View Poll Results: Are spy/assassinatin drones morally acceptable?

Voters
86. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    29 33.72%
  • No

    34 39.53%
  • Yes, with explanation

    20 23.26%
  • No or undecided with explanation

    3 3.49%
Page 30 of 34 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... LastLast
Results 291 to 300 of 331

Thread: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

  1. #291
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Who sad anything about negotiation? I think you may want to examine that sue closer.
    Examine what closer? Typo?
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  2. #292
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    Examine what closer? Typo?
    Situation, history, tactic, all of it. No one said a thing about negotiating with terrorists.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #293
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Situation, history, tactic, all of it. No one said a thing about negotiating with terrorists.
    Okay, instead of making me guess what you're thinking about, how about you just say what your preferred alternative is?
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  4. #294
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    Okay, instead of making me guess what you're thinking about, how about you just say what your preferred alternative is?
    I did. You acted like you knew. The British worked quietly behind the scenes. Made alliances with people who wanted to end the conflict without being linked to the British. These people fed information and allowed quiet arrests and other actions. Taking it out of he public view allowed them to stop losing the PR war, making heros and martyrs of the enemy. They stopped elevating the status of an enemy who could never really win. In return for the help, the British quietly gave reasonable and proper concessions, carrot and stick (quietly) working to mostly end the problem.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #295
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I did. You acted like you knew. The British worked quietly behind the scenes. Made alliances with people who wanted to end the conflict without being linked to the British. These people fed information and allowed quiet arrests and other actions. Taking it out of he public view allowed them to stop losing the PR war, making heros and martyrs of the enemy. They stopped elevating the status of an enemy who could never really win. In return for the help, the British quietly gave reasonable and proper concessions, carrot and stick (quietly) working to mostly end the problem.
    1. We have been doing much of what you advocate. Our efforts to make alliances and inroads with various elements of the Afghan Taliban and its associated militias has been a cornerstone of our strategy in that country for almost half a decade now. However we are limited in our ability to peel groups away because our ability to offer protection is limited. A maxim of counter-insurgency is that combatants rarely choose to flip allegiances or break neutrality just because of conviction, they must be assured that they are making a stronger bet. The strength of the Taliban is such that this has proven extremely vexing and our success in Iraq which was abetted by the Surge has not been replicated, far more troops were required and they never materialized. The result is that the best strategy we have is to reduce the combat power of the Taliban as much as possible so that the ANA and ANP can continue to solidify and gain the power needed to peel away components of the Taliban and force a settlement. The best mechanism for doing this short of keeping troops in the field is targeted strikes to kill fighters and to reduce the leadership cadres.

    2. Launching 'quiet' arrests is not possible. These are heavily armed encampments and locales where the writ of Afghan law or American power does not run either because they are outside our capabilities to police and protect or because they are... not in Afghanistan. For those in Pakistan again arrest is impossible for a variety of reasons that should be obvious, but they include fantastically armed enclaves and an unwilling Pakistani government that has bled itself heavily in the AfPak mountains and foothills.

    3. The British in Pakistan/Afghanistan/Punjab had extremely narrow aims. Their goal was the protection of British India and the prevention of Russian influence penetrating Afghanistan. As a result their main effort was in policing the frontier, not in suppressing an insurgency. Thus the possibility of engaging in tribal bartering and sleight of hand policies allowed a much smaller troop contingent to accomplish a great deal. It is highly analogous to the example of the British and the United States in their dealings with the American Indians along the frontier. One is much easier than the other. More to the point this is not comparable to our experience in Afghanistan.

  6. #296
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    1. We have been doing much of what you advocate. Our efforts to make alliances and inroads with various elements of the Afghan Taliban and its associated militias has been a cornerstone of our strategy in that country for almost half a decade now. However we are limited in our ability to peel groups away because our ability to offer protection is limited. A maxim of counter-insurgency is that combatants rarely choose to flip allegiances or break neutrality just because of conviction, they must be assured that they are making a stronger bet. The strength of the Taliban is such that this has proven extremely vexing and our success in Iraq which was abetted by the Surge has not been replicated, far more troops were required and they never materialized. The result is that the best strategy we have is to reduce the combat power of the Taliban as much as possible so that the ANA and ANP can continue to solidify and gain the power needed to peel away components of the Taliban and force a settlement. The best mechanism for doing this short of keeping troops in the field is targeted strikes to kill fighters and to reduce the leadership cadres.

