Here's a few questions for the "pro-drone" crowd in the military-industrial complex;
What if you were in a funeral procession in Maryland and an unmanned CIA drone "accidentally" crashed into the procession and killed half of your family?
Would you not feel some degree of anger towards whomever was flying the drone that killed your family?
Would YOU be willing to "let bygones be bygones" if your family was killed by an unmanned CIA drone for no reason?
Here's another article from Mike S. at non-intervention;
War kills people … as do lies by U.S. and Western Interventionists
By mike | Published: May 29, 2012
The death of nearly 100 people — reportedly mostly women and children — over the weekend is a salutary reminder of an eternal truth which Western leaders seem unfamiliar: PEOPLE GET KILLED IN WARS. In the present Syrian case, both sides in the ongoing Syrian civil war appear to share responsibility for the deaths. And while the trigger pullers on each side bear responsibility, the line of responsibility also leads directly back to Britain’s David Cameron, the UN’s leaders, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Barack Obama, and especially Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice. These interventionists have led an effective effort to prevent the legitimate Syrian regime from restoring order to the country, and have encouraged Syrian dissidents to provide the cannon fodder for what has become a face-off between Asaad’s army and Islamist militants aided by al-Qaeda and armed and funded by the Jordanians, Turks, Saudis, and other of the Gulf’s tyrants. Western intervention, in short, prolonged Syrian disorder and gave time for the ripening of today’s civil war there.
And what have the Syrians ever done to the United States to merit Washington’s decision to manipulate an internal Syrian dispute to oust Asaad? Maybe a better question is what could they possible do to harm the United States? Although for 40 years Washington under both parties has ominously preached to Americans about the dangers they face from evil Syria, a quick glance at the map makes this claim patently absurd. After a few minutes of trying, the average map examiner will find the small state of Syria in the Levant, and he or she may be forgiven for asking if that little place can really be a nation-state or is it merely an ink smudge? Surrounded by a nuclear-armed Israel, a conventionally powerful Turkey, and a Sunni world that would love to draw, quarter, and roast Asaad, his family, and all of the country’s Alalwites on the spit it reserves for heretics, Syria today does no more than survive in a tough neighborhood. Americans can rest easy, for despite the lies about the “Syrian threat” from Mrs. Clinton, McCain, and various soon-to-be-bankrupt European spendthrifts neither Milwaukee nor Portland will ever see the mighty Syrian military marching along their leafy boulevards.
Washington’s threat mongering about Syria for a long time had to do with both parties’ readiness to earn campaign donations by towing the anti-Syria propaganda line put forth by Israel and its AIPAC-led fifth column of U.S. citizens. (NB:Ironically, AIPAC’s deliberate corruption of the U.S. Congress and political system has always been a far greater threat to America than Syria.) And, indeed, the Russia-armed Syrians may have posed a threat to Israel and its ongoing expansion into Palestinian-owned territory. But this was a threat to Israel, never a threat to the United States, although U.S. leaders have spoken and spent, and still speak and spend as if the Syrian marines — if there are any — were soon going to splash ashore along the Hamptons’ beaches and ruin the holidays of many cocaine-addled but campaign-contributing Hollywood celebrities.
Given the reliable ability of Israel and its U.S. fifth column to determine and control the content of U.S. policy in the Islamic world, the ersatz Syrian threat remained front and center until the Arab Spring unleashed a fatal dementia that is likely to destroy Israel and embroil the United States and its allies in a losing clash of civilizations with the Islamic world. This fatal dementia can be found in the words and — to give them the benefit of the doubt — the thoughts of Mrs. Clinton, Obama, Rice, McCain, Cameron, and Graham that assert the Arab Spring ensures the installation of secular democracy across the Arab and Islamic worlds. Although Islamic parties have won all of the elections since the Tunisian regime fell — and Egyptians are poised to choose between Islamists on the one side, and the army and Mubarak‘s assistant tyrants on the other — Mrs. Clinton still insists that secular democracy is on the march. And it is, but only in the reality-proof brains of the Secretary of State and other of our Ivy-League educated (?) political and media leaders.
As the Syrian civil war lengthens and deepens as the result of the support of U.S.-Western interventionists for the Saudis’ funding and arming of the mujahedin already in Syria and those on the way there form other battle fronts, we will no doubt here more lies about the Syrian threat to the United States. We also will hear more about the Syrian threat to Israel, but what once was a lie now will be the truth as Mrs. Clinton and company — in their doctrinaire, Marxist-Leninist-like belief in democracy’s inevitable triumph — help to give to al-Qaeda and the Saudis what they could never attain alone; that is, the gradual entrenchment of militant Sunni regimes from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean.
And so U.S.-led Western intervention in Syria will bring what such intervention in the Muslim world always brings: government lies and deceit; quantum increases in dead Syrians; more U.S. taxpayer funds given to or wasted on Israelis and other foreigners; a deepening of Muslim hatred for the United States government; and the sharpening of the clash of civilizations which will cause Washington to further restrict civil liberties in a futile effort to stave off eventual defeat.
That is quite a price for the rest of us to pay for our leaders’ lust to intervene in the name of democracy in countries that are not worth an American life or a U.S. dollar. http://non-intervention.com/
another article on non-interventionism;
As American citizens, we must ask ourselves two questions: first, what, if anything, do we gain from an interventionist foreign policy? And second, is our interventionist foreign policy compatible with liberty and justice? For if it is found that the costs outweigh the benefits, or that an interventionist foreign policy in not compatible with liberty and justice, then we must reject it.
So let us weigh the costs.
