Blowback From US Drone Strikes on Pakistan Leaves 10 Civilians Dead - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39453040]The thing with collateral damage is, anyone in the Middle East that has a gun can be considered "a terrorist" by the US and so a possible target. This is nice if everyone were in formal, regular armies with identifiable uniforms, but your posts seem to outright ignore this obvious fact.[/QUOTE] We have the privilege of being extremely discriminatory about who we target with drones, though, since it isn't, "kill or potentially be killed". We could put in place far more restrictions on what a drone can do or can't do depending on the circumstances than say, a soldier who has to choose between himself and a quickly moving, potential hostile. [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] Of course, those rules of engagement are up to the entity that owns those drones.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39453077]We have the privilege of being extremely discriminatory about who we target with drones, though, since it isn't, "kill or potentially be killed". We could put in place far more restrictions on what a drone can do or can't do depending on the circumstances than say, a soldier who has to choose between himself and a quickly moving, potential hostile.[/QUOTE] "We [I]could[/I] put in place more restrictions" "could". But we're not. Why restrict a piece of war that lets expand our interventionism and preserve our decades's old aggressive foreign policy?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39453102]"We [I]could[/I] put in place more restrictions" "could". But we're not. Why restrict a piece of war that lets expand our interventionism and preserve our decades's old aggressive foreign policy?[/QUOTE] It's still better than losing another ten thousand or so men and women until our morale drops low enough that we withdraw from the conflicts that we are in, just for us to ignore our war policy until another half-existent reason for conflict arises.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39452910]Weren't the people that said drone strikes were occuring laughed out of SH, being called "conspiracy theorists"?[/QUOTE] How? When? It's been well-known that drone strikes have been ongoing, especially in Pakistan (and Yemen if I'm not mistaken) for a number of years.

Have any one of you even once thought that, "Hey perhaps actually putting soldiers in a sovereign country is a bad idea"? You can't just expect America to just waltz into Pakistan with soldiers on the ground with Pakistan actually letting it happen. They barely tolerate drones anymore much. [QUOTE=Megafan;39453178]How? When? It's been well-known that drone strikes have been ongoing, especially in Pakistan (and Yemen if I'm not mistaken) for a number of years.[/QUOTE] They have been happening before Facepunch's creation so I don't see how someone could come to the conclusion of it being a conspiracy theory

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39453168]It's still better than losing another ten thousand or so men and women until our morale drops low enough that we withdraw from the conflicts that we are in, just for us to ignore our war policy until another half-existent reason for conflict arises.[/QUOTE] So you're saying we should stay there just because there's inevitably going to be another reason to invade? [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=galenmarek;39453207]Have any one of you even once thought that, "Hey perhaps actually putting soldiers in a sovereign country is a bad idea"? You can't just expect America to just waltz into Pakistan with soldiers on the ground with Pakistan actually letting it happen. They barely tolerate drones anymore much. [/QUOTE] Oh, because these aren't actual living soldiers, that makes these [I]military operations[/I] okay?

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39453227]So you're saying we should stay there just because there's inevitably going to be another reason to invade? [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] Oh, because these aren't actual living soldiers, that makes these [I]military operations[/I] okay?[/QUOTE] I never agree'd with the conflicts themselves, I'm just saying that if I had to choose between continuing the conflict by using drones and causing disproportionately large amounts of collateral damage or losing a [b]massive[/b] amount of soldiers and assets until they all withdraw, I'd choose the usage of drones. If there was an option to peacefully withdraw everything, I'd take it.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39453227] Oh, because these aren't actual living soldiers, that makes these [I]military operations[/I] okay?[/QUOTE] You don't seriously expect Pakistan's government to really let that happen right? They would never agree to that. Especially with the amount of corruption rampant in all areas of its government *Bin Laden being hidden in the middle of Pakistan much* These aren't the kind of people that would just stop fighting if America suddenly stopped sending drones.

It seemed like you were saying that it would've been better if we had withdrawn earlier because of the constant losses rather than utilizing drones, preventing those losses, but continuing in the, "interventions".

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39453286]I never agree'd with the conflicts themselves, I'm just saying that if I had to choose between continuing the conflict by using drones and causing disproportionately large amounts of collateral damage or losing a [b]massive[/b] amount of soldiers and assets until they all withdraw, I'd choose the usage of drones. If there was an option to peacefully withdraw everything, I'd take it.[/QUOTE] I've never heard of a non-peaceful withdraw before. What I am discussing is, these drones prolong and promote these conflicts you say you never agreed with. No one is giving a shit that it's practical and economical. That's obvious.

The title is oddly worded. The NYT article had a way better title "Taliban Militants Attack Pakistani Base" - [URL]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/world/asia/taliban-assault-pakistan-army-base.html?ref=world&_r=2&[/URL] I doubt drones had much to do with this. If they had killed the two Taliban leaders using traditional weapons I bet this still would have happened.