    2. Launching 'quiet' arrests is not possible. These are heavily armed encampments and locales where the writ of Afghan law or American power does not run either because they are outside our capabilities to police and protect or because they are... not in Afghanistan. For those in Pakistan again arrest is impossible for a variety of reasons that should be obvious, but they include fantastically armed enclaves and an unwilling Pakistani government that has bled itself heavily in the AfPak mountains and foothills.

    3. The British in Pakistan/Afghanistan/Punjab had extremely narrow aims. Their goal was the protection of British India and the prevention of Russian influence penetrating Afghanistan. As a result their main effort was in policing the frontier, not in suppressing an insurgency. Thus the possibility of engaging in tribal bartering and sleight of hand policies allowed a much smaller troop contingent to accomplish a great deal. It is highly analogous to the example of the British and the United States in their dealings with the American Indians along the frontier. One is much easier than the other. More to the point this is not comparable to our experience in Afghanistan.
    Your third point has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but I believe we could be much quieter than we've been. Much quieter. We did not have to invade two countries and bomb civilian areas.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #297
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Your third point has nothing to do with what I'm talking about, but I believe we could be much quieter than we've been. Much quieter. We did not have to invade two countries and bomb civilian areas.
    Then why did you cite the British? I'm not sure what else you could be referring to other than their efforts in the region? Moreover just saying 'we could be quieter' does not make a persuasive argument. We are incapable of accomplishing our stated objectives with police powers and cash, it is also not clear that we could accomplish more circumscribed goals with such tactics.

  8. #298
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    Then why did you cite the British? I'm not sure what else you could be referring to other than their efforts in the region? Moreover just saying 'we could be quieter' does not make a persuasive argument. We are incapable of accomplishing our stated objectives with police powers and cash, it is also not clear that we could accomplish more circumscribed goals with such tactics.
    I cited earlier, with the person I was talking to, exactly what I was speaking to.

    Yes, we could have been quieter, and I said how:

    1. Don't invade countries.

    2. Don't declare war on small groups.

    3. Don't bomb from a distance and make noise by killing civilians.

    What isn't clear here?

    And we have not accomplished our stated goals with force. Instead, we're bogged down in nation building and likely creating more problems than we've solved.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #299
    Sage
    Sherman123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Northeast US
    Last Seen
    11-23-17 @ 11:12 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    7,774

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I cited earlier, with the person I was talking to, exactly what I was speaking to.

    Yes, we could have been quieter, and I said how:

    1. Don't invade countries.

    2. Don't declare war on small groups.

    3. Don't bomb from a distance and make noise by killing civilians.

    What isn't clear here?

    And we have not accomplished our stated goals with force. Instead, we're bogged down in nation building and likely creating more problems than we've solved.
    So by quieter you mean to not react. We cannot militarily strike at terrorist groups, arresting them is impossible considering their state and parastate support and significant armed size, we cannot invade or intervene in areas that host enemies of the United States, and we also cannot become involved or declare any sort of fighting with armed groups below a national level.

    The Do Nothing Doctrine is seductive because it's the doctrine of indolence. "Just use police!"

  10. #300
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sherman123 View Post
    So by quieter you mean to not react. We cannot militarily strike at terrorist groups, arresting them is impossible considering their state and parastate support and significant armed size, we cannot invade or intervene in areas that host enemies of the United States, and we also cannot become involved or declare any sort of fighting with armed groups below a national level.

    The Do Nothing Doctrine is seductive because it's the doctrine of indolence. "Just use police!"
    No, that's the mindless sound bite answer. I mean, do as I stated. And no, arresting and getting them is not impossible, and was even more possible back then when we had a major opportunity to gather support. As an American, you should know the value of making a better argument. There are those who can be reached, who would help, and we could actually get the people responsible and really shrink their ranks, and not add more than we take.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 30 of 34 FirstFirst ... 202829303132 ... 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
  •