Summations Only

How would they stop it?That isn't a rhetorical question. What steps would they take?

"Canada" doesn't control the flow of energy from Canada to the U.S. Even if the federal government was inclined to proclaim an embargo, it has little or no power to do so.

An invasion is complex, expensive and internationally controversial. A declaration of war is a diplomatic nicety with little connection to reality. A simple act of war is a useful compromise.

When you're killing people, whether justifiably or not, a little hypocrisy is just icing on the cake.

The U.S. probably isn't going to be liked or admired internationally no matter what they do. It just makes sense to do things as efficiently as possible.

I'm not trying to rationalize anything. I'm just pointing out how silly all of the puffed-up outrage is. Shooting back may not be the best way to respond to terrorism but if they're going to do it, drones seem to be a better way than either of the alternatives that you mentioned.

In a way, that's a good thing. There's no escaping across borders any more. If the Austro-Hungarians had had drones, World War One might have been averted.

The goalposts seem to be sliding down a slippery slope.

In the OP, it was the innocent until proven guilty. Now it's collateral damage - not really the same thing.

You remind me of the line from Dr. Strangelove, "You can't fight here. This is the War Room."I think your idea of fencing off the battlefields and plastering everywhere else with "No Fighting" signs is at least as silly as disbanding armies.

Do any of them require playing only on designated battlefields?

I believe that Bush Jr. and Tony Blair hate our freedoms because they're the ones that took them away.

None of those appear to apply to drone attacks.

One of the reasons for using drones is that they minimize the amount of force (as well as risk). The only way to use less force would be with snipers. If the collateral casualties typically outnumbered the targeted casualties, you might have a trivial mathematical point. On the other hand, if people come to understand that it's a bad idea to stand next to terrorists, that mght be a good thing. Oh, it's "harming" children now, is it? I responded to "torturing children". Nail down those wandering goalposts, please. That's been covered already in the thread.

You respond to me and then you go off on a tangent evading your own issue and you call me desperate?Let's back up and try this again: I said to Dogmafood that painting out-of-bounds lines around battlefields is silly. You asked if I thought international law was silly. I said not unless it involves painting lines around battlefields. That's where you made a sharp turn and started regurgitating old news about rules of engagement.Now, do you have a point to make that's somewhat related to anything I've said?