Cost to the Taxpayer
This coming 2012 fiscal year congress has requested between $1,000,600,000,000 and $1,415,000,000,000 in military related spending (includes interest which creates the range in spending due to fluctuations in interest rates). There are roughly 144 million taxpayers (based on the number of returns filed in 2011), meaning the American taxpayer, on average, will be forced to pay between $6,948 and $9,826 this coming fiscal year on military spending alone. Now multiply this times the number of years you have been paying taxes. That will give you a rough estimate of how much our foreign policy involvement costs each individual citizen.
Security of the American Citizen
Because of our foreign entanglements, the American citizen is now less safe. The U.S. has 737 bases around the world, of which 295 are considered “major military bases,” and has military personnel in 153 countries. Since the middle of the twentieth century the American State has intervened hundreds of times in the affairs of other countries, overthrowing elected leaders and invading sovereign countries.
Now imagine if a foreign country, such as China, had numerous bases inside our borders, had their navy in our ports, and had secret agents trying to incite unrest among the people. Imagine if they installed a puppet dictator who did China’s bidding, or enacted sanctions which led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent American’s. As a patriotic American would you not be justifiably angry?
All of these things mentioned above the American government has done to other countries and their people, thus it is no surprise that the outcome is hatred towards America. You do not see countries like Switzerland being attacked by terrorists, for they do not interfere in the business of other nations. Thus, foreign interventionism by the American State has made the American citizen less secure by infuriating millions of people worldwide. As Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit, said in his book Imperial Hubris, “the focused and lethal threat posed to U.S. national security arises not from Muslims being offended by what America is, but rather from their plausible perception that the things they most love and value—God, Islam, their brethren, and Muslim lands—are being attacked by America.” Because of what the American government has done abroad over the last half century, America, and thus the American citizen, is now a target of terrorist attacks.
As of June 7, 2011 5,950 American soldiers have died and 32,100 injured in our foreign interventionist efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan (if you count innocent Iraqi and Afghani civilian deaths and injuries then the numbers grow possibly into the millions, depending on the estimate source). Now we must ask ourselves if the death of thousands of U.S. citizens is worth the invasion and occupation of these two countries. Is the life of even ONE American citizen worth the death of one foreign dictator? If yes, whose life are you going to give? Your own?
Some will claim that ours is a volunteer army, and thus our soldiers knew what they were getting themselves into when they joined. But the American soldier signs up to protect the American people and defend against attack. He does not sign up to forward the misguided ideology of a few power brokers or special interests in an expansionist war.
The Morality Question
We must ask a simple question when thinking about sending our young American men and women abroad: Does any person have the right to force another to fight and die to satisfy a political agenda or moral outrage? The answer is most obviously a resounding “No.” Yet this is what we do when we send our American soldiers to fight and die in places like Vietnam, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan or Libya. That is not to deny the atrocities that may be happening in those places, but again, who are you to send someone else to fight for your own moral objection? Government officials in Washington talk about their righteousness and patriotism while they force someone else to fight and die for their un-patriotic foreign aggressions and ‘moral’ quests.
The American government should always remain neutral and must never interfere in the domestic functions of foreign countries, as it (the American government) has no moral grounds to do so. The American citizen, on the other hand, can choose by him/herself whether or not serving a cause in a foreign land is worth dying for. For example, during World War II Germany did not declare war in Ireland, and so the Irish government remained neutral (as they should have). Yet those Irish citizens who deemed it a worthy cause joined the British army to fight the Germans. This is the moral and just way for a government to function: It should always remain neutral until war is declared upon it, until then it has no legitimate right to send troops outside its borders for any reason.
The founders of this country understood that the purpose of government is not to create empires, spread ‘freedom’ (wouldn’t it help the spreading of ‘freedom’ to first understand what it means to be free?), or force the citizens to sacrifice their lives for some ‘righteous’ cause half way around the world. As John Q. Adams brilliantly stated:
Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force…She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit…
The American State has refused the wisdom of our founders and has rejected the principles of liberty and justice; because of this, the American State is no longer one of liberty, she is now one of force; America is longer the standard bearer of freedom, she is now “the dictatress of the world.” A foreign policy of non-intervention, as recommended by George Washington, John Q. Adam and others, would quickly remedy this unfortunate state of affairs and would help restore liberty and justice to the American citizen. http://tfboyle.hubpages.com/hub/Non-Intervention-A-Foreign-Policy-for-the-American-Citizen
Some questions for those who continue to support military occupations and CIA torture;
What if someone in your family once was employed by the CIA and they were called upon by their employers to engage in acts of torture against supposed "enemy combatants?
What if your family member objected to the job assignment of torture as it was not in their job description and they felt is was unethical?
What if your family member spoke out about this and then resigned when they were ignored?
What if after your family member resigned from their job due to objections of torture and then were themselves subjected to psychological harrassment by their former co-workers?
How would YOU feel if your family member dedicated and risked their life to protect the people of the U.S. and were then made to become mentally unstable because of constant psychological persecution from former co-workers?
Making a former CIA agent go rogue isn't easily done, as most are dedicated professionals, yet even the most patient CIA agent can be pushed over the edge when their leaders engage in such hypocrisy that it literally drives them into the arms of Al Queda for protection from their former co-workers.
CIA agents are not disposable puppets to be kicked like dogs by their bosses in the U.S. government when they refuse to engage in illegal and UnConstitutional acts like torture.
Like the unmanned drone crash in Maryland, sometimes the tools of war malfunction. This includes highly trained and skilled CIA agents that got tired of being kicked like dogs by the agency and government they dedicated and risked their lives for.
Rogue CIA begins Western Al Queda (WAQ), a secular branch that avoids religion and focuses on higher level targets like D. Cheney.
WAQ theme song;
We walk the night
The night becomes our bride
to walk alone
to feel no love http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=353Ngbz70sY