4 ms·

The US military does have qualms against it hence the article and constant strive for more precision. I ask you- what is the alternative? And don't give me the

The US military does have qualms against it hence the article and constant strive for more precision. I ask you- what is the alternative? And don't give me the whole, "shouldn't be bombing in the first place" red herring.

gmueckl 7y ago
They may not have a legal right to bomb. Depending on the details of the situation, I'm not sure where to draw the lines between warfare and war crimes. And I am not even considering the fact that some operations were conducted on foreign soil without consent from the local government - another can of worms. And I will ask another question: why bombs? Why remote drones? Why is it impossible to use other means? The assassination of Osama bin Ladin was carried out by soldiers on the ground, after all.
- fjsolwmv 7y ago
  War crimes are what losers did.
ourmandave 7y ago
I guess it's a step in the right direction, as we were blowing up weddings targets were attending. And we followed up by blowing up the target's funeral figuring the bereaved where fellow operatives. Quite a way to win hearts and minds...
- decoyworker 7y ago
  War sucks what do you want me to tell you? I've been there and served in Afghanistan. I wish this enemy would stand away from civilians and identify themselves clearly.
  - gmueckl 7y ago
    Your call for identification and distance from civilians is telling. You would be in the right if the enemy was an organized militia. But these terrorists avoid military patterns of behavior/organization. So what is the proper classification? Criminals? If that is true, the US military would be judge, jury and executioner in one.
  - fjsolwmv 7y ago
    When "this enemy" traces it's lineage back to cultivation by support from the US government... 1. Stop selling weapons to terrorists for decades. 2. Stop toppling democratically elective governments and propping up dictators. 3. Stop killing children with vaccination programs. 4. Stand away from drones and identify yourselves and go onsite to find militants. 5. Stand away from civilians and don't run the financial operation of your global hegemony through downtown office towers. 6. Stop kidnapping and torturing innocent people at black sites. 7. Stop killing for a President who openly advocates killing family members of the enemy.
    - foobarian 7y ago
      I wonder what the consequences would be for the U.S. of completely stopping all foreign military operations. It's probably a given that other big powers would step in to fill the vacuum. But other than oil what kind of resources would the U.S. lose access to? And how would that manifest in the economy / supply chains?
  - RobertoG 7y ago
    And they probably wish that they would have your technology and manpower, but it's called asymmetric warfare. I suppose, we could count the deaths to see who has the better part of the asymmetry.
WAHa_06x36 7y ago
It is kind of telling that you are dismissing "not murdering people" out of hand.
jdietrich 7y ago
>And don't give me the whole, "shouldn't be bombing in the first place" red herring. Why is that a red herring? There's a perfectly reasonable argument to be made that America's activities on the Af-Pak border have been wholly counter-productive. A drone strike might kill a terrorist, but the collateral damage creates an immense amount of hatred towards the US. If drone strikes are creating more terrorists than they're killing (an entirely plausible hypothesis) then the answer is probably to stop drone strikes and try something else. This isn't some wishy-washy liberal argument from a clueless civilian - Gen. McChrystal makes pretty much the same case against drone strikes. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-mcchrystal/retired-general-cautions-against-overuse-of-hated-drones-idUSBRE90608O20130107 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-mcchrysta...

gmueckl 7y ago

They may not have a legal right to bomb. Depending on the details of the situation, I'm not sure where to draw the lines between warfare and war crimes. And I am not even considering the fact that some operations were conducted on foreign soil without consent from the local government - another can of worms. And I will ask another question: why bombs? Why remote drones? Why is it impossible to use other means? The assassination of Osama bin Ladin was carried out by soldiers on the ground, after all.

fjsolwmv 7y ago
War crimes are what losers did.

ourmandave 7y ago

I guess it's a step in the right direction, as we were blowing up weddings targets were attending. And we followed up by blowing up the target's funeral figuring the bereaved where fellow operatives. Quite a way to win hearts and minds...

decoyworker 7y ago
War sucks what do you want me to tell you? I've been there and served in Afghanistan. I wish this enemy would stand away from civilians and identify themselves clearly.
- gmueckl 7y ago
  Your call for identification and distance from civilians is telling. You would be in the right if the enemy was an organized militia. But these terrorists avoid military patterns of behavior/organization. So what is the proper classification? Criminals? If that is true, the US military would be judge, jury and executioner in one.
- fjsolwmv 7y ago
  When "this enemy" traces it's lineage back to cultivation by support from the US government... 1. Stop selling weapons to terrorists for decades. 2. Stop toppling democratically elective governments and propping up dictators. 3. Stop killing children with vaccination programs. 4. Stand away from drones and identify yourselves and go onsite to find militants. 5. Stand away from civilians and don't run the financial operation of your global hegemony through downtown office towers. 6. Stop kidnapping and torturing innocent people at black sites. 7. Stop killing for a President who openly advocates killing family members of the enemy.
  - foobarian 7y ago
    I wonder what the consequences would be for the U.S. of completely stopping all foreign military operations. It's probably a given that other big powers would step in to fill the vacuum. But other than oil what kind of resources would the U.S. lose access to? And how would that manifest in the economy / supply chains?
- RobertoG 7y ago
  And they probably wish that they would have your technology and manpower, but it's called asymmetric warfare. I suppose, we could count the deaths to see who has the better part of the asymmetry.

WAHa_06x36 7y ago

It is kind of telling that you are dismissing "not murdering people" out of hand.

jdietrich 7y ago

>And don't give me the whole, "shouldn't be bombing in the first place" red herring. Why is that a red herring? There's a perfectly reasonable argument to be made that America's activities on the Af-Pak border have been wholly counter-productive. A drone strike might kill a terrorist, but the collateral damage creates an immense amount of hatred towards the US. If drone strikes are creating more terrorists than they're killing (an entirely plausible hypothesis) then the answer is probably to stop drone strikes and try something else. This isn't some wishy-washy liberal argument from a clueless civilian - Gen. McChrystal makes pretty much the same case against drone strikes. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-mcchrystal/retired-general-cautions-against-overuse-of-hated-drones-idUSBRE90608O20130107 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-afghanistan-mcchrysta...