Should the US compensate civilian casualties of drones?

[God Kefka]

From the looks of it, everyone who's carried on arguing against compensating the relatively few innocent victims of the drone strikes is doing for 'NOT MAH MONIEZ, NUH-UH', and 'THOSE DAMNED FURRINERS'. If any of you could provide a reason why compensating families $5000 per corpse is more expensive than a single Hellfire missile at $65,000-$68,000, please, feel free.

Ridiculous...

Who cares if 5000 dollars is less or more than 65,000-68,000 dollars (obviously less but... the point?)?

If you don't compensate the cost of launching 1 missile is 65,000-68,000.

If you need to compensate it's 65,000-68,000 PLUS 5000 multiplied by the number of ''innocents'' killed/number of family members of the ''innocents kills etc which causes the costs to be HIGHER.

So this is really simple. If you force the US military to compensate, the cost is more.

You are making it more expensive to take out terrorists, you are limiting the USA's flexibility, expanding its burden, and damaging the war on terror.

[Des-Bal]

No. Most of the "civilians" who get killed in drone strikes weren't particularly civil. Using the infamous wedding example where a large number of civilians were killed, they were at a fucking wedding with terrorists. If your family is filled with terrorists and you go to events with said terrorists and you've suddenly got a reason to be mad the US no we will not give you any fucking money.

[The Great Equestrian Empire]

No, too expensive. I mean, civilian casualties as a result of collateral and accidents is to be expected in wartime. This war wouldn't be happening if it wasn't for Al-Qaeda. All the more reason to hate Al-Qaeda and their allies even more.

[God Kefka]

Compensating the victims is an impractical overly liberal idea.

If we can somehow get that money we should use it on our own soldiers and their families instead... not on some foreigners.

[Seleucas]

No. Most of the "civilians" who get killed in drone strikes weren't particularly civil. Using the infamous wedding example where a large number of civilians were killed, they were at a fucking wedding with terrorists. If your family is filled with terrorists and you go to events with said terrorists and you've suddenly got a reason to be mad the US no we will not give you any fucking money.

Funny that blowing up a wedding is seen as perfectly acceptable, but if someone so much as pickets a US soldier's funeral it's seen as completely intolerable and beyond the pale. (Not that I agree with either.) Also, can't say it makes much sense to claim that one is fighting terrorism but to consider guilt by association to be sufficient to kill someone.