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
And the SDB didn't even enter service until 2005. And that's assuming enough are in stock, enough can be produced for such a bombing campaign, and enough delivered there in time before something less discriminate has to be used.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiotIn 1977, Protocol I was adopted as an amendment to the Geneva Conventions, prohibiting the deliberate or indiscriminate attack of civilians and civilian objects, even if the area contained military objectives, and the attacking force must take precautions and steps to spare the lives of civilians and civilian objects as possible. However, forces occupying near densely populated areas must avoid locating military objectives near or in densely populated areas and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Failure to do so would cause a higher civilian death toll resulting from bombardment by the attacking force and the defenders would be held responsible, even criminally liable, for these deaths. This issue was addressed because drafters of Protocol I pointed out historical examples such as Japan in World War II who often dispersed legitimate military and industrial targets (almost two-thirds of production was from small factories of thirty or fewer persons or in wooden homes, which were clustered around the factories) throughout urban areas in many of its cities either with the sole purpose of preventing enemy forces from bombing these targets or using its civilian casualties caused by enemy bombardment as propaganda value against the enemy. This move made Japan vulnerable to area bombardment and the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF) adopted a policy of carpetbombing which destroyed 69 Japanese cities with either incendiary bombs or atomic bombs, with the deaths of 381,000-500,000 Japanese people.[30][31][32][33]
- Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited.[6] A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.
- Articles 56 and 53 outlaw attacks on dams, dikes, nuclear generating stations, and places of worship. The first three are "works and installations containing dangerous forces" and may be attacked but only in ways that do not threaten to release the dangerous forces (i.e., it is permissible to attempt to capture them but not to try to destroy them).
- Articles 76 and 77, 15 and 79 provide special protections for women, children, and civilian medical personnel, and provide measures of protection for journalists.
- Article 35 bans weapons that "cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering," as well as means of warfare that "cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment."
What effect do you think the Republican party's current platform will have on them? Do you think it'll sink them, or instead pull in enough "single issue" voters who ignore everything else to result in them being re-elected?
I'd love to see those scum destroy their chances and get the Democrats back in office, assuming those lazy ass millennials fucking vote.
Been reading comments on the NYT
about it, and while most people there are cheering on the death of the Republican party, some are scared that it'll actually pull in a lot of voters who spot one thing they badly want and vote for it based on that. Some even said that the Brexit vote proves that the far right could win in the US by appealing enough to old whites who feel like they were left behind.
Cross-link from the Law Enforcement thread: How Las Vegas went from having the worst poilce-involved shooting rate in the country to being a model example for reform
TLDR: It's about training and accountability.
edited 14th Jul '16 12:08:51 PM by Elle
edited 14th Jul '16 12:35:00 PM by Antiteilchen
I guess I might be able to see that since an airplane is more like a force of nature. That's hardly an excuse, though, in my opinion.
Leviticus 19:34No, basic psychology actually. People blame those who are present and visible for their problems. Roll tanks into a town and you make yourself the oppressor, come to remove the government and impose your own. People will unite against that. Bomb the town though, and you are a faceless catastrophe they can blame on their local rulers.
There's also just the practical side of things—people, even civilians, can shoot back against an invading army. They can't fight the airforce though—only their own government can do that. Which means that whereas they have options for dealing with an invading ground army (waging a guerilla war, joining their local armed forces, etc), they have no options for dealing with a bombing run beyond hoping their government can save them. When the government can't, they'll turn on the government.
I will note again, that this strategy worked. Milosevic lost the Serbian elections because NATO bombed the populace and the populace blamed him. When he tried to cling to power—thus a) subverting the democratic process and b) ensuring more bombing—they revolted and got rid of him.
@The Handle
Such cases would be incredibly common actually. The majority of the major German arms manufacturers had been in business since the 19th century. Towns and cities had grown up around them.
edited 14th Jul '16 12:53:11 PM by AmbarSonofDeshar
It is Insane Troll Logic, also known as Psychological Warfare. The civilian populace gets sick and tired of being bombed, so they lash out. Not at the enemy who's actually bombing them — they're hundreds or thousands of miles away and unreachable. So they lash out at the only available target — their own leaders, who won't surrender. If they topple those leaders, they can put an end to the bombings. Never mind that their country loses the war; after a certain point, people don't care about that any more. They just want it stopped.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.Total war thinking as well. Since the people are a resource, you deprive the enemy of that resource (which one of the British generals got into shit for during World War 2, but I can't remember his name).
I suggest moving this particular discussion to the military thread.
edited 14th Jul '16 1:00:19 PM by TerminusEst
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleGeneral rule of thumb—when people can fight back against a problem they will. When they can't, they blame the government.
Sure and I don't dispute that. However, the sad reality is that sometimes it's necessary—especially in a case like Kosovo where the other option is to drop bombs on the people you're trying to help.
@pwiegle
Unless you live in Afghanistan, or Pakistan. Or any other number of places where there have been bombings weekly since the Cold War.
Not every place has an easy method of revolution at hand, and in many locations sectarian strife, religious strife, tribal strife, and football strife mix together and prevent the leadership from being "the enemy".
Having been that enemy, I can agree with that. More than a decade in the service taught me that people really just want to be left alone.
Unfortunately, people are soft targets, and nobody ever gets to leave them alone.
The destroying what you want to protect to save it trope is all too real.
Well, despite the American presence in Iraq, the Sunni terrorist groups were still hellbent in bombing the Shia population in Iraq.
But I guess this is one of the few examples where being invaded and occupied by a foreign army was less of an issue than attacking and driving out groups they didn't like was.
Inter arma enim silent legesUS invasion of Iraq was (big shock, I know) the stupidest bloody idea I've ever witnessed.
The political machinations that made it possible cause my teeth to ache.
Cheney and Ashcroft didn't like "losing" Gulf War One, so they lied (and lied through proxy) until they could get a second crack at it. Thus creating a power vacuum and opening the door for every single f-
I don't like it.
Any application of violence without an effort to fix things afterwards is going to produce revanchism. That's simply reality. It has little to do with the method chosen and everything with how much effort you employ afterwards to fix things. Germany hasn't gone Nazi again, because actual time and money was put into rebuilding the country and purging the Nazi influence after the fact. This is something the USA has failed to do in many recent cases. You can't rebuild a country on the cheap.
Which is a very good reason to oppose interventionism; the only reason the US invested so heavily in Europe and elsewhere after the World Wars was because it needed somewhere to offload the massive postwar productivity which it could not possibly hope to absorb through domestic consumption. That's not a situation that's not very likely to be repeated any time soon.
Europe would've been left in ruins if the US wasn't facing a demand side crash; all the easier for the US to exploit and divide.
edited 14th Jul '16 2:14:11 PM by CaptainCapsase

Well, not every city can completely remodel their city centres every 20 years.
I have disagreed with her a lot, but comparing her to republicans and propagandists of dictatorships is really low. - An idiot