hm. really, is killing innocent people the problem with drone strikes? Is that it?

i kinda think taliban cross the border and kill innocent people, but what the fuck do I know.

al qaida kills innocent people sometime, but maybe that's just a fucking accident.

Let's analyze:

1. The Taliban is a criminal organization that will likely be prosecuted under international military jurisdiction when they are taken out of power.

2. Al Qaida is a criminal organization that will likely be prosecuted under international military jurisdiction when they are taken out of power.

3. The United States Armed Forces is a crimina .... - wait a minute, you can't fool me!

What's the alternative to drone strikes?

Boots on the ground? How many innocent deaths will happen if we invade N. Pakistan? Ever thought of that?

Carpet bombing? Is that your answer? How many innocent people died in Cambodia when Nixon ordered carpet bombing with B-52s?

Really botox48?

Is Taliban and Al Qaida being prosecuted and shut down in Pakistan? Or are they operating freely?

Let's analyze, again, re: alternatives:

1. Declare war on another nation that is intentionally withholding suspected terrorists from your prosecution by offering them asylum, making drone strikes legal.

2. Negotiate a settlement with another nation that is intentionally withholding suspected terrorists from your prosecution by offering them asylum, making drone strikes (highly expensive) an irrelevant military exercise.

3. Get the fuck out of Pakistan.

Or you know, you could just leave both Afghanistan and Pakistan alone and let them deal with their own problems.

Exactly. Throw in Iran, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Iraq too.

Negotiate a settlement.

Super. Why hasn't that happened then? You believe Pakistan will hand over the militants crossing the border? Okay, when and how?

If the United States wants them badly enough, yeah, Pakistan would turn them over, or at the very least grant the United States *PERMISSION* to go and get them. (I capitalized permission for a reason.)

And I do not, nor will I ever, believe that the United States has enough humility to make a move like that when they could play international superpower instead like they have with Snowden.

If we say please "Pakistan would turn them over."

Typical insulated liberal delusion.

Why should they?

Anyway, props for getting two people to reply to your troll thread, 7/10.

thanks.

Its just funny to me that liberal paranoids in this country share the same delusion with anti-educated pakistanis that the USA could just solve the problem with the wave of a wand but choses not to because the USA would rather blow up North Pakistani compounds just for the fuck of it.

so why are Chinese drone strikes over US soil controversial? I don't get it.

I mean, what's the alternative to drone strikes?
Boots on the ground? How many innocent deaths will happen if China invades the US? Ever thought of that?

You forgot carpet bombing. Other than that, I'm with TheMinisterOfWar.

Let's see, imagine that Canadian terrorists blow up part of the Kremlin, the Canadian government is overthrown by Russian special forces, but the terrorists flee to the somewhere in North Dakota.

Russia forces send drones/bombs/missiles and cause explosions in North Dakota, killing people (possibly the Canadians who fled across the border, but definitely children who happened to be hanging around the local church with their family)

The US complains that they supported Russia in their invasion of Canada, allowing use of US airspace as a major supply line, and that these attacks violate US sovereignty.

What is the problem there?

"hm. really, is killing innocent people the problem with drone strikes? Is that it? "

Yep, that's it.

"What's the alternative to drone strikes?"

No drone strikes.

When these people are, on occasion, american citizens, i think there is some issue in the american constitution preventing citizens being murdered by their government; something about having to go through the courts and death sentence being imposed - with proof that they are guilty of some crime - not death from the skies for being in northern pakistan (or Yemen, depending on where your drone strike occurs)

"What's the alternative to drone strikes?"
"No drone strikes."

If you said "get out of Afghanistan" that would make more sense. But being as we are in Afghanistan fighting a war that is being launched out of N. Pakistan, we should in fact be targeting it at its source. If the Pakistanis want to deal with militants based in their country crossing the border and killing people in Afghanistan, great. But so far Pak government would rather sit back and allow drone strikes.

So are people upset that we are involved in an armed conflict in N. Pakistan? If yes, I think that is a legitimate concern. I would honor that opinion.

OR, given that we are involved in this conflict are you upset at the particular technology of war being utilized? If this is your concern, my judgment of your opinion is much lower. Other methods of war will kill far more innocent people.

I'm upset at war, dirge, and particularly against mismatched war. I don't think you can fathom that.

I think that when men consent to kill each other they should be free to do so, but people who didn't consent to a state of war shouldn't be subject to its ill effects.

And the liberals went nuts when Regean made a JOKE before a live broadcast about going to war with Russia and the bombings were to begin in minutes.

Now we have a liberal president actually bombing people and it's not front page news. Only on our forum do we get the truth.

"I'm upset at war" Yes, I can respect that. My own feeling is the US got into Afghanistan for a legitimate reason. But there needs to be an end to it.

"particularly against a mismatched war." But we don't always choose our enemies (even if we did in Iraq). Given we are in this conflict, I do not think we will be sending soldiers into waziristan carrying AK's, RPG's and suicide bomb belt in order to keep the war evenly matched.

"people who didn't consent to a state of war shouldn't be subject to its ill effects." agreed. should not be. but are nevertheless. and how do you propose that taliban and al qaida will stop killing innocent people? perhaps there is a better solution than war. I don't know. I'm old fashioned I guess. I have my doubts that activism and righteous indignation will stop them.

It is perhaps a different culture in the "tribal areas." In the Western traditions of warfare we do not usually place HQ ordering military operations in a family compound, but being as this is what they do among top taliban, do we then decide all command and control elements are not legitimate military targets?

Actually, there are plenty of liberal authors who have written extensively about this. Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill spring to mind immediately, but there are probably plenty of others.

Liberals are pretty angry at Obama's drone program.

What gets me are the conservatives who supported the invasion of Iraq but their panties in a wad when there are drone strikes in wazirastan.

“how do you propose that taliban and al qaida will stop killing innocent people?”

Well, we’ve already demonstrated that drone strikes don’t help. They just radicalise young Muslims who saw their sister/mother killed by a stray bomb.

"they radicalize young muslims" no doubt. as do military bases in afghanistan. as to conventional airstrikes. as did the raid that killed bin ladin. as does Isreal. as does polio vaccination. as does the pope. as does the hindu goddess Kali. as does teaching evolution to school girls.

At some point soon we need to cut our losses and leave altogether. If there is another 9/11 then we go back.