Well, I can provide a cite that JUST before the Secession, in 1860, the states that were about to become the Confederacy were full of talk about expansion and invasion of their neighbors.
I am not arguing this one way or another, but think view would be that there’s something “off” about using missiles (even ones guided by drones piloted remotely) to attack people where we may cause innocent casualties in countries where we’re not actually engaged in war. Basically, it’s saying that we maybe shouldn’t be killing people with missiles if we’re not prepared to admit we’re killing a lot of people who quite possibly didn’t deserve it, or even if they did, also deserved trials.
My personal views will remain just that: personal. I am simply explaining that form the PoV of some, we’re shrugging at certain amounts of mass murder done deliberately out of sheer apathy, as long as we kill the people we want dead some of the time.
Gah, should’ve posted this above as well: note that southern partisan had already invaded Cuba. They did in fact take over Nicaragua (under William Walker), who tried introduce plantation slavery under white rule and was moving towards making the country a dependency of the U.S.
It was only a workable plan if the pro-union support had been there. As that support wasn’t there, a plan based on its existence was a mistake.
War is not symmetrical anymore. Countries do not fight other countries.
One thing we can all agree on; we don’t know what the hell we’re doing, and we’re fucking it up. We’re killing people in countries where we don’t have any particular issue against their government.
But, the better alternative to drone strikes is what, exactly?
Invasion? Too destructive, a cure worse than the disease.
Diplomacy? Maybe, but exactly who’s in charge, for us to negotiate with?
Doing nothing? Maybe, but only if we’re willing to allow groups to plan and execute attacks on America and our allies without retaliation.
You and I could probably agree to a long term solution to this problem. But what’s the short term solution? If you could propose a realistic way to arrest and try members of foreign extra-governmental groups who plan and execute attacks on America and her allies, I’d like to hear it.
Personally, my biggest issue with drone strikes is that they too secretive. We only hear about the strikes that make the news. Nobody has to answer for mistakes, and I think most Americans don’t realize just how bad we are at avoiding civilians. Drone strikes don’t have to be accurate or spend much effort to avoid civilians because nobody has to answer for civilian deaths. This is what has to change.
However, I don’t have a philosophical problem with the government killing people who are for all intents and purposes enemy soldiers. If you disagree, consider this: do the targets of our drone strikes consider themselves to be at war with America? If so, why should we disagree with them?
I don’t agree with blowing up everyone who happens to be around these people, though. The drone strikes have to stop now, and we need a better strategy. Because right now, we’re just trading this set of innocent deaths for that set. The drone strikes are too heavy handed, and earn us more enemies than we kill.