TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

The General US Politics Thread

Go To

Nov 2023 Mod notice:


There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.

If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines before posting here.

Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.

If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules when posting here.


In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.

Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM

NativeJovian Jupiterian Local from Orlando, FL Since: Mar, 2014 Relationship Status: Maxing my social links
Jupiterian Local
#42426: Dec 2nd 2012 at 8:59:47 PM

If you're going to kill someone, do it face-to-face, where they're just as likely to kill you. Drone operation is a cowardly way of conducting war.
And that's the way we like it. Seriously, war isn't about being fair or honorable. It's about subduing the enemy with as little risk to yourself as possible. Drones are great for that.

Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#42427: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:01:23 PM

I don't care about self-preservation. In war, everyone is a target. In war, everyone should be a target. An eye for an eye.

Sending machines to kill for you adds an extra layer of apathy, whereas invasions involve people dying on all sides, something that forces everyone to give a damn. A war where only one side is dying is just wanton slaughter.

edited 2nd Dec '12 9:04:18 PM by Serocco

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
Trivialis Since: Oct, 2011
#42428: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:04:11 PM

I actually agree with Serocco for ethical reasons. Unfair one-way tactics are likely seen as harassment and not an acceptable form of war. A formally declared war means you're bearing the costs and sending the proper message to your enemies.

We could, I guess, buy why would we? The problem with chemical and biological agents, as well as land mines, is that they're indiscriminate. They cannot distinguish friend from foe, combatant from civilian. Drones are the exact opposite of that, they're better at distinguishing legitimate targets from everyone else than conventional means of attack are.

Being indiscriminate is one form of categorizing it as "too dangerous and unacceptable", but not the only one. Overly accurate remote strikes have a different reason to be considered for ban. Ideally we would avoid wars altogether, but if we're going to have them, we do our best to limit them.

We probably wouldn't be shooting Hellfires around our own territory, no, because the laws on such things domestically are much different than the laws for using them abroad. Using military forces in US territory is Constitutionally problematic.

All right; now imagine that it's 2012 version of the 13 states, and you're broke so you don't have sufficient military to handle an insurgency within your country. You ask Pakistan to send some foreign aid, but what Pakistan ends up doing is send aerial drones, and killings of your citizens begin to happen. Would that be ok?

edited 2nd Dec '12 9:14:21 PM by Trivialis

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#42429: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:21:46 PM

If you don't feel the cost of a war, then you have no reason to ever stop. Simple as that. When do you guys expect the War on Terror to end, hm?

Oh wait. Never.

The United States will probably be at war for the next several decades.

Like how we're attacking Yemen and Pakistan right now. That's not likely to stop any time soon. Because Americans feel no pain, and so Americans don't care. So the war will continue. Democrats and Republicans pull together on this one. And with drones, nobody will ever really notice again.

But the people we bomb notice. They see their friends and family die, often for no reason at all. And they see that Americans don't give a damn. Because we don't. Most Americans don't even know Yemen exists. And these people remember. This is why they hate us. Because we're killing them.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Completion oldtimeytropey from Space Since: Apr, 2012
oldtimeytropey
#42430: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:22:39 PM

I think this is a better example: You have a country that was recently attacked by some militants that have taken up hiding in an ally's territory. You ask them for help, but the ally has done nothing proactive for fear of angering a large portion of their country which holds sympathy for the militants.

Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#42431: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:22:49 PM

If drones are better at distinguishing legitimate targets from everyone else, why did we kill - not injure, kill - 178 children?

The answer is simple. We don't give a damn if they're militants or civilians. If they're not American, they're dead, as far as the drone operators are concerned.

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#42432: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:26:02 PM

To be fair, Serocco, drones are more precise than aerial bombing of a village. That's not something drones in particular should be singled out for. The problem with drones is that they promote apathy, not that they kill civilians. Their likelihood of killing civilians is lower than alternative methods. Except, you know, using humans, but we're too cowardly a people now to handle that.

edited 2nd Dec '12 9:26:24 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#42433: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:27:41 PM

Drones are also another way to enforce the war on terror. Look at our non-stop attacks on Pakistan.

