> Yes, I would prefer a US hegemony over an ISIS hegemony. The comparison itself is ridiculous.
Of course the comparison is ridiculous. That's my whole point.
But this is the comparison the grandparent I'm replying to is making. I.e. that the U.S. bombs some countries while being concerned about civilian casualties, and terrorists respond with something like the 9/11 attacks where they're explicitly trying to inflict civilian casualties, and somehow this should make it less clear who the good & evil actors are, as opposed to more clear.
> But saying that the US has not used its military strength for its own benefit and at the expense of the people of other countries is ridiculous.
I'm struggling to see how you can read my comment and conclude that I'm trying to make that point, but needless to say, you're fighting a strawman.
The US isn't concerned with civilian casualties. Of course, it wouldn't go out of its way to inflict them, but it simply pays no regard to them, no matter what their scale. Look at US actions in Laos, Cambodia, and Libya for direct instances of this, where hundreds of thousands of people were killed because of US actions.
One could argue that the US has put a great deal of time, effort and R&D into saving civilian lives, through the drone program itself. The alternative to the drone program is a traditional military occupation, which would presumably have a much greater death toll, I don't have access to the research.
Or, of course, simply not fighting the war at all. But it doesn't seem like that option is available.
Civilian lives? A more persuasive argument is that primarily it's a tool to be used when popular opinion at home would simply not allow another full-scale military adventure like Iraq or Afghanistan. Secondary consideration is saving US military lives. Foreign civilian lives is by far not the primary concern.
Drone strike target to civilian ratio is over 90%. The reason, and the only reason that the US went to drones is to reduce the cost of operations, with the additional benefit of reducing danger to US personnel.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone...
Iraq has assets important to the functioning of the US and world economy. The war in Iraq and Afghanistan was also the first time there were major anti-war protests before US entry since WW1
If you want to talk about carpet bombing, look at what was done in the "Secret War" against approximately 5000 communist guerillas in Laos
> US. aircraft dropped more ordnance on Laos than on all countries during World War II, leaving Laos with about 78 million pieces of UXO by the end of the war.[96]
> UXO remains dangerous to persons coming in contact, purposefully or accidentally, with bombs. Casualties in Laos from UXO are estimated at 12,000 since 1973. Thirty-three years after the last bomb was dropped and after decades of UXO clearance programs, 59 people were known to have been killed or injured by UXO in 2006.[97] So abundant are the remnants of bombs on the Plain of Jars that the collection and sale of scrap metal from bombs has been a major industry since the Civil War.[98] About 300 Laotians are killed or injured per year by UXO
needless to say, you are wrong in your statements. US has no regard for life apart from US citizens (and this is a topic on its own), practice demonstrated again and again in various aspects of life, war, international affairs etc.
lesser evil ain't no good in any book out there. we can and should strive for better
What about all the other western nations currently using the US military as their military in exchange for the land our bases are built on? You think we wouldn't sacrifice 10,000 soldiers lives to stop an invasion of Iceland?
Saying we have no regard for anyone but US citizens is just plain disengenous. Saying we have less regard for the people of the world not allied with us then we do for ourselves and our allies is true. Who doesn't?
Of course the comparison is ridiculous. That's my whole point.
But this is the comparison the grandparent I'm replying to is making. I.e. that the U.S. bombs some countries while being concerned about civilian casualties, and terrorists respond with something like the 9/11 attacks where they're explicitly trying to inflict civilian casualties, and somehow this should make it less clear who the good & evil actors are, as opposed to more clear.
> But saying that the US has not used its military strength for its own benefit and at the expense of the people of other countries is ridiculous.
I'm struggling to see how you can read my comment and conclude that I'm trying to make that point, but needless to say, you're fighting a strawman.