1/3 of people killed in Drone Attacks are Civilians

[Celestialstrife]

If you don't like it, you're accomplishing nothing by posting on a message board. Go start a rally or a letter-writing campaign or, if you really want to get involved, run for office and start challenging other politicians on issues like this. Civil discourse on sensitive issues is your right as an American, but if all you're going to do is talk about it don't be surprised when it keeps happening.

Well said, Z.

[BRP]

If you don't like it, you're accomplishing nothing by posting on a message board. Go start a rally or a letter-writing campaign or, if you really want to get involved, run for office and start challenging other politicians on issues like this. Civil discourse on sensitive issues is your right as an American, but if all you're going to do is talk about it don't be surprised when it keeps happening.

No, the proper course of action would be to become a terrorist, but even then it will "keep happening."

[Therin]

wonderful. an assumption that we have to be doing this in the first place. love it

I didn't agree with going to war either.

But we're there right now, and you can't exactly go back in time to change that. So, we're in the war and we have to do what is best for stabilizing the country/region - pulling out now would obviously be a disaster (if you disagree with that statement you're an idiot anyway). So it's either drones or actual physical military personnel.

I'll take my 1/3 civilian casualties, thanks.

[Cephius]

Way late to the thread but whatever, I'll quote what was said before.

The drone attacks in the tribal regions seem to remain the
only viable option for the United States to take on the
militants based there who threaten the lives of Afghans,
Pakistanis, and Westerners alike.

I don't think there's a better option. Can't march in troops, can't wipe out the whole place, so you get the best intel possible and try to minimize civilian deaths. It's not perfect, war never is.

I'm surprised there's so much debate on this, it's one of the few things that seem to have bipartisan support.

[Egon]

1:


2.


3.


Lemme get this straight. You (and by implication 'your' constituency) 'care' about the human rights of brown people in the ME, yet don't mind drone attacks which kill a substantial amount of civilians. You 'care' about human rights, hence you support our being there, yet you do not care about the history of the region, and thus you do not care about the context of the violence.

You begin history when we're attacked, and look at our foreign policy as a reaction to 'threats' - but you still 'care' about human rights for brown people, 'over there'.

K, gotcha.

You should read all my posts instead of a few.

I do care about the drone attacks. I also care about our troops. I don't want any civilians dead but its going to happen. I can also make the point of it's because of a greater good. The rights the taliban and others take away have no greater good. It's only a religious thing.

[archibaldcrane]

I don't think there's a better option. Can't march in troops, can't wipe out the whole place, so you get the best intel possible and try to minimize civilian deaths. It's not perfect, war never is.

My problem is mainly just when they target people who are not Al Queda - I fear we will create another monster.

[BRP]

...we have to do what is best for stabilizing the country/region...

I'll take my 1/3 civilian casualties, thanks.

Stability, hrmmm.

[Rhinox]

First time I've heard stability and Afghanistan region in the same sentence.

Nigga must be trolling.

[Kuya]

But we're there right now, and you can't exactly go back in time to change that. So, we're in the war and we have to do what is best for stabilizing the country/region - pulling out now would obviously be a disaster (if you disagree with that statement you're an idiot anyway). So it's either drones or actual physical military personnel.

For those not in the know, "stability" is often used as a euphemism for American spheres of influence. That is, where maintaining these 'spheres of influence' produces 'stability'. In other words, if a territory isn't under american control, it is not stable, but when it is under american control it is stable. "Stability" is one of the justifications you will often see the Pentagon utter when it wants to use military or intelligence forces in a region. Stability=pax americana. The phrase 'humanitarian intervention' is similar.

I'm surprised there's so much debate on this, it's one of the few things that seem to have bipartisan support.

This says more about the Democrats and Republicans, than it does about those arguing here.

[Elvis]

You should read all my posts instead of a few.

I do care about the drone attacks. I also care about our troops. I don't want any civilians dead but its going to happen. I can also make the point of it's because of a greater good. The rights the taliban and others take away have no greater good. It's only a religious thing.

I was focusing on the fact that you seem to think you know what's best for people of the ME. I do think it's laughable that the Right wants those people to have 'rights'.

[Therin]

For those not in the know, "stability" is often used as a euphemism for American spheres of influence. That is, where maintaining these 'spheres of influence' produces 'stability'. In other words, if a territory isn't under american control, it is not stable, but when it is under american control it is stable. "Stability" is one of the justifications you will often see the Pentagon utter when it wants to use military or intelligence forces in a region. Stability=pax americana. The phrase 'humanitarian intervention' is similar.

That may be what it means for some Americans.

For me, stability means a country which isn't loosely governed by people who like to kill their citizens.

In other words, most modern, decent countries. Like the U.S., Canada, most European countries, and Japan (of course there are others but you get my point).

Afghanistan, and most middle eastern countries, Israel included, are not these.

