• 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!

Which is worse?

Which is worse


  • Total voters
    40
Link? On the 28-1 ratio

Read the link
41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes

"A new analysis of the data available to the public about drone strikes, conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, indicates that even when operators target specific individuals – the most focused effort of what Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” – they kill vastly more people than their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November."

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes
 
Which is worse

Drone strikes that result in innocent people getting killed in countries we are not at war with .
Enhanced interrogation/torture of terrorists?
Both are equally bad.
I do not know


I am sure that by now everyone on this forum has heard about the biased partisan hack CIA report by liberal politicians unless they have been living under a rock for the past couple of days. It seems to me that if these same people going to be outraged over terrorists being water boarded and other ****. Then shouldn't they be even more outraged over innocent people getting killed in drone strikes in countries we are not even at war with? Because after the enhanced interrogation/torture is over the terrorist is still alive, the innocent people that were killed by the drone are not alive.
I'm not sure either is worse.

Both are negatives because they put us in a bad light...a bad light that we deserve.

Yet both (or the drone strikes at least) may have a slight positive aspect (the drone strikes probably killed a few terrorists bent on harming us, I hope?).

"Enhanced interrogation", on the other hand is far less likely to have a positive aspect....

Have to go with that being the worst then...
 
I'm not sure either is worse.

Both are negatives because they put us in a bad light...a bad light that we deserve.

Yet both (or the drone strikes at least) may have a slight positive aspect (the drone strikes probably killed a few terrorists bent on harming us, I hope?).

"Enhanced interrogation", on the other hand is far less likely to have a positive aspect....

Have to go with that being the worst then...
I would argue that enhanced interrogations are much better than being bombed. It can provide us with information than can save American lives and possibly lead to the capture of more terrorists. And eventually the individual may be released.However if you drop a bomb on his ass he is dead,the innocent civilians around him are dead and there is no intel extracted.If the individual bombed was not a terrorist then that is a innocent man dead.
 
You forgot about all the innocents that died under the hands of the Bush Administration with the invasion of Iraq.

Oh you're one of those people

jamesrage-albums-stuff-picture67110696-those-damn-obama-birther-nuts.jpg
 
I would argue that enhanced interrogations are much better than being bombed. It can provide us with information than can save American lives and possibly lead to the capture of more terrorists. And eventually the individual may be released.However if you drop a bomb on his ass he is dead,the innocent civilians around him are dead and there is no intel extracted.If the individual bombed was not a terrorist then that is a innocent man dead.
If put that way, it does sound like you are correct.
 
Read the link
41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes

"A new analysis of the data available to the public about drone strikes, conducted by the human-rights group Reprieve, indicates that even when operators target specific individuals – the most focused effort of what Barack Obama calls “targeted killing” – they kill vastly more people than their targets, often needing to strike multiple times. Attempts to kill 41 men resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,147 people, as of 24 November."

41 men targeted but 1,147 people killed: US drone strikes

Conducted by a human rights organization. I question the analysis.
 
Drone strikes are so much worse.
There is collateral damage with drone strikes. There is questions as to whether the target is guilty of anything. Drone strikes produce death while enhanced interrogation simply scares people.
I don't consider enhanced interrogation techniques to be torture and I don't support torture. But torture is preferred over drone strikes. We are leaving thousands killed who are only "suspects" or in the general vicinity of a suspect at the time the drone hits.
 
I said both are equally bad, especially since I have zero confidence every single person tortured was in fact a terrorist.

Wouldn't that make the drone strikes worse? One of the arguments many people have against the death penalty is if that guy is innocent you can't bring him back to life,while a man who is later found innocent can be released from prison. All those guys who were "tortured" if they are not convicted have released or will eventually be released.While all those who guys who were killed by a drone regardless if they were guilty or innocent won't be coming back to life.
 
Conducted by a human rights organization. I question the analysis.
Your response highlights an issue I've noted in many situations (no matter the political lean of the parties involved).

People often do not believe what the "authorities" tell them - sometimes unreasonably, but other times "the authorities" assigned themselves that authority and are actually "the misleaders",.

So far as I know there's no simple way to know for sure who to believe these days...perhaps it has always been that way?
 
You are on the "Bush lied" band wagon,so yes you are.

Anyone with no more than 2 brain cells can easily deduce that indeed Americans were conned into the Iraqi war. I have a lot more sympathy for Bush than you fathom... as he was one of those who was conned.

