EagleAye
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2011
- Messages
- 5,697
- Reaction score
- 3,241
- Location
- Austin, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
Well then there's your answer.
Yup, and that's why a drone strike became necessary.
Well then there's your answer.
Yup, and that's why a drone strike became necessary.
So the sovereignty of other nations is negligible according to you. Interesting take.
Well, don't you think the sovereignty of a nation becomes negligible when they harbor a criminal (terrorist) who plots and organizes attacks the sovereignty of another nation
I think you do not quite understand the concept of sovereignty.
I think you do not quite understand the concept of sovereignty.
Yes, more. When you put in place a procedure, like congress declaring war, you limited the flexibility, which in this case s a good thing. Killing innocent civilians should be more difficult and not less.
There is a procedure. As I've already said I'm ok with making that procedure a bit more transparent and formal. But it will never be perfect. Like Congress' declaration to go to war, it will always be a judgment call, vulnerable to the risk of being the wrong call.
Do you know when the last time congress declared war? This nation hasn't fought a declared war since before I was born and I am an old foggie.
There is a procedure. As I've already said I'm ok with making that procedure a bit more transparent and formal. But it will never be perfect. Like Congress' declaration to go to war, it will always be a judgment call, vulnerable to the risk of being the wrong call.
Not a proper procedure. Every government and organization have procedures, but one that involves killing civilians in a country you are not at war with is not proper.
And what if the leader of that country is providing the targeting data for the drones?
Not a proper procedure. Every government and organization have procedures, but one that involves killing civilians in a country you are not at war with is not proper.
Doesn't matter. Because a leader doesn't care about his or her people doesn't make us killing them any more moral or wise.
:roll: Of course President Hadi is concerned about his people. Which is exactly why he's grateful for our air strike assistance in his battle against AQAP.
We're going in circles here. Do you think it makes a damn bit of difference to collateral casualties whether the procedure was "proper"? This "proper" nonsense is a myth to make you feel better about taking the risk of collateral casualties. Granting Congress the power to declare war or the President the power to use military force for a limited time is in no way fundamentally different than granting the Pentagon the power to conduct air strikes. They ALL run the risk of unnecessary and unjustified deaths; it isn't unique to the way our drone program operates.
I'm not sure innocent people being killed really makes a people grateful. Nor does it endear any president to his people.
Doesn't matter. Because a leader doesn't care about his or her people doesn't make us killing them any more moral or wise.
Which is why Yemen's support of the program has been cautious and is not without conditions. Statistically drone strikes have become quite accurate, and most of the hysteria about collateral causalties is overblwon, especially compared to conventional air strikes. Publicly, the Yemen government is trying to downplay US involvement, since Yemenis already have pretty unfavorable opinions toward the US. But the fact of the matter is that we are not witnessing the widespread public backlash against the drone program in Yemen as we did in Pakistan. This is due largely to the violence and misery inflicted on the Yemeni people by AQAP. They want AQAP gone.
Isn't it possible that the leader really is concerned about citizens? That he knows this murderer threatens the lives of hundreds of law-abiding citizens? Perhaps he's willing to trade the life of one murderer to save the lives of many who have harmed no one. This strict moral code you espouse, can easily be more amoral and more deadly than the drones you oppose. I suppose it's easy to criticize when you aren't actually responsible for the lives of citizens. People's idea of morality changes quite a bit when they live at the heart of a problem, and people close to them rely upon smart, not necessarily moral, decisions.
Not sure how you measure widespread,
or how we KNOW how effective they really are. Didn't we start with the difficult if measuring that?
I suspect we create more terrorist, more fighting against us than we kill. Nit sure we can measure that either.
But force has been used for a long, long time in these things, and I think we can say with less than stellar results.
It's not my observation, don't take my word for it.
The Drone Blowback Fallacy | Foreign Affairs
Know is a strong word that rarely applies to real life. But the most reliable, comprehensive data we have available shows that the strikes are very accurate.
The Year of the Drone | NewAmerica.net
Obama's Covert War in Yemen | Drone Strikes in Yemen
And what data are you basing that on? Unsupported preconceived notions and bias, I would guess.
I find broad generalizations like that to be a terrible basis for policy. I think such generalizations are for lazy, poorly informed people who want a one-size-fits-all answer to the world's many, complicated problems. It's not that simple or easy.
Less likely. Certain killing for maybe killing isn't really a good trade off. Btw, you don't take a job because no one can criticize. Odd how some pick and choose where criticism is allowed.
Well, "maybe killing" for someone who never has before, is not even remotely the same as "maybe killing" after killing masses before and planning to do so again.
And sorry, but we aren't discussing the quality of someone's dish washing. We're discussing how lives may be saved, and you're questioning the morality of preventing one from killing many.
Taking anyone's word s often tricky:
Middle East Policy Council | Drone Warfare: Blowback from the New American Way of War
However we can use a certain amount of logic that would support that dropping bombs in an area populated by civilians that there would be civilian causalities. It would also stand to reason that these deaths would result in some blowback, the only real question being how much.
And yes, know is a string word, but a word we must reasonably confront. What do we know and what don't we know, and what can we logically conclude. I reach a far amount base on the type of logic I assert above, often with information like I lined as evidence.
And generalizations, or a better word, history, can inform us. We are fatten asked to learn from history.