Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

There isnt a functional equivalent that meets proper muster. The US spends more on military enforcement than the next 3 countries combined.

I suppose a more adverserial duo would make sense....

How about India and Pakistan?  India starts sending drones to pakistan to assasinate people it thinks are involved in pakistan's missile program.


Would that work better for you?

Then instant nuclear war among two roughly equal powers (maybe). There really isn't any single army that's roughly equal to the US, and nearly all of those with comparable units are already our allies.

[Orange Wizard]

just with domestic terrorists instead of missiles.

Terrorists are an international threat. The ISIS dudes are war criminals. Intervention is the lesser of two evils IMO.

[mainiac]

What an excellent answer to an argument I didn't make and explicitly said I was not making.

[smjjames]

just with domestic terrorists instead of missiles.

Terrorists are an international threat. The ISIS dudes are war criminals. Intervention is the lesser of two evils IMO.

I don't think 'War Criminal' is a harsh enough label for those type of people who are in ISIS. At least the ones actively pursuing the barbarism and other things.

Also, why the heck haven't we gotten that Baghdadi guy yet?

[wierd]

Terrorists do things for a reason-- The biggest, is the heavy handed enforcement.

How does increasing enforcement solve the problem?


James:  So, it is OK because the US is so much bigger that it can get away with it?

Mainiac:  My main thrust is that the drone strikes have no real value, and only end lives in an endless cycle of ending lives, all so a more powerful group can exert that power over another group, and get what they want. By force. The unequal counterpoint was twofold for existing: 1) a proper counterpoint does not exist, and 2) I want people to realize that the very act of sending drones to another country to secure a national interest is barbarous and incites people to violence.

[smjjames]

James:  So, it is OK because the US is so much bigger that it can get away with it?

I didn't say it was okay, just that it's not a complete example.

[Orange Wizard]

I don't think 'War Criminal' is a harsh enough label for those type of people who are in ISIS. At least the ones actively pursuing the barbarism and other things.

They're basically worse than Nazi Germany, which is impressive

What an excellent answer to an argument I didn't make and explicitly said I was not making.

Honestly I can't actually tell what your argument is at this point

[mainiac]

Mainiac:  My main thrust is that the drone strikes have no real value, and only end lives in an endless cycle of ending lives, all so a more powerful group and exert that power over another group, and get what they want.

There are two arguments there and neither one of them prove the other.  I would strongly contest the first.  I believe that the second one suffers from an over abundance of vagueness.  "Ending the use of chemical weapons against civilians" is an example of the powerful coercing the weak.  Interfering with the kidnapping and rape of teenagers is another.

One can make an argument against some drone practices along these lines.  One can not make a simple argument against ALL use of drones along these lines because then you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[wierd]

How about abiding by the international conventions the US has agreed to, converning international soveriegnty?

Stopping child predators in your own country, using your own legal processes is perfectly good.

Deciding that you need to do that in other people's countries, without their consent or approval, is not.

[mainiac]

How about abiding by the international conventions the US has agreed to, converning international soveriegnty?

Now you are introducing a third argument and yet another one with no room for grey.  There is an international convention that bans the use of landmines.  The US violates this treaty along the korean DMZ and nowhere else.  The US advocates the continued breach of this convention in this fashion.  An example of a breach of international norms that I would say is well justified.

Deciding that you need to do that in other people's countries, without their consent or approval, is not.

I disagree.

[smjjames]

How about abiding by the international conventions the US has agreed to, converning international soveriegnty?

Now you are introducing a third argument and yet another one with no room for grey.  There is an international convention that bans the use of landmines.  The US violates this treaty along the korean DMZ and nowhere else.  The US advocates the continued breach of this convention in this fashion.  An example of a breach of international norms that I would say is well justified.

We didn't sign that treaty though I don't think... *checks wiki*

[wierd]

Oh, you disagree?

How do you stand on Sharia law then?

Do you feel the actions of militant muslim extremists concerning what they view as sexually decent for women should extend past their borders?

[mainiac]

No I dont.  You are now introducing a fourth argument, that if I reject their standards, I can't support my own in foreign lands.  I reject that argument as well.  We should use caution and humility but the far worse mistake would be to turn a completely blind error.

[smjjames]

Okay, how about the right to put golden domes on mosques? (just throwing a random out there because I have no idea where this is heading)

also. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty#Signatories Yes, we aren't a signatory and we use the landmines on the DMZ out of neccessity.

DARPA (or the military in general) has been researching mines which deactivate themselves or can be recollected easily or something.

[Cthulufaic]

So howbout that NY primary, huh?  Is it one of them winner-take-all or is it a proportional one, cause I can't seem to remember.