• 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!

Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

Are spy/assassinatin drones morally acceptable?

  • Total voters
    75
  • Poll closed .
upsideguy said:
.... although wait until Iran uses them to assassinate one of their enemies, maybe an Iranian citizen, on US soil.
Click to expand...

*Bangs Head On Desk* A drone is a robotic PLANE it would be no different than if Iran somehow managed to toss one of their Tomcats across the US border and bombed a street corner. It isn't suddenly novel because they used a drone, what was novel was that you bombed the United ****ing States.
 
Sherman123 said:
*Bangs Head On Desk* A drone is a robotic PLANE it would be no different than if Iran somehow managed to toss one of their Tomcats across the US border and bombed a street corner. It isn't suddenly novel because they used a drone, what was novel was that you bombed the United ****ing States.
Click to expand...

*Bangs Head on Desk* --- I know what I drone is.... I am illustrating that the US is violating airspace of other countries in carrying out this stuff. We aren't even thinking about that (as so wonderfully portrayed by your post as you aren't making that connection.) I am asking you to think about the appropriateness of this by having you think about being on the receiving end.

To make my point even clearer: I think we have no more (or less, I suppose) right to make drone strikes in non-combative countries abroad as a non-combative country has to make a drone strike in the US.
 
Well, I voted no but on closer reflection should have abstained. Assassinations by drone or otherwise are morally unacceptable. Due process is crucial.

But drones for spying? I can't say that that's of the same magnitude whatsoever. You cannot equate the two.
 
upsideguy said:
*Bangs Head on Desk* --- I know what I drone is.... I am illustrating that the US is violating airspace of other countries in carrying out this stuff. We aren't even thinking about that (as so wonderfully portrayed by your post as you aren't making that connection.) I am asking you to think about the appropriateness of this by having you think about being on the receiving end.

To make my point even clearer: I think we have no more (or less, I suppose) right to make drone strikes in non-combative countries abroad as a non-combative country has to make a drone strike in the US.
Click to expand...

Then why on earth would it be setting a precedent for Iran to bomb someone in the United States? Drones are pretty damn well late to the game in terms of a weapons system thats been launched across a foreign border without a declaration of war. Moreover if your greatest moral concern is that the airspace and sovereignty of Pakistan is being violated I think we're on the heavy side of the scales on that one. The absurd levels and reaches of relativism are never more apparent than when they creep into foreign policy.

"What right do we have to strike them? How would WE feel if they bombed us?" The them could be the Taliban, Iran, AQ, Syria, it never matters for the relativist. Because there is nothing uniquely positive about the United States, there is no interest in seeing democratic hegemony expanded at the expense of autocracy and radicalism (after all, is that really fair?), there is no side worth staking a claim to because staking a claim is inherently lacking in equity.

For the rest of us, we pick a side, we pick the US and democratic hegemony, and we're willing to bomb people who oppose and inhibit that.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Well, I voted no but on closer reflection should have abstained. Assassinations by drone or otherwise are morally unacceptable. Due process is crucial.
Click to expand...

......You know killing members of threat groups is not assasination? That's just what lazy people in the media call it.
 
cpwill said:
......You know killing members of threat groups is not assasination? That's just what lazy people in the media call it.
Click to expand...
Threat groups? Geez, talk about newspeak.

There used to be something in this country called due process. Thanks to people like you, who buy into the hallow rationalizations of Bush and Obama, due process is a fading concept. You sicken me.
 
cpwill said:
when those some are uniform, come from both sides of the political aisle, and all have the access to know, yeah, in the absence of competing evidence, I tend to take their statements at face value.

But you aren't going to distract the thread.

So if a terrorist puts one person in a car bomb with him, and drives that car bomb at a crowd of 100 people, you would say that we should not engage the car and save the 100? Because the terrorist is not representing a nation, and therefore the non-combatants next to him cannot be moral collateral damage?
Click to expand...

That's you mistake, and one you make this often. Just someone saying it, no matter who, is not objective measurable evidence.

And what you use as an example is not what we're talking about. It's off point.
 
The drone program is making the U.S. a more hated country around the world. The result will be more terrorist activity aimed at the U.S. Everytime an innocent civilian gets killed, members of that persons family and friends and others in the community develop a strong dislike of the USA. This is where more terrorist recruits will come from.

