Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Jupiterian Local
I don't care about self-preservation. In war, everyone is a target. In war, everyone should be a target. An eye for an eye.
Sending machines to kill for you adds an extra layer of apathy, whereas invasions involve people dying on all sides, something that forces everyone to give a damn. A war where only one side is dying is just wanton slaughter.
edited 2nd Dec '12 9:04:18 PM by Serocco
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.I actually agree with Serocco for ethical reasons. Unfair one-way tactics are likely seen as harassment and not an acceptable form of war. A formally declared war means you're bearing the costs and sending the proper message to your enemies.
Being indiscriminate is one form of categorizing it as "too dangerous and unacceptable", but not the only one. Overly accurate remote strikes have a different reason to be considered for ban. Ideally we would avoid wars altogether, but if we're going to have them, we do our best to limit them.
All right; now imagine that it's 2012 version of the 13 states
◊, and you're broke so you don't have sufficient military to handle an insurgency within your country. You ask Pakistan to send some foreign aid, but what Pakistan ends up doing is send aerial drones, and killings of your citizens begin to happen. Would that be ok?
edited 2nd Dec '12 9:14:21 PM by Trivialis
If you don't feel the cost of a war, then you have no reason to ever stop. Simple as that. When do you guys expect the War on Terror to end, hm?
Oh wait. Never.
The United States will probably be at war for the next several decades.
Like how we're attacking Yemen and Pakistan right now. That's not likely to stop any time soon. Because Americans feel no pain, and so Americans don't care. So the war will continue. Democrats and Republicans pull together on this one. And with drones, nobody will ever really notice again.
But the people we bomb notice. They see their friends and family die, often for no reason at all. And they see that Americans don't give a damn. Because we don't. Most Americans don't even know Yemen exists. And these people remember. This is why they hate us. Because we're killing them.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.I think this is a better example: You have a country that was recently attacked by some militants that have taken up hiding in an ally's territory. You ask them for help, but the ally has done nothing proactive for fear of angering a large portion of their country which holds sympathy for the militants.
If drones are better at distinguishing legitimate targets from everyone else, why did we kill - not injure, kill - 178 children?
The answer is simple. We don't give a damn if they're militants or civilians. If they're not American, they're dead, as far as the drone operators are concerned.
In RWBY, every girl is Best Girl.To be fair, Serocco, drones are more precise than aerial bombing of a village. That's not something drones in particular should be singled out for. The problem with drones is that they promote apathy, not that they kill civilians. Their likelihood of killing civilians is lower than alternative methods. Except, you know, using humans, but we're too cowardly a people now to handle that.
edited 2nd Dec '12 9:26:24 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.If you want less war, you don't make war "more honourable" and take out "the dirty fighting". You wage less war.
I have a better idea - scale back the U.S.' unnecessary bases, oversized fleet, and all the other contributions to our needlessly huge projection capacity. While we're at it, wean ourselves off of natural resources gathered from conflict-ridden areas, particularly Middle Eastern oil. We won't have the capability to send drones that far so easily, and we won't need to. Problem solved.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Nobody will ever do that.
It's a plan to weaken the military and the United States' ability to protect itself against a hypothetical invasion,, and you can't hide that. Which means it will never happen.
@Tomu: Why? Why do you think assassinating Al Qaeda operatives in person would increase civilian casualties?
edited 2nd Dec '12 9:45:25 PM by Ultrayellow
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.It's as hypothetically possible as scaling back drone usage, when drone tech is the next big thing in military R&D and congressman are lining up to get that Dept. of Defense pork sent to their home states so that more drones get built and used.
I'm fully aware that we're probably not going to see much of a scaling back of America's military capabilities until the country literally can't afford to maintain them any more. But, if the political possibilities arise, it seems folly to think we'll be much nicer with the drones gone, when the smart thing to do would be to go whole hog and scale back everything you can.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.Personal assassins-unlike drones-have a self-preservation instinct. Ergo, they'd presumably have to do whatever they could to avoid being caught/captured/whatever.
Though if you had the OK of the regional government that'd probably be fine. I just think, you know, the idea of personal hired assassins going all Silent Assassin on Al Queda sounds like a better way of doing things than using drones, but I'm pretty sure that's an absolute fantasy.
I don't care if we build the stupid drones or not. It doesn't matter to me. In fact, it counts as Keynesian stimulus, so it's a net positive in my book. I care whether we use them to kill people in wars the average citizen isn't aware of. It's the use that matters, not possession of the things. Same way it doesn't really bother me that we own nukes. As long as they're just security, it isn't important to me. It's when we turn them against others (while still using the words "security" and "defense," even though that's clearly a euphemism/lie) that I get upset.
And it's totally possible for us to scale back drone use. It just requires more public awareness. And this is one area where the media has really let us down.
Except for 4/1/2011. That day lingers in my memory like...metaphor here...I should go.I don't think notions of fair play should enter into discussions of foreign policy. I'm a pacifist because of my opposition to war. I accept that violence is an unpleasant fact of life, one that should be minimized and managed carefully. I don't see any point in making it honourable. I don't see how that will create a deterrent to murder; ask the dead in Abu Ghraib how much respect U.S. forces had for human life they could see in front of them. Killing will teach people to be indifferent or it will teach them to hate, but either way a lesson will be learned.
Right now, the U.S. military and intelligence establishment serve an economic hegemony as much as a political one. The question of who gets to make money selling what ultimately determines the allocation of D.O.D. and C.I.A. resources. The U.S. lacks the worldwide intelligence infrastructure to be able to pay the right local assets to put a quiet bullet in a target, and rest assured that this would get done. The only way to change that would be to give the rest of the world more reason to trust white Americans in suits, which require a vast departure from how we do business, wage war, and run economies. I'd love to see that happen, I'm big on democratic peace theory
, but I won't deny the enormity of the task.
And frankly? If I could get all conflict and military action worldwide, drone strikes included, ended in exchange for giving a single agency the capability to assassinate anyone worldwide? I could live with that. That's a price I could willingly pay for world peace.
edited 2nd Dec '12 10:02:06 PM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.@ Serocco: China's had (reverse-engineered) drones since The Vietnam War, by the way. Drones themselves have been in use since the 1930s, at least for target work.
Keep Rolling On
::cough:: V-1
.
They changed to an autopilot instead of the original remote control, but still a drone.
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.I think the "drones are cowardly, one-way etc. therefore it's evil" argument is bullshit because we don't want a full-scale war with everyone dying in trenches. Assassinations of enemy leaders reduce civilian an military casualties on both sides. Either by making the war shorter (i.e., "ending it") or if it cannot end (like is the case for most guerillas when the enemy can still recruit) by keeping it small-scale.
Edit: Besides, IIRC the Americans want to "get the fuck out". I think if they actually wanted to drive them out, the terrorists would get better results by playing dead for a few years rather than continuing to attack soldiers and civilians.
Edit2: Quoth Serocco
edited 3rd Dec '12 2:32:31 AM by Medinoc
"And as long as a sack of shit is not a good thing to be, chivalry will never die."yeah... I kind of didn't expect anything else. god knows that the GOP won't accept tax increases unless you give them a good Hoist by Their Own Petard.
"Coffee! Coffeecoffeecoffee! Coffee! Not as strong as Meth-amphetamine, but it lets you keep your teeth!"So I'm up bizarrely early and watching MSNBC's morning show with a bunch of people actually talking about the fiscal cliff.
The opinion of one of them seems to be that the Republicans need to make a deal now or they'll find themselves in a much worse position after it passes. They also compared it to the lame duck session of 2010, where the Democrats ultimately gave in before the session was over instead of taking the risk. It doesn't seem like the Republicans will be that savvy yet, but the month isn't over.
