Latest U.S. drone strike in Pakistan kills 18

[Credo]

I thought this topic was about a US drone strike that killed 18? I didn't see anything about innocents. I also don't recall ever hearing that the fighting was about democracy either.

[jamhar]

Drones v. Tomahawk v. something dropped from the manned flight at altitude. Pretty clear which one is more precise and surgical.

Call it what you want, but they are effective and get the job done. They also don't place American lives in harms way.

Gutless is the appropriate description for those that drones target. Gutless is scheming or undertaking acts of terror and indiscriminate killing of women and children that have zero military value (night clubs, twin towers, marathons, schools, shopping malls, hotels, buses).

Now if US dropped a tactical nuke on a village to get a couple of military targets without any regard to extensive collateral damage, that would he gutless. Incidentally, those in the drone's cross hairs would use a tactical nuke, if they had one, on US soil against women and children WITHOUT any military target.

The USA has such an abysmal record regarding Iraq and Afghanistan ( and even the war in Vietnam is hardly anything to be proud of). How can anyone be sure the people they kill indiscriminately using drones have been correctly identified as being the guilty parties?

"abysmal" Nice. We'll take it. ask the Taliban how they like it.

How can we tell who we are hitting? just the way we knew when we used man air strikes.

You probably forgot that the discussion was man strikes vs UAV strikes.

and finally........We have a WINNER!!!

IF you're digging deep enough to bring up Vietnam, I KNOW you're desperate!

Thank you , i'm going to sleep well tonight!

No you changed the topic. The original topic was killing innocents with drone strikes.

I was responding to Midas, not you

I dont care about your "topic"

I was just answering a point about drone vs manned flight targeting.

Finally i was laughing at the poster trying to bring in a change of "subject" to the "topic"

[F430murci]

Drones v. Tomahawk v. something dropped from the manned flight at altitude. Pretty clear which one is more precise and surgical.

Call it what you want, but they are effective and get the job done. They also don't place American lives in harms way.

Gutless is the appropriate description for those that drones target. Gutless is scheming or undertaking acts of terror and indiscriminate killing of women and children that have zero military value (night clubs, twin towers, marathons, schools, shopping malls, hotels, buses).

Now if US dropped a tactical nuke on a village to get a couple of military targets without any regard to extensive collateral damage, that would he gutless. Incidentally, those in the drone's cross hairs would use a tactical nuke, if they had one, on US soil against women and children WITHOUT any military target.

So the loss of life of one American serviceman is a greater loss to the loss of many innocent civilians in Pakistan.Is that correct?

You are loosing the battle.For every innocent civilian that the drones are killing you are creating more extremists.

Diplomacy and tact will be the only solution in the long run.(the Europian Union has many faults but has lived in relative harmony for the past 60 + years).

Some of the posters gloat over their miiltary might and where has it got them, nowhere.You cannot defeat idealism with military might.

America and anglophile countries have set many good examples to the rest of the world but now their superiority complex has overidden rationality and common sense.

Yes ,9/11 was a pathetic and gutless act but to change things the West need to show an example on how to better the world and this will not come through

military might.

We all need to work together. At the end of the day we all have something in common, the want of peace and happiness.

That is chicken <deleted>. I am not advocating anything about value of lives. We are addressing drone v. other means to carry out war activities.

Any country or people would use a means of taking out military targets that poses less risk of life to their own troops or people. That is prudent and common sense, not gutless and pathetic.

IEDs placed on the side of the road that take out school girls is gutless and pathetic as it has zero safety margin built in to try and avoid civilian causalities (article just posted lacking any gutless comments or condemnation from you same guys).

US would still be targets if US did nothing. The unfortunate fact is those that we are war against seek to kill Americans no matter what we do. They just like to throw around bull <deleted> excuses for their own actions.

The truth is, these people don't even think twice about killing their own people and their own small children. They play by a completely different set of rules and are guided by a completely different set of morals some of you apparently cannot or refuse to comprehend.

[jamhar]

A bit simplistic but one must wonder which came first the chicken or the egg?

It is not like Terrorism started from one side only & started on 9/11

If one reads back a wider view will be given that many things possibly led up to 9/11

It is in fact hard to disseminate all the info available & really make an

unbiased decision, at least for me it is. Which sources does one trust?

Both sides tell a story & it is up to each to read & decide

As for the war remaining abroad It has always been that way from well before 9/11

I think that is part of the cause & not a part of any solution.

