Page 9 of 24 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 239

Thread: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

  1. #81
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Or, you could start being honest about what you read.

    Your choice is clear.
    I did. And you honestly aren't even making sense at this point. It's all just a bunch of angry griping totally devoid of logic or even common sense.

    Par for the course with you though.

  2. #82
    Libertarian socialist

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Staffs, England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,730

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    No, but some Pakistani civilians are harboring these terrorists perpetuating the war are they not?


    j-mac
    execpt in this case harbouring seams to consitute living in the same village? You have to bear in mind that in many cases these kind of groups aquire food shelter etc. using force. If you or I were a pakistani civllian neither of us would be insentivised to stick our necks out and deal with the terroists if those they,re fighting against are going to blow us up anyway. Why should pakistani civillians stick their necks out for people that are killing them en masse?

  3. #83
    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 j-mac View Post
    Do you believe it possible to kill legitimate terror targets AQ, or Taliban without collateral civilian death in war? And if so, could you point to a time in history, or any other conflict where this is been born out?
    Nope, but I also don't think we should set the situation to take out a lot of innocents in our wake. While we can't completely avoid it, we should probably work to minimize it.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Who's contention? The UN's? Pakistans? The enemy themselves?
    I believe Pakistan originally raised the complaint.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I don't try to, but if you think that fighting these terrorists that hide among innocents can be taken out without civilians that they hide amongst being harmed, then it is not I ignoring reality sir.
    You are if you think that somehow not caring about innocent death is going to help us get to solution. There's a real problem in the ME and a lot has to do with propaganda and overall resentment. To attack the root of the problem, you have to attack that. If we continue to not care that we're taking out innocent people and maybe sometimes getting a terrorist or two; this isn't going to improve that lot. All we'll be doing is setting ourselves up for forever war, and I cannot conceive of a situation in which that is ok.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I see, so if we all just play nice and beg we will get further? is that right?
    It's a little bit more than that. We can't expect the situation to change overnight, but we have to do something to get to the root problem. It may be playing nice, it may be economic stimulus (hard now that our own economy is in the crapper), it may be humanitarian aid or what have you. But until we can get people to not think of us as some form of evil empire, we'll have done nothing to get to the root of the problem. At heart is the fact that you'll never eliminate all terrorists. And by killing more and more and more, you'll only encourage more terrorists. It's a vicious circle.

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Tell me how would those negotiations go? How would they look? And I never said that actions come consequence free. That is hyperbole disseminated by you, and you alone.


    j-mac
    It's not an easy row to hoe. And at this stage in the game, everything has been FUBARed. Our intervention in Afghanistan, the side quest off into Iraq; none of it has yielded anything positive. Just more death and destruction. We lost 3,000 in a terrorist attack, and then I'm supposed to be ok with losing over 3,000 more in the war? It doesn't sound like we netted out anything good there. We didn't make the region more stable, we didn't significantly impact terrorism, we didn't really make ourselves safer. And at this point it's hard to see if we can't change any of that.

    There are bigger pictures and root dynamics and we're really going to have to get to those, understand them, and attack them to make a real difference. In the meantime, I'm pretty sure we should try to limit how many innocent people we kill.
    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."

  4. #84
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Red_Dave View Post
    Well yes. By killing more of the civillian population then the terroists you have made these people the enemy whether they wish to be or not.
    Killing people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time does not make them the enemy.

    It is, of course, regrettable that this happens, but that civilians die when military targets are destroyed in an unaviodable fact of war, especially when those legitimate targets deliberately endanger said civilians by hiding among them.

  5. #85
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    Seriously, some of you watch too many freaking movies and TV shows thinking that's reality.

    We are engaged in a conflict, that means weapons are used. We no longer use the "Total War" tactics, and our weapons are about as accurate as science can make them.

    We cause the LEAST amount of collateral damage in the HISTORY OF WAR, and yet you people want weapons that "only hit the enemies". Sorry folks, you cannot do that, and you cannot turn off friendly fire.

