2 ms·
> 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 re
by 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 agoI 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.