Should the US compensate civilian casualties of drones?

[Skaldia]

When it comes right down to it. I don't give a shit. It's just America's turn to be the bad guy to every bleeding heart out there. People die in war. I saw it enough in my time in the sandbox. That is what war is. Just because we haven't declared war doesn't mean anything. And don't you think that those terrorists killed by drones would discriminate when it comes to killing "Westerners"? That includes everyone NOT of the Islamic faith, including Europeans. It's easy to sit on the sideline and judge but you also have to think what would have happened if those terrorists hadn't been killed? Does the loss of a few civilians in a missile strike by drones considered less of an evil than thousands or hundreds killed in a terrorist attack? In war, which we are in, yes. Being the selfish American and veteran that I am, I prefer that THEY die and not me. Of course, some people might not see it that way.

As for the whole bullshit surrounding the whole issue, big whoop. China will have drones (if they don't already) and what do you think they'll start doing in their sphere of influence as well as in areas vital to their powerbloc? Russia, *snort*, Russia is just a pissy old bear that's lost it's place on the top rung. And guess what?! Twenty years from now, it'll be the Chinese superpower making all the sort of decisions that so many people on these boards LOVE to hate. Seventy years ago it was the Germans. Before that the British. Before that the Romans. Every single one of them has a history of murdering civilians, in peace time and in war time, whatever the hell that means. There will always be people in power doing fucked up shit to other people and to whine and complain about what one country shouldn't or should do ain't gonna change squat.

[Luveria]

When it comes right down to it. I don't give a shit. It's just America's turn to be the bad guy to every bleeding heart out there. People die in war. I saw it enough in my time in the sandbox. That is what war is. Just because we haven't declared war doesn't mean anything. And don't you think that those terrorists killed by drones would discriminate when it comes to killing "Westerners"? That includes everyone NOT of the Islamic faith, including Europeans. It's easy to sit on the sideline and judge but you also have to think what would have happened if those terrorists hadn't been killed? Does the loss of a few civilians in a missile strike by drones considered less of an evil than thousands or hundreds killed in a terrorist attack? In war, which we are in, yes. Being the selfish American and veteran that I am, I prefer that THEY die and not me. Of course, some people might not see it that way.

As for the whole bullshit surrounding the whole issue, big whoop. China will have drones (if they don't already) and what do you think they'll start doing in their sphere of influence as well as in areas vital to their powerbloc? Russia, *snort*, Russia is just a pissy old bear that's lost it's place on the top rung. And guess what?! Twenty years from now, it'll be the Chinese superpower making all the sort of decisions that so many people on these boards LOVE to hate. Seventy years ago it was the Germans. Before that the British. Before that the Romans. Every single one of them has a history of murdering civilians, in peace time and in war time, whatever the hell that means. There will always be people in power doing fucked up shit to other people and to whine and complain about what one country shouldn't or should do ain't gonna change squat.

I see civilian deaths mean nothing to you.

[Imperializt Russia]

I see geopolitical assessment means nothing to him.

[Skaldia]

I didn't say that.

Nor did I see any counterargument made.

[Timna]

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

No, but the Libyans paid out the arse for Lockerbie, something they quite probably weren't even responsible for.

[Skaldia]

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

No, but the Libyans paid out the arse for Lockerbie, something they quite probably weren't even responsible for.

And it'll continue to happen. The only reason it didn't happen to Saudi Arabia is because of her being one of the few allies we have in the Middle East as well as a substantial exporter of oil.

[Costa Alegria]

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?

Consider it subversive payback for sponsoring and aiding the Taliban in Pakistan's case.

[Zottistan]

Absolutely. For all civilian casualties, drone or otherwise.

[Luveria]

I see civilian deaths mean nothing to you.

I didn't say that.

Nor did I see any counterargument made.

You dug your own hole.

When it comes right down to it. I don't give a shit.

Do you suddenly give a shit now about civilian casualties, contradicting what you said?

[God Kefka]

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.

1. The War on Terror is pointless? Wow are you ungrateful. You do realize that since the War on Terror there has almost been no terrorist attack on US soil at all? Pointless? We must keep fighting terrorism, if only because it is evil and without us fighting it no one else will.

2. Ridiculous. Are you saying our allies will abandon us if we don't compensate civilians we bomb? Allies ally with us out of self-interest, because we are the world's most powerful nation... not because of our moral superiority. Stop being naive...

Countries will align with us or fight against us based on their self-interest, the only thing compensating everyone we kill achieves is skyrocket out expenditures and restrict our own flexibility.

3. War on Terror is not pointless. I agree there are some downsides to it but to say it is entirely pointless (only acknowledging its restrictions on civil liberty etc while completely ignoring all the progress we have made in killing terrorists, terrorist leaders, deterring terrorism and protecting the USA from terrorism)... is just completely stupid and ungrateful as an opinion.

[God Kefka]

I see civilian deaths mean nothing to you.

I didn't say that.

Nor did I see any counterargument made.

You dug your own hole.

When it comes right down to it. I don't give a shit.

Do you suddenly give a shit now about civilian casualties, contradicting what you said?

In war... civilian casualties are to be expected.

This compensating drone victims thing is clearly part of a liberal agenda seeking to weaken the United States and further tie its hands.

How audacious when the USA has the guts to stand up to terrorists and is fighting a battle that is in the service of EVERYONE (protection from terrorism).

[Vetok]

You dug your own hole.



Do you suddenly give a shit now about civilian casualties, contradicting what you said?

In war... civilian casualties are to be expected.

This compensating drone victims thing is clearly part of a liberal agenda seeking to weaken the United States and further tie its hands.

How audacious when the USA has the guts to stand up to terrorists and is fighting a battle that is in the service of EVERYONE (protection from terrorism).

On the contrary; It shows the USA to be weak by refusing to pay compensation. By paying it, the US portrays itself as a beneficent and strong-willed 'overlord' of sorts, along the lines of 'we're so sure in what we're doing, we'll pay this blood money by the lorryload until you terrorists are dead.'

As for 'liberal agenda', I find this humorous, seeing as the US doesn't really have liberals in any influential position.

[Divair]

Of course.

[God Kefka]

In war... civilian casualties are to be expected.

This compensating drone victims thing is clearly part of a liberal agenda seeking to weaken the United States and further tie its hands.

How audacious when the USA has the guts to stand up to terrorists and is fighting a battle that is in the service of EVERYONE (protection from terrorism).

On the contrary; It shows the USA to be weak by refusing to pay compensation. By paying it, the US portrays itself as a beneficent and strong-willed 'overlord' of sorts, along the lines of 'we're so sure in what we're doing, we'll pay this blood money by the lorryload until you terrorists are dead.'

As for 'liberal agenda', I find this humorous, seeing as the US doesn't really have liberals in any influential position.

No... the USA will gain nothing. You just lose more money...

And perhaps more soldiers will be lost because drone strikes that could have saved lives might not be called because now you have to pay the dead...

[Lemanrussland]

When it comes right down to it. I don't give a shit. It's just America's turn to be the bad guy to every bleeding heart out there. People die in war. I saw it enough in my time in the sandbox. That is what war is. Just because we haven't declared war doesn't mean anything. And don't you think that those terrorists killed by drones would discriminate when it comes to killing "Westerners"? That includes everyone NOT of the Islamic faith, including Europeans. It's easy to sit on the sideline and judge but you also have to think what would have happened if those terrorists hadn't been killed? Does the loss of a few civilians in a missile strike by drones considered less of an evil than thousands or hundreds killed in a terrorist attack? In war, which we are in, yes. Being the selfish American and veteran that I am, I prefer that THEY die and not me. Of course, some people might not see it that way.

