Should the US compensate civilian casualties of drones?

[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.

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

Are drones worse or better than boots on the ground?

[Gothmogs]

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.

^ That too.

[Saruhan]

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.

I suppose that the people in the towers were glad that, whilst they were killed by an organized group with a clear agenda and war goals, that it wasn't an "actual war"

[Blasveck]

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

Are drones worse or better than boots on the ground?

Better.

Not being there at all and making everyone in the Middle East is even better than that.

[Frisivisia]

Are drones worse or better than boots on the ground?

Better.

Not being there at all and making everyone in the Middle East is even better than that.

Because we aren't the global hegemony and we don't have a duty to everyone in the world?

[Occupied Deutschland]

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.

I suppose that the people in the towers were glad that, whilst they were killed by an organized group with a clear agenda and war goals, that it wasn't an "actual war"

You're about ten years late to be making blatant appeals to emotion. At the time it would've made you sound stern and seeking justice, now it just makes you sound...like you lack an argument.

[Gothmogs]

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.

Studies have proven that it is easier to do something you consider "bad" or "immoral" when you are further separated from a situation. A soldier is there, and less willing to put others lives at risk, while a drone operator is miles away.

[Frisivisia]

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

Studies have proven that it is easier to do something you consider "bad" or "immoral" when you are further separated from a situation. A soldier is there, and less willing to put others lives at risk, while a drone operator is miles away.

I need a source for that and a source that drones do more "immoral" things.

[Blasveck]

Better.

Not being there at all and making everyone in the Middle East is even better than that.

Because we aren't the global hegemony and we don't have a duty to everyone in the world?

What else needs to be done over there?

What duty do we need to fulfill over there?

[Saruhan]

I suppose that the people in the towers were glad that, whilst they were killed by an organized group with a clear agenda and war goals, that it wasn't an "actual war"

You're about ten years late to be making blatant appeals to emotion. At the time it would've made you sound stern and seeking justice, now it just makes you sound...like you lack an argument.

About as much as any of his. What makes this war different from any other war other than the amount of deaths?

[Gothmogs]

Studies have proven that it is easier to do something you consider "bad" or "immoral" when you are further separated from a situation. A soldier is there, and less willing to put others lives at risk, while a drone operator is miles away.

I need a source for that and a source that drones do more "immoral" things.

I knew you were going to ask for a source. *sigh* Give me a while.

[Gothmogs]

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.

I suppose that the people in the towers were glad that, whilst they were killed by an organized group with a clear agenda and war goals, that it wasn't an "actual war"

How is that at all relevant to the usage of drones?

[Frisivisia]

Because we aren't the global hegemony and we don't have a duty to everyone in the world?

What else needs to be done over there?

What duty do we need to fulfill over there?

Killing baddies who want to kill people and whatnot. You know, what George Bush said he was going to do.

[Blasveck]

What else needs to be done over there?

What duty do we need to fulfill over there?

Killing baddies who want to kill people and whatnot. You know, what George Bush said he was going to do.

And we're only going to kill more civilians and spawn more baddies in the process.

[Saruhan]

I suppose that the people in the towers were glad that, whilst they were killed by an organized group with a clear agenda and war goals, that it wasn't an "actual war"

How is that at all relevant to the usage of drones?

Forgetting something so soon?

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.

What defines a real war, and how does the war against terror not qualify as one

[Occupied Deutschland]

You're about ten years late to be making blatant appeals to emotion. At the time it would've made you sound stern and seeking justice, now it just makes you sound...like you lack an argument.

About as much as any of his. What makes this war different from any other war other than the amount of deaths?

Chiefly that it is not between two national factions but rather one nebulous criminal organization and a national faction.

War, as a concept, kind've requires state actors. Otherwise, as we currently have it setup, if we ARE at war then we need to treat POWs with all the rights and immunities of soldiers under the Geneva Convention. So either we're breaking the law now in an immoral and illegal attempt to look better, or we aren't at war.

[Frisivisia]

About as much as any of his. What makes this war different from any other war other than the amount of deaths?

Chiefly that it is not between two national factions but rather one nebulous criminal organization and a national faction.

War, as a concept, kind've requires state actors. Otherwise, as we currently have it setup, if we ARE at war then we need to treat POWs with all the rights and immunities of soldiers under the Geneva Convention. So either we're breaking the law now in an immoral and illegal attempt to look better, or we aren't at war.

We're more at "police action" than anything. Not even that.

[Saruhan]

About as much as any of his. What makes this war different from any other war other than the amount of deaths?

Chiefly that it is not between two national factions but rather one nebulous criminal organization and a national faction.

War, as a concept, kind've requires state actors. Otherwise, as we currently have it setup, if we ARE at war then we need to treat POWs with all the rights and immunities of soldiers under the Geneva Convention. So either we're breaking the law now in an immoral and illegal attempt to look better, or we aren't at war.

Some might argue that because of the Taliban formerly being the government of Afghanistan this is just a war against a government in exile, plus against some non-state allies of said government

Didn't the US not sign that version of the Geneva convention because it would require them to treat guerrillas as regular soldiers?

[L Ron Cupboard]

Here is a question for Mr. Cupboard; a lot of things the US does helps al Qaida recruit. For example; Textile quotas, the consequences of free speech laws, and the commitment to promoting liberal ideas abroad. Of course the main thing is probably Israel. So my question is, to what extent, should we use al Qaida recruitment strategies to shape our policies?

I think if they are deliberate positive policies then stick with them. I hope killing civilians isn't a deliberate policy more a negative consequence.

[Imperializt Russia]

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?

Because the Taliban will sweep in and destroy the ANA, making all the money sunk into the continued survival of Afghanistan as a state a further waste. It'll just put significantly more weapons and equipment into their hands and they'll probably be able to recruit people who can use them. A serviceperson has come onto an NS-related board before (within the last two years, I might point out) to track down a Soviet mortar manual to train the ANA trainee mortar crews. We're shipping them artillery pieces, small arms, armoured vehicles and combat helicopters.

Combat operations have already ceased, and most of the troops are coming home soon anyway.

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.

If the US were a civilised country, it would make its military personnel globally accountable for their actions. But they don't.

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.

Drones are equipped with a myriad of sensors and can have their feed sent up to a higher-ranked commander. It puts everyone in the loop and does so with a thermal imaging camera.

Combat drones will probably suck ass when you try to fight a parity opponent.

Studies have proven that it is easier to do something you consider "bad" or "immoral" when you are further separated from a situation. A soldier is there, and less willing to put others lives at risk, while a drone operator is miles away.

I need a source for that and a source that drones do more "immoral" things.

The Milgram experiment springs to mind.
The "double-tap" procedure in drone strikes may be what he refers to as "immoral".

[Radiatia]

Yes, they really should. I'm all for drones in general, but when military action kills non-combatant civilians - especially in a country with whom the United States is not at war - then yes compensation should be given.

[Warda]

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

Are drones worse or better than boots on the ground?

are drones worse or better than guns?
are guns worse or better than crossbows?
are crossbows worse or better than swords?
are swords worse or better than hands?

[Skaldia]

Was compensation given when Americans lost their lives to Saudi Arabian terrorists?

Oh yeah, that's right. Oil. Guess we better ship Yemen some hamburgers than since it's about the only thing America makes aymore.

[The Ladlum]

I think they should--mainly for moral reasons (as opposed to just blowing up some civilians, shrugging and saying 'oops'), partially for public image as well, I suppose...

...I don't expect that they will, though.

[Warda]

Was compensation given when Americans lost their lives to Saudi Arabian terrorists?

Oh yeah, that's right. Oil. Guess we better ship Yemen some hamburgers than since it's about the only thing America makes aymore.

lol?