2aHawaii
General Topics => Political Discussion => Topic started by: passivekinetic on March 10, 2016, 01:44:01 PM
-
https://youtu.be/KaLIlsM8glA
I don't really agree on adding waterboarding and other such stuff, but Trump does make a good point about combating ISIS.
-
https://youtu.be/KaLIlsM8glA
I don't really agree on adding waterboarding and other such stuff, but Trump does make a good point about combating ISIS.
I love waterboarding.
Its when we baptise terrorists with freedom.
-
I think he real question about the waterboarding is not so much as to weather it is ethical as the question is whether it is effective.
I have heard many reports that waterboarding, and torture in general, does not produce reliable intelligence. Now if that is the case then water boarding should be banned as it serves no real benefit.
If you are going to argue for water boarding, you first need to make the case that it works, otherwise the whole ethical question dumb.
-
I think he real question about the waterboarding is not so much as to weather it is ethical as the question is whether it is effective.
I have heard many reports that waterboarding, and torture in general, does not produce reliable intelligence. Now if that is the case then water boarding should be banned as it serves no real benefit.
If you are going to argue for water boarding, you first need to make the case that it works, otherwise the whole ethical question dumb.
I think they should ban beheadings, burning people alive and flying jets into buildings.
-
Wars are not won by being politically correct.
They are won by ruthlessly exterminating the enemy.
-
Wars are not won by being politically correct.
They are won by ruthlessly exterminating the enemy.
Exactly.
The problem with our country is that we haven't declared total war since WWII, with a little bit taking place in Vietnam before the libs ruined everything.
No prisoners,
No Mercy.
One of the most influential things I saw in the military was that to this day, people in Afghanistan still fear Ghengis Khan. Why? Because he is the only conqueror to ever defeat the people of Afghanistan, a task that Alexander the Great, the Persian Empire, The Roman Empire, The British Empire, Soviets and Americans all failed to do.
How did he do this? When they refused to submit, he slaughtered millions of them. MILLIONS.
In fact, there are civilizations that many people don't know about because Ghengis Khan wiped them out. All that remains are bits and pieces of history that survived in other cultures.
I always believed in Reagan's philosophy of "Peace through Strength". The problem is that no one respects Americas strength anymore.
Maybe its time they get a refresher course.
-
Exactly.
The problem with our country is that we haven't declared total war since WWII, with a little bit taking place in Vietnam before the libs ruined everything.
No prisoners,
No Mercy.
One of the most influential things I saw in the military was that to this day, people in Afghanistan still fear Ghengis Khan. Why? Because he is the only conqueror to ever defeat the people of Afghanistan, a task that Alexander the Great, the Persian Empire, The Roman Empire, The British Empire, Soviets and Americans all failed to do.
How did he do this? When they refused to submit, he slaughtered millions of them. MILLIONS.
In fact, there are civilizations that many people don't know about because Ghengis Khan wiped them out. All that remains are bits and pieces of history that survived in other cultures.
I always believed in Reagan's philosophy of "Peace through Strength". The problem is that no one respects Americas strength anymore.
Maybe its time they get a refresher course.
I think that is a very dangerous idea and it goes against the fundamental foundation of our country.
Do you know what no prisoners, no mercy gets us? It gets us more hardened enemies, it gets more enemy sympathizers and combatants, it gets us less support, and it takes away our moral high ground. If you want to slaughter everyone in our enemies zone then we are left morally bankrupt
If you truly believed this mentality then you would do away with the 4th amendment. No mercy for criminals or their family, cops search what they want when they want. Cops find one burglary suspect who won't give the name of the other burglary suspect? Beat the crap out of them right? That is your logic.
Now don't get me wrong, saying please to our enemies shouldn't be our new battle tactic but the mentality you propose leads to a very dangerous slippery slope. It could also end up creating more enemies than it destroys.
If we are going to use a form of torture we need to be able to show it actually works otherwise we have no justification for doing it. Reports show that it has failed to yield good intelligence so what point is there in continuing to do it? If waterboarding doesn't work the it is purely torture with no justification. If we have a form of enhanced interrogation that is ethically gray, first we must prove it works then we can talk about ethical question.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/09/waterboarding-ksm/20151103/
-
What we did to Japan after they bombed Pearl Harbor
(http://media4.s-nbcnews.com/j/newscms/2015_32/1153821/150803-hiroshima-aftermath-12p_7b60cbe2619912a12592539c8b2895c8.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpg)
What happened after that...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Shigemitsu-signs-surrender.jpg/300px-Shigemitsu-signs-surrender.jpg)
-
What we did to Japan after they bombed Pearl Harbor
What happened after that...
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e5/Shigemitsu-signs-surrender.jpg/300px-Shigemitsu-signs-surrender.jpg)
Are you willing to throw out the constitution as well in the name of means justify the ends?
-
Are you willing to throw out the constitution as well in the name of means justify the ends?
We still had the Constitution when the Japanese surrendered.
-
We still had the Constitution when the Japanese surrendered.
We also had it when we locked up thousands of Japanese Americans without good cause. Didn't stop us.
If fighting a war means no mercy then that means the same against any enemies at home right? Whether real or suspected?
-
We also had it when we locked up thousands of Japanese Americans without good cause. Didn't stop us.
If fighting a war means no mercy then that means the same against any enemies at home right? Whether real or suspected?
Different procedures. The Japanese didn't declare a war before they bombed Pearl Harbor. If you are referring to the Muslim population in America, what were the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, who is ISIS made of, and the majority of Philippine insurgents based upon? Is there a large scale Muslim led movement to fight ISIS? Are good, peaceful Muslims saying , "hey Daesh/ISIS we're going to kick your asses because you guys are making the rest of us Muslims look bad."
The Constitution is a good framework to rely on - I never said to get rid of it.
Nothing is absolute in war. War is when we stop communicating. It is chaotic. It is the end of negotiating/talks. It is when we revert to our primal instinct of eliminating our threat. Threat to our existence. Threat to our security. Threat to our lands.
Waterboarding does not produce intelligence. If you don't know what I mean by that, you need to go back to school.
-
While you are second guessing about what actions are just from the perspective of a Westerner, our enemies are doing this
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4030583977001/warning-extremely-graphic-video-isis-burns-hostage-alive/?#sp=show-clips (http://video.foxnews.com/v/4030583977001/warning-extremely-graphic-video-isis-burns-hostage-alive/?#sp=show-clips)
(http://16004-presscdn-0-50.pagely.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/pilot-cage-ISIS.jpg)
How can you come to terms with people like that? Shall we incarcerate them? Oh we already did that at Guantanemo, and when we let them out; they went back to doing what they want to do.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/12/ex-guantanamo-detainee-now-an-al-qaeda-leader-in-yemen.php (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2015/12/ex-guantanamo-detainee-now-an-al-qaeda-leader-in-yemen.php)
After the attacks on 9/11/2001 we struck in Afghanistan. What did that do? Encourage foreign fighters. After we nuked Japan twice did anyone else jump in the fray?
If you walk tall, carry a big stick and not use it; you mind as well carry a cardboard cut out of the stick.
-
Different procedures. The Japanese didn't declare a war before they bombed Pearl Harbor. If you are referring to the Muslim population in America, what were the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11, who is ISIS made of, and the majority of Philippine insurgents based upon? Is there a large scale Muslim led movement to fight ISIS? Are good, peaceful Muslims saying , "hey Daesh/ISIS we're going to kick your asses because you guys are making the rest of us Muslims look bad."
The Constitution is a good framework to rely on - I never said to get rid of it.
Nothing is absolute in war. War is when we stop communicating. It is chaotic. It is the end of negotiating/talks. It is when we revert to our primal instinct of eliminating our threat. Threat to our existence. Threat to our security. Threat to our lands.
Waterboarding does not produce intelligence. If you don't know what I mean by that, you need to go back to school.
And where do you draw the line? If soldiers can use any means necessary, why can't the police? Look how bad Chicago is with the gang killings, can cops start using drones to blowing up houses full of gang members?
If using the big stick is what we really need then shall we get rid of all rules of combat? How about we rape the family members of terrorist to really show them who is boss. Women, children, etc. Castrate all of the men and boys so they cannot reproduce as well.
If waterboarding does not produce/yield/bring forth actionable intelligence then we have no business doing it.
If we capture them then yes we put them in a prison of some sort. Give them a trial then execution if their actions warrant it.
-
Actually we won WW2 without resorting to torture. Or am I wrong in thinking that?
You can be powerful, but not a barbarian.
I am very concerned this torture thing can and will be used against political dissent back in America. Pandora's Box once opened.
We want a strong libertarian nation, not a strong totalitarian nation.
-
I think that is a very dangerous idea and it goes against the fundamental foundation of our country.
Do you know what no prisoners, no mercy gets us? It gets us more hardened enemies, it gets more enemy sympathizers and combatants, it gets us less support, and it takes away our moral high ground. If you want to slaughter everyone in our enemies zone then we are left morally bankrupt
If you truly believed this mentality then you would do away with the 4th amendment. No mercy for criminals or their family, cops search what they want when they want. Cops find one burglary suspect who won't give the name of the other burglary suspect? Beat the crap out of them right? That is your logic.
Now don't get me wrong, saying please to our enemies shouldn't be our new battle tactic but the mentality you propose leads to a very dangerous slippery slope. It could also end up creating more enemies than it destroys.
If we are going to use a form of torture we need to be able to show it actually works otherwise we have no justification for doing it. Reports show that it has failed to yield good intelligence so what point is there in continuing to do it? If waterboarding doesn't work the it is purely torture with no justification. If we have a form of enhanced interrogation that is ethically gray, first we must prove it works then we can talk about ethical question.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/12/09/waterboarding-ksm/20151103/
That's funny....I don't see Germany or Japan doing what middle easterners are doing to us, and we literally destroyed their entire countries.
And yes, we should have the option for total war. Either submit or we destroy everything in our path, period. Not sure if you had the intestinal fortitude to actually go into combat during the war on terror, because if you did you would understand why our modern approach to war does nothing but put service members in harms way, and bolsters the enemies resolve because they know we won't retaliate withe extreme prejudice.
And I don't see why you are applying 4th amendment rights to foreigners. Citizens of other countries are not entitled to US constitutional rights, so your point makes no sense. You are attempting to justify your point by going off on a random tangent that has nothing to do with what Trump is talking about, which tends to be what people who will vote for Hillary tend to do.
-
Actually we won WW2 without resorting to torture. Or am I wrong in thinking that?
You can be powerful, but not a barbarian.
I am very concerned this torture thing can and will be used against political dissent back in America. Pandora's Box once opened.
We want a strong libertarian nation, not a strong totalitarian nation.
We won WWII through aggressive action and total war, not through pansy ass diplomacy.
Diplomacy only works if the other side is willing to negotiate. Without that, the process is pointless.
As Ren pointed out, Japan refused to negotiate or surrender until we shove (2) nukes up their ass, and now they are one of our best allies because after we destroyed them, we helped them rebuild. This approach of slash, burn, rebuild isn't some crazy idea. Kamehameha did the same thing when he conquered the islands, destroying Maui and O'ahu before coming back and helping them rebuild under his rule. Same approach worked during WWII, same approach could have worked in every conflict since WWII. The problem is that we have these bleeding heart idiots that have never served and would never serve dictating how we should conduct military operations, which in turn does nothing but make it harder for our military and easier for the enemy.
War should be a last resort, but if you are going to war, allow us to conduct war. Diplomacy is for politicians, war is for the military.
And a Libertarian government is the government we want, but don't deserve. Until we can purge the liberal filth that is polluting our society and destroying the morals and principles that helped make America great, maybe a totalitarian government is the government we deserve. Maybe we need to go to that extreme for people to start caring and to take a stand. But I won't hold my breath though.
-
We won WWII through aggressive action and total war, not through pansy ass diplomacy.
Absolutely correct. In fact Neville Chamberlain's diplomatic appeasement is what led to WWII. Had Hitler been stopped then it would have been a footnote in history of a regional conflict.
Appeasement merely emboldens the aggressor.
-
That's funny....I don't see Germany or Japan doing what middle easterners are doing to us, and we literally destroyed their entire countries.
And yes, we should have the option for total war. Either submit or we destroy everything in our path, period. Not sure if you had the intestinal fortitude to actually go into combat during the war on terror, because if you did you would understand why our modern approach to war does nothing but put service members in harms way, and bolsters the enemies resolve because they know we won't retaliate withe extreme prejudice.
And I don't see why you are applying 4th amendment rights to foreigners. Citizens of other countries are not entitled to US constitutional rights, so your point makes no sense. You are attempting to justify your point by going off on a random tangent that has nothing to do with what Trump is talking about, which tends to be what people who will vote for Hillary tend to do.
Japan and Germany were a different type of enemy. They were an enemy based on a country, not an ideology. They were an enemy with uniforms and clearer battle lines. In WW2, we didn't have smart bombs, stealth technology, or satellites. This is a different war in a different time with a different type of enemy.
The argument of "well we did it in the past and it worked fine" is about as thoughtless as can be. We also did slavery in the past, perhaps we should apply your logic to that too?
You are operating on assumptions, specifically the assumption that a ruthless war will scare people out of fighting. How do you know it won't just make them fight harder? How do you know if won't just make them have more recruits? I think your premise is flawed, especially when dealing with an enemy of this type.
The bill of rights recognizes what are supposed to be innate human rights, they could be said to exist even if there was no amendment guaranteeing it. Having said that, this means we, as the leader of the free world, needs to abide by the ideals which make us great. Either we are moral and strong, or the whole greatest nation is a facade. The supreme court did rule that the prisoners in Guantanamo do have the right to due process. Again, this is because we are, or at least try to be, a just nation, and try to prevent the innocent from being killed.
Or do you operate under the belief that the right to free speech exists only because it is written on paper?
Do you believe the phrase that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail? (in general)
-
Absolutely correct. In fact Neville Chamberlain's diplomatic appeasement is what led to WWII. Had Hitler been stopped then it would have been a footnote in history of a regional conflict.
Appeasement merely emboldens the aggressor.
Refraining from carpet bombing civilians ≠ appeasement.
Refraining from torture that does not produce actionable intelligence ≠ appeasement.
-
Japan and Germany were a different type of enemy. They were an enemy based on a country, not an ideology. They were an enemy with uniforms and clearer battle lines. In WW2, we didn't have smart bombs, stealth technology, or satellites. This is a different war in a different time with a different type of enemy.
The argument of "well we did it in the past and it worked fine" is about as thoughtless as can be. We also did slavery in the past, perhaps we should apply your logic to that too?
You are operating on assumptions, specifically the assumption that a ruthless war will scare people out of fighting. How do you know it won't just make them fight harder? How do you know if won't just make them have more recruits? I think your premise is flawed, especially when dealing with an enemy of this type.
The bill of rights recognizes what are supposed to be innate human rights, they could be said to exist even if there was no amendment guaranteeing it. Having said that, this means we, as the leader of the free world, needs to abide by the ideals which make us great. Either we are moral and strong, or the whole greatest nation is a facade. The supreme court did rule that the prisoners in Guantanamo do have the right to due process. Again, this is because we are, or at least try to be, a just nation, and try to prevent the innocent from being killed.
Or do you operate under the belief that the right to free speech exists only because it is written on paper?
Do you believe the phrase that it is better that 10 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man go to jail? (in general)
So how what's your plan in combating terrorism and extremists that have attacked us?
The United States is eagerly waiting for your answer. I'm sure Israel and Saudi Arabia would love to hear your plan.
Combating this current issue is complex and what ever policy our country has adopted since the greatest attack since Pearl Harbor have obviously failed.
It seems you are proposing paths to diplomacy with non-state actors. How about a peace treaty between ISIS and the USA? Our country already accepts their religion as well as others. What can we do to stop them (ISIS & the like) from attacking us?
-
Shouldn't congress declare war?
-
Interesting thread.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but I'm 99% sure all terrorists are Muslim.
Rules of engagement and all those libtard progressive bullshit the service members have to go through is supposed to work? When fighting an enemy who has no problem using women and children as shields, burning/beheading innocent lives who aren't even part of the "enemy," you're fighting..... Yea.....play fair. That'll learn em.
I'll be the first to say that "farewell to manzanar," was an atrocious part of American history. One in which reparations, while made, were not nearly enough and waaaaaaay late to arrive. All of this against a people who volunteered for the toughest fights to prove that they were AMERICAN. The 100th battalion, the 442 regiment. They gave without being asked. They don't bitch about being owed something and continually play the victim racist card, nor are they the type to attack innocent civilians to make headlines.
Why is that?
I don't hear enough backlash from the members of the religion of peace speaking against these atrocities, do you?
As far as I'm concerned, this dude in the link below tells it like it is.
http://www.patcondell.net/
-
So how what's your plan in combating terrorism and extremists that have attacked us?
