• 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

I don't doubt that, but it's irrelevant to the discussion. There isn't a chance that someone hiding in a shack in Pakistan is a direct and imminent threat to the US. In those situations where they are tracked and located by US intelligence, they can be targeted by Pakistani ground forces. Otherwise, why is America sending $billions to Pakistan in annual military aid.

The theory leaves out the fact that Pakistan is a mess and giving their security forces the coordinates has proven counterproductive in most cases.
Also it is, while correct that the person in most cases will not be a clear and present danger, the perp can often be a grave danger that will no longer be preventable, once the opportunity is past.
now one can debate the trade off between soft and hard benefits and costs of drone strikes vs other methods. But I tend to believe the elimination of threat is a duty of government.
 
Gaza is a hostile territory that is outside of Israel, thus terror threats from its lands are A) the responsibility of the IDF and not the Israeli police and B) cannot be handled by a counter-terror unit since it's an extremely hostile land so the best option is always from the air.

Thats pretty much what the Germans said about the Warsaw Ghetto as well.
 
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.
its war . read the AUMF
it gives the executive the authority to prosecute just like a declared war.
I'd prefer Congress actually declare war,but they won't -but it's disingenuous to say this isn't a war.
It's Long War..The Long War Journal
 
Thats pretty much what the Germans said about the Warsaw Ghetto as well.

No, no they haven't, and I'm sure if they were alive today they'd pretty much align with your agenda seeing that there couldn't possibly be something you'd disagree on.
 
I don't doubt that, but it's irrelevant to the discussion. There isn't a chance that someone hiding in a shack in Pakistan is a direct and imminent threat to the US. In those situations where they are tracked and located by US intelligence, they can be targeted by Pakistani ground forces. Otherwise, why is America sending $billions to Pakistan in annual military aid.

There is. 9/11 was planned from some shack in some godforsaken desert, as most other major terror attacks were.
 
Under past administrations, maybe so - if America can move to put some trust in an unchanged administration in Iran, surely giving Pakistan a chance in such situations going forward is rational unless America wants to be actively involved in the region forever.

The US will be actively involved in the region forever. That is already a given.
 
There is. 9/11 was planned from some shack in some godforsaken desert, as most other major terror attacks were.

And every major terrorist attack planned since 9/11 has been thwarted by intelligence and regular law enforcement resources in the continental US as well as by allied intelligence agencies. People on the left like to constantly bleat about waterboarding and Abu Gharib and GITMO, from which no one has been killed, as magical terrorist recruiting tools but somehow rationalize that killing innocent civilians with drone strikes is of no consequence. There isn't a greater tool to develop hatred for the US than having an innocent family member attending a wedding be sliced in two by a US drone bombing "mistake".
 
And every major terrorist attack planned since 9/11 has been thwarted by intelligence and regular law enforcement resources in the continental US as well as by allied intelligence agencies. People on the left like to constantly bleat about waterboarding and Abu Gharib and GITMO, from which no one has been killed, as magical terrorist recruiting tools but somehow rationalize that killing innocent civilians with drone strikes is of no consequence. There isn't a greater tool to develop hatred for the US than having an innocent family member attending a wedding be sliced in two by a US drone bombing "mistake".

No doubt about that, but there is no better alternative. Deploying forces on the ground is more costly and actually puts your soldiers, plenty of them, at risk - and most importantly; it actually increases the chances of civilian casualties, not decreases.
 
No doubt about that, but there is no better alternative. Deploying forces on the ground is more costly and actually puts your soldiers, plenty of them, at risk - and most importantly; it actually increases the chances of civilian casualties, not decreases.

I've never suggested putting soldiers on the ground as an alternative to drones. I'm suggesting that our allies in Pakistan and other places should be used more often in such situations. At the very least, cooperation as was the case with the former leadership in Yemen should be the rule, not the exception.

America is not Israel, surrounded by enemies and weak friendships. The easy way out, by way of assassinations, should not be the preferred method.
 
No, no they haven't, and I'm sure if they were alive today they'd pretty much align with your agenda seeing that there couldn't possibly be something you'd disagree on.
If they were alive now they would have been surprised that the Isrealis behave exactly like them in their treatment of the Palestinians.
 
I stated that there times and places to use them and times and places not to use them. That's called "the intelligent approach". To simply state that they are bad all the time is "the not so intelligent approach".

Warfare is bad all the time, and to be avoided, were it not so profitable.
 
Lol. There's no such thing as an unlawful combatant despite the fact some are labeled such for convenience sake.
 
If they were alive now they would have been surprised that the Isrealis behave exactly like them in their treatment of the Palestinians.

Or rather they will be surprised that a people who suffered what they made them suffer can behave in such a moral and humane conduct when dealing with another group who wish to see them destroyed such as the radical elements within the Palestinians and their immoral supporters. Perhaps even they will feel sickened by the anti-Israeli camp. Perhaps.
 
I've never suggested putting soldiers on the ground as an alternative to drones. I'm suggesting that our allies in Pakistan and other places should be used more often in such situations. At the very least, cooperation as was the case with the former leadership in Yemen should be the rule, not the exception.

America is not Israel, surrounded by enemies and weak friendships. The easy way out, by way of assassinations, should not be the preferred method.

Do you really believe Pakistan to be trustworthy when it comes to dealing with Islamic terrorists? If there was even half a truth to it then how come so many terrorists find refuge in its lands and territories?
 
Do you really believe Pakistan to be trustworthy when it comes to dealing with Islamic terrorists? If there was even half a truth to it then how come so many terrorists find refuge in its lands and territories?

There are thousands of terrorists finding refuge in America as we debate. I'd dare say there are a few hiding in plain sight in Israel too. So the point, once again, needs to be made - why is the US funneling tens of $billions in military aid to Pakistan if their military, nor their political leadership, can be trusted?
 
There are thousands of terrorists finding refuge in America as we debate. I'd dare say there are a few hiding in plain sight in Israel too. So the point, once again, needs to be made - why is the US funneling tens of $billions in military aid to Pakistan if their military, nor their political leadership, can be trusted?

To sum it up in a sentence; Because a nonproductive friend is better than a nonproductive enemy.
 
There are thousands of terrorists finding refuge in America as we debate. I'd dare say there are a few hiding in plain sight in Israel too. So the point, once again, needs to be made - why is the US funneling tens of $billions in military aid to Pakistan if their military, nor their political leadership, can be trusted?

Then again if we blow up there civillians then why should they care about those who blow up ours?
 
There are thousands of terrorists finding refuge in America as we debate. I'd dare say there are a few hiding in plain sight in Israel too. So the point, once again, needs to be made - why is the US funneling tens of $billions in military aid to Pakistan if their military, nor their political leadership, can be trusted?

Most US aid to Pakistan is non-military. Much of the military aid is reimbursements for use of facilities.
 
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.

Fair enough. Let's just agree that war is an undesirable expense no matter what you use to pull the trigger and call it even.
 
its war . read the AUMF
it gives the executive the authority to prosecute just like a declared war.
I'd prefer Congress actually declare war,but they won't -but it's disingenuous to say this isn't a war.
It's Long War..The Long War Journal

There is a LEGAL different between the two. That's what's at play here.
 
There is a LEGAL different between the two. That's what's at play here.
I beg to differ..
AUMF gives legal authority just like a war..I agree that is problematic, since Congress is shirking their sworn duty.
But I can't see any real legal differences in practice.
 
To sum it up in a sentence; Because a nonproductive friend is better than a nonproductive enemy.
Or, as LBJ put it, "“It's probably better to have him inside the tent pissing out, than outside the tent pissing in.”

But, in the case of Pakistan, why do you think they are your friend? Despite the billions spent, they are not your friend.
 
I beg to differ..
AUMF gives legal authority just like a war..I agree that is problematic, since Congress is shirking their sworn duty.
But I can't see any real legal differences in practice.

Declaration of War triggers different abilities with respect to domestic law (emergency powers).

AUMF gives none of that authority.

It's why Attorney General Gonzales said to the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006... this:

"There was not a war declaration, either in connection with Al Qaida or in Iraq. It was an authorization to use military force. I only want to clarify that, because there are implications. Obviously, when you talk about a war declaration, you’re possibly talking about affecting treaties, diplomatic relations. And so there is a distinction in law and in practice. And we’re not talking about a war declaration. This is an authorization only to use military force."
Link to the Convo on this.

Reality is there is a reason why AUMF didn't satisfy the legal standard for justifying illegal spying or anything else the US Government (President and Congress) has lost at the level of the Supreme Court. Be it granting rights to enemy combatants to giving them trials instead of holding them forever. Next up is FISA and NSA spying that Supreme Court will end up hearing (Klayman v. Obama). If this was a Declared War, none of this would have been questioned.
 
Warfare is bad all the time, and to be avoided, were it not so profitable.

What an ignorant, uninformed and naive statement. There will always be be bad people who will not stop what they are doing unless they are made to stop. Carrying out a war on these kind of people is not a bad thing. It is a necessary thing for a civilized society to exist. TO make a blanket statement as you just did reflects a level of naivete normally only seen in elementary schools.
 
Back
Top Bottom