Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups [W:165]

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

And this is what I'm talking about:

Northern Light said:

We have no business bombing all these countries in the Middle East. We're there for our own interests, not to bring a "peace" that will never happen there.

Click to expand...

The first and second sentences have no relation with each other. Whether or not the West has business there has nothing to do with bringing peace, unless you think the only "business" someone could have is to "bring peace". Just because that's what you think doesn't mean it's what other people think. But here, again, you exhibit that ostensibly can't even imagine or fathom that someone could not share your point of view:

People have such blinders on when it comes to these issues. The American propaganda machine has done such a number on their ignorant minds. Take a hard look at who is really waging these wars and stop believing everything the corporate media machine tells you.

Click to expand...

The only reason people could disagree with you, you seem to imply, is because they don't know what you know. Since you're big on books, here's one for you: Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error: Kathryn Schulz: 9780061176050: Amazon.com: Books. In it, the author describes the stages of how most people deal with folks that disagree with them. First, they assume they're ignorant. If only they knew what you knew, they'd agree with you. If you inform them, or find out they're informed, the next step is to assume they're stupid; they're just incapable of getting it. If, however, the person proves themselves to be clever or intelligent in other ways, the last resort is to claim they're evil. They're morally broken. That way, people are able to hold on to some level of superiority. I wonder where you'll put people here they've shown you that they're not ignorant. I wonder if you'll figure out there's a fourth option.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Northern Light said:

Bad is such an imprecise terminology, and I never used it. Pointing out the ills of our political and cultural way of treating the rest of the world is hardly a fallacy.

Click to expand...

So, after saying it's not black and white, you fall into a very monochromatic way of thinking. Interesting.

Is there a point to your questions?

Click to expand...

To show you that, yes, you can 'force' people to take on a societal ideology, so your point is wrong.

This is an old argument. Nations have interfaced economically for millennia without even sharing the same world values. In the modern world, look at a country like China. It's becoming an economic powerhouse and it's at war with no one. The difference between them and us is that we have European colonial roots combined with our manifest destiny view that the world should be like us. Our international standing is in the gutter because war hawks, interventionists, and the financial elite have alienated us from all our key allies, and because we are increasingly treating our OWN people just as badly as we treat the people of other nations.

Don't kid yourself. Globalization is westernization, and it's about consolidating the power of the western aristocracy. Always has been. It started with the British Empire and mercantilism, and the U.S. is finishing the job with corporate capitalism.

If you have something that we want and you don't give it up willingly, we'll invade you and "bring democracy" to your country.

Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with what I said. You're saying "Wake up! It's not about bringing peace! It's about self-interest! If you knew that, you wouldn't support it!" and I'm telling you "Yeah, I know. I understand and support nation-states working out of self-interest." Now what?

Good for you.

Click to expand...

I thought you told me to read a book. Which book or books will educate me as you so clearly have been educated? Guide me, Northern Light.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Northern Light said:

No, it's not. No one has addressed why we have the right to be there or why our intervention is not just a rehash of old colonial behaviors.

Click to expand...

It highlights you don't really have an understanding of the region, it's history, and what caused the civil war, like the majority of your previous posts. So why not take your advice and crack open a book

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Northern Light said:

Peaceful integration?

They are a sovereign state and are under no obligation to integrate with anyone. This is what I'm talking about... the western bloc still envisions itself as the bringer of world order according to its own ideals of civilization. We don't even bother to declare war anymore, we just fashion our foreign policies under the guise of "interventions" and saving foreign states from themselves. How many countries are we in now? We're even in Africa now.

Since declaring war is no longer fashionable to most people, we simply blame problems on non-state actors and then "intervene".

The imperialism has to stop.

Click to expand...

google Nagorno. It's a defacto autonomous region in the area that has long lingering tensions with Azerbaijan

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Can you respond to the rest of my post now? Jesus. What's the point of writing all that if you're going to hone in on one insignificant detail while ignoring the rest?