    **** happens, people die, and there is no way around that in armed conflict. You should be PROUD at the steps we take to minimize civilian deaths, not whining because they still happen.

    Some of you are so out to lunch on this issue it's not funny.

    You're missing a key point.

    If we DID have the technology to kill only the enemy, these same people would be whining that our protocols defining the "enemy" are prejudgemental and we need to arrest them and put them on trial, not kill them.

    After all, if our technology could identify the enemy, why can't we take them into custody without killing them.


    They don't want the US to win, period.

    I'm all for killing the enemy on the spot, myself, and giving them as much chance to escape as they gave the people in the upper floors of the World Trade Center.

  6. #86
    Libertarian socialist

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Staffs, England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    6,730

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Goobieman View Post
    Killing people who are in the wrong place at the wrong time does not make them the enemy.

    It is, of course, regrettable that this happens, but that civilians die when military targets are destroyed in an unaviodable fact of war, especially when those legitimate targets deliberately endanger said civilians by hiding among them.
    I think its fair enough to say that if someone is blowing up your villages that makes them your enemy. And if civillian deaths are "regretable" then why not take a course of action that limits them? such as working with the pakistani government?

  7. #87
    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
    No, the argument is that it may be "illegal" to kill people in a combat zone with remotely operated vehichles when it's clearly legal to kill them with troops on the spot or manned aircraft or even by completely robotic cruise missiles.

    You're attempting to perpetuate a distinction that has no existence.

    I'm keeping the argument focused on the physical facts of the matter.
    And the physical facts of the matter are that complaints and issues have been raised over the use of our drones in what we are targeting and killing. If you can't keep focused on that, maybe ritalin or something can help ya out.
    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."

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by jallman View Post
    I did. And you honestly aren't even making sense at this point. It's all just a bunch of angry griping totally devoid of logic or even common sense.

    Par for the course with you though.
    You did what?

    You haven't addressed the argument.

    Explain the moral difference between killing an enemy with a bullet from a soldier's rifle, a bullet from a cannon on an RPV, a bomb from an F-18, and a bomb delivered by Tomahawk.

    We're waiting.

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    02-16-11 @ 08:57 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    36,915
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    You're missing a key point.

    If we DID have the technology to kill only the enemy, these same people would be whining that our protocols defining the "enemy" are prejudgemental and we need to arrest them and put them on trial, not kill them.

    After all, if our technology could identify the enemy, why can't we take them into custody without killing them.


    They don't want the US to win, period.

    I'm all for killing the enemy on the spot, myself, and giving them as much chance to escape as they gave the people in the upper floors of the World Trade Center.
    That bolded part...it's the type of hyperemotional, bull****, garbage discourse that dumbs down the real debate so that yokels and morons have a catch phrase to screech shrilly at anyone they disagree with.

    First of all, the issue isn't the mode of delivery when it comes to collateral damage. The issue is choosing a form of engagement which minimizes collateral damage. Something anyone who served in our great military would be conscious and attuned to the importance of.

    The issue seems to be that the unmanned drones have a higher incident rate of killing civilians and bystanders. If that is true, then the issue needs to be addressed.

    You've still failed to answer an important question: what civilians started a war with us? What civilians in Pakistan flew planes into the towers?

    I know you don't want to answer that question because doing so truthfully would expose just how idiotic your feigned, internet tuff guyz bloodlust for killing civilians really is.

  10. #90
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: US drone strikes may break international law: UN

    Quote Originally Posted by Red_Dave View Post
    I think its fair enough to say that if someone is blowing up your villages that makes them your enemy.
    You thinking this does not make it so.
    We destroyed entire German and Japanese cities -- did that make us the enemy of the German/Japanese people?

    And if civillian deaths are "regretable" then why not take a course of action that limits them? such as working with the pakistani government?
    Aside from the fact that the use of precision munitions -does- minimize civilian casualties....

    False dichotomy. No reason to not do both. By hitting these targets ourselves, we ensure that they are taken out; giving the ball to the Pakistani government, while a nominally good idea, has no such assurance.

Page 9 of 24 FirstFirst ... 789101119 ... 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
  •