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#42434: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:27:47 PM

It's inefficient. 5 lives lost is better than 50.

#42435: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:29:27 PM

If drones are better at distinguishing legitimate targets from everyone else, why did we kill - not injure, kill - 178 children?

Because if it had been tanks and A-10s it could have been 1078 children. War is hell, and there really isn't any way around that fact.

<><
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#42436: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:31:21 PM

I guess you could hire private assassins, all Hitman like, but I don't think those exist in the same capacity you're thinking of, and it'd STILL likely resolve itself in more deaths than drone strikes.

Serocco Serocco from Miami, Florida Since: Mar, 2010 Relationship Status: Faithful to 2D
Serocco
#42437: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:31:31 PM

If we continue our drone strikes, the death toll will gradually reach 1078 children.

War is unavoidable, but wanton slaughter via drone strikes is avoidable.

edited 2nd Dec '12 9:33:19 PM by Serocco

In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#42438: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:31:44 PM

If you want less war, you don't make war "more honourable" and take out "the dirty fighting". You wage less war.

I have a better idea - scale back the U.S.' unnecessary bases, oversized fleet, and all the other contributions to our needlessly huge projection capacity. While we're at it, wean ourselves off of natural resources gathered from conflict-ridden areas, particularly Middle Eastern oil. We won't have the capability to send drones that far so easily, and we won't need to. Problem solved.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#42439: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:43:18 PM

Nobody will ever do that.

It's a plan to weaken the military and the United States' ability to protect itself against a hypothetical invasion,, and you can't hide that. Which means it will never happen.

@Tomu: Why? Why do you think assassinating Al Qaeda operatives in person would increase civilian casualties?

edited 2nd Dec '12 9:45:25 PM by Ultrayellow

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#42440: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:47:23 PM

It's as hypothetically possible as scaling back drone usage, when drone tech is the next big thing in military R&D and congressman are lining up to get that Dept. of Defense pork sent to their home states so that more drones get built and used.

I'm fully aware that we're probably not going to see much of a scaling back of America's military capabilities until the country literally can't afford to maintain them any more. But, if the political possibilities arise, it seems folly to think we'll be much nicer with the drones gone, when the smart thing to do would be to go whole hog and scale back everything you can.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
TheyCallMeTomu Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: Anime is my true love
#42441: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:49:32 PM

Personal assassins-unlike drones-have a self-preservation instinct. Ergo, they'd presumably have to do whatever they could to avoid being caught/captured/whatever.

Though if you had the OK of the regional government that'd probably be fine. I just think, you know, the idea of personal hired assassins going all Silent Assassin on Al Queda sounds like a better way of doing things than using drones, but I'm pretty sure that's an absolute fantasy.

Ultrayellow Unchanging Avatar. Since: Dec, 2010
Unchanging Avatar.
#42442: Dec 2nd 2012 at 9:55:18 PM

I don't care if we build the stupid drones or not. It doesn't matter to me. In fact, it counts as Keynesian stimulus, so it's a net positive in my book. I care whether we use them to kill people in wars the average citizen isn't aware of. It's the use that matters, not possession of the things. Same way it doesn't really bother me that we own nukes. As long as they're just security, it isn't important to me. It's when we turn them against others (while still using the words "security" and "defense," even though that's clearly a euphemism/lie) that I get upset.

And it's totally possible for us to scale back drone use. It just requires more public awareness. And this is one area where the media has really let us down.

Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.
RadicalTaoist scratching at .8, just hopin' from the #GUniverse Since: Jan, 2001
scratching at .8, just hopin'
#42443: Dec 2nd 2012 at 10:01:16 PM

I don't think notions of fair play should enter into discussions of foreign policy. I'm a pacifist because of my opposition to war. I accept that violence is an unpleasant fact of life, one that should be minimized and managed carefully. I don't see any point in making it honourable. I don't see how that will create a deterrent to murder; ask the dead in Abu Ghraib how much respect U.S. forces had for human life they could see in front of them. Killing will teach people to be indifferent or it will teach them to hate, but either way a lesson will be learned.

