3 ms·

Yes, there are examples like this. Collateral damage will happen in war. It is tragic and always will be, and I say that with all sincerity. National security h

Yes, there are examples like this. Collateral damage will happen in war. It is tragic and always will be, and I say that with all sincerity. National security has always been thus and always will be so until there is no such thing as a nation.

kazagistar 8y ago
There is collateral damage in china's war against its terrorists, and I'm sure they justify it the same. It's bullshit, when you are making up a foreverwar.
- bitexploder 8y ago
  Terrorism kind of is a foreverwar. Restraint can be exercised. I am not afraid of terrorism and I won’t give up freedom to fight it, but, I am an outlier among liberals in how I view the application of violence. Let’s just say I disagree with Chomsky and pacifism. Until there is evidence we live in a better world than the one we have now. It’s also important to not lose sight of the scale of the violence in the world. The worst day in the battle of the Somme was 10 times bloodier than the entire Iraq war. We have the luxury of carefully scrutinizing much of what goes on in the world but news does not convey the decreasing scale of violence in our armed conflicts. They will slowly wind down. I won’t disagree at least some of what we are taking about are 1984esque war is peace propaganda, but there are also genuine bad actors in the world and they are only emboldened by a lack of action. I have a lot of concerns about violence in the world, and the US role in it, but I am not so cynical to reduce the war on terror to “bullshit”. Expansion of executive power under Bush is and was troubling. I have to believe that guys like Obama genuinely acted with high moral character and only made the choices they made because it was the obvious moral choice for our national interests. Maybe not, I admit you could be right and it could all be bullshit.
coldtea 8y ago
>Yes, there are examples like this. Collateral damage will happen in war. There's no war declared, and this is just random people (as far as the UN is concerned) deciding and sending drones to kill other people -- and in any case, without any due process, official declaration of war, or anything of the sort, and in sovereign countries at that. >National security has always been thus and always will be so until there is no such thing as a nation. It's not "national security", it's just might. If national security was an excuse for such an act, then the nations those innocent bystanders died in the strike would be OK to send missions to kill those responsible as well, and why not, 20-100 "collateral damages" as well. >It is tragic and always will be Doesn't seem to be perceived that tragically. A few people dying in some mass shooting in some US city gets 100x the media coverage and public tears... It looks more like "yeah, whatever, they're third worlders anyway".

kazagistar 8y ago

There is collateral damage in china's war against its terrorists, and I'm sure they justify it the same. It's bullshit, when you are making up a foreverwar.

bitexploder 8y ago
Terrorism kind of is a foreverwar. Restraint can be exercised. I am not afraid of terrorism and I won’t give up freedom to fight it, but, I am an outlier among liberals in how I view the application of violence. Let’s just say I disagree with Chomsky and pacifism. Until there is evidence we live in a better world than the one we have now. It’s also important to not lose sight of the scale of the violence in the world. The worst day in the battle of the Somme was 10 times bloodier than the entire Iraq war. We have the luxury of carefully scrutinizing much of what goes on in the world but news does not convey the decreasing scale of violence in our armed conflicts. They will slowly wind down. I won’t disagree at least some of what we are taking about are 1984esque war is peace propaganda, but there are also genuine bad actors in the world and they are only emboldened by a lack of action. I have a lot of concerns about violence in the world, and the US role in it, but I am not so cynical to reduce the war on terror to “bullshit”. Expansion of executive power under Bush is and was troubling. I have to believe that guys like Obama genuinely acted with high moral character and only made the choices they made because it was the obvious moral choice for our national interests. Maybe not, I admit you could be right and it could all be bullshit.

coldtea 8y ago

>Yes, there are examples like this. Collateral damage will happen in war. There's no war declared, and this is just random people (as far as the UN is concerned) deciding and sending drones to kill other people -- and in any case, without any due process, official declaration of war, or anything of the sort, and in sovereign countries at that. >National security has always been thus and always will be so until there is no such thing as a nation. It's not "national security", it's just might. If national security was an excuse for such an act, then the nations those innocent bystanders died in the strike would be OK to send missions to kill those responsible as well, and why not, 20-100 "collateral damages" as well. >It is tragic and always will be Doesn't seem to be perceived that tragically. A few people dying in some mass shooting in some US city gets 100x the media coverage and public tears... It looks more like "yeah, whatever, they're third worlders anyway".