60% of Americans approve of drone strikes, 47% even if Americans are killed

[compson III]

We're never going to win the hearts and minds over there.  On the other hand, there is only a finite supply of people willing to endure drone strikes on behalf of the cause.  The romanticism of tribal warfare evaporates quickly under the irrepressible barrage of drone strikes.

[bedstuy]

We're never going to win the hearts and minds over there.  On the other hand, there is only a finite supply of people willing to endure drone strikes on behalf of the cause.  The romanticism of tribal warfare evaporates quickly under the irrepressible barrage of drone strikes.

That's right.  The huge fallacy of left wing and Ron Paul-ish foreign policy is that the rest of the world is primarily motivated by American foreign policy, for better or worse.  People in the tribal areas of Pakistan or Yemen mostly don't even think of the US.  We don't enter into their lives, so even if we were extreme munificent as a country, they wouldn't care.

On the other hand, the ideology of Al Qaeda and ISIS is fundamentally opposed to a cosmopolitan, free, democratic society like America.  If we practiced super friendly, pacifist foreign policy, they would just view us as chumps.  And, this idea that people get pushed towards the ISIS worldview because of civilian casualties is totally overblown.  How many drone strikes are there in London?  Yet, people leave London to join ISIS.  How does slaughtering Yazidis get back at the US for drone strikes?  Yet, ISIS is way more focused on killing and enslaving them than getting revenge on the US. 

[CapoteMonster]

We're never going to win the hearts and minds over there.  On the other hand, there is only a finite supply of people willing to endure drone strikes on behalf of the cause.  The romanticism of tribal warfare evaporates quickly under the irrepressible barrage of drone strikes.

That's right.  The huge fallacy of left wing and Ron Paul-ish foreign policy is that the rest of the world is primarily motivated by American foreign policy, for better or worse.  People in the tribal areas of Pakistan or Yemen mostly don't even think of the US.  We don't enter into their lives, so even if we were extreme munificent as a country, they wouldn't care.

On the other hand, the ideology of Al Qaeda and ISIS is fundamentally opposed to a cosmopolitan, free, democratic society like America.  If we practiced super friendly, pacifist foreign policy, they would just view us as chumps.  And, this idea that people get pushed towards the ISIS worldview because of civilian casualties is totally overblown.  How many drone strikes are there in London?  Yet, people leave London to join ISIS.  How does slaughtering Yazidis get back at the US for drone strikes?  Yet, ISIS is way more focused on killing and enslaving them than getting revenge on the US. 

Your strawmanning what you call the "true leftist foreign policy". You completely overlook the unintended consequences of western foreign policy such as funding Osama Bin Ladin and Saddham Hussein in the 1980's. Hell, for all we know Bin Ladin could've planned 9/11 with tactics the CIA taught him. ISIS only came in to being because of increased instability and radicalism from the fallout of the Iraq War. As for bombs pushing people towards radicalism I think despair pushes people to brutal organizations like ISIS, and civilian casualties certainly contribute to that. Don't forget that to people suffering from such casualties those bombs have the names of taxpayers from Dallas, Texas and other cities on them. I do imahine we'd that the oppressive regimes many in the Middle East live under contribute towards rises of terrorist activity.

[bedstuy]

We're never going to win the hearts and minds over there.  On the other hand, there is only a finite supply of people willing to endure drone strikes on behalf of the cause.  The romanticism of tribal warfare evaporates quickly under the irrepressible barrage of drone strikes.

That's right.  The huge fallacy of left wing and Ron Paul-ish foreign policy is that the rest of the world is primarily motivated by American foreign policy, for better or worse.  People in the tribal areas of Pakistan or Yemen mostly don't even think of the US.  We don't enter into their lives, so even if we were extreme munificent as a country, they wouldn't care.

On the other hand, the ideology of Al Qaeda and ISIS is fundamentally opposed to a cosmopolitan, free, democratic society like America.  If we practiced super friendly, pacifist foreign policy, they would just view us as chumps.  And, this idea that people get pushed towards the ISIS worldview because of civilian casualties is totally overblown.  How many drone strikes are there in London?  Yet, people leave London to join ISIS.  How does slaughtering Yazidis get back at the US for drone strikes?  Yet, ISIS is way more focused on killing and enslaving them than getting revenge on the US. 

Your strawmanning what you call the "true leftist foreign policy". You completely overlook the unintended consequences of western foreign policy such as funding Osama Bin Ladin and Saddham Hussein in the 1980's. Hell, for all we know Bin Ladin could've planned 9/11 with tactics the CIA taught him. ISIS only came in to being because of increased instability and radicalism from the fallout of the Iraq War. As for bombs pushing people towards radicalism I think despair pushes people to brutal organizations like ISIS, and civilian casualties certainly contribute to that. Don't forget that to people suffering from such casualties those bombs have the names of taxpayers from Dallas, Texas and other cities on them. I do imahine we'd that the oppressive regimes many in the Middle East live under contribute towards rises of terrorist activity.

1.  We didn't fund or train Osama Bin Laden at any point.  We funded the domestic Afghan insurgency, not the foreign Arab fighters who were funded by Saudi Arabia. 

2.  The Iraq War was a huge blunder, I agree.  But, I was talking about drones strikes, which I support, no the Iraq War, which I agree was a terrible mistake.

3.  How many ISIS fighters are from areas affected by drone strikes?  I would bet a tiny number.

[compson III]

As for bombs pushing people towards radicalism I think despair pushes people to brutal organizations like ISIS, and civilian casualties certainly contribute to that. Don't forget that to people suffering from such casualties those bombs have the names of taxpayers from Dallas, Texas and other cities on them. I do imahine we'd that the oppressive regimes many in the Middle East live under contribute towards rises of terrorist activity.

Oppressive regimes?  Yes of course.  Bin Laden launched 9/11 because he could neither get a rise out of the US via targets in Kenya or Yemen, nor was there a clear battlefield elsewhere in a Middle East which was then dominated by a chain of stable dictatorships.  Now the whole region is up for grabs in a thirty years war.  There's no reason to bring the fight to America when there's so much fun to be had in your own backyard.

But bombs?  No.  Not important.