[QUOTE=galenmarek;39453301]You don't seriously expect Pakistan's government to really let that happen right? They would never agree to that. Especially with the amount of corruption rampant in all areas of its government *Bin Laden being hidden in the middle of Pakistan much* These aren't the kind of people that would just stop fighting if America suddenly stopped sending drones.[/QUOTE] No, it won't happen overnight. But these people aren't going to go away by killing one or two at a time, just to have three or four pop up in other places. Why does everyone who discusses politics only think of short term expenses and profits?

[QUOTE=Megafan;39453178]How? When? It's been well-known that drone strikes have been ongoing, especially in Pakistan (and Yemen if I'm not mistaken) for a number of years.[/QUOTE] I seem to recall a thread where someone had mentioned Obama and drone strikes, and they were called a right-winger and so forth.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39453315]I've never heard of a non-peaceful withdraw before. What I am discussing is, these drones prolong and promote these conflicts you say you never agreed with. No one is giving a shit that it's practical and economical. That's obvious.[/QUOTE] My entire point is that even though the drones are going to enable us to be imperialist motherfuckers, they've already saved lives and assets and they will continue to do so in the future, and that makes them worth it. They lose their worth when they do more damage to us than they do to the enemy. I'm not making a moral argument. [editline]d[/editline] I think we're arguing on two different points here.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39453349]I seem to recall a thread where someone had mentioned Obama and drone strikes, and they were called a right-winger and so forth.[/QUOTE] Oh well that certainly proves it. A hazy half-formed memory of something that may or may not have ever happened.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39453353]My entire point is that even though the drones are going to enable us to be imperialist motherfuckers, they've already saved lives and assets and they will continue to do so in the future, and that makes them worth it. They lose their worth when they do more damage to us than they do to the enemy. I'm not making a moral argument.[/QUOTE] I think our problem is, in your idea of "do more damage to us than they do to the enemy" is only counted with military damage to us while I consider it political, social, economical and collateral damage back to us - such 9/11, TSA screening, crumbling economy, etc. Broaden your perspectives a bit.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39453369]Oh well that certainly proves it. A hazy half-formed memory of something that may or may not have ever happened.[/QUOTE] [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1242202[/url]

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39453400][url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1242202[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah he was laughed at because he posted Infowars which is fucking crazy person central, not because he brought up the issue of civilian deaths from drone strikes.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39453396]I think our problem is, in your idea of "do more damage to us than they do to the enemy" is only counted with military damage to us while I consider it political, social, economical and collateral damage back to us - such 9/11, TSA screening, crumbling economy, etc. Broaden your perspectives a bit.[/QUOTE] I was only really considering American lives, and none of the other stuff, since that's at least what is the most important 'asset' in general. Of course, all of the other issues that our interventions in the East brings about can't be solved by us not using or using drones or soldiers but rather us withdrawing.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39453449]I was only really considering American lives, and none of the other stuff, since that's at least what is the most important 'asset' in general. Of course, all of the other issues that our interventions in the East brings about can't be solved by us not using or using drones or soldiers but rather us withdrawing.[/QUOTE] Agreed. As a military asset, yeah sure drones are awesome. But in the broader world of politics, government and wars in general, it's almost a weapon of mass destruction.

[QUOTE=DaysBefore;39453430]Yeah he was laughed at because he posted Infowars which is fucking crazy person central, not because he brought up the issue of civilian deaths from drone strikes.[/QUOTE] Honestly though if you read the article and noted that they posted sources, it seems perfectly legitimate. Besides, someone in the thread posted a more reliable source. [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/us-drone-strikes-are-caus_b_2224627.html[/url]

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39453473]Honestly though if you read the article and noted that they posted sources, it seems perfectly legitimate. Besides, someone in the thread posted a more reliable source. [url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-greenwald/us-drone-strikes-are-caus_b_2224627.html[/url][/QUOTE] Yeah the strikes are awful things that shouldn't happen, but nobody was forced from Sensationalist Headlines because they believe the strikes were happening. The person in question was just a total mong.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39453469]Agreed. As a military asset, yeah sure drones are awesome. But in the broader world of politics, government and wars in general, it's almost a weapon of mass destruction.[/QUOTE] They're a problem in those respects in that they're being abused to a pretty large extent as an offensive weapon in places where they, or their fleshy owners, don't need to be. They'd be much bigger lifesavers if they were used in say the same circumstances that had us drop the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Regardless if they're being abused to fuel a stupid war or defensively as a means to end one, the benefits still, in the sense that life (and in this case the lives of soldiers and not civilians) is the most valuable asset that is toted above everything else by humans, outweigh the consequences. [editline]2nd February 2013[/editline] You could put a value on the life of each soldier compared to the value of stuff that is entirely on paper as well as the effects of retaliation, though, and possibly the consequences outweigh the benefits in this particular conflict, though; since this war is more monetary and a counting of assets and liabilities than moral or righteous.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39453580]They're a problem in those respects in that they're being abused to a pretty large extent as an offensive weapon in places where they, or their fleshy owners, don't need to be. They'd be much bigger lifesavers if they were used in say the same circumstances that had us drop the Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Regardless if they're being abused to fuel a stupid war or defensively as a means to end one, the benefits still, in the sense that life (and in this case the lives of soldiers and not civilians) is the most valuable asset that is toted above everything else by humans, outweigh the consequences.[/QUOTE] Ignoring the lives of civilians on both sides, both in military operations and terrorist repercussions just simplifies the issue too much.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39453610]Ignoring the lives of civilians on both sides, both in military operations and terrorist repercussions just simplifies the issue too much.[/QUOTE] Ignoring the lives of civilians is taking the (centrist, since I'm arguing that our soldiers are what matters most) moral argument out of it, since it only has weight in the sense of the international response and retaliation and all that. I assume that the retaliation (there couldn't possibly be anything 9/11 sized headed our way again) would be relatively shallow compared to the amount of damage a drone could do during an operation.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39453675]Ignoring the lives of civilians is taking the (centrist, since I'm arguing that our soldiers are what matters most) moral argument out of it, since it only has weight in the sense of the international response and retaliation and all that. I assume that the retaliation (there couldn't possibly be anything 9/11 sized headed our way again) would be relatively shallow compared to the amount of damage a drone could do during an operation.[/QUOTE] You do realize that the whole reason they want to commit 9/11's is because we keep bombing the shit out of them? When it comes to terrorism like this, especially with zealots who don't value their lives much if they can get a blow in, I wouldn't lightly "assume" that retaliation will be "relatively shallow". The fact in that is, retaliation is still coming. That fact is a big problem, regardless of "relative shallowness". Usage of a nation's military is nothing more than the extension of a nation's politics. The "moral argument" cannot be separated from it.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39453610]Ignoring the lives of civilians on both sides, both in military operations and terrorist repercussions just simplifies the issue too much.[/QUOTE] There is no alternative. Pakistan made it clear that it can barely tolerate drones. They'd never agree to Americans inside of Pakistan. The only other thing to do would be to just leave altogether and that's not very much of a good thing.

[QUOTE=U.S.S.R;39453675]Ignoring the lives of civilians is taking the (centrist, since I'm arguing that our soldiers are what matters most) moral argument out of it, since it only has weight in the sense of the international response and retaliation and all that. I assume that the retaliation (there couldn't possibly be anything 9/11 sized headed our way again) would be relatively shallow compared to the amount of damage a drone could do during an operation.[/QUOTE] Does constantly being at war make you this jaded and utterly incapable of feeling empathy for the people you're killing? Or does ignoring the moral implications make it easier for you to overlook the shit your government pulls again and again? Because frankly your attitude is disgusting and reckless.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;39453730]You do realize that the whole reason they want to commit 9/11's is because we keep bombing the shit out of them? When it comes to terrorism like this, especially with zealots who don't value their lives much if they can get a blow in, I wouldn't lightly "assume" that retaliation will be "relatively shallow". The fact in that is, retaliation is still coming. That fact is a big problem, regardless of "relative shallowness". Usage of a nation's military is nothing more than the extension of a nation's politics. The "moral argument" cannot be separated from it.[/QUOTE] I guess my argument purely about the pros and cons about the usage of drones got ran into the ground. I don't think using soldiers instead of drones is going to change much besides the lessening of civilian deaths and the risks that come with sending in mortal combatants and more vulnerable equipment. The only thing that will really stop all of the troubles we've been having and the potential for retaliation growing is if we withdraw. My arguments are forming a waterwheel now, I guess I've run out of points. [editline]3rd February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=demoguy08;39453831]Does constantly being at war make you this jaded and utterly incapable of feeling empathy for the people you're killing? Or does ignoring the moral implications make it easier for you to overlook the shit your government pulls again and again? Because frankly your attitude is disgusting and reckless.[/QUOTE] I'm not arguing about anything other than the fact that no matter how disgusting or reckless or bad drone attacks are, it means that soldiers don't have to do the same thing and potentially lose their lives because of it. I was arguing that, in terms of liabilities and assets, our soldiers' lives are worth the collateral damage among other things. I wasn't arguing about how moral it is to blow up a potato farmer in the name of 'quelling terrorism'. [editline]d[/editline] Really, my argument degraded from that into something not coherent at all and just a fruitless effort at countering Emperor's points.

No wonder America gets into qualms with the countries you occupy when even its citizens reason like military strategists [editline]3rd February 2013[/editline] yes this is a horrible generalization but jeeze