american drones - not so efficient

[Mr.Canada]

people can learn a thing or two about your moral standard. especially those uncivilized people.

It seems bizarre that people here seem to take things at face value without digging deeper to get to the truth. Are these people really innocent civilians or are they hiding terrorists in their homes?

How can we really know the truth? I don't think we can and anyone who says they know the truth is a liar. Just because the media says something doesn't make it so. We have to open our eyes to the truth and stop being sheep led down the path that the MSM wants us to go down.

Use some independent thought and really try to find out the real answers before siding with the MSM. Don't think what they want you to think, learn the facts for yourself.

Get all the information from a variety of sources before drawing your conclusion.

[bleeding heart]

perhaps their 1 in 50 statistic, included those who have been maimed and injured as well. regardless, i have no intention of posting false information and welcome any correction.

Good stuff. This is the sane and decent way to proceed with any debate.

[bleeding heart]

I would love to know how/where they got the information to make such a determination. IOW, I'd like to know how they are qualified to make such a judgement, how they are drawing their conclusion, other than by the "feel good" methodology.

I don't know why critics of power are held to such higher standards than supporters of it.

The religious belief that the Western nations, always with good motives, flit about the Earth trying to do good is not exactly....sober and objective political discourse.

In terms of "feel good" methodology, no one, but no one, has the defenders of foreign interventions beat.

[Guest]

people can learn a thing or two about your moral standard. especially those uncivilized people.

People could learn a thing or two from your reading and interpretation skills. They'd be the wrong things, but they could learn them anyway.

Edited October 3, 2012 by bcsapper

[kraychik]

I don't know about that, the Taliban are amongst the most conservative people on the planet.

The Taliban are on board with socialists when it comes to economic affairs. Islamism is inherently anti-freedom, which extends of course to anti-capitalism.

As far as the conservatism of the Taliban, that's only true in the context of Afghanistan if the country has a history of theocratic rule and/or religious fundamentalism. I'm not familiar with the history of Afghanistan, and of course neither are you, so I'm not gonna take your word for it. In a broader sense, broader than Afghanistan and encompassing "the Muslim world", the Taliban can be viewed as Islamic conservatives. In contemporary times, I think Islamism might actually be an import to Afghanistan.

[kraychik]

Non sequitur. You are no more capable of thinking like an 'Earthling' than myself or anyone else. If you born in India, there would have been a excellent chance you'd be Hindu as your parents likely were. But, you know that.

As Dawkins argued, we don't apply politics to children but we sure apply religion.

I think eyeball's comment, "Try thinking like an Earthling for a change," might actually be a reference to "global citizen" politics. You know, international communism and all that.

[bleeding heart]

I think eyeball's comment, "Try thinking like an Earthling for a change," might actually be a reference to "global citizen" politics. You know, international communism and all that.

Eyeball isn't a commie. More of the "libertarian socialist" type.

[DogOnPorch]

I think eyeball's comment, "Try thinking like an Earthling for a change," might actually be a reference to "global citizen" politics. You know, international communism and all that.

Perhaps. But, Western-centric viewpoints are all most of us know. We're seeing it in the other thread re: the Iran coup in 1953. No true Scotsm...Iranians were involved. Just cloak and dagger stuff by James Bond like figures in trench coats. Its a form of soft bigotry where Iranians are incapable of thinking for themselves.

[kraychik]

Eyeball isn't a commie. More of the "libertarian socialist" type.

You just love using nonsensical and contradictory terms to further demonstrate your obliviousness of core political concepts, don't you? "Libertarian socialist", is that a branch of free market communism? The left loves to try to destroy language and coin absurd phrases. Reminds me of when cybercoma started rambling about how he isn't a democratic socialist, but a social democrat. It's stupid enough to make one's head spin.

[kraychik]

Perhaps. But, Western-centric viewpoints are all most of us know. We're seeing it in the other thread re: the Iran coup in 1953. No true Scotsm...Iranians were involved. Just cloak and dagger stuff by James Bond like figures in trench coats. Its a form of soft bigotry where Iranians are incapable of thinking for themselves.

