I'm bringing over Vlad's post from the other thread so as not to hijack. Hope he doesn't mind.
The first point regarding imperialism I think stands and most reasonable people would agree. In my own view, imperialism and colonialism have been possibly the worst evil to hit our world in the last 1,000 years and are ultimately responsible for a lot of regional instability, ongoing petty warfare and religious strife that is happening today. Having said that, to me a philosophical opposition to this type of behaviour is fine on an intellectual level, but it doesn't actually do anything in the way of providing solutions for very serious problems. For example, if you see American drones being used in the Middle East as imperialism, fine. But what do you suggest be done with people who are clearly terrorists, some on a massive scale, likely guilty of war crimes at a minimum and genocide at worst? Should they be allowed to stroll around in the streets and direct further carnage locally, regionally and globally? Do we accept hundreds of thousands of Syrians, Iraqis, Somalis, Afghans, etc, etc fleeing their homes because of these hostilities? Close our borders? I mean, we don't live in the 19th century anymore, we are not immune to what happens 5,000 miles away.
And the second point I guess relates to one's particular level of trust in the government. Do I think drones may be used to indiscriminately murder people who are not terrorists? Honestly I think the likelihood is low mostly because I don't have faith that people are particularly good at covering up massive scandals of that nature. Could they be used for selective political executions? Possibly? Other things like espionage? Possibly. But truthfully I think those things happen in any event. It's not as if a "but for the drone..." argument here holds water.
My main interest here is in the alternatives proposed by people who are strongly against drones.
The first point regarding imperialism I think stands and most reasonable people would agree. In my own view, imperialism and colonialism have been possibly the worst evil to hit our world in the last 1,000 years and are ultimately responsible for a lot of regional instability, ongoing petty warfare and religious strife that is happening today. Having said that, to me a philosophical opposition to this type of behaviour is fine on an intellectual level, but it doesn't actually do anything in the way of providing solutions for very serious problems. For example, if you see American drones being used in the Middle East as imperialism, fine. But what do you suggest be done with people who are clearly terrorists, some on a massive scale, likely guilty of war crimes at a minimum and genocide at worst? Should they be allowed to stroll around in the streets and direct further carnage locally, regionally and globally? Do we accept hundreds of thousands of Syrians, Iraqis, Somalis, Afghans, etc, etc fleeing their homes because of these hostilities? Close our borders? I mean, we don't live in the 19th century anymore, we are not immune to what happens 5,000 miles away.
And the second point I guess relates to one's particular level of trust in the government. Do I think drones may be used to indiscriminately murder people who are not terrorists? Honestly I think the likelihood is low mostly because I don't have faith that people are particularly good at covering up massive scandals of that nature. Could they be used for selective political executions? Possibly? Other things like espionage? Possibly. But truthfully I think those things happen in any event. It's not as if a "but for the drone..." argument here holds water.
My main interest here is in the alternatives proposed by people who are strongly against drones.
