A brave new world

dmytryp · May 18, 2009

SPMiller said:
As if I would invest the time to debunk this yet again

Do your own research.

Oh, C'mon
I'll tell you and leave it.
For a meaningful statistical analysis you'd have to have a large pool of similar cases with similar players where different techniques were used. Then you could probably compare. You don't have that. And even if you did, you as a writer should know that such a statistical analysis of a skill-based activity is meaningless. What is it that people tell newbie writers when they ask "what are the chances to get published"? They tell, "if you are good, the chances are good. If you are not good, chances are very bad." And here you have another parameter -- resistence of a particular individual to techniques used against him.

In short, the meme 'torture doesn't work" is simply crap. This has nothing to do with whether it should or shouldn't be employed, but let's at least be honest about the facts here. And the simple fact is that Shin Bet (Israeli internal security service) had used "moderate force" techniques for years before they were banned in '99 by our Supreme Court. And they were very good at it. This doesn't make it right or justified or even approaches the moral debate, but if all you want is to talk about effectivity, you'll lose. Just as you'll lose if you claim that there are no real life "ticking bomb situations".

EDIT: I really don't understand the reasoning here. CIA had been using "coercive techniques" for years. Decades. Since you claim it doesn't work and everybody knows that, your position would imply that CIA did it just for kicks. Because it enjoys torturing people. Right?

donroc · May 18, 2009

Based upon my research/education in History, and conversations with WWII and USSR survivors, the torture methods of the Spanish Inquisition, the Gestapo, and the KGB generally worked effectively. As for false confessions regarding giving names, in some cases that is exactly what the authorities wanted so they could gain property for the Crown (as in 15th and 16th century Spain) and to destroy rivals as happened during the great Stalin purges of the 1930s.

Don · May 18, 2009

Zoombie said:
Torture is evil. It should not be done.

How...many times do I have to say this?

It's not gonna work, Zoombie. Haven't you heard? We're living in a post-moral, pragmatic world. It no longer matters what's right and wrong. Might makes right. Throw your arm up there and goose-step with pride across that Rainbow Bridge into Valhalla, Paradise, Heaven, or whatever the god of your particular belief promises if you follow the orders of your ~~masters~~ leaders in this world.

(I'm pulling for Valhalla; I've always had a thing for Nordic Blondes.

)

Right and wrong; what a quaint, outmoded notion in today's world.

dmytryp · May 18, 2009

Don said:
It's not gonna work, Zoombie. Haven't you heard? We're living in a post-moral, pragmatic world. It no longer matters what's right and wrong. Might makes right. Throw your arm up there and goose-step with pride across that Rainbow Bridge into Valhalla, Paradise, Heaven, or whatever the god of your particular belief promises if you follow the orders of your ~~masters~~ leaders in this world.

(I'm pulling for Valhalla; I've always had a thing for Nordic Blondes.)

Right and wrong; what a quaint, outmoded notion in today's world.

Haven't you heard? We are living in a moral equivelancy, ego centric, rose colored world. Where there is no difference between terrorism and colateral damage. Where everything that happens is our fault and if only we behaved better our enemies would like us. Where there are operations however limited only get the bad guys and the weapons distinguish between the combatants and non-combatants. Where terrorist are in fact noble savages hiding in plain sight, only waiting for US special forces to come and take them out.

AMCrenshaw · May 18, 2009

Tangent: (But the thing is that war's not entirely effective and there a few historical examples of nonviolent revolutions in which violence followed for no real good reason, and at the expense of the lives of soldiers and their families. Just remember, all that a revolution needs is people who don't support the government anymore. When they don't support the government, they won't support the military; they won't support taxes. Oddly enough, Don, it's not always a pragmatic argument. For example, if nonviolent activists, intellectuals, or organizations can be provoked into violence, then violence must be right.)

As far as civilian death in concerned:

WWI-- 1/5 of the casualties were civilian
WWII-- 2/3 of the casualties were civilian
Modern Warfare, Iraq-- has been 4/5 to 9/10 civilian (as of 2004, there were 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq caused by US invasion-- mostly because of aerial coalition attacks which killed women and children)

I'm not always glad we have the guns-- look how we use them.

AMC

PS: and speaking of pragmatism-- imagine how much money we could put into our infrastructure if we weren't always at war.

robeiae · May 18, 2009

SPMiller said:
As if I would invest the time to debunk this yet again

The "torture doesn't work" meme is a fallacy. It can work, and it can work quite effectively. All forms of interrogation can work, and all can fail. Really, it's a case by case thing. There's nothing that you could possible debunk in this regard.

I'm against torture, too. But this insistence on using as undemonstrable argument to oppose torture bugs me to no end.

As Zoombie said, it's WRONG. That's enough.

AMCrenshaw · May 18, 2009

The "torture doesn't work" meme is a fallacy. It can work, and it can work quite effectively. All forms of interrogation can work, and all can fail. Really, it's a case by case thing. There's nothing that you could possible debunk in this regard.

I'm against torture, too. But this insistence on using as undemonstrable argument to oppose torture bugs me to no end.

As Zoombie said, it's WRONG. That's enough.

I can't comment on its short-term effectiveness and so it's remained out of my argument as of late. I can too say it's wrong and that's enough. But I can also speculate about what the long-term consequences of torturing are-- and, perhaps based on its immorality, I never feel those consequences are positive.

AMC

dmytryp · May 18, 2009

AMCrenshaw said:
As far as civilian death in concerned:

WWI-- 1/5 of the casualties were civilian
WWII-- 2/3 of the casualties were civilian
Modern Warfare, Iraq-- has been 4/5 to 9/10 civilian (as of 2004, there were 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq caused by US invasion-- mostly because of aerial coalition attacks which killed women and children)

I'm not always glad we have the guns-- look how we use them.

AMC

Well, it is not a very good example. Looking just at the numbers doesn't help much. It is not past warfare where armies stood against one another and fought till one won (this is especially true for WWI, which is sometimes called "the trench war").
Certainly, the destructiveness of the weapons increased dramatically. The nature of warfare changed, too. Especially in the last decades when you got into assymetrical warfare, terrorist orgs that consistently use human shields and blend into civillian population, etc. But the weapons are changing into ever more percise. The West does much much more today to avoid civillian casualties than in the past. As I said, the last time US carpet bombed anybody was probably in Vietnam. On the other hand the non-democratic world acts differently. Millions of civillians died in Iran/Iraq war. Russians are probably not the worst perpetrators here, but they basically leveled Grozny, did massive damage in Afghanistan, and in the latest conflict with Georgia managed together with georgians to kill over two thousands civillians in two days. The list goes on and on.

AMCrenshaw said:
PS: and speaking of pragmatism-- imagine how much money we could put into our infrastructure if we weren't always at war.

This ain't pragmatism, it's idealism and wishfull thinking about a different war.

AMCrenshaw · May 18, 2009

Especially in the last decades when you got into assymetrical warfare, terrorist orgs that consistently use human shields and blend into civillian population, etc.

And what's odd here is that we, a super power, have a war against...well, how many terrorists are there?

This ain't pragmatism, it's idealism and wishfull thinking about a different war.

No, this war wasn't necessary and neither are pre-emptive strikes ever defensive. On the contrary, to believe that is wishful thinking.

AMC

Robert Toy · May 18, 2009

AMCrenshaw said:
Tangent: (But the thing is that war's not entirely effective and there a few historical examples of nonviolent revolutions in which violence followed for no real good reason, and at the expense of the lives of soldiers and their families. Just remember, all that a revolution needs is people who don't support the government anymore. When they don't support the government, they won't support the military; they won't support taxes. Oddly enough, Don, it's not always a pragmatic argument. For example, if nonviolent activists, intellectuals, or organizations can be provoked into violence, then violence must be right.)

As far as civilian death in concerned:

WWI-- 1/5 of the casualties were civilian
WWII-- 2/3 of the casualties were civilian
Modern Warfare, Iraq-- has been 4/5 to 9/10 civilian (as of 2004, there were 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq caused by US invasion-- mostly because of aerial coalition attacks which killed women and children)

I'm not always glad we have the guns-- look how we use them.

AMC

PS: and speaking of pragmatism-- imagine how much money we could put into our infrastructure if we weren't always at war.

I believe your figures are just a bit low:
WWI – Military Deaths = 9.72 Million, Civilian Deaths = 6.82 Million
WWII – Military Deaths = 25.28 Million, Civilian Deaths = 41.77 Million
Modern warfare has an even higher military/civilian killed ratio.

dmytryp · May 18, 2009

AMCrenshaw said:
And what's odd here is that we, a super power, have a war against...well, how many terrorists are there?

post 25
The whole point of assymetrical warfare (from the perspective of terrorists) is to minimize the advantage the West has in terms of numbers, technology etc.

AMCrenshaw said:
No, this war wasn't necessary and neither are pre-emptive strikes ever defensive. On the contrary, to believe that is wishful thinking.

AMC

I actually meant "world" not "war". I wasn't specifically talking about any war in particular.
But since oyu brought this up, I disagree. You don't have to wait for a person that draws a gun on you to actually shoot you.

