• 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

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Sorry, you weren't elected to judge the relevance of questions, you weren't elected at all.
Click to expand...


Look, hoss, I am going to discuss anything I goddamned well please and you are going to do one of two things: learn to deal with it or run off crying like a little bitch.

Either way, one thing that is NOT going to happen here is that I am not going to avoid addressing your obfuscations and reframing of the debate in dishonest terms.

Get over it, pal. This is the way it is.

No one is making that argument you keep trying to make. And you keep trying to make this argument and attribute it to your opponents because you can't justify your pretend tuff guy persona without looking foolish over this issue.

Well guess what, cupcake...it's too late for you to not look foolish.
 
dirtpoorchris said:
The problem is in the targeting it self.
Click to expand...
Close. The problem is the nature of the target, a small number people that hide among the civilian populace. In that, it is impossible to engage the target and not kill civilians.

Notice the sewers we have here in America? Well in other countries those are 'underground smuggling routes'.
Click to expand...
:confused:

If they have no standing army then how can we really excuse things that take out massive amounts of people (almost ever single precision drop) with a remote push of a button?
Click to expand...
Its the nature of the beast, given the specifics of the targets.
 
jallman said:
Look, hoss, I am going to discuss anything I goddamned well please
Click to expand...

Nope, discussions require a minimum of two people.

Since you're babbling about irrelevanies and no one is following along, you're not having a "discussion", but a monologue.

Do note how much of your posts aren't being responded to.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Nope, discussions require a minimum of two people.

Since you're babbling about irrelevanies and no one is following along, you're not having a "discussion", but a monologue.

Do note how much of your posts aren't being responded to.
Click to expand...

What I am noting is how you tuck tail and run from any legitimate conversation.

Wanna give us another diatribe about how you like blowing up civilians? How blowing up innocent civilians is ok in your book?

We do like to laugh around here. May as well be at you today. :lol:
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
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.



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...
afghanistan didn't start the war.
 
Dutch said:
That's right! We don't want to hurt anybody's feelings over there. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

If these people are allies or potential allies (I shouldnt have to remind you that pakistan is currently *at war* with the taliban) your damm right we dont. Its a miracle that more people havent switched sides already
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Wait...using unmanned planes to kill a bunch of civilians is against international law! Absurd.
Click to expand...

You didn't read the article, did you?
 
TheNextEra said:
Your tune would changed if it was your family killed and labeled collateral damage.
Click to expand...

You tune would change if one of those terrorists had the muzzle of an AK stuck in your temple, too.

I can't see my family members being killed in such a manner, because I'm not going to harbor a terrorist, thereby making my home and my family a target.
 
Red_Dave said:
If these people are allies or potential allies (I shouldnt have to remind you that pakistan is currently *at war* with the taliban) your damm right we dont. Its a miracle that more people havent switched sides already
Click to expand...

"Allies", don't provide safe havens for terrorists. Anyone that is providing safe havens for terrorists is the enemy, too.
 
Breaking news; people tend to die in wars.

Those people were not killed deliberately, so I can't understand what else are the forces involved expected to do but to express their sadness for the tragedy and carry on.
 
liblady said:
afghanistan didn't start the war.
Click to expand...

Afghanistan gave sanctuary and spport to AQ. That makes Afghanistan just as responsible.

You Libbos are always whining about how the war has been going on for so long; now you know why. If we took the gloves off, we could have wrapped this up by '05.
 
apdst said:
"Allies", don't provide safe havens for terrorists. Anyone that is providing safe havens for terrorists is the enemy, too.
Click to expand...

Your saying the pakistani government, that is, AS WE SPEAK, launching a massive asault on the taliban is "providing safe havens for terroists"?

Excuse me.....

businessman-banging-his-head-against-the-wall-ispc026073.jpg
 
SE102 said:
Define taking the gloves off?
Click to expand...

Less concern with collateral damage and more concern with killing the enemy.

Stop enabling the enemy, by telling him that he can hide among civilians and become untouchable. If enough civilians get killed, sooner, or later, they'll stop letting the terrorists hide among them.
 
Red_Dave said:
Your saying the pakistani government, that is, AS WE SPEAK, launching a massive asault on the taliban is "providing safe havens for terroists"?

Excuse me.....

businessman-banging-his-head-against-the-wall-ispc026073.jpg
Click to expand...

When did I ever say anything about the Paki government? I never made that distinction.
 
apdst said:
Not everything, just bomb the places where the enemy is located.
Click to expand...

We're not doing that?

I am frankly insulted that you are calling our military a bunch of softies in the war on terror. Unless you believe that by some means of quantum mechanics liberalism is affecting the fight itself.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
When did I ever say anything about the Paki government? I never made that distinction.
Click to expand...

Well its a the pakistani government, and those that vote for it that we risk alienating here, that was the point i made in the post you responded to. Have a look at the wikipedia article I linked to earyler on the pakistani government responce to these attacks.

Also you said

"If enough civilians get killed, sooner, or later, they'll stop letting the terrorists hide among them." So your in favor of wiping out the civillian population rather then helping them route out an enemy that most of them hate anyway?
 
SE102 said:
We're not doing that?
Click to expand...

Of course we're not doing that. Haven't you been paying attention? Our troops have to receive command authority to fire on the enemy when there's a potential for civilian casualties.

I am frankly insulted that you are calling our military a bunch of softies in the war on terror. Unless you believe that by some means of quantum mechanics liberalism is affecting the fight itself.
Click to expand...

Be insulted all you won't, except I wasn't talking about our armed forces. I was talking about the candy asses that we have running th show in D.C.

If our troops were unleased to do what had to be done, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq would be history by now.
 
Red_Dave said:
"If enough civilians get killed, sooner, or later, they'll stop letting the terrorists hide among them." So your in favor of wiping out the civillian population rather then helping them route out an enemy that most of them hate anyway?
Click to expand...

That's the problem you Liberals have. You can't seperate, "wiping out the civilian population", from a few civilian casualties incurred while attacking the enemy. You folks always assume the worst extreme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom