Drones

haven’t read it all

I agree with what I have read about drones being just another long range weapon easy to use.

I also agree/think that the question is; where is the line between war and murder.

However, I got another idea for this discussion; effectiveness. Effectiveness in the sense of winning the peace.

Every weapon that makes fighting a war cheaper (human and monetary cost) makes it easier to use the weapons for the people in the field. This will probably lead to many cases where a dronestrike is used when an arrest is possible but have higher immediate cost. This way of fighting terrorism will make it difficult winning the peace. After all, I think everyone agree that the war in afghanistan at this point is about winning the peace.

What comes next is not meant to be against the american millitary, more against the mentality of shooting first.

I have friends that have been in afghanistan. They have told me that the americans are very good at solving any problem that can be solved with a gun, and are too willing to use that solution over other possible solutions. For my firends, this means that whenever they are moving into an area after the americans, their main job will often be damagecontroll. They will have to give money to the local population as compensation for damage, give first aid etc.

I think one possible reason drones should not be used is that they can make it easier to do a strike rather than an arrest, when it is possible. Every strike where an arrest is possible makes it harder to win the peace.

It would be hard to explain to American families back home that their spouses died in an arrest attempt when a drone strike could have been used.

Do we arrest people in other countries?  Aren’t we at war?  Did we arrest Germans in Germany during WWII?

you do arrest people in afghanistan…… you did arrest people in iraq…

these are wars of occupation, not a war where there are frontlines. Find one nation US is officially at war with and pursuing that war. (except for North Korea).

Wars of occupation is won by winning over the people (or genocide, like the indians), even the germans arrested people in the occupied zones in ww2.

arresting will probably reduce the cost of american lives in the long run.

if usa is capable of sending drones there, usa is probably capable of sending some boots there to make an arrest.

Point  is; lets say us would have chosen to arrest a person instead of using a 400K$ cruise missile. If us would use a drone strike instead of making an arrest, then the drones are hurting more than they are helping.

Well, I’m not there, nor have I been to Afghanistan, so I cannot comment other than conjecture.

However, I’m not sure sending in a couple dozen soldiers into a neighborhood to arrest a suspected or known terrorist would work out particularly well.  There would likely be a firefight and dead Americans as well as dead terrorists/civilians.  Besides, I believe it would probably have to be up to local law enforcement, which could be infiltrated by terrorists themselves.

Besides, how much of the ‘civilian’ deaths are propaganda?  Do we really know if those civilians are not terrorists?  Sure, dead children are a travesty, but the terrorists are hiding behind them putting them in harms way.  What to do?  Damned if you do damned if you don’t.

I don’t think this is an occupation in the traditional sense.  The US is actively trying to prop up a local government (that doesn’t like us very much either… look at Karzai’s comments), build infrastructure and such for the eventual withdrawal of American troops (end of 2014 if I’m not mistaken).  It worked fairly well in Germany and Japan following WWII- the American occupiers rebuilt those countries into powerhouses today.  The Germans during WWII would never have withdrawn from conquered lands.

alot of what you are saying are side comments not really relevant to the point, so I will not address them

one thing I would like to say first is, most of the people fighting against nato in afghanistan are taliban fighters, not terrorists, there is a MAJOR difference. Taliban is an army that controlls certain areas of the landscape and to use drones to fight an army is within what I consider completely legitimate, however the area both have military and civilian leaders, and if using drones to kill the civilian leaders is legitimate, then it is legitimate for taliban to use bombs to kill public servants in usa (which it is not).

I am not arguing for sending in solders in every case, I am arguing that since drones are so cheap, they will be sent when we would have sent infantry instead if we didn’t have them. Thus killing instead of arresting in SOME cases. If the military situation would dictate that it was better to use an expensive missile than sending troops, I am all for sending drones in that situation.

Besides, how much of the ‘civilian’ deaths are propaganda?  Do we really know if those civilians are not terrorists?  Sure, dead children are a travesty, but the terrorists are hiding behind them putting them in harms way.  What to do?  Damned if you do damned if you don’t.

let me turn thisone upside down;
Besides how many of the terrorist deaths do we really know are terrorists? Answer is; we don’t, and everyone KNOWS we don’t. Unless there have been a trail we cannot be sure, and we help the terrorist recruit.

