This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So the line of argument is this:
Saddam Hussein launched a full ground invasion of Iran. He gassed Iranian civilians as part of a terror bombing campaign (with the support of much of the international community, including the US). The war lasted 8 years. The Iranians did not later acquire nukes and did not nuke Baghdad, they did not even gas the Iraqis back. Iraq was not even a nuclear power so there were no especially strong reasons not to nuke Iraq.
Why would Iran nuke Israel now when it didn't nuke Iraq? Israel has hundreds of nukes and would doubtless fire back.
And what is the proposed plan to finish the job? Destabilize the region more by bombing Iran harder, having Iran bomb the Gulf harder? Bombing alone has proven ineffective at achieving regime change. A ground invasion of an extremely mountainous country of 90 million? The US military would be fighting alone and would almost certainly get bogged down as China floods Iran with arms and aid. Meanwhile Iran would've suffered enormous casualties and be, if anything, more inclined to pursue nuclear weapons. Clearly their conventional forces are not sufficient to deter foreign attack! An enormous, bloody, ruinously expensive, strategically disastrous clusterfuck.
What the US really needs is smart leaders who appreciate what can and cannot be done with military power, who can judge the risks and benefits clearly, who have the wisdom to ignore the latest dossier of Israeli 'intelligence' about WMDs.
Leaving the job 'half done' is the best case scenario here. The US is not militarily or politically strong enough to launch a successful ground invasion. Nothing short of a ground invasion is going to achieve the kind of regime America is looking for. Probably not even that. You can't bomb people into becoming pro-Israeli.
It is not treasonous for Americans to pursue American interests by enforcing constitutional constraints on waging war. I am not American for what its worth.
More options
Context Copy link