Should the US compensate civilian casualties of drones?

[Cameroi]

the only excuse for equipping drones with lethal force and using them to kill people, is to prevent collateral casualties.

there shouldn't even be a question. the method of using a machine to commit murder by proxy, doesn't really enter into the moral equation of taking lives.

i don't think buying off the survivors absolves responsibility either, but certainly they are owed at least that.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Yes, and the US should take steps to make sure that civilian casualties are lessened.

No, I don't support scrapping the drone program and I don't see the benefit of doing so.

[The Emerald Legion]

the only excuse for equipping drones with lethal force and using them to kill people, is to prevent collateral casualties.

there shouldn't even be a question. the method of using a machine to commit murder by proxy, doesn't really enter into the moral equation of taking lives.

i don't think buying off the survivors absolves responsibility either, but certainly they are owed at least that.

Is there any difference between drones now and wearing armour in the middle ages?

[Cameroi]

the only excuse for equipping drones with lethal force and using them to kill people, is to prevent collateral casualties.

there shouldn't even be a question. the method of using a machine to commit murder by proxy, doesn't really enter into the moral equation of taking lives.

i don't think buying off the survivors absolves responsibility either, but certainly they are owed at least that.

Is there any difference between drones now and wearing armour in the middle ages?

that's precisely my point. i don't see one either.
what i do see, is that noncombatants are being needlessly killed, by the use of a technology, that too much attention is being focused on the technology itself, instead of the needless crimes that are being committed with it.

[Imperializt Russia]

Yes, and the US should take steps to make sure that civilian casualties are lessened.

No, I don't support scrapping the drone program and I don't see the benefit of doing so.

Killing the command structure and interdicting militants.

I agree the programme is presently overly secretive and overly lax on what may and may not constitute a target and that this must change.
But drones themselves are not bad. British drones, for example, are used solely for surveillance, reconnaissance and for directly supporting troops on the ground.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

Yes. We already spend a ton on defense, so why not be helpful with where we spend it? And besides, who would be that much of a jerk to say no?

You do realise we're talking about the US armed forces here, the people who deny that blue-on-blue attacks occur and refuse to hand over aircrews accused of killing friendly forces?
The country that spies on its own citizens, its allies' citizenry and governments and still spies on the Russian embassies in its country?

an embassy that is still 30-50% SVR agents spying on us mind you.

[Seleucas]

The US would be better off not stepping on anyone's toes to begin with, than pouring fuel on the fire by sustaining its bellicose and haughty attitude.

Ground operations in Afghanistan have forced the Taliban, al-Qaeda and affiliate command structures into Pakistan and Yemen, where they coalesce with existing support and organisational infrastructure.

You won't kill them without going outside of Afghanistan.

I don't support fighting in Afghanistan, let alone elsewhere.

[Frisivisia]

Giving money to dead people seems like a poor use of taxpayer money. Their families seems like a more sensible option.

[Frisivisia]

Ground operations in Afghanistan have forced the Taliban, al-Qaeda and affiliate command structures into Pakistan and Yemen, where they coalesce with existing support and organisational infrastructure.

You won't kill them without going outside of Afghanistan.

I don't support fighting in Afghanistan, let alone elsewhere.

Why do you want the terrorists to win and steal our freedom?

[Warda]

Giving money to dead people seems like a poor use of taxpayer money. Their families seems like a more sensible option.

I see no problem with giving money to a region where we have attacked and possibly killed relatives. 0. None at allllllll

[Frisivisia]

Giving money to dead people seems like a poor use of taxpayer money. Their families seems like a more sensible option.

I see no problem with giving money to a region where we have attacked and possibly killed relatives. 0. None at allllllll

The joke is that the thread title is asking whether or not we should give money to the people we've already killed.

[Warda]

I see no problem with giving money to a region where we have attacked and possibly killed relatives. 0. None at allllllll

The joke is that the thread title is asking whether or not we should give money to the people we've already killed.

I got the joke just responding to the general idea

[New Emphillon]

I don't support fighting in Afghanistan, let alone elsewhere.

Why do you want the terrorists to win and steal our freedom?

