I seem to recall that the Obama Administration was going to restore America's image with the rest of the world -- the image that was presumably destroyed by W.
If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
171–180 of 361 posts
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me guess, you think there's a cure for cancer but the doctors are withholding it and Exxon Mobil bought the patent for a combustion engine that would achieve 100+ mpg. Any industry that is built on addressing problems that people naturally have is going to generate lots of revenue. It has been proven that people naturally fight with each other. People fight over race, religion, sports, politics, and territory. Na…
I have to agree. Someone out there benefits from every single bad thing that happens out there: securities fraud, child abuse, cancer, money laundering, murder, etc, etc. Using the same logic, nothing should ever get better because those who benefit from "bad things" will never allow them to be stopped.
> Using the same logic, nothing should ever get better because those who benefit from "bad things" will never allow them to be stopped.
Thats not true because it ignores existing structures of power.
A common thief benefits from the bad things they do, but has no power to influence those that might seek to stop him, and so is convicted.
A banker who committed fraud (read: stole) during the recent financial crisis has the power of capital and lobby behind them, and walks.
The existing structures of power in place are actually designed to stop many of the bad things you describe, however there is nothing intrinsically moral about them so they can be corrupted by capital and lobbyists.
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a whole lot of choice - you want the US to just let the targets run around? Send a strike team in each time? Drop a real bomb or cruise missile (even more civilian casualties - those weapons are larger)?
What would your answer be if the "targets", instead of mysterious and scary terrorists in foreign lands, were regular boring murderers living in the US?
And not regular boring tried-and-convicted murderers, but suspected murderers who have no trial or recourse.
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#174I strongly agree with this article, but is this the kind of article that belongs on HN? Is this political article really part of some new trend or otherwise noteworthy, or is it just an editorial that most of us agree with?
It doesn't, according to the guidelines:
http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."
There's nothing intellectually gratifying about this story - it's an "outrage story".
That doesn't mean it's not important, just that it's not HN material.
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hmm, now that is really interesting! My initial reaction to your question is, "Of course they're separate entities." But then the person I'm replying to probably thinks, "Of course they're a single entity." Is that the true division between conspiracy-minded people and others?
I don't agree with rdtsc's either, and I am not "conspiracy-minded" just because I point out that your einstein-clown argument is fallacious. Therefore I would not like to draw that line. I would however say it's a division between our views. I do believe that a government can be considered a single entity. Care to explain why you disagree?
The government is a collection of a lot of different entities with different views, resources, and goals. It doesn't make sense to me to say that e.g. the FDA and the NSA are part of the same entity.
Furthermore, what's being discussed involves non-government actors too. Exxon, doctors, and defense contractors are entities outside the government.
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's very easy to not agree with the way the US government handles these sort of things, but you have to give them the benefit of the doubt that they are not doing this for shits and giggles. It might seem nationalistic to some but it reminds me of a quote from "A Few Good Men" - Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I h…
saves whose lives, and why should a few of "our side" be more valuable than many of the "bad guys" (which happen to include entire families including innocent women and children)? It should be noted as well that the entire premise of the film wasn't "the ends justify the means" but rather the exact opposite. People can do great evil while believing that every action they take is fundamentally correct and for some kin…
Unrelated, but I really hate the phrase "innocent women and children". What about the innocent men? Or the non-innocent women?
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#177[deleted]
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let me guess, you think there's a cure for cancer but the doctors are withholding it and Exxon Mobil bought the patent for a combustion engine that would achieve 100+ mpg. Any industry that is built on addressing problems that people naturally have is going to generate lots of revenue. It has been proven that people naturally fight with each other. People fight over race, religion, sports, politics, and territory. Na…
I have to agree. Someone out there benefits from every single bad thing that happens out there: securities fraud, child abuse, cancer, money laundering, murder, etc, etc. Using the same logic, nothing should ever get better because those who benefit from "bad things" will never allow them to be stopped.
The difference is, in the OP's argument, the people whose job it is to stop these bad things are also the ones who are benefitting from it. Normally, it is the police's job to stop child abuse. However, if the police force happens to be running the child abuse ring, they are not going to do anything to stop it themselves. In such a situation, there is no incentive for these things to stop.
(Note: I'm not convinced war profiteering is the driving motivator for the NSA, just pointing out the fallacy in your argument.)
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is probably easier to get pilots to bomb civilians with a Playstation controller in what looks and feels like a video game, than an actual person present.
That would imply we people have trouble killing on a battlefield which would seem to be patently false.
Soldiers do have trouble killing on the battlefield; have a read about "operant conditioning", a psychological technique used in modern training to overcome it.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/On-Killing-Psychological-Learning-So...
General Marshall discovered after WW2 that only 15% of front-line soldiers even fired their weapon at the enemy. Even soldiers don't like to kill enemy troops in the middle of a battle!
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#180Weddings and funerals are actually targeted specifically because those events are two that even highly sought-after targets attend despite the dangers. Also, the subsequent funerals for those killed at the targeted wedding would then be targeted as well. You can either agree or disagree, but if you feel the target is accurate based on your intelligence the venue doesn't really matter IMHO. Civilians will be killed no…
What if we had bombed the heck out of them 20 min before\after the wedding? I understand you got to get them when you can, but it also seems like they could be a little nicer about it. They could let the wedding draw them out of hiding then start surveillance, and follow them back to their hiding place rather than start shooting immediately.
Sounds like they kind of already did this. Most news reports I read describe the target being hit on convoys heading to a wedding, I haven't heard of many that happen at the wedding site itself. Why don't we assume that all safeguards to protect civilians were ignored when planning and executing a strike?