Exactly. It reveals the bigotry that is endemic of the left. The best phrase I've come across is "the soft bigotry of low expectations". We're also seeing this phenomenon in the thread about the Muslims in Toronto demanding the introduction of blasphemy laws to criminalise speech they view as critical of Islam. These leftists have such contempt for Muslims that they think they're a bunch of animals who just can't help themselves from engaging in mass murder campaigns when they feel that their faith is disrespected, so we should indulge their desires to implement laws prohibiting "defamation of religion" and destroy the most basic freedom in our society.

Edited October 3, 2012 by kraychik

[DogOnPorch]

I think there will be more movement in the direction of appeasement of Islam before the majority gets fed-up. It has to start touching individual lives that have no connection to Islam before it does that. One day you might get a note from school telling you to dress your daughter more appropriately and modestly when you thought you already were. Something like that...

[bleeding heart]

You just love using nonsensical and contradictory terms to further demonstrate your obliviousness of core political concepts, don't you? "Libertarian socialist", is that a branch of free market communism? The left loves to try to destroy language and coin absurd phrases.

Speaking of "obliviousness of core political concepts," you are self-evidently unaware that libertarianism--the concept, and the very word itself--was originally a leftwing phenomenon. It was later (much, much later) adopted by a wing of the conservative movement.

You're pretty incautious about insulting posters' supposed lack of political knowledge...about subjects of which you personally know very little. Whyzzat?

[kraychik]

Speaking of "obliviousness of core political concepts," you are self-evidently unaware that libertarianism--the concept, and the very word itself--was originally a leftwing phenomenon. It was later (much, much later) adopted by a wing of the conservative movement.

Libertarianism is inherently anti-leftist. It always has been. I guess you were fooled when the discourse of popular culture began using the terms liberal, left-wing, and socialist interchangeably. You don't realise that the left-right paradigm doesn't change, it is timeless and the way it is meant to be understood is not contingent on context.

You're pretty incautious about insulting posters' supposed lack of political knowledge...about subjects of which you personally know very little. Whyzzat?

You've never studied political science in any meaningful way. It's obvious, I'm pointing it out, and now you're getting upset.

[kraychik]

I think there will be more movement in the direction of appeasement of Islam before the majority gets fed-up. It has to start touching individual lives that have no connection to Islam before it does that. One day you might get a note from school telling you to dress your daughter more appropriately and modestly when you thought you already were. Something like that...

Yeah, I think it's a lesson that needs to be learned the hard way. I share your cynicism.

[bleeding heart]

Libertarianism is inherently anti-leftist. It always has been. I guess you were fooled when the discourse of popular culture began using the terms liberal, left-wing, and socialist interchangeably.

I'm telling you for your own good that you are factually mistaken. "Libertarianism" has been around, as a leftist paradigm, for ages, kraychik.

Libertarianism started with the left, and predates conservative libertarianism by a long, long, long time.

Let me repeat that for you, so you understand that I mean what I say:

Libertarianism started with the left, and predates conservative libertarianism by a long, long, long time.

You don't realise that the left-right paradigm doesn't change, it is timeless and the way it is meant to be understood is not contingent on context.

you don't understand that libertariamism is, and long has been, a leftwing phenomenon as well as a rightwing one; and that the former predates the latter.

This point isn't up for debate, kraychik; you can't determine facts to suit your ideological tendencies.

Start with Wiki (you only need type "libertarian socialist") and then, if you wish, you can follow some links.

Which begs the question: why not do a minimal amount of research (say, two minutes worth) before making declarative sentences that are demonstrably, proveably false?

Save you some embarassment that way.

You've never studied political science in any meaningful way. It's obvious, I'm pointing it out, and now you're getting upset.

Kraychik: I'm right on this point, and you're utterly mistaken. This is not an attack on you, and has nothing to do with being defensive; and it's unrelated to any of our other disputes.

I'm interested if you're actually going to admit that I am right and you are wrong, once you've done a little research. Time will tell!

Edited October 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Guest American Woman]

Is it just that you don't ever have to worry about a war breaking out on Canadian soil that you can be this insanely cold about others' deaths?

Really? You think you don't have to worry about war breaking out on Canadian soil? Must be nice to be so naive sure.

I know you read the statistics I posted, so did it escape you that more innocent civilians, by far, were killed in the U.S. in one day than have been killed by drones in 2004-2012? Yet here you are, going on and on about the innocent deaths due to drones. Until you care at least equally about both, I respectfully suggest that you get off your high horse.

Edited October 3, 2012 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

In terms of "feel good" methodology, no one, but no one, has the defenders of foreign interventions beat.