Right now, the U.S. military and intelligence establishment serve an economic hegemony as much as a political one. The question of who gets to make money selling what ultimately determines the allocation of D.O.D. and C.I.A. resources. The U.S. lacks the worldwide intelligence infrastructure to be able to pay the right local assets to put a quiet bullet in a target, and rest assured that this would get done. The only way to change that would be to give the rest of the world more reason to trust white Americans in suits, which require a vast departure from how we do business, wage war, and run economies. I'd love to see that happen, I'm big on democratic peace theory, but I won't deny the enormity of the task.

And frankly? If I could get all conflict and military action worldwide, drone strikes included, ended in exchange for giving a single agency the capability to assassinate anyone worldwide? I could live with that. That's a price I could willingly pay for world peace.

edited 2nd Dec '12 10:02:06 PM by RadicalTaoist

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
Greenmantle V from Greater Wessex, Britannia Since: Feb, 2010 Relationship Status: Hiding
V
#42444: Dec 3rd 2012 at 12:52:54 AM

@ Serocco: China's had (reverse-engineered) drones since The Vietnam War, by the way. Drones themselves have been in use since the 1930s, at least for target work.

Keep Rolling On
Bluesqueak Since: Jan, 2010
#42445: Dec 3rd 2012 at 1:26:01 AM

[up]::cough:: V-1.

They changed to an autopilot instead of the original remote control, but still a drone.

It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
Medinoc from France (Before Recorded History)
#42446: Dec 3rd 2012 at 2:15:11 AM

I think the "drones are cowardly, one-way etc. therefore it's evil" argument is bullshit because we don't want a full-scale war with everyone dying in trenches. Assassinations of enemy leaders reduce civilian an military casualties on both sides. Either by making the war shorter (i.e., "ending it") or if it cannot end (like is the case for most guerillas when the enemy can still recruit) by keeping it small-scale.

Edit: Besides, IIRC the Americans want to "get the fuck out". I think if they actually wanted to drive them out, the terrorists would get better results by playing dead for a few years rather than continuing to attack soldiers and civilians.

Edit2: Quoth Serocco

I'd rather not do anything than use any method of war, to be honest.
Which will result in civilian deaths anyway, just not the same civilians. And this time, it won't necessarily be collateral damage.

edited 3rd Dec '12 2:32:31 AM by Medinoc

"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."
Thorn14 Gunpla is amazing! Since: Aug, 2010
Gunpla is amazing!
#42447: Dec 3rd 2012 at 2:23:39 AM

So, shifting topics.

We're so going off that cliff its not even funny.

Lanceleoghauni Cyborg Helmsman from Z or R Twice Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: In my bunk
#42448: Dec 3rd 2012 at 2:53:25 AM

yeah... I kind of didn't expect anything else. god knows that the GOP won't accept tax increases unless you give them a good Hoist by Their Own Petard.

"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#42449: Dec 3rd 2012 at 4:24:10 AM

So I'm up bizarrely early and watching MSNBC's morning show with a bunch of people actually talking about the fiscal cliff.

The opinion of one of them seems to be that the Republicans need to make a deal now or they'll find themselves in a much worse position after it passes. They also compared it to the lame duck session of 2010, where the Democrats ultimately gave in before the session was over instead of taking the risk. It doesn't seem like the Republicans will be that savvy yet, but the month isn't over.

Kostya (Unlucky Thirteen)
#42450: Dec 3rd 2012 at 4:37:10 AM

I'm kind of hoping they don't take a deal. Taxes need to come up. Sure the middle class will be squeezed but again, let's see these people try and vote against a tax cut for the middle class. I'd be curious to see how many of them survive 2014.

edited 3rd Dec '12 4:37:37 AM by Kostya


Total posts: 417,856
Top