Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 239

Thread: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

  1. #211
    Familiaist


    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    North Carolina
    Last Seen
    11-16-16 @ 09:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    7,470

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    WITH respect,

    I think Philip Alston should pipe down and wait for the History Channel special on Predators. IT will air whenever we can fully eliminate collateral damage.
    "I do not underestimate the ability of fanatical groups of terrorists to kill and destroy, but they do not threaten the life of the nation. Whether we would survive Hitler hung in the balance, but there is no doubt that we shall survive al-Qa'ida." -- Lord Hoffmann

  2. #212
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Right.

    The Pakis would never question the legality of using F-18's to perform the same task.

    F-18's weren't what we had used though, so it's a moot point.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #213
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:35 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,037

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by TheNextEra View Post
    Your tune would changed if it was your family killed and labeled collateral damage.
    His tune would change were he Muslim and raised in a Saudi madrassa. It would probably even change were he Japanese. Come to think of it, if we were all members of Al-Queda all of our tunes would change.

    Culture is fate. If they are tired of the west adressing what they even call enemies of Islam, maybe they should start taking responsibility and take out their own garbage. They don't like our drones? Perhaps we should just use passenger airliners.
    Last edited by MSgt; 10-28-09 at 09:26 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #214
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by GySgt View Post
    Culture is fate. If they are tired of the west adressing what they even call enemies of Islam, maybe they should start taking responsibility and take out their own garbage.
    Of course, that's the ideal solution. Part of the problem is as you state, it's a cultural sort of thing. The theocracies of the region exacerbate the situation and often times propaganda is taught as outright truth.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  5. #215
    Sage
    akyron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:32 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    6,470

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by SE102 View Post
    Our you trying to make some sort of slippery slope argument that they will make it illegal to shoot back.
    Too late. Its called "rules of engagement" at times.
    Thank you

  6. #216
    Professor
    Dutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Arkansas
    Last Seen
    08-23-17 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,808

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by dirtpoorchris View Post
    No you show up in a way that your first invasion can happen without a single bullet. If our presence is welcome there surely we could have found some opening point right? You don't bomb the **** out of more innocent than good in situations like Operation Shock and Awe. The mission title itself gives it up for a terrorist like scare tactic.
    No. If you don't have to fire a shot during an invasion, it isn't an invasion. It's an excursion.

    We are in occupied territories to reign by controlled chaos. Make chaos for everything except this little bit you need to control. And you have the greatest chance to win in the end. But it seems the most cutthroat. It is just how I feel about dehumanizing and almost fully automatizing the death industry.
    You've never actually been in the military, have you? You want the enemy to die and you don't care how.

    Using robots to dispense of life is saying, "Your safety isn't important enough for more of our lives... But well throw money at the situation and use wide reaching explosion assassinations to Team America your country. On par with suicide bombers. (who are assholes that target their political rivals with bombs without care for the innocent around) To be on the same side of the coin of oppression but with a heavier hand and better technology is just?
    War isn't about being just. It's about achieving goals that benefit your nation. "justice" "being right" comes later when you write the history books.

  7. #217
    Sage
    Dav's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    04-16-16 @ 02:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,539

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's not all we do, but we certainly do it. The contention is that the use of unmanned drones has caused significant civilian casualty, not that the base use of them is wrong or illegal. I mean, you can ignore reality if you want. Think we're getting all the nasty terrorists and nothing more. But that sort of head in the sand attitude isn't going to fix the problem. Especially when significant civilian death leads to exacerbating the anti-American attitudes of entire groups of people. Attitudes which are used as propaganda for terrorists. But whatever. There are no negative consequences for our actions....ever. Got it.
    By this logic, all wars break international law, since civilian casualties are a given in any war. In fact, so far the overall War on Terror has avoided getting even nearly close to the same level of civilian casualties as, say, Vietnam.

  8. #218
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    In undeclared,
    An AUMF is legally tantamount to a formal declaration of war.

    aggressive, offensive, occupational war I think you're under a bit more constraint.
    Sorry but once again this is a war of self defense, they attacked us first.

    There's a "shoot the hostage" thing that can work out, maybe it it's one for one. But the fact is it's not.
    So it's your opinion that the air campaign against Nazi Germany was unacceptable?


    At best we're getting one or two terrorists for a handful of civilians. That's just not acceptable.
    The ratio between civilians killed and soldiers killed during the campaign against the axis then would be far more unacceptable.

