October 10, 201213 yr In the long run it saves lives. I don't like it but it's reality. Whose lives are the drone attacks saving? Mine? Yours? That makes no sense, whatsoever. We are very fortunate to be living where we are. I can think of no rational thought-process that explains the abuse this administration has used against these people.
October 10, 201213 yr U.S. Drones Killed 2,800 Civilians in Pakistan in 7 Years | Disinformation America's deadly double tap drone attacks are 'killing 49 people for every known terrorist in Pakistan' | Mail Online Drone strikes kill, maim and traumatize too many civilians, U.S. study says - CNN.com Got it. Thanks.
October 10, 201213 yr I don't like it but it's reality. I mean, killing thousands of innocent children, men, women, elderly -- you don't think this will have a negative impact on our soldiers that are over there fighting? You don't think that the locals in Pakistan are tired of seeing and worrying, every-freaking-day, whether or not they will survive, or worse, worrying if your children are going to survive? You cannot expect them to just be okay with all of it. When we do this, this is the greatest ammunition they can use against us.
October 10, 201213 yr Where, I can't get anything to highlight for me. In the original post it is "1 insurgent for every 49 civilians"
October 10, 201213 yr Whose lives are the drone attacks saving? Mine? Yours? That makes no sense, whatsoever. We are very fortunate to be living where we are. I can think of no rational thought-process that explains the abuse this administration has used against these people. The entire region is full of lunatics. The 1 in 49 are called terrorist for a reason.
October 10, 201213 yr The entire region is full of lunatics. The 1 in 49 are called terrorist for a reason. Any regard for the other 49?
October 10, 201213 yr A better approach would be to attack the Taliban in the pocketbook. I would spend the money to find a biological agent that would permanently destroy the heroine crop. Then I would make the mountains between Afghanistan and Pakistan glow in the dark. That would prempt travel between Pakistan and Afganistan. And for you die hard GOP fans, don't forget which administration decided it was in our interest to go over there in the first place.
October 10, 201213 yr No, the best approach is to abandon this moral high ground we seem to think we have staked out as a country and instead use drastic measures such as out-crazying them. Only one way to do that, and that's to turn the whole freakin' region into our own personal garbage dump. Those people aren't fazed by bombs, etc. That's everyday life for them. But if we drop old bowling balls, junk cars and refrigerators on them, as well as mass quantities of pig entrails, that will definitely get their attention and force them to choose someone else to mess with.
October 10, 201213 yr There are basically 4 options 1. Leave and let it sort it self out. 2. Kill all the Taliban as group - genocide or tribalcide. Yes, that includes the non-combatants. As MC has indicated. 3. Isolate the country and make it a giant reservation. 4. Target Sharia law and eliminate it. Option 1 is not so hard. There is nothing strategic in the region. If the Taliban gets active to where they are exporting their killing then a punitive campaign maybe in order. But when done with that campaign - leave. Option 2 is both hard and politically and morally problematic. This was tried with the American Indians somewhat. Did not work. Option 3 is again an American Indian type approach. Let them be - in isolation. Option 4 is politically incorrect but the root of the issue is 'Sharia law'. It is in direct conflict with so many western beliefs. The Mullahs are not going to give up power. Sharia law the complete opposite of the US-style 'separation of church and state.' Sharia law is the absolute combining of church (or mosque in this case) and state. It has the Mullahs as the head. It is also extremely female unfriendly and male centered. Just look up all the stonings and honor killings of females - even when they are victims of a crime. Brutal. In some places modern day Islam can make the inquisitions and crusades look tame. Democracy and Sharia law can not co-exist. How did much of the middle east deal with Sharia law driven culture? It installed dictators to keep it under control. Gaddafi, Hussein, Assad, the Saudi Royal family - none of them were/are fans of Sharia law. For good reason. Sharia law is only tribal at its highest level. To unify a country under one leader - a dictatorship is best. Love them or hate them - the dictators who have been toppled were necessary control rods in the middle east reactor. So the situation is not at all unlike the American Indians. When basic cultural beliefs are in conflict there is no real 'getting along'. There are only 3 paths - massacre, isolation or eternal conflict.
October 10, 201213 yr You all are as wishfully barbaric as you claim they are. I mean, there's open advocacy of genocide in here. Just repulsive.
October 10, 201213 yr You all are as wishfully barbaric as you claim they are. I mean, there's open advocacy of genocide in here. Just repulsive. Not in my case ...
October 10, 201213 yr Any regard for the other 49? Sure but it's reality. Maybe we should not be doing this at all but if we use drown stricks then there are going to be civilian casualties.
October 10, 201213 yr You all are as wishfully barbaric as you claim they are. I mean, there's open advocacy of genocide in here. Just repulsive. I am not advocating it all. I merely point out its a method of resolution when two cultures who can not co-exist come into contact and conflict. It was tried with the American Indians before the reservations came into being. Obviously there is the Nazi/Jewish example. Though that is more of a political conflict or political use than a more basic difference in beliefs. The modern example is Bosnia. There is was Christian Serbs attempting to wipe out the Muslim population. The elephant in the room that no one wants to take on is Sharia law. If it is not addressed then this just goes on and on.
October 10, 201213 yr Sure but it's reality. Maybe we should not be doing this at all but if we use drown stricks then there are going to be civilian casualties. It's not a reality. You are making grand assumptions (all of them are terrorists or terrorists in training), and are as far an extremist as those you are railing against. That is the reality.
October 10, 201213 yr I am not advocating it all. I merely point out its a method of resolution when two cultures who can not co-exist come into contact and conflict. It was tried with the American Indians before the reservations came into being. Obviously there is the Nazi/Jewish example. Though that is more of a political conflict or political use than a more basic difference in beliefs. The modern example is Bosnia. There is was Christian Serbs attempting to wipe out the Muslim population. The elephant in the room that no one wants to take on is Sharia law. If it is not addressed then this just goes on and on. Sharia Law is a theological concept. That is the same as saying, "the elephant in the room is all fundamentalists" so we need to eradicate all (even Christian) fundamentalists. The things that frighten me here are concepts such as "kill 50 as long as we get 1 terrorist" and "make war on those who uphold Sharia Law." These fly against the basic freedoms America espouses. If we sell our soul in this war, what will we sell tomorrow?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.