Drone strikes. Whats your opinion

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

technocracy has nothing to do with technology.

MIC=/=military

frannkzappa

I'm starting to think you are an idiot. Go rea "the republic" and come back.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] Technocracy does have everything to do with technology or else it's definition would not be "a philosophy promoting technocracy: a philosophy that advocates the enlistment of a bureaucracy of highly trained engineers, scientists, or technicians to run the government and society" And a technocrat would not be "1.engineer or economist as bureaucrat: a bureaucrat who is intensively trained in engineering, economics, or a form of technology". If technocracy has nothing to do with technology then a technocrat would not be the definition I just quoted, which in fact, it is. MIC = military. Look more into the iron triangle.lo_Pine

I'm starting to think you are an idiot. Go rea "the republic" and come back.

hmmm...lack of independent thought. put that next to your already lacking critical thinking and reading comprehension skills and you've got yourself a grade A ignoramus. Forget what i said, books are beyond you.

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

I'm starting to think you are an idiot. Go rea "the republic" and come back.

frannkzappa

hmmm...lack of independent thought. put that next to your already lacking critical thinking and reading comprehension skills and you've got yourself a grade A ignoramus. Forget what i said, books are beyond you.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] No thanks. Reading a 2300 year old dialogue written by a man who is regarded insane by many scholars is out of my realm and irrelevant. Even if it was relevant other scholars have built upon his works and are more useful for me to read.lo_Pine

hmmm...lack of independent thought. put that next to your already lacking critical thinking and reading comprehension skills and you've got yourself a grade A ignoramus. Forget what i said, books are beyond you.

I was just irritated that you resorted to quoting a Wikipedia article to cover your mistake and then go on to misinterpret that quote.

You also continue to claim that the military industrial complex is the same as the actual military, which is flat out wrong.

"The Republic" leaves no room for misinterpretation when describing technocracy, thus why i suggested it.

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

hmmm...lack of independent thought. put that next to your already lacking critical thinking and reading comprehension skills and you've got yourself a grade A ignoramus. Forget what i said, books are beyond you.

frannkzappa

I was just irritated that you resorted to quoting a Wikipedia article to cover your mistake and then go on to misinterpret that quote.

You also continue to claim that the military industrial complex is the same as the actual military, which is flat out wrong.

"The Republic" leaves no room for misinterpretation when describing technocracy, thus why i suggested it.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="lo_Pine"] I can't wait for your ebook to come out.frannkzappa

The fact that ron paul didn't win means the the educational system is still working to some degree.

Democracy is still a terrible thing though.

That is some of the most blatant pandering I have ever seen. That is worse than Rudy Giuliani's $9.11 fundraiser.

Obama says it's ok. So i'm fine with it. He's usually right.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] My book will mostly be about the US public education system and its influence on the 2008 and 2012 elections, so it is only loosely relevant to drone strikes.Laihendi

The fact that ron paul didn't win means the the educational system is still working to some degree.

Democracy is still a terrible thing though.

That is some of the most blatant pandering I have ever seen. That is worse than Rudy Giuliani's $9.11 fundraiser.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] My book will mostly be about the US public education system and its influence on the 2008 and 2012 elections, so it is only loosely relevant to drone strikes.Laihendi

The fact that ron paul didn't win means the the educational system is still working to some degree.

Democracy is still a terrible thing though.

That is some of the most blatant pandering I have ever seen. That is worse than Rudy Giuliani's $9.11 fundraiser.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] Way to resort to insults. If reading the works of Plato were not the way to understand government/politics then what would you suggest I read?lo_Pine

I was just irritated that you resorted to quoting a Wikipedia article to cover your mistake and then go on to misinterpret that quote.

You also continue to claim that the military industrial complex is the same as the actual military, which is flat out wrong.

"The Republic" leaves no room for misinterpretation when describing technocracy, thus why i suggested it.

Regardless of where you got the quote you misinterpreted it.

I don't see what the US having a well funded military has to do with anything.

"The Republic" is not abstract it is a logical discussion of the failings of democracy and tyrants and of the merits of the ideal government;technocracy (called philosopher kings in platos terms)

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

The fact that ron paul didn't win means the the educational system is still working to some degree.

Democracy is still a terrible thing though.

MakeMeaSammitch

That is some of the most blatant pandering I have ever seen. That is worse than Rudy Giuliani's $9.11 fundraiser.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] My book will mostly be about the US public education system and its influence on the 2008 and 2012 elections, so it is only loosely relevant to drone strikes.Laihendi

The fact that ron paul didn't win means the the educational system is still working to some degree.

Democracy is still a terrible thing though.

That is some of the most blatant pandering I have ever seen. That is worse than Rudy Giuliani's $9.11 fundraiser.

Yes, Obama is a populist and a manipulator of the ignorant, but so is Ron Paul. Democracy is terrible and this last election is proof of this. I can only imagine that the logical among us voted for Obama in the hopes he would expand the federal government, which he has failed to do. But this is the best we can hope for in a democracy.

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

I was just irritated that you resorted to quoting a Wikipedia article to cover your mistake and then go on to misinterpret that quote.

You also continue to claim that the military industrial complex is the same as the actual military, which is flat out wrong.

"The Republic" leaves no room for misinterpretation when describing technocracy, thus why i suggested it.

frannkzappa

Regardless of where you got the quote you misinterpreted it.

I don't see what the US having a well funded military has to do with anything.

"The Republic" is not abstract it is a logical discussion of the failings of democracy and tyrants and of the merits of the ideal government;technocracy (called philosopher kings in platos terms)

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

The fact that ron paul didn't win means the the educational system is still working to some degree.

Democracy is still a terrible thing though.

MakeMeaSammitch

That is some of the most blatant pandering I have ever seen. That is worse than Rudy Giuliani's $9.11 fundraiser.

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] That is absurd. Ron Paul would have made a far better president than Obama, Romney, or anyone else running except for Gary Johnson perhaps. Look at what Obama is doing to this country. You cannot seriously believe that educated and intelligent people voted for a populist like Obama, who received 51% of the vote. He was pandering to the ignorant masses.

That is some of the most blatant pandering I have ever seen. That is worse than Rudy Giuliani's $9.11 fundraiser.

Laihendi

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] I didn't quote a Wikipedia article I quoted a definition from Bing when I searched " 'said term' 'define' ". You are right. The military industrial complex is not the same thing as the military but the MIC cannot exist without the military and out of all the military expenditures in the world the USA spends 50% of it. The significance of that is that the USA is the beacon of democracy. "The Republic" is the most abstract philosophical work of democracy there is. Be a little more modern.lo_Pine

Regardless of where you got the quote you misinterpreted it.

I don't see what the US having a well funded military has to do with anything.

"The Republic" is not abstract it is a logical discussion of the failings of democracy and tyrants and of the merits of the ideal government;technocracy (called philosopher kings in platos terms)

The military as we are talking about it has little to do with a technocratic government, other than that a technocratic government would have a strong military.

And what gives you the impression that man was intellectually different 2000 years ago then he is now?People are no smarter now than they were 2000 years ago.more technologically advanced? yes. but we have gone through no biological changes which altered our intelligence or basic behavior since platos time.Plato was a genius and a visionary regardless of his time period.

ever done math? most of the geometry and arithmetic we use now is over 1000 years old.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

The fact that ron paul didn't win means the the educational system is still working to some degree.

Democracy is still a terrible thing though.

lo_Pine

That is some of the most blatant pandering I have ever seen. That is worse than Rudy Giuliani's $9.11 fundraiser.

