6 ms·

What military objectives - we are not at war with any of these countries.

rayiner 13y ago
Why must war be against countries? The types of activities being carried out in Yemen, Pakistan, etc, if state sanctioned, would be justification for war. Does the fact that Yemen and Pakistan can't police themselves internally enough to stop these activities make military retaliation unjustified? Would you feel better if we just declared war on Yemen and Pakistan?
- jessaustin 13y ago
  Would you feel better if we just declared war on Yemen and Pakistan? Yes! I for one would love to live in a nation that required public informed consent, after public debate of public information, by elected representatives of an informed public, before killing people on the other side of the globe.
- dmix 13y ago
  But at the same time we can't go to war with a group that consists of very weakly affiliated individuals who don't actively threaten us at home. The concept that Al Qaeda is a homogeneous group with a structured hierarchy ("#3 Al-qaeda leader killed") that threatens America has mostly been manufactured by the military and media: http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2013/dec/11/washingtons-al-qaeda-doesnt-exist-and-never-did/ http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-libert...
- pstuart 13y ago
  So let's send drones to Saudi Arabia. Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and it was done in response to our presence there. This is anti-national security -- all this does is pour gasoline on the fire of anti-American sentiment. People like you supporting this madness is the reason the world is going to hell. Ugh.
  - rayiner 13y ago
    Saudi funded religious schools are a key formenter of anti-American Islamist sentiment around the world. Forget drones, their actions warrant larger-scale military action.
    - jessaustin 13y ago
      Just so I know I'm not misunderstanding: the fact that they fund religious schools alone justifies bombings, invasions, etc.? We're through the looking glass here, people.
      - rayiner 13y ago
        No, the fact that they fund religious schools that teach virulently anti-western sentiment is an attack on our national interest and justifies military action.
        girvo 13y ago
        I really disagree with you, entirely on this matter, but come on people, don't down vote just because you hate that viewpoint...
        jessaustin 13y ago
        Maybe we should stop buying Saudi oil first? I mean, we've pretended to stop buying Iranian oil, so we could pretend that about Saudi as well. I hear good things about fracking. From an ethical standpoint, you violate the Categorical Imperative, to say nothing of the Golden Rule. We also have schools (religious and otherwise) that demonize Islam, Arab nations, Iran, etc. Does that fact justify violent action on the part of those aggrieved parties? Should we care about similar anti-"western" lessons taught in various parts of Asia and South America? Suddenly it seems your proposition could be very profitable for the military-industrial complex...
        rayiner 13y ago
        First, drawing false equivalence is never a compelling mode of argumentation. I don't know of any federal program to build schools that "demonize" Islam or Arab nations. That message certainly exists, but it's not a government-sponsored message. Second, it's not just schools that teach anti-Western statement. It's a concerted effort by Saudi Arabia to aggrandize its influence over the Islamic world while undermining western influence. Maintaining spheres of influence has, historically, been considered a sufficient justification for engaging in military action. Third, if you want an ethical argument, how about this one: the world under western influence is fairer and more just than the world under Saudi influence. In my home country of 150 million people, Islam as it was practiced used to be relatively liberal. Our country derived its cultural cues from India and Britain. With increased Saudi influence came the loss of secular democracy and the oppression of women. Increasing Saudi influence and decreasing western influence is robbing hundreds of millions of muslims around the world of the benefits of progress. What's so ethical about allowing that to continue?
- tptacek 13y ago
  Yes. The scariest thing about our current military adventures is that they are based on a declaration of war against a brand name rather than against a state, which could conceivably be toppled to end the war. The 2001 AUMF goes a step past Orwell by declaring war not merely against Eastasia, but against any organization that might potentially share any of the amorphous subjective defining attributes of Eastasia. Yes, real war please.
  - girvo 13y ago
    I despise war in general, but my god do I agree with you on this. I worry about the future, and where this War On Nothing Concrete will lead our western world...
coldtea 13y ago
>Why must war be against countries? Because that's it's very definition. >The types of activities being carried out in Yemen, Pakistan, etc, if state sanctioned, would be justification for war. Activities like weddings, hospital operations and schooling? >Does the fact that Yemen and Pakistan can't police themselves internally enough to stop these activities make military retaliation unjustified? Is there anything concrete about those activities except "person X met person Y there, and person X is a terrorist" type of "intel", filtered and produced by various military agencies? Or, let me put it another way: would it be ok to bomb some part of Oklahoma to kill Timothy McVey? Or are third world lives cheaper?
- rayiner 13y ago
  War certainly isn't defined as being between nations. Think of wars involving Viking tribes, or the Barbary wars. And yes, to any given nation, people outside the nation are cheaper. Its a basic premise of human nations.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >War certainly isn't defined as being between nations. Think of wars involving Viking tribes, or the Barbary wars. Those are pre-nation-state examples. The tribes (or city-states, or what have you) played the role of nation states back then. >And yes, to any given nation, people outside the nation are cheaper. Its a basic premise of human nations. It's much more seen in nations that are used to being on the upper side with minimal impact on them, the same kind of nations that have built and justified racist theories of inferiority. (Hating the enemy in some capacity is always present, but thinking of him as an inferior/cheaper human is not).
- aestra 13y ago
  This is kinda off topic but Timothy McVey actually had no ties to Oklahoma at all, so Oklahoma would be safe, he looked up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (the building he bombed) in the phone book. He was looking for a building with the max amount of federal offices in it. He grew up outside of Buffalo New York and lived somewhat of a transient life and he built the bomb with Terry Nochols in Kansas.
malandrew 13y ago
For some of these politicians, pork barreling is a military objective. Every one of these drones is jobs for their constituents.