I am not sure what you mean with an “occupation in the traditional sense”,

(Sarcasm)

I seem to vaguely recall a group of people who had a “final solution” for all these kinds of problems.

Who were those guys again?

(/Sarcasm)

@Kreuzfeld:

alot of what you are saying are side comments not really relevant to the point, so I will not address them

one thing I would like to say first is, most of the people fighting against nato in afghanistan are taliban fighters, not terrorists, there is a MAJOR difference. Taliban is an army that controlls certain areas of the landscape and to use drones to fight an army is within what I consider completely legitimate, however the area both have military and civilian leaders, and if using drones to kill the civilian leaders is legitimate, then it is legitimate for taliban to use bombs to kill public servants in usa (which it is not).

I am not arguing for sending in solders in every case, I am arguing that since drones are so cheap, they will be sent when we would have sent infantry instead if we didn’t have them. Thus killing instead of arresting in SOME cases. If the military situation would dictate that it was better to use an expensive missile than sending troops, I am all for sending drones in that situation.

Besides, how much of the ‘civilian’ deaths are propaganda?  Do we really know if those civilians are not terrorists?  Sure, dead children are a travesty, but the terrorists are hiding behind them putting them in harms way.  What to do?  Damned if you do damned if you don’t.

let me turn thisone upside down;
Besides how many of the terrorist deaths do we really know are terrorists? Answer is; we don’t, and everyone KNOWS we don’t. Unless there have been a trail we cannot be sure, and we help the terrorist recruit.

I am not sure what you mean with an “occupation in the traditional sense”,

I don’t think anything I said was a side comment, as all of it was relevant to my point.  If you want to ignore part of my post than I suppose its your prerogative.

I tend to lump terrorists and the Taliban into the same group, as they have similar tactics.  Additionally it seems that they welcome terrorists to their cause.  However, you are right - technically the Taliban is an army.  If they are enemy combatants, then it makes even more sense to use drones rather than ‘arresting’ them.

I can’t say that there are ‘civilian’ leaders of the Taliban, not sure anyone can but the Taliban themselves.  To the outsider, the Taliban appears to be guerrilla-style army group with no civilians, but I suppose the Taliban make no distinction between civilian and military.

I also cannot say how often the US and Afghan forces conduct arrests compared to drone strikes.  We tend to hear about the drone strikes and not the arrests.  Perhaps they are doing precisely what you are saying?  Arresting when they can and using drones when its too dangerous?

You are right, we don’t know 100% if the terrorists/Taliban we kill in drone strikes are guilty.  I have to assume that the military errs on the side of caution.  I don’t think the enemy feels the same way about us.  They still have suicide bombers in markets and fire RPGs indiscriminately.

Occupation in the traditional sense- I meant an occupation with the goal of annexation, exploitation, and/or extermination.  Like the Roman occupation of Gaul, the German occupation of Poland, and the Soviet occupation of eastern Europe.  Not exactly what we are doing now- with the stated purpose of trying to liberate Afghanis from the Taliban and build up infrastructure so it can be a positive player in the world…  And then leave.  The Taliban did harbor terrorist training camps- the primary reason we went there in the first place.

Let´s play pretend for a second.
Let’s say Germany is about to have a few Drones, Euro Hawks with a permitted license to fly over Europe and a fixed NON - Collision program on board 8-). No Big deal right?
Let’s say they can be easily armed and equipped with every single modern weapon. No Problem right?
Let’s say Russia has a few and playing arround in other countries, Is that still ok?

My point is ,would you still consider it legal or permitted what Drones can do if somebody else is in posession of a few drones and not America? And would you still argue the same way because you think it is right to use them as an extended executioner without a trial?

@aequitas:

Let�s play pretend for a second.
Let’s say Germany is about to have a few Drones, Euro Hawks with a permitted license to fly over Europe and a fixed NON - Collision program on board 8-). No Big deal right?
Let’s say they can be easily armed and equipped with every single modern weapon. No Problem right?
Let’s say Russia has a few and playing arround in other countries, Is that still ok?