I agree; but I think I'm talking something different than you are.

Care to give an opinion on the question I raised? No one has so far.

Again. More innocent civilians were killed by the Japanese in Nanking alone, deliberately killed, than by both atomic bombs. So which is more moral/ethical - to have the power to stop it but not act out of concern for innocent deaths, or to use it to prevent even more innocent deaths?

[DogOnPorch]

Really? You think you don't have to worry about war breaking out on Canadian soil? Must be nice to be so naive sure.

I know you read the statistics I posted, so did it escape you that more innocent civilians, by far, were killed in the U.S. in one day than have been killed by drones in 2004-2012? Yet here you are, going on and on about the innocent deaths due to drones. Until you care at least equally about both, I respectfully suggest that you get off your high horse.

War has a slim chance of happening on Canadian soil thanks to the USA. We'd be f***** with by various state actors in a second, otherwise.

[bleeding heart]

Care to give an opinion on the question I raised? No one has so far.

Again. More innocent civilians were killed by the Japanese in Nanking alone, deliberately killed, than by both atomic bombs. So which is more moral/ethical - to have the power to stop it but not act out of concern for innocent deaths, or to use it to prevent even more innocent deaths?

Given that phrasing, the latter wins out, I agree.

It's a horrible choice (and I personally wish it were more humbling in general)...but yes.

[DogOnPorch]

Given that phrasing, the latter wins out, I agree.

It's a horrible choice (and I personally wish it were more humbling in general)...but yes.

There were wee exacerbations to the Allied public opinion during the early War in the Pacific while the Japanese were winning. Bataan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Darwin, etc. The Japanese were what could be described as cruel. After those acts, they had no choice but to win.

[bleeding heart]

There were wee exacerbations to the Allied public opinion during the early War in the Pacific while the Japanese were winning. Bataan, Singapore, Hong Kong, Darwin, etc. The Japanese were what could be described as cruel. After those acts, they had no choice but to win.

Oh, sure. And I'm not remonstrating others for their militant triumphalism or their callousness, which is often the result of genuine horror and pity for victims. I'm only offering a universal, if somewhat bland, lament.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were astoundingly horrific acts. Truly awful.

That's not a declaration that they shouldn't have happened. It's an expression of humility and humanity.

[DogOnPorch]

Oh, sure. And I'm not remonstrating others for their militant triumphalism or their callousness, which is often the result of genuine horror and pity for victims. I'm only offering a universal, if somewhat bland, lament.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were astoundingly horrific acts. Truly awful.

That's not a declaration that they shouldn't have happened. It's an expression of humility and humanity.

The humanity...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Tjisalak

http://www.armed-guard.com/ag87.html

[Guest American Woman]

It's an expression of humility and humanity.

Why the need for "humility and humanity" if it prevented more atrocities like Nanking from taking place? That's my point. Why do you perceive the bombings as "astoundingly horrific acts" rather than 'thankfully we had the means to stop such atrocities from continuing even though it was at a high cost - because to have done nothing would have been so much worse?' That's what I'm getting at.

Edited October 3, 2012 by American Woman

[DogOnPorch]

Why the need for "humility and humanity" if it prevented more atrocities like Nanking from taking place? That's my point. Why do you perceive the bombings as "astoundingly horrific acts" rather than 'thankfully we had the means to stop such atrocities from continuing even though it was at a high cost - because to have done nothing would have been so much worse?' That's what I'm getting at.

The Japanese really made their beds in December, 1941. They thought they had a chance and took it knowing full well they had 6 months to attain victory and make America/UK/Australia sue for peace. After that, the fuel reserves in Japan would run out and Japan would need to rely on imported oil to supply the IJA and the IJN. They had already broke the Washington Treaty in act as well as spirit and blatantly attacked China hoping nobody would bother (worked!). They were literally lucky that MacArthur was calling the final shots rather than LeMay or even Nimitz.

[GostHacked]

Really? You think you don't have to worry about war breaking out on Canadian soil? Must be nice to be so naive sure.

I know you read the statistics I posted, so did it escape you that more innocent civilians, by far, were killed in the U.S. in one day than have been killed by drones in 2004-2012? Yet here you are, going on and on about the innocent deaths due to drones. Until you care at least equally about both, I respectfully suggest that you get off your high horse.

Are the use of drones a way to even the score??