Summations Only

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.

But we'd expect blowback from an infantry invasion too. So drone attacks are still the lesser of those two evils. I'm honestly not following you

They are also probably going to do so in a rather gung-ho way based on a pretty simplistic view of who are the goodies and who are the baddies. If past experience is anything to go by... Well OK. A drone isn't as bad as 10,000 marines. But this lesser of two evils approach still leaves quite a lot to be desired. It seems...frankly a bit "defeatist" I spose is the word. Whether it has any practical effect or not I think somebody should at least be pointing out where the moral high ground is here. Even if nobody can rightfully claim it we should at least try and identify where it is. But shouldn't we try and stop the psychotic acting out his psychotic ways rather than simply thank our lucky stars he's merely slittiing people's throats rather than machine-gunning his way through the population?

It's interesting when I see empty vacuous phrases like "the cause of 9/11" thrown around.Let's look at what lead up to 9-11 that might have involved the US.Iraq invaded a neighboring Nation State and the US was asked to help free that Nation State, stationed troops in Saudi Arabia to do that with the full support of the Saudi Government and under mandate from the United Nations to free Kuwait.After a long period of attempted negotiation to try to avoid a battle, it became clear that there was no chance for peaceful resolution, invaded to drive back Iraq forces from Kuwait.After a short battle the US and its allies succeeded in freeing Kuwait and showed restraint by NOT continuing on to overthrow the government of Iraq or attack major Iraqi cities and infrastructure.Again, under UN mandate, supported and maintained a quarantine of Iraq to prevent the ruler of Iraq from carrying out his threats against the surrounding Nation States.Where are the asserted "criminal acts"?

Look when attacks are made on civilian targets because terrorists are present the civilian casualties aren’t accidents. It isn’t negligence. It’s calculated in the sense that the outcome is pretty much a forgone conclusion and the civilian casualties are deemed acceptable.Now you may think it morally justifiable. Or you may think it morally repugnant. Are the deaths and maimings of a school full of kids worth the killing of a terrorist who may or may not go on to kill many many others? It’s a difficult question with no easy answers. Personally I wouldn’t do it. But if the terrorist in question then went on to kill thousands I’d also have to live with that.The problem I have is with the seeming disregard for the moral question this poses. There seems all too often to be a rather blas and self-righteous We are the goodies and our actions are always justified approach taken by the US military to such situations. And it is this, as much as the end results, in my view that inspires the sort of hatred that inspires the terrorists of the future.

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.

I believe it would be helpful if you responded to my earlier queries:

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.

Well, america doesn't want to kill ALL the terrorists/dictators/bad guys. (Remember, Osama bin Laden was an american favorite at one time.) Rather, america only wants to kill the ones we don't like at the moment. Do you want an alphabetical list, or will these two examples be sufficient?: Perhaps if america usually held the high moral ground, it would be easier for the citizens to trust our government and whom they labeled terrorists, yes?

Err, I am confused. As an american I have no say in my government? Sorry, no, when "they" are using "my" tax money to kill children, "I" will decide what force will be required. Based on the following pieces of evidence, I would be more than pleased to accept an invitation to a luncheon with Ahmed, wouldn't you?

I keep asking, how do you know the psychotic is a psychotic? I am going to be accused of crowbarring again, but what lesson SHOULD these pictures warn citizens about?:

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.

Which killer are you referring? The supposed "terrorist" or the person who meets in secrecy, without any oversight, to determine the next assassination drone hit?

Yep, I depressingly agree. MOST americans are either FOR drone assassinations or are simply apathetic/ignorant. They will go on to joyously vote in a new decider of death in this year's election. There will eventually be another 9/11, and we will all repeat the obligatory question "why do the 'terrorists' hate us? Perhaps, but both of them would have responded at one time to the name/label "friend".Edited by dronester, : added "why do the 'terrorists' hate us?

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.