The United States is eagerly waiting for your answer. I'm sure Israel and Saudi Arabia would love to hear your plan.
Combating this current issue is complex and what ever policy our country has adopted since the greatest attack since Pearl Harbor have obviously failed.
It seems you are proposing paths to diplomacy with non-state actors. How about a peace treaty between ISIS and the USA? Our country already accepts their religion as well as others. What can we do to stop them (ISIS & the like) from attacking us?
I'm just waiting for the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian bullshit to start flowing in the response....
-
I
I don't hear enough backlash from the members of the religion of peace speaking against these atrocities, do you?
Could it be because people don't televise it? I have seen it a few times, but I don't frequently watch TV much anymore. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.
Let me ask you this, do you know many muslims? Have you asked them if they support ISIS or other terrorist activities?
How much backlash is enough? I hear the statement often and must say I understand the logic but I never hear what quantifiable level they actually expect.
To compare it to a domestic terrorist, I rarely hear evangelicals speaking out against abortion clinic bombers.
But really, it is a difficult issue. There may be fear to speak out, there may be a feeling that their voice will mean nothing, etc etc. Now it would be great if huge numbers of muslims in this country spoke out against islamic terrorists, but is it their responsibility? Would it really have an impact?
-
So how what's your plan in combating terrorism and extremists that have attacked us?
The United States is eagerly waiting for your answer. I'm sure Israel and Saudi Arabia would love to hear your plan.
Combating this current issue is complex and what ever policy our country has adopted since the greatest attack since Pearl Harbor have obviously failed.
It seems you are proposing paths to diplomacy with non-state actors. How about a peace treaty between ISIS and the USA? Our country already accepts their religion as well as others. What can we do to stop them (ISIS & the like) from attacking us?
So do you support waterboarding even though it has been shown to fail at producing actionable intelligence? If you do, then why? There is no point, no benefit. If an enhanced interrogation method proves successful then we have some ground to stand on in justifying a grey area.
You avoided many of my specific questions. If winning is the top priority would you condone rape and murder as part of your combat strategy?
I don't pretend to have some magic combat plan, but I know certain aspects I do not think should be allowed. Mistakes have been made, this is common in war. Some of them are avoidable, some of them aren't.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't agree with all the rules of combat they have come up with. The rule of FMJ bullets only (I've been told) is a dumb one I think. Like police, you shoot to stop the threat and that means choosing the best bullet possible. But that is getting to another topic.
-
I'm just waiting for the anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian bullshit to start flowing in the response....
Why? Stereotype much?
I very much support Israel. In the face of an immoral enemy, the Israelis have combatted them repeatedly with military and moral strength. Might want to look at Israel's actual strategy before using them to support your idea of anything goes combat.
-
So do you support waterboarding even though it has been shown to fail at producing actionable intelligence? If you do, then why? There is no point, no benefit. If an enhanced interrogation method proves successful then we have some ground to stand on in justifying a grey area.
You avoided many of my specific questions. If winning is the top priority would you condone rape and murder as part of your combat strategy?
I don't pretend to have some magic combat plan, but I know certain aspects I do not think should be allowed. Mistakes have been made, this is common in war. Some of them are avoidable, some of them aren't.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't agree with all the rules of combat they have come up with. The rule of FMJ bullets only (I've been told) is a dumb one I think. Like police, you shoot to stop the threat and that means choosing the best bullet possible. But that is getting to another topic.
Rape and murder was never a part of any combat strategy. It is punishable by UCMJ. Last time I went to Army basic in 1997 there was no mention of raping and murder as any way to defeat the enemy. I also checked FM 7-8. Nada. Are you prior service? from what country?
So what is this about FMJ bullets used in combat being "dumb"? Ever been shot with one?
Like I said in previous talks about calibers, etc. If I get shot, I wouldn't ask what shot me. I scream for a medic.
You ever sat in an interrogation before? Not tactical questioning.
So again, how would you fight this modern day enemy? Suggestions? What would you do differently? Instead of waterboarding what would you do to extract information?
I cited historical examples that worked. None of them involved raping.
-
Could it be because people don't televise it? I have seen it a few times, but I don't frequently watch TV much anymore. Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist though.
Let me ask you this, do you know many muslims? Have you asked them if they support ISIS or other terrorist activities?