Why must war be against countries? The types of activities being carried out in Yemen, Pakistan, etc, if state sanctioned, would be justification for war. Does the fact that Yemen and Pakistan can't police themselves internally enough to stop these activities make military retaliation unjustified? Would you feel better if we just declared war on Yemen and Pakistan?

jessaustin 13y ago
Would you feel better if we just declared war on Yemen and Pakistan? Yes! I for one would love to live in a nation that required public informed consent, after public debate of public information, by elected representatives of an informed public, before killing people on the other side of the globe.
dmix 13y ago
But at the same time we can't go to war with a group that consists of very weakly affiliated individuals who don't actively threaten us at home. The concept that Al Qaeda is a homogeneous group with a structured hierarchy ("#3 Al-qaeda leader killed") that threatens America has mostly been manufactured by the military and media: http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2013/dec/11/washingtons-al-qaeda-doesnt-exist-and-never-did/ http://c.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-libert...
pstuart 13y ago
So let's send drones to Saudi Arabia. Most of the 9/11 attackers were Saudis, and it was done in response to our presence there. This is anti-national security -- all this does is pour gasoline on the fire of anti-American sentiment. People like you supporting this madness is the reason the world is going to hell. Ugh.
- rayiner 13y ago
  Saudi funded religious schools are a key formenter of anti-American Islamist sentiment around the world. Forget drones, their actions warrant larger-scale military action.
  - jessaustin 13y ago
    Just so I know I'm not misunderstanding: the fact that they fund religious schools alone justifies bombings, invasions, etc.? We're through the looking glass here, people.
    - rayiner 13y ago
      No, the fact that they fund religious schools that teach virulently anti-western sentiment is an attack on our national interest and justifies military action.
      - girvo 13y ago
        I really disagree with you, entirely on this matter, but come on people, don't down vote just because you hate that viewpoint...
      - jessaustin 13y ago
        Maybe we should stop buying Saudi oil first? I mean, we've pretended to stop buying Iranian oil, so we could pretend that about Saudi as well. I hear good things about fracking. From an ethical standpoint, you violate the Categorical Imperative, to say nothing of the Golden Rule. We also have schools (religious and otherwise) that demonize Islam, Arab nations, Iran, etc. Does that fact justify violent action on the part of those aggrieved parties? Should we care about similar anti-"western" lessons taught in various parts of Asia and South America? Suddenly it seems your proposition could be very profitable for the military-industrial complex...
        rayiner 13y ago
        First, drawing false equivalence is never a compelling mode of argumentation. I don't know of any federal program to build schools that "demonize" Islam or Arab nations. That message certainly exists, but it's not a government-sponsored message. Second, it's not just schools that teach anti-Western statement. It's a concerted effort by Saudi Arabia to aggrandize its influence over the Islamic world while undermining western influence. Maintaining spheres of influence has, historically, been considered a sufficient justification for engaging in military action. Third, if you want an ethical argument, how about this one: the world under western influence is fairer and more just than the world under Saudi influence. In my home country of 150 million people, Islam as it was practiced used to be relatively liberal. Our country derived its cultural cues from India and Britain. With increased Saudi influence came the loss of secular democracy and the oppression of women. Increasing Saudi influence and decreasing western influence is robbing hundreds of millions of muslims around the world of the benefits of progress. What's so ethical about allowing that to continue?
tptacek 13y ago
Yes. The scariest thing about our current military adventures is that they are based on a declaration of war against a brand name rather than against a state, which could conceivably be toppled to end the war. The 2001 AUMF goes a step past Orwell by declaring war not merely against Eastasia, but against any organization that might potentially share any of the amorphous subjective defining attributes of Eastasia. Yes, real war please.
- girvo 13y ago
  I despise war in general, but my god do I agree with you on this. I worry about the future, and where this War On Nothing Concrete will lead our western world...

coldtea 13y ago

>Why must war be against countries? Because that's it's very definition. >The types of activities being carried out in Yemen, Pakistan, etc, if state sanctioned, would be justification for war. Activities like weddings, hospital operations and schooling? >Does the fact that Yemen and Pakistan can't police themselves internally enough to stop these activities make military retaliation unjustified? Is there anything concrete about those activities except "person X met person Y there, and person X is a terrorist" type of "intel", filtered and produced by various military agencies? Or, let me put it another way: would it be ok to bomb some part of Oklahoma to kill Timothy McVey? Or are third world lives cheaper?

rayiner 13y ago
War certainly isn't defined as being between nations. Think of wars involving Viking tribes, or the Barbary wars. And yes, to any given nation, people outside the nation are cheaper. Its a basic premise of human nations.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >War certainly isn't defined as being between nations. Think of wars involving Viking tribes, or the Barbary wars. Those are pre-nation-state examples. The tribes (or city-states, or what have you) played the role of nation states back then. >And yes, to any given nation, people outside the nation are cheaper. Its a basic premise of human nations. It's much more seen in nations that are used to being on the upper side with minimal impact on them, the same kind of nations that have built and justified racist theories of inferiority. (Hating the enemy in some capacity is always present, but thinking of him as an inferior/cheaper human is not).
aestra 13y ago
This is kinda off topic but Timothy McVey actually had no ties to Oklahoma at all, so Oklahoma would be safe, he looked up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building (the building he bombed) in the phone book. He was looking for a building with the max amount of federal offices in it. He grew up outside of Buffalo New York and lived somewhat of a transient life and he built the bomb with Terry Nochols in Kansas.

malandrew 13y ago

For some of these politicians, pork barreling is a military objective. Every one of these drones is jobs for their constituents.