Why have Most Liberals Become What They Hate?

Page 6 of 6 [ 86 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

11 Oct 2013, 12:09 pm

Schneekugel wrote:
Oh great. So if I am by accident within an 10 miles distance of someone you want to kill, I become your enemy, that has to be killed by you?

I think that's extremely unlikely. It's true that drone strikes were used more indiscriminately in the beginning of the conflict, but we are learning how to minimize undesirable civilian casualties. There are better guidelines, and the technology is improving. To say that our use of drones has been imperfect is not a good reason to abandon them. They are decimating the enemy's leadership and disrupting their operations.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

11 Oct 2013, 4:24 pm

Yeah, we "minimize undesirable civilian casualties" by declaring that all of the dead civilians were actually jihadis.



AspE
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,114

14 Oct 2013, 11:48 am

LKL wrote:
Yeah, we "minimize undesirable civilian casualties" by declaring that all of the dead civilians were actually jihadis.

The men probably were. When was the last time you were hanging out with jihadis and didn't know it? I would be concerned about journalists and American prisoners, that's about it.



simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

14 Oct 2013, 12:14 pm

It's a very effective tactic that even Bin Laden noted was working. And it's far more discriminating than an airstrike. Best of all are the night raids by soldiers, which are common, but even those arent perfect. There is no perfect.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 48
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

14 Oct 2013, 4:23 pm

AspE, we're arguing in circles here, so at this point I'll only suggest that you look up international laws on 'collective punishment,' definitions of 'noncombatant,' etc.



albedo
Toucan
Toucan

User avatar

Joined: 11 Jul 2013
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 293

14 Oct 2013, 5:07 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Liberalism is about creating the greatest opportunities for the greatest number of people. Using the power of the State to redistribute wealth (which the United States does in spades, btw), and to ensure comparable levels of access to public goods--those things that it's in no one's commercial interest to ensure universal access to, but which benefit us all: infrastructure, education, health, employment, and housing.

You are talking about socialism, liberalism is the origin of libertarianism.

The definition has change a lot, but still I don't think it is accurate to define it primarily on the redistribution of wealth.

The word 'Liberals' (note the s) was a dergatory term which these people (social democrats and socialists), then adopted. But this is nothing to do with the Liberal political movement as it was.

Liberals should believe in economic and social freedoms, the Conservatives historically didn't entirely. Perhaps the word came in to play becuase these were traditionally political adversaries.

Social democrat is another moment which in some cases has merged with traditionally Liberal parties, but that is not the same as saying liberalism, is equivalent. Simply people shifted their position or left.

Social democrat also is not as socialist as the Labour movement for example or Fabian Socialism, they believe in social justice, but believe in a more pragmatic approach to the problem, they would argue.