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] That is absurd. Ron Paul would have made a far better president than Obama, Romney, or anyone else running except for Gary Johnson perhaps. Look at what Obama is doing to this country. You cannot seriously believe that educated and intelligent people voted for a populist like Obama, who received 51% of the vote. He was pandering to the ignorant masses.

That is some of the most blatant pandering I have ever seen. That is worse than Rudy Giuliani's $9.11 fundraiser.

Laihendi

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] That is absurd. Ron Paul would have made a far better president than Obama, Romney, or anyone else running except for Gary Johnson perhaps. Look at what Obama is doing to this country. You cannot seriously believe that educated and intelligent people voted for a populist like Obama, who received 51% of the vote. He was pandering to the ignorant masses.

That is some of the most blatant pandering I have ever seen. That is worse than Rudy Giuliani's $9.11 fundraiser.

Laihendi

Democrats have been getting majority of the minority vote for a couple decades now. :roll:

[QUOTE="MakeMeaSammitch"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] That is absurd. Ron Paul would have made a far better president than Obama, Romney, or anyone else running except for Gary Johnson perhaps. Look at what Obama is doing to this country. You cannot seriously believe that educated and intelligent people voted for a populist like Obama, who received 51% of the vote. He was pandering to the ignorant masses.

That is some of the most blatant pandering I have ever seen. That is worse than Rudy Giuliani's $9.11 fundraiser.

Laihendi

while i beleive the welfare system is idiotic, i do beleive it can be useful on a case by case basis under heavy government scrutny. Not the "poor people deserve money" mentality we got going now.

This is how i see it, Drones are an effective way to ascert deadly force on the opposition with minimal or no risk, while it does play to the advantage of the drone user, it opens a fundamental question of war in general. Is war really necessary?....because in the end of the day, thats the question people seem to keep asking over and over again, was it necessary, we can save lives rather than destroy them. While some may be quick to jump to the conclusion that some aggression were provoked and its the case of an eye for an eye, this drone like other weapon invention in war history is just another fuel to the fire because as a radical war asset, it brings with itself a whole set of new laws that needs to be in place for its application. Americans may not share my opinion on this particular topic since the drones are shooting missiles miles away from their door step, but think about 20yrs down the line, when the first mover advantage is no more there, 20yrs down the line when other countries who supposed enemies of america now have access to this drones or what if radical terrorist groups have access to these drones, so what happens when you start to get a taste of your own medicine, then what?.....The current preset that the US military is creating for the use of these drones are not exactly impressive if you ask me and given the history cycle of this war on terror, one would feel it is inevitable when the next Osama Bin Laden would feel it is his due right to attack the USA with these drones 20yrs down the line. At the end of the day, America would make another weapon to counter drones and this whole cycle of violence continues again, but the question still remains, is War necessary?

They killed a lot of innocent civilians.

I think drones should be handled better, it's just that they are being misused.

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

the operator is killing at no risk to himself.  

Jebus213

The guy dropping JDAM's on mud-huts in his jet isn't in all that much danger either. :roll:

right, because that's such a great example of the kind of perfectly legitimate normal thing that modern civilized democracies have every right to do.

they save american lives

frannkzappa

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

they save american lives

dramaybaz

why should i care about anywhere else (in terms of war at least)? it's idiotic to want war to be fair. if it was up to me the other guys would have sharpened sticks while we have tanks, that's an ideal situation (except from an economic stand point. the only time i would want an evenly matched war would be to jump start the economy Ala ww1 and ww2.

A cowards weapon. Ye lets kill inocent people! They have rocks, America **** ye have remote control bombs n robots.

Yeah, this thread went from temporarily being derailed to going right back to people who know little about military stragedy calling drones cowards.

 

Just to put it out there, people aren't above lying to make the US look bad. While it is true some innocent civilians died in drone troops drone policies have greatly improved to favor the other side. Some Taliban workers intentionally hang out near children because they know we won't fire at them while they are within the kill zone.ad1x2

I just look at OT as a source of comedy on many aspects, particularly in regards to knowledege of military. Not much to say man, just gotta laugh at the ignorance and move on.

