Take off the gloves

[Chumblywumbly]

Yes, and if the oil fire is particularly large why shouldn't I be permitted to use a particularly large bomb?

People should not base their political actions on the stupid shit said in Call of Duty cutscenes.

I believe CQB still has plenty of use for a sharp under the ribs.

Those fuzzy-wuzzies don't like it up 'em, Captain Mainwaring!

[Grave_n_idle]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

Why do you call it 'murdering civillians' when your enemies do it?

If it's war, it's not 'murder'. If its murder, it's not war.

You answer your own question.



You can't wage Total War against a group like Al Qaeda - and that's where the future of war is liely to lie.

Because I'm aiming for terrorists.

That means its technically manslaughter.

Actually, you can wage total war against al-Qaeda. The problem is squeamish leadership that refuses to recognize what needs to be done and then do it.

Who would you 'invade' in Total War?

[The Adrian Empire]

To fight honourably is the highest of virtues, honourable warriors will never lower themselves to the same stature as their opponents to do so is to lose all respect for one's self

[Querinos]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

Sir, I believe the words you are looking for are "Total Warfare," General Sherman.

[United Russian State]

No, it is stupid to if your enemy refuses to.

Fight fire with fire.

Fight fire with fire, and you get burned.

Wow, didn't see that one coming!!!

Well if you're smart, you use your "fire" to put out the other person's fire.

But yea, stupid people always get burned while playing with fire.

OK, got me there. But, aren't those Soldier Grunts and Politicians pretty stupid sometimes?

Most soldiers are not stupid, and stupid ones don't tend to be given important objectives that take much brain power, as long as your commanders are smart you won't have problem.

Many countries, with well educated people, do not vote in stupid leaders. So this is not a problem.

Point, smart countires can play with "fire" put out their enemies "fire" and save lives.

[Cannot think of a name]

Ends justify the means rarely takes into account where the real ends lie. Proxy wars and 'enemy of my enemy' have contributed to our current conflict. To match brutality, to in essense sstep up and say, "Yes, we are an oppressive power and can and will do whatever we want" is essentially to throw water on a grease fire.

The same logic that goes into justifying this 'gloves off' attitude is the very one that convinces people that the only resort is to strap bombs to themselves and kill civilians or any one they can. The idea that you can end a brutality, especially a self afflicted one, with more brutality is remarkable short-sighted. More than ever, this is an ideological 'war.' This is not a war of lines and commanders, there will be no surrender on the deck of a ship followed by ticker-tape parade. It can barely be called a war at all, except in that we have abused the term in our haste to appear serious about something-the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on crime, the war on obesity-that it has begun to lose all meaning anyway.

It is a war of ideals and to sacrifice them is to win a battle and lose the war.

[Alsatian Knights]

Condoms.

Indeed, if you tell them that they'll make them more fertile you'll breed them out in a few generations...wow...I should stop think with that part of my mind...

[Des-Bal]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

Why do you call it 'murdering civillians' when your enemies do it?

If it's war, it's not 'murder'. If its murder, it's not war.

You answer your own question.



You can't wage Total War against a group like Al Qaeda - and that's where the future of war is liely to lie.

Because I'm aiming for terrorists.

That means its technically manslaughter.

I think you missed the point.

It's either war, or 'crime'. If it's a 'crime', it's not war.

The reason we don't 'take off the gloves' is because it's a nonsense. If we are attacked by Al Qaeda... who are we going to invade? We tried two different targets in the last ten years, and it turns out that freeform asymmetrical targets don't actually need to be limited to a nation.

Unless its a war crime. In which case I feel totally justified in responding with what is under normal circumstances also a war crime.
Every major hub. Afghanistan Iraq Iran essentially anyone disliked enough to bomb without much backlash.

[Des-Bal]

Yes, and if the oil fire is particularly large why shouldn't I be permitted to use a particularly large bomb?

People should not base their political actions on the stupid shit said in Call of Duty cutscenes.

I believe CQB still has plenty of use for a sharp under the ribs.

Those fuzzy-wuzzies don't like it up 'em, Captain Mainwaring!

1. That had absolutley nothing to do with Price's line from Call of Duty, they ACTUALLY set bombs off to put out oil fires. When fictional characters say something true does that mean its no longer valid?
2.I'm not entirely sure that a coherent human being wrote that.

[Des-Bal]

To fight honourably is the highest of virtues, honourable warriors will never lower themselves to the same stature as their opponents to do so is to lose all respect for one's self

If you don't lower yourself to their standards your family gets to lower you into a hole. Dishonor before death might not sound as noble but at the end of the day your not dead.

[Des-Bal]

Ends justify the means rarely takes into account where the real ends lie. Proxy wars and 'enemy of my enemy' have contributed to our current conflict. To match brutality, to in essense sstep up and say, "Yes, we are an oppressive power and can and will do whatever we want" is essentially to throw water on a grease fire.

The same logic that goes into justifying this 'gloves off' attitude is the very one that convinces people that the only resort is to strap bombs to themselves and kill civilians or any one they can. The idea that you can end a brutality, especially a self afflicted one, with more brutality is remarkable short-sighted. More than ever, this is an ideological 'war.' This is not a war of lines and commanders, there will be no surrender on the deck of a ship followed by ticker-tape parade. It can barely be called a war at all, except in that we have abused the term in our haste to appear serious about something-the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on crime, the war on obesity-that it has begun to lose all meaning anyway.

It is a war of ideals and to sacrifice them is to win a battle and lose the war.

I prefer to think of it as a war of 'don't blow up my stuff'. And again this isn't about shooting into crowds of civillians and hoping you hit a terrorist its about whether or not its logical to ban certain weapons that DON'T put civillians at unnecessary risk when your enemy lacks that compassion.

[Ashmoria]

Ends justify the means rarely takes into account where the real ends lie. Proxy wars and 'enemy of my enemy' have contributed to our current conflict. To match brutality, to in essense sstep up and say, "Yes, we are an oppressive power and can and will do whatever we want" is essentially to throw water on a grease fire.

The same logic that goes into justifying this 'gloves off' attitude is the very one that convinces people that the only resort is to strap bombs to themselves and kill civilians or any one they can. The idea that you can end a brutality, especially a self afflicted one, with more brutality is remarkable short-sighted. More than ever, this is an ideological 'war.' This is not a war of lines and commanders, there will be no surrender on the deck of a ship followed by ticker-tape parade. It can barely be called a war at all, except in that we have abused the term in our haste to appear serious about something-the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on crime, the war on obesity-that it has begun to lose all meaning anyway.

It is a war of ideals and to sacrifice them is to win a battle and lose the war.

I prefer to think of it as a war of 'don't blow up my stuff'. And again this isn't about shooting into crowds of civillians and hoping you hit a terrorist its about whether or not its logical to ban certain weapons that DON'T put civillians at unnecessary risk when your enemy lacks that compassion.

obviously it IS logical to ban these mysterious weapons that only kill the right people or they wouldnt BE banned.

[Pope Joan]

To me, "taking the gloves off" is a lot like schools and other institutions that profess "zero tolerance".

It allows you to punish people who are truly no threat to you, and point to that punishment as a sign of success against your target group.

it's lazy, it's a lie, it doesn't work, and if you know all that and do it anyway, you're a damned hypocrite.

[Chumblywumbly]

People should not base their political actions on the stupid shit said in Call of Duty cutscenes.

1. That had absolutley nothing to do with Price's line from Call of Duty, they ACTUALLY set bombs off to put out oil fires. When fictional characters say something true does that mean its no longer valid?

No, but this particular character is not stating something true, he's making an analogy with a questionable veracity.

I believe CQB still has plenty of use for a sharp under the ribs.

Those fuzzy-wuzzies don't like it up 'em, Captain Mainwaring!

2.I'm not entirely sure that a coherent human being wrote that.

It's not the best quality, but this video might explain matters.

[Birnadia]

It's bad enough that the enemy is committing atrocities; the LAST thing the people need is for you to also commit atrocities.

^this.

[Yootopia]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

Because if you look at the people who fight counterinsurgencies and win, the British, you will note that civilian casualties were kept exceedingly low during both The Troubles and the Malayan Emergency. That isn't a coincidence. Killing a shitload of civilians just antagonises people against you. Perhaps if we hadn't been a bit blasé about civilian casualties in the Iraq war, then people would have been more pissed off at The Bad Guys in whatever sense than they would have been with the Coalition. Instead we have the population there, and in Afghanistan, caught between two sides, both of whom have been unreasonable as regards civilian casualties, leading to everyone being pissed off with everyone.

[Grave_n_idle]

Every major hub. Afghanistan Iraq Iran essentially anyone disliked enough to bomb without much backlash.

Disliked enough? So - it's not about terrorism, it's about killing people if you can get away with it?

That sounds like a genocidal form of racism to me.

But let's examine it, like it wasn't a completely stupid idea - We invaded Afghanistan (who didn't attack us), and we failed to quell terrorism. We also invaded Iraq (who didn't attack us) and not only failed to quell terrorism, but birthed an insurgency.

So... Iran next? Who haven't attacked us? It fits the pattern. Then Yemen? Saudi Arabia? The UAE? Nigeria?


There are a lot of places we can attack - but we can't fight a Total War on 'terrorism', because 'terrorism' isn't a nation, and doesn't dwell within any set borders.

[Des-Bal]

Ends justify the means rarely takes into account where the real ends lie. Proxy wars and 'enemy of my enemy' have contributed to our current conflict. To match brutality, to in essense sstep up and say, "Yes, we are an oppressive power and can and will do whatever we want" is essentially to throw water on a grease fire.

The same logic that goes into justifying this 'gloves off' attitude is the very one that convinces people that the only resort is to strap bombs to themselves and kill civilians or any one they can. The idea that you can end a brutality, especially a self afflicted one, with more brutality is remarkable short-sighted. More than ever, this is an ideological 'war.' This is not a war of lines and commanders, there will be no surrender on the deck of a ship followed by ticker-tape parade. It can barely be called a war at all, except in that we have abused the term in our haste to appear serious about something-the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on crime, the war on obesity-that it has begun to lose all meaning anyway.

It is a war of ideals and to sacrifice them is to win a battle and lose the war.

I prefer to think of it as a war of 'don't blow up my stuff'. And again this isn't about shooting into crowds of civillians and hoping you hit a terrorist its about whether or not its logical to ban certain weapons that DON'T put civillians at unnecessary risk when your enemy lacks that compassion.

obviously it IS logical to ban these mysterious weapons that only kill the right people or they wouldnt BE banned.

Many weapons banned by hague were banned because they killed the enemy in a way that made it difficult for them to be treated by a medic. My goal is to not have them come back and shoot again.

[Des-Bal]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

Because if you look at the people who fight counterinsurgencies and win, the British, you will note that civilian casualties were kept exceedingly low during both The Troubles and the Malayan Emergency. That isn't a coincidence. Killing a shitload of civilians just antagonises people against you. Perhaps if we hadn't been a bit blasé about civilian casualties in the Iraq war, then people would have been more pissed off at The Bad Guys in whatever sense than they would have been with the Coalition. Instead we have the population there, and in Afghanistan, caught between two sides, both of whom have been unreasonable as regards civilian casualties, leading to everyone being pissed off with everyone.

Again not about killing civillians.

[Des-Bal]

Every major hub. Afghanistan Iraq Iran essentially anyone disliked enough to bomb without much backlash.

Disliked enough? So - it's not about terrorism, it's about killing people if you can get away with it?

That sounds like a genocidal form of racism to me.

But let's examine it, like it wasn't a completely stupid idea - We invaded Afghanistan (who didn't attack us), and we failed to quell terrorism. We also invaded Iraq (who didn't attack us) and not only failed to quell terrorism, but birthed an insurgency.

So... Iran next? Who haven't attacked us? It fits the pattern. Then Yemen? Saudi Arabia? The UAE? Nigeria?


There are a lot of places we can attack - but we can't fight a Total War on 'terrorism', because 'terrorism' isn't a nation, and doesn't dwell within any set borders.

No its about dealing with terrorism, however if we sent troops to england where there are startlingly few terrorists it would be not only stupid but it would get us into it with a few world powers.

Afghanistan DID attack us Al Qaeda was heavilly based out of Afhanistan we just responded far too late the efforts of the shaved monkey we called Commander in Chief failed miserably to identify the actual target iraq had no purpose. We can fight a total war where they are.

[Des-Bal]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

Sir, I believe the words you are looking for are "Total Warfare," General Sherman.

I'm not talking about devoting all capital and labor to the war effort I'm talking about using weapons that were banned for no rhyme or reason save compassion for the gentleman your trying to kill.

[Alsatian Knights]

It seems prepostorous to follow rules of etiquette when dealing with enemies that exercise a policy of murdering civillians. Under certain conventions a nation cannot respond to acts of terrorism or genocide with all of its resources, for example a blade with more than two edges or incendiary ammuniton. Following these rules when combatting an enemy that doesn't can only promise more death. Why should my country tie its own hands in this situation?

Sir, I believe the words you are looking for are "Total Warfare," General Sherman.

I'm not talking about devoting all capital and labor to the war effort I'm talking about using weapons that were banned for no rhyme or reason save compassion for the gentleman your trying to kill.

No in Sherman's definition: "Burn Everything, Kill Everything, Take Everything of Value."

[Tergnitz]

There is no prize for runner-up in a war. Unless your nation is prepared to use every single means to achieve victory, you might as well declare defeat now. If you allow your enemy to use successful tactics which you then prevent your own nation from using, you are just making their eventual victory all that much quicker.

[Grave_n_idle]

No its about dealing with terrorism, however if we sent troops to england where there are startlingly few terrorists it would be not only stupid but it would get us into it with a few world powers.

There are native born terrorists in the US, too. Maybe we should nuke America just to make sure we get them all?

Afghanistan DID attack us Al Qaeda was heavilly based out of Afhanistan

Afghanistan didn't attack us. We went into Afghanistan to overthrow the Taliban - who ALSO did not attack us.

...we just responded far too late the efforts of the shaved monkey we called Commander in Chief failed miserably to identify the actual target iraq had no purpose. We can fight a total war where they are.

Where are they?

That's the problem with asymmetrical warfare - ESPECIALLY this kind of global phenomenon - terrorism isn't 'based' anywhere. It's not specific to one group, one country - you can't invade terrorism.

[Neu Mitanni]

There is no prize for runner-up in a war. Unless your nation is prepared to use every single means to achieve victory, you might as well declare defeat now. If you allow your enemy to use successful tactics which you then prevent your own nation from using, you are just making their eventual victory all that much quicker.

Word.

The myth that non-state enemies like al-Qaeda can't be defeated needs to be shot in the head and buried under a ton of rubble. There is no refuting the argument that if you kill all of your enemies, you win. Also, if your actions make it unmistakeably clear to your enemy that it can't win, and that it will be crushed without mercy and everything it values will be destroyed along with it unless it permanently stands down, it is likely that that enemy will sooner or later realize it and give up.

It's all a matter of power and, more importantly, will. Who has the power, and who has the will to use it, determines who wins.