7 ms·

Some of the comments on Salon are just sad. A death is a death. Whether it's 900 or 2, drone strikes that kill innocent civilians are unacceptable. Trying to ju

Some of the comments on Salon are just sad. A death is a death. Whether it's 900 or 2, drone strikes that kill innocent civilians are unacceptable. Trying to justify it by saying that there is only a small death toll number is inhumane. We can not say are objective is to protect innocent life and then take innocent life. Giving precedent to American life makes us and NATO forces seem like evil pretentious bastards. We constantly create enemies with these tactics. If your mother, brother, sister, etc.. was killed during one of these attacks, it makes it easier for you to join an extremist group to bring down the countries that had anything to do with their deaths. From my readings, it seems that a lot of these group's efforts are a lot less religious motivated and more revenge motivated now of days, hence the increase in extremist groups post 9/11. The US foreign policy since President Truman has set precedent on innocent American life and those of our allies. Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I think all of this boils down to three words a woman from Brooklyn, NY famously said best in a popular Pop-culture rap song "Money, Power, Respect". In that order as well. War is money, so keeping an enemy is important. If the US ended its War on Terrorism today, there would be no other organization, faction or nation willing to step up to be Public Enemy #1. Sure we have those that could be considered (Iran and North Korea) but they tremble in a NY minute if chosen to take up the title. A defense budget pumps trillions into the US economy; which creates return for shareholders, jobs, tax revenue (personal income), and enforces the US Foreign Policy of democracy everywhere. More spending, more borrowing; which has been the trend of the US in the past decade. Power and respect are essential to America's continued dominance as a super-force and leader amongst nations. We take a different stand on power than other rich nations. We concentrate on using our power for evil instead on good by focusing on fear. We attempt to bully with the fear of us stepping into a foreign situation; which has been manipulated over time and thru history to seem that are presence brings a win for us or our allies. Respect gives others faith to continue to believe in the US; which means continued belief in the US dollar. Any lack of faith in the US dollar means lack of investing; which then turns into countries like China trying to salvaged what money they have left on their US bonds and other securities; which do not allow them to hit maturity. We then pay out what we owe; which will be nothing because that is what we have. The results are a depression because our debt is now our currency to the world and that is deflation. Just my thoughts, first time I typed them out or shared for anyone to hear other than the audience I gather when talking about tech, startups, student load debt, sports or politics. Sorry about no data or sources, I just got into the zone typing but this comes from my research as an undergrad and somewhat grad student.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
War is money, so keeping an enemy is important. If the US ended its War on Terrorism today, there would be no other organization, faction or nation willing to step up to be Public Enemy #1. I think this is a reasonable assumption. Consider that during the Cold War, US military spending was justified by the Cold War. Then the USSR collapsed, and noboody blinked or even skipped a beat (military spending wise), because hey, the world's still dangerous (not in small part thanks to the weapons sold around like candy during the cold war?), and also Saddam, Somalia, whatever; sarcastically you could call it lots of make-work until the War On Terrorism could begin proper. Then everybody is more or less instantly told that this "war" may take a long time, many generations, and that these are oh so tough and dangerous times, like setting someone's house on fire and then saying it's gonna get warmer. The huge surplus Bush turned into debt, that money ended up in the coffers defense contractors and whatnot; whoever has it now, it's not like fairies took it away to outer space (which is kind of how you're supposed to think about it: out of sight, out of mind). "War is a Racket" [1] is such an old book... and no matter how true it might have been back then, it certainy seems true today. A very costly, lethal or profitable racket, depending on your part in it. [1] http://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket http://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket
coldtea 13y ago
>Some of the comments on Salon are just sad. A death is a death. Whether it's 900 or 2, drone strikes that kill innocent civilians are unacceptable. Trying to justify it by saying that there is only a small death toll number is inhumane. It's because those assholes didn't have the same thing happen to them, much less frequently. So they have the luxury to discuss it philosophically. They also probably feel that the others are less human than their families and friends, being in the third world and all.
6d0debc071 13y ago
> Trying to justify it by saying that there is only a small death toll number is inhumane. We can not say are objective is to protect innocent life and then take innocent life. You can. I mean I don't agree with what they're doing, (because I don't think that they're instituting socio-economic changes that will have a long term positive effect,) but this is the old 'Is it better to imprison an innocent man than let a guilty one go free?' conundrum. When you use force as an instrument of policy, innocent people are always going to get hurt. It even happens domestically with the police. What's the alternative? Become total pacifists - completely eschew force? The world where all good people are total pacifists does not look like somewhere I'd want to live. So you have to reason: When do police become violent enough that their role is no-longer justified. What's the line, what numbers for what benefit? It's a horrible, disgusting thing to have to say, I don't like the idea that people will get hurt, but someone's got to: Even if you were totally self interested, if you were reasoning from behind Rawl's veil of ignorance, then you'd always choose to live in the world where force had been used by the 'good' side and where the numbers had worked out better for more people as a consequence.

PavlovsCat 13y ago

War is money, so keeping an enemy is important. If the US ended its War on Terrorism today, there would be no other organization, faction or nation willing to step up to be Public Enemy #1. I think this is a reasonable assumption. Consider that during the Cold War, US military spending was justified by the Cold War. Then the USSR collapsed, and noboody blinked or even skipped a beat (military spending wise), because hey, the world's still dangerous (not in small part thanks to the weapons sold around like candy during the cold war?), and also Saddam, Somalia, whatever; sarcastically you could call it lots of make-work until the War On Terrorism could begin proper. Then everybody is more or less instantly told that this "war" may take a long time, many generations, and that these are oh so tough and dangerous times, like setting someone's house on fire and then saying it's gonna get warmer. The huge surplus Bush turned into debt, that money ended up in the coffers defense contractors and whatnot; whoever has it now, it's not like fairies took it away to outer space (which is kind of how you're supposed to think about it: out of sight, out of mind). "War is a Racket" [1] is such an old book... and no matter how true it might have been back then, it certainy seems true today. A very costly, lethal or profitable racket, depending on your part in it. [1] http://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket http://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket

coldtea 13y ago

>Some of the comments on Salon are just sad. A death is a death. Whether it's 900 or 2, drone strikes that kill innocent civilians are unacceptable. Trying to justify it by saying that there is only a small death toll number is inhumane. It's because those assholes didn't have the same thing happen to them, much less frequently. So they have the luxury to discuss it philosophically. They also probably feel that the others are less human than their families and friends, being in the third world and all.

6d0debc071 13y ago

> Trying to justify it by saying that there is only a small death toll number is inhumane. We can not say are objective is to protect innocent life and then take innocent life. You can. I mean I don't agree with what they're doing, (because I don't think that they're instituting socio-economic changes that will have a long term positive effect,) but this is the old 'Is it better to imprison an innocent man than let a guilty one go free?' conundrum. When you use force as an instrument of policy, innocent people are always going to get hurt. It even happens domestically with the police. What's the alternative? Become total pacifists - completely eschew force? The world where all good people are total pacifists does not look like somewhere I'd want to live. So you have to reason: When do police become violent enough that their role is no-longer justified. What's the line, what numbers for what benefit? It's a horrible, disgusting thing to have to say, I don't like the idea that people will get hurt, but someone's got to: Even if you were totally self interested, if you were reasoning from behind Rawl's veil of ignorance, then you'd always choose to live in the world where force had been used by the 'good' side and where the numbers had worked out better for more people as a consequence.