Right now it is easy to be for drone strikes. When 20 to 30 countries have the capability and American's become targets around the world it will be too late.

Now is when America is showing the world how to use these weapons. In the not to distant future the President, and other government leaders will not be able to leave continental US without some sort of air defense.

By pressing the advantage now, you sow the seeds for years of strife.
 
rjay said:
The drone program is making the U.S. a more hated country around the world. The result will be more terrorist activity aimed at the U.S. Everytime an innocent civilian gets killed, members of that persons family and friends and others in the community develop a strong dislike of the USA. This is where more terrorist recruits will come from.

Right now it is easy to be for drone strikes. When 20 to 30 countries have the capability and American's become targets around the world it will be too late.

Now is when America is showing the world how to use these weapons. In the not to distant future the President, and other government leaders will not be able to leave continental US without some sort of air defense.

By pressing the advantage now, you sow the seeds for years of strife.
Click to expand...
A sound practical analysis. Too bad politicians never think farther ahead than their next election.
 
Sherman123 said:
Then why on earth would it be setting a precedent for Iran to bomb someone in the United States? Drones are pretty damn well late to the game in terms of a weapons system thats been launched across a foreign border without a declaration of war. Moreover if your greatest moral concern is that the airspace and sovereignty of Pakistan is being violated I think we're on the heavy side of the scales on that one. The absurd levels and reaches of relativism are never more apparent than when they creep into foreign policy.

"What right do we have to strike them? How would WE feel if they bombed us?" The them could be the Taliban, Iran, AQ, Syria, it never matters for the relativist. Because there is nothing uniquely positive about the United States, there is no interest in seeing democratic hegemony expanded at the expense of autocracy and radicalism (after all, is that really fair?), there is no side worth staking a claim to because staking a claim is inherently lacking in equity.

For the rest of us, we pick a side, we pick the US and democratic hegemony, and we're willing to bomb people who oppose and inhibit that.
Click to expand...

I did not intend my violation of airspace comment (attacking someone on another country's soil without permission) to trump the morality of killing a US citizen without due process; I was merely expanding the issue. I believe both are abhorrent.

I also do not believe US exceptionalism includes the idea that we can do whatever the hell we want in another country then turn around and think another country acting the same is declaring war on us. We are but citizens of this world; we have to behave like citizens...Although we are free to protect our interests; we do not have absolute impunity for the ways we might do that.
 
The question should be ..
Are we at war ?
If so, why ?
If we are "at war" then the moral issue is "out the door".
IMO, we should NOT be at war, and we should not be using the drones...
BUT, then it is a complex issue....define war....in todays term, not those of the dark ages.
 
Yes.

To those who say they don't want domestic drone use: It probably has, probably is, and definitely will happen.
So to me the question in that are would appear to be not "do we allow", but rather "how do we limit/regulate, if at all."
 
Signature strikes, not just no, but **** no. We're making wild guesses as to who we're hitting with these strikes and end up killing mainly innocent civilians. It's both immoral and a violation of international law.

Signature strikes are different from targeted strikes. In targeted ones, we know a specific terrorist is on the ground. Those I'm okay with provided the risk of civilian casualties is low.
 
upsideguy said:
I did not intend my violation of airspace comment (attacking someone on another country's soil without permission) to trump the morality of killing a US citizen without due process; I was merely expanding the issue. I believe both are abhorrent.

I also do not believe US exceptionalism includes the idea that we can do whatever the hell we want in another country then turn around and think another country acting the same is declaring war on us. We are but citizens of this world; we have to behave like citizens...Although we are free to protect our interests; we do not have absolute impunity for the ways we might do that.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, if a terrorist were living in the US and arranging the killings of civilians in another country, Yemen for instance, and their intelligence service said they knew he was hiding at 123 Center St. Kentucky, well then we'd snatch that guy up within the hour and turn him over to Yemeni authorities. Unfortunately, the reverse never happens no matter how nicely we ask. This places the US in the difficult predicament of knowing where a terrorist is located, but being denied the right to go get him, and receiving zero assistance from the country that harbors him. The "morally correct" thing to do is hand the killer over to the country that seeks him. Then drones wouldn't be necessary and we wouldn't have discussions about the "moral correctness" of using drones.
 
the_recruit said:
That works well for citizens that are within reach of the FBI. What about citizens in hostile regions on foreign soil?
Click to expand...

