The International Criminal Court has been established since 2002.
States have to be party to international laws to be bound to them. Even then, they do not have the power of domestic laws, but are loose norms of behavior. This effectively means they op in or out of international legal statutes. The US, along with Israel and Sudan, opted out of the ICC.
[/quote]
Good idea. Ceding sovereignty to an international body is stupid and dangerous.
I didn’t treat it as an independent body. In fact I explained how different nations subvert the function of the security council. And I have previously explained how member states hijack the general assembly.
The security council hasn’t prevented war between great powers. It doesn’t have a diplomatic function in the sense of resolving conflict between the great powers. The hydrogen bomb, the “balance of terror,” Mutually Assured Destruction and to a lesser extent diplomacy have ensured that the great powers have not gone to war.
I never said “We had them under control…”, but that they were under surveillance, and far from being “free”…
[/quote]
Yes rest assured the IslamoNazi regime in Qatar that funds al Qaeda will keep them on a tight leash.
[/quote]
You don’t think the American intelligence community will devote sufficient assets toward the Taliban five?[/quote]
It’s not possible to keep track of people like that in places like Afghanistan/NWFPs. They may pop up on the radar here and there so to speak, but most of the time they’ll be in the shadows.
In regards to GTMO, it is band aid solution at best. Like Abu Ghraib and relentless targeted killings, it actually serves as a recruiting boon for terrorist organizations. Religious terrorism is a hydra: cut off one head and two take its place. Its evident that the use of military force hasn’t eliminated or even reduced terrorism since 11 September 2001, but has actually exacerbated the underlying trauma and humiliation that causes individuals to decide to take up arms against the West. But when you have a big fucking hammer (as the US does) , every problem looks like a nail. I have no moral issue with the justified use of military force, but dilogue and diplomacy are much more preferable and less costly in both blood and treasure. For example, the Pentagon has more lawyers than the State Department has diplomats. I am not asserting the US military has no role to play in combating terrorism (it certainly does), but poverty is the swamp that must be drained to bring terrorism under control.
[quote]Bismark wrote:
In regards to GTMO, it is band aid solution at best. Like Abu Ghraib and relentless targeted killings, it actually serves as a recruiting boon for terrorist organizations.
[/quote]
I thought you were a realist? This is nonsense. Islamic terrorists are not inspired by targeted killings or abuse of prisoners. They are inspired by the will to conquest like the Nazis were.
Oh please! This is infantile stuff. There is no trauma and humiliation.
[quote]
But when you have a big fucking hammer (as the US does) , every problem looks like a nail. I have no moral issue with the justified use of military force, but dilogue and diplomacy are much more preferable and less costly in both blood and treasure. For example, the Pentagon has more lawyers than the State Department has diplomats. I am not asserting the US military has no role to play in combating terrorism (it certainly does), but poverty is the swamp that must be drained to bring terrorism under control.[/quote]
Again infantile. Diplomacy had no place in dealing with the Imperial Japanese and the Nazis. The only thing that will defeat the IslamoNazis is total war, unbreakable resolve and an inflexible demand for unconditional surrender.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The only thing that will defeat the IslamoNazis is total war, unbreakable resolve and an inflexible demand for unconditional surrender.
[/quote]
An interesting notion.
And to whom does one address these inflexible demands for unconditional surrender?
Who precisely is the current fuhrer of the “Islamonazis”, the capitulation of whom will signify our glorious victory?
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The only thing that will defeat the IslamoNazis is total war, unbreakable resolve and an inflexible demand for unconditional surrender.
[/quote]
An interesting notion.
And to whom does one address these inflexible demands for unconditional surrender?
Who precisely is the current fuhrer of the “Islamonazis”, the capitulation of whom will signify our glorious victory?[/quote]
Allah. I don’t know who he is, but those dirty towelheads do a lot of talking about him.
I never said “We had them under control…”, but that they were under surveillance, and far from being “free”…
[/quote]
Yes rest assured the IslamoNazi regime in Qatar that funds al Qaeda will keep them on a tight leash.
[/quote]
You don’t think the American intelligence community will devote sufficient assets toward the Taliban five?[/quote]
It’s not possible to keep track of people like that in places like Afghanistan/NWFPs. They may pop up on the radar here and there so to speak, but most of the time they’ll be in the shadows.
[/quote]
I agree, but they are resigned to Qatar for a year, a gulf state that is effectively a US client. The Taliban five almost certainly have significant SIGINT and HUMINT assets deployed against them.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The only thing that will defeat the IslamoNazis is total war, unbreakable resolve and an inflexible demand for unconditional surrender.
[/quote]
An interesting notion.
And to whom does one address these inflexible demands for unconditional surrender?
Who precisely is the current fuhrer of the “Islamonazis”, the capitulation of whom will signify our glorious victory?[/quote]
It doesn’t matter who their leaders are. Kill their leaders and kill them till the job is done. Insurgencies with mass support are not a new phenomena. They can be defeated. A good example of the defeat of religious insurgents with mass support would be the Jewish-Roman Wars.
SexMachine seems to have an antiquated understanding of power. The hard power you are so passionately advocating for is largely a thing of the past. The points being made are legitimate. As good as it might feel to know there is a facility where we have all the “bad guys” locked up, it does often act against our national interest. It is indeed a profound recruiting tool, as are drone strikes. I am certainly not advocating that we do nothing. But do you really want never ending war with a diffused, ideologically driven enemy? Because that is precisely what you will get.
The Obama administration has actually had a rather intelligent approach to combating terrorism recently. Provide funding and assistance to the individual countries and allow them to fight their own battles (I.E. Yemen, Nigeria) and step in and try to offer some sort of constructive diplomacy where possible. Hard power often feels like justice but the way of the world is changing. There are times when military force will be the answer, but you had better believe those times will be few and far between, as has been the trend over the last century (in which the world has seen an overall decline in warfare).
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The only thing that will defeat the IslamoNazis is total war, unbreakable resolve and an inflexible demand for unconditional surrender.
[/quote]
An interesting notion.
And to whom does one address these inflexible demands for unconditional surrender?
Who precisely is the current fuhrer of the “Islamonazis”, the capitulation of whom will signify our glorious victory?[/quote]
It doesn’t matter who their leaders are. Kill their leaders and kill them till the job is done. Insurgencies with mass support are not a new phenomena. They can be defeated. A good example of the defeat of religious insurgents with mass support would be the Jewish-Roman Wars.
[/quote]
Oh, I see. When you said “demand for surrender”, what you really meant was “extermination”.
Just kill as many of their leaders as you can find, and they’ll eventually give up. Yeah, I suppose that could work.
Good thing Muslims are easily demoralized, are few in number, have short memories, and typically don’t crave vengeance.
[quote]Mitchnasty wrote:
SexMachine seems to have an antiquated understanding of power. The hard power you are so passionately advocating for is largely a thing of the past.
[/quote]
The principles that underlie the art of war and human nature are timeless and therefore equally applicable to any era. Technology may change but human nature is a constant.
I disagree entirely. Muslims have no legitimate grievances against the West whatsoever. They kill far more of their own people than we do of them. Hell, they even wage war against each others’ tribes and families. Al Qaeda in Syria is waging war against one of its own offshoots(ISIS vs al Nusra.)
Certainly not. That’s why we need to demand unconditional surrender.
[quote]
Because that is precisely what you will get. The Obama administration has actually had a rather intelligent approach to combating terrorism recently. Provide funding and assistance to the individual countries and allow them to fight their own battles (I.E. Yemen, Nigeria) and step in and try to offer some sort of constructive diplomacy where possible. Hard power often feels like justice but the way of the world is changing. There are times when military force will be the answer, but you had better believe those times will be few and far between, as has been the trend over the last century (in which the world has seen an overall decline in warfare).[/quote]
The 20th century was the most bloody era in all human history. The only reason the great powers didn’t destroy each other was due to the balance of terror brought about by the hydrogen bomb.
Oh, I see. When you said “demand for surrender”, what you really meant was “extermination”.
[/quote]
Did Churchill mean “exterminate” when he demanded unconditional surrender? No he didn’t. In fact his maxim was:
“In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory: magnanimity. In peace: goodwill.”
Despite the atrocities of the Japanese in WWII, I bear Japanese people no ill will whatsoever. In fact I admire a great deal about their culture. I look forward to a time when I can say the same of the Muslim world.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
A good example of the defeat of religious insurgents with mass support would be the Jewish-Roman Wars.
[/quote]
It’s an example, for sure. But there it was essentially one guy, Bar Kochba, and a quarter to a half million guys on his side, in a tiny flyspeck of land: Roman Judaea was something like 1350 square miles in area. Not exactly analogous to the present situation.
Yes, there is now a disparity of weaponry many orders of magnitude greater than in the Iron Age, to be sure, but rather than an isolated, unified insurgency under a single leader, the Empire is now facing a multi-ethnic insurgency of indeterminate number with new “leaders” cropping up by the week, spread out over three continents.
Rounding them all up and annihilating them might prove a bit more problematic than it did for the Romans.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
The only thing that will defeat the IslamoNazis is total war, unbreakable resolve and an inflexible demand for unconditional surrender.
[/quote]
An interesting notion.
And to whom does one address these inflexible demands for unconditional surrender?
Who precisely is the current fuhrer of the “Islamonazis”, the capitulation of whom will signify our glorious victory?[/quote]
It doesn’t matter who their leaders are. Kill their leaders and kill them till the job is done. Insurgencies with mass support are not a new phenomena. They can be defeated. A good example of the defeat of religious insurgents with mass support would be the Jewish-Roman Wars.
[/quote]
You’re conflating terrorism with insurgency. Yes, we should reenact the Siege of Jerusalem many times over until we " win" the “global war on terror”. The US and her allies certainly have the wherewithal for that.
Oh, I see. When you said “demand for surrender”, what you really meant was “extermination”.
[/quote]
Did Churchill mean “exterminate” when he demanded unconditional surrender? No he didn’t. In fact his maxim was:
“In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory: magnanimity. In peace: goodwill.”
Despite the atrocities of the Japanese in WWII, I bear Japanese people no ill will whatsoever. In fact I admire a great deal about their culture. I look forward to a time when I can say the same of the Muslim world.
[/quote]
You can’t compare civilian-centric terrorist groups, who are non-state actors, with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, who were states conducting conventional warfare.
It’s an example, for sure. But there it was essentially one guy, Bar Kochba, and a quarter to a half million guys on his side, in a tiny flyspeck of land: Roman Judaea was something like 1350 square miles in area. Not exactly analogous to the present situation.
[/quote]
I was referring to the three major Jewish revolts, the Bar Kochba being the last. The First Jewish-Roman War involved numerous factions: Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots etc. The Kitos War was fought throughout Libya, Syria, Mesopotamia, Cyprus etc.
[quote]
Yes, there is now a disparity of weaponry many orders of magnitude greater than in the Iron Age, to be sure, but rather than an isolated, unified insurgency under a single leader, the Empire is now facing a multi-ethnic insurgency of indeterminate number with new “leaders” cropping up by the week, spread out over three continents.
Rounding them all up and annihilating them might prove a bit more problematic than it did for the Romans.[/quote]
I don’t really want to derail the thread with an in depth discussion of grand strategy but suffice to say I don’t think the war can be ended in any other way than how I have described. If imposing unconditional surrender is beyond our capabilities then we will lose the war because they will never give up otherwise.
Oh, I see. When you said “demand for surrender”, what you really meant was “extermination”.
[/quote]
Did Churchill mean “exterminate” when he demanded unconditional surrender? No he didn’t. In fact his maxim was:
“In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory: magnanimity. In peace: goodwill.”
Despite the atrocities of the Japanese in WWII, I bear Japanese people no ill will whatsoever. In fact I admire a great deal about their culture. I look forward to a time when I can say the same of the Muslim world.
[/quote]
You can’t compare civilian-centric terrorist groups, who are non-state actors, with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, who were states conducting conventional warfare. [/quote]
Not militarily but ideologically you can. They have the same mindset and will to power.
Oh, I see. When you said “demand for surrender”, what you really meant was “extermination”.
[/quote]
I disagree. Religious terrorists seek to rectify what they see as the pervasive influence of the West
Did Churchill mean “exterminate” when he demanded unconditional surrender? No he didn’t. In fact his maxim was:
“In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory: magnanimity. In peace: goodwill.”
Despite the atrocities of the Japanese in WWII, I bear Japanese people no ill will whatsoever. In fact I admire a great deal about their culture. I look forward to a time when I can say the same of the Muslim world.
[/quote]
You can’t compare civilian-centric terrorist groups, who are non-state actors, with Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, who were states conducting conventional warfare. [/quote]
Not militarily but ideologically you can. They have the same mindset and will to power.[/quote]
I disagree. Religious terrorists seek to rectify what they see as the pervasive influence the West has upon the Islamic world, a hopeless dream that would effectively mean reversing the tide of globalization. It does not equal the nationalistic der Wille zur Macht of the Axis powers. Also, I thought you disdained Nietzsche?