4 ms·

The optimist in me likes to at least entertain the notion that the large scale effort to justify, sanitize and in some cases morbidly celebrate the failing of t

The optimist in me likes to at least entertain the notion that the large scale effort to justify, sanitize and in some cases morbidly celebrate the failing of the long term US foreign policy has some part to play in shaping public opinion. But if you are absolutely correct that those numbers represent the general values of the American people then can it be argued that once rewarded with enough material gain, an entire population can and will turn positively evil based on most people's moral compass in order to ensure their continued quality of life?

xixi77 11y ago
How do you define "positively evil"? If there are people whose objective is to destroy our quality of life (material or otherwise), is it immoral to make an effort to eliminate them? Now, I do have serious doubts whether the drone program actually serves that purpose, but are you suggesting that we should ignore legitimate threats to our well-being, or perhaps that there are no such threats?
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  You could argue for the right to defend yourself, but since we're making a moral argument here, you should also make sure that your defense inflicts damage to those who are a danger to you, and not to innocent bystanders. Also a defense that makes more enemies is a pretty crappy defense, both from moral and practical point of view. (Of course we're skipping the part of the more likely real reason for drone strikes - more people pissed off == more terrorists == more need to defend == more money for military-industrial complex. You can play this game safely as long as your enemy isn't very powerful.)
- mladenkovacevic 11y ago
  I wasn't suggesting that there are people out there who actively want to destroy our quality of life. All things being equal, most foreigners couldn't care less how we make our living as long as it's not off their backs. Throughout recent history, however, that's exactly how certain US conglomerates have made much of their fortunes. There are no legitimate threats to our well being other than those created by our own military excursions overseas. The most unfortunate part in all this is that the rewards for middle class in all this are sort of superficial. I believe that the US would still be a great economic power with many of its citizens enjoying a comfortable life even without the enormous projection of military power overseas. Maybe lacking a few billionaires and some minor trickle down economic benefits, but by and large, regular people in US would still be as innovative, productive and successful as ever. So if US had never bombed a number of countries or organized a number of coups or ended sanctions against Iran, Cuba and Russia tomorrow, the average American would hardly feel the difference or be any more threatened. But unfortunately political power in the US is not controlled by average citizens.
  - xixi77 11y ago
    Well, it appears we just have to disagree here. I see very immediate and legitimate threats to our (and our allies') well-being from the likes of Iran or Russia (I might agree with you on Cuba as it stands now -- but let's not forget the missile crisis, which has probably been the largest threat we've faced yet). I am all for peacefully negotiating mutually-agreeable solutions, but the key to having those negotiations in the first place is a credible threat of force, not folding at the first opportunity.

xixi77 11y ago

How do you define "positively evil"? If there are people whose objective is to destroy our quality of life (material or otherwise), is it immoral to make an effort to eliminate them? Now, I do have serious doubts whether the drone program actually serves that purpose, but are you suggesting that we should ignore legitimate threats to our well-being, or perhaps that there are no such threats?

TeMPOraL 11y ago
You could argue for the right to defend yourself, but since we're making a moral argument here, you should also make sure that your defense inflicts damage to those who are a danger to you, and not to innocent bystanders. Also a defense that makes more enemies is a pretty crappy defense, both from moral and practical point of view. (Of course we're skipping the part of the more likely real reason for drone strikes - more people pissed off == more terrorists == more need to defend == more money for military-industrial complex. You can play this game safely as long as your enemy isn't very powerful.)
mladenkovacevic 11y ago
I wasn't suggesting that there are people out there who actively want to destroy our quality of life. All things being equal, most foreigners couldn't care less how we make our living as long as it's not off their backs. Throughout recent history, however, that's exactly how certain US conglomerates have made much of their fortunes. There are no legitimate threats to our well being other than those created by our own military excursions overseas. The most unfortunate part in all this is that the rewards for middle class in all this are sort of superficial. I believe that the US would still be a great economic power with many of its citizens enjoying a comfortable life even without the enormous projection of military power overseas. Maybe lacking a few billionaires and some minor trickle down economic benefits, but by and large, regular people in US would still be as innovative, productive and successful as ever. So if US had never bombed a number of countries or organized a number of coups or ended sanctions against Iran, Cuba and Russia tomorrow, the average American would hardly feel the difference or be any more threatened. But unfortunately political power in the US is not controlled by average citizens.
- xixi77 11y ago
  Well, it appears we just have to disagree here. I see very immediate and legitimate threats to our (and our allies') well-being from the likes of Iran or Russia (I might agree with you on Cuba as it stands now -- but let's not forget the missile crisis, which has probably been the largest threat we've faced yet). I am all for peacefully negotiating mutually-agreeable solutions, but the key to having those negotiations in the first place is a credible threat of force, not folding at the first opportunity.