"Winning Hearts and Minds" is a Terrible Policy for a Military to Adopt.

Pro repeatedly says that I am not witty at every possible opportunity. To paraphrase, this means she thinks I am witty and it bothers her that I’m superior in that category. This is a glaring example of insecurity. You’r’ obviously quite brilliant so it’s not a big deal that I’m more skilled at something you don’t understand. For instance, I’m not a member of the grammar police and it doesn’t bother me: “Who would go to war with the intention of handing out food to the people of their enemy and building schools and hospitals for those people?” No one but building hospitals and school turns the average community member against subversive elements of a culture. There are also many goals you may have in war. If you anticipate a possible ally you will obviously offer help, when possible (you’r’ welcome), so they will be better off if and when they realize you’r’ not just there to murder people you disagree w/. “Con does lots of work debunking my argument, but never provides a historical example where these tactics have been seen to work.” First, this is an example of a, “Shifting the Burden of Proof: A classic fallacy of logos that challenges an opponent to disprove a claim rather than asking the person making the claim to defend his/her own argument [1:92].” I provide the example of virtually every modern culture that have been at war in the past but are now allies. I specifically reference Japan and Germany as I am more familiar with the United States. Interesting enough, Australia is now on good terms with the UK. Europe has formed a union and single currency despite multiple wars and conflicts in the past. “Are you sure Con, that all Muslim mothers tell their children Santa exists, or Jewish mothers?” No, and this is obviously a strawman, “The Straw Man (also "The Straw Person" ""The Straw Figure"): The fallacy of setting up a phony, weak, extreme or ridiculous parody of an opponent's argument and then proceeding to knock it down or reduce it to absurdity with a rhetorical wave of the hand.” I used santa as an example that is most relevant to citizZzens of the United States. I’m sure both Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hidus have there own childish myths. ‘You know this but you’r’ acting like you don’t know.’ “And although I concede that this is how many friendships are made, if not all, this has nothing to do with Galulan tactics.” This is just an assertion. You have not offered evidence to suggest that this is not a basic, ground level example of Galulan tactics that we all are familiar with from childhood (before we learn that childish myths are not realistic.) Regarding Pro's dialogue example At which point S may reach a tipping point and ‘buy’ some friends and isolate B from the community since it’s now clear that B is a bully of the worst flavor. “the Coalition Forces decided instead to "isolate" the enemies and buy the neutral populace. Problem is, once they left, the neutral populace was no longer being bribed by them and ISIS started to bribe them instead.” Yes, I’ve conceded that ongoing trade or as you say it, ‘bribery,’ must continue in the long term or you will lose your relationship with the elements of a society that are not subversive. In your example, Isis did bribe non-subversives making them more successful at using Galulan Tactics while. Bribing is a corrupt man’s form of ‘trading.’ You’ve described an example where the least effective form of Galulan Tactics, ‘bribery’, worked because the United States failed to form a stronger connection, ‘trade,’ with the majority of the populace. “First, I should like to point out that history is a noun, not a verb. I present this as evidence that Con intellectually feeble.” This is actually evidence of Pro’s ignorance of common memes [2]. Using nouns as verbs is often used to reveal n00bish behavior or identify grammar police. “what could have caused them (Japan and Germany) to become so docile?” Yes, continuous use of force remains an effective low brow form of Galulan Tactics (our debate is now the second hit after wikipedia so I’ll now define it as friendship;) It’s better for all involved if you can move forward to honest forms of friendship, as in trade, to avoid the need to bully countries into being your friend. “Well, there was this little thing called WW2, and after German cities were laid to waste by Allied and Soviet forces and two atomic bombs were used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the peoples of those Nations did not want to be fierce again. “ Yes, force is the last argument of kings. Absolute force and domination is only the last resort which is why the United States now avoids the use of nukes as we saw in Japan. You may be familiar with stockholm syndrome. Captives often eventually develop a close relationship with their forced companions. This is perhaps the worst and most destructive way to create a long term relationship with someone but the even then the end result is cooperation and not brute force. “First, it is 'admission' not 'add mission'.” Again, google tactics used to identify grammar police. “Here Con tries to refute my argument by pointing at how violent war used to be and jumps to the opposite extreme of Galulan Tactics: Nuclear War.” No, extreme force is a very brutish base version of Galulan tactics with the same long range goal of a cooperative relationship. In worst case scenarios, ie war, the goal is to isolate insurgents as seen in the main force available to describe Galulan tactics (this debate and wikipedia). “The US policy in Iraq and Afghanistan was not to take, but to give. Thus they did not repay at all. No Quid Pro Quo there. “ Yes, so this was another extreme example of cooperative Tactics , *cou Galulan gh*, since all we did was give and did not require reciprication. So we have the two extremes used to build relationships, force and mindless charity, while I would advocate something more towards the center normally portrayed as ultra-violet or the supernatural (netflix that shite) combination of current conservative and liberal norms (Cheers.) “Con, do you really think that an occupation, dividing the country, and giving half of it to the Soviet Union, the Army of which had just raped and raided its way to Berlin, is less harsh than the terms of the Treaty at Versailles?” I would characterize anything anyone says as a 1/infinity (not half) truth but I enjoy the maths. Clearly I can’t describe all the ‘truths’ associated with WWD12 in a few sentences. I’ll agree that that the terms were hasher but the goal was now long term cooperation with the culture and isolation of the insurgency rather than isolation of the whole population as in WW1. “I feel somehow obligated to address the arguments made by Con in his first nonsensical post. ‘You cannot pwn a person.’ First, it is spelled 'own'” Your grammar police badge is glimmering so bright it’s blinding… also know your memes pwnd. “These are support jobs, logistical jobs necessary to war. However, Winning Hearts and Minds does nothing for them but lead to continuous deployments to a warzone where they too are placed in harm's way.” You’r’ again exactly wrong. The goal of long term deployment is a cooperative relationship and a blending of cultures. Google Alexander the Great for a thorough lesson on cooperative tactics to end wars in general. “‘Terrible references morality’ I guess. Terrible can also be an adjective describing the quality of something. For example, Con's arguments are terrible. I am not saying Con's arguments are morally repugnant, just that they are worthless.” I can think of half a dozen uses of ‘terrible’ but Pro has evaded the clear implication of one that is relevant here (morality) in favor of one that both agrees with her and reveals both an ad hominem argument (yes, that is an argument. It’s just a bad one:( and a confirmation bias. “The Ad Hominem Argument (also, "Personal attack," "Poisoning the well."): The fallacy of attempting to refute an argument by attacking the opposition’s personal character or reputation, using a corrupted negative argument from ethos. E.g., "He's so evil that you can't believe anything he says [1:3]." “Confirmation Bias: A fallacy of logos, recognizing the fact that one always tends to notice, search out, select and share evidence that confirms one's own standpoint and beliefs, as opposed to contrary evidence.” "'But the infliction of what evill soever, on an Innocent man, that is not a Subject, if it be for the benefit of the benefit of the Common-Wealth, and without violation of any former covenant, is no breach of the Law of Nature.' (Hobbes, Leviathan, 360, Penguin Classics.)" I used my favorite Hobbes quote and I referenced it for your benefit, it's not even an argument in my favor (you’r’ welcome.) In your quote Hobbes is talking about the exile of a non-conforming subversive element so your quote actually supports the Con position in this debate. Con still dropped a round one statement (argument.) One policy is a mistake but one of many is mammon. No need to adopt a single policy and within your resolution there is room for many. If I had an infinite number of policies to adopt obviously, ‘winning hurts and minds’ would be one of them. While Pro is required to provide proof for her position Con is not. I successfully provided a strong reasonable doubt to refute her arguments. I have even been able to provide strong evidence that the opposite of Pro’s argument is closer to the ‘truth’ than the wikipedia source material. -T-7 I’ll emphasize that Pro does have excellent grammar but that my unique style of writing (grammar) more accurately communicates multiple ideas which is a goal of language in the first place. As for conduct, we are both obviously ice cold but I think it’s clear I pushed ahead in this category. I’ll link bengay for those burns. Seriously, great debate, and thanks to Pro for being a worthy opponent.