Should the US compensate civilian casualties of drones?

[British Prussia]

Civilian casualties happen all the time war. The only thing you can do is ensure a prosperous peace after you win it.

[Imperializt Russia]

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?

You do realize that it isn't just America that spies on foreign embassies and it's own civilians?

Of course not.
However, America's programmes were so widespread that my own country's intelligence service didn't bother booting up their own. We just asked to be sent the info you collected on our citizens.

[Skaldia]

You do realize that it isn't just America that spies on foreign embassies and it's own civilians?

Of course not.
However, America's programmes were so widespread that my own country's intelligence service didn't bother booting up their own. We just asked to be sent the info you collected on our citizens.

Which basically means your country was just too damn lazy to do the work?

AND OF COURSE AMERICA'S programs are so widespread!

[Risottia]

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. ...

Er, terrorists are "civilians" too as they're not part of a regular army and there hasn't been a proper declaration of war...

So, yes, the US should compensate non-combatant civilian casualties, but this shouldn't end there. It should also compensate the countries where the strikes are conducted if there wasn't a previous agreement with the local government; in the same case, the US officials who authorized the strikes should be prosecuted for first-degree murder (of the intended target), second-degree murder (of the collateral damage victims).

[Imperializt Russia]

Of course not.
However, America's programmes were so widespread that my own country's intelligence service didn't bother booting up their own. We just asked to be sent the info you collected on our citizens.

Which basically means your country was just too damn lazy to do the work?

AND OF COURSE AMERICA'S programs are so widespread!

Implying that's either good or acceptable.

[Timna]

So improving the USA's international image isn't beneficial?

I just think that paying people money pales in insignificance to the damage killing their relatives and friends creates.

I'm not saying the US shouldn't do it. Because they should. But it won't be a PR coup or anything.

[Placken]

There are a myriad of reasons the US international image suffers. This will only address a small, and mostly insignificant one. That is insignificant in the portion of influence it has on public opinion. Those it is most significant to will only have their anti-US sentiment abated, not eliminated. Doing things just to get someone to like you, it is not a sound policy.

[Luveria]

You do realize that it isn't just America that spies on foreign embassies and it's own civilians?

Of course not.
However, America's programmes were so widespread that my own country's intelligence service didn't bother booting up their own. We just asked to be sent the info you collected on our citizens.

Cost efficiency.

So improving the USA's international image isn't beneficial?

I just think that paying people money pales in insignificance to the damage killing their relatives and friends creates.

I'm not saying the US shouldn't do it. Because they should. But it won't be a PR coup or anything.

It's not just that. They go in and fuck things up for innocent people, and that's a seriously douchey thing to do.

[Telsia]

Hi, from all the docos I've seen of that region, they culturally have a concept of compensation for death, such as a murderer would have to pay the family money/something of equal value to the person who was killed.

So everyone would be more inclined to take the money without taking up a gun, also america does compansate afghans for loss of property with food/goods, but never money.

Australian SAS has conducted raids which unfortantly civies have died and australia has given monetary compensation, the families were agreaved, but not driven into a greif stricken rage with them walking into the open arms of the taliban.

If a US military unit had an accident in a western nation that resulted in death of locals(i.e. british,
ustralian, canadian, german, dutch) the US would pay compensation to the families as well as the national government of that nation, so should it really be different for 3rd world countries?

Uh, so yeah, give them money, so the only question is how much?

[Wolfmanne]

Yes. They did it for civilian casualties in Afghanistan, and cheaply at that, so they can do it for the drone casualties. It wouldn't cost that much because they wouldn't be that picky.

[Luveria]

Hi, from all the docos I've seen of that region, they culturally have a concept of compensation for death, such as a murderer would have to pay the family money/something of equal value to the person who was killed.

So everyone would be more inclined to take the money without taking up a gun, also america does compansate afghans for loss of property with food/goods, but never money.

Australian SAS has conducted raids which unfortantly civies have died and australia has given monetary compensation, the families were agreaved, but not driven into a greif stricken rage with them walking into the open arms of the taliban.

If a US military unit had an accident in a western nation that resulted in death of locals(i.e. british,
ustralian, canadian, german, dutch) the US would pay compensation to the families as well as the national government of that nation, so should it really be different for 3rd world countries?

