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 -
I don’t worship power, maybe because of my portion of old American heritage. Most of us have worshipped God, and this means understanding certain acts as beneath us. When George Washington was accused by the French of allowing the assassination of a negotiating party, it was a severe mark of disgrace that haunted him for the rest of his life and stained his reputation across Europe. This is my culture, and I think any foreign value system that worships power is a fundamentally anti-American influence that must be excised, just as much as any dangerous entanglement in foreign nations must be excised. I don’t know if you’re familiar with American culture so I will quote to you something from our first President and Founding Father:
Real patriots — in the eyes of the Founding Fathers — don’t start unjust and unnecessary wars for a random foreign tribe 6000 miles away. This is just not what we do. That’s why none of the American security apparatus supported this war. That’s why Israel had to put pressure on Trump to start the war. That’s why the #1 authority on terrorism in the American security state, Joe Kent, resigned to speak to Americans on the dangerous and subversive influence of Israel on American soil. Allowing Iran to become a little stronger is a great punishment and deterrence against the foreign tribe bringing us to war, but even more importantly, it is something that future powers will read about when deciding whether to commit acts of aggression.
I don’t know if you’re trolling when you ask whether history informs the decision of modern nations to go to war. That’s the basic curricula at any war college. I also don’t know if you’re trolling when you say Iran was building nuclear weapons, because that’s not the assessment of American intelligence, which means you trust Israel more than America, which seems slightly treasonous to me and very strange. But perhaps you’re not an American, I don’t know. But if you’re not an American, why are you pretending to speak for our nation?
No, in this religion justice and peace are getting right with God; they are one and the same thing; we will be judged by how we treat strangers and neighbors and others. There is a long history of Christian Just War philosophy, and it all concurs that our act of war against Iran was unjustified. And the Just God may punish those who support it; He will certainly punish those who promote “no mercy” and “no quarter”.
Wait, since when were you a Christian? This is new.
More options
Context Copy link
You don't worship power so you just sit in the corner and let it happen? Watching? Melodramatically?
Well, although I understand this as a threat against my interests -- I can't take it very credibly since you don't believe in using power.
Hypothetically, would you support allying with Iran and bombing Israel is it advanced American power and interests? If what you want is American power, then a destroyed Israel means that many tech and defense jobs come back to America. We can also poach high IQ Israeli AI developers. Or if the math shows that the best way to maximize American power is to arm both Iran and Israel to bomb each other to the abyss, so that we can poach their highest IQ talent, would you support this? (This may entail allowing Iran to turn Tel Aviv into Gaza). This is a very serious consideration for a person who loves the notion of maximizing power, as future wars will be decided by drones and AI; we can exploit Iran’s smart drone tech and Israel’s smart STEM talent by pitting them against each other.
This is a net-zero vision of strength where anyone else’s successes are a threat. This kind of model historically doesn’t work and is in fact antithetical to American success post-WWII. We remain powerful by maintaining a global system of wealth and strength in which other powers pay us the ultimate tribute of imitating us.
It’s in our interests to work with Israel because they support American power. It’s in our interests to work against Iran because they oppose American power.
Trump is already pursuing American power in the Middle East by recommitting it to a new vision of prosperity. The Abraham Accords are a far cry from Saudi Arabia funding its own proxy militias to counter Iran. (Remember that under Obama we actually funded the off-shoots of Al Qaeda out of esoteric imagined interests. — Another one of dozens of genuine Obama scandals that received no coverage or consideration until Trump was attacked for moves reversing it.)
The next step is getting Iran on board. This can be done either through regime change, or by simply overawing the current regime to the point that it cuts its losses and joins us. This would be in Iran’s interests too — as Osama Bin Laden once said, something something strong horse etc etc.
Let me get this straight. We are talking about a regime in the Middle East that has circumvented the entire American intelligence establishment to push our president to start a war. They used a senator who was trained with Mossad talking points, a religiously-radical loyalist stepson, and advisors who were hand-picked by their own Middle Eastern lobbyists. Because of our support for this Middle Eastern regime, passage through the Suez Canal has fallen to a fraction of what it once was, and now the Strait of Hormuz is closed. We have harmed the global economy while our allies in Europe and Asia are baffled at our decision-making. This Middle Eastern regime employed Jeffrey Epstein to mass-rape Americans to secure blackmail on important figures including former President Bill Clinton and current President Donald Trump. They sell our secrets to our greatest global adversary, China. They disrupt America’s ability to negotiate with Iran, and sought to destroy our important alliance with Qatar (a true friend who has pledged to invest 1 trillion dollars in America) by violating all semblance of international norms and launching an attack on a negotiating team. Meanwhile, important American technology and military jobs are siphoned off to this middle eastern nation state while they enjoy free college and medical care.
It seems clear to me that American power is being curtailed by this regime, and that — per your power-loving guiding philosophy — America is essentially obliged to enact regime change therein. If the United States Military reigns white phosphorus down on Haifa today and cluster munitions down on Tel Aviv tomorrow, then within a few weeks we would have secured free transit along the Suez Canal and the Strait of Hormuz, opened up trade opportunities with Iran (a country 9x bigger than Israel), gained more allies across the Middle East, loosened a perfidious influence on our Body Politic, and returned essential defense work back to Americans.
I can’t conceive why you are not advocating for the USM to strike Israel, unless perhaps you do not really want America to be more powerful against her enemies, but instead favor Israel for some other reason.
Israel is a democracy
Conspiracy
Conspiracy
Conspiracy
Conspiracy
Not even good conspiracies, totally unsubstantiated and debunked. If you think Israel has blackmail material of Donald Trump raping then I think you’ve lost the plot
I think you’ve given the game away. When it is convenient to argue that toppling Iran promotes American power, you put on that argument, but you don’t have a response to someone pointing out that toppling Israel also promotes American power — perhaps even more than toppling Iran, in light of the subversive influence of Israel on American decision-making. You resort to calling negative things about the Israeli regime “conspiracies”, including what our own head of terror-related intelligence says! Yet you apparently believe whatever a particular foreign Middle Eastern regime says about Iranian nukes. This does not read to me like loyalty. What loyal American trusts a Middle Eastern regime 5000 miles away over their own institutions and experts?
This is a kind of sophistry that really doesn’t merit much of a response because, among other issues:
It’s not true that the entire US intelligence apparatus is of one opinion on Iran and its nuclear aspirations (or that this conveniently backs your conspiracy)
Joe Kent making salacious accusations that Israel is behind everything is not credible
Trump has never shown himself to be dogwalked by these absurd plots and has been remarkably consistent on these issues across forty years
This isn’t a question of “loyalty” or whatever other fallacies you want to introduce. (Not that it’s even disloyal to believe Israeli intelligence reports — not that you’ve even shown this is in fact what has happened)
Your theory leaps over vast gulfs of supposition and proclaims them to be reasonable. Well I don’t believe that the Israelis have blackmail material of Donald Trump raping children, etc. etc., or that it takes a great mystery to explain why American foreign policymakers are opposed to Iran etc. etc.
Do you think we don’t have statements from the entire USIC apparatus?
From 2025:
And from 2026. As far as I can find, there is not even one single official dissention from the leadership of any of the 18 USIC agencies with respect to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. They are unanimous, “of one opinion”. Again, I’m somewhat puzzled at how a patriotic American can ignore the intelligence assessment of the most powerful nation in the world, to trust the assessment of… Israel. Perhaps the least trustworthy country. A country with a history of feeding presidents false intelligence on WMDs. A country which has the strongest motive to lie to us about Iran. A foreign country, speaking a foreign tongue, waving a different flag, 6000 miles away. (Now if you were distrusting the USIC because you figured they were too war-hungry, then that would be understandable, at least). Regarding Joe Kent: he is the one person in America who would know the most about this as he oversaw all American intelligence on foreign terror threats, which would include possible Iranian attacks and WMD acquisition. And before that, he was the chief of staff for the DNI, which is the intermediary between the WH and the IC. Hard to think of anyone more trustworthy than Joe Kent.
You were very confident that the USIC was not “of one opinion” on Iranian nuclear ambitions. Will you update your views now that you’re aware the USIC was in agreement? Do you have a reason for believing Israel over America or shall I assume the worst?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It's sad that my only hope is that the Secretary of War is too stupid to understand what he's saying when he says that the intention is to fight this war with no quarter allowed or asked for, and is merely repeating something he thought sounded badass in an Alestorm song.
I don't know. I kind of think that you should ant the guy that's in charge of the actual fighting to buy in to the whole Conan The Barbarian meme about "what is best in life?" unironically.
I also think that if I were President Truman in the spring of '45 I would want to keep Morgenthau and his plan on hand, in part because the whole "Good Cop, Bad Cop" cliche is a cliche for a reason. That reason is that it works.
