to Israel, which they see as a symbol of the West. There is no easy solution for this so we're engaged in one that we think is the best one.

Ehh... that's a can of worms that I don't really want to get in to too much. I know that you're Jewish and you have a certain stance on the Isreal conflict; I don't want to question it.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
No, that's not true. I never suggested that we save the people, my own personal perspective is that we should pull out and let the country deal with its own problems. My point about saving the people was only in reference to TJ's belief that we have some kind of moral obligation to protect them. I don't share that belief.

Ehh... that's a can of worms that I don't really want to get in to too much. I know that you're Jewish and you have a certain stance on the Isreal conflict; I don't want to question it.

Originally posted by Dr McBeefington
It's not about being Jewish. My view happens to be objective. Israel is America's biggest ally and vice versa. They are our ticket to the Middle East and we are their ticket to the West. This partnership will not change regardless of who's president because there are certain foreign policies that are constant. Neither country can afford to stop supporting the other.

So what do you think would ultimately happen if we pulled out the ME altogether?

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Lucien, what's your input for all this? You can't sit on the sidelines and toss out snark comments forever!

But since you ask:

I'm all for withdrawing from Afghanistan (and Iraq for that matter) as soon as logistically possible. I personally don't give a rat's ass for those countries or its inhabitants and feel they should be left to their own devices, no matter how backwards some may call them. And should the time come again that someone or some organization from those regions threaten the West, I'm all for returning and firebombing every major settlement until they stop.

Well, to me its clear that regular soldiers aren't quite working, so what I'd do is to create a special force inside of the country whose only purpose is to hunt down disadents Gestapo style. And since as Blax said, dying doesn't really phase them I opt for more covert capture procedures, followed by prison and possibly torture, I havn't really decided yet. At the same time I would offer massive rewards to any of the supportive or 'informative' populace who I would then focus the military on protecting. I of course would also focus on improving life for the populace and greatly emphasise this over the war, while cultivating a feeling of terror and paranoia by routinely searcing houses, placements of spy's, blackmail, encouraging informants etc etc.

But honestly its stupid for you to ask us what we'd do since we have absolutely no information to go on. We don't know our own resources or an estimate of the enemies, placements of troops, how many translators we have etc. Its impossible to create a realistic plan of action without those things, so any one we come up with'll be stupid.