But those that become rich from it as always have no complaints. Supplying armies is big business

& business in the US is very good for a long time now

That it (war/attack ) came for a day on 9/11 to the US is a terrible thing yes. But others have lived a whole life that

was filled with nothing but days like that & not completely of their own making.

Cause & effect will continue until it is stopped.

It is deciding true cause that is the hard part. The effect is a given.

Simplistic? This is the internet, what were you expecting?

Off topic but i'll listen and engage.

I dont disagree with some of your thoughts. Terrorism existed long before 9/11

But 9/11 was the major turning point from the US perspective.

The US does profit from the sale of arms, so does Russia and may EU countries

Soon China will probably be sellers if not already

The US makes a lot of arms because we still have a large armed force,

partly to maintaining the cold war military presence in Europe and Asia

I dont know how much longer that will continue. That costs a lot to maintain.

and lots of our allies want arms but do not have the infrastructure to make their own

so they get it abroad. Some from us, some from others.

I often see competition between France, UK, US and Russia for various arms sales.

I dont know about your full chicken and the egg analogy

if you have answers I'm ready to listen

but until then, the war will continue.

Hopefully not on US soil.

[F430murci]

You never hear of drone attacks against Pakistani security people who are training, funding, supplying and providing safe havens for the Taliban & Haqqani. Why is this? Seems to me there is a great deal of bullshit baffles brains going on. Something is terribly wrong with the info being fed to mainstream media.

Many informed people have documented that Pakistani security agents select targets in Afghanistan for terrorist attacks. It is stated that the terrorists actually get paid a reward for each NATO personnel killed; all funded by Pakistan & groups in the Gulf countries. As I've said do some basic research by reading "Sun in the Sky" and "War against the Taliban" that quote and name very high level sources, yet US & NATO appear to be powerless to address the root cause.

I am okay with focus on targeting those that carry out terrorist attacks by placing the IEDs where they can and do blow up innocent children. interesting how you guys never seem to condemn these targets in topics about IEDs and terrorist bombing taking out innocent children and citizens of those countries, but condemn US in threads like these.

Much easier to target the ones carrying out the attack than those behind the scenes in passive roles, unless of course you think US should just blow everyone up with larger bombs to be sure to get everyone responsible for every aspect of the terrorist plot.

You are basically saying US is wrong to kill terrorist bombers because they don't kill all the others involved in process not matter how large or small their role. Twisted logic there.

[dave_boo]

Drones v. Tomahawk v. something dropped from the manned flight at altitude. Pretty clear which one is more precise and surgical.

Call it what you want, but they are effective and get the job done. They also don't place American lives in harms way.

Gutless is the appropriate description for those that drones target. Gutless is scheming or undertaking acts of terror and indiscriminate killing of women and children that have zero military value (night clubs, twin towers, marathons, schools, shopping malls, hotels, buses).

Now if US dropped a tactical nuke on a village to get a couple of military targets without any regard to extensive collateral damage, that would he gutless. Incidentally, those in the drone's cross hairs would use a tactical nuke, if they had one, on US soil against women and children WITHOUT any military target.

So the loss of life of one American serviceman is a greater loss to the loss of many innocent civilians in Pakistan.Is that correct?

You are loosing the battle.For every innocent civilian that the drones are killing you are creating more extremists.

Diplomacy and tact will be the only solution in the long run.(the Europian Union has many faults but has lived in relative harmony for the past 60 + years).

Some of the posters gloat over their miiltary might and where has it got them, nowhere.You cannot defeat idealism with military might.

America and anglophile countries have set many good examples to the rest of the world but now their superiority complex has overidden rationality and common sense.

Yes ,9/11 was a pathetic and gutless act but to change things the West need to show an example on how to better the world and this will not come through

military might.

We all need to work together. At the end of the day we all have something in common, the want of peace and happiness.

I will probably be flamed for this but yes; the loss of any one person who believes in and practices human freedom and dignity, no matter their country of origin, is a greater loss to all of mankind than enablers of a society that is diametrically opposed to world peace, differing viewpoints and universal rights. The rubbish that all cultures are equal is a hold over from colonial guilt and an acute form of racism. Much as Europeans, to include Americans, are a bit embarrassed by actions taken by thwir ancestors in past years, cultures outside the euro-sphere should also be ashamed in this day and age to be doing such things. To carry the "white man's burden" by rationalising backwards ways due to that pwrson's origin is the same as saying they're less of a human and do not have to behave civilly.