How much backlash is enough? I hear the statement often and must say I understand the logic but I never hear what quantifiable level they actually expect.
To compare it to a domestic terrorist, I rarely hear evangelicals speaking out against abortion clinic bombers.
But really, it is a difficult issue. There may be fear to speak out, there may be a feeling that their voice will mean nothing, etc etc. Now it would be great if huge numbers of muslims in this country spoke out against islamic terrorists, but is it their responsibility? Would it really have an impact?
Not an excuse. Where's all the Muslims going over seas to take it to these ISIS
members? They should be shouting against this from every corner. Stereotypes develop quickly.
Since everyone is asking you what you would recommend the US government do, and you haven't answered, perhaps I would suggest something no less than gun plumber Old Testament style retribution. Over the top? Sure you betcha. But the gloves need to come off already.
-
Interesting watching so many people who swear up and down by the words of the Constitution actively advocate our descent into a totalitarian hell hole. If we are supposed to be this high and mighty society, the standard by which the rest of the world is judged, then what's the point of invading these places if we are forced to stoop to their level and become just like them?
The problem is the modern military isn't tasked with winning wars, but prolonging conflict. They want service members to go in and break just enough stuff and kill just enough people, with the goal of sticking around for a very long time. Why, you ask? Money!
The military industrial complex doesn't care about winning. It just wants lots of conflicts that drain our tax dollars on ultra-expensive fireworks shows that put us into debt which will never, ever be paid off. It's a suicide machine that has no internal limiting mechanism when it comes to profit. Just like every other empire we are doomed by over-expansion and internal decay.
When people talk about full-spectrum global dominance as our national heritage, then you know it's a lie. The alleged goal of one-world government is to bring peace, and peace is bad for business.
-
Interesting watching so many people who swear up and down by the words of the Constitution actively advocate our descent into a totalitarian hell hole. If we are supposed to be this high and mighty society, the standard by which the rest of the world is judged, then what's the point of invading these places if we are forced to stoop to their level and become just like them?
The problem is the modern military isn't tasked with winning wars, but prolonging conflict. They want service members to go in and break just enough stuff and kill just enough people, with the goal of sticking around for a very long time. Why, you ask? Money!
The military industrial complex doesn't care about winning. It just wants lots of conflicts that drain our tax dollars on ultra-expensive fireworks shows that put us into debt which will never, ever be paid off. It's a suicide machine that has no internal limiting mechanism when it comes to profit. Just like every other empire we are doomed by over-expansion and internal decay.
When people talk about full-spectrum global dominance as our national heritage, then you know it's a lie. The alleged goal of one-world government is to bring peace, and peace is bad for business.
It's tough to comment on these topics knowing what is going on. Assuming we actually took border security and immigration seriously, I'd just say forget it. Let's just focus on our country and stop playing world police.
Given what's going on here, what's already playing out in he UK, and in Europe, I can't say I disagree with the idea of finishing off ISIS once and for all. I know, that's not the plan, money is, I get it.
I should follow more positive threads like the whats cooking ones. ;D
-
hvybarrels echoes my thoughts on this.
I am not for a weak America, but imagine this.
You are walking down the street, and some asshole just ups and sucker punches you. As he is about to do it again, you react.
Do you rape him? Mutilate him? Threaten to rape his family?
No, you can kick his ass so badly he is in the hospital. Maybe even rip a leg off.
And let the other guys on the street see you do it.
I think that is sufficient without going to the level of the barbarians.
You want the other guys to respect your strength BUT ALSO RESPECT YOUR BEHAVIOR.
In fact, if you are big and strong enough, nobody would even think to sucker punch you in the first place.
Imagine the USA going around acting LIKE IMPERIAL JAPAN AND THE NAZIS (doing human experiments, mass murdering women and children, impaling pregnant women on swords, etc)... this will seriously undermine our leadership in the free world. All those things are super scary, yes, and they will scare our enemies stupid, but is that what America is about?
If that is what America is about, what the F were we doing fighting the Nazis then? I thought we wanted to remove that kind of society from this world.
The whole world already says America is a warmongering Nazi nation, now trying to elect Hitler to power. No need to prove them correct.
Also as I said, this torture stuff, easily can be used on citizens. Whoever does not hand in their guns, gets tortured. Imagine that.