I do know. Assuming for a second that this does end with ground forces coming to grips with the enemy, a declaration of "no quarter, no mercy" is both profoundly stupid and profoundly evil.
Stupid, because we'd like Iranian footsoldiers to surrender. A process made more difficult when we're handing them ready made, authentic propaganda in which the American government declares that they will be summarily shot if they surrender and no prisoners will be taken. Stupid, because setting that standard makes turnabout fair play when a Marine is captured, and I don't want captured American troops torture-murdered. I'd like to see PoW conditions on both sides closer to the Western front than the Eastern front.
Evil, because it's obviously evil to murder a surrendered enemy soldier on the spot. It serves no purpose beyond the gratification of base human desires. This is a betrayal of American tradition dating back at least to the Lieber Code in the Civil War:
But then you say
Which makes me wonder if you understand what a declaration of "no quarter" means exactly, and are using it just to say "we should be meaner."
"no quarter" means that if someone is trying to run away you should shoot them in the back. What it means is that anyone on the field who isn't a friendly or who hasn't already been killed or taken prisoner is not only a legitimate target but a mission objective.
What he's saying is that we aren't trying to hold territory, we're trying to send a message, that message being that if you try to fuck with us you die and your nation gets set back a generation per @MaiqTheTrue's post above.
I asked DeepSeek. I think "common understanding of a term" is a pretty good use case for LLMs at the moment. You are flatly incorrect.
The phrase comes from the practice of "giving quarter," which refers to a victor sparing the life of a captured enemy and holding them as a prisoner of war. To declare "no quarter" is to announce that surrender will not be accepted; the enemy is to be fought to the death.
Key aspects:
· Legal status: Granting no quarter is considered a war crime under the Geneva Conventions (specifically Article 23 of the 1907 Hague Convention and Article 40 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions), as it violates the principle that captured combatants are entitled to humane treatment. · Historical usage: In earlier naval warfare, a "no quarter" flag (such as a solid red flag or the Jolly Roger) signaled that the crew would fight without accepting surrender.
Though it does say
Even leaving aside the moral concerns, it's a grave sin to kill a man trying to surrender, it also is the opposite of the theory that you kick the door in and the whole rotten edifice falls apart, because you're telling the Iranian troops in advance that surrender (unconditional or not) is pointless, they're going to be killed either way. It also pretty much entitles the enemy against whom you have declared No Quarter to kill your men if they are captured (see eg the Battle of the Crater).
It's something that looks tough on a BJJ rash guard but is a definitional war crime.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think there's an Honor Harrington bit where the difference between "No Mercy" and "No Quarter" is demonstrated... by not killing the survivors in lifepods.
Speaking of Honor Harrington, no quarter, and songs...
It always baffled me that they chose the wrong "no" for the song.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The Founding Fathers themselves (Jefferson! Madison!) lived long enough to send the nascent US Navy and Marine Corps to attack distant nations (also Muslim) a mere 4500 miles away. Twice.
We fought those wars because they were illegally seizing our vessels and then enslaving our sailors. That is a perfect case of just war, and we behaved in a perfectly moral fashion. We requested a treaty, compensation, and the return of captured sailors. We did not assassinate the ruler of Algeria and his family while they were sleeping, or set the entire city ablaze. We secured our interests with little bloodshed. The wars were just (!), necesssary (!), in furtherance of our commerce (!) and directly impacted American citizens and property (!).
And Iran was (supposedly) seizing tankers illegally within just the last few months (although so was the US near Venezuela, with at least paper legal authority on incorrectly-flagged vessels). Admittedly, those probably weren't US-flagged and if this were (hypothetical) a response to that it'd probably still be overzealous.
No, but several European powers (the British and the Dutch) collectively bombarded Algiers in 1816 before the treaty ending the Second Barbary War was finalized. A bit later the French invaded, forcing the Dey to abdicate in 1830.
Paper legal authority is, aside from guns, the only legal authority that matters on the high seas. You’ll notice everyone from the Indians to the French to the Swedes have started following course.
More options
Context Copy link
Iran seized a couple oil tankers (not owned or flagged by America) which were on their way to America in response to the US seizing the Suez Rajan. So, not at all incomparable.
The bombartment of Algiers occurred after diplomacy failed to make progress to end the practice of enslaving Europeans, and after the execution of 200 European sailors. And even then, the request for surrender reads —
This is another case of just and necessary war, and even though Algiers was massacring and enslaving Europeans, the British commander did not see it fit to target innocent inhabitants of a city.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link