Unfortunately the West is loosing the battle. But not for the reasons many would think. What isn't being discussed here is the belief system of the other side. The fight does not have similarities with Vietnam. After the French and Americans were driven out the Viet Cong did not commit gruesome acts of terror around the world. They engaged in asymmetric warfare against invaders in their country. They did not claim to be on a divine mandate from their god to convert the world. They were not inoculated with a might makes right creed. They were not promised superiority over everyone else who would then become more or less a slave class.

Pew Research Polls are quite enlightening. I recommend that all peruse them to actually get a pulse on what that part of the world thinks of the West.

The carrot stick approach has been tried. England's in Pakistan. France's in North Africa. Philippines' in their southern islands. Etc. Remind all of us how well that has worked.

On the other hand, the times when the jihadis were least active is exactly when others are most belligerent. One would have to be very disingenuous to not be able to draw the inference between the perceived strength of their sworn adversaries and their levels of attack on others and enforcement of a barbaric code on those within their sphere.

I also take offense with the " You cannot defeat idealism with military might." It worked quite well with Japan didn't it? The had a cult of emperor that allowed them to rape their way across Asia and permit suicide attacks....which coincidentally is exactly what we're discussing now. Two nukes, a threat of invasion by Russia was enough to make them capitulate. An abolishment of emperor worship was instrumental in helping them become the powerhouse they are today. Just too bad we have Chamberlains instead of Churchills and MacArthurs today.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited July 5, 2013 by dave_boo

[F430murci]

Drones v. Tomahawk v. something dropped from the manned flight at altitude. Pretty clear which one is more precise and surgical.

Call it what you want, but they are effective and get the job done. They also don't place American lives in harms way.

Gutless is the appropriate description for those that drones target. Gutless is scheming or undertaking acts of terror and indiscriminate killing of women and children that have zero military value (night clubs, twin towers, marathons, schools, shopping malls, hotels, buses).

Now if US dropped a tactical nuke on a village to get a couple of military targets without any regard to extensive collateral damage, that would he gutless. Incidentally, those in the drone's cross hairs would use a tactical nuke, if they had one, on US soil against women and children WITHOUT any military target.

So the loss of life of one American serviceman is a greater loss to the loss of many innocent civilians in Pakistan.Is that correct?

You are loosing the battle.For every innocent civilian that the drones are killing you are creating more extremists.

Diplomacy and tact will be the only solution in the long run.(the Europian Union has many faults but has lived in relative harmony for the past 60 + years).

Some of the posters gloat over their miiltary might and where has it got them, nowhere.You cannot defeat idealism with military might.

America and anglophile countries have set many good examples to the rest of the world but now their superiority complex has overidden rationality and common sense.

Yes ,9/11 was a pathetic and gutless act but to change things the West need to show an example on how to better the world and this will not come through

military might.

We all need to work together. At the end of the day we all have something in common, the want of peace and happiness.

I will probably be flamed for this but yes; the loss of any one person who believes in and practices human freedom and dignity, no matter their country of origin, is a greater loss to all of mankind than enablers of a society that is diametrically opposed to world peace, differing viewpoints and universal rights. The rubbish that all cultures are equal is a hold over from colonial guilt and an acute form of racism. Much as Europeans, to include Americans, are a bit embarrassed by actions taken by thwir ancestors in past years, cultures outside the euro-sphere should also be ashamed in this day and age to be doing such things. To carry the "white man's burden" by rationalising backwards ways due to that pwrson's origin is the same as saying they're less of a human and do not have to behave civilly.

Unfortunately the West is loosing the battle. But not for the reasons many would think. What isn't being discussed here is the belief system of the other side. The fight does not have similarities with Vietnam. After the French and Americans were driven out the Viet Cong did not commit gruesome acts of terror around the world. They engaged in asymmetric warfare against invaders in their country. They did not claim to be on a divine mandate from their god to convert the world. They were not inoculated with a might makes right creed. They were not promised superiority over everyone else who would then become more or less a slave class.

Pew Research Polls are quite enlightening. I recommend that all peruse them to actually get a pulse on what that part of the world thinks of the West.

The carrot stick approach has been tried. England's in Pakistan. France's in North Africa. Philippines' in their southern islands. Etc. Remind all of us how well that has worked.

On the other hand, the times when the jihadis were least active is exactly when others are most belligerent. One would have to be very disingenuous to not be able to draw the inference between the perceived strength of their sworn adversaries and their levels of attack on others and enforcement of a barbaric code on those within their sphere.