I don't see our military and CIA as any less incompetent as the FBI at bringing a citizen into custody.
 
EagleAye said:
On the other hand, if a terrorist were living in the US and arranging the killings of civilians in another country, Yemen for instance, and their intelligence service said they knew he was hiding at 123 Center St. Kentucky, well then we'd snatch that guy up within the hour and turn him over to Yemeni authorities. Unfortunately, the reverse never happens no matter how nicely we ask. This places the US in the difficult predicament of knowing where a terrorist is located, but being denied the right to go get him, and receiving zero assistance from the country that harbors him. The "morally correct" thing to do is hand the killer over to the country that seeks him. Then drones wouldn't be necessary and we wouldn't have discussions about the "moral correctness" of using drones.
Click to expand...

Is that not the definition of a state sponsor of terror? We pay Pakistan (and other corrupt nations) to be "our friend" while knowing full well that they revere these "terrorists".
 
The Mark said:
Yes.

To those who say they don't want domestic drone use: It probably has, probably is, and definitely will happen.
So to me the question in that are would appear to be not "do we allow", but rather "how do we limit/regulate, if at all."
Click to expand...

That is indeed the better question.
 
The Mark said:
Yes.

To those who say they don't want domestic drone use: It probably has, probably is, and definitely will happen.
So to me the question in that are would appear to be not "do we allow", but rather "how do we limit/regulate, if at all."
Click to expand...

Domestically, the answer is easy: ban the use.
 
Guy Incognito said:
Threat groups? Geez, talk about newspeak.
Click to expand...

No, that's called "military speak"

There used to be something in this country called due process.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and citizens of this nation in this nation rate it. Syrians who choose to launch explosively formed penetrators at supply convoys do not.
 
Boo Radley said:
Domestically, the answer is easy: ban the use.
Click to expand...

why is it better to have a collections platform that has a person piloting it inside v. in a control center?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Is that not the definition of a state sponsor of terror? We pay Pakistan (and other corrupt nations) to be "our friend" while knowing full well that they revere these "terrorists".
Click to expand...

Ah, I think the agreement was that they NOT harbor terrorist. We had a business arrangement whereby they hand over terrorists they find in their territory, they welched on their half of it. If you fork over money for a hamburger and then you don't receive it, does that mean you planned along to just give up your money for no damn reason?
 
EagleAye said:
Ah, I think the agreement was that they NOT harbor terrorist. We had a business arrangement whereby they hand over terrorists they find in their territory, they welched on their half of it. If you fork over money for a hamburger and then you don't receive it, does that mean you planned along to just give up your money for no damn reason?
Click to expand...

This is exactly why Iran is racing to get a nuke. Then they too will become a "legitimate" US partner and get paid to make nice, just like Pakistan. ;)
 
ttwtt78640 said:
This is exactly why Iran is racing to get a nuke. Then they too will become a "legitimate" US partner and get paid to make nice, just like Pakistan. ;)
Click to expand...

Hmm. I don't think so. I think they want to be the regional leader. Standing up to the US makes them look tough. They hope that will win support and a following from the other countries in the region. It doesn't matter if they don't actually make a real nuke, just so the other countries believe they are. Kinda like their new stealth fighter.
 
cpwill said:
why is it better to have a collections platform that has a person piloting it inside v. in a control center?
Click to expand...

Perhaps you're missing that bombing domestically either way is wrong. You throw this in and you have to know that no where have I suggested what you do.
 
Fisher said:
Yes as long as it is not used domestically.
Click to expand...

As far as our government admits, we only hit our targets 3% of the time, the other 97% killing innocent people. These numbers seem to indicate that these strikes are not the "surgically accurate procedures" that Obama claims that they are. It feels like no matter which party holds the office, all that matters to them and the American people is that American innocents are not wrongfully murdered by these kinds of attacks. After all, its not like the U.S.'s own constitution says that "all men are created equal".

Pardon my sarcasm, but I find it kind of unsettling when I hear people decry injustice domestically while ignoring it abroad. A human life in Iraq is worth no less than one in the states, which is why I found it funny that Obama supposedly shed tears at the news of the Sandy hook shootings while he authorizes far greater massacres on a near monthly basis in Pakistan. Hypocracy without equal, I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom