It skirts the complexity of the issue. No one is going to answer yes to this.

there would be no drone strikes and no one, including the President, would support them. In reality, the issue of drones is complicated: highly problematic, morally suspect, but there are also military justifications. Some have argued--and I don't know how accurately--that drones leave fewer civilian casualties than other forms of attack. The whole issue involves questions of the justification for war, for killing terrorists, killing American terrorists, and whether we value the lives of Americans over foreign nationals.

We have known about drone strikes for a few years, but it only becomes an issue of concern when a memo is leaked justifying killing of American citizens. Why? Why are we so much more outraged over killing Americans than foreign nationals? Do we really believe American lives have more value? Then it gets at the issue of whether drones themselves are justifiable. How many civilians do they kill? Do they kill fewer than other methods of attack? War is bloody, but are drones worse than other methods of warfare? If the war on terror itself is unjustified, why are we focusing exclusively on drones? Are the primary attacks on those deemed terrorists justified? How do we know those "terrorists" are really a threat to us? Even if we trust President Obama to make the right decision, it sets the precedent for future administrations. Would we trust Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush to use that power wisely? And then there is the issue of the amount of hatred in Pakistan and other countries generated by the drone program. Is this the Obama administration's Abu Ghraib? Does it create more enemies than it eliminates? I find the whole issue very complicated and not at all easy to take a firm moral position on.

threat and clear and present danger to the US?

Why are we attacking the people of Afghanistan? The majority of the people of Afghanistan want US forces to leave their country.

Just like the majority of Native Americans wanted US forces to just leave their country back in 1840.

"The whole issue involves questions of the justification for war, for killing terrorists, killing American terrorists, and whether we value the lives of Americans over foreign nationals"

OK, so like, when was the last time a person from Afghanistan came to the US and killed Americans? All the monsters that perpetrated the attack on the WTC on 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia.

I believe that there is no serious complicated issue.

I believe that the essential issue is simple: that wealthy private interests (ie multinational corporations) want free rein to exploit the people and natural resources of Afghanistan, and are using the US military in an attempt to secure these resources.

Just like the US military was used to secure the resources of Native Americans in 1840, and before and after 1840.

Exactly what is the US trying to accomplish by invading Afghanistan?

The Taliban sheltered Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, who attacked us on 9/11. (Some, not all were from Saudi Arabia, but Al Qaeda was based and trained in Afghanistan). The Bush administration asked them to hand Bin Laden over, a number of times, but they refused. Hence we went to war. We dislodged the Taliban, and then Bush got distracted with Iraq. Obama, like almost all Americans, had supported the War in Afghanistan and promised to focus on that during his 2008 campaign. But in the intervening years the Taliban had grown stronger. So basically it's the pottery barn thing. We broke it and are trying to put it back together again, and it's a huge mess.

They are afraid of a repeat of the 1980s, when the US aided the Mujahadeen against the Soviets. After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, the Taliban took over and the place eventually became a haven for terrorists. They've been trying to build up a civilian government with armed forces to keep that from happening. It seems like none of it is working, so the US is withdrawing this year.

Afghanistan has shit for resources. It's got poppies for heroin. That's it. It has no oil. That is not rich land at all. Oil, of course, is why the broader region is important to us, and US presence in Saudia Arabia--near the holy lands of Mecca and Medina--was a source of rage for Al Qaeda.

Drones are not limited to Afghanistan. They go into Pakistan, Yemen, and even clandestinely into Iran. The administration says they are taking out terrorists. There are definitely people plotting to wipe America off the face of the earth. What I wonder is if the drones aren't just generating more terrorists.

Sorry, I believe that you are factually incorrect.

and completely ignores the circumstances that led to the invasion. Historically, US occupations have provided an opportunity for US businesses to move into the region. US companies took over Cuba's sugar industry within 6 years, and that was over a century ago. This is the longest occupation in US history. Do you have any evidence that US companies have started mining those deposits?

So drones wouldn't be either.

What a weird question.

in other countries, on other continents?

I can't imagine what difference it makes if the people are "indigenous" or not. We are already killing people indigenous to their homelands in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Distance weapons in general are cowardly and ignoble but they are effective so everyone uses them.

Really, this government has never been moral or ethical in the truest sense of the words so why is everyone in such a dither over this now?

Drones are an effective way to kill enemies that would be nearly impossible to reach otherwise. Would you rather we carpetbomb the area or waste hundreds of elite troops capturing these bastards?

battalions of marines.

I would like my government to give me a clear, succinct, and accurate explanation as to how the people of Afghanistan are an imminent threat and clear and present danger to me, so I could understand why they are spending the blood of my neighbors and so much of our money killing people in Afghanistan.

I totally understand why they slaughtered, displaced, and attempted to assimilate Native Americans ~ they had a major economic interest in taking the land and resources that Natives Americans used. Plus, I suppose they may have consider3ed Native Americans "terrorists" for attempting to protect their land and way of life from merciless invaders.

Just like the people of Afghanistan are fighting to protect their land and way of life.

Just like the people of Vietnam tried to protect their land from merciless invaders.

What right do we arbitrarily have to go to another country and kill the people there?

I don't believe the 99% has any dog in this hunt whatsoever.

But they've been doing this pretty much from day one. And we both know the people of Afghanistan are no threat to us but they are sitting on a trillion dollars worth of minerals. All of this shit is about money and it's never going to end. The government is bought and paid for and they are doing the bidding of their paymasters. They truly couldn't care less about what we think.

Then I asked myself if it would have been moral or ethical to use drones on the secessionists.

But now international drones didn't exist then, but if they did I have no doubt they would have been used.

Such is human nature (or more "inhuman" if you ask me).

Losing the planet daily.

Yes, one of the reasons we felt "superior" to the Native Americans was because we had superior technology. But beyond that your comparison fails.

"Manifest Destiny" was wrong and immoral. But it no longer exists.

eom

Not enough threads about drones, so when inject some new life by trotting out the stupid?

Well done.