Uh, so yeah, give them money, so the only question is how much?

Considering it's a 3rd world country... a modest sum of American money is a fortune to the victims.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I don't doubt about giving out compensation when they make mistakes like that. The sum is inevitably going to be huge, so they're in theory at vain at trying to reach a lower sum (adjusted for local currency, living costs, etc).

[Luveria]

I don't doubt about compensation when they make silly mistakes like that. The sum is inevitably going to be huge so they're in theory at vain at trying to reach a lower sum.

Or it's more convenient for the US to keep silent about the collateral damage to causes.

[Azaflaza]

Do terrorist compensate the innocent victims of their actions? No.

At the end of the day, we are supposed to be better people than the terrorists.

[Wind in the Willows]

The US continue to bomb Pakistan and Afghanistan with drones, but it hardly kills any militants and mostly kills civilians. Why the hell are they still using drones then?

[Rabopari]

The US government not only needs to compensate casaulties of drones but they also need to send people like tony blair, george w bush, benjamin netenyahu and all the NATO commanders in the INVASION of iraq to the ICC for war crimes. But i know it will never happen because president Obama is a zionist twat.

[Wickedly evil people]

no, those nations should get rid of the islamo-fascists in their countries.


it's a war, they don't want civilian casualties they should clean up their countries.


it won't happen since the peaceful religion of Islam has been hijacked by racist thugs.

[Tagmatium]

Eh, they ought to be thankful that the US is spreading freedom and democracy via drone-launched missile strike.

...

But, seriously, the US probably ought to consider compensation for the casualties.

[Luveria]

The US continue to bomb Pakistan and Afghanistan with drones, but it hardly kills any militants and mostly kills civilians. Why the hell are they still using drones then?

I'm guessing because no US lives are lost.

[Imperializt Russia]

The US continue to bomb Pakistan and Afghanistan with drones, but it hardly kills any militants and mostly kills civilians. Why the hell are they still using drones then?

Actually, the majority of people killed in the graphic are listed as "other (suspected combatant)". Which is, of course, a suspected combatant.

It's a nice, cheap and easy way of putting munitions down. You don't put aircrews at risk, it's harder for air defences to notice drones than manned aircraft, and you don't need to have boots on the ground. They've also got really good flight endurance.

Further note that drones are increasingly being used to support troops in the field, as well as these drone raids.

[British Prussia]

Am I the only person who thinks compensation is ridiculous? It's just impossible. There wold be far too many to pay, and everyone would want a handout. It's bloody war, there will be casualties. Is it fair? No. The only way you can compensate the people is to ensure a prosperous stable government for the people.

Small operations where 1/2 people are injured or killed is much more isolated, you can pay compensation for that.

[Rabopari]

The US continue to bomb Pakistan and Afghanistan with drones, but it hardly kills any militants and mostly kills civilians. Why the hell are they still using drones then?

I'm guessing because no US lives are lost.

well said i bet in camp bastion every morning the when the americans wake up they have to go Heil cheney and Heil bush

[Placken]

The US government not only needs to compensate casaulties of drones but they also need to send people like tony blair, george w bush, benjamin netenyahu and all the NATO commanders in the INVASION of iraq to the ICC for war crimes. But i know it will never happen because president Obama is a zionist twat.

The last part is non sequitur, besides NATO and the US led Coalition did not break the law of war, they won.

[Rabopari]

Am I the only person who thinks compensation is ridiculous? It's just impossible. There wold be far too many to pay, and everyone would want a handout. It's bloody war, there will be casualties. Is it fair? No. The only way you can compensate the people is to ensure a prosperous stable government for the people.

Small operations where 1/2 people are injured or killed is much more isolated, you can pay compensation for that.

thats the whole point. to dry the usa dry

[Imperializt Russia]

The US government not only needs to compensate casaulties of drones but they also need to send people like tony blair, george w bush, benjamin netenyahu and all the NATO commanders in the INVASION of iraq to the ICC for war crimes. But i know it will never happen because president Obama is a zionist twat.

They probably should've sent Truman on trial with the Nazis for the attack on at least Nagasaki, and American commanders for the accidental chemical bombing of Nari in Italy in 1943, but what ya gonna do.