Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
I still don't see how 'taking out the leadership' really achieves anything, in Afghanistan the experts are agreed that its been wholly counterproductive.
If the Taliban were to assassinate the US President and half his advisers would that change America's anti-terrorism plan one jot?
It would make them madder, just as assassinating Afghan and Pakistani tribal leaders does.
Source for these "experts'" opinions? And the drone strikes aren't really in Afghanistan, now are they? They're in Pakistan and Yemen...where the higher, strategic leaders are...not the battlefield commanders.
Its been reported often enough, killing the 'relatively moderate' Taliban leaders with whom we were conducting negotiations has simply cleared the way for younger crazies who are only interested in jihad and martyrdom.
Same goes for the various Pakistani tribes. Killing them just pisses off their relatives and proves them right on the nasty west.
Applies doubly when more than half the Aghans have no clue as to why the West is even in their country to begin with.
Pakistani tribes probably have even less idea.
We don't kill "relatively moderate Taliban leaders with whom we were conducting negotiations." Unless Karzai was negotiating with them and not telling us...they would've been put on a no-strike list.
So again: Where's the source for these "experts'" opinions that you reference?
Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
FEOS wrote:
@LBJ: Your clear implication was that there was little/no debate (recall your "hegemonic power being thrown around" comment). You said there SHOULD be debate, but implied there wasn't any. Hence my counterargument.
Sorry but you are mixing your timeline up, I only mentioned anything regarding hegemony and reasons for debate after you started countering an argument I hadn't made.
Again, I said the debate is misplaced, you said there is no debate, I gave reasons as to why there should be a debate, you proceeded to defend drone strikes against a debate I hadn't made.
This:
FEOS wrote:
Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
In my opinion there is a serious debate about the legality and morality of drone strike in sovereign nations, but I don't think where the person was born is a factor at all.
when those countries are complicit, what's the debate?
is not the same thing as saying "there is no debate". And you never said "the debate is misplaced" you implied/stated it's not happening. I never said it's not happening. In fact, I said the opposite, to counter your position. It happens--all the time. And the governments of the nations involved are complicit, or it wouldn't be occurring in their territory. They may officially protest, but they continue to allow it and cooperate to make it happen, because they don't want those characters in their country, either.
Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
I have never once actually stated my views on drone strikes, but I will state them now if you would like to argue.
From one point of view I think the technology is fantastic, I understand that technically the countries have given their permission, and that the US is effectively trying to take out the threat before it threatens the US or its people (which in many ways is fair enough after the attacks/on-going insurgency). However, on the other side I think it sets a precedent which is not necessarily a good one, I also think that the countries involved are not necessarily in favour of these strikes (despite their official position) and I think that it is a tactic that can be too much shoot first and say sorry later.
I already covered this position:
FEOS wrote:
It's not like you're going to hold a fucking referendum before each operation to make sure the public OKs it. That's what the government's for.
There is no "shoot first and say sorry later." Target vetting is extremely rigorous. Yes, there are mistakes made, but they are extremely rare and are investigated to the nth detail in an effort to prevent them from occurring in the future. Normally, the reports of "weddings" being struck are complete bullshit propaganda from the other side. You'll notice the stories die off (no pun intended) pretty rapidly after initial reports of high civilian casualties. Why do you think that is? It's because normally, the investigation reveals that there were actually few/none, but the press ran with the inflammatory "high civilian body count" lead because it was sensational...but then never said, "Oh...our bad. Turns out it was really a bunch of terrorists after all." Does that happen every time? Of course not. Does it happen often enough to be a pattern? Absolutely.
