HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » If the US government had ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:24 AM

If the US government had drones in 1840...

would it have been moral and ethical for the US government/wealthy private interests to use drones, or any other type of violent force, to kill off Native Americans in order to subjugate them, take their land, confiscate their resources, and force them to adopt Euro-American religions, economic systems, and all modes and customs of Euro-American culture?

For the record, I'm absolutely not an al Qaeda (or whatever the new vogue spelling of al Qaeda is) sympathizer, I have despised Hitler, Nazis, and all other fascists since I was in the womb, and do not believe that Saddam Hussein was a swell guy. But I definitely am a supporter of the rights of indigenous peoples everywhere to be free from the worldwide "Divine Right of Manifest Destiny Rule and Law" imposed by Globalist Bankster Economic Imperialistic Wealthy Private Interests. I consider myself to be a democrat.


2 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
Yes
0 (0%)
No
2 (100%)
Not applicable, things were much different back then. (Please explain)
0 (0%)
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

20 replies, 1229 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Zorra (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:26 AM

1. Your question is ridiculous

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

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #1)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:27 AM

2. Please explain. Thanks! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #2)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:41 AM

5. If the issue were so cut and dry

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #5)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:11 AM

10. But why are we trying to conquer Afghanistan? Are we at war? Is Afghanistan an imminent

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #10)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:25 AM

12. 9/11

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BainsBane (Reply #12)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:01 AM

15. "Afghanistan's resources could make it the richest mining region on earth"

Sorry, I believe that you are factually incorrect.


Afghanistan's resources could make it the richest mining region on earth

Tuesday 15 June 2010

Afghanistan, often dismissed in the West as an impoverished and failed state, is sitting on $1 trillion of untapped minerals, according to new calculations from surveys conducted jointly by the Pentagon and the US Geological Survey.

The sheer size of the deposits including copper, gold, iron and cobalt as well as vast amounts of lithium, a key component in batteries of Western lifestyle staples such as laptops and BlackBerrys holds out the possibility that Afghanistan, ravaged by decades of conflict, might become one of the most important and lucrative centres of mining in the world.

President Hamid Karzai's spokesman, Waheed Omar, said last night: "I think it's very, very big news for the people of Afghanistan and we hope it will bring the Afghan people together for a cause that will benefit everyone."

In Washington, Pentagon spokesman Colonel David Lapan, told reporters that the economic value of the deposits may be even higher. "There's ... an indication that even the 1 trn figure underestimates what the true potential might be," he said.


Wealthy private interests (global corporate conglomerates) want to take these resources from the people of Afghanistan, and they are using the using our military to steal them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #15)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:13 AM

17. that's far too simplistic of an explanation

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:29 AM

3. It wasn't moral or ethical the way they did do it.

 

So drones wouldn't be either.

What a weird question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:34 AM

4. OK, so why is moral/ethical for the US to use drones to attack indigenous peoples

in other countries, on other continents?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:45 AM

6. like Pashtuns and Daris?

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #4)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:47 AM

8. It's neither but it is effective.

 

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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #8)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:34 AM

13. Personally, I'm in a dither because I want my government to stop killing people, with drones or

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #13)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:07 AM

16. I understand that.

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #16)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 04:14 AM

18. Yes, unfortunately, that appears to be our dilemma, in a nutshell. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrSlayer (Reply #3)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:46 AM

7. I had the same thought while reading the question.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 02:53 AM

9. Ridiculous comparison.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jazzimov (Reply #9)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:15 AM

11. How and why does the comparison fail? Please explain. Thanks! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 03:50 AM

14. Project For A New American Century: Is this what we have become?



PNAC Statement of Principles

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
snip---
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.




This is what most of us old time DUers despised under the Bush pResidency.

I would greatly prefer it if the leaders/government of my land stopped adhering to these fascist PNAC principles.

I believe that we Democrats have met the enemy, and they are us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Reply #14)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 05:45 AM

19. America Is Empire - Has Been For A Long Time - All Empires Crumble Eventually

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zorra (Original post)

Sun Feb 10, 2013, 07:29 AM

20. Dirt. Stupid.

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

Well done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread