[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] That is already a primary influence in democracy. It is called the MIC.lo_Pine

What you just said made ZERO sense.

There is nothing democratic about technocracy.

And the MIC (if you mean the military industrial complex) has nothing to do with technocracy nor technocratic principles. Though the military itself does operate on quasi technocratic and meritocratic principles.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] What system has/is been better than democracy?lo_Pine

What you just said made ZERO sense.

[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.lo_Pine

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.

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]I would be okay with them if they did not result in the murder of civilians. No government has a right to needlessly put the lives of innocent civilians at risk, including those of enemy nations. Wars are against governments and militaries, not civilians. If a government needlessly kills civilians then it is just another terrorist organization.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.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

ah yes, such high standards.

Drones killing innocent Pakistanis, U.N. official says

Predator Drone Mistakenly Kills 2 U.S. Servicemen: Report

US Drones have nearly perfect record of failure

NoSpeakyEnglish

aside from the friendly fire (which happens way more from on the ground forces) i don't see the problem. It's war, civilians are going to die. No reason to go crazy.

not every drone strike leads to a dead family, only a very small percentage. If this sort of thing was done by ground forces the casualties would be much higher.

Also what does "justice" have to do with anything.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[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.

Audacitron

you do realize that drone warfare is highly restricted and regulated by the US military. drones are held to higher standards.

ah yes, such high standards.

Drones killing innocent Pakistanis, U.N. official says

Predator Drone Mistakenly Kills 2 U.S. Servicemen: Report

US Drones have nearly perfect record of failure

aside from the friendly fire (which happens way more from on the ground forces) i don't see the problem. It's war, civilians are going to die. No reason to go crazy.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

No point to them other than to diminish America's moral standing. America can't kill every Muslim extremist because

1. there are too many of them
2. they are followers of what is fundamentally an extreme and domineering religion

America should not be involved in the Middle East. It has never been shown that uncivilized people can be refined by intervention short of genocide. Development will come on its own when their culture becomes sufficiently advanced. As it stands their culture is more protective of superstitious beliefs than the life of their fellow man.

We should however strive to protect our culture within our own boundaries. Immigration should never be granted to people whose culture is so at odds with our own. Their culture does not give respect and so should not be given respect in our land. This policy would also have the incidental effect of reducing if not eliminating Muslim terrorism on our soil. Muslims cannot commit terrorist attacks on our soil if they do not have access to it. Immigration reform is well within the rights of any soverign nation and that is an infinitely more moral and effective approach than drone strikes.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

this thread has nothing to do with Muslim extremists or Americas involvement in the middle east. please stay on topic and avoid strawmen.

okay...what exactly do you think drone strikes are intended to do? Who are the intended targets?

To kill enemy combatants, not necessarily Muslim extremists.

[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.

you do realize that drone warfare is highly restricted and regulated by the US military. drones are held to higher standards.

No point to them other than to diminish America's moral standing. America can't kill every Muslim extremist because

1. there are too many of them
2. they are followers of what is fundamentally an extreme and domineering religion

America should not be involved in the Middle East. It has never been shown that uncivilized people can be refined by intervention short of genocide. Development will come on its own when their culture becomes sufficiently advanced. As it stands their culture is more protective of superstitious beliefs than the life of their fellow man.

We should however strive to protect our culture within our own boundaries. Immigration should never be granted to people whose culture is so at odds with our own. Their culture does not give respect and so should not be given respect in our land. This policy would also have the incidental effect of reducing if not eliminating Muslim terrorism on our soil. Muslims cannot commit terrorist attacks on our soil if they do not have access to it. Immigration reform is well within the rights of any soverign nation and that is an infinitely more moral and effective approach than drone strikes.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

this thread has nothing to do with Muslim extremists or Americas involvement in the middle east. please stay on topic and avoid strawmen.

[QUOTE="bigfoot2045"]

I don't care what it costs or how long the appeals process takes. People like Ariel Castro need to die. Allowing someone like this to live isn't justice.

Ace6301

Whats the difference between justice and revenge? in your opinion of course.