• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike in January

They were killed on Reagan's watch. He's directly responsible for sending them over there and not making sure that security was adequate.

So in your special world, when terrorists attack troops, the President didn't provide sufficient security and he's directly responsible - I guess Obama failed in Fort Hood, etc. - that's the same as a President giving a direct order for a drone strike on an American citizen. What other special views are held in this wonderful land you live in?
 
So in your special world, when terrorists attack troops, the President didn't provide sufficient security and he's directly responsible - I guess Obama failed in Fort Hood, etc. - that's the same as a President giving a direct order for a drone strike on an American citizen. What other special views are held in this wonderful land you live in?

Yeah, and president Truman should have been prosecuted and executed for war crimes... There's no special world dude, only the real one, and in the real world in times of war and crises, s**t happens, that's a given. So your call for Obama's head in this case is just nonsense.
 
Oh something called assassination. Killing an American before trial is considered assassination per law. No American can legally be killed in this manner (drone). Right now Obama has killed 6 Americans illegally.

Dood gave up his American rights when he took up arms against the country and declared allegiance elsewhere. These were enemy combatants. I like the 'were' part. They are now dead parrots.
 
Is it any wonder groups like ISIS believe they can beat us? In a thread where the president killed terrorists, people are bemoaning the poor Americans loss of constitutional rights and ****ing arguing about Reagan and Truman.
 
Dood gave up his American rights when he took up arms against the country and declared allegiance elsewhere. These were enemy combatants. I like the 'were' part. They are now dead parrots.
Um, youre saying that American hostage who was killed was an enemy combatant?
 
Um, youre saying that American hostage who was killed was an enemy combatant?

Does that SOUND like who was being discussed?
 
Is it any wonder groups like ISIS believe they can beat us? In a thread where the president killed terrorists, people are bemoaning the poor Americans loss of constitutional rights and ****ing arguing about Reagan and Truman.

I don't know what ISIS believes - but there was a time when America and Americans stood for certain principles and the rule of law was one of them. We've seen that eaten away over the past number of decades, with Iran/Contra - with Clinton/Lewinski - with waterboarding - and now with drone assassinations, the NSA, and a President who believes he alone should determine which laws should be enforced and which ones not.

Holding onto the moral high ground takes work.
 
I don't know what ISIS believes - but there was a time when America and Americans stood for certain principles and the rule of law was one of them. We've seen that eaten away over the past number of decades, with Iran/Contra - with Clinton/Lewinski - with waterboarding - and now with drone assassinations, the NSA, and a President who believes he alone should determine which laws should be enforced and which ones not.

Holding onto the moral high ground takes work.
Horse****. Some dirtbag decides to take up with terrorists on foreign soil they arent US Citizens covered by the Constitution...they are terrorists and they are targets. Thats logic regardless of who is sitting in the WH.
 
In regards to just the production cost, yes, drones are cheaper. But they also cause much more collateral damage, are less flexible in how they can be used, incapable of adapting to changing situations (as someone stated earlier, the only real options available whenever something changes are continue mission or abort mission), and they are unpopular with a lot of people. Overall, they have a very high opportunity cost compared to just sending in soldiers.

edit: Oh, and soldiers don't burn thousands of dollars of revenue every hour they spend in the field, and recruit way fewer terrorists than the drones do.



Evidence suggests that the trauma of living under drones causes anti-American resentment and aids in the recruitment for violent extremism. According to a former State Department official, for every drone strike, the U.S. generates roughly forty to sixty new enemies. Such long term damage is known as “blowback” – incidents that arise in later years as an unintended consequence of actions taken today.

FCNL: Understanding Drones

I am not arguing against your position. Just pointing out.. there is massive costs involved when it comes to troops. Troops have to be flown in, paid, given the best/forefront equipment in the world, and then you have benefits and so on for the families. So no it's not as simple as that.

Any action the US does will cause a reaction. Boots on the ground is just as traumatic and causes anti-American resentment. You think Americans would realize Iraq and Afghanistan isn't that simple as fight "terrorism". We are fighting the locals. That's their land and they aren't gonna quit. Sure there are some groups that Americans know about.. and media reports on.. because they are buzzwords.
 
Horse****. Some dirtbag decides to take up with terrorists on foreign soil they arent US Citizens covered by the Constitution...they are terrorists and they are targets. Thats logic regardless of who is sitting in the WH.

Let's for arguments sake say that a couple of ISIS elements breached the White House and held the Obama family hostage. According to your argument, it would be perfectly reasonable to send a drone to bomb the White House in order to kill the couple of terrorists even though the hostages, in this case the First Family, would also be killed in the process. I'm guessing the vast majority of Americans would disagree with you.
 
Let's for arguments sake say that a couple of ISIS elements breached the White House and held the Obama family hostage. According to your argument, it would be perfectly reasonable to send a drone to bomb the White House in order to kill the couple of terrorists even though the hostages, in this case the First Family, would also be killed in the process. I'm guessing the vast majority of Americans would disagree with you.
Dont make stupid analogies. Thats just....beyond the pale stupid. How do you even BEGIN to equate the scenarios? The intel had no indication of civilians or hostages. It DID have (confirmed) actionable intel of the presence of terrorists.
 
Dont make stupid analogies. Thats just....beyond the pale stupid. How do you even BEGIN to equate the scenarios? The intel had no indication of civilians or hostages. It DID have (confirmed) actionable intel of the presence of terrorists.

So, in your view, civilian and/or hostage casualties are irrelevant to the goal of killing a couple of terrorists. As such, why is my analogy/scenario stupid? Is it because aid workers' lives aren't worth worrying about?
 
So, in your view, civilian and/or hostage casualties are irrelevant to the goal of killing a couple of terrorists. As such, why is my analogy/scenario stupid? Is it because aid workers' lives aren't worth worrying about?
Tragic. All care to be avoided when at all possible. Casualties of war. And fighting terrorism IS a war. Yes.
 
Dood gave up his American rights when he took up arms against the country and declared allegiance elsewhere. These were enemy combatants. I like the 'were' part. They are now dead parrots.

No, you can only be stripped of your rights by the court system. US Government has to bring you to trial and a trial has to take place to strip citizenship. You can voluntarily give up your citizenship but you can only do that overseas and in front U.S. consular officer. To even further explain.. Brandenburg v. Ohio (US Supreme Court) ruled that Free Speech extends to advocacy of violence and revolution against the State. Also the US Congress hasn't declared war either, but rather a AUMF. So from the start US has to filed charges and try them before anything. US hasn't bothered actually following the damn law.

So while you want to remain ignorant of the facts, throw away facts and accept assassination.. go ahead. But I will not.
 
Tragic. All care to be avoided when at all possible. Casualties of war. And fighting terrorism IS a war. Yes.

I hadn't realized the US was at war with Pakistan.

And it depends on who's involved in the terrorism. Obama seems to have no problem negotiating with the terrorists in Iran and the Taliban in Afghanistan. And don't forget arming the terrorists, or at least some of them, in Syria. But sending a drone over Pakistan or Yemen or Somalia is cool for the big man in the Oval Office, regardless of the fallout.
 
Oh something called assassination. Killing an American before trial is considered assassination per law. No American can legally be killed in this manner (drone). Right now Obama has killed 6 Americans illegally.

That's not true. An American who joins enemy forces and fights a war against the United States can be killed without a trial. Rules of warfare.
Educate yourself.
 
I hadn't realized the US was at war with Pakistan.

A state of warfare isn't limited to nations alone but to all kinds of factions.
A terror organization for example can be in an open state of war with a nation, plenty of examples to this both in history and in present time.
 
A state of warfare isn't limited to nations alone but to all kinds of factions.
A terror organization for example can be in an open state of war with a nation, plenty of examples to this both in history and in present time.

Would you condone the US sending a drone over Israeli territory to bomb a couple of terrorists hiding out in say Haifa - maybe a couple of Israeli citizens get vaporized in the process? No big deal, right?
 
Tragic. All care to be avoided when at all possible. Casualties of war. And fighting terrorism IS a war. Yes.

Okay. So just to understand you VanceMack.. 9/11 victims were Casualties of War, correct? Then why the **** did they get money from the Government? September 11th Victim Compensation Fund was created to prevent victims from suing the airlines. But if it was considered an act of war then it the airlines couldn't have been sued as it was an "act of war".

Terrorism is a war which is equal to the War on Drugs. It's not a real war. No FORMAL declaration of war has never been passed by Congress. AUMF are used to subvert the law so Presidents and others can twist law in their own warped way to justify illegal spying, collection of data and assassinating Americans. Btw, you know how the Obama admin justified their "assassination" position? Using Israeli law. Not American law.
 
Would you condone the US sending a drone over Israeli territory to bomb a couple of terrorists hiding out in say Haifa - maybe a couple of Israeli citizens get vaporized in the process? No big deal, right?

Do not engage in hyperbole. The situation you've described is unrealistic due to so many reasons, the most obvious one being that Israel unlike Pakistan would have been able to easily control the situation and a US airstrike would have been clearly uncalled for. An Israeli police (not even IDF) counter-terror unit can easily operate in such case and bring the situation to an end with minimal casualties.
 
Read more @: American, Italian Hostages Killed in CIA Drone Strike in January

Incredibly unfortunate. One of the major problems with our drone war program, incredibly difficult to verify who you are targeting, and confirming if the target was killed or who else was killed by the strike. RIP, and thoughts go out to the families.

[/FONT][/COLOR]

This is unquestionably a sad event, and our thoughts are indeed with the families.

Nonetheless, the striking departure in the drone program is not that a great number of innocents are killed, but that an unprecedentedly low number of innocents are killed. By several orders of magnitude this is the cleanest war ever fought.
 
That's not true. An American who joins enemy forces and fights a war against the United States can be killed without a trial. Rules of warfare.
Educate yourself.

Before you try and educate me.. let me help you.. US didn't declare war on anybody. They used a authorized use of military force (AUMF). Thus the US is not at war with anybody so rules of warfare don't apply and was the basis of the argument for detaining those captured without trial. So US hasn't declared war in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, or even the Philippines. So by law it's not a War.
 
Do not engage in hyperbole. The situation you've described is unrealistic due to so many reasons, the most obvious one being that Israel unlike Pakistan would have been able to easily control the situation and a US airstrike would have been clearly uncalled for. An Israeli police (not even IDF) counter-terror unit can easily operate in such case and bring the situation to an end with minimal casualties.

Eh? Cause you know how to police Gaza.
 
Do not engage in hyperbole. The situation you've described is unrealistic due to so many reasons, the most obvious one being that Israel unlike Pakistan would have been able to easily control the situation and a US airstrike would have been clearly uncalled for. An Israeli police (not even IDF) counter-terror unit can easily operate in such case and bring the situation to an end with minimal casualties.

That presumes the US felt a need to inform or consult with the Israeli government.

Did the US administration inform the Pakistanis of this terrorist hideout and give them the opportunity to raid it themselves? While Pakistan is far from perfect allies, they have been fighting terrorist elements within their borders for years now. Or is the sovereignty of some nations irrelevant to America - might means right.
 
Back
Top Bottom