Jump to content

Just Win Baby

Member Since 14 Apr 2003
Offline Last Active Today, 12:45 AM

Topics I've Started

Top 200 Forward - PK

15 October 2014 - 09:33 AM

Something is wrong with the Top 200 Forward for PK. McManus is shown projected for 9.1 points this week and 0 points the rest of the season. Also, there is a blank entry at #18 in the list.


10 October 2014 - 07:45 PM

This was posted in the Jimmy Carter-Obama thread, and I thought it deserved a thread of its own.




As for drones, Carter told the Fort Worth newspaper: "I really object to the killing of people, particularly Americans overseas who haven't been brought to justice and put on trial. We've killed four Americans overseas with American drones. To me that violates our Constitution and human rights.

Amen Jimmy Carter


For decades following World War II, this country had critics like Daniel Ellsberg tell us that there was no such thing as "strategic bombing" because far too many innocent people were killed every time. Ellsberg, Chomsky, and others who made this criticism were considered radicals and their views were rarely reported in the mainstream news, except during the latter half of the Vietnam War. It's a legitimate argument, but it's also a pacifist argument, and anyone who made it has to be opposed to all warfare in order to be consistent, since there is no way to engage in modern industrial warfare without killing innocent people.
Now we have drones which are far more specific than any other previous weapon, so much so that their existence really does make "strategic bombing" a reality for the first time ever. There is no question that they save much more lives than any previous attempt at bombing. (And not incidentally, they also save the lives of our service men and women because they can be fired with accuracy from anywhere without risk from those who use them.) But ironically, the use of these weapons, perhaps because they target individuals so precisely, are condemned much more loudly than strategic bombing ever was. Now if you were a pacifist all along, like an Ellsberg or Chomsky, then It's perfectly fine for you to criticize the use of these weapons. But for someone like Carter who had no problem using bombs that were much more indiscriminate, I call that hypocrisy.
The issue of some of the targets being American citizens is different, and a bit more troubling (at least to me). But if they have chosen to embrace radical terrorism against the United States, then they should IMO be regarded as enemy combatants in time of war, and are therefore subject to be killed if our government deems it necessary.


The technology is capable of targeting individuals precisely. A problem most of us "pacifists" are very concerned about is that the people directing the drones don't really seem to be doing due diligence in verifying that the individuals the drones precisely target are actually dangerous in some way. And of course there's the whole violation of due process, etc. as well, but you waffle on that one day to the next, so I don't know if that's an important issue for you today.


From Drones spare troops, have powerful impact:


...it is a myth that drones disproportionately kill civilians. After a review of the deaths inflicted by American drones since 2004, the Pakistani Defense Ministry concluded that citizen fatalities occurred at a rate of 3 percent of total kills — a total of 67 innocent civilians.


During the Gulf War, without drones, U.S. Air Force fighter jets demolished the Amiriyah bomb shelter, and killed more than 400 Iraqi women and children, in one incident alone.
We owe it to the innocent civilians of foreign territories to inflict as little destruction as possible.
Drones deserve a place in liberal advocacy. Drones spare the United States from sending troops into warfare, when they could return broken, scarred, or in a coffin; prevent needless deaths of innocent civilians abroad; and save American lives. Are these not liberal tenets?