[Vision2020] drones
Art Deco
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
Tue Feb 12 08:16:30 PST 2013
@Sunil,
You ask: "What is the evidence that the atrocities you defend are working,
Wayne"
First, I'm not defending all the atrocities. I believe that many of them
were unnecessary; some were caused by drone use made on mistaken
information, some were caused by misjudgments driven by paranoia and over
zealousness; many should have been undertaken given the probable loss of
innocent lives and the maiming of innocents That is why we are engaging in
this discussion: to find a much better way. In the meantime the CIC has a
constitutional duty to plan and implement US security.
Second, whether in the long run the policies that are in place are working
is something I am unable to predict given the complexity of the forces at
work in modern civilization including ideological and ethnic/racial
difference as well as the conflicts that arise in competition for many
resources, some of which are vital but have a limited supply, and then
there is plain old ultra greed which motivates armament makers and
merchants and others with closely allied interests in keeping armed
conflict alive..
There may not be any policy that works in the long run. I hope there is,
but it is my belief that at present the probability that any given policy
will reduce the world of serious baddies without harming goodies is close
to zero. But does that mean we should not plan and execute self-defense
polices in the short run?
How do you deal with the North Koreans, now a member of the nuclear club
with extreme hostilities towards the US, and Iran who will be soon a member
of that club also with extreme hostilities toward the US?
Use methods to peacefully overthrow those governments from within?
Hardly. And even when atrocious governments are overthrown, generally the
new regime is not much better and may be worse.
Are the drone attacks working?
I believe based on media reports that some very bad people have been
eliminated by *some* of the drone attacks, and with that the threat to our
security has been abated at least to some extent in the short run.
There is no doubt that there have been and continues to be horrible
atrocities.
Whether and, if so, whether the policies are working is a matter of
rigorous debate with reasonable people and crackpots taking every side.
Google: ["war on terror" effectiveness] to see the vast varieties of
opinion.
The problem with any discussion of this issue is that of incomplete
information about the nature of, who is involved and how, and the
seriousness of the threat of terrorism. Unfortunately no intelligence
agency has very accurate information in this area either. To make matters
worse, the who and how are always undergoing change.
I am sorry if this is not a comforting answer. I don't think there is a
comforting answer although I hope there are better ones than we have
generated and implemented to date.
@Joe,
See above.
It is clear however, that peaceful attempts by the US to make the world
more secure have had very mixed results. The foreign aid program is
probably is most visible example of these mixed results.
While we have pour trillions of aid into non-military foreign aid and there
have been some tangible results, it is obvious that many expenditures over
the have backfired: Iran, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, Ethiopia, etc etc. We
have used foreign aid to prop up governments whose values are an anathema
to ours and who oppressed, killed, and maimed their citizens.
Even in Europe where we have invested much aid, the feeling towards the US
is far from positive in many countries. While it is generally true that
being nice begets niceness, it is not always true, and what holds for
transactions between individuals does not necessarily hold true between
nations. This is not a barb, but even individuals such as yourself
advocating niceness do not always practice it: witness some of your
interactions with Gary Crabtree.
Due to the nature of politics and the drive to be re-elected, being nice to
foreign nations does not emotionally inspire many electors as advocating
harsh measures in the name of national security does.
Paraphrased from Nietzsche: Help someone, lose a friend or make an enemy.
This is not always true, but sometimes it is.
I cannot believe that being nice to terrorists will make any difference in
their attitude, intentions, and attempted actions toward us. Please give
evidence that your suggestion has a good chance of working before you would
expose to egregious peril if it doesn't. At the same time I do not believe
that maiming and killing innocents is not only immoral but
counterproductive.
But if my only choice is between killing and maiming innocents abroad, and
having innocents maimed and killed here, some of which could be my friends,
relative, and loved ones, then ...
I do not agree with the current US policy in total. I am not a hawk nor a
dove. I see self-defense as a necessary and practical issue with actions
taken in accordance with the imperfectly known seriousness of the threat.
You may think that this is a nice world, and parts of it are, but human
beings are generally driven by self-interest, and that self-interest can be
used by clever manipulators of all stripes, nations, religions,
philosophies to impose their will on others, not to mention the rearks
above about greed and resources.
w.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:
> You are funny! This is a local blog. I'm not sure what you're doing but
> when it comes to foreign policy, I'm just throwing out my opinions. I don't
> see myself as being in a position to enact public policy.
>
> Here is the main point, about which I have oodles of lifetime experience.
> If you are rude to someone, they are likely to be rude back; if you punish
> someone, they are likely to seek retaliation; if you act aggressively
> toward someone, they are likely to respond with aggression. I don't see how
> if you move from the personal level to the global level things will change
> all that much. People are people. If you want people to be nice to you, the
> first step is to try to be nice to them.
>
> I don't see how my asking you for evidence that this will not work is less
> silly than you asking me for evidence that it won't.
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:43 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Your response in the form of a question is simply a failure to give
>> reasonably requested evidence for a position you advocate.
>>
>> If you are suggesting an alternative to what is going on, and I sincerely
>> hope there are many better alternatives, then you need to give some
>> evidence that your suggestion will work.
>>
>>
>> w.
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Joe Campbell <philosopher.joe at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> Can you tell me an instance where someone tried this strategy globally
>>> and it failed? I'm not saying it always works. I'm not suggesting we always
>>> be Chamberlain to to the world's Hitlers. But who is Hitler in this case,
>>> now that we've killed off most of the despots?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:18 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> @Joe:
>>>>
>>>> Where has that worked globally in the long run?
>>>>
>>>> w.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:13 AM, Joe Campbell <
>>>> philosopher.joe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I think it is a nice world. Unfortunately some of the people in it are
>>>>> psychopaths and some of those end up running terrorist organizations.
>>>>>
>>>>> But most of the folks who join terrorist organizations are not
>>>>> psychopaths. How many innocent people from the Middle East have died since
>>>>> 9/11? Does anyone know the number? Such "errors" are a great tool when it
>>>>> comes to recruitment tool when it comes to building terrorist
>>>>> organizations. That is the pragmatic reason for being against drone
>>>>> strikes. In the end, it is a zero sum game: we're creating as many enemies
>>>>> as we're killing off. Actually, that is an underestimate. We're likely
>>>>> creating more enemies than we are killing off.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact is, very few people respond toward aggression with anything
>>>>> other than more aggression. That doesn't make them bad, just human. But it
>>>>> does mean that if you want to stop aggression you should try another
>>>>> approach.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Feb 12, 2013, at 4:21 AM, Art Deco <art.deco.studios at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Sunil,
>>>>>
>>>>> I cannot defend all the individual uses of drones. There is without
>>>>> doubt horrible consequences to innocent people. Nor do I have nearly
>>>>> enough information to analyze whether each drone attack as fits into the
>>>>> part of US foreign policy that is driven in part by self-defense.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have/are errors of judgment been/being made in the execution of that
>>>>> policy? Most likely. Faulty and very faulty intelligence combined with
>>>>> paranoiac, overzealous persons in certain positions are part of the
>>>>> problem. [We have that problem with law enforcement in our own country,
>>>>> state, and county.]
>>>>>
>>>>> What about the policy itself? Obviously it needs judicial oversight
>>>>> on matters of executing specific actions/attacks to help guard against
>>>>> errors and over zealousness.
>>>>>
>>>>> To the extent the policy forwards the goals of self-defense and other
>>>>> national goals, and what these other national goals should be, and whether
>>>>> the cost is lesser or greater than the benefit of the actions resulting
>>>>> from the policy goals are questions that no one can answer with certainty,
>>>>> it is a debate of issues which have been with us almost since the beginning
>>>>> of civilization. We can hope that rigorous debate will help create better
>>>>> answers in the future.
>>>>>
>>>>> Few people (myself included) want to see innocent people killed and
>>>>> maimed; it is a moral outrage. Few Americans want other events of the
>>>>> nature of 9/11. Can both goals be achieved? I don't know; I hope so.
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't agree on this: some drone attacks are justified given the
>>>>> credibility and high probability of the threat being addressed.
>>>>>
>>>>> We probably agree on this: The policies driving drone should be very
>>>>> carefully reviewed to see if they really forward the alleged national
>>>>> goals, to see if those alleged goals are in our long term interest, to see
>>>>> if those long term goals can be morally justified, and to see if their are
>>>>> nicer, less destructive ways to achieve those goals.
>>>>>
>>>>> It'd not a nice world. Neither for us nor, as you point out, the
>>>>> victims in other parts of the world of this lack of niceness.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no intention of trying discourage you from pursuing your point
>>>>> of view, and in fact welcome it since the real issues that we are
>>>>> attempting to deal with are huge life/death/quality of life issues upon
>>>>> which humankind has made little progress with since the beginning of human
>>>>> or near human existence.
>>>>>
>>>>> w.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:10 AM, Kenneth Marcy <kmmos1 at frontier.com>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2/11/2013 8:56 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the trouble with wasting time on philosophical debates like
>>>>>>> gun control and gay marriage. There are things that all of us should rally
>>>>>>> around, issues that matter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> <[snip]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From WBUR Boston, On Point with Tom Ashbrook, 11 February 2013:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Obama Administration, Drone Strikes, And The Law
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Obama administration’s argument on drone warfare. Even against
>>>>>> Americans. We push deeper on drones, killing, and the law.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It’s been a great ride for advocates of America’s booming
>>>>>> kill-‘em-where-they-stand drone program. Kill lists. Targeted
>>>>>> assassination. Death from the sky. No muss, no fuss. All secrecy, and then
>>>>>> the public victory dance when a big al Qaeda kill is claimed, somewhere
>>>>>> “over there.” Even of American citizens.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Barack Obama skewered George Bush and Dick Cheney for going
>>>>>> “extra-legal,” but President Obama has been the champion of drones. And
>>>>>> “don’t ask” has been the policy when it comes to legal rationale.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This hour, On Point: we’re asking, about American law and death by
>>>>>> drone.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/**02/11/drone-strikes<http://onpoint.wbur.org/2013/02/11/drone-strikes>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ken
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ==============================**=========================
>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>> ==============================**=========================
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>>>>> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com <Vision2020 at moscow.com>
>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>>>> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> =======================================================
>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>> =======================================================
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>> =======================================================
>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>> http://www.fsr.net
>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>> =======================================================
>>
>
>
--
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20130212/e7c917ce/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list