Well, since I was responding to your assertion that we don’t act the same way in the US - I would say that you were wrong. We will happily kill white people, black people, brown people and any other group if we want to bad enough. There are plenty of apologists for the killing of children when we burned out Koresh, and plenty of people who will defend the actions at Ruby Ridge. A different group seems to be OK will killing the people of MOVE interestingly enough.
The question to me seems to be whether or not these attacks do any good, and are worth the cost. Cost is a huge, elusive calculation with factors like deaths of innocents, creating new terrorists, risk to US servicemen, etc.
Early in this thread I pointed out that the damning study showed around a 75/25 ratio when using drones. Before people scream about how evil that is, we should know what the old ratios were with larger city assaults - just to put it all in perspective.
And there are people who are OK with raping children, segregating the races, and reading Twilight. I was speaking in the general sense of how the majority of people and hopefully the decision makers, would react.
[Quote=Algher]
The question to me seems to be whether or not these attacks do any good, and are worth the cost. Cost is a huge, elusive calculation with factors like deaths of innocents, creating new terrorists, risk to US servicemen, etc.
[/quote]
I agree, nut would add in “other available options” to the mix in determining the rightness or wrongness. I posit that here on US soil, the available options are much better and the perceived cost (US Citizens dead vs. Pakistanis who should have magically kicked out the bad guys) is much higher so drone bombings are extremely unlikely. Still, never say never.
So, level with me, how many of the bright-eyed-and-bushy-tailed Hope And Change supporters that you recruited four years ago would have signed on to the program if they knew that here, in 2012, we would be talking about how imperative it is to be in a neverending non-war with an “ally” that involves the regular killing of children, weddingoers, funeral mourners, and other civilians, all justified under “anyone who lives in that part of the world must be one-o-them terrorists, and killing terrorists is what the President is supposed to do”? Do you think you could have won the election in 2008 if you had been honest about perpetual warfare and piles of dead Muslims being Obama’s legacy?
The bombs aren’t killing Pakistani decisionmakers, they’re killing farmers, poor people, children, and other innocents who have absolutely no power, and likely no ability, to stop the terrorists from being around them. Second Stone and Bwana Bob would have you believe that these people, who apparently can’t get away from the terrorists on their own, should be able to stop Al Qaeda themselves so they don’t get bombed by Americans.
I understand that. And what is Pakistan doing about it? Not very much. If it were doing something real about this (rather than, say, frequently helping these people or overlooking what they’re doing because it wants to make trouble for India), there wouldn’t be drone strikes.
Sure - but we also have the support of the people in the US which gives us more options. We can put a cordon around a building and starve people out. After the Koresh fiasco, the next group of militia nuts were simply surrounded and over time they surrendered. We decided that we could let them sit there instead of rushing them.
People in South Central LA will call in tips to the cops rather than live next to a crack house or other such problem environment. We don’t get the same love in Pakistan or Afghanistan. If we tried to surround a location there, we should have to not only surround, but also constantly watch our backsides and worry about bombs hitting our supply vehicles. This pushes us into changing how we approach a hideout that is vastly different from the US.
None of which changes the fact that the drone strikes are killing innocent people. The fact that there are other people in the world who could stop these drone attacks does not absolve the US of its actions.
That’s why I included "other available alternatives in the equation.
I think you seriously misunderstand the problems of inner city gangs if you think that people living there are cooperative with the police.
If we used the logic of some posters in this thread, a bombing of these violent, murderous gang members that killed their innocent neighbors would be just a tough break because the other people in the neighborhood didn’t do enough to either move or stop the gang members from doing their thing. I find that idea kinda naive.
Yes, which, again, is why I add the other available alternatives to the equation. The only thing I’m adding is that IN ADDITION TO having more options here in the US, there is also a differing perception of the cost.
And why should we (or they) believe that? Saddam Hussein ordered the execution of anyone who even suggested cooperating with Al Qaeda; did him a lot of good, didn’t it?
I agree it does not change that fact. But it does limit the other options. If Pakistan could police this stuff reliably and effectively, that would almost surely work better than drone strikes. It can’t or doesn’t.
The September 11th hijackers were based in Germany for some time. Have there been any drone strikes on Germany? At least one would-be terrorist tried to get into the U.S. from Canada. Have there been any drone strikes in Canada? Have there been any drone strikes against any country with an actual government and law enforcement capability? I’m pretty sure they’ve all been in Afghanistan, and Pakistan, and Yemen. So yes, that would be an indication that countries that don’t permit or fail to stop terrorist cells don’t get hit by drones. Iraq is a separate issue for a variety of reasons.
Yep. Which does not absolve the Americans of responsibility for the deaths of innocents.
And? As I’ve already said, over and over, the lack of other options certainly enters the equation in determining the justification for killing innocents. But is it a game winner? Not by a long shot.
Maybe from your perspective it doesn’t. From mine, the responsibility is borne by the religious nuts who think it is ok to attack innocents in a foreign country, and then use their own innocents as a shield against retaliation.
Again; it’s flat out silly to argue that they should all go out and gather in spots where we can neatly kill them all. We wouldn’t do any such thing in their situation any more than they are. No one who isn’t outright suicidal would.