I also take offense with the " You cannot defeat idealism with military might." It worked quite well with Japan didn't it? The had a cult of emperor that allowed them to rape their way across Asia and permit suicide attacks....which coincidentally is exactly what we're discussing now. Two nukes, a threat of invasion by Russia was enough to make them capitulate. An abolishment of emperor worship was instrumental in helping them become the powerhouse they are today. Just too bad we have Chamberlains instead of Churchills and MacArthurs today.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Sometimes the truth hurts, especially when the truth doesn't sound so good. Japan is a good example. Two atomic bombs on Japan cities and what did they do. They didn't play victim and start a new campaign of genocide. They picked themselves up, dusted themselves off and built a solid country. Same with Germany, France and Italy and others targeted and suppressed during WWII.

[simple1]

You never hear of drone attacks against Pakistani security people who are training, funding, supplying and providing safe havens for the Taliban & Haqqani. Why is this? Seems to me there is a great deal of bullshit baffles brains going on. Something is terribly wrong with the info being fed to mainstream media.

Many informed people have documented that Pakistani security agents select targets in Afghanistan for terrorist attacks. It is stated that the terrorists actually get paid a reward for each NATO personnel killed; all funded by Pakistan & groups in the Gulf countries. As I've said do some basic research by reading "Sun in the Sky" and "War against the Taliban" that quote and name very high level sources, yet US & NATO appear to be powerless to address the root cause.

I am okay with focus on targeting those that carry out terrorist attacks by placing the IEDs where they can and do blow up innocent children. interesting how you guys never seem to condemn these targets in topics about IEDs and terrorist bombing taking out innocent children and citizens of those countries, but condemn US in threads like these.

Much easier to target the ones carrying out the attack than those behind the scenes in passive roles, unless of course you think US should just blow everyone up with larger bombs to be sure to get everyone responsible for every aspect of the terrorist plot.

You are basically saying US is wrong to kill terrorist bombers because they don't kill all the others involved in process not matter how large or small their role. Twisted logic there.

Your usual BS comment, did not say or infer it's wrong to target known terrorists, perfectly valid to do so. But there is a bigger picture that, at least in the public domain, it not being addressed

[Credo]

This topic seems to show how nice these people are:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/651564-roadside-bomb-kills-4-girls-in-southwestern-afghanistan/#entry6580312

[mania]

The US makes a lot of arms because we still have a large armed force,

partly to maintaining the cold war military presence in Europe and Asia

I dont know how much longer that will continue. That costs a lot to maintain.

and lots of our allies want arms but do not have the infrastructure to make their own

so they get it abroad. Some from us, some from others.

I often see competition between France, UK, US and Russia for various arms sales.

I dont know about your full chicken and the egg analogy

if you have answers I'm ready to listen

but until then, the war will continue.

Hopefully not on US soil.

No answers here sorry.

Although I have hopes

This arms purchase & funding of unfunded/undeclared wars is very costly &

has helped to a large degree get the US into a lot of debt.

Would be nice to see that end & who knows maybe even some of it spent on

more constructive things.

Otherwise I fear we are looking at a black hole not unlike the chicken & the egg analogy

that has no beginning nor end.

Think most agree we make new terrorist daily & we breed new hate.

It is understandable the same as we the US felt after being bombed by Japan

It is human nature regardless of who may have been seemingly right or justified depending on

their perspective of which came first the chicken or the egg.

I am all for defense & if we feel threatened we can beef that up all we want at a fraction of the cost

both in dollars & lives. Here at Home. I am not for this preemptive thinking as it is just going to cause more effect.

Call it a day come home, defend America as we know we can. Heck these groups have no air force, no navy etc.

So defense should not be as hard as this preemptive game. Yeah we got stung once. Learn from it & move along

Otherwise we are destined to that old Hatfield & McCoy hillbilly fight we read about as kids.

It will not end & we will bankrupt our nation in the process while creating ever more ill will

Just my 2cents

Edited July 5, 2013 by mania

[jamhar]

I dont disagree mania

And i have hopes also

I hope Egypt finds it way to a stable govenment

they could be a beacon for that area.

Turkey already is, even with its recent protests

sorta reminds me of the 60's in the US.

Its good to see citizens feeling empowered and taking responsibility.

But in the meantime, the fight continues.