Steal our freedom? They (al-Qaida, the Taliban, etc.) want to wipe us (the Western world) off the face of the Earth! Not enslave us. But I do agree with Seleucas. 12 years of endless fighting and billions of dollars worth of tax payers' money and all for what? I see no end to the fighting in Afghanistan, do you? The Soviets lost in Afghanistan in the 1980s due to our influence with the rebels in that nation at the time and now we're getting bit in the ass for it. I'm glad we'll be out of Afghanistan next year and this whole fiasco can be over. It's just Vietnam all over again.

[Frisivisia]

Why do you want the terrorists to win and steal our freedom?

Steal our freedom? They (al-Qaida, the Taliban, etc.) want to wipe us (the Western world) off the face of the Earth! Not enslave us. But I do agree with Seleucas. 12 years of endless fighting and billions of dollars worth of tax payers' money and all for what? I see no end to the fighting in Afghanistan, do you? The Soviets lost in Afghanistan in the 1980s due to our influence with the rebels in that nation at the time and now we're getting bit in the ass for it. I'm glad we'll be out of Afghanistan next year and this whole fiasco can be over. It's just Vietnam all over again.

That's what you say right before they steal our freedom.

[The Orson Empire]

Steal our freedom? They (al-Qaida, the Taliban, etc.) want to wipe us (the Western world) off the face of the Earth! Not enslave us. But I do agree with Seleucas. 12 years of endless fighting and billions of dollars worth of tax payers' money and all for what? I see no end to the fighting in Afghanistan, do you? The Soviets lost in Afghanistan in the 1980s due to our influence with the rebels in that nation at the time and now we're getting bit in the ass for it. I'm glad we'll be out of Afghanistan next year and this whole fiasco can be over. It's just Vietnam all over again.

That's what you say right before they steal our freedom.

The war in Afghanistan is worthless. It obviously can't be won, and we need to stop wasting money on it.

[Mkuki]

What good is money if a person's family, livelihood, and/or home is destroyed by a drone?

[OMGeverynameistaken]

They already do, in some cases.

I saw a documentary about a year ago involving a US infantry unit in Afghanistan, a major part of which centered around their interactions with a particular family. Several members of that family were killed by a drone strike. The unit's CO did the usual "I'm terribly sorry for your loss," thing and handed over something like $5,000 per person killed. Certainly a lot of money in Afghanistan, but the head of the family didn't look like he really appreciated it, especially since one of those killed was his oldest son.

I understand that a number of families in Pakistan have actually refused compensation, seeing it as "blood money."

[Ainin]

Should? Of course.
Will? Most probably not.

[Atvania]

They should get the drones out of there instead of the proposed in OP. After all, it would cost more for the drones to strike a petty al-Qaeda force than using actual soldiers.

[Regnum Dominae]

Yes. I support drone strikes but this is a no-brainer.

[United Kingdom of Poland]

They should get the drones out of there instead of the proposed in OP. After all, it would cost more for the drones to strike a petty al-Qaeda force than using actual soldiers.

except when you take into the cost of each solider in training and equiping him, drones are also cheaper politically.

[God Kefka]

Of course. A state should always compensate for civilian causalities, especially when the civilians are either from or in a country the state is NOT in war with, like with the drone attacks.

This.

No way man...

You shouldn't need to compensate anyone if you are a strong state like the USA...

What kind of idealistic nonsense is this? Who's going to force the USA to compensate when it is the strongest and it's not in US interests to compensate?

[Regnum Dominae]

This.

No way man...

You shouldn't need to compensate anyone if you are a strong state like the USA...

What kind of idealistic nonsense is this? Who's going to force the USA to compensate when it is the strongest and it's not in US interests to compensate?

Except that it IS in our interests as it probably makes the people in the countries where we use drones, hate us a little bit less.

[Blasveck]

This.

No way man...

You shouldn't need to compensate anyone if you are a strong state like the USA...

What kind of idealistic nonsense is this? Who's going to force the USA to compensate when it is the strongest and it's not in US interests to compensate?

Because we're not sociopathic douchebags?

[God Kefka]

No way man...

You shouldn't need to compensate anyone if you are a strong state like the USA...

What kind of idealistic nonsense is this? Who's going to force the USA to compensate when it is the strongest and it's not in US interests to compensate?

Except that it IS in our interests as it probably makes the people in the countries where we use drones, hate us a little bit less.

It's not. It makes the USA look weak... and it opens up a slippery door to make our warfare expenditures even higher.