Summations Only

When we declared war on Germany, we didn't restrict ourselves to killing Germans in Germany, did we? We killed them in Africa, Italy, France, the Netherlands, even on the high seas. We learned that if we can arrest somebody, we don't need to kill them. Unfortunately, Hitler had about ten million Germans to stop us from arresting him and the closest thing we had to a drone was a carpet-bombing Lancaster.

You could still respond to the points being made.

To be clear, I'm not convinced that killing terrorists is the best way of fighting terrorism. I may have even said that in this thread. I prefer winning the hearts and minds of the people and handing out pink lollipops.But I'm not the government of the United States and that ain't what they're gonna do. They're gonna kill terrorists.Since they're gonna do what they're gonna do, I'd rather see them do it in as minimal a way as possible. As horrible as it is when one little brown baby is killed, it would be much worse if they sent 10,000 Marines instead.So, to my mind, complaining about drone attacks is asinine. It's like taking a knife away from a psychotic killer and leaving him with nothing but an assault rifle.

I'm pointing at an attainable high ground. A castle in the air may be higher but I don't see much point in mentioning it. In this particular instance, stopping the psychotic killer isn't an option. I asked early in the thread what "the world" could do to stop the U.S. from doing whatever it damn well pleases and I didn't get much of a response. The consensus among the anti-drone crowd seems to be that we should yell at the killer.

Don't confuse "we" with "they". "They" are the ones with the drones. What "we" confirm or don't confirm is pretty much irrelevant. "They" will decide what force is required. If Joe is aware that Ahmed is involved in terrorism, then Joe would be well-advised to "label" Ahmed as a terrorist and turn down his luncheon invitation.

Good luck with that. For your next trick, how about deciding to end global warming? Your evidence is faulty. Neiher one of those is Ahmed.

The killer is the guy who kills the innocent babies. I suggested that I would rather have him armed with a knife than an assault rifle. Straggler asked why we don't just stop him from killing and I reminded him that the killer is the U.S. government and military so trying to "stop" them would be like King Canute trying to stop the tide from coming in.

Defeated by the tides? Yes. Get used to it. Devote your energy to minimizing the damage.

Battlefields can have geographic boundaries, for military convenience. Armies used to fight on flat open spaces before aircraft and motor vehicles came along.But battlefields are, by definition, where the battles are. You have to fight your enemies where they are not where you wish they were.You've been advocating "artficial" boundaries and I've been trying to point out how silly that is. It's completely unworkable unless you have referees stationed all around the battlefield to fine any soldier who steps out of bounds.

I've always favoured attainable goals over pie-in-the-sky-goals. The current moral high ground is to advocate for drone attacks instead of more destructive options.

On a multiple-choice exam, writing in "none of the above" isn't really an option. When you create the exam, you'll be able to decide what the options will be. Until then, we pick the best option out of the options available.If the topic was, "What's the best way to prevent terrorism?" your other options might have some validity.

It could be a relevant sub-topic. I've tried to distinguish between when I'm talking about present real-life military options and when I'm talking about idealistic peace and love options but those on the anti-drone side seem to jump back and forth between them at will. I don't know if it's deliberate misdirection or just short attention span.

But you're not offering anything but dreams. Sure, we all want a world where everybody lives in peace and harmony but you're not offering any concrete way to get there from here. All you're saying is, "Nuh uh."Edited by ringo, : Added "quote.

And letting the terrorists walk away scot free? That's fine with me but it isn't politically viable in the U.S., is it? Its the American public that are demanding that the government do something, isn't it?