I'm worried about the defense budget also

$700B?!! Thats way too much, but it is what it is

until we can be sure the safety of the US is assured.

But if there's an alternative,

I, along with my wallet, am all ears!

[mania]

But in the meantime, the fight continues.

I'm worried about the defense budget also

$700B?!! Thats way too much, but it is what it is

until we can be sure the safety of the US is assured.

But if there's an alternative,

I, along with my wallet, am all ears!

Therein lies the rub

This war on terror like the war on drugs is circular

& will never end.

You cannot pass a train on the same set of tracks.

We need to get off the track.

Financially yes 700B on the record per year & god knows how much off the records

That in itself is a double edged problem.

On the one hand it has been over a decade & is helping bankrupts us

We literally cannot afford it so we print money which devalues all the other dollars

already in existence. It cannot go on forever all great empires ended for basically the

same reason.

BUT.....What is worse is that 700B per year is basically become to a large extent a part

our economy. So what will happen when it stops?

Like I said I have a wealth of no idea but feel this will not end well.

Still a good idea when digging a country into a hole is to stop digging asap.

Especially in this case that is making us no safer at all really & costing us dollars,lives & liberties.

Edited July 5, 2013 by mania

[zydeco]

I despair that my country, without a declaration of war, continues to attack innocent bystanders and civilians. As a people, we Americans have become callous and indifferent to the suffering we cause others. It didn't used to be this way. This is how a country loses its soul.

[jamhar]

I think i just lost my dinner

[antfish]

I despair that my country, without a declaration of war, continues to attack innocent bystanders and civilians. As a people, we Americans have become callous and indifferent to the suffering we cause others. It didn't used to be this way. This is how a country loses its soul.

good to hear that there Americans who are against the killing of innocent civilians and speak out against it. Peace be with you, my brother.

[NeverSure]

I despair that my country, without a declaration of war, continues to attack innocent bystanders and civilians. As a people, we Americans have become callous and indifferent to the suffering we cause others. It didn't used to be this way. This is how a country loses its soul.

I despair that my country, without a declaration of war, continues to attack innocent bystanders and civilians. As a people, we Americans have become callous and indifferent to the suffering we cause others. It didn't used to be this way. This is how a country loses its soul.

good to hear that there Americans who are against the killing of innocent civilians and speak out against it. Peace be with you, my brother.

The US congress absolutely declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan, so get your facts straight.

The enemy floats back and forth between the lawless region of Pakistan and Afghanistan. They think they are safe by hiding in that area of Pakistan. The US hunts them down in there as part of fighting the war.

So many people seem to forget how many terrorist attacks there have been all over the world including against the Aussie Embassy and the London train station. So many seem to forget that these terrorists have a belief and a goal that all "infidels" must die.

If we just fold up, they will take over. I give the UK 20 years. Through immigration and out-breeding by 6:1, in 20 years the UK will be under Sharia Law and lost for all time. But, they can take pride in being PC!!

[F430murci]

I despair that my country, without a declaration of war, continues to attack innocent bystanders and civilians. As a people, we Americans have become callous and indifferent to the suffering we cause others. It didn't used to be this way. This is how a country loses its soul.

Unfortunately, this is what is takes for a country to protect its people from a world that lost its soul.

[antfish]

I despair that my country, without a declaration of war, continues to attack innocent bystanders and civilians. As a people, we Americans have become callous and indifferent to the suffering we cause others. It didn't used to be this way. This is how a country loses its soul.

good to hear that there Americans who are against the killing of innocent civilians and speak out against it. Peace be with you, my brother.

The US congress absolutely declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan, so get your facts straight.

The enemy floats back and forth between the lawless region of Pakistan and Afghanistan. They think they are safe by hiding in that area of Pakistan. The US hunts them down in there as part of fighting the war.

So many people seem to forget how many terrorist attacks there have been all over the world including against the Aussie Embassy and the London train station. So many seem to forget that these terrorists have a belief and a goal that all "infidels" must die.

If we just fold up, they will take over. I give the UK 20 years. Through immigration and out-breeding by 6:1, in 20 years the UK will be under Sharia Law and lost for all time. But, they can take pride in being PC!!

Now i see where you come from ...

