• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups [W:165]

Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

This is very silly. Obviously you can create a tally of wars that have defined endings and wars that do not, but at the end of the day more conflicts have been concluded than not. Moreover your examples work against you! In Vietnam the application of violence by the North Vietnamese resulted in the defeat of South Vietnam and the restoration of peace in the country. Was it a desired outcome? I'd say not, but it was a definite outcome. Likewise for Afghanistan, Iraq, etc. Just as many times if not many more we have prevailed such as in Korea, the Gulf War, etc.

The simple point is that violence does not simply breed violence, it also often ends violence.

What a small minded and isolationist vision. The death of a Briton, an Indian, or a South Korean diminishes me as well. Perhaps not as much as my fellow American, but it stings. I want to build a better world, not construct a Festung America.

We're not talking about an organized government/country that's attacked another country and declared war and wears uniforms and such.

This is a totally different monster we're attempting to "fight".

You can not defeat them as you would defeat a country that's declared war on another country.

I can't believe you don't get that.

We'd be better off building schools, libraries, sewer and fresh water systems, and hospitals to fight terrorists, than trying to kill all the terrorists.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

We're not talking about an organized government/country that's attacked another country and declared war and wears uniforms and such.

This is a totally different monster we're attempting to "fight".

You can not defeat them as you would defeat a country that's declared war on another country.

I can't believe you don't get that.

We'd be better off building schools, libraries, sewer and fresh water systems, and hospitals to fight terrorists, than trying to kill all the terrorists.

Ok. Let's loop back to the beginning of this vein of argument which was my contention that "What you're advocating won't stop the cycle, it will merely perpetuate it. Bombs, destruction, and death will breed only further bombs, destruction, and death." is not true on its face. Bombs, destruction, and death routinely end conflict and have been used as tools for bringing about the cessation of hostilities.

As for fighting the Taliban we are building schools, libraries, sewer and fresh water systems, hospitals, dams, power plants, generator infrastructure, and so much more. None of that matters if you cannot defend the infrastructure or the people using it. Hearts and Minds is the strategy you use once an insurgent group is already defeated to ensure they do not rise again. It never has and never will defeat an enemy on its own struts.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

That is a common refrain but it is almost never true. The greater, or more sophisticated application of violence is more frequently the source of an end to conflict than any other measure.

This is merely the short termed view of things. Certainly all of our wars haven't stemmed humanity's impulse to kill each other and wars are oft met with future wars. It's not till sides learn they must quit that we actually make progress in controlling the violence. In the best of situations, violence can end future violence. In the majority of cases it causes more. Let's not forget we've been at war for over a decade, killed 10's of thousands of other humans and thousands of ourselves in the process. Not really ending conflict. And in this particular situation, our continued intervention and killing only aids terrorist anti-American propaganda and is used to fuel further recruits.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

This is merely the short termed view of things. Certainly all of our wars haven't stemmed humanity's impulse to kill each other and wars are oft met with future wars. It's not till sides learn they must quit that we actually make progress in controlling the violence. In the best of situations, violence can end future violence. In the majority of cases it causes more. Let's not forget we've been at war for over a decade, killed 10's of thousands of other humans and thousands of ourselves in the process. Not really ending conflict. And in this particular situation, our continued intervention and killing only aids terrorist anti-American propaganda and is used to fuel further recruits.

If it doesn't end the violence in the future, then obviously someone gave up too soon or didn't do it right.

10's of thousands of other human beings? Really, I thought over the last 50+ years we mainly only killed muslim extremist/terrorist, their supporters and some socialists. What do they have do do with human beings?
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Ikari said:
This is merely the short termed view of things. Certainly all of our wars haven't stemmed humanity's impulse to kill each other and wars are oft met with future wars. It's not till sides learn they must quit that we actually make progress in controlling the violence. In the best of situations, violence can end future violence. In the majority of cases it causes more. Let's not forget we've been at war for over a decade, killed 10's of thousands of other humans and thousands of ourselves in the process. Not really ending conflict. And in this particular situation, our continued intervention and killing only aids terrorist anti-American propaganda and is used to fuel further recruits.

