• 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!

US drone strikes may break international law: UN

How is it different to kill a civilian with a drone than to kill him with an assault rifle or an aerial bomb?

Or a suicide vest.

It's not that we can fully avoid civilian causality, it's how caviler we're going to be about it. Do we just say "**** it" and glass the entire region? Or do we try to limit what and who we hit. With the drones, I'm not sure exactly the argument, but it seems that the contention is that you're mostly hitting civilian areas and targets with them.
 
Perhaps we should contact the local LEO's so we can serve a warrant for their arrest? Oh wait, there isn't anything resembling law in those areas. Capture operations simply aren't always possible, especially in Pakistan where we can't put people on the ground.

The government of Pakistan has repeatly ask for intelligence from the U.S regarding where these people are so it can go and take them out themselves. These requests have largely fallen on death ears. Given that the ratio of civillian to terroist deaths in these attacks is 50 to 1 i think its fair to say this is a tactic that needs rethinking.
 
Its unfair that we should be able to use our technology to kill the enemy w/o any chance for him to protect himself or to respond. Clearly, the UN needs to address this, as this situation is intolerable.
/sarcasm

Pakistani civillians are the enemy? that explains alot
 
Wait...using unmanned planes to kill a bunch of civilians is against international law! Absurd.

Yes, those aircraft are totally autonomous robots with no semblance of human supervision whatsoever.

Oh, wait, look over there. What do I see? Why, I see a man sitting at a console flying the machine and supervising it's every move.

Why, gee, that RPV is JUST LIKE an airplane with a pilot in it.

Is it illegal for a man in an F-18 to kill terrorists in the ground?

No, of course not.

So it's not illegal for a man in a trailer a hundred miles away flying a Predator drone to kill someone.
 
The government of Pakistan has repeatly ask for intelligence from the U.S regarding where these people are so it can go and take them out themselves. These requests have largely fallen on death ears.
Show this to be true

Given that the ratio of civillian to terroist deaths in these attacks is 50 to 1....
Show this to be true.

i think its fair to say this is a tactic that needs rethinking.
How would it be any "better" -- in terms of the 'legal' argument under discussion -- if the unmanned drones were replaced with manned aircraft?
 
Yes, those aircraft are totally autonomous robots with no semblance of human supervision whatsoever.

Oh, wait, look over there. What do I see? Why, I see a man sitting at a console flying the machine and supervising it's every move.

Why, gee, that RPV is JUST LIKE an airplane with a pilot in it.

Is it illegal for a man in an F-18 to kill terrorists in the ground?

No, of course not.

So it's not illegal for a man in a trailer a hundred miles away flying a Predator drone to kill someone.

The contention isn't what is doing the killing, it's who is being killed. Predator drone usage, especially in Pakistan, has resulted in significant civilian death with limited affect on insurgents and terrorists.
 
It's not all we do, but we certainly do it. The contention is that the use of unmanned drones has caused significant civilian casualty,

By definition all terrorists are civillians.

Also, who cares?
 
By definition all terrorists are civillians.

Also, who cares?

So....ummm.....you think it's cool to run around bombing civilian populations and targets with no real affect towards our own safety (well no real positive affect that is)? Interesting.

I care because I don't think the United States should run around killing civilians. Maybe that's just me, my morals coming through there. But it seems counter-productive and unjust to run around killing people just cause we can.
 
The contention isn't what is doing the killing, it's who is being killed. Predator drone usage, especially in Pakistan, has resulted in significant civilian death with limited affect on insurgents and terrorists.

Yeah, try reading the friggin' post, then spending a couple years thinking about it before you admit that have no clue what was said.

To paraphrase the great philosopher Archie Bunker, would it make a difference if they were shot by RPV's or F-18s, or if we threw them out the window?

If yes, explain.

Try to make sense if you attempt this task.
 
Or a suicide vest.

Indeed. If we were so rich in disposable fanatics and so poor in equipment that suicide vests made strategic sense for our forces, I would probably be advocating them-- or at least defending their use. Certainly don't fault the enemy for using the best tactics at his disposal.

It's not that we can fully avoid civilian causality, it's how caviler we're going to be about it. Do we just say "**** it" and glass the entire region? Or do we try to limit what and who we hit. With the drones, I'm not sure exactly the argument, but it seems that the contention is that you're mostly hitting civilian areas and targets with them.

Yes, but that argument doesn't make sense. If we have and use precision weapons, why would we be wasting the bullets to use them against people who are not a threat to us?

It's the same problem as every other guerrilla war, and the reason why guerrilla tactics are so effective against enemies with the need to preserve their public image. Noone can tell the difference between civilians and combatants-- so the military is compelled to employ "better safe than sorry" tactics and the guerrillas claim that anyone whose corpse isn't still clutching a weapon was a civilian.