*EDIT* I don't see how anyone could say that using drone strikes is a bad idea, unless you're just one of those wackos who is opposed to all military action/force regardless of its reasoning or purpose. We should be thankful that we have the means and methods available to carry out operations in such an advanced manner as this. Because, when it's all broken down, there will always be war, and for reasons that not everyone agrees with regardless of where or when they take place. And forty years ago, we had 500,000 people on the ground getting shot at and shelled day in and day out. So be glad we're not doing that again, and take your 400 Afghanistan civilian causalities with that in mind.

Assuming it's really that many civilians and not just the families of militants.

[archibaldcrane]

Assuming it's really that many civilians and not just the families of militants.

I don't even know what this means.

[Elvis]

Therin is just debating methods. If that is the exchange, then he's being reasonable.

Drones > Carpet Bombing. No shit.

I don't accept the premise of the war and hence, it's legitimacy. So I couldn't care less about debating 'drone attacks vs. napalming the Vietnamese countryside' or other comparisons. I accept that drone attacks are relatively more 'humane'.

[Rhinox]

*EDIT* I don't see how anyone could say that using drone strikes is a bad idea, unless you're just one of those wackos who is opposed to all military action/force regardless of its reasoning or purpose. We should be thankful that we have the means and methods available to carry out operations in such an advanced manner as this. Because, when it's all broken down, there will always be war, and for reasons that not everyone agrees with regardless of where or when they take place. And forty years ago, we had 500,000 people on the ground getting shot at and shelled day in and day out. So be glad we're not doing that again, and take your 400 Afghanistan civilian causalities with that in mind.

Assuming it's really that many civilians and not just the families of militants.

yes we're the wackos here.

[archibaldcrane]

The hard thing is that as far as actually "attacking the organization responsible for 9/11" - the drone attacks seem like the thing that does that the most. Whether you agree with our current occupation of Afghanistan or not, it seems like "killin' dem terrorists" is in theory the whole, ya know, point of this.

[BRP]

You have to wonder what "stability" is suppose to look like, what it is suppose to feel like. Just maybe "European stability" is an ideal that can't be obtained in Afganistan. Not without genocide anyway. But really, enough of that word.

That may be what it means for some Americans.

lol, not enough.

*EDIT* I don't see how anyone could say that using drone strikes is a bad idea, unless you're just one of those wackos who is opposed to all military action/force regardless of its reasoning or purpose.

If you don't see it at all, then you haven't been reading. Wacko-vision tells me people don't like it when you bomb their kids(Arabs get really touchy about it) and kids don't like it when they have to grow up in a war. There are children in Afghanistan who have known nothing but war. What kind of future does that give them? Do you think Allah just plucks terrorists out of his ass?

Does killing terrorist leaders stop terrorism? Has it ever? I can think of ways of creating terrorist that look a lot like killing terrorist leaders. (Note: It has very little to do with religion, despite what people like to think.)

Because, when it's all broken down, there will always be war,

But do we always have to be invaders?

[Kuya]

That may be what it means for some Americans.

For me, stability means a country which isn't loosely governed by people who like to kill their citizens.

In other words, most modern, decent countries. Like the U.S., Canada, most European countries, and Japan (of course there are others but you get my point).

Afghanistan, and most middle eastern countries, Israel included, are not these.

*EDIT* I don't see how anyone could say that using drone strikes is a bad idea, unless you're just one of those wackos who is opposed to all military action/force regardless of its reasoning or purpose. We should be thankful that we have the means and methods available to carry out operations in such an advanced manner as this. Because, when it's all broken down, there will always be war, and for reasons that not everyone agrees with regardless of where or when they take place. And forty years ago, we had 500,000 people on the ground getting shot at and shelled day in and day out. So be glad we're not doing that again, and take your 400 Afghanistan civilian causalities with that in mind.

Assuming it's really that many civilians and not just the families of militants.

Yes, but unfortunately, that's not the definition of stability for the Americans in charge of foreign policy.

[Pirian]

I don't even know what this means.

Basically what he's saying is that families of the militants should be considered co-conspirators. While completely unfair to family, I can't say I completely disagree with this logic (which I don't know if I agree either) - lumping them all together would make the father, or husband, think twice before becoming militant, or at the very least it would make him think twice before bringing his fucking family along with him. The fact remains that his family is purely his responsibility by their own Islamic law. Yes, the family doesn't have any control or say in the matter, and the truly sad part is the thought that someone would consciously make the decision to bring their family into that situation.

Spoiler: show

ugh can't believe I'm making a serious post in this thread, I must not be getting enough sleep

[LinktheDeme]

I am not sure anymore if we are on topic, nor am I sure if this has been mentioned. However, I do not care about the above as this is the internet.

With that civillian deaths can stop millions of humans (especially our own people) from dying or having to go to war. Hiroshima is a specific example of this ( I think its hiroshima or it could be nagasaki, anywho its the one where we; bombed off any exits, practically torched their city with naplams, blockbusters I believe they were called, destroyed their fire trucks and ambulences when deployed, and watched them burn/suffocate ).

[archibaldcrane]

...wow. That's amazing.

Thanks, Link.