As for the whole bullshit surrounding the whole issue, big whoop. China will have drones (if they don't already) and what do you think they'll start doing in their sphere of influence as well as in areas vital to their powerbloc? Russia, *snort*, Russia is just a pissy old bear that's lost it's place on the top rung. And guess what?! Twenty years from now, it'll be the Chinese superpower making all the sort of decisions that so many people on these boards LOVE to hate. Seventy years ago it was the Germans. Before that the British. Before that the Romans. Every single one of them has a history of murdering civilians, in peace time and in war time, whatever the hell that means. There will always be people in power doing fucked up shit to other people and to whine and complain about what one country shouldn't or should do ain't gonna change squat.

Nice tu quoque fallacy. So it was okay for the US to put the Japanese Americans into detainment camps and bomb towns filled with civilians (with the objective of killing and terrorizing civilians), because Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were putting people into camps and killing civilians too?

[Vetok]

On the contrary; It shows the USA to be weak by refusing to pay compensation. By paying it, the US portrays itself as a beneficent and strong-willed 'overlord' of sorts, along the lines of 'we're so sure in what we're doing, we'll pay this blood money by the lorryload until you terrorists are dead.'

As for 'liberal agenda', I find this humorous, seeing as the US doesn't really have liberals in any influential position.

No... the USA will gain nothing. You just lose more money...

And perhaps more soldiers will be lost because drone strikes that could have saved lives might not be called because now you have to pay the dead...

That's a ridiculous suggestion; Instead of killing innocent people and thus making the terrorists more popular, encouraging people to provide them new recruits, weapons, funds, you'd be mollifying the locals by showing good faith with them. It'd also be a hell of a lot cheaper per corpse than buying a new Hellfire missile.

And the US is not on active operations in places where the drone strikes are being used. I am glad to see you do care for those foreign people though.

[God Kefka]

No... the USA will gain nothing. You just lose more money...

And perhaps more soldiers will be lost because drone strikes that could have saved lives might not be called because now you have to pay the dead...

That's a ridiculous suggestion; Instead of killing innocent people and thus making the terrorists more popular, encouraging people to provide them new recruits, weapons, funds, you'd be mollifying the locals by showing good faith with them. It'd also be a hell of a lot cheaper per corpse than buying a new Hellfire missile.

And the US is not on active operations in places where the drone strikes are being used. I am glad to see you do care for those foreign people though.

US has been droning people they suspect of having to do with terrorists in the first place. YOU are the one making ridiculous statements...

Instead of killing innocent people and thus making the terrorists more popular...

wtf? How is bombing people who are mostly related to terrorists encouraging terrorism?

And care for foreign people?

US soldiers > terrorists

[Draakonite]

That's a ridiculous suggestion; Instead of killing innocent people and thus making the terrorists more popular, encouraging people to provide them new recruits, weapons, funds, you'd be mollifying the locals by showing good faith with them. It'd also be a hell of a lot cheaper per corpse than buying a new Hellfire missile.

And the US is not on active operations in places where the drone strikes are being used. I am glad to see you do care for those foreign people though.

US has been droning people they suspect of having to do with terrorists in the first place. YOU are the one making ridiculous statements...

Instead of killing innocent people and thus making the terrorists more popular...

wtf? How is bombing people who are mostly related to terrorists encouraging terrorism?

And care for foreign people?

US soldiers > terrorists

I wouldn't say every civilian in the middle east is "related to terrorists".

[Llamalandia]

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?

I don't know did team america world police ever compensate anyone for blowing up the pyramids or destroying the eifel tower, I think not. That said I guess it be relatively inexpensive so maybe. It's not like people who had lost family members to a drone strike by the usa would ever use the money to I don't know commit terror acts acts against them right? Also who thinks living next door to a high ranking terrorist is a good idea?

[Vetok]

That's a ridiculous suggestion; Instead of killing innocent people and thus making the terrorists more popular, encouraging people to provide them new recruits, weapons, funds, you'd be mollifying the locals by showing good faith with them. It'd also be a hell of a lot cheaper per corpse than buying a new Hellfire missile.

And the US is not on active operations in places where the drone strikes are being used. I am glad to see you do care for those foreign people though.

US has been droning people they suspect of having to do with terrorists in the first place. YOU are the one making ridiculous statements...