Sherman123 said:
That is a common refrain but it is almost never true. The greater, or more sophisticated application of violence is more frequently the source of an end to conflict than any other measure.

The only one waging war here is the United States. We started this "intervention", because our military-industrial complex demanded it. We are a warring nation whose government, economic expansion, and culture are all predicated upon conflict. If there's no conflict then the U.S. can't function in the world; our vast empire of bases in most countries and military treaties become redundant.

The entire domino effect of Muslim countries growing to hate us is because we started killing them first, not the other way around. We have more wars than ever right now because of the U.S. Even if we go back to the pre-text for all this war on terrorism, we find that 9/11 was caused by people that we trained.

If you want wars to end then you need to stop waging them. It's that simple. We weren't just targeted by terrorists in vacuo, we committed real atrocities against their societies over the course of decades, and we're STILL doing it now. The massive wars being fought right now were started by us. It's about our corporate interests, our natural resources, our socioeconomic way of life and colonization of other countries with our manifest destiny, and our ridiculous two-faced foreign policy. Don't delude yourself.

The war on terror and all our campaigns in the Middle East are based on damned lies.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

If it doesn't end the violence in the future, then obviously someone gave up too soon or didn't do it right.

That's an idiotic argument that presumes violence to be the only means to resolve conflict and ignores the pitfalls and consequences of war itself.

10's of thousands of other human beings? Really, I thought over the last 50+ years we mainly only killed muslim extremist/terrorist, their supporters and some socialists. What do they have do do with human beings?

Human is human. The immoral have no position dictating interventionist policies.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

A criminal? We're talking about terrorists that have killed many innocent people and have every intention of continuing. And they are beyond the reach of any police force. If your neighbor is that, then you are in the wrong place at the wrong time. Sorry, but we've got hundreds to save and you've failed to police your own neighborhood. Too bad, so sad, bye bye.

How far away do I have to be not to be associated with this terrorist? 50 ft? 100 ft? 100 yards? 1/4 mile? What if he is driving by and I am farming? Is that my fault too?
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

I'm not sure what you are referring to. We still have a very large troop contingent in Afghanistan and we never had soldiers in Pakistan. This concerns Afghanistan and Pakistan, not Iraq. Perhaps you confused that?

The troop surges have a direct effect on the ability of enemies to operate. How is his confusing? I brought Iraq in as a counter point.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

In the 20th century, led by Wilsonianism, many Westerners started to believe that the only acceptable purpose of war would be to stop further war. That's the mindset that many people go into state-sponsored violence embracing.

Other people see state-sponsored violence as what Clauswitz called "politics by other means": a way for nation-states to exert their influence and further their interests.

If both sides don't recognize these fundamental differences in how other people see things, lots of parts of these kinds of discussions are entirely fruitless.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

How far away do I have to be not to be associated with this terrorist? 50 ft? 100 ft? 100 yards? 1/4 mile?
What if he is driving by and I am farming? Is that my fault too?




How about if I just let you figure that out for yourself?

If you get blown away by the same missile that kills a terrorist you probably were hanging out with the wrong people.

You do understand this concept, eh?

If you hang out with bad guys don't complain when what happens to them affects you.
 
Last edited:
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

How about if I just let you figure that out for yourself?

If you get blown away by the same missile that kills a terrorist you probably were hanging out with the wrong people.

You do understand this concept, eh?

If you hang out with bad guys don't complain when what happens to them affects you.

No I don't understand the concept that my life is forfeit just because there is a low life in the area. Our strikes are suppose to be "surgical". It is not surgical if innocents are being killed.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

No I don't understand the concept that my life is forfeit just because there is a low life in the area. Our strikes are suppose to be "surgical". It is not surgical if innocents are being killed.

By that definition, surgery isn't even surgical. It, too, has accidents and externalities.

Drone strikes are more consistently "surgical" and effective than other options, so that's what's used. Do you propose a lesser option is used, or that the activity isn't executed at all?
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

No I don't understand the concept that my life is forfeit just because there is a low life in the area.
Our strikes are suppose to be "surgical". It is not surgical if innocents are being killed.




That's your problem and I have zero sympathy for you.

If you hang out with bad people don't be surprised if you get included in their punishment.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

That's your problem and I have zero sympathy for you.

We really don't have problem since our country is not being terrorized by another.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

How about if I just let you figure that out for yourself?

If you get blown away by the same missile that kills a terrorist you probably were hanging out with the wrong people.

Why do people say these ridiculous things? Is it to get a rise out of other posters? Surely no thinking person thinks it doesn't matter how much collateral damage there is as long as you get the terrorist. Is it okay to blow up a hospital if you know a terrorist is in there? A mall? A cafe?
A street stand? Where do you draw the line?

The only reason I can think of is to ease their conscience when children get blown up for being to close to a suspected terroris. I guess those kids should know better than to pal around with terrorists.

For the most part the U.S. has been using drone strikes in remote areas. If you are a high ranking Al-Queda member, and you know this, then perhaps you try to stay in the cover of population centers.

Is it your position that where they are does not matter?

Let me ask you this, how many civilians is it okay to kill, in order to get one member of Al-Queda?
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Why do people say these ridiculous things? Is it to get a rise out of other posters? Surely no thinking person thinks it doesn't matter how much collateral damage there is as long as you get the terrorist. Is it okay to blow up a hospital if you know a terrorist is in there? A mall? A cafe?
A street stand? Where do you draw the line?

The only reason I can think of is to ease their conscience when children get blown up for being to close to a suspected terroris. I guess those kids should know better than to pal around with terrorists.

For the most part the U.S. has been using drone strikes in remote areas. If you are a high ranking Al-Queda member, and you know this, then perhaps you try to stay in the cover of population centers.

Is it your position that where they are does not matter?

Let me ask you this, how many civilians is it okay to kill, in order to get one member of Al-Queda?




Anyone who puts themselves next to a terrorist is a valid target.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

I see everyone who put themselves next to that critter as a valid target and I won't shed a tear for them.

How you feel about this is your problem.

I think you mean 'I see everyone who that critter puts himself near, as a valid target'
Spoken like a true terrorist.

Btw, I missed your answer - How many civilians is it okay to kill, in order to get one member of Al-Queda?
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Why do people say these ridiculous things? Is it to get a rise out of other posters? Surely no thinking person thinks it doesn't matter how much collateral damage there is as long as you get the terrorist. Is it okay to blow up a hospital if you know a terrorist is in there? A mall? A cafe?
A street stand? Where do you draw the line?

The only reason I can think of is to ease their conscience when children get blown up for being to close to a suspected terroris. I guess those kids should know better than to pal around with terrorists.

For the most part the U.S. has been using drone strikes in remote areas. If you are a high ranking Al-Queda member, and you know this, then perhaps you try to stay in the cover of population centers.

Is it your position that where they are does not matter?

Let me ask you this, how many civilians is it okay to kill, in order to get one member of Al-Queda?




If you want to support Al Qaeda, get after it, but if you're standing next to one of those guys don't be surprised if what happens to him also happens to you.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

What if you don't know they're AQ? You deserve to die?
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

Blue_State;1062492171[B said:
]Please name the country or countries that are terrorizing the US.
[/B]




If you don't know, do a little research.

I don't work for you.

You just made my list of people who tick me off.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

I think you mean 'I see everyone who that critter puts himself near, as a valid target'
Spoken like a true terrorist.

Btw, I missed your answer -
How many civilians is it okay to kill, in order to get one member of Al-Queda?

Everyone who hangs out with Al Qaeda members, and puts themselves in danger has nothing to cry about when they get blown away with their Al Qaeda buddies.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

What if you don't know they're AQ? You deserve to die?




After you get blown away standing next to them you will know that you were hanging out with the wrong people.

Don't look for any sympathy from me.
 
Re: Drone strikes killing more civilians than U.S. admits - human rights groups say

If you don't know, do a little research.

I don't work for you.

You just made my list of people who tick me off.


I made it on a list of people who tick you off and you didn't have time to make a list of countries that terrorize the US? It is because no one in the US is terrorized by an outside country. Have a great day. Get a coffee and donut and smile. It's friday big guy.
 
Back
Top Bottom