And still, it is unfair to equate torture with Obama's drone attacks. It makes more sense to equate them to killing innocent civilians... like the invasion of Iraq.

Try again.
 
Anyone with no more than 2 brain cells can easily deduce that indeed Americans were conned into the Iraqi war. I have a lot more sympathy for Bush than you fathom... as he was one of those who was conned.

Saddam had a history of using WMDs.Not only did he have a history of using WMDs he has a history of using WMDs more than a dozen times.Before Bush was even president people on both sides of the isle said he has WMDs.Saddam led people to believe he still had WMDs.So this idea that Bush lied about the Iraq war is an idiotic lie invented by die hard anti-Bush anti-war trash.


And still, it is unfair to equate torture with Obama's drone attacks.

No its not. It is hypocritical to complain about a temporarily inflicting pain on terrorists for information while killing terrorists and innocent civilians in countries we are not even at war with.


It makes more sense to equate them to killing innocent civilians... like the invasion of Iraq.

Civilians are casualties in every war, including the Afghanistan war.
 
Saddam had a history of using WMDs.Not only did he have a history of using WMDs he has a history of using WMDs more than a dozen times.Before Bush was even president people on both sides of the isle said he has WMDs.Saddam led people to believe he still had WMDs.So this idea that Bush lied about the Iraq war is an idiotic lie invented by die hard anti-Bush anti-war trash.




No its not. It is hypocritical to complain about a temporarily inflicting pain on terrorists for information while killing terrorists and innocent civilians in countries we are not even at war with.




Civilians are casualties in every war, including the Afghanistan war.


I am sorry you cannot tell the difference between torture and drone attacks. It's simple common sense for most.
 
I am sorry you cannot tell the difference between torture and drone attacks. It's simple common sense for most.
It's kinda odd trying to compare them.

Torture (or "enhanced interrogation", if you want) is morally questionable (wrong, IMO) but I think, if used correctly, can develop useful intelligence...if the data gathered can be checked against other sources.

Basically it's not a reliable source (because a person will say anything past a certain point) but it can point the way to seeking out more concrete information.

It is also much more....personal and...in-your-face.


Whereas drone attacks are somewhat impersonal (not for the pilots though) and have what many consider to be an unacceptable (read, higher than 0%) chance of killing unwitting/innocent bystanders (collateral damage is a term I dislike).
 
It's kinda odd trying to compare them.

Torture (or "enhanced interrogation", if you want) is morally questionable (wrong, IMO) but I think, if used correctly, can develop useful intelligence...if the data gathered can be checked against other sources.

Basically it's not a reliable source (because a person will say anything past a certain point) but it can point the way to seeking out more concrete information.

It is also much more....personal and...in-your-face.


Whereas drone attacks are somewhat impersonal (not for the pilots though) and have what many consider to be an unacceptable (read, higher than 0%) chance of killing unwitting/innocent bystanders (collateral damage is a term I dislike).


You get it.
 
I am sorry you cannot tell the difference between torture and drone attacks. It's simple common sense for most.

I realize they are not the same.One is taking someone's life and the other is temporarily putting someone through pain or discomfort.The taking of someone's life is way much worse than torture.
 
The drone program is much worse. However, torture is still immoral an not helpful. We are the good guys, we need to ****ing act like it.
 
Enhanced drone strikes that kill innocent people vs torturing innocent people? Neither is acceptable but since the information for the drone strikes isn't derived from torture I don't see it as being worse than torturing innocent people. I think its probably an invalid comparison.


Cheney probably had a lot more innocents tortured than were killed by drones....


"...the report's findings that up to 25% of detainees were innocents captured as a result of mistaken identity and that one such man, Gul Rahman, froze to death after being doused with water and chained to a wall....

"I'm more concerned with bad guys who got out and released than I am with a few that in fact were innocent.....I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective. And our objective is to get the guys who did 9/11 and it is to avoid another attack against the United States."" - Dick Cheney

Cheney is the antithesis of what this country was founded on....


"...In his 1765 Commentaries on the Laws of England, jurist William Blackstone wrote: "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

This ratio, commonly called Blackstone's Formulation, drew from the Old Testament and has been a bedrock principle of Western jurisprudence, having been cited repeatedly by US Supreme Court justices.

Mr Cheney may or may not believe this formulation applies to US citizens, but when it comes to foreign detainees, it appears he takes a decidedly different view."

BBC News - Cheney: 'No problem' with detaining innocents



"Thank you Bush, for not dying during your two terms in office." - Jon Stewart
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom