Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or spy?

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

And let's get some things clear about the accuracy of drone strikes. There are an awful lot of accusations flying around this thread about drone strikes being indiscriminate killing that results in high collateral damage, lots of children being killed, etc.

If you actually look at the numbers, this is simply not true. The casualties of drone strikes are overwhelmingly militants. And the percentage of civilian collateral's has steadily decreased as time goes on and the technology continues to improve and become more accurate.

The Year of the Drone | NewAmerica.net

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

the_recruit said:

We have options with criminals on our own soil. If we know where a suspected gang member/murderer is, our police go knock on the front door and take him into custody. If that were an option in Pakistan I'd be all for it.

Click to expand...

What an alleged criminal does on foreign soil is none of our business.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

the_recruit said:

And let's get some things clear about the accuracy of drone strikes. There are an awful lot of accusations flying around this thread about drone strikes being indiscriminate killing that results in high collateral damage, lots of children being killed, etc.

If you actually look at the numbers, this is simply not true. The casualties of drone strikes are overwhelmingly militants. And the percentage of civilian collateral's has steadily decreased as time goes on and the technology continues to improve and become more accurate.

The Year of the Drone | NewAmerica.net

Click to expand...

I am undecided ...yet those making a case against drones are hopefully consistent regarding any weapon of destruction that kills innocents. War should only be for defense and I do not know enough about militant activities in Pakistan to even have formed an intelligent, rational and moral conclusion.

Protocol I of the Geneva Convention clearly states that there is a legal requirement to accept the surrender of an individual who expresses the intent to surrender himself. Drones rule out this possibility yet so do most weapons of modern war fare.

I am conflicted on this one.

the_recruit ... I appreciate the graph and detail you posted above.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

Awesome! said:

I think what your position fails to recognize is the magnitude of 9/11 and the nature of the enemy. This isn't a play nice scenario with an enemy like A.Q. and we certainly do want to be over the top to discourage new enemies. It won't take much to bring our economy to its knees and world economy with a well coordinated attack: dirty bomb, chemical weapons. We are a lot more fragile than we may think we are, which requires an all out effort on our part to win.

Click to expand...

My father and my brother are both a part of the National Guard and have both done tours in Afganistan, so I talk with them a lot about what they experienced there. As well as doing my own research and the like. I think I have a decent grasp on both the magnitude of 9/11 and the nature of the "enemy".

If you were meaning I don't understand the nature of our "new enemy" in this war, which I understand to be "all terrorist organizations", then I'm pretty sure that is false. Each different "terrorist" cell is going to be different and act different. Now, the ones that we try and eliminate are going to have to fight using guerrilla tactics, to be sure. We are a massive military force with the greatest technology and research backing that up, so, naturally, they are going to be using IEDs and other like tactics to try and do whatever they can with their limited resources. Again, I would suggest that we occupation of their host country with a strong military presence is not the way to fight an enemy like this. Especially since that usually leads to more economic issues for both our country and the host, which leads to them not liking us as much. So, I think we should just work in coordination and use education tactics rather than force.

This is a war on ideas. A war on those who stand for something other than our own country's general ideals. So, I would say, being over-the-top with force is not going to discourage every "terrorist", maybe some, but some will also become emboldened in their current ideas of America. Namely that we are capitalistic brutes who pray to the wrong god. Now, no matter who is right, dropping an F-load of bombs on a group of people may erase their minds, but it wont convince anyone that we aren't what they claim we are.

As far as it not taking much to bring the world economies down, I'm not too sure how true that is. It could be, I just don't know what it would take and if there are terrorist groups with those resources. But, again, I'll prefer diplomacy to destruction and defense to offense up until the options are no longer there. You can make a great statement with overwhelming firepower, but it may not be received the same by everyone. Diplomacy always shows restraint and humanity though.

And I think we are a lot more resilient than you may think. Oh, and guns and bombs wont win this war. Again, this is a war of the mind. And if you think "glassing" all of those who think differently than you is the only way to solve this issue, I must urge you to search your heart and look at the lives of these people before you take them.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

jamesrage said:

What an alleged criminal does on foreign soil is none of our business.

Click to expand...

When the alleged acts are attacks on us and our soldiers, it becomes our business.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

EagleAye said:

"Absolutist violence?" You mean hyper-accurate weapons for targeting small groups of murderers at a time is "absolutist?" Rather than use huge bombs that destroy whole groups of Taliban, we target only the leaders and you consider that "absolutist?"

What exactly do you expect to do against an enemy that does things like this?

(bold is mine)
A 14-year old Pakistani activist who championed education for girls has been shot in the head by a Taliban gunman.

The attack on Malala Yousafzai, who became famous for highlighting Taliban atrocities, happened as she sat in a bus preparing to leave the school grounds in Mingora, the main city in the Swat valley which was the scene of intense fighting between the army and the Taliban in 2009.

At least one other girl was also hurt in the attack on Tuesday that a Taliban spokesman, Ehsanullah Ehsan, quickly claimed the group was responsible for.

He said the teenager's work had been an "obscenity" that needed to be stopped: "This was a new chapter of obscenity, and we have to finish this chapter."
Pakistani girl shot over activism in Swat valley, claims Taliban | World news | guardian.co.uk

Click to expand...

I said absolutist because it seems everyone in support of drones is using the killing of a few targets to justify the killing of a large amount of innocents. While I'm sure the govt is precise and gets their man sometimes, they're also creating brand new enemies every time average Pakistanis see drones flying over their neighborhoods. I've read too many accounts of civilians getting killed by these drones, many times the targets don't even killed and it's just innocents being bombed.

Some examples:

Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says - CNN.com

Drone strikes in Pakistan have killed many civilians, study says - Los Angeles Times

Daphne Eviatar: Voting for Drones

I didn't go and seek these articles based an any form of my bias, I just simply googled drones. This stuff is sitting right on our porch and it's just shocking to see me how many Americans find it acceptable.

Also, just to clarify, I am an in no way defending either side of the political spectrum. Obama, Bush, and everyone else heading up our military efforts in the past decade are responsible for this. Both Romney and Obama vehemently support drones strikes, and that should make every voter cautious. As I said, my alternative to all this violence is unrealistic considering how deep we are in this ****, but there has to be a tipping point for this (and I personally think we've past it). How high does this ratio of civilians to targets killed have to get before it's dealt with?

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

I still think that they should only be used if we are at war with a country. I wouldn't want another country sending drones over here (not that they would be successful ).

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

Cilogy said:

I said absolutist because it seems everyone in support of drones is using the killing of a few targets to justify the killing of a large amount of innocents. While I'm sure the govt is precise and gets their man sometimes, they're also creating brand new enemies every time average Pakistanis see drones flying over their neighborhoods. I've read too many accounts of civilians getting killed by these drones, many times the targets don't even killed and it's just innocents being bombed.

Some examples:

Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says - CNN.com

Drone strikes in Pakistan have killed many civilians, study says - Los Angeles Times

Daphne Eviatar: Voting for Drones

I didn't go and seek these articles based an any form of my bias, I just simply googled drones. This stuff is sitting right on our porch and it's just shocking to see me how many Americans find it acceptable.

Also, just to clarify, I am an in no way defending either side of the political spectrum. Obama, Bush, and everyone else heading up our military efforts in the past decade are responsible for this. Both Romney and Obama vehemently support drones strikes, and that should make every voter cautious. As I said, my alternative to all this violence is unrealistic considering how deep we are in this ****, but there has to be a tipping point for this (and I personally think we've past it). How high does this ratio of civilians to targets killed have to get before it's dealt with?

Click to expand...

Try and keep in mind that these drones are NOT flying over Islamabad. These strikes are occurring over barren hill country on the border with Afghanistan. The only Pakistanis seeing the drones at all are the Pakistani equivalent of literal hillbillies. Now that doesn't mean their experience counts less, but we should be very clear that the vast majority of Pakistanis have never seen a drone strike.

Next: Pakistan is just as culpable as the US in these strikes. If they had secured their border as they promised they would after accepting our billions of dollars, then there would be no Taliban hiding in camps in Pakistan. There would be no need for drones. If Pakistan would allow the US to chase the Taliban into the completely unused terrain at the border, there would be no need for drones. If Pakistan would send it's army into the Taliban areas at the border and eliminate or push out the Taliban, again, there would be no need for drones. Pakistan has failed utterly in ALL of these scenarios, and thus is just as culpable as the US in the operation of drone strikes.

Pakistan has no good reason to protect the Taliban. Those murderers have been the cause of death and destruction for Pakistanis too. Witness the carnage of the Swat Valley, even after Pakistan kindly (yet stupidly) ceded it to them. This is not often publicized, but President Musharaaf was providing targeting information for many drone strikes. So much of the drone activity was known by Pakistan and even directed by it's government. So Pakistan has plenty of reasons to see the Taliban eliminated, yet they refuse to help in a substantial way.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

TheDemSocialist said:

**** no. This it violates the sovereignty of other nations, destroys human rights. This is why we should end these attacks.

Click to expand...

That, plus the drone strikes work against us. We're only helping al Quaida to recruit. If another country killed your father or your mother or your wife or your husband or your CHILD, do you think you would be motivated to make that country pay? That's why our drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen highly motivate people to join al Quaida. We must stop doing them for this reason and for the reasons TheDemSocialist mentioned.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

Evolvepeace said:

My father and my brother are both a part of the National Guard and have both done tours in Afganistan, so I talk with them a lot about what they experienced there. As well as doing my own research and the like. I think I have a decent grasp on both the magnitude of 9/11 and the nature of the "enemy".