[antfish]

related

There are more than 80 names at the end of a human rights report published online this week. Each one is said to belong to a civilian killed or maimed as a result of U.S. missile strikes in Yemen since 2009. They were mothers, fathers, children and grandparents – and they stand in contrast to claims that the United States does not launch missiles into Yemen unless there is a "near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured," as President Obama told the nation in May


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/new-report-documents-the-human-cost-of-u-s-drone-strikes-in-yemen-20130703

[NeverSure]

related

There are more than 80 names at the end of a human rights report published online this week. Each one is said to belong to a civilian killed or maimed as a result of U.S. missile strikes in Yemen since 2009. They were mothers, fathers, children and grandparents – and they stand in contrast to claims that the United States does not launch missiles into Yemen unless there is a "near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured," as President Obama told the nation in May

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/new-report-documents-the-human-cost-of-u-s-drone-strikes-in-yemen-20130703

When there is a war, people die. Think of the indiscriminate bombing of Germany and Japan in WWII. That's what it took to win. But back in those days there weren't the brainwashed people on the winning side who didn't understand that you can hold the people responsible for the acts of their leaders, and make them want to get rid of their leaders. If you're going to fight, you should fight to win.

Apparently you think we should risk putting boots on the ground and having troops be killed while they try to figure out who is a terrorist.

Your sterilized version of a war is astounding.

[Nowhereman60]

Good, 18 less terrorist to worry about. Good job USA.

[antfish]

related

There are more than 80 names at the end of a human rights report published online this week. Each one is said to belong to a civilian killed or maimed as a result of U.S. missile strikes in Yemen since 2009. They were mothers, fathers, children and grandparents – and they stand in contrast to claims that the United States does not launch missiles into Yemen unless there is a "near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured," as President Obama told the nation in May

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/new-report-documents-the-human-cost-of-u-s-drone-strikes-in-yemen-20130703

When there is a war, people die. Think of the indiscriminate bombing of Germany and Japan in WWII. That's what it took to win. But back in those days there weren't the brainwashed people on the winning side who didn't understand that you can hold the people responsible for the acts of their leaders, and make them want to get rid of their leaders. If you're going to fight, you should fight to win.

Apparently you think we should risk putting boots on the ground and having troops be killed while they try to figure out who is a terrorist.

Your sterilized version of a war is astounding.

I think you should not go to war at all.

[NeverSure]

related

There are more than 80 names at the end of a human rights report published online this week. Each one is said to belong to a civilian killed or maimed as a result of U.S. missile strikes in Yemen since 2009. They were mothers, fathers, children and grandparents – and they stand in contrast to claims that the United States does not launch missiles into Yemen unless there is a "near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured," as President Obama told the nation in May

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/new-report-documents-the-human-cost-of-u-s-drone-strikes-in-yemen-20130703

When there is a war, people die. Think of the indiscriminate bombing of Germany and Japan in WWII. That's what it took to win. But back in those days there weren't the brainwashed people on the winning side who didn't understand that you can hold the people responsible for the acts of their leaders, and make them want to get rid of their leaders. If you're going to fight, you should fight to win.

Apparently you think we should risk putting boots on the ground and having troops be killed while they try to figure out who is a terrorist.

Your sterilized version of a war is astounding.

I think you should not go to war at all.

I see. You think we should just let the terrorists run all over us? You aren't in favor of chasing down rabid dogs who are planning to destroy you?

If I knew how, I would kill every Islamic terrorist on the planet. Lacking that, I'll settle for getting 18 at a time with no loss of allied lives.

I respect your right to disagree. But I do disagree.

[jamhar]

I think you should not go to war at all.

I think there shouldn't be any hunger or famine

no poverty or inequality.....

.......

Now what?

[Scott]

I think you should all be able to recognize a troll when you see one and then not feed it.

Stay on the topic, which is about the latest US drone strike in Pakistan.

[simple1]

related

There are more than 80 names at the end of a human rights report published online this week. Each one is said to belong to a civilian killed or maimed as a result of U.S. missile strikes in Yemen since 2009. They were mothers, fathers, children and grandparents – and they stand in contrast to claims that the United States does not launch missiles into Yemen unless there is a "near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured," as President Obama told the nation in May

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/new-report-documents-the-human-cost-of-u-s-drone-strikes-in-yemen-20130703

When there is a war, people die. Think of the indiscriminate bombing of Germany and Japan in WWII. That's what it took to win. But back in those days there weren't the brainwashed people on the winning side who didn't understand that you can hold the people responsible for the acts of their leaders, and make them want to get rid of their leaders. If you're going to fight, you should fight to win.

