Should the US compensate civilian casualties of drones?

[Blasveck]

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.

If you want to further US interests, it would be in the US's best interest to help/compensate nations for casualties caused by drone strike.

And how exactly does it open up a slippery door?

[God Kefka]

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

If you want to further US interests, it would be in the US's best interest to help/compensate nations for casualties caused by drone strike.

And how exactly does it open up a slippery door?

The economic expenditures for the War on Terror (which must be fought) are high enough already. No need to open the door for all sorts of random people to start asking/demanding compensations.

The USA is a strong nation and it should act like it. Reward those who help it, and punish those who stand in its way. The strong do not need to compensate the weak.

You don't want us in your country drone striking your people? Then help us fight the terrorists...

[Occupied Deutschland]

Here's a novel idea, how's about we kill less civilians by taking simple measures to avoid catching them in the blast radius? Perhaps couple that with not sending another missile in when paramedics arrive on the scene and such? Then we don't have to worry about compensating any civilians families because they aren't dead.
Crazy idea, I know. But I think it's just crazy enough to work.

[Arkinesia]

The US is carrying drone strikes in a number of countries, the Yemen, Pakistan, etc. and in a number of cases there have been civilian casualties either through mistaken targeting or as collateral damage when attacking the correct target. I just watched a report on the BBC which suggested that the US is pretty much refusing to even acknowledge that it has carried out the attacks , let alone paying compensation to the families of innocent casualties.

I think the US is making a massive mistake in doing so, if this is the case. The cost of an acceptable level of compensation in a country like the Yemen would represent a minimal cost to the US. It would give the US a much better image in those countries (instead of seeming as just as much a threat to the locals as al Qaida). By not doing so they are playing into the hands of al Qaida recruiters.

What thinks NSG?

No...

No one can force America to... and it's not in America's interest to do so.

That's complete bullshit.

Failure to rebuild local economies being devastated by drone warfare is a driving factor in increased militant and terrorist recruiting. Clinton's hawkish policies toward Muslims was the single biggest factor in the push for 9/11.

[Blasveck]

If you want to further US interests, it would be in the US's best interest to help/compensate nations for casualties caused by drone strike.

And how exactly does it open up a slippery door?

The economic expenditures for the War on Terror (which must be fought) are high enough already. No need to open the door for all sorts of random people to start asking/demanding compensations.

The USA is a strong nation and it should act like it. Reward those who help it, and punish those who stand in its way. The strong do not need to compensate the weak.

You don't want us in your country drone striking your people? Then help us fight the terrorists...

1. You should know by now that the War on Terror is a pointless endeavor. You cannot prevent every single terrorist attack. It just can't happen.
2. The US also needs foreign allies. And not providing foreign aid and compensation will not help the US in the long run.
3. See point 1.

[Blasveck]

Here's a novel idea, how's about we kill less civilians by taking simple measures to avoid catching them in the blast radius? Perhaps couple that with not sending another missile in when paramedics arrive on the scene and such? Then we don't have to worry about compensating any civilians families because they aren't dead.
Crazy idea, I know. But I think it's just crazy enough to work.

Or, how about we stop this pointless endeavor and stop spending our money on a War that is unwinnable?

[The Serbian Empire]

Here's a novel idea, how's about we kill less civilians by taking simple measures to avoid catching them in the blast radius? Perhaps couple that with not sending another missile in when paramedics arrive on the scene and such? Then we don't have to worry about compensating any civilians families because they aren't dead.
Crazy idea, I know. But I think it's just crazy enough to work.

Or, how about we stop this pointless endeavor and stop spending our money on a War that is unwinnable?

The military industrial complex would be disappointed and would probably make up something to kick up a war.

[Saruhan]

Why should they? Should Hamburg's or Berlin's residents be compensated for the bombings? No, because people die in war, it's sad, tragic, we it happens and the West cannot stop the war every time they accidentally kill someone, the Taliban or Al Qaeda or any other terror group sure as hell wouldn't

[Blasveck]

Why should they? Should Hamburg's or Berlin's residents be compensated for the bombings? No, because people die in war, it's sad, tragic, we it happens and the West cannot stop the war every time they accidentally kill someone, the Taliban or Al Qaeda or any other terror group sure as hell wouldn't

You do realize that the war on terror is unwinnable right?

It's like Vietnam all over again....

[Frisivisia]

Why should they? Should Hamburg's or Berlin's residents be compensated for the bombings? No, because people die in war, it's sad, tragic, we it happens and the West cannot stop the war every time they accidentally kill someone, the Taliban or Al Qaeda or any other terror group sure as hell wouldn't

You do realize that the war on terror is unwinnable right?

It's like Vietnam all over again....

And this means we need to pay collateral damage?

[Occupied Deutschland]

Here's a novel idea, how's about we kill less civilians by taking simple measures to avoid catching them in the blast radius? Perhaps couple that with not sending another missile in when paramedics arrive on the scene and such? Then we don't have to worry about compensating any civilians families because they aren't dead.
Crazy idea, I know. But I think it's just crazy enough to work.

Or, how about we stop this pointless endeavor and stop spending our money on a War that is unwinnable?

Well, that would be better still. But who would we use our military-industrial complex to kill then?

Why should they? Should Hamburg's or Berlin's residents be compensated for the bombings? No, because people die in war, it's sad, tragic, we it happens and the West cannot stop the war every time they accidentally kill someone, the Taliban or Al Qaeda or any other terror group sure as hell wouldn't

They...kinda were. Hamburg's and West Berlin had a lot better/more help, but the residents were compensated in various manners.

[The Serbian Empire]

Why should they? Should Hamburg's or Berlin's residents be compensated for the bombings? No, because people die in war, it's sad, tragic, we it happens and the West cannot stop the war every time they accidentally kill someone, the Taliban or Al Qaeda or any other terror group sure as hell wouldn't

You do realize that the war on terror is unwinnable right?

It's like Vietnam all over again....

It's probably more unwinnable than Vietnam was as terrorists are created by fundamentalism and radicalism. We can't have a war on thought and win.

[Saruhan]

Or, how about we stop this pointless endeavor and stop spending our money on a War that is unwinnable?

Well, that would be better still. But who would we use our military-industrial complex to kill then?

Why should they? Should Hamburg's or Berlin's residents be compensated for the bombings? No, because people die in war, it's sad, tragic, we it happens and the West cannot stop the war every time they accidentally kill someone, the Taliban or Al Qaeda or any other terror group sure as hell wouldn't

They...kinda were. Hamburg's and West Berlin had a lot better/more help, but the residents were compensated in various manners.

I meant specifically because they were bombed, I wasn't talking about Marshall plan aid because that was more to keep the commies out

[Blasveck]

You do realize that the war on terror is unwinnable right?

It's like Vietnam all over again....

And this means we need to pay collateral damage?

Pay compensation for civilian casualties over a war that is unwinnable?

Sure.

[Occupied Deutschland]

You do realize that the war on terror is unwinnable right?

It's like Vietnam all over again....

And this means we need to pay collateral damage?

There needs to be SOME incentive for you to not just pound on that red 'fire the missiles!' button whenever you're using your drone Mr. Vice-President.

[Saruhan]

Why should they? Should Hamburg's or Berlin's residents be compensated for the bombings? No, because people die in war, it's sad, tragic, we it happens and the West cannot stop the war every time they accidentally kill someone, the Taliban or Al Qaeda or any other terror group sure as hell wouldn't

You do realize that the war on terror is unwinnable right?

It's like Vietnam all over again....

We seem to be. The Taliban has been knocked out of power, and Al Qaeda is not even a shadow of it's former self.

[Blasveck]

You do realize that the war on terror is unwinnable right?

It's like Vietnam all over again....

We seem to be. The Taliban has been knocked out of power, and Al Qaeda is not even a shadow of it's former self.

Sure.

We won't be able to get rid of it entirely though.

[Saruhan]

We seem to be. The Taliban has been knocked out of power, and Al Qaeda is not even a shadow of it's former self.

Sure.

We won't be able to get rid of it entirely though.

Some minor scuffles between rival sects in some 3rd world country compared to major attacks in Western nations? Seems like victory to me

[Gothmogs]

I think they need to stop using the drones in those areas completely. It is not helping the US image at all.

[The Serbian Empire]

I think they need to stop using the drones in those areas completely. It is not helping the US image at all.

I'd say they need to end the use of drones period. Those things will be used as surveillance in the US itself without a war.

[Saruhan]

I think they need to stop using the drones in those areas completely. It is not helping the US image at all.

Because soldiers and bombers would paint a much prettier picture?

[Frisivisia]

I think they need to stop using the drones in those areas completely. It is not helping the US image at all.

Because shooting people in foreign countries is bad, but when you do it with robots so that you don't have to risk soldiers and can minimize collateral damage and other such problems, you get a big ball of evil.

[Gothmogs]

I think they need to stop using the drones in those areas completely. It is not helping the US image at all.

Because shooting people in foreign countries is bad, but when you do it with robots so that you don't have to risk soldiers and can minimize collateral damage and other such problems, you get a big ball of evil.

Soldiers do their best to avoid killing civilians. Drones have a limited view of the situation. I support the use of drones in an actual war as a way to reduce deaths.

[Blasveck]

I think they need to stop using the drones in those areas completely. It is not helping the US image at all.

Because shooting people in foreign countries is bad, but when you do it with robots so that you don't have to risk soldiers and can minimize collateral damage and other such problems, you get a big ball of evil.

It's a big ball of evil that we're there in the first place.

[Frisivisia]

Because shooting people in foreign countries is bad, but when you do it with robots so that you don't have to risk soldiers and can minimize collateral damage and other such problems, you get a big ball of evil.

Soldiers do their best to avoid killing civilians. Drones have a limited view of the situation. I support the use of drones in an actual war as a way to reduce deaths.

Soldiers also have a limited view of the situation, probably more than drones.