• 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

Goobieman said:
An accusation of an event does not qualify as proof of that event.


Yes... and I asked you to show that to be true.


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?
Click to expand...

Those reports I believe are filed, on behalf of the Pakistan government. It's why I think this all became an issue in the first place.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, you're trying to confuse matters. The contention is that the usage of drones has resulted in unacceptable civilian casualty with limited success in targeting actual terrorists. The other crap is just deflect. It's not really good to kill any civilian, be it from a plane, bomb vest, or captured alien technology. Apparently, drones in particular have a bad record with civilian to terrorist ratio.
 
Ikari said:
The Declaration of War officially puts us at war and authorizes use of military as well as supersedes other treaty. As I said, you'd have a stronger case if we had an official Declaration of War.
Click to expand...

So, the Congress authorizing the use of military force doesn't put us at war?

How about when the nation we're deploying troops to has already murdered three thousand US citizens and foreign nationals on our soil?
 
Goobieman said:
Their proximity to legitimate targets?
Click to expand...

Yet that's part of the contention, is it not? That we use the drones to go into places, bomb ****, and pretty much do nothing but hit civilians. Maybe it does warrant some investigation and data on the matter. Just maybe.
 
Ikari said:
Those reports I believe are filed, on behalf of the Pakistan government. It's why I think this all became an issue in the first place.
Click to expand...
So you have no direct evisence to back the assertion, only that which is assumed because of the existence of an accusation.

Given that, there's nothing to duscuss, as the basis for the conversation cannot be confirmed.
 
Ikari said:
No, you're trying to confuse matters.
Click to expand...

No. You're already confused.

You think people dead by RPV are more important than if they were killed by an F-18.

Explain how the technology makes any difference to the bleeding dying terrorists on the ground.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So, the Congress authorizing the use of military force doesn't put us at war?

How about when the nation we're deploying troops to has already murdered three thousand US citizens and foreign nationals on our soil?
Click to expand...

I though civilian casualty was of little concern? The Declaration of War has many benefits to supersede treaty and some amount of international law. Functional and legal definitions are different.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. You're already confused.

You think people dead by RPV are more important than if they were killed by an F-18.

Explain how the technology makes any difference to the bleeding dying terrorists on the ground.
Click to expand...

I'm not holding your hand. If you can't read what I write, and only take one sentence out to respond to; that's your intellectual sloppiness and lack of integrity at work; not mine. Your faults are not my problem.
 
Ikari said:
I though civilian casualty was of little concern?
Click to expand...

THEIR civillian casualties aren't my concern.

Welcome to the real world. They started a war, we should make sure they never ever have a chance to start another.

By killing them.

Ikari said:
The Declaration of War has many benefits to supersede treaty and some amount of international law. Functional and legal definitions are different.
Click to expand...

Functionally, both situations wind up with dead civillians, aka terrorists.

Since Afghanistan started the war, what's the problem?

Ain't none.

Now, back to the real matter.

Assume a strike succeeds in killing a dozen on the ground.

What difference does it make if we use an F-18, a Predator, or a B-52 to make the strike?

Correct Answer: No difference whatsoever.

Do you have the integrity to admit this, or not?
 
Ikari said:
It's not all we do, but we certainly do it.
Click to expand...


Do you believe it possible to kill legitimate terror targets AQ, or Taliban without collateral civilian death in war? And if so, could you point to a time in history, or any other conflict where this is been born out?


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.
Click to expand...


Who's contention? The UN's? Pakistans? The enemy themselves?


I mean, you can ignore reality if you want.
Click to expand...


I don't try to, but if you think that fighting these terrorists that hide among innocents can be taken out without civilians that they hide amongst being harmed, then it is not I ignoring reality sir.


Think we're getting all the nasty terrorists and nothing more. But that sort of head in the sand attitude isn't going to fix the problem.
Click to expand...


I don't believe I am displaying that....What an odd disconnect here.


Especially when significant civilian death leads to exacerbating the anti-American attitudes of entire groups of people.
Click to expand...


I see, so if we all just play nice and beg we will get further? is that right?


Attitudes which are used as propaganda for terrorists. But whatever. There are no negative consequences for our actions....ever. Got it.
Click to expand...



Tell me how would those negotiations go? How would they look? And I never said that actions come consequence free. That is hyperbole disseminated by you, and you alone.


j-mac
 
Ikari said:
We have to adhere to more international law and treaty without the formal declaration.
Click to expand...

