Total Posts:18|Showing Posts:1-18
Jump to topic:

Obama and Drones?

NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 5:41:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It's nationbuilding, without most of the moral or strategic benefits of building a nation.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 6:30:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The US isn't a newcomer to state sponsored terrorism. It used to be death squads in Latin America, now it's drones in the middle east.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
MrBrooks
Posts: 831
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 6:33:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think drones are great technology, and that it'll ensure our air superiority for years to come. I think it is disgraceful that we're using them to assassinate people in countries that we are not at war with.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 7:42:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wait, whats the problem? Using drones to kill people without declaring war first? Well, if they allow us the same courtesy (not attacking without a formal declaration of war), then I might feel differently.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 7:55:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 7:42:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wait, whats the problem? Using drones to kill people without declaring war first? Well, if they allow us the same courtesy (not attacking without a formal declaration of war), then I might feel differently.

Pakistan didn't do that though.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 7:58:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 7:55:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:42:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wait, whats the problem? Using drones to kill people without declaring war first? Well, if they allow us the same courtesy (not attacking without a formal declaration of war), then I might feel differently.

Pakistan didn't do that though.

We're not attacking Pakistan, we're attacking individuals within Pakistan. There's a big difference.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 8:01:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 7:58:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:55:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:42:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wait, whats the problem? Using drones to kill people without declaring war first? Well, if they allow us the same courtesy (not attacking without a formal declaration of war), then I might feel differently.

Pakistan didn't do that though.

We're not attacking Pakistan, we're attacking individuals within Pakistan. There's a big difference.

Any male of 'combatant age' who is within the strike zone is counted as a combatant.

In other words, the US government is authorizing drone strikes on civilians.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 8:02:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 7:58:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:55:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:42:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wait, whats the problem? Using drones to kill people without declaring war first? Well, if they allow us the same courtesy (not attacking without a formal declaration of war), then I might feel differently.

Pakistan didn't do that though.

We're not attacking Pakistan, we're attacking individuals within Pakistan. There's a big difference.

So, if a Canadian committed a crime in Pakistan, but was a permanent resident in the US, Pakistan could fly drones over his neighborhood? Say it were multiple Canadians, and for every two guilty Canadians the drones got, they killed an innocent American, would that be OK?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:09:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 7:58:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:55:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:42:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wait, whats the problem? Using drones to kill people without declaring war first? Well, if they allow us the same courtesy (not attacking without a formal declaration of war), then I might feel differently.

Pakistan didn't do that though.

We're not attacking Pakistan, we're attacking individuals within Pakistan. There's a big difference.

Pakistan don't seem to think that way.

What if China started to assasinate Americans in America, because they belived them to be planing terrorist actions against China?

Also these individuals, who may or may not be terrorists, isn't judged by a court or jury. The CIA show the president documents that supports that they may be terrorists and then he chose if they are guilty or not. There is no defense.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:11:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 8:01:55 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:58:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:55:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:42:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wait, whats the problem? Using drones to kill people without declaring war first? Well, if they allow us the same courtesy (not attacking without a formal declaration of war), then I might feel differently.

Pakistan didn't do that though.

We're not attacking Pakistan, we're attacking individuals within Pakistan. There's a big difference.

Any male of 'combatant age' who is within the strike zone is counted as a combatant.

In other words, the US government is authorizing drone strikes on civilians.

They're not authorizing them on civilians, merely not counting them as civilians. When we fire bomb them like Tokyo, then you can say we are targeting the civilians.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:13:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 8:02:31 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:58:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:55:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:42:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wait, whats the problem? Using drones to kill people without declaring war first? Well, if they allow us the same courtesy (not attacking without a formal declaration of war), then I might feel differently.

Pakistan didn't do that though.

We're not attacking Pakistan, we're attacking individuals within Pakistan. There's a big difference.

So, if a Canadian committed a crime in Pakistan, but was a permanent resident in the US, Pakistan could fly drones over his neighborhood? Say it were multiple Canadians, and for every two guilty Canadians the drones got, they killed an innocent American, would that be OK?

If we were harboring them, and doing nothing about it, then it would be justified for Pakistan to take action (pending the crime, of course).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:15:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 2:09:36 AM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:58:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:55:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:42:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wait, whats the problem? Using drones to kill people without declaring war first? Well, if they allow us the same courtesy (not attacking without a formal declaration of war), then I might feel differently.

Pakistan didn't do that though.

We're not attacking Pakistan, we're attacking individuals within Pakistan. There's a big difference.

Pakistan don't seem to think that way.

What if China started to assasinate Americans in America, because they belived them to be planing terrorist actions against China?

Also these individuals, who may or may not be terrorists, isn't judged by a court or jury. The CIA show the president documents that supports that they may be terrorists and then he chose if they are guilty or not. There is no defense.

If the people make a public announcement saying "We are planning terrorist attacks against China" they don't need a trial. Just like the bank robber that pulls out a weapon and says "I'm gonna start shooting people" doesn't need a trial, he should be put down right there.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:23:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 2:15:17 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/19/2012 2:09:36 AM, OllerupMand wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:58:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:55:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:42:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wait, whats the problem? Using drones to kill people without declaring war first? Well, if they allow us the same courtesy (not attacking without a formal declaration of war), then I might feel differently.

Pakistan didn't do that though.

We're not attacking Pakistan, we're attacking individuals within Pakistan. There's a big difference.

Pakistan don't seem to think that way.

What if China started to assasinate Americans in America, because they belived them to be planing terrorist actions against China?