My point is ,would you still consider it legal or permitted what Drones can do if somebody else is in posession of a few drones and not America? And would you still argue the same way because you think it is right to use them as an extended executioner without a trial?

Well, I am fairly certain that plenty of countries have drones, and they are military weapons, so they would not be permitted in another countries’ airspace without authorization.  I don’t see drones as any different than any other weapon delivery system.  We don’t permit Russian bombers over NATO airspace and they don’t permit NATO bombers over Russian airspace.  Same for drones.

If they (The Taliban) didn’t want to fight Americans, why harbor terrorist training camps?  Now they are mad at the consequences of 9/11 and other terrorist bombings?  What did they think the Western world would do?  Back off?

We are at war in Afghanistan - against the Taliban and terrorist groups.  Why would we not use any and all available assets to protect the lives of Americans?

Last I checked, you typically don’t have a trial for enemy combatants… you attack and kill them if possible.  Do you not consider Taliban military leaders and terrorist leaders as enemy combatants?

Now, if you are talking about suspected enemy combatants in countries other than Afghanistan, then perhaps you have a point.  But if there is any proof, then drones are a better than using tomahawks fired from offshore ships/submarines or B-52s carpet bombing the place.

@BJCard:

Well, I am fairly certain that plenty of countries have drones, and they are military weapons, so they would not be permitted in another countries’ airspace without authorization.  I don’t see drones as any different than any other weapon delivery system.  We don’t permit Russian bombers over NATO airspace and they don’t permit NATO bombers over Russian airspace.  Same for drones. Â

If they (The Taliban) didn’t want to fight Americans, why harbor terrorist training camps?  Now they are mad at the consequences of 9/11 and other terrorist bombings?  What did they think the Western world would do?  Back off? Â

We are at war in Afghanistan - against the Taliban and terrorist groups.  Why would we not use any and all available assets to protect the lives of Americans? Â

Last I checked, you typically don’t have a trial for enemy combatants… you attack and kill them if possible.  Do you not consider Taliban military leaders and terrorist leaders as enemy combatants? Â

Now, if you are talking about suspected enemy combatants in countries other than Afghanistan, then perhaps you have a point.  But if there is any proof, then drones are a better than using tomahawks fired from offshore ships/submarines or B-52s carpet bombing the place.

Cars kill 10x more people in America every year than the Taliban ever has, even at the 9/11 high mark.

Why aren’t we bombing them!

Infact, I bet Americans kill more Americans than the Taliban every year.

looks up some stats

Hmm, 17,000 murders in America last year. Not saying they are all citizens, but even if it’s half…

Garg, that is a whole other topic, unrelated to drones.

Of course the murder rate is high, but it has been dropping since its high in the early 90’s.

15,935 die in Canada and they have far less population than US…

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_a_year_from_a_car_accident_in_Canada

A car is a weapon. :-D

@Imperious:

15,935 die in Canada and they have far less population than US…

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_people_die_a_year_from_a_car_accident_in_Canada

A car is a weapon. :-D

LOL! The taliban must be making cars!

They buy them to use as bombs…see still a weapon :mrgreen:

here is the Taliban practicing on how to race cars for death…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTD38ZX9824

Stupidity is a weapon…

@Jermofoot:

Stupidity is a weapon…

That’s called democracy.

@Gargantua:

@Jermofoot:

Stupidity is a weapon…

That’s called democracy.

Its good that we (the US) are in a constitutional republic then.

@BJCard:

@Gargantua:

@Jermofoot:

Stupidity is a weapon…

That’s called democracy.

Its good that we (the US) are in a constitutional republic then.

then why are you trying to spread democracy, when you don’t even like it yourselves??

Well, I never said I was trying to spread democracy.  I can’t help it that politicians use the word ‘democracy’ for any form of government that has some sort of meaningful voting.

Hard to say if Democracy would be a good thing.  Even less would get done around here if all 300 million+ Americans had to vote on everything.