Apparently you think we should risk putting boots on the ground and having troops be killed while they try to figure out who is a terrorist.

Your sterilized version of a war is astounding.

Your argument is significantly flawed - area bombing or as some people call it, terror bombings, was generally ineffective: German and Japanese morale did not break; war production did not diminish; and the diversion of resources from the front was limited. On the other hand, as an example, the USAAF's precision bombing worked better, choking off the Wehrmacht's oil supplies, a decisive factor in its defeat. There have been many debates and analysis, the following sums it up.

http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=553

[mania]

The US congress absolutely declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan, so get your facts straight.

You are confusing an approval by Congress for military engagement with a Declaration of War.

No Declaration of War was ever approved on either of the countries you mentioned.

The last time the US declared war on a country was during WWII when it declared war against

Japan,Germany,Italy,Bulgaria,Hungary,Romania

[antfish]

related

There are more than 80 names at the end of a human rights report published online this week. Each one is said to belong to a civilian killed or maimed as a result of U.S. missile strikes in Yemen since 2009. They were mothers, fathers, children and grandparents – and they stand in contrast to claims that the United States does not launch missiles into Yemen unless there is a "near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured," as President Obama told the nation in May

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/new-report-documents-the-human-cost-of-u-s-drone-strikes-in-yemen-20130703

When there is a war, people die. Think of the indiscriminate bombing of Germany and Japan in WWII. That's what it took to win. But back in those days there weren't the brainwashed people on the winning side who didn't understand that you can hold the people responsible for the acts of their leaders, and make them want to get rid of their leaders. If you're going to fight, you should fight to win.

Apparently you think we should risk putting boots on the ground and having troops be killed while they try to figure out who is a terrorist.

Your sterilized version of a war is astounding.

Your argument is significantly flawed - area bombing or as some people call it, terror bombings, was generally ineffective: German and Japanese morale did not break; war production did not diminish; and the diversion of resources from the front was limited. On the other hand, as an example, the USAAF's precision bombing worked better, choking off the Wehrmacht's oil supplies, a decisive factor in its defeat. There have been many debates and analysis, the following sums it up.

http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=553

you are right about the ineffectiveness of area bombing. but it maybe depends also what are your goals.

he is afraid of getting "out-breeded". in that "logic" terror bombings might make sense.

If we just fold up, they will take over. I give the UK 20 years. Through immigration and out-breeding by 6:1, in 20 years the UK will be under Sharia Law and lost for all time. But, they can take pride in being PC!!

[Pakboong]

I despair that my country, without a declaration of war, continues to attack innocent bystanders and civilians. As a people, we Americans have become callous and indifferent to the suffering we cause others. It didn't used to be this way. This is how a country loses its soul.

Well said. We are all terrorists or potential terrorist should the situation we find ourself in warrant such an action. Examples would be the American Revolution, Mexican War, etc... Those characters defending the Alamo were in fact terrorists. We will use terrorist tactics should we feel the need and to use the term as if it only applies to those we have chosen to demonize this year or this decade seems a bit childish to me and can't help but wonder how the intelligent keep falling for it.

We have no real claim to "good guy" status. We tried to exterminate the American Indian. We start countless wars for any reason that is convenient at the time.

The major problem with the drone war is the hypocrisy of using spies to operate the drones. In the many itterations of the Geneva Convention that we seem to cherish, we have agreed to fight wars with only uniformed combatants and we expect other sovereign nations to do the same. This will be okay as long as we have the biggest stick. The time is fast approaching that we will not have the biggest stick. This particular fight is spies against terrorists. I would argue that the spy is less legal in this particular example so our argument is not just weak, it is silly.

I am quite glad that I carry the passport of the country with the biggest stick but that could change at any time.Our best hope is to live up to our agreements like the men we would like oursleves to be. Once we cross the line, we become as bad or worse than those we call terrorists.

Edited July 6, 2013 by Pakboong

[Exsexyman]

The US congress absolutely declared war against Iraq and Afghanistan, so get your facts straight.

You are confusing an approval by Congress for military engagement with a Declaration of War.

No Declaration of War was ever approved on either of the countries you mentioned.

The last time the US declared war on a country was during WWII when it declared war against

Japan,Germany,Italy,Bulgaria,Hungary,Romania

Absolutely correct. There is a good reason why the US didn't declare war on Iraq and Afghanistan. When a country officially declares war, they are obliged to abide by the Geneva Convention. By not officially declaring war they can do as they like, as events have shown.