Click to expand...

Because it was glaringly inaccurate and others had already provided an effective response. If you acknowledge you were incorrect I'll let the matter rest.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Northern Light said:

Peaceful integration?

They are a sovereign state and are under no obligation to integrate with anyone. This is what I'm talking about... the western bloc still envisions itself as the bringer of world order according to its own ideals of civilization. We don't even bother to declare war anymore, we just fashion our foreign policies under the guise of "interventions" and saving foreign states from themselves. How many countries are we in now? We're even in Africa now.

Since declaring war is no longer fashionable to most people, we simply blame problems on non-state actors and then "intervene".

The imperialism has to stop.

Click to expand...

Who is a sovereign state? Nagorno-Karabakh? If so virtually no one else agrees, including Armenia. They are going to trod along in permanent limbo until an accord can be reach with Azerbaijan.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups [W:16

rjay said:

Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits, human rights groups say - The Washington Post

"Two influential human rights groups say they have freshly documented dozens of civilian deaths in U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, contradicting assertions by the Obama administration that such casualties are rare.

In Yemen, Human Rights Watch investigated six selected airstrikes since 2009 and concluded that at least 57 of the 82 people killed were civilians, including a pregnant woman and three children who perished in a September 2012 attack. "


Is it time to stop the drone attacks?

Click to expand...

I would not be inclined to take what "human rights" groups say at face value.

A sovereign nation is not forbidden by any international law from defending itself against foreign combatants at war with it. It wasn't that long ago that Al Qaeda attacked one of our embassies and killed our Ambassador.

Innocent bystanders being killed is a tragic but inevitable part of war. No war has ever been without it. Focused attacks on single individuals by the US has greatly reduced it from the levels seen in previous wars.

It is not a war crime to inadvertently kill bystanders if the target was an enemy combatant.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Sherman123 said:

When have we ever done this? I do not think we have ever 'collectively as a species' made a decision about anything. Modern morality, civilizational standards, and societal norms are the result of hard fought victories over the preceding several hundred years. The shift towards inhibiting international conflict, promoting democratic self-rule, and recognizing humanitarian atrocities did not result from a collective human decision. They resulted from the crucible of violence that the Western democracies fought in and the order we managed to forge.

Click to expand...

It's what is necessary to evolve. Monkey games gets us monkey gains, nothing more. Democracy is not brought by a gun and we can ee that with our over 60 years of intervention in the middle East that it has not occurred. When dealing with terrorism and these emotional reactions, it's important to keep in mind consequence and the ability to analyze the data. So over a decade more of direct interventionism and where are we? Where are the democracies brought by jac booted thugs? We're is the success in "controlling" terrorism? We keep killing and the illing prompts more killing. It is clear from all available evidence that we are not gaining ground, we are not driving solution. All we're doing is keeping the conflict alive and playing to the propaganda of terrorists.

People want to talk about how we're justified in our intervention because they've killed our friends and families. But we're doing the same, which would mean that they would be justified in their attacks against us using the same logic. And by engaging in it, you engage only in the never ending cycle of violence. Monkey behavior will never promote humanity.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Ikari said:

It's what is necessary to evolve. Monkey games gets us monkey gains, nothing more. Democracy is not brought by a gun and we can ee that with our over 60 years of intervention in the middle East that it has not occurred. When dealing with terrorism and these emotional reactions, it's important to keep in mind consequence and the ability to analyze the data. So over a decade more of direct interventionism and where are we? Where are the democracies brought by jac booted thugs? We're is the success in "controlling" terrorism? We keep killing and the illing prompts more killing. It is clear from all available evidence that we are not gaining ground, we are not driving solution. All we're doing is keeping the conflict alive and playing to the propaganda of terrorists.

People want to talk about how we're justified in our intervention because they've killed our friends and families. But we're doing the same, which would mean that they would be justified in their attacks against us using the same logic. And by engaging in it, you engage only in the never ending cycle of violence. Monkey behavior will never promote humanity.

Click to expand...

You could change a couple words and write that exact same thing about Japan, in like 1942. So that tells you that the situation is a little more complex than what you're suggesting.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

OldWorldOrder said:

You could change a couple words and write that exact same thing about Japan, in like 1942. So that tells you that the situation is a little more complex than what you're suggesting.

Click to expand...

The situation with the Japanese was indeed different. It was a united people in actual war and they were forced to admit defeat. It's slightly easier to force these forms of changes in a full and declared war. When practicing imperialism it becomes all the more difficult. We didn't fight Japan for over a decade for no gain.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Ikari said:

The situation with the Japanese was indeed different. It was a united people in actual war and they were forced to admit defeat. It's slightly easier to force these forms of changes in a full and declared war. When practicing imperialism it becomes all the more difficult. We didn't fight Japan for over a decade for no gain.

Click to expand...

So you do agree that things aren't as simplistic as the post I quoted suggests?

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Ikari said:

It's what is necessary to evolve. Monkey games gets us monkey gains, nothing more. Democracy is not brought by a gun and we can ee that with our over 60 years of intervention in the middle East that it has not occurred. When dealing with terrorism and these emotional reactions, it's important to keep in mind consequence and the ability to analyze the data. So over a decade more of direct interventionism and where are we? Where are the democracies brought by jac booted thugs? We're is the success in "controlling" terrorism? We keep killing and the illing prompts more killing. It is clear from all available evidence that we are not gaining ground, we are not driving solution. All we're doing is keeping the conflict alive and playing to the propaganda of terrorists.

People want to talk about how we're justified in our intervention because they've killed our friends and families. But we're doing the same, which would mean that they would be justified in their attacks against us using the same logic. And by engaging in it, you engage only in the never ending cycle of violence. Monkey behavior will never promote humanity.

Click to expand...

I took the liberty of bolding the part of your quote I wanted to address.

The shorthand term there you describe is "perpetual war"

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Ikari said:

It's what is necessary to evolve. Monkey games gets us monkey gains, nothing more. Democracy is not brought by a gun and we can ee that with our over 60 years of intervention in the middle East that it has not occurred. When dealing with terrorism and these emotional reactions, it's important to keep in mind consequence and the ability to analyze the data. So over a decade more of direct interventionism and where are we? Where are the democracies brought by jac booted thugs? We're is the success in "controlling" terrorism? We keep killing and the illing prompts more killing. It is clear from all available evidence that we are not gaining ground, we are not driving solution. All we're doing is keeping the conflict alive and playing to the propaganda of terrorists.

People want to talk about how we're justified in our intervention because they've killed our friends and families. But we're doing the same, which would mean that they would be justified in their attacks against us using the same logic. And by engaging in it, you engage only in the never ending cycle of violence. Monkey behavior will never promote humanity.

Click to expand...

Rather than discussing what we need to do for our collective ethical evolution I think it makes more sense to promote the systems, actions, and values that have brought about the hitherto unheard of level of peace that predominates in the world today. Historically I think this has been found in democracy promotion, the warding off of organized leagues of autocracies, and the suppression of threatening ideologies. Strong military, political, and economic involvement is required to effect these aims.

Quite frankly we have not expended much effort in the Middle East in this direction until very recently. Our involvement over much of the 20th Century was rooted in the laudable but unfortunately necessary goal of countering the influence of the Soviet Union and preventing a bastion from emerging in the region. I'm an unabashed consequentialist, sometimes a loftier goal has to be subordinated to the necessary one, and in pursuit of that necessary one different course of action can be justified. That being said our actual involvement in the Middle East has been relatively peripheral aside from a few exceptional instances as opposed to other battle grounds of the Cold War. It's time for a shift towards supporting popular will, liberalism, and democracy regardless of the consequences (though this does not preclude or ability to react to negative activities of the new government).

