Summations Only

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

There are many rules of engagement. Not bombing a hospital. Not torturing children. Not using a disproportionate amount of force. Not causing collective punishment for the many because of only the few.I would suggest you Google the Nuremberg trials and the results of the consequences for not adhering to the rules of engagement.

Out of interest - Who assesses the anticipated military advantage?

None of those appear to apply to drone attacks.

You mean like 9/11?The rules of engagement are certainly important, but it's neither their intent nor the legitimate practice of them for them to be gameable. You can't surround yourself with children as human shields to ward off response. You can't order attacks from a school or cafe. You can't attack Americans, then run into a hospital and claim "sanctuary."Someone who hides among the innocent, either to forestall reprisal or to turn a reprisal into bad headlines for the repriser, is the one responsible for whatever harm comes to them.

Really? Not using a disproportionate amount of force, not causing collective punishment for the many because of only the few, nor not harming children?Well, then how about just targeting civilians?

That seems a bit blase. If whoever-the-current-Osama-Bin-Laden-is runs into a school for sanctuary is it really OK to just blow the shit out the school and then blame him for the consequences of that?I wouldn't pull the trigger (or whatever) that blows the school up. Would you?

I didn't think I needed to explicitly state this but: 9/11 was very bad, and the people responsible (Saudis, not Iraqis) should have been held responsible. I wonder why not . . .

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.

How about we FIRST confirm that ANY force is required. That ANY action is indeed legitimate. And who do you suggest would label the person a terrorist to begin with? If you are desperate to score some kind of technical victory, I'll be happy to concede for you. As a matter of fact, change your avatar back to Sharon Stone, and you might even think I have a drone missile in my pocket.

What are we supposed to do, say "ollie ollie oxen-free!" and let him go? When the choice is 40 dead children or 4000 dead in his next attack, I don't envy the people who have to solve that moral calculus, but I can understand when they come to the conclusion that they do.Nobody forced that guy to run into a school. Nobody forced these guys to come into where civilians live instead of plotting their attacks from the hinterlands.

Would you blow up the school in question in that situation?

Do you understand and think similar actions that Israel takes against Palestinians have also produced successful outcomes?

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?

Thanks CS, for just explaining it clearly. Panda and crashfrog...I don't know what they're doing actually. Breaking it down into brackets? WTF Anyway... I already asked Panda, but he's just jerking around. What anticipated military advantage is the US looking at in relation to Pakistan where the drones on bombing and where the civilians are dying?We are not, as far as I know, at war with Pakistan. Who are we even at war with?- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.