[Ignite]

This thread isnt about the drones themselves ffs

its about the targeted killing campaign and the ethical issues surrounding it.

Aaawh man I agree but who is propagating this drone doctrine? We are. What I'm trying to say is that maybe Americans will think about it differently when our skies are filled with drones. Yea, targeted killing campaign overseas that sounds awesome..... What does that lead to though? A targeted killing campaign against "gang members" (minorities) in America?

Obama is no more likely to fill America's skies with military drones than he is to fill it with bombers etc. Are you really so far out there that you think he's going to do this?

I've already posted in this thread a link that shows that drones in America are the future. Google it for more because quite a few parts of America are practicing using drones in civil situations. I'm not blaming this just on Obama. Hey man, I truly believe that Romney will further it. I'm asking whats the next step. Where do we go from here?

[Rainbow Crow]

I'm just trying to clarify why you think this is a big deal. If they practice flying drones in the US I don't see that as a big deal since they practice using all sorts of military things in the US. Why are the drones in specific a problem?

[Ignite]

I'm just trying to clarify why you think this is a big deal. If they practice flying drones in the US I don't see that as a big deal since they practice using all sorts of military things in the US. Why are the drones in specific a problem?

Are you trying to disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing with me?! Why is it a big deal? We kill tons o people millions of miles away with drones. There are many articles (Google it and prove me wrong) that mention how drones will be a normal thing in America. That's a big deal. Do you want a drone hovering over your house/apartment while you type a response on this forum?

[Rainbow Crow]

Drones in general will become more common but military-capable drones loaded with missiles will not be patrolling the air over our homes any more often than a bomber in training flies by.

[oppose_obama]

Personally I think drones are rush limbaughs fault. Fucking fat bastard.


Edit: @SS, I believe simply being alive in wazistan, north or south, is sufficient reason for you to be targeted and killed. They aren't criminals, they are enemy combatants and the enemy must die.

Obviously you disagree, good thing you don't run the drones eh

[Eran]

Our politicians are democratically elected no? So supporting them is supporting our country.

Democratically, you elect the best of available options. That is far from guaranteeing that their interests, much less so their decisions, are in the interests of the country. Most Americans, I bet, will agree today that neither the Vietnam nor the Iraq wars have, in retrospect, been in the interests of the country.

In a democracy, you are not just allowed, but even expected to question your leaders, rather than follow them blindly.

Have you missed out on the past two decades?

On the contrary - I am asking you to explain them.

I am strongly suggesting that American security is not helped but rather compromised, in the long term, by overseas adventurism. The US faces terrorist threats because, not in spite of its middle-east presence.

Allows us to be safe and live out our lives instead of battling these people here.

Americans quite obviously do NOT feel safe at home. How else would you explain spending trillions on security?

Because we can. We have the money

No, you don't.

[Fasces]

If you genuinely wanted to support your country, ask yourself why it is that the US feels compelled to spend astronomic sums to maintain its security, when other countries (Canada, Brazil, Germany, Japan, ...) feel no such need.

These countries benefit from the hegemonic system headed by the United States, and which is maintained by American military might. The American commitment to maintaining the international system they established in the post-WWII period has allowed countries affiliated with the United States to allow their own military to atrophy. Since there is no risk of conflict with the hegemon for these powers, and there is a power existing that shoulders the responsibility of maintaining that hegemonic system, there is no need for military spending in these states, allowing them to use the bulk of their resources on non-military spending without harming their security.

The United States, on the other hand, has no power which can pick up its slack. It is the last actor - the buck stop there, so to speak. If the United States spent less on defense, you would see other nations increase their own spending, not a general decrease in international military spending across the board.

One notes that Brazil, a state less committed to the post-war system than Canada, Japan, or Germany, and a state less involved in it, as well as a state associated with the rising BRIC powers, spends a higher percentage of its GDP on the military than these powers.

Or, no, Americans are warmongering assholes. That one works too, I guess.

[Eran]

These countries benefit from the hegemonic system headed by the United States, and which is maintained by American military might.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it is the opposite, with these countries suffering at the margin from global instability created by American military might. How would you propose we tell the difference?

[Fasces]

One could look at the prolific nature of warfare in times outside of hegemonic control by a single superpower and how common arms races are between multiple great powers as indicative of how military spending tends to rise in the absence of a single controlling force, for example. Such as the one ongoing between the United States and China, or between the United States and the Soviet Union, or between the Great Powers in the 1900s and the 1930s, if we want to limit ourselves to this century.

Security independence means greater national security spending, not less. Germany, Japan, and Canada have outsourced their national security, for lack of a better word, to the United States, allowing for lower rates of spending on defense - but these lower rates are possible only because the United States protects them through treaty obligations. Should the United States choose that such is no longer in their interests, and lower their spending, these powers would have to increase their spending in turn - and historical evidence indicates that they would do so.