AMCrenshaw · May 18, 2009

Modern warfare has an even higher military/civilian killed ratio.

More military are killed than civilian in modern warfare?

AMC

AMCrenshaw · May 18, 2009

I wasn't specifically talking about any war in particular.
But since oyu brought this up, I disagree. You don't have to wait for a person that draws a gun on you to actually shoot you.

We'll just have to disagree, then.

AMC

robeiae · May 18, 2009

AMCrenshaw said:
No, this war wasn't necessary and neither are pre-emptive strikes ever defensive.

I disagree. This war was beyond necessary. It should never have been needed, however. The first Bush let Saddam off the hook, after Desert Storm. That conflict should have been continued, until Saddam was gone.

But the first Bush heeded the UN and pulled back. Saddam remained belligerent: he failed to fulfill his obligations in the treaty, Iraqi forces eventually began to take aggressive actions against coalition forces, Saddam attempted to reconstitute various weapons programs. None of this is disputable.

Now the first Bush lost his bid for reelection, largely because--imo--he was an ass and because no one knew that the nation was on the cusp of an economic boom.

Clinton took office and the boom came, the dot-com bubble followed by the housing boom. Even as the US was subjected to a WTC bombing and attacks by terrorists around the world like on the Cole, we reveled in economic success, ignoring these things by and large. Repub and Dem alike clapped themselves on the back for the market and for the expansion of home ownership.

Saddam continued to defy his obligations, to be belligerent, and the world--and the terrorists (and potential terrorists) in it--learned the US didn't care, didn't stand behind it's words.

But the intelligence community knew and the Clinton admin knew. And as his second term wound down, he spoke to the Iraqi issue, as did Gore and Kennedy and others, and how military action would come if Iraq didn't wise-up.

Of course, the economy was beginning to falter at that point, but that's probably unrelated.

Then came the second Bush, followed by 9-11. The lack of attention of the US was laid bare. It's failure--as a nation--to stand firm in Iraq and elsewhere helped to precipitate 9-11, imo.

I don't much care why Bush went after Saddam. It was the right thing to do, imo. Iraq remained an openly belligerent nation and needed to be dealt with. I don't like the way the war was prosecuted, but I'm not a military leader, so I can't do much about that.

AMCrenshaw · May 18, 2009

I don't much care why Bush went after Saddam. It was the right thing to do, imo.

I disagree, but fair enough. What's been done has been done.

Hopefully in 40 years there will be some stability in Iraq, without the presence of U.S. soldiers.

AMC

Robert Toy · May 18, 2009

AMCrenshaw said:
More military are killed than civilian in modern warfare?

AMC

Sorry...reverse it

Bird of Prey · May 18, 2009

dmytryp said:
You don't have to wait for a person that draws a gun on you to actually shoot you.

But don't you think you should be sure he at least HAS a gun before killing him??

Robert Toy · May 18, 2009

Bird of Prey said:
But don't you think you should be sure he at least HAS a gun before killing him??

Only in the movies

James81 · May 18, 2009

robeiae said:
I don't much care why Bush went after Saddam. It was the right thing to do, imo. Iraq remained an openly belligerent nation and needed to be dealt with.

Maybe so, but at the expense of going after Bin Laden?

All we have heard since 2003 has been "Stay the course in Iraq!" and "If we leave now, everything we fought for will be lost!"

And everytime I heard that, I kept thinking..."Hmm, you mean like in Afghanistan? Where we spent like 3 months chasing after Bin Laden and then suddenly was look 'Oh well, I guess we lost them...off to get that bastard Saddam! We'll stop at NOTHING to get his ass, while we'll half-heartedly chase after the man who actually had something to do with 9/11!'"

dmytryp · May 18, 2009

AMCrenshaw said:
We'll just have to disagree, then.

AMC

This is the usual attitude of the law of self-defense

Bird of Prey said:
But don't you think you should be sure he at least HAS a gun before killing him??

You do understand I was speaking in general terms about pre-emptive wars and making an analogy at that. But when we leave the analogy and come back to the preemptive wars -- you rarely have deinitive answers, only intelligence assesments. Sometimes you have larger margin of error (depending on the threat), but many times you have to take the worst case scenario. Better be wrong through strength than through weekness.

Incidently, while I agree that Saddam was a threat, I think the war in general was a mistake. Because Iran was (and is) a much bigger threat and the war effectively prevented dealing with this problem earlier when there were larger margins for error. On the other hand, we can't be sure how things would have turned out if US didn't go into Iraq.

dmytryp · May 18, 2009

James81 said:
Maybe so, but at the expense of going after Bin Laden?