Shifting to terrorism I'm not sure what to say. It is a platitude to say that killing prompts more killing, even though it sounds attractive to some ears. At the end of the day we are talking about a global war with multiple highly individual battlegrounds. In some places like Saudi Arabia and Jordan the threat from Islamist militants and al-Qaeda has almost completely subsided, in others like Iraq success was in sight but things have relapsed, in others still like Afghanistan and Pakistan the security situation is so dismal that it is impossible to arrest the growth of the militant groups. To say that less military activity or a different tact would solve these situations is to blithely ignore the reality of the situation as it would result in the mushrooming of these forces.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Sherman123 said:

Rather than discussing what we need to do for our collective ethical evolution I think it makes more sense to promote the systems, actions, and values that have brought about the hitherto unheard of level of peace that predominates in the world today. Historically I think this has been found in democracy promotion, the warding off of organized leagues of autocracies, and the suppression of threatening ideologies. Strong military, political, and economic involvement is required to effect these aims.

Quite frankly we have not expended much effort in the Middle East in this direction until very recently. Our involvement over much of the 20th Century was rooted in the laudable but unfortunately necessary goal of countering the influence of the Soviet Union and preventing a bastion from emerging in the region. I'm an unabashed consequentialist, sometimes a loftier goal has to be subordinated to the necessary one, and in pursuit of that necessary one different course of action can be justified. That being said our actual involvement in the Middle East has been relatively peripheral aside from a few exceptional instances as opposed to other battle grounds of the Cold War. It's time for a shift towards supporting popular will, liberalism, and democracy regardless of the consequences (though this does not preclude or ability to react to negative activities of the new government).

Shifting to terrorism I'm not sure what to say. It is a platitude to say that killing prompts more killing, even though it sounds attractive to some ears. At the end of the day we are talking about a global war with multiple highly individual battlegrounds. In some places like Saudi Arabia and Jordan the threat from Islamist militants and al-Qaeda has almost completely subsided, in others like Iraq success was in sight but things have relapsed, in others still like Afghanistan and Pakistan the security situation is so dismal that it is impossible to arrest the growth of the militant groups. To say that less military activity or a different tact would solve these situations is to blithely ignore the reality of the situation as it would result in the mushrooming of these forces.

Click to expand...

It may be platitude but apparently needs stating. In over a decade all you've managed to do is double down on our 9/11 losses, nearly bankrupt American, and decrease our overall freedom. These are not good things and they must be realized. Fighting for your future may be necessary and worthwhile; but fighting for stagnation breeds only death.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Ikari said:

It may be platitude but apparently needs stating. In over a decade all you've managed to do is double down on our 9/11 losses, nearly bankrupt American, and decrease our overall freedom. These are not good things and they must be realized. Fighting for your future may be necessary and worthwhile; but fighting for stagnation breeds only death.

Click to expand...

That's just more platitudes, actually.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Ikari said:

It may be platitude but apparently needs stating. In over a decade all you've managed to do is double down on our 9/11 losses, nearly bankrupt American, and decrease our overall freedom. These are not good things and they must be realized. Fighting for your future may be necessary and worthwhile; but fighting for stagnation breeds only death.

Click to expand...

I'll respond in a little bit but you keep pivoting from specific criticisms of post-9/11 political and military campaigns, and very broad statements like the one highlighted. The core of my initial critique centered around refuting the notion that violence breeds violence or that it is never a desired choice. Once you establish that you can move from there.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Ikari said:

Democracy is not brought by a gun

Click to expand...

Several centuries of history, including our own, flatly contradict you in this regard.

and we can ee that with our over 60 years of intervention in the middle East that it has not occurred.

Click to expand...