They certainly make my day a whole lot more exciting. 

[QUOTE="dramaybaz"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

they save american lives

frannkzappa

why should i care about anywhere else (in terms of war at least)? it's idiotic to want war to be fair. if it was up to me the other guys would have sharpened sticks while we have tanks, that's an ideal situation (except from an economic stand point. the only time i would want an evenly matched war would be to jump start the economy Ala ww1 and ww2.

well, besides that you should realize how your view is colored by being born on the more advantageous side of this issue, to care about anywhere else is also your only chance for peace, or at least a somewhat peaceful existence. i think being unfair and on a structural basis, amongst other things, creates great frustration which will lead to enemies you can't beat because they can't lose. like the ones we call terrorists that have shown they can pop up anywhere at any time no matter how many drones you let up.

[QUOTE="dramaybaz"] Only people worth being alive on the planet I see. I will support them when they get used on US soil regularly too.frannkzappa

why should i care about anywhere else

Just to put it out there, people aren't above lying to make the US look bad.ad1x2

or good.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"][QUOTE="dramaybaz"]

why should i care about anywhere else

dramaybaz

Just to put it out there, people aren't above lying to make the US look bad.ad1x2

or good.

Democracy is an inefficient and corrupt system which leads to incompetent tyrannys.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="dramaybaz"] Only people worth being alive on the planet I see. I will support them when they get used on US soil regularly too.BLKR4330

why should i care about anywhere else (in terms of war at least)? it's idiotic to want war to be fair. if it was up to me the other guys would have sharpened sticks while we have tanks, that's an ideal situation (except from an economic stand point. the only time i would want an evenly matched war would be to jump start the economy Ala ww1 and ww2.

well, besides that you should realize how your view is colored by being born on the more advantageous side of this issue, to care about anywhere else is also your only chance for peace, or at least a somewhat peaceful existence. i think being unfair and on a structural basis, amongst other things, creates great frustration which will lead to enemies you can't beat because they can't lose. like the ones we call terrorists that have shown they can pop up anywhere at any time no matter how many drones you let up.

of course i'm biased. It is only natural for the strong to try and impose on the weak (there is a very fine line between this and thrasymachus' fallacy).

Also peace is not ideal. if peace was the norm or the only option, it would be very difficult for us to take what we want from other nations.

Simple...kill'em where you find them.....no safe havens!  Let me repeat NO Safe-Havens...not in the US, Iran not in China....nowhere.  Just sayin...live with it world!

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

 

the operator is killing at no risk to himself.  That's morally repugnant.  This is how it legitimizes terrorism and puts everyone's lives at risk. 

 

The fact that you can send robots out to do your war for you means you don't have to worry about flag draped coffins coming back.  So the political cost of waging war is minimized.  As less and less people are involved, society looks the other way and turns a blind eye to it. 

Audacitron

if you can send a guy into the field and he is in no danger he gets to hold his fire and confirm the target and the worst thing that happens is he loses his drone.

drones could be the most humane thing to ever happen to war when the next generation of pilotless vehicle comes along.

that's an interetsing thought.  If drones are going to be used, they really have to be held to a standard higher than that we expect from soldiers.  You can't just kill a bunch of people and then claim self defence.  For a drone there can be no such thing.

Of course that's just the utopian vision of drone warfare.  That's not how it looks from the other side with the buzzing threat of death from the sky.  Inhuman, unaccountable, unpredictable.  In terms of winning hearts and minds, in terms of moral authority, you can never win with this technology.

hell, people freak out about these things being completely automated but i can make a case where that is exactly what we should be wanting to happen and for why we should be trying to take the human factor out of the decision to fire entirely.

a bot would never seek revenge for his fallen friends, a bot would never get up any bloodlust in the heat of battle, a bot would never have a survival instinct that would lead it to fire if unsure the target was a civilian or a friendly, a bot would never kill just for the thrill of it or because it thought it could get away with it.

now i doubt we will even let completely automated killing machines loose on the battlefield but the reason why we won't is simply because the general public is too stupid  to see the advantages in it.