Personally, I'd be fully in favor of committing genocide by air strike if our "allies" weren't a bunch of damned hypocrites-- no offense intended, our own government is just as bad-- and our civilians weren't completely spineless.
 
SHow this to be true.

It's the basis of the contention. The arguments from Pakistan and the complaints are all about how civilians have taken the brunt of the damage.

You know, this whole "I'm gonna kill a **** load of people, and you have to prove that I'm hitting all the right ones" is a dumbass argument. You need to prove that you are hitting significant terrorist and military target while minimizing civilian causality.
 
Yeah, try reading the friggin' post, then spending a couple years thinking about it before you admit that have no clue what was said.

To paraphrase the great philosopher Archie Bunker, would it make a difference if they were shot by RPV's or F-18s, or if we threw them out the window?

If yes, explain.

Try to make sense if you attempt this task.

So dumb deflect is all you have left. K, noted.
 
So....ummm.....you think it's cool to run around bombing civilian populations and targets with no real affect towards our own safety (well no real positive affect that is)? Interesting.

Yes, very interesting that you can't read posts and respond to what they say but merely respond to what you wish was said.

I care because I don't think the United States should run around killing civilians.

I think the US should kill terrorists.

Since terrorists are civillians, I've no problem with the US killing civillians.

Also, the Taliban hangs out in areas where ...ummm....this might be too complicated for the level of intellectual ability you've shown so far.... where the natives support the Taliban.

Welcome to war. People die in war, even people who aren't in uniform.

Maybe that's just me, my morals coming through there. But it seems counter-productive and unjust to run around killing people just cause we can.

My morals say that if an American can sit safely back in the rear with the beer and the gear and STILL kill the enemy, it's not only moral for him to do so, it's the preferred mode of offense.

My morals were shaped by actually being a US military vet.
 
Indeed. If we were so rich in disposable fanatics and so poor in equipment that suicide vests made strategic sense for our forces, I would probably be advocating them-- or at least defending their use. Certainly don't fault the enemy for using the best tactics at his disposal.

Some of those against the UN here definitely decry the use of terrorist bombings. As well they should. They are not concerned with civilian casualty and it's not a good thing. But these same people will make differentiation if the bomb is dropped from a plane rather than detonated from a vest.

Yes, but that argument doesn't make sense. If we have and use precision weapons, why would we be wasting the bullets to use them against people who are not a threat to us?

Why would we be killing people who are no threat to us?

It's the same problem as every other guerrilla war, and the reason why guerrilla tactics are so effective against enemies with the need to preserve their public image. Noone can tell the difference between civilians and combatants-- so the military is compelled to employ "better safe than sorry" tactics and the guerrillas claim that anyone whose corpse isn't still clutching a weapon was a civilian.

Indeed, it's one of the hardest aspects about this war in fact. Which is why the best impact is on public image. If we can subvert and destroy the propaganda used against us; we'd go a lot farther is solving the problem than we would by bombing a bunch of civilians.

Personally, I'd be fully in favor of committing genocide by air strike if our "allies" weren't a bunch of damned hypocrites-- no offense intended, our own government is just as bad-- and our civilians weren't completely spineless.

Personally, I'd be in full favor of keeping our nose out of other people's business. But if you're going to go to war, this half assed crap that we've been doing, not addressing the base problems, isn't the way to go about it.
 
In other words, you're incapable of understanding the topic and are just spamming.

Thanks for the confession.

No I responded just fine. You seem to be incapable of engaging in intellectually honest debate and instead had resorted to smear and dismissal. Fine, I noted it. Your failure is not my fault.
 
The contention is that the use of unmanned drones has caused significant civilian casualty, not that the base use of them is wrong or illegal.

Again, explain what difference it makes if they're killed by RPV or by F-18, or by high-altitude air strike from a B-52, where the pilot can't even see the people on the ground.

You're making a distinction where there is no difference.

Why are you doing this?
 
It's the basis of the contention.
An accusation of an event does not qualify as proof of that event.

The arguments from Pakistan and the complaints are all about how civilians have taken the brunt of the damage.
Yes... and I asked you to show that to be true.

You know, this whole "I'm gonna kill a **** load of people, and you have to prove that I'm hitting all the right ones" is a dumbass argument. You need to prove that you are hitting significant terrorist and military target while minimizing civilian causality.
The claim is that airstrikes from unmanned aircraft are killing civilians in numbers far larger than legitimate targets. That claim needs to be supported before there is any discussion as to what needs to be done about it.

And, as I and others have asked over and over -- what does the delivery platform have to do with it? Why are unmanned drones being singled out?
 
No I responded just fine.

No, you demonstrated that you assign higher value to civillians killed by RPV than civillians killed by F-18.

That's either completely ignorant of you, or totally strange.
 
Back
Top Bottom