Our goal for the past 60 years hasn't been to promote democracy in the Middle East. Our military intervention in Lebanon in the 1950s and our support of Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war are examples where the promotion of democracy wasn't even an intended side effect. Now that the Soviet Union's fallen our goal has shifted from fighting the influence of communism to spreading the influence of democracy, starting with the Gulf War.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

OldWorldOrder said:

That's just more platitudes, actually.

Click to expand...

It's just more reality, actually. The fact is that many would rather hide behind their emotional retorts and knee jerk reactions instead of analyzing the situation. Again, in over a decade all you've managed to do is double down on our 9/11 losses, nearly bankrupt American, and decrease our overall freedom. These are not good things and they must be realized.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

MadLib said:

Several centuries of history, including our own, flatly contradict you in this regard.

Click to expand...

Well better put, democracy cannot be brought by a foreigner's gun. The environment necessary for long term stabilized democracy is not quite as broadband as some would like to think. Merely going in and saying "we're bringing democracy" is not enough to actually bring democracy. As we have well demonstrated.

There may be isolated instances of foreign occupation leading to a stabilized form of democracy, but those are exceptions which prove the rule. Obviously, the measured state of our current interventionist wars shows the opposite.

MadLib said:

Our goal for the past 60 years hasn't been to promote democracy in the Middle East. Our military intervention in Lebanon in the 1950s and our support of Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war are examples where the promotion of democracy wasn't even an intended side effect. Now that the Soviet Union's fallen our goal has shifted from fighting the influence of communism to spreading the influence of democracy, starting with the Gulf War.

Click to expand...

It sure hasn't, Our several decades of intervention revolves around energy concerns. And largely still does. And of course, those several decades of interventionism, bombing other people's countries, killing their families, etc. has led to some very hostile attitudes towards Americans. Attitudes which are capitalized by terrorists in their recruitment propaganda.

Actions have consequences and it's high time we learn this lesson.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Ikari said:

Well better put, democracy cannot be brought by a foreigner's gun. The environment necessary for long term stabilized democracy is not quite as broadband as some would like to think. Merely going in and saying "we're bringing democracy" is not enough to actually bring democracy. As we have well demonstrated.

There may be isolated instances of foreign occupation leading to a stabilized form of democracy, but those are exceptions which prove the rule. Obviously, the measured state of our current interventionist wars shows the opposite.



It sure hasn't, Our several decades of intervention revolves around energy concerns. And largely still does. And of course, those several decades of interventionism, bombing other people's countries, killing their families, etc. has led to some very hostile attitudes towards Americans. Attitudes which are capitalized by terrorists in their recruitment propaganda.

Actions have consequences and it's high time we learn this lesson.

Click to expand...

the people of any nation must also want democracy for it to succeed. In my view, it is just as wrong to force democracy on a people as it was for the old USSR to force communism.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Ikari said:

It's just more reality, actually. The fact is that many would rather hide behind their emotional retorts and knee jerk reactions instead of analyzing the situation.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what you're doing!

Again, in over a decade all you've managed to do is double down on our 9/11 losses, nearly bankrupt American, and decrease our overall freedom. These are not good things and they must be realized.

Click to expand...

Who is "you"? You listed three things:

1) Double down on our 9/11 losses.

Let's again talk about Japan in the early 1940s. Could you not say that, at a certain point, all the US had done by fighting the Japanese (as opposed to simply refusing to fight and allow Japan to operate freely in the western Pacific) was get even more Americans killed by engaging in the war? Yes, you could. Would it be accurate?

2) Nearly bankrupt America.

What does this even mean? Do you think the economic fall of 2008 was because of military policies? That's...not the case.

3) Decrease our overall freedom.

Can you be specific?

You're speaking in generalities and are ignoring very specific points.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Ikari said:

Well better put, democracy cannot be brought by a foreigner's gun.

Click to expand...

Sure it can. Are you playing some game at home wherein a rebuttal can be made to your points by simply saying "Japan" or something? Because this is impressive. I have no particular boner for Japanese history so this really is either a huge coincidence or something hinky is going down.