Also these individuals, who may or may not be terrorists, isn't judged by a court or jury. The CIA show the president documents that supports that they may be terrorists and then he chose if they are guilty or not. There is no defense.

If the people make a public announcement saying "We are planning terrorist attacks against China" they don't need a trial. Just like the bank robber that pulls out a weapon and says "I'm gonna start shooting people" doesn't need a trial, he should be put down right there.

But the individual isn't saying the he or she is part of a teror organisation. So China kill those Americans they belive are terrorists and they refuse to give any documentation to America as not to compromise their intelligence agency.
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:28:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 2:11:31 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 8:01:55 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:58:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:55:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:42:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wait, whats the problem? Using drones to kill people without declaring war first? Well, if they allow us the same courtesy (not attacking without a formal declaration of war), then I might feel differently.

Pakistan didn't do that though.

We're not attacking Pakistan, we're attacking individuals within Pakistan. There's a big difference.

Any male of 'combatant age' who is within the strike zone is counted as a combatant.

In other words, the US government is authorizing drone strikes on civilians.

They're not authorizing them on civilians, merely not counting them as civilians. When we fire bomb them like Tokyo, then you can say we are targeting the civilians.

So the civilians are not civilians because they have been target by a drone? What is it that make those civilians different than other civilians?
OllerupMand
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 2:32:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 2:13:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 8:02:31 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:58:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:55:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:42:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wait, whats the problem? Using drones to kill people without declaring war first? Well, if they allow us the same courtesy (not attacking without a formal declaration of war), then I might feel differently.

Pakistan didn't do that though.

We're not attacking Pakistan, we're attacking individuals within Pakistan. There's a big difference.

So, if a Canadian committed a crime in Pakistan, but was a permanent resident in the US, Pakistan could fly drones over his neighborhood? Say it were multiple Canadians, and for every two guilty Canadians the drones got, they killed an innocent American, would that be OK?

If we were harboring them, and doing nothing about it, then it would be justified for Pakistan to take action (pending the crime, of course).

So you would find it fair that Pakistan threw a bomb in Brittain to kill Salman Rushdie.
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 5:33:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 2:11:31 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 8:01:55 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:58:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:55:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:42:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wait, whats the problem? Using drones to kill people without declaring war first? Well, if they allow us the same courtesy (not attacking without a formal declaration of war), then I might feel differently.

Pakistan didn't do that though.

We're not attacking Pakistan, we're attacking individuals within Pakistan. There's a big difference.

Any male of 'combatant age' who is within the strike zone is counted as a combatant.

In other words, the US government is authorizing drone strikes on civilians.

They're not authorizing them on civilians, merely not counting them as civilians. When we fire bomb them like Tokyo, then you can say we are targeting the civilians.

They're the same thing. There's no difference between, "Our drones are going to kill one civilian for every two terrorists, and that's OK." and "Our drones are going to kill one civilian for every two terrorists, and I don't care." Both those statements authorize civilian deaths.

If we were harboring them, and doing nothing about it, then it would be justified for Pakistan to take action (pending the crime, of course).

Pending the crime? If by that you mean, "Due process", then that's inconsistent: drone use doesn't operate under the sort of due process that would be recognized in an American court. In-fact, as has been pointed out, it's the intelligence and military services which point the finger of guilt at Pakistan, so by the same token, all Pakistan would need to start droning Massachusetts with a kill count of one civilian for every two terrorists (according to them, which you'd obviously likewise trust), would be a majority-assertion that the terrorists reside in America made by Pakistani intelligence and military sources.

Further, Pakistan claims to be moderate and anti-terrorist. Obviously, there's a question-mark over the veracity of that statement, but it does mean that, following your logic, Pakistan could start firing missiles into Massachusetts even if the USA was protesting that they were trying to deal with the terrorists themselves, provided that Pakistan didn't believe them.


If the people make a public announcement saying "We are planning terrorist attacks against China" they don't need a trial. Just like the bank robber that pulls out a weapon and says "I'm gonna start shooting people" doesn't need a trial, he should be put down right there.

Of course they do, otherwise you could be sending in the SEALs to murder a 15 year old who was boasting to impress a girl at school. You have to actually verify these things and evaluate probability - speech is never equivalent to pulling out a firearm, without substantiation. You might say that, in the absence of the possibility of a court trial, you should just kill them if possible because they are obviously going to go on to commit serious crimes (which will be true sometimes), but that's not what's happening: not even attempting to capture the alleged offender, but just flying drones which rain down death on guilty and innocent alike is not at all that.
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 10:14:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 2:11:31 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 8:01:55 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:58:19 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:55:36 PM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/18/2012 7:42:44 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Wait, whats the problem? Using drones to kill people without declaring war first? Well, if they allow us the same courtesy (not attacking without a formal declaration of war), then I might feel differently.

Pakistan didn't do that though.

We're not attacking Pakistan, we're attacking individuals within Pakistan. There's a big difference.

Any male of 'combatant age' who is within the strike zone is counted as a combatant.

In other words, the US government is authorizing drone strikes on civilians.

They're not authorizing them on civilians, merely not counting them as civilians. When we fire bomb them like Tokyo, then you can say we are targeting the civilians.

The other important factor here is that a lot of the time the people getting killed by drone strikes aren't terrorists at all. As in, they see a group of suspicious looking men over the age of 18, maybe one or two of them have weapons or objects that could resemble weapons, and so they kill everyone there. It happens pretty much constantly. The net result is over a third of people killed are innocent people, and often there were no militants on the scene at all.

I could get in to how these actions are directly contributing to the growth of militant movements by driving young men who are possible targets of these drones to find ways to 'fight back', but that would be a whole other conversation.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK