4 ms·

I'm pretty sure that if Pakistan wasn't harboring Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists that continue to destabilize the region then America wouldn't have to. Pa

• mseebach2 14y ago
  So: When a republican president goes to war in Afghanistan that at the time was "harboring Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists" that were successfully targeting the US, it's "disastrous". When a democratic president bombs civilians on a day-to-day basis for the same reason (although the threat to the US is much less direct), it's really the fault of the other country on the receiving end. Gotcha.
  • deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
• martswite 14y ago
  Whilst I agree in part to the point you make, that Pakistan should be dealing with terrorists that use it as a safe haven. I can not agree with your sentiment that because Pakistan does not, America therefore has a right to fly drones into its land to indiscriminately kill.
  • confluence 14y ago
    It's not indiscriminate. An invasion would be though - and that's what would happen if Pakistan destabilized further. Rights don't exist - they are merely useful fictions and are subject to "the guy with the guns makes the rules" rule.
    • martswite 14y ago
      I understand that it's not likely to be intentionally indiscriminate, however when the civilian casualty rate is so high it sure does seem indiscriminate.
    • protomyth 14y ago
      Precision bombs are not perfect: http://livingunderdrones.org/report/ http://livingunderdrones.org/report/