The environment necessary for long term stabilized democracy is not quite as broadband as some would like to think. Merely going in and saying "we're bringing democracy" is not enough to actually bring democracy. As we have well demonstrated.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't think anyone here has said otherwise. Have they?

There may be isolated instances of foreign occupation leading to a stabilized form of democracy, but those are exceptions which prove the rule. Obviously, the measured state of our current interventionist wars shows the opposite.

Click to expand...

"It doesn't work, except for when it does."

It sure hasn't, Our several decades of intervention revolves around energy concerns. And largely still does. And of course, those several decades of interventionism, bombing other people's countries, killing their families, etc. has led to some very hostile attitudes towards Americans. Attitudes which are capitalized by terrorists in their recruitment propaganda.

Actions have consequences and it's high time we learn this lesson.

Click to expand...

So it seems like you're just plain against interventionism. You've created it as this boogeyman that you will rage against, regardless of context or result.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

OldWorldOrder said:

Sure it can. Are you playing some game at home wherein a rebuttal can be made to your points by simply saying "Japan" or something? Because this is impressive. I have no particular boner for Japanese history so this really is either a huge coincidence or something hinky is going down.

Click to expand...

You're the one who brought up Japan, I was just responding to it. Don't get your panties in a knot because your tactic didn't work out.

OldWorldOrder said:

Well, I don't think anyone here has said otherwise. Have they?



"It doesn't work, except for when it does."



So it seems like you're just plain against interventionism. You've created it as this boogeyman that you will rage against, regardless of context or result.

Click to expand...

It's a measured reality. If you want to find proper solution, you must be capable of measuring and analyzing reality to see where similar choices have led us to. Duh. If one is incapable of data analysis, they should be no where near decision making. Just a fact.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

OldWorldOrder said:

That's exactly what you're doing!



Who is "you"? You listed three things:

1) Double down on our 9/11 losses.

Let's again talk about Japan in the early 1940s. Could you not say that, at a certain point, all the US had done by fighting the Japanese (as opposed to simply refusing to fight and allow Japan to operate freely in the western Pacific) was get even more Americans killed by engaging in the war? Yes, you could. Would it be accurate?

2) Nearly bankrupt America.

What does this even mean? Do you think the economic fall of 2008 was because of military policies? That's...not the case.

3) Decrease our overall freedom.

Can you be specific?

You're speaking in generalities and are ignoring very specific points.

Click to expand...

No, my reactions are measured. Decades of interventionism hasn't gotten us anywhere good, and thus decades more will bring us to no better place. We did not fight Japan for over a decade and we were in a declared war against a unified people. So obviously corollaries between terrorism, our imperialism, the Middle East and our war with Japan are not accurate. Duh. So if we look at the measured results we see that we've killed more Americans because of our interventionism, spent trillions of dollars we don't have (why do you think the debt ceiling is a problem...are you really not paying attention?), and bills such as the Patriot Act are passed, domestic spying is enacted, draconian police state agencies such as TSA and HLS act against us, warrentless searches, etc. All in the name of fear because some people cannot rationalize out the repercussions, consequences, and dangers of freedom.

If this must be explained, I fear the one who must have it explained is not paying attention to anything.

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Ikari said:

You're the one who brought up Japan, I was just responding to it. Don't get your panties in a knot because your tactic didn't work out.

Click to expand...

lol? I'm saying every argument you've made in the last two days in this thread has very conveniently had the same rebuttal: Japan. It's eerie. I'm not mad at you for doing it- I'm just saying it's weird. You might want to bone up on that history, though, as it seems to be your Achilles heel.

It's a measured reality. If you want to find proper solution, you must be capable of measuring and analyzing reality to see where similar choices have led us to. Duh. If one is incapable of data analysis, they should be no where near decision making. Just a fact.

Click to expand...

What's a measured reality? That intervention is "bad"?