[Eran]

The period since WW II was characterised by lack of a world war. But it wasn't otherwise particularly peaceful by historic standards.

We have seen genocide and civil wars, super-power involvement with minor nations, huge waste of resources into military build-up and a distinct and ongoing deterioration in the image of America as an honest and peaceful broker.

Europe, the driver of all past world wars, has found internal peace that has nothing to do with American hegemony (if it did, back in the '50s, it certainly has nothing to do with it since 1990). Japan, like Germany, chose to direct its national energy towards industry and production, rather than war and destruction.

So what is the threat to world security that the mighty American armed forces are so essential to counter?

[Fasces]

I didn't say it was peaceful. I said the Great Powers in particular were peaceful.

In any case, to presume this is the end of history, even in Europe, would be foolish. Europe had peace during the first great era of globalization as well - after the defeat of Napoleon, without any continent spanning world wars to speak of. Even taking into account the Franco-Prussian War, one finds that there were fifty years of relative peace on either side. The European Union is in a fragile state right now. The far left and far right are gaining power. Euroskepticism is on the rise. Never mind that the European powers which lead the European Union have had a lot of strain on their spending, bailing out the peripheral powers. Should the United States be released from her treaty requirements, some of the cash going into Spain, Italy, or Greece would need to be reoriented toward national defense. This would put the solvency of the Euro itself into question, and create an existential crisis for the European Union as a whole. The formulas for a return to the historical state of affairs is present, even in Europe.

Japanese military spending, by the way, is curtailed by an unpopular constitution, and being called into question by both Japanese and American politicians in the wake of a rising China. We can expect it to rise here over the next few years, as it has been.

What the United States does is remove the necessity of many states to invest as much in national security as they otherwise would, allowing for them to devote their resources to other pursuits. The lack of a present world enemy does not preclude its rise, and defense, particularly the navy, is a long-term project of deterrence, one that cannot and will not be left to the last minute by political forces. If the United States did not spend as much on its military as it did, other nations would do so on their own - and this results in a remilitarized culture (greater percentage of the population participating in the armed forces; national security focus in policy discussions) in nations who would now have armaments, creating an impulse to use them - as seen historically.

You cannot seriously believe that a systemic change to the international system of military force would not have consequences. All these powers that you cite having low military spending are NATO/treaty partners. Every power on the Security Council, part of the governing military force in the world, and every major power outside of the American defense umbrella has the higher rates of military spending I am predicting - Russia, India, China, France, the UK, and Turkey. The same is true of American partners that have relatively independent national security concerns or priorities - Saudi Arabia, Israel, Eritrea, South Korea, Georgia, or Iraq.

Nations like Germany or Canada, stable nations protected by American defense initiatives without major external national security pressures are an exception even today, even in Europe.

Nor can you say that the peripheral nations would be more stable without American hegemony, as it is American aid and arms that sometimes serve to create orderly and stable states where otherwise civil war might drag on for far longer. There are obvious exceptions, of course, but we're ignoring the stabilizing effect American aid has had in countries like Ethiopia, South Africa, or the Balkans, even if it led to an immediate short-term rise in conflict, by providing the conditions for peaceful rule. I don't want to speak in hypotheticals, however - these countries have experienced turmoil with or without American interference (is the United States to blame for Rwanda? Somalia?) There is nothing to suggest that an absence of American presence would have decreased this turmoil, made it less violent - especially in the post-Cold War period (and in the pre-Cold War period, the Soviet Union is as much to blame as anyone else. Should the United States have let Greece burn for a dubious moral high ground of "non-interference"?)

[Eran]

In any case, to presume this is the end of history, even in Europe, would be foolish.

I agree. Even to presume the end of armed conflict may be foolish.

Should the United States be released from her treaty requirements, some of the cash going into Spain, Italy, or Greece would need to be reoriented toward national defense.

Against what threats exactly? Russia? China?

The European fiscal crisis has an inevitable nature. Social democracies will often spend themselves into bankruptcy. A higher level of base expenses merely expedites the end, a lower level will postpone it, but at a cost of a more severe crisis (as we see now).

Japanese military spending, by the way, is curtailed by an unpopular constitution, and being called into question by both Japanese and American politicians in the wake of a rising China. We can expect it to rise here over the next few years, as it has been.

I don't believe unpopular constitutions can last long in democracies. A somewhat higher level of Japanese military spending doesn't concern me. I don't see any signs of resurging militant nationalism in Japan. Do you?

If the United States did not spend as much on its military as it did, other nations would do so on their own - and this results in a remilitarized culture (greater percentage of the population participating in the armed forces; national security focus in policy discussions) in nations who would now have armaments, creating an impulse to use them - as seen historically.

I think this is far from clear. Given relative lack of genuine security threats to European and East Asian nations, withdrawal of American protection might give rise to a marginal, but not a dramatic increase in military expenditures. The fact that Germany and Japan are content with American protection (unlike, say, Israel) is a reflection of their (current) pacificst tendencies, not their cause.

You cannot seriously believe that a systemic change to the international system of military force would not have consequences.

I suggest that American adventurism as well as presence overseas can be drastically cut without significant adverse changes to present global power relations. Sure - Germany and Japan would have to reconsider their defence strategy. The former may cooperate more closely with its nuclear neighbours (France and Britain). Either may choose to develop nuclear weapons. But neither would become militarily aggressive.

Most importantly, an American withdrawal (ideally including direct aid to Israel) from the middle-east will significantly reduce outward-facing aggressive Islamic extremism. Nations around the world, both the US and elsewhere, will be safer.

we're ignoring the stabilizing effect American aid has had in countries like Ethiopia, South Africa, or the Balkans

I admit I haven't considered it. But I don't see how selective foreign aid (assuming it does indeed have positive effect) contradicts my broad call for a drastic scale-back of America's overseas military commitments.

There are rare cases in which military intervention is called for. In my opinion, one has to balance the inevitable cost in innocent lives of any military operation against the likely cost in innocent lives represented in a non-intervention option. Clearly, past US intervention decisions weren't intelligently based on this criterion.

[Fasces]

Against what threats exactly? Russia? China?

The nature of defense spending is that it needs to continue in the absence of present threats, to deal with the potential for rising threats.

The European fiscal crisis has an inevitable nature. Social democracies will often spend themselves into bankruptcy.

Regardless of its causes, bankruptcy and poverty are two elements of the formula that leads to militarism and radical nationalism. Have we forgotten the 1930s so quickly?

I don't believe unpopular constitutions can last long in democracies. A somewhat higher level of Japanese military spending doesn't concern me. I don't see any signs of resurging militant nationalism in Japan. Do you?

Militant nationalism is impossible in a country without an independent military or militarism. Is there nationalism in Japan? Yes. The strict Zaibatsu system, Japanese attitudes toward foreigners, and the ideology of the LDP and its offshoots, particularly the Sunrise Party or NKP, all indicate that nationalist attitudes exist in Japan. Rei Murasame could give you a more detailed overview, if you wanted it.

I suggest that American adventurism as well as presence overseas can be drastically cut without significant adverse changes to present global power relations. Sure - Germany and Japan would have to reconsider their defence strategy. The former may cooperate more closely with its nuclear neighbours (France and Britain). Either may choose to develop nuclear weapons. But neither would become militarily aggressive.

More actors with more guns increases the potential for armed conflict. You are thinking in the short term, which cannot be done when thinking of national security developments, considering the long-term nature of defense procurement. You cannot say that in fifty years a rearmed Japan, or a rearmed whoever, might not become an issue.

Most importantly, an American withdrawal (ideally including direct aid to Israel) from the middle-east will significantly reduce outward-facing aggressive Islamic extremism. Nations around the world, both the US and elsewhere, will be safer.

And empower regimes hostile to the international system. Do you think it would be in American or Western interests to give Iran the opportunity to blockade the Strait of Hormuz? Or that allowing a war between Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran would be beneficial? Equalizing the balance of power across multiple actors increases warfare and conflict, not decreases it.

As for terrorism - that reason alone is not sufficient to sacrifice American interests in the Middle East. Terrorism is a relatively minor threat. How many people died in terror attacks in the West in the last fifty years at the hands of Islamic extremists? How many people fell down stairs?

[Eran]

The nature of defense spending is that it needs to continue in the absence of present threats, to deal with the potential for rising threats.

But surely you agree that the level (and nature) of defence spending ought to take into account likely threats (both in nature and probability).

Regardless of its causes, bankruptcy and poverty are two elements of the formula that leads to militarism and radical nationalism. Have we forgotten the 1930s so quickly?

Are you justifying US international military presence by the potential of a Greek Hitler?

Militant nationalism is impossible in a country without an independent military or militarism.

Again, I think we are confusing cause and effect. If the Japanese people were to redevelop militant nationalism, the presence of a few American bases or their formal constitution wouldn't stop them. Japan has no independent military (actually, it has a Self-Defence Force) because its population isn't interested in militant nationalism, not the other way around.

More actors with more guns increases the potential for armed conflict. You are thinking in the short term, which cannot be done when thinking of national security developments, considering the long-term nature of defense procurement. You cannot say that in fifty years a rearmed Japan, or a rearmed whoever, might not become an issue.

