5 ms·

In the context of international politics they are a clear match for most definitions of tyranny. Killing civilians based on behavioral profiles (look up "signat

by phaer 13y ago

In the context of international politics they are a clear match for most definitions of tyranny. Killing civilians based on behavioral profiles (look up "signature strikes drones") without any declaration of war against the countries in question (Pakistan, Yemen) is just one example. The relations between the US and most south-american countries is another one.

gadders 13y ago
I think compared to the Soviet Union they are positively benevolent.
- sp332 13y ago
  I don't think we should make the Soviet government the standard.
  - gadders 13y ago
    No-one is making it the standard, but it is relevant seeing that NATO and the US were the only things that guaranteed West Germany's safety from Soviet Russia.
    - phaer 13y ago
      ...that might have been an argument almost 25 years ago, but the NATO continues to exist while the Soviet Union is long gone, and its questionable if that's for the benefit of the worlds population.
ihsw 13y ago
Your post implies that the US operates in Pakistan and Yemen without their consent -- there is definitely consent. Pakistan and Yemen want the US to bomb their country, for a variety of reasons that are as silly and contradictory as one can imagine.
- scarmig 13y ago
  Silly and contradictory enough that it's probably more confusing than not to imagine a Pakistan or Yemen with a united will. The weak and fractured governments of Pakistan and Yemen want the US to bomb there. Yemen's being so weak it barely deserves the name.
  - res0nat0r 13y ago
    The recognized leaders of these countries are the ones who are allowing this. Read Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill for more.
josefresco 13y ago
Official declaration of war on a state entity is almost quaint given how modern conflicts are now waged. If only it were as easy as declaring war on country "X" with complete disregard for native and non-native controlling factions. What happens when your old rules of warfare aren't followed by your new enemy? Do you stand by those rules or adapt to the new reality? Targeted drone strikes based on human and data intelligence is light years beyond declaring official war and shelling/bombing an entire region to the ground with no regard to what side the inhabitants may be on.
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  Not if your intelligence is worthless. If your intelligence is worthless, it's almost indiscernible. You're creating a false dichotomy between "targeted" drone strikes and shelling and bombing an entire region. By the way, each perpetrator of shelling and bombing entire regions has historically made similar claims of "targeting/precision".
  - josefresco 13y ago
    Your points are right on, and I think as technology gets better, civilian deaths do decrease. However what happens is we start to cringe at the effectiveness of a cruise missile or drone attack forgetting that the alternative is bloodier, more dangerous and arguably a lot less effective. How do we balance our tolerance for casualties with our tolerance of more and more effective weapons? My point was not to say that drone strikes were wrong or right, only that the technology shouldn't be on trial, the intelligence, effectiveness and purpose should be. I'm sure when airplanes and modern firearms took over the battlefield many thought they were "unfair" and dehumanized the process or war. And I don't doubt that in the future we'll be equally scared of newer more effective weapons.
    - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
      It's not a war. No more than the war on drugs is a war. I don't agree that as technology gets better that the number of civilian deaths decrease. I would point to the atom bomb and chemical warfare. As drone technology gets cheaper, I don't see why civilian deaths would decrease. This is not an argument for ludditism. You're presenting regional carpet bombing as the only alternative. This is not the case. There are alternatives other than drone strikes, and regional bombing that you seem to be ignoring. Using your terms, how many countries is the US at "war" with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#2010.E2.80.93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... These are not wars, this is unilateral, self appointed world policing. Unfortunately, the drone technology is not sufficient to guarantee accuracy. You can tell this because of how civilian deaths have been "redefined" by the US administration and the US military. Both refuse to publish their statistics. Historically, US intelligence has been anything but accurate, maybe the refusal to publish is another example of this. I question the effectiveness of attacking funerals and weddings half way across the world, under the guise of preventing terrorism. Particularly with spectacular failures recently making the news. The technology is not on trial, the US's reputation is. The technology has already been shown to be bunkum - the US's defence is that it's cheap bunkum. This isn't progress on any front. The US does not need cheap drone strikes in these countries, nor does it need to bomb the regions. It's not the weapons people are scared of, it's who is using them. [0] http://www.livingunderdrones.org/numbers/ http://www.livingunderdrones.org/numbers/ [1] http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/25/confessions-of-an-american-drone-warrior/ http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/25/confessions-of-an-a... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-us-military http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-...

by phaer 13y ago

gadders 13y ago

I think compared to the Soviet Union they are positively benevolent.

sp332 13y ago
I don't think we should make the Soviet government the standard.
- gadders 13y ago
  No-one is making it the standard, but it is relevant seeing that NATO and the US were the only things that guaranteed West Germany's safety from Soviet Russia.
  - phaer 13y ago
    ...that might have been an argument almost 25 years ago, but the NATO continues to exist while the Soviet Union is long gone, and its questionable if that's for the benefit of the worlds population.

ihsw 13y ago

Your post implies that the US operates in Pakistan and Yemen without their consent -- there is definitely consent. Pakistan and Yemen want the US to bomb their country, for a variety of reasons that are as silly and contradictory as one can imagine.

scarmig 13y ago
Silly and contradictory enough that it's probably more confusing than not to imagine a Pakistan or Yemen with a united will. The weak and fractured governments of Pakistan and Yemen want the US to bomb there. Yemen's being so weak it barely deserves the name.
- res0nat0r 13y ago
  The recognized leaders of these countries are the ones who are allowing this. Read Dirty Wars by Jeremy Scahill for more.

josefresco 13y ago

Official declaration of war on a state entity is almost quaint given how modern conflicts are now waged. If only it were as easy as declaring war on country "X" with complete disregard for native and non-native controlling factions. What happens when your old rules of warfare aren't followed by your new enemy? Do you stand by those rules or adapt to the new reality? Targeted drone strikes based on human and data intelligence is light years beyond declaring official war and shelling/bombing an entire region to the ground with no regard to what side the inhabitants may be on.

eliasmacpherson 13y ago
Not if your intelligence is worthless. If your intelligence is worthless, it's almost indiscernible. You're creating a false dichotomy between "targeted" drone strikes and shelling and bombing an entire region. By the way, each perpetrator of shelling and bombing entire regions has historically made similar claims of "targeting/precision".
- josefresco 13y ago
  Your points are right on, and I think as technology gets better, civilian deaths do decrease. However what happens is we start to cringe at the effectiveness of a cruise missile or drone attack forgetting that the alternative is bloodier, more dangerous and arguably a lot less effective. How do we balance our tolerance for casualties with our tolerance of more and more effective weapons? My point was not to say that drone strikes were wrong or right, only that the technology shouldn't be on trial, the intelligence, effectiveness and purpose should be. I'm sure when airplanes and modern firearms took over the battlefield many thought they were "unfair" and dehumanized the process or war. And I don't doubt that in the future we'll be equally scared of newer more effective weapons.
  - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
    It's not a war. No more than the war on drugs is a war. I don't agree that as technology gets better that the number of civilian deaths decrease. I would point to the atom bomb and chemical warfare. As drone technology gets cheaper, I don't see why civilian deaths would decrease. This is not an argument for ludditism. You're presenting regional carpet bombing as the only alternative. This is not the case. There are alternatives other than drone strikes, and regional bombing that you seem to be ignoring. Using your terms, how many countries is the US at "war" with: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations#2010.E2.80.93present https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_mili... These are not wars, this is unilateral, self appointed world policing. Unfortunately, the drone technology is not sufficient to guarantee accuracy. You can tell this because of how civilian deaths have been "redefined" by the US administration and the US military. Both refuse to publish their statistics. Historically, US intelligence has been anything but accurate, maybe the refusal to publish is another example of this. I question the effectiveness of attacking funerals and weddings half way across the world, under the guise of preventing terrorism. Particularly with spectacular failures recently making the news. The technology is not on trial, the US's reputation is. The technology has already been shown to be bunkum - the US's defence is that it's cheap bunkum. This isn't progress on any front. The US does not need cheap drone strikes in these countries, nor does it need to bomb the regions. It's not the weapons people are scared of, it's who is using them. [0] http://www.livingunderdrones.org/numbers/ http://www.livingunderdrones.org/numbers/ [1] http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/25/confessions-of-an-american-drone-warrior/ http://amanpour.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/25/confessions-of-an-a... [2] http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-us-military http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-...