3 ms·

> "What sort of military intervention should we use? We could send in soldiers to try and arrest the terrorists, but that is slow, risky, and expensive (we need

> "What sort of military intervention should we use? We could send in soldiers to try and arrest the terrorists, but that is slow, risky, and expensive (we need holding facilities, transportation, etc.) Drones are the obvious alternative. Not only are they cheap, they are pose about zero risk to US personnel" So what you're saying is that the lives of US personnel are more valuable than that of innocent Pakistani civilians, including the 94 children cited in the report? Yeah, let's just go for the cheap & easy option. Maybe a few kids get killed in the process, but who cares. At least the US can save a bit of money on expensive military installations and have their soldiers sitting comfortably in offices using a remote control terminal for drones, then go back to eat with their (still alive) family in the evening.

moskie 13y ago
> So what you're saying is that the lives of US personnel are more valuable than that of innocent Pakistani civilians, including the 94 children cited in the report? I think the point is that the best option is the one that you would predict results in the fewest amount of deaths. Do you think the option of sending in soldiers would definitely result in fewer deaths? Now, I'm much more inclined to agree with the idea that we should end the war on terror in general. But I'm not so convinced that, in the meantime, drones shouldn't be used.
- peterkelly 13y ago
  I don't buy the notion that the only two choices are invading Pakistan or using drones. I'm far from an expert on these matters. But I imagine there'd be other options (working with local authorities, with coercion at the government level if necessary) that would be better than either of the above two.
  - moskie 13y ago
    > I'm far from an expert on these matters. heh, none of us are. > But I imagine there'd be other options (working with local authorities, with coercion at the government level if necessary) that would be better than either of the above two. I don't really have any more to say about that than what bloaf said above.
bloaf 13y ago
Yes. The US government is not in charge of keeping Pakistanis safe, it is in charge of keeping US citizens safe. If the Pakistanis don't like this arrangement, they should deal with the terrorists themselves.

moskie 13y ago

> So what you're saying is that the lives of US personnel are more valuable than that of innocent Pakistani civilians, including the 94 children cited in the report? I think the point is that the best option is the one that you would predict results in the fewest amount of deaths. Do you think the option of sending in soldiers would definitely result in fewer deaths? Now, I'm much more inclined to agree with the idea that we should end the war on terror in general. But I'm not so convinced that, in the meantime, drones shouldn't be used.

peterkelly 13y ago
I don't buy the notion that the only two choices are invading Pakistan or using drones. I'm far from an expert on these matters. But I imagine there'd be other options (working with local authorities, with coercion at the government level if necessary) that would be better than either of the above two.
- moskie 13y ago
  > I'm far from an expert on these matters. heh, none of us are. > But I imagine there'd be other options (working with local authorities, with coercion at the government level if necessary) that would be better than either of the above two. I don't really have any more to say about that than what bloaf said above.

bloaf 13y ago

Yes. The US government is not in charge of keeping Pakistanis safe, it is in charge of keeping US citizens safe. If the Pakistanis don't like this arrangement, they should deal with the terrorists themselves.