If you were meaning I don't understand the nature of our "new enemy" in this war, which I understand to be "all terrorist organizations", then I'm pretty sure that is false. Each different "terrorist" cell is going to be different and act different. Now, the ones that we try and eliminate are going to have to fight using guerrilla tactics, to be sure. We are a massive military force with the greatest technology and research backing that up, so, naturally, they are going to be using IEDs and other like tactics to try and do whatever they can with their limited resources. Again, I would suggest that we occupation of their host country with a strong military presence is not the way to fight an enemy like this. Especially since that usually leads to more economic issues for both our country and the host, which leads to them not liking us as much. So, I think we should just work in coordination and use education tactics rather than force.

This is a war on ideas. A war on those who stand for something other than our own country's general ideals. So, I would say, being over-the-top with force is not going to discourage every "terrorist", maybe some, but some will also become emboldened in their current ideas of America. Namely that we are capitalistic brutes who pray to the wrong god. Now, no matter who is right, dropping an F-load of bombs on a group of people may erase their minds, but it wont convince anyone that we aren't what they claim we are.

As far as it not taking much to bring the world economies down, I'm not too sure how true that is. It could be, I just don't know what it would take and if there are terrorist groups with those resources. But, again, I'll prefer diplomacy to destruction and defense to offense up until the options are no longer there. You can make a great statement with overwhelming firepower, but it may not be received the same by everyone. Diplomacy always shows restraint and humanity though.

And I think we are a lot more resilient than you may think. Oh, and guns and bombs wont win this war. Again, this is a war of the mind. And if you think "glassing" all of those who think differently than you is the only way to solve this issue, I must urge you to search your heart and look at the lives of these people before you take them.

Click to expand...

Again, I don't think you understand the nature of the enemy. It doesn't matter what we did before, do after...this enemy simply will not stop. They hate the west...simple as that. I would rather have mr joe terrorist terrified everywhere they go even at grandma's house knowing if they pick up the phone, look out the window, etc that they will be canceled versus what you are advocating, which is to just stand on the sidelines and advise and just hope these cowards cannot coordinate mass destruction, which they clearly have demonstrated that they very well can.

Your argument it seems is the typical idealist one which always implies that America throwing her weight around is the problem and only until we stop doing this, our enemy will go back to abusing their own, beating their women and living their stone age existence forgetting about America, but nothing could be further from the truth. They hate us and will never stop and we need to keep dealing with this realistically with force and not with bleeding heart propoganda that supports the enemies cause as if they are in the right hiding their weapons and eachother in neighborhoods putting their own innocent people at risk just so you can denounce bully America always pushing everyone around. Idealist bull****....typical....

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

Imagine of a terrorist group was openly rebelling in North Dakota, and Canada had already been fighting this group in Manitoba. Would you ask Canada for help to asplode these terrorists. That's basically the best analogy to Pakistan, without putting in too much effort.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

spud_meister said:

Imagine of a terrorist group was openly rebelling in North Dakota, and Canada had already been fighting this group in Manitoba. Would you ask Canada for help to asplode these terrorists. That's basically the best analogy to Pakistan, without putting in too much effort.

Click to expand...

So your postulating that the US Feds and local law enforcement were not powerful enough to to deal with the terrorist group; and, that the terrorist group had infiltrated our national and local governments. Yup, that would make us like Pakistan. So, YES!, I'd ask for help. I like your analogy, it makes thinking about this subject easier.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

OhIsee.Then said:

So your postulating that the US Feds and local law enforcement were not powerful enough to to deal with the terrorist group; and, that the terrorist group had infiltrated our national and local governments. Yup, that would make us like Pakistan. So, YES!, I'd ask for help. I like your analogy, it makes thinking about this subject easier.

Click to expand...

He could be postulating that the US Feds and local law enforcement don't give a rats ass what happens in Canada and that the terrorists were not violating any of America's laws.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

jamesrage said:

He could be postulating that the US Feds and local law enforcement don't give a rats ass what happens in Canada and that the terrorists were not violating any of America's laws.

Click to expand...

There are so many agreements that the US and Canada have between them and us that even planing atacks in the US is illegal. Many counrtries have these agrrments. So you're thinking that he is thinking that the US Feds and local law enforcement don't give a rats ass what happens in Canada and that the terrorists were not violating any of America's laws. Gosh, don't know what to say. Maybe he'll clarify.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

jamesrage said:

He could be postulating that the US Feds and local law enforcement don't give a rats ass what happens in Canada and that the terrorists were not violating any of America's laws.

Click to expand...

Except I said they were rebelling, y'know, killing people, bombing etc.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

spud_meister said:

Except I said they were rebelling, y'know, killing people, bombing etc.

Click to expand...

OK. So you’re saying that the terrorists based in the US, those doing the bombing and killing people in Canada but principaly based in the US. And we, the US, couldn't handle it or a significant number of us didn't want to. Then I would want Canada to bom the terrorists here in the US. Don't you agree?

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

OhIsee.Then said:

OK. So you’re saying that the terrorists based in the US, those doing the bombing and killing people in Canada but principaly based in the US. And we, the US, couldn't handle it or a significant number of us didn't want to. Then I would want Canada to bom the terrorists here in the US. Don't you agree?

Click to expand...

Except we wouldn't leave Canada hanging out on a limb like that, and we'd round up Canada's bad guys for them, which Pakistan would never to for us even if it saved Pakistani lives.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

EagleAye said:

Except we wouldn't leave Canada hanging out on a limb like that, and we'd round up Canada's bad guys for them, which Pakistan would never to for us even if it saved Pakistani lives.

Click to expand...

Pakistan is a strange ally, but an ally nonetheless. Therefore, it is okay for us to send drones into their country just as it would be okay for us to do so if Pakistan were to be invaded by Russia.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

Sig said:

Pakistan is a strange ally, but an ally nonetheless. Therefore, it is okay for us to send drones into their country just as it would be okay for us to do so if Pakistan were to be invaded by Russia.

Click to expand...

Hmm. I don't think I can agree that Pakistan is an ally. They claim to agree to work with us, but fail to do it when the time comes. If Canada were the country in question, there simply wouldn't be a need to send in drones. If some extraordinary thing happened and Canada needed help to get "our" bad guys (too much empty/rough terrain to cover?) they would, not only agree to US drone flights over Canada, they would probably request them. THAT is how an ally behaves. So in my book, Pakistan is not an ally.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

jamesrage said:

Would you be okay with other nations sending drones into your country to kill or spy on people? I decided to come up with this poll question because I have been thinking for awhile about how our government sends drones into Pakistan to kill people that if I was the citizens of that country the Pakistani politicians who gave the okay for such a thing would be getting lynched and publicly executed for allowing such a breach of sovereignty for the civilian causalities those drone strike sometimes cause.


Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill and or spy on people?

Yes
No
I do not know

Click to expand...

Good to see a conservative and vet who understands the Golden Rule and why it pisses so many people off when we don't follow it as a nation.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

EagleAye said:

Except we wouldn't leave Canada hanging out on a limb like that, and we'd round up Canada's bad guys for them, which Pakistan would never to for us even if it saved Pakistani lives.

Click to expand...

Yes, but what the supposition was about terrorists operating in the US or Canada. Ignored is that terrorists would not even be able to start the supposed operation. You have to be careful about how you arrive at equates unless you are doing it intentionally in order to influence those that can't think logically.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

OhIsee.Then said:

Yes, but what the supposition was about terrorists operating in the US or Canada. Ignored is that terrorists would not even be able to start the supposed operation. You have to be careful about how you arrive at equates unless you are doing it intentionally in order to influence those that can't think logically.

Click to expand...

Terrorists are only unable to operate effectively in the scenario (supposition) because of the intense cooperation between the US and Canada. Two countries operating effectively in concert produce good results, permit domestic intelligence agencies to operate with precision on the ground, and thus eliminate any need for drone activity. Pakistan could learn from this lesson. If they dislike drone activity over their country, then help us out for real, the way Canada would. Drone strikes could be eliminated and the Taliban et al, which has been a thorn in the side of Pakistan as well, could be rendered ineffectual if not destroyed to the benefit of both Pakistan and the US. With extensive cooperation from Pakistan terrorists could not operate in the first place, which is your point about the border between the US and Canada. A simple equation, really.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

jamesrage said:

Would you be okay with other nations sending drones into your country to kill or spy on people? I decided to come up with this poll question because I have been thinking for awhile about how our government sends drones into Pakistan to kill people that if I was the citizens of that country the Pakistani politicians who gave the okay for such a thing would be getting lynched and publicly executed for allowing such a breach of sovereignty for the civilian causalities those drone strike sometimes cause.


Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill and or spy on people?

Yes
No
I do not know

Click to expand...

No, it would not be okay with me for other countries to send their drones into the US and bomb it, even if there were terrorists. However, I have no issue with our government working with countries to deal with such threats just as they do with other wanted criminals.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

sawyerloggingon said:

WE arrest any and all terrorist here as soon as we identify them, nice try but no cigar for you my friend.

Click to expand...

Where is the line drawn? Pakistan is supposedly fighting the terrorists, but then they are also accused of sheltering them.

Re: Should it be okay for other nations to send drones into your country to kill or s

Sherman123 said:

The world is not run on the strut of moral equivalency and equity. Thank god for that.

Click to expand...

Then why have a government?