PDA

View Full Version : How do you like Obama's use of armed drones in Pakistan?



sdowney717
01-22-2010, 09:38 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8473900.stm


The use of armed drones by US forces in strikes against militants in Pakistan has led to huge anti-American feeling.
On Thursday, Pakistan's president said people would be less critical if drones were used by Pakistani troops.

Imagine this was coming your way and you were an innocent civilian about to lose some of your family.


Hundreds of people - many of them militants, but many more civilians - have died in attacks by armed drones in tribal areas of Pakistan where al-Qaeda and Taliban militants are believed to operate.
"I'm not going to discuss operations but I will say this: these unmanned aerial vehicles have been extremely useful to us, both in Iraq and in Afghanistan," the defence secretary told Express TV.Yes, useful because of how effective they are at killing people.



There is a tremendous amount of bad feeling towards Bush/Republicans and a lovefest towards Obama/Democrats on this forum, so I wonder how much you like it that the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and elsewhere continues unabated under the Obama democrats.

Cuyahoga Chuck
01-22-2010, 01:53 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8473900.stm

Imagine this was coming your way and you were an innocent civilian about to lose some of your family.

Yes, useful because of how effective they are at killing people.



There is a tremendous amount of bad feeling towards Bush/Republicans and a lovefest towards Obama/Democrats on this forum, so I wonder how much you like it that the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and elsewhere continues unabated under the Obama democrats.

I'm not going into the ethics of the situation. War, in general, brings on a lot of ethical dilemas.
But it's a new world ,boyo. The guerilla's prime asset is his ability to hide amongst the civilian population. Now that asset is being taken away and anyone who is cognicent he is a guerilla knows they put themselves in peril when they associate with him.
Many guerilla leaders have in the past been able to access home and hearth while others take the risks. Now the bigboys are in the crosshairs. If they are implacable enough to endanger their own kin or the kin of their associates that should be taken as a sign they will not be stopped until they are eliminated.

John Smith
01-22-2010, 01:56 PM
I'm not going into the ethics of the situation. War, in general, brings on a lot of ethical dilemas.
But it's a new world ,boyo. The guerilla's prime asset is his ability to hide amongst the civilian population. Now that asset is being taken away and anyone who is cognicent he is a guerilla knows they put themselves in peril when they associate with him.
Many guerilla leaders have in the past been able to access home and hearth while others take the risks. Now the bigboys are in the crosshairs. If they are implacable enough to endanger their own kin or the kin of their associates that should be taken as a sign they will not be stopped until they are eliminated.

My view, after much thought, is that if we are in a war or a battle with Al Qaeda, Al Qaeda set the rules. We're just playing by them.

Think about a real live war where the bad guys, or the enemy, has a safety zone where he's perfectly safe.

When G.W. said we were going to hunt them down wherever they try to hide, I applauded. Too bad he didn't mean it.