U.S. drone attacks on Pakistan

Post Reply New Topic

Here's the key bit that people don't get, the creating more radicals. This enemy that we're fighting is mixing themselves in with people who have nothing to do with any of it. The "enemies" that are dying aren't actually the ones that have done something wrong; at least not until after they've been attacked. Probably most villagers in rural areas in Pakistan don't know much at all about the conflict. They're innocent, you can't call them the enemy, they haven't done anything wrong! But after being attacked, you can bet they'll develop a grudge! You can say that it's saving American lives by using these unmanned attacks, but really, terrorist organizations probably love it! Probably gets people lined up wanting to join-- they've been attacked, and want to attack back! They see Americans as inhuman bullies. The only way to stop it is to make both sides start seeing each other as PEOPLE. Both sides are angry, both sides have been attacked.. there's never going to be peace until people can understand that both sides are motivated by the same things and have a lot of the same goals. Saying that lives weren't lost because they came from another country just doesn't work. If someone was innocent, they weren't the enemy. If it was a child, a parent, a farmer.. anyone who hadn't attacked first.. how can you say that they were the enemy? But a kid who loses his mother in an attack, when that's his first experience of the conflict, is pretty sure to BECOME the enemy!

so should morality be used to justify policy? (ex.: "we're here to liberate people.") or would it be best simply to tell the truth: "we really want to invade this country so we can control the oil resources, thus embargo other powers any time we like."

this is one of my points. if we live in an (ostensibly) democratic republic, how do people make rational decisions re: voting, activism, etc. if the truth is not being told?

you can say "truth" is a moral concept. in this case, i'm using it as an example of pragmatism. in other words: how does a democratic society function if the information is false?