    Go in with police units. Maybe if we were in a declared, defensive war we'd have more justification.
    I see no difference whatsoever between a formal declaration of war and an AUMF and neither does the law, and this IS a defensive war anyone who claims otherwise must have 9-11 amnesia, THEY attacked US not the other way around.

    But we're talking about violating the sovereignty of another country to attack people we've labeled this or that killing a lot of their civilians in the process.
    A country whose head of intelligence financed the murder of 3,000 U.S. civilians and a country which is either unwilling or unable to root out the organizations directly responsible for those murders.

    And these people pose little to no threat against the United States itself.
    Again you must be suffering from 9-11 amnesia it's a common ailment amongst the libertarian mindset.

    So, nice little hyperbole again with the German army, but false analogy.
    It's not hyperbole, but perhaps the war in the Pacific would be a better analogy considering that Germany never did actually attack us whereas AQ and their co-conspirators in the Taliban are responsible for more U.S. deaths than that of the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.

  9. #219
    Professor
    Dutch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northern Arkansas
    Last Seen
    08-23-17 @ 09:19 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    1,808

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    I'll be as snarky as I want, I have the intellect to back it up. You've mischaracterized what I had written. The point was to address the real problems in the area and make some attempt at getting to a root cause. Killing tons of people isn't going to solve the problem. You're not going to run out of terrorists. Setting up "democracy" doesn't necessarily mean there will be no terrorists (IRA for example). Killing innocent people isn't going to get us anywhere.
    The "root cause" is intolerance of western culture and, apparently other religions as well.

    What is losing the war in Afghanistan? What is a time frame? What are reasonable goals? It's not laid out. What is the cost of "failure"? What does "failure" look like? People keep saying these things, but no one (so it seems) has thought about any of this. Do we even have legitimate power to go into Pakistan and bomb civilian areas claiming there are terrorists there? For ****'s sake, when the hell did the US become God?
    We aren't playing god here. We are taking the war from our shores to theirs. We didn't fight the kaiser in new york. We didn't fight hitler in georgia. We take the war there. This is what we do.

    If we're not going to think about the root causes of any of this, we're not going to get to a solution. If we're not driving towards solution, there's no point to continued fighting. All it will be is wasted human life.
    You keep saying this. This isn't that hard. Your culture, such as it is, is a very real threat to traditional ones. Obama and company know this. It's no secret. Why pretend you don't understand this.

    The "solution" is to help bring an understanding to those who would target and kill american citizens is there will be a price to be paid for such behavior. As soon as that price is high enough, they will stop.

  10. #220
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Dav View Post
    By this logic, all wars break international law, since civilian casualties are a given in any war. In fact, so far the overall War on Terror has avoided getting even nearly close to the same level of civilian casualties as, say, Vietnam.
    This is a good point. The base of any war is infringement of someone's sovereignty. I'm not sure if I buy that claim about civilian casualties though. I'd probably need to see some comprehensive, honest stats before I believed that one. But in the end, there is a very important fundamental question about State power and authority granted during times of war. Can we label people as terrorists and then walk willy nilly into any country we want, blowing it to hell and back? Furthermore, I understand that not all war is avoidable and that during war there will be civilian casualties. However, I think you should be drug kicking and screaming into war, and fight and claw your way back out ASAP. War is not a good situation for anyone involved. As it relates to civilian casualties, I think the "there will always be civilian casualties" argument is used carte blanche as excuse for all civilian casualties. Yes, there will be casualties, but that doesn't me we should treat them so nonchalantly. We should always be looking for means by which we can decrease that number. Sure, it's never going to be zero; but we don't have to kill all humans because of it.

    If you have to go to war, go to war with a comprehensive plan. Know what end game is, know how to get there at least in some general terms. The war may evolve a ways, but there should always be the eye on the prize. And go in with everything you got, don't hamstring troops or movements. The goal should be to end the war as soon as possible, by doing so you can usually minimize overall casualties. And if you're not making progress on a war, time to cut your losses. You can't keep fighting due to some ideological claim of success or failure. There has to be a good amount of realism in there as well. War should definitely be avoided if possible, if not possible don't draw it out. Setting up the forever war will always lead to bad places, I don't care by which moral authority you fight. Perpetual war is bad.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

Page 22 of 24 FirstFirst ... 122021222324 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •