Drones

@Gargantua:

@Jermofoot:

Stupidity is a weapon…

That’s called democracy.

Its good that we (the US) are in a constitutional republic then.

@BJCard:

@Gargantua:

@Jermofoot:

Stupidity is a weapon…

That’s called democracy.

Its good that we (the US) are in a constitutional republic then.

then why are you trying to spread democracy, when you don’t even like it yourselves??

Well, I never said I was trying to spread democracy.  I can’t help it that politicians use the word ‘democracy’ for any form of government that has some sort of meaningful voting.

Hard to say if Democracy would be a good thing.  Even less would get done around here if all 300 million+ Americans had to vote on everything.

Here’s a recent BBC article I’ve just noticed on the subject of drones and modern war:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18896236

Interesting story, thanks.  Weird that artillery strikes are treated kinder by the public than drone strikes, despite the higher death toll.

Is it better to fire RPGs indiscriminately into Israel or use a drone strike to target a specific individual?

@BJCard:

Is it better to fire RPGs indiscriminately into Israel or use a drone strike to target a specific individual?

No, but I can’t prevent that from happening by voting or protesting, I can prevent the other.

There is also a vital difference here, if the west are to intervene in other countries matters, we have to do it for moral reasons. It is impossible to support operations in afghanistan if their goal is not the make it better for the people. In that case, we have to aspire to a near perfect moral standard. Assasinations are NOT a part of a high moral standard.

The people fireing PRGs into israel view themselves as freedom fighters. They are doing horrible things, but they are doing it closer to home. Therefore they have to aspire to the same moral standards forex the americans had to aspire to in the civil war, or the war of 1812 or the war of independence.

@Kreuzfeld:

@BJCard:

Is it better to fire RPGs indiscriminately into Israel or use a drone strike to target a specific individual?

No, but I can’t prevent that from happening by voting or protesting, I can prevent the other.

There is also a vital difference here, if the west are to intervene in other countries matters, we have to do it for moral reasons. It is impossible to support operations in afghanistan if their goal is not the make it better for the people. In that case, we have to aspire to a near perfect moral standard. Assasinations are NOT a part of a high moral standard.

The people fireing PRGs into israel view themselves as freedom fighters. They are doing horrible things, but they are doing it closer to home. Therefore they have to aspire to the same moral standards forex the americans had to aspire to in the civil war, or the war of 1812 or the war of independence.

Assassinations are part of the game in America.

I bet that nearly every American president has ordered an assassination.  Certainly a fact over the last 50 years.

Perhaps this “higher moral standard” you think we’re being held to, isn’t so “high”.

Also - I’d be careful with this “we go there for moral reasons” thing.

Killing people in general isn’t usually considered a moral solution - and there are plenty of “moral” causes that don’t get addressed.

Also a reminder - America entered WWII because they were attacked, not because their “morals” were offended.

It’s safer to say that “keeping the balance of power” is the root interest, and “moral cause” is the veil.

Well, I don’t entirely disagree with you guys, but:

Is 9/11 not like Pearl Harbor?  Was it not a surprise attack that spurred us into war?

I believe the stated purpose of going into Afghanistan was to stop the terrorist training camps, which the 9/11 attackers reportedly went to.  Not sure what moral reasons you are talking about.  I suppose it is morally right to try and leave the place in best of shape as possible.  The place is already a better place in some respects (women’s rights come to mind.  Now they can go to school).

Typically, assassinations are for political reasons.  I guess I don’t see how every time we kill a terrorist it is an ‘assassination.’  Are we not supposed to kill terrorists?  Maybe they will play nice and not attack us, right?

I am curious how you think drone strikes are conducted.  Admittedly, I don’t know for sure, but in my ten year military experience, we only rely on facts.  It seems to me that known terrorists make a ‘watch list’ and when one of their locations is found a drone strike is conducted.  They aren’t going out everyday and killing every brown person they see.

@BJCard:

Well, I don’t entirely disagree with you guys, but:

Is 9/11 not like Pearl Harbor?  Was it not a surprise attack that spurred us into war?Â

I believe the stated purpose of going into Afghanistan was to stop the terrorist training camps, which the 9/11 attackers reportedly went to.  Not sure what moral reasons you are talking about.  I suppose it is morally right to try and leave the place in best of shape as possible.  The place is already a better place in some respects (women’s rights come to mind.  Now they can go to school).

Have you been latley in Afghanistan to claim such a statement??

If you can simply answer the question with YES or NO, then your answer is honored and appreciated.
If you are going on with any kind of argumentation then save it,it is obvious what you really know.

NO, I have not been to Afghanistan.  I only know what’s been reported in the news.  Have you guys been there?

@BJCard:

I am curious how you think drone strikes are conducted.  Admittedly, I don’t know for sure, but in my ten year military experience, we only rely on facts.  It seems to me that known terrorists make a ‘watch list’ and when one of their locations is found a drone strike is conducted.  They aren’t going out everyday and killing every brown person they see.

Well it’s like this…

People are being condemned to death without a trial, based more on actions they ‘may’ to do, as opposed to actions they have actually done.

And the bigger problem is that other innocent people die alongside the individuals during the strikes.  (Little Kids for example.)

Ask yourself these things….

Is pre-thinking a crime a crime? And is the sentence death?

Are we allowed to throw some innocent lives away if it means more innocent lives will be spared?

What is a human life worth?  Are they all equal?

And still on the subject of drones:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22678580

Well it’s like this…

People are being condemned to death without a trial, based more on actions they ‘may’ to do, as opposed to actions they have actually done.

And the bigger problem is that other innocent people die alongside the individuals during the strikes.  (Little Kids for example.)

Ask yourself these things….

Is pre-thinking a crime a crime? And is the sentence death?

Are we allowed to throw some innocent lives away if it means more innocent lives will be spared?

What is a human life worth?  Are they all equal?

If what you are saying is true, then of course it is horrible and wrong.  I was of the mindset that it is still a warzone.  You don’t arrest enemies shooting at you or planning to shoot at you, do you?

Taken another way, when does planning become a crime?  For instance, when would you arrest the 9/11 bombers?  When they planned the attack in Saudi Arabia (or wherever they did)?  After they took flying lessons?  Once they boarded the plane with boxcutters?  When they killed their first person?  Or after they slammed into their targets?

Human lives should be equal, yes.  It is difficult to value the lives of people who want to commit mass murder such as 9/11 or your typical suicide bomber.

Are we at war with Pakistan? or Iran?  Or even Syria?

Oh wait - you’re right - we’re not…  but we’re blowing people up there… hmm.

Anyways- BJ, you are asking the right question - which is when does it become a crime?

I think this discussion boils down to whether or not we consider these areas warzones or occupation zones.

oh, and by the way, the american police force actually have been very effective in somping terrorism by arrests, rather than killing.

I am thinking about white supremacy terrorism against blacks in the south after the civil war, until perhaps the 70s. The people committing the crimes probably had less respect for their victims than modern islamic terrorists have. It worked then, it does probably work now.

@Gargantua:

Are we at war with Pakistan? or Iran?  Or even Syria?

Oh wait - you’re right - we’re not…  but we’re blowing people up there… hmm.

Anyways- BJ, you are asking the right question - which is when does it become a crime?

I think it can be safe to say we are at war with Al Qaeda (sp?) and other extremist terrorist groups.  Now, it is probably difficult to determine just who is in what group.  Anyone willing to strap a bomb to their chest and commit mass murder scares the bejesus out of us.  You cannot wait for the act to be done before the arrest.

@Kreuzfeld:

I think this discussion boils down to whether or not we consider these areas warzones or occupation zones.

oh, and by the way, the american police force actually have been very effective in somping terrorism by arrests, rather than killing.

I am thinking about white supremacy terrorism against blacks in the south after the civil war, until perhaps the 70s. The people committing the crimes probably had less respect for their victims than modern islamic terrorists have. It worked then, it does probably work now.

(Sarcasm)

Whoah whoah whoah Kruezfeld.

Those are called freedom fighters. ;)

(/sarcasm)

@Gargantua:

@Kreuzfeld:

I think this discussion boils down to whether or not we consider these areas warzones or occupation zones.

oh, and by the way, the american police force actually have been very effective in somping terrorism by arrests, rather than killing.

I am thinking about white supremacy terrorism against blacks in the south after the civil war, until perhaps the 70s. The people committing the crimes probably had less respect for their victims than modern islamic terrorists have. It worked then, it does probably work now.

(Sarcasm)

Whoah whoah whoah Kruezfeld.

Those are called freedom fighters. ;)

(/sarcasm)

lol…