• 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

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.

Well this is the logical conclusion of your argument. You would have to kill a large number of civillians for the terroists to have nowhere to hide and by doing so you would be creating more terroists and a greater number of civillians willing to hide them. Thus necessitating more civillian deaths and so on....

And you still havent explained why you prefer this level of barbarity to simply cooperating with the pakistanis?
 
Last edited:
If our troops were unleased to do what had to be done, the war in Afghanistan and Iraq would be history by now.

Or we would be mired ass deep in all the new enemies we created.
 
Well this is the logical conclusion of your argument. You would have to kill a large number of civillians for the terroists to have nowhere to hide and by doing so you would be creating more terroists and a greater number of civillians willing to hide them. Thus necessitating more civillian deaths and so on....

And you still havent explained why you prefer this level of barbarity to simply cooperating with the pakistanis?

Or we would be mired ass deep in all the new enemies we created.

How many new enemies did we create during WW2? None, huh?

We need to stop worrying about the silly notion of creating enemies and spend more time killing the enemies we already have.
 
How many new enemies did we create during WW2? None, huh?
Oooh!!!! Trick question!!!

The end of WW2 and the subsequent emergence of the United States as the leader of the free world created 'enemies' out of most of Imperial Europe, in that we then had all the power that they used to have.

:mrgreen:
 
How many new enemies did we create during WW2? None, huh?

We need to stop worrying about the silly notion of creating enemies and spend more time killing the enemies we already have.

You denny that killing civillians is going to make us mor enimies? OK let me break this down for you, if someone bombs your community killing scores of innocent civillians is your opionion of him likely to be

A Possitive

or

B Negative?
 
Oooh!!!! Trick question!!!

The end of WW2 and the subsequent emergence of the United States as the leader of the free world created 'enemies' out of most of Imperial Europe, in that we then had all the power that they used to have.

:mrgreen:

Not true. You actively aided french Imperialism in indochina and Brittish imperialism in Iran, just saying:mrgreen:
 
How many new enemies did we create during WW2? None, huh?

We need to stop worrying about the silly notion of creating enemies and spend more time killing the enemies we already have.

Yes its world war two, were not killin em hard enough. And a civilian's lives don't matter.

Did you ever think how we conduct our wars in the ME now affects our security from terror?
 
Yes its world war two, were not killin em hard enough. And a civilian's lives don't matter.

Did you ever think how we conduct our wars in the ME now affects our security from terror?

So your saying nothing the U.S has done in the middle east has ever come back to huant it, in any way shape or form,.......attal?:shock:
 
Not true. You actively aided french Imperialism in indochina and Brittish imperialism in Iran, just saying:mrgreen:
Seems to me that these examples only bolster my point -- prior to WW2, neither the UK for France needed our help in maintaining their empires.
 
Seems to me that these examples only bolster my point -- prior to WW2, neither the UK for France needed our help in maintaining their empires.

Oh ok i thought you meant enemy as in, "person on the opossite side"
 
Oh ok i thought you meant enemy as in, "person on the opossite side"
I put the word 'enemies' in ''s, in that the term does not -literally- apply.
 
So your saying nothing the U.S has done in the middle east has ever come back to huant it, in any way shape or form,.......attal?:shock:

I should've put rolly eyes and doh's in there to make it a little more clear srry.
 
I should've put rolly eyes and doh's in there to make it a little more clear srry.

Yeah my bad, its just that the satire gets so close to the reality that it becomes hard to distinguish
 
Well I agree with post #1 that the UN deeds to go the way of the Great Auk. It outlived it's usefulness the same day it was formed.

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.
Using this logic killing the enemy on the battle field is also breaking International Law.
It's bad enough we have to deal with home grown Liberalism now the UN I believe is emboldened because of Obama being a Socialist/Communist who is proven to be weak on such issues as Terrorism and is willing to appease regardless of the cost in U.S. Security or in American lives as is seen in his delay on critical decisions while our young people are dying in Afghanistan.
I believe if you look around you'll see that I have posted a solution to not only this issue but world peace that would do away with the false belief that we need the UN at all.
 
don't be stupid. If you want to comment on a post, please read it and understand it. Do not take single sentences out of context with no bearing towards the argument put forth.

Don't be snarky. Fighting a "kinder" "gentler" war really is stupid. You can't win friends and influence people that way. You kill the enemy in larger numbers than he kills of ours and you don't relent until they stop coming your way. Lose this war in afghanistan and you will only embolden our enemies and weaken our allies. This "dithering" of the present administration is doing just that.
 
Don't be snarky. Fighting a "kinder" "gentler" war really is stupid. You can't win friends and influence people that way. You kill the enemy in larger numbers than he kills of ours and you don't relent until they stop coming your way. Lose this war in afghanistan and you will only embolden our enemies and weaken our allies. This "dithering" of the present administration is doing just that.

No you show up in a way that your first invasion can happen without a single bullet. If our presence is welcome there surely we could have found some opening point right? You don't bomb the **** out of more innocent than good in situations like Operation Shock and Awe. The mission title itself gives it up for a terrorist like scare tactic.

We are in occupied territories to reign by controlled chaos. Make chaos for everything except this little bit you need to control. And you have the greatest chance to win in the end. But it seems the most cutthroat. It is just how I feel about dehumanizing and almost fully automatizing the death industry.

Using robots to dispense of life is saying, "Your safety isn't important enough for more of our lives... But well throw money at the situation and use wide reaching explosion assassinations to Team America your country. On par with suicide bombers. (who are assholes that target their political rivals with bombs without care for the innocent around) To be on the same side of the coin of oppression but with a heavier hand and better technology is just?
 
Don't be snarky. Fighting a "kinder" "gentler" war really is stupid. You can't win friends and influence people that way. You kill the enemy in larger numbers than he kills of ours and you don't relent until they stop coming your way. Lose this war in afghanistan and you will only embolden our enemies and weaken our allies. This "dithering" of the present administration is doing just that.

I'll be as snarky as I want, I have the intellect to back it up. You've mischaracterized what I had written. The point was to address the real problems in the area and make some attempt at getting to a root cause. Killing tons of people isn't going to solve the problem. You're not going to run out of terrorists. Setting up "democracy" doesn't necessarily mean there will be no terrorists (IRA for example). Killing innocent people isn't going to get us anywhere.

What is losing the war in Afghanistan? What is a time frame? What are reasonable goals? It's not laid out. What is the cost of "failure"? What does "failure" look like? People keep saying these things, but no one (so it seems) has thought about any of this. Do we even have legitimate power to go into Pakistan and bomb civilian areas claiming there are terrorists there? For ****'s sake, when the hell did the US become God?

If we're not going to think about the root causes of any of this, we're not going to get to a solution. If we're not driving towards solution, there's no point to continued fighting. All it will be is wasted human life.
 
As long as these drones are breaking terrorist heads, who cares about legality?
 
afghanistan didn't start the war.

You can keep your delusions.

Afghanistan appointed Osama bin Laden as their Commander in Chief in August 2001.

Can you inform the class what happened in September, 2001?
 
You can keep your delusions.

Afghanistan appointed Osama bin Laden as their Commander in Chief in August 2001.

Can you inform the class what happened in September, 2001?

And 8 years later...how far have we come? How much longer you want to go at this? How many more American lives do we need to throw at a mishandled and misguided war? How many more civilians in all sectors must perish, be destroyed, have their lives uprooted till we are satiated? We've killed well more than 3,000 civilians in the area, are we even yet?
 
And 8 years later...how far have we come? How much longer you want to go at this? How many more American lives do we need to throw at a mishandled and misguided war? How many more civilians in all sectors must perish, be destroyed, have their lives uprooted till we are satiated? We've killed well more than 3,000 civilians in the area, are we even yet?

Wait wait wait...

I'm still on this whole thing about them appointing Osama Bin Laden as Afghanistan's Commander in Chief...
 
Back
Top Bottom