5 ms·

American lives are worth more then? Who are we fighting exactly?

marksweston 10y ago
To the American government, yes of course they are. The American government isn't supposed to be some even-handed dispenser of global justice; its job is to protect American citizens and their interests.
- dforrestwilson1 10y ago
  I have trouble squaring this with the DNC narrative that we are stronger together and that immigration is good. How can they claim to be the party of humanism and also advocate for more drone strikes and overseas conflict?
- jiiam 10y ago
  > its job is to protect American citizens and their interests Are you implying that you can dispense with human rights when it comes to foreign civilians? I am also very frightened by the fact that you are, apparently, condoning it to "protect [American citizens] interests". I hope that interests means safety here.
sixstringtheory 10y ago
By your earlier comment, it sounds like you know more about this situation than the avg HN user. Please dispense with the Socratic method, it's not great for async forums. Can you answer these questions for us? Do we strike targets without high enough precision, or wrongfully? Who exactly are we fighting? Can you link us to some sources we might not have already seen? Yes, there have been lives snuffed out with drones, and yes, there might have been collateral damage. I think it's safe to assume in most cases it's a "them or us" situation. "War is hell." - Sherman, and yes it's an ironic quote because like the earlier context it contains, I've never experienced war.
- robin_reala 10y ago
  I think what annoys me the most about the phrase ‘collateral damage’ is it sounds like someone bumped into another car more than it sounds like an innocent person was murdered.
  - Fargren 10y ago
    We should replace it with 'collateral murder', maybe.
    - gwright 10y ago
      Sure, if you just want to confuse the discussion. Murder is a criminal concept. This is an armed conflict and it has its own set of rules and ethical/moral frameworks. That doesn't mean that 'anything goes' or that there aren't arguments to be made to minimize civilian casualties or just plain strategic arguments against the practices, it just means that it isn't helpful to try to frame the discussion as if we are talking criminal actions.
      - robin_reala 10y ago
        Fair enough, it’s an armed conflict. That means the Geneva Conventions come into play and “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds” are prohibited to civilians and enemy combatants who have laid down their arms. Guess we’d better get The Hague involved for the drone pilots then?
      - Fargren 10y ago
        As you say, such a term would confuse the discussion. But I feel the current term, collateral damage, does the same thing. When someone says collateral damage the image that comes to my mind is property damage, not personal injury and specially not death of uninvolved bystanders. Death is more than damage. Obviously, murder is something else altogether. That was my point, even if I didn't make very well.
- finid 10y ago

To the American government, yes of course they are. The American government isn't supposed to be some even-handed dispenser of global justice; its job is to protect American citizens and their interests.

dforrestwilson1 10y ago
I have trouble squaring this with the DNC narrative that we are stronger together and that immigration is good. How can they claim to be the party of humanism and also advocate for more drone strikes and overseas conflict?
jiiam 10y ago
> its job is to protect American citizens and their interests Are you implying that you can dispense with human rights when it comes to foreign civilians? I am also very frightened by the fact that you are, apparently, condoning it to "protect [American citizens] interests". I hope that interests means safety here.

sixstringtheory 10y ago

By your earlier comment, it sounds like you know more about this situation than the avg HN user. Please dispense with the Socratic method, it's not great for async forums. Can you answer these questions for us? Do we strike targets without high enough precision, or wrongfully? Who exactly are we fighting? Can you link us to some sources we might not have already seen? Yes, there have been lives snuffed out with drones, and yes, there might have been collateral damage. I think it's safe to assume in most cases it's a "them or us" situation. "War is hell." - Sherman, and yes it's an ironic quote because like the earlier context it contains, I've never experienced war.

robin_reala 10y ago
I think what annoys me the most about the phrase ‘collateral damage’ is it sounds like someone bumped into another car more than it sounds like an innocent person was murdered.
- Fargren 10y ago
  We should replace it with 'collateral murder', maybe.
  - gwright 10y ago
    Sure, if you just want to confuse the discussion. Murder is a criminal concept. This is an armed conflict and it has its own set of rules and ethical/moral frameworks. That doesn't mean that 'anything goes' or that there aren't arguments to be made to minimize civilian casualties or just plain strategic arguments against the practices, it just means that it isn't helpful to try to frame the discussion as if we are talking criminal actions.
    - robin_reala 10y ago
      Fair enough, it’s an armed conflict. That means the Geneva Conventions come into play and “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds” are prohibited to civilians and enemy combatants who have laid down their arms. Guess we’d better get The Hague involved for the drone pilots then?
    - Fargren 10y ago
      As you say, such a term would confuse the discussion. But I feel the current term, collateral damage, does the same thing. When someone says collateral damage the image that comes to my mind is property damage, not personal injury and specially not death of uninvolved bystanders. Death is more than damage. Obviously, murder is something else altogether. That was my point, even if I didn't make very well.
finid 10y ago