Ah, so what you're saying is that if we get punched in the nose, we have to tell the nation that punched us..."well, get ready, we're going to punch you back", and then we can abrogate any treaty we want and it'll be "legal" under international law, but if we just beat the living **** out of them without those magic words we're the criminal agressor?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
THEIR civillian casualties aren't my concern.
Click to expand...

Then you lied when you said you got your morality from having served in the US military.

Welcome to the real world. They started a war, we should make sure they never ever have a chance to start another.
Click to expand...

All this did was prove the lack of depth of your knowledge of this issue. There really isn't much more help for you until you go back and learn your history. :shrug:
 
Ikari said:
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?
Click to expand...

Works for me.

That's worth a single American life.
 
TheNextEra said:
Your tune would changed if it was your family killed and labeled collateral damage.
Click to expand...

Oh, EMOTIONAL APPEAL MOMENT!

No, if it was a war it would be... war. I wouldn't whine to the UN and demand laws change. God you people are so... goofy I swear you live in an alternate reality.
 
Kill enough little brown people and the UN comes along.

What a bunch of party poopers. Cant they tell were involved in a war against a portion of the indigenous population here?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Functionally, both situations wind up with dead civillians, aka terrorists.

Since Afghanistan started the war, what's the problem?

Ain't none.

Now, back to the real matter.

Assume a strike succeeds in killing a dozen on the ground.

What difference does it make if we use an F-18, a Predator, or a B-52 to make the strike?

Correct Answer: No difference whatsoever.

Do you have the integrity to admit this, or not?
Click to expand...

You're trying to redefine the argument. I already stated. The difference isn't that you take out 15 people with a drone, a F-18, a Predator, or any other weapon of war. The argument seems to be based in that you're getting more than that 15 and hardly any of them are actual terrorists.

You may want to say a terrorist is a civilian, fine. But not all civilians are terrorists and in your nonchalant treatment of this you are condemning many innocent people to death.
 
jallman said:
Then you lied when you said you got your morality from having served in the US military.
Click to expand...

Hardly.

Being a man shapes one's morality.

The issue is wether someone killed by RPV is more or less valuable than someone killed by F-18.

It's kinda like the nonsensical US hate crime debate where one side INSISTS that someone killed that's been called "fag" is more important than a normal healthy person, and hence that killer should spend more time in jail.

Well, the reality is that people killed in war are equal in death, and it doesn't matter if they were killed by RPV or F-18, just as gays and normal men are equal in death and their killer should not get extra punishment for killing one or the other.
 
Can someone please explain to me what civilians in which countries started a war with us? For that matter, can someone explain to me which militaries in which countries started a war with us?

Thanks.
 
UNITED NATIONS (AFP) – US drone strikes against suspected terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan could be breaking international laws against summary executions, the UN's top investigator of such crimes said.

"The onus is really on the United States government to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary extrajudicial executions aren't in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons," he added.
Click to expand...

LOL... they really had their lateral thinking caps on for this one.

I wonder though... it says UN. I'm not so sure. It sounds too much like Team Obamer. Perhaps they passed this along to the UN. We know what a recalcitrant lot this group is when it comes to our national security.

Ted Kennedy is known for writing the Soviets love letters... with no USSR, it's only logical they work with their favorite anti-American institution... the UN.
Letter Details Kennedy Offer To USSR | Sweetness & Light

.
 
Last edited:
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hardly.

Being a man shapes one's morality.

The issue is wether someone killed by RPV is more or less valuable than someone killed by F-18.

It's kinda like the nonsensical US hate crime debate where one side INSISTS that someone killed that's been called "fag" is more important than a normal healthy person, and hence that killer should spend more time in jail.

Well, the reality is that people killed in war are equal in death, and it doesn't matter if they were killed by RPV or F-18, just as gays and normal men are equal in death and their killer should not get extra punishment for killing one or the other.
Click to expand...

More and more I realize that you don't have an argument. You're just angry and griping about any random thing you can seize on at the moment.
 
Ikari said:
You're trying to redefine the argument.
Click to expand...

No, the argument is that it may be "illegal" to kill people in a combat zone with remotely operated vehichles when it's clearly legal to kill them with troops on the spot or manned aircraft or even by completely robotic cruise missiles.

You're attempting to perpetuate a distinction that has no existence.

I'm keeping the argument focused on the physical facts of the matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom