If someone is a pacifist, that's great, although not realistic in the world we live in. If one recognizes the sad necessity for violence in today's world, one should also recognize that the percentage of innocent deaths under the drone program is far below that of any other means we have used to combat those who would destroy us. If you believe that a complete cessation of all military activity by the United States against terrorist organizations would have a positive effect, please explain your position. If you think you have a better way of combating them, please explain that as well.
do you disagree with the position that the kind of war we're fighting now has at least equal chances to create radical terrorists who hate the united states as kill them? Why fight a zero sum game?
Do you think we should unilaterally and immediately withdraw from the entire Muslim world? Do you think we should refrain from killing terrorists plotting against this country if there is any chance at all that someone innocent will die? Do you think we should have left Bin Laden comfy in his compound because there were "innocent" women in there? Do you think killing is ever justified? Do you think military action at the risk of killing innocents is ever justified? As I asked Trog, should we have refrained from attacking Nazi Germany for fear that innocents might die?
First of all, I didn't suggest any of those things. Secondly, Osama Bin Laden wasn't killed in a drone strike that also killed several unrelated innocents. In fact, I'd suggest that that operation would be BETTER for US public relations in the Middle East. The difference is that when you use special forces, you run the risk of losing american soldiers, whereas drones put no american blood on the line.
Which is precisely the problem. Death from the skies, with no skin in the game makes us look like TOTAL assholes.
I am a pacifist, but I don't expect the president to be. But this also isn't WWII.
You didn't suggest them, I asked, to clarify what you believe. If you are truly a pacifist, I would assume you answer yes to all of my questions except whether killing or military action is ever justified. If that is true, then I suppose you have the moral high ground, in a world of moral absolutes.
BTW, there were reportedly women and children throughout the Bin Laden compound, he was killed unarmed, and one of the women was killed as well.
If you are of the mind that putting blood on the line makes things better, maybe we should dispense with all superior firepower.
I don't know that Bin Laden's state of weaponry at the time of his death really matters. And while it's bad that one woman was killed, a drone strike probably would have killed all of them.
I think that the drone ware is terrible fort he US' reputation. I think we shouldn't do it. I think the net result is to create new terrorists.
We'll see, I guess. I would agree that the child or husband of someone killed in a drone attack would be a likely willing servant of the behind-the-scenes people who orchestrate suicide bombings and the like. I'm not sure that taking out these ideological, educated, often wealthy leaders of the movement is likely to encourage more like them to take up the cause.
It's not taking out the leaders per se. It's that when you take out the leaders with a drone strike, you almost always end up killing some non-inconsequential number of innocents, who all have brothers or sisters or children or parents or cousins or whatever. THAT's what pisses them off.
But that's the thing. Drone strikes don't just take out "ideological, educated, often wealthy leaders".
Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html)
We firebombed Dresden and carpet bombed Berlin and other German cities. I won't even bring up Japan. Damned right the risk/benefit ratio was different. We were guaranteed to kill tens of thousands of civilians in the hope of defeating a few men, most of whom survived.
i swear to God, it will never cease to amaze me how many ways people will try to rationalize killing children. It is like there are two types of people: those who know that child murder is unequivocally wrong and unconscionable and those who think that it can be excused with nuanced appeals to alleged pragmatism.
We will simply have to agree to disagree on the issue of child murder.
Your questions are loaded with assumptions. There wouldn't have even been a Nazi Germany if not for the previous war and resulting ridiculous "peace." But why should those of us with the moral high ground have to justify our positions? How about you answer this question: How many innocent babies' deaths are acceptable toward whatever foreign policy ends you have in mind? 1000? 10,000? All of them?
I don't know. I do know that I would answer my question to you with a no, and I do believe that taking out the terrorist leadership is important enough to risk innocent lives. That doesn't mean I like it. It's like the question of, say, do you drive the school bus off the cliff to avoid running over a baby in the street. I say no. You run over the baby to save the busload of kids. Or you kill twenty people to keep a guy from blowing up a dirty nuke in NYC. Moral relativism. It sucks. I think the drone strikes are worth it, to a point. I don't know what that point is because I am not privy to the intelligence. I do trust this president with that power and responsibility more than I do any recent predecessors, and certainly more than Romney. Drones aren't going away. They are cheap and easy, and pretty soon everyone will have them. That is going to suck.
just admit you are incapable of answering my question. for the history of the islamists and their love affair with the american neocons, watch The Power Of Nightmares - The Rise Of The Politics Of Fear, from the BBC. I don't dispute the origins of the problem, just the solutions, of which you have presented none.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2012-10-25 08:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-25 09:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-25 09:08 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-25 09:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-25 10:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-25 11:39 pm (UTC)Which is precisely the problem. Death from the skies, with no skin in the game makes us look like TOTAL assholes.
I am a pacifist, but I don't expect the president to be. But this also isn't WWII.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-25 11:59 pm (UTC)BTW, there were reportedly women and children throughout the Bin Laden compound, he was killed unarmed, and one of the women was killed as well.
If you are of the mind that putting blood on the line makes things better, maybe we should dispense with all superior firepower.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 12:05 am (UTC)I think that the drone ware is terrible fort he US' reputation. I think we shouldn't do it. I think the net result is to create new terrorists.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 12:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 12:29 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 12:32 am (UTC)Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says - CNN.com (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes/index.html)
We've had this discussion before,
no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 12:48 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 12:34 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 05:21 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 09:26 pm (UTC)Sure.
Do you think we should refrain from killing terrorists plotting against this country if there is any chance at all that someone innocent will die?
Depends, how often are we invading random countries to do it?
Do you think we should refrain from killing terrorists plotting against this country if there is any chance at all that someone innocent will die?
A surgical boots-on-the-ground operation is far different from a 'surgical' drone strike.
Do you think we should refrain from killing terrorists plotting against this country if there is any chance at all that someone innocent will die?
It needs to be taken into consideration far more often.
...should we have refrained from attacking Nazi Germany for fear that innocents might die?
The risk/benefit ratio was far different between terrorists and Nazis.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 09:52 pm (UTC)We firebombed Dresden and carpet bombed Berlin and other German cities. I won't even bring up Japan. Damned right the risk/benefit ratio was different. We were guaranteed to kill tens of thousands of civilians in the hope of defeating a few men, most of whom survived.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 09:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-25 09:21 pm (UTC)We will simply have to agree to disagree on the issue of child murder.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-25 10:15 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 12:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 12:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 08:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 12:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-26 12:34 am (UTC)