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]or we switch to 100% automated vehicles with all tanks, planes and infantry or whatever within reason being replaced with drones and you get to not panic and shoot everything around you like a madman because you are in no personal danger.

if you can send a guy into the field and he is in no danger he gets to hold his fire and confirm the target and the worst thing that happens is he loses his drone.

drones could be the most humane thing to ever happen to war when the next generation of pilotless vehicle comes along.

Riverwolf007

that's an interetsing thought. If drones are going to be used, they really have to be held to a standard higher than that we expect from soldiers. You can't just kill a bunch of people and then claim self defence. For a drone there can be no such thing.

Of course that's just the utopian vision of drone warfare. That's not how it looks from the other side with the buzzing threat of death from the sky. Inhuman, unaccountable, unpredictable. In terms of winning hearts and minds, in terms of moral authority, you can never win with this technology.

hell, people freak out about these things being completely automated but i can make a case where that is exactly what we should be wanting to happen and for why we should be trying to take the human factor out of the decision to fire entirely.

a bot would never seek revenge for his fallen friends, a bot would never get up any bloodlust in the heat of battle, a bot would never have a survival instinct that would lead it to fire if unsure the target was a civilian or a friendly, a bot would never kill just for the thrill of it or because it thought it could get away with it.

now i doubt we will even let completely automated killing machines loose on the battlefield but the reason why we won't is simply because the general public is too stupid to see the advantages in it.

As a long time engineer i can safely say that technology especially robots fail a lot more than humans do in these kind of situations.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

 

that's an interetsing thought. If drones are going to be used, they really have to be held to a standard higher than that we expect from soldiers. You can't just kill a bunch of people and then claim self defence. For a drone there can be no such thing.

 

Of course that's just the utopian vision of drone warfare. That's not how it looks from the other side with the buzzing threat of death from the sky. Inhuman, unaccountable, unpredictable. In terms of winning hearts and minds, in terms of moral authority, you can never win with this technology.

frannkzappa

hell, people freak out about these things being completely automated but i can make a case where that is exactly what we should be wanting to happen and for why we should be trying to take the human factor out of the decision to fire entirely.

a bot would never seek revenge for his fallen friends, a bot would never get up any bloodlust in the heat of battle, a bot would never have a survival instinct that would lead it to fire if unsure the target was a civilian or a friendly, a bot would never kill just for the thrill of it or because it thought it could get away with it.

now i doubt we will even let completely automated killing machines loose on the battlefield but the reason why we won't is simply because the general public is too stupid to see the advantages in it.

As a long time engineer i can safely say that technology especially robots fail a lot more than humans do in these kind of situations.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]i just think this question has not been taken to it's logical conclusion because the baby steps are so appalling and we get all caught up in the horror of war before people think about what the long term goal here is.

hell, people freak out about these things being completely automated but i can make a case where that is exactly what we should be wanting to happen and for why we should be trying to take the human factor out of the decision to fire entirely.

a bot would never seek revenge for his fallen friends, a bot would never get up any bloodlust in the heat of battle, a bot would never have a survival instinct that would lead it to fire if unsure the target was a civilian or a friendly, a bot would never kill just for the thrill of it or because it thought it could get away with it.

now i doubt we will even let completely automated killing machines loose on the battlefield but the reason why we won't is simply because the general public is too stupid to see the advantages in it.

Riverwolf007

As a long time engineer i can safely say that technology especially robots fail a lot more than humans do in these kind of situations.

At the moment AI can't even do that.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

As a long time engineer i can safely say that technology especially robots fail a lot more than humans do in these kind of situations.

frannkzappa

At the moment AI can't even do that.

a decade or two?