To be perfectly honest, I think American presence in Europe and Japan is a waste of American taxpayer money, but not a huge problem for American security. American security is clearly compromised by its undesired presence in the third world, most obviously the Middle East.

As to a rearmed Japan, I have no reason to worry about it more than I worry about an armed US. Who knows what Presidents might be elected within the next 50 years, or what international adventures they will take America into. The US has a unique record of international intervention. No other nation in the history of the globe started more wars in more places around the world.

And empower regimes hostile to the international system.

Iran is not hostile to the international system. For decades, Iran peacefully sold its oil in the international market. Its foreign aggression record is mild compared with many other countries.

Do you think it would be in American or Western interests to give Iran the opportunity to blockade the Strait of Hormuz?

I think Iran is much more likely to try and blockade the Strait of Hormuz because of American threats against it than it would have otherwise. This is a good illustration of the point I am making. You wrote earlier about considering long-term and not just short-term consequences. American attempts to mitigate short-term security concerns (even if taken at face value) routinely neglect long-term detrimental consequences.

As for terrorism - that reason alone is not sufficient to sacrifice American interests in the Middle East.

What interests? America's interests are in a peaceful middle east which sells its oil in the international market. This is precisely the interest of mid-east leaders too. There is no conflict. Even the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait didn't endanger American interests. Why would Saddam take over Kuwait if not to sell its oil in the international market?

[Scamp]

Eran, since you seem to be against our military spending and involvement in the worlds affairs...

How do you feel about the fact that if not for the US massive spending on military, and our involvement in WWII, England would now be called Germany?

[Ignite]

How do you feel about the fact that if not for the US massive spending on military, and our involvement in WWII, England would now be called Germany?

To be fair the Nazis screwed themselves when it came to England by invading the Soviet Union when they did and biting off more than they could chew with the Soviet winter. That pushed their plans with England back and the British held back the Nazis on their own for the most part.

Just saying.

[Scamp]

quote="Scamp"

How do you feel about the fact that if not for the US massive spending on military, and our involvement in WWII, England would now be called Germany?
-------------------

To be fair the Nazis screwed themselves when it came to England by invading the Soviet Union when they did and biting off more than they could chew with the Soviet winter. That pushed their plans with England back and the British held back the Nazis on their own for the most part.

Just saying.

The main reason was that the English channel stopped the Blitzkrieg. This gave America time to get our superior military involved and also loan England the billions of dollars in supplies they needed because they were unprepared...l

[grassroots1]

You guys are talking about American "defense" initiatives without recognizing that our hegemonic status is entirely offensive. We do not have military bases in dozens of foreign nations, and no foreign bases in our own, because we are defending ourselves. We have them because we are imposing our will on those other nations. There are countless examples of military, economic, and political imperialism on the part of the united states designed expressly to ensure that leaders friendly to US interests (especially the interests of companies with influence in US politics) will be in power. This is not defense and I think you should think again Fasces if you believe that US foreign policy is actually designed for the US' own protection.

If the US military apparatus which is present throughout the world were to not exist, perhaps you would see more pronounced regional conflict, but as Eran mentioned, it's not as if this has not existed under the thumb of US military might. In my opinion it is not a necessary fact of our existence that there must be one or another boot on your neck for there to be "stability," and if that is the case, then it is not a stability I would desire. Were Cubans pleased for their stability under the US-backed Batista? The Philippines pleased with our invasion and imposition of interests? Haiti? Venezuela? Guatemala? Indonesia? Vietnam? Laos? You can pretend that there is some noble purpose for our imperialism if you want but I find it ridiculous to make excuses for this system when America can't even manage to take care of its own people. Our imperialism is not even benefiting our own people, it is benefiting an elite. I would be glad to see that end and I would be glad to see other nations without the spectre of US intervention hanging over their every action.

Furthermore there is no reason that in the absence of US presence, a region like South America would suddenly start conflicts with each other or enter an arms race. The aggressors here are the imperial powers, to call them the peacemakers is a perversion of the situation.

[Plutus Aurelius]

The reason behind American military adventurism can be explained with one word - money.

It has absolutely nothing to do with national defense, or any other commonly used red herring to justify this cash flow.

As always, just follow the money. It all makes perfect sense.

[Ignite]

The reason behind American military adventurism can be explained with one word - money.

It has absolutely nothing to do with national defense, or any other commonly used red herring to justify this cash flow.

As always, just follow the money. It all makes perfect sense.

So you admit that for Obama and the drone strikes it's only about money? Good to know and noted. You're really just a closet Obama hater. Probably explains your posting history.