You know this is really simple; A lot of the people who have been killed are not members of these terrorist groups, because surprisingly, accidents do happen in military situations.

Instead of killing innocent people and thus making the terrorists more popular...

wtf? How is bombing people who are mostly related to terrorists encouraging terrorism?

And care for foreign people?

US soldiers > terrorists

Come on, it's not hard. You fly a drone over a village where some intel says there may be terrorists, you see someone suspicious, fire the Hellfire and blow them to kingdom come.

Guess what? You just atomised a shepherd!

Now, if you don't even apologise to the family and offer them compensation, what do you think they're doing to do? If the choice is between sitting back and doing nothing, or someone like say, an Al-Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula member comes up to them and offers the chance to become a suicide bomber against the murdering foreign devils and make them pay in blood for their crimes, what do you think they'll do?

[Llamalandia]

US has been droning people they suspect of having to do with terrorists in the first place. YOU are the one making ridiculous statements...

You know this is really simple; A lot of the people who have been killed are not members of these terrorist groups, because surprisingly, accidents do happen in military situations.

wtf? How is bombing people who are mostly related to terrorists encouraging terrorism?

And care for foreign people?

US soldiers > terrorists

Come on, it's not hard. You fly a drone over a village where some intel says there may be terrorists, you see someone suspicious, fire the Hellfire and blow them to kingdom come.

Guess what? You just atomised a shepherd!

Now, if you don't even apologise to the family and offer them compensation, what do you think they're doing to do? If the choice is between sitting back and doing nothing, or someone like say, an Al-Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula member comes up to them and offers the chance to become a suicide bomber against the murdering foreign devils and make them pay in blood for their crimes, what do you think they'll do?

Is a pay off really enough to stop this or is this new aq recruit simply going to use the money to pay for new kicks (shoes) before heading off terrorist boot camp? If they are going to be radicalized anyway isee no reason to pay, if not then perhaps this makes good policy sense. :)

[Llamalandia]

Imagine how many civies would be killed if we didn't have precision drones to use and were still relying on carpet bombing the heck outta terror suspects, so at least the collateral damage is small enough to make reparations at least feasible wrt drone strikes.

[L Ron Cupboard]

wtf? How is bombing people who are mostly related to terrorists encouraging terrorism?

How is making up stuff supposed to be an argument?

[God Kefka]

US has been droning people they suspect of having to do with terrorists in the first place. YOU are the one making ridiculous statements...

You know this is really simple; A lot of the people who have been killed are not members of these terrorist groups, because surprisingly, accidents do happen in military situations.

wtf? How is bombing people who are mostly related to terrorists encouraging terrorism?

And care for foreign people?

US soldiers > terrorists

Come on, it's not hard. You fly a drone over a village where some intel says there may be terrorists, you see someone suspicious, fire the Hellfire and blow them to kingdom come.

Guess what? You just atomised a shepherd!

Now, if you don't even apologise to the family and offer them compensation, what do you think they're doing to do? If the choice is between sitting back and doing nothing, or someone like say, an Al-Qaeda in Arabian Peninsula member comes up to them and offers the chance to become a suicide bomber against the murdering foreign devils and make them pay in blood for their crimes, what do you think they'll do?

You are ignoring most of the successful strikes against terrorists/people aiding terrorists and overwhelmingly focusing on a few outlier accidents. You think the USA is so incompetent it is overwhelmingly bombing innocent civilians?

The drone strikes save US soldiers' lives and they are on the whole a good way to hit terrorists without advance warning.

Compensating people is stupid... this is war... civilians die. It's expensive enough for the USA without this compensation culture. We'll compensate them when the terrorists decide to compensate us for the US civilians THEY fucking kill...

[Gothmogs]

Imagine how many civies would be killed if we didn't have precision drones to use and were still relying on carpet bombing the heck outta terror suspects, so at least the collateral damage is small enough to make reparations at least feasible wrt drone strikes.

Not really "small". http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2208307/Americas-deadly-double-tap-drone-attacks-killing-49-people-known-terrorist-Pakistan.html