Forums | MacLife

"The onus is really on the United States government to reveal more about the ways in which it makes sure that arbitrary extrajudicial executions aren't in fact being carried out through the use of these weapons," he added.

So conventional warfare would be better? Bomb the whole countryside and hope you take out a few insurgents?

I didn't realize it was a violation of international law to shoot bad guys during an armed conflict.

He makes a fair critique regarding civilian casualties. Also, considering the level of ineptitude in domestic investigations -- innocent people being sent to death row -- I wouldn't be surprised if we've used drones to mistakenly kill the wrong people. A remote control executioner is generally a really bad idea.

I wouldn't trust the people whose judgement led to incarceration at Guantanamo and elswhere to make sound decisions on who's a terrorist threat and who isn't. Especially when there's so little actual contact with them, and when there is, it comes from afar.

jerwin wrote:

radarman wrote:

When this clown comes up with a better way to deal with these dirtbags, he should reveal it. I'm sure we would all like to reduce the number of UAV attacks for a variety of reasons. In the meantime, this is about the only method for attacking insurgents in remote locations.

IOW - come up with a better solution, or sit down and STFU.

Just what the smurf is your problem with clowns?

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/more_accurate.png

I don't like clowns. What's wrong with that?

radarman wrote:

Ribtorus wrote:

People should never "shut up" about such things.

That's a very ugly sentiment with far reaching implications and a long history.

The UN really isn't doing squat here. They are the ultimate arm chair quarterbacks. The US and a few allies are doing all the heavy lifting, and this clown is pretty much trying to take away the one effective tool the troops have for going after insurgent leaders directly.

However, you are correct. We shouldn't tell him to STFU. We should let him fully explain his position, and only then, explain to him why what he is saying is absolutely retarded.

If by "heaving lifting" you mean "killing hundreds of civilians" then sure.

There are moral questions about the UAV usage in the AfPak region.  Are you aware that a majority of the almost-daily UAV strikes by CIA-controlled drones in Pakistan have targets selected by Pakistanis ?  There's no transparency and no accountability for these strikes.

How many orphans and widows with grudges are the strikes making ?

The region that these strikes are occurring in is almost a no-mans land.

no man's land?

JakeTheTall wrote:

radarman wrote:

The region that these strikes are occurring in is almost a no-mans land. The border isn't so much Swiss cheese as it is non-existent. It's a largely tribal area that probably doesn't really identify with either country. About the only way to tell the difference between Pakistan and Afghanistan is through GPS coordinates.

It also happens to be where most of the Taliban insurgents are holing up. To focus your campaign elsewhere due to political sensitivities is a bit like checking toddlers for bombs at the airport 'to be fair'.

I'm not sure where the UAV attacks occur have to do with anything.

Again, many of the CIA-controlled strikes are NOT attacking Taliban insurgents.

I'm not saying the campaign should be focused elsewhere.  I'm questioning the tactics used.


Its a morally cheap way to fight a "war."

From what I understand of the area, the terrain is ridiculously difficult. Between the mountains, and the general lack of usable roads, moving large numbers of troops, like we do in Iraq, is nearly impossible - particularly when the locals are dug in, and have a significant advantage in terms of position.

It's not like we can send in a SWAT team in a van. Helicopter and UAV attacks are the only realistic option in many areas. I don't necessarily like the idea of fully autonomous attacks, since computers can get it wrong, but these UAV's have military operators. There is a human in the loop during the attack. Does it really matter that the pilot is sitting in the US, and goes home to his family at night?

robco wrote:

I think it was better when people had to use swords. At least then you had to look someone in the eye before you killed them.

Don't discount the cameras on these UAV's. In some circumstances, that is still possible.

Less than 50 years ago, it was accepted that aerial and artillery bombardment would kill the wrong people and destroy entire city blocks a certain percentage of the time, but there was no alternative when prosecuting a war.

Now we have guided munitions that have drastically reduced civilian casualties and people like Philip Alston are complaining that our drones don't drop nets on the bad guys and carry them to court while reading their rights.

Tallgeese wrote:

Now we have guided munitions that have drastically reduced civilian casualties and people like Philip Alston are complaining that our drones don't drop nets on the bad guys and carry them to court while reading their rights.

How do we know they're bad guys if we haven't tried them?

robco wrote:

Tallgeese wrote:

Now we have guided munitions that have drastically reduced civilian casualties and people like Philip Alston are complaining that our drones don't drop nets on the bad guys and carry them to court while reading their rights.

How do we know they're bad guys if we haven't tried them?

We're prosecuting a war, not conducting a police raid. In war, if you capture somebody then they are processed as a prisoner. If you aren't able to capture them, you can kill them.

Sternum wrote:

To be honest, I don't really see the point of killing random Taliban goons out in the middle of nowhere. What goals are we fulfilling? Will the Taliban ever surrender? Will we kill them all?

Disrupting command and control, planning, supply, etc. We're not just getting word that Ahmed over there in the hill once shot at a convoy so let's bomb him. These are nodes of a network selected to disrupt larger operations.

I agree that it's good to disrupt communication and organization, but it's usually part of a process, not an end in and of itself. What's our ultimate goal?

Sorry to draw up the Vietnam comparisons, but it seems as if we're contenting ourselves with Seek and Destroy level objectives instead of finding a way to solve the big problems.