skoster, Winston Smith,
Get real. I’m sorry but you both sound hopelessly naive. It’s a war. People die. But a lot less people die using targeted UAV strikes than say, carpet bombing.
I think a better question is why America left Afghanistan in the first place after teaming up with the Saudis in the 1980s and sending the Soviets packing,
If Gore had been elected, he would have spent his 8 years apologizing to the Muslims for the Crusades and for being forcibly removed from the Iberian peninsula.[/quote]
Eh one of the world’s biggest arsenal of nuclear weapons pointing at them probably told them it was a good idea not to. Apart from the fact there was no reason for them to go into Afghanistan which was stricken by civil war and factionalism, and still is.
Besides they had Rambo at the time.
When teeing off, sometimes I like to use a pitching wedge for added flight… and while on the fairway, about 100 feet from the pin, I like to use a one or two wood to ensure that at the very minimum I get 200 feet past it to create a more interesting game. Oh sorry, I just thought that I would add my two cents, too, about something that I clearly know nothing about as well. Isn’t it fun when EVERYONE has an opinion?
[quote=“Gao Bohan”]skoster, Winston Smith,
Get real. I’m sorry but you both sound hopelessly naive. It’s a war. People die. But a lot less people die using targeted UAV strikes than say, carpet bombing.[/quote]
There doesn’t have to be war is my point. It is entirely up to us to make that decision.
To discount the possibility of developing peace is what I find naive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
It’s not ‘entirely’ up to us. The reason we’re there in the first place is because we left the Taliban in peace and got a swift kick in the ass for it.
Amnesty International Investigates Drone Strikes In Pakistan
[quote]GREENE: We should say here that U.S. drone policy has been a controversial topic for some time now. But this is Amnesty now saying there might be war crimes involved. That is a significant accusation to make, and tell us how they reached that conclusion.
REEVES: Yeah, Amnesty has reviewed 45 drone strikes that happened in North Wazirastan. That’s in the tribal belt that borders Afghanistan. And these happened between January of last year and last month, and they examined nine of these in particular. And its report highlights a couple of incidents. In one, it says that according to witnesses, 18 laborers were killed when a missile crashed into their tent where they had gathered for evening meal. The second missile then struck those who came to help the wounded.
And in the second, it was an attack that killed a 68-year-old grandmother. And Amnesty said this was witnessed by some of her grandchildren, three of whom were injured.
GREENE: So is Amnesty basically saying, Phil, that the U.S. has not been transparent in terms of the impact of these attacks?
REEVES: Oh, very much so. I mean, the U.S. doesn’t give details about drone strikes - or even knowledge responsibility. But officials, American officials have, of course, long maintained that they’re based on reliable intelligence; that they’re accurate; and that the vast majority of the victims are members of armed groups such as al-Qaida and the Taliban.
The president has spoken of a need for there to be near certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured, before a strike can take place. Clearly the U.S. considers the program to be a key weapon against insurgence groups. But, of course, there’s a very widespread belief in Pakistan that these strikes kill large numbers of civilians. And critics of the program say that this is why it’s counterproductive because it sews resentment against the U.S., and it makes it therefore easier for the militants to operate and expand in numbers.[/quote]
:eh:
I’m sure our liberal Obama supporters will have a problem with this… 
From the grannies I guess.
From the grannies I guess.[/quote]
Its from NPR… 
Funding cuts I guess.
So what’s the alternative to a flying court that operates according to secret rules in order to avoid oversight, deliberately targets rescue workers and funerals, has left behind a trail of hundreds of dead civilians and is only making the problem worse by fueling terrorism?
If you’re depraved with blood lust or addled by partisan loyalty there is no alternative. If simple justice is your thing then operate openly according to clearly defined rules that can withstand scrutiny, follow the laws of war and leave the grannies, rescue workers and kids alone.
Winston Smith,
It’s difficult to follow the rules of war, by which I assume you mean the various Geneva and Hague conventions, when one’s enemies:
- Do not wear uniforms
- Do not represent a recognized government that is a signatory to the Geneva and Hague conventions
- Do not consist of an organized militia clearly recognizable as such per the requirements of the Third Geneva Convention
- Blend almost seamlessly into the native population
- Engage entirely in asymmetrical warfare, without forming a recognizable war front
skoster,
They drew first blood. We responded. That’s the reality. And yes, I know that the Taliban did not technically participate in 9/11, but they harbored the enemy and that makes them equally guilty. Plus, the Afghans have repeatedly resisted American dominance of their nation, and yet we have shown tremendous restraint to this offense.
You should imagine that Pakistan is a Western country and think would this be acceptable? This is obviously fueling rampant anti Americanism and resentment in those areas and paranoia in the rest of Pakistan. Is the strategy effective, it appears not as the Taliban are getting stronger all the time and poised to get back into government in Afghanistan sooner than later in some form.
Who is ‘they’? The Taliban was a regime that allowed Al Qaeda to operate but they didn’t actually attack the US , and of course the Taliban only account for some of the people in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Since the 911 bombers were mostly militant Saudis shouldn’t somebody have gone and bombed Riyadh?
Drone attacks completely blur the line of right and wrong, and to anybody living in those areas they would feel completely justified in doing the same to the US ie collateral damage . You can’t just shrug shoulders when hundreds of innocent people die in a clinical and vicious manner just because its ‘over there’.
[quote=“Gao Bohan”]Winston Smith,
It’s difficult to follow the rules of war, by which I assume you mean the various Geneva and Hague conventions, when one’s enemies:
- Do not wear uniforms
- Do not represent a recognized government that is a signatory to the Geneva and Hague conventions
- Do not consist of an organized militia clearly recognizable as such per the requirements of the Third Geneva Convention
- Blend almost seamlessly into the native population
- Engage entirely in asymmetrical warfare, without forming a recognizable war front
skoster,
They drew first blood. We responded. That’s the reality. And yes, I know that the Taliban did not technically participate in 9/11, but they harbored the enemy and that makes them equally guilty. Plus, the Afghans have repeatedly resisted American dominance of their nation, and yet we have shown tremendous restraint to this offense.[/quote]
There are international laws which the U.S. is signatory to which govern the use of lethal force in all contexts, which is most likely why the U.S. keeps its kill lists and the rules which govern how they’re applied secret. The U.S. has no trouble determining who goes on those kills list or, given the extraordinary capabilities of their eyes in the sky, where they are so it’s hardly a matter of “blending almost seamlessly into the native population”. It’s the rest of us who are having trouble determining who is being executed and why and according to what standards.
[quote]The CIA and the military are carrying out an illegal “targeted killing” program in which people far from any battlefield are determined to be enemies of the state and killed without charge or trial.
The executive branch has, in effect, claimed the unchecked authority to put the names of citizens and others on “kill lists” on the basis of a secret determination, based on secret evidence, that a person meets a secret definition of the enemy. The targeted killing program operates with virtually no oversight outside the executive branch, and essential details about the program remain secret, including what criteria are used to put people on CIA and military kill lists or how much evidence is required.
Outside of armed conflict zones, the use of lethal force is strictly limited by international law and, when it comes to U.S. citizens, the Constitution. Specifically, lethal force can be used only as a last resort against an imminent threat to life. Even in the context of an armed conflict against an armed group, the government may use lethal force only against individuals who are directly participating in hostilities against the U. S. Regardless of the context, whenever the government uses lethal force, it must take all possible steps to avoid harming civilian bystanders. These are not the standards that the executive branch is using.
The U.S. continues to carry out illegal targeted killings in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and elsewhere. The government must be held to account when it carries out such killings in violation of the Constitution and international law.[/quote] – ACLU
That’s the same thing. Being an enemy and harboring an enemy are the same thing.
What an absurd idea. Their nationality is irrelevant, since they were not acting on behalf of the government of Saudi Arabia. The Taliban was the de facto government of most of Afghanistan and was openly harboring the enemy. The Taliban and/or tribal leaders sympathetic to the Taliban are the de facto rulers of some parts of Pakistan.
I’m not! Every human life is precious and sacred. Distance is irrelevant. But it’s a war. I don’t see what’s so difficult about this.
Wait I’m lost here, are some of you actually defending the Taliban? 
[quote=“Gao Bohan”]
skoster,
They drew first blood. We responded. That’s the reality. And yes, I know that the Taliban did not technically participate in 9/11, but they harbored the enemy and that makes them equally guilty. Plus, the Afghans have repeatedly resisted American dominance of their nation, and yet we have shown tremendous restraint to this offense.[/quote]
First, if you think 9/11 was first blood, you need to look over the history of US involvement in the Middle East.
Second, you’re saying their offense is to resist our dominance of their nation?
Please re-read that because I can’t imagine that’s what you mean, and if you do then I’m flabbergasted at how you define offense.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free
Of course you guys are. After all, it was all Bush’s fault that they were forced to hijack aircraft to slam them into the WTC and Pentagon.
That’s the same thing. Being an enemy and harboring an enemy are the same thing.
What an absurd idea. Their nationality is irrelevant, since they were not acting on behalf of the government of Saudi Arabia. The Taliban was the de facto government of most of Afghanistan and was openly harboring the enemy. The Taliban and/or tribal leaders sympathetic to the Taliban are the de facto rulers of some parts of Pakistan.
I’m not! Every human life is precious and sacred. Distance is irrelevant. But it’s a war. I don’t see what’s so difficult about this.[/quote]
Your thinking is very black and white on this, who is harbouring the enemy now? Is Pakistan the enemy? Are Saudi Arabia and other gulf states the enemy for supporting Al Qaeda in Syria?
Or they are not the enemy yet because they haven’t attacked the US yet…but wait Al Qaeda have attacked the US…so your logic is missing.
If human life is precious why are hundreds of people being killed for little measurable result? Obviously human life is not precious.
Don’t you think it’s ironic that Al Qaeda broadly use the same thought processes as you when deciding who and where to attack?
Al Qaeda is on the run, and that’s because the United States hunts them down and kills them wherever we find them. What’s the alternative? Stop killing terrorists who are plotting against us?
Many experts have noted that civilian casualties of drone strikes generate new enemies of the United States. OK, but I ask again, what is the alternative? When terrorists kill us, we just sit around and do nothing?
There’s no perfect solution. But sit around and do nothing will only embolden the enemy.