All we have heard since 2003 has been "Stay the course in Iraq!" and "If we leave now, everything we fought for will be lost!"

And everytime I heard that, I kept thinking..."Hmm, you mean like in Afghanistan? Where we spent like 3 months chasing after Bin Laden and then suddenly was look 'Oh well, I guess we lost them...off to get that bastard Saddam! We'll stop at NOTHING to get his ass, while we'll half-heartedly chase after the man who actually had something to do with 9/11!'"

At the time when US was planning an attack on Afghanistan, I sais to my friends that it will be quagmare. That US will be stuck there for years. Now, we will see if my predicitons were correct.
As to your point, in the end, you need to weigh your threats. Getting Bin Laden would be certainly gratifying, but at the moment, even with the half-hearted attempt, Al-Qaida is a relatively reduced threat. Getting Bin Laden won't solve the problems at large. Stabilizing an actually democratic Iraq may have a much bigger impact. I am not generally a big fan of "democracy spreading" as envisioned by the neo-cons, but the situation in Iraq today is different.

AMCrenshaw · May 18, 2009

Better be wrong through strength than through weekness.

And you mean military strength, I assume, since diplomacy (or, for those like me, nonviolent activism) requires a hell of a lot of courage and a hell of a lot of strength, not to mention a hell of a lot of imagination.

Bottom line is that war doesn't end war; it paves the way for new war. People trust using war because we always have (and because that must be the entirety of human nature)-- this is precisely why I don't trust it and precisely why I don't support it.

With Iraq, we have another case of the United States using its military power to spread democracy to countries who haven't asked for it or, more importantly, who haven't taken the initiative to work toward it themselves, if that's what they really wanted. But what is the excuse? One bad man who embodies The Absolute Evil and who must be stopped at all costs No Matter What. Forget the fact that most of why we went there was a lie: the U.S. reasserted itself as a superpower, one that will attack perceived threats, not defend against them. The idea is to scare people from threatening us. What we've seen, instead, is that fear and trauma are real good motivations for violence against us.

eta: not to mention the civilians we put in harm's way because of it. considering that we've killed 100x more civilians in Iraq (100,000) than there are members of Al-Qaeda (are there even 1,000 members yet?)

AMC

dmytryp · May 18, 2009

AMCrenshaw said:
And you mean military strength, I assume, since diplomacy (or, for those like me, nonviolent activism) requires a hell of a lot of courage and a hell of a lot of strength, not to mention a hell of a lot of imagination.

I don't discount diplomacy or non-violent measures. Don't make me some kind of trigger happy maniac. But there are times when you need to fight.

AMCrenshaw said:
Bottom line is that war doesn't end war; it paves the way for new war. People trust using war because we always have (and because that must be the entirety of human nature)-- this is precisely why I don't trust it and precisely why I don't support it.

Well, in historical terms this is certainly debatable, but I'll leave it for our pm exchange. War is evil, no doubt. But I do believe war can be just. And I do believ that it can sometimes be necessary.

AMCrenshaw said:
With Iraq, we have another case of the United States using its military power to spread democracy to countries who haven't asked for it or, more importantly, who haven't taken the initiative to work toward it themselves, if that's what they really wanted. But what is the excuse? One bad man who embodies The Absolute Evil and who must be stopped at all costs No Matter What. Forget the fact that most of why we went there was a lie: the U.S. reasserted itself as a superpower, one that will attack perceived threats, not defend against them. The idea is to scare people from threatening us. What we've seen, instead, is that fear and trauma are real good motivations for violence against us.

AMC

This again is debatable, though I think you confuse me with somebody else vis-a-vis my stance on the Iraq war and "spreading of democracy". A lot of things are also look differently in hindsight. I am not as eager to pass judgements.

AMCrenshaw · May 18, 2009

Yeah, to be clear, I departed from your post to make another point.

AMC

And I do believ that it can sometimes be necessary.

To me, it's deemed necessary when we're attacked-- when the first shot is fired, diplomacy and nonviolent measures don't do diddly. Otherwise I think there are a lot better measures and some historical precedence for my opinion. I too will leave that for the PM.

dmytryp · May 18, 2009

AMCrenshaw said:
To me, it's deemed necessary when we're attacked-- when the first shot is fired, diplomacy and nonviolent measures don't do diddly. Otherwise I think there are a lot better measures in some cases and some historical precedence for my opinion. I too will leave that for the PM.

Fixed that for you

A brave new world

Historicals and Horror rule

All Living is Local

...

Touch and go

...

...

FOB and Slayer of windmills

...

...

Touch and go

...

FOB and Slayer of windmills

Benefactor Member

FOB and Slayer of windmills

Great Scott Member

...

...