Should the US compensate civilian casualties of drones?

[Luveria]

Yes. Since when has the US ever been unable to afford war?

Revolutionary war.
Civil War.
World War II.
Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

All of these put considerable stress on the US economy (in the form of debt) and none involved civilian compensation. Each and every one would be ruinous if civilians had been compensated for deaths, injuries, lost livelihood and property destruction.

I think you liberals are trying to do to war what you did to Capital Punishment: make it too expensive, then use the expense as a reason not to make war. Like you don't have better reasons.

What makes you think I'm a liberal?

[United Furry Alliance]

It would be the sensible nice thing to do and the least one could do for taking a person from a family.

[Breadknife]

I've been thinking about this since I saw the thread created. I think it'd probably be bad for some beancounters to check the footage and say "I see two houses caught in the blast, three goats a motorcycle and... looks like 15 people killed, so we'll pay <so many> [PKR|AFN|IQD|etc], and call it even...".

I'm not saying don't pay compensation, but don't make it "Pay-per-bomb" (/missile/whatever). OTOH, to the emotional trauma of loss for the survivors and then you add the further trauma of having to get compensation... So, tricky.

The US already spent $2bn a day on missiles in the Gulf. In the 1990s. Plus other munitions. Plus fuel. Plus shipping that fuel and those munitions, and the fuel to do that shipping.
In 2011, US forces expended one billion rounds of ammunition in Afghanistan.

War is ludicrously fucking expensive. Suddenly adding an additional tangible financial cost on every munition used is just mad, mad on every level.

Are you agreeing with me or disagreeing with me? I think it's the former (although with a different reasoning behind it), but the notoriously-difficult-to-interpret-from-text-alone tone suggests the latter. (If it's arisen from my own rather flip-flop and unresolved thoughts that I laid down about the issue, I apologise.)

[Luveria]

It would be the sensible nice thing to do and the least one could do for taking a person from a family.

And it would make the US look a lot less douchey.

The US already spent $2bn a day on missiles in the Gulf. In the 1990s. Plus other munitions. Plus fuel. Plus shipping that fuel and those munitions, and the fuel to do that shipping.
In 2011, US forces expended one billion rounds of ammunition in Afghanistan.

War is ludicrously fucking expensive. Suddenly adding an additional tangible financial cost on every munition used is just mad, mad on every level.

Are you agreeing me or disagreeing with me? I think it's the former (although with a different reasoning behind it), but the notoriously-difficult-to-interpret-from-text-alone tone suggests the latter. (If it's arisen from my own rather flip-flop and unresolved thoughts that I laid down about the issue, I apologise.)

Why can't it be both?

[British Prussia]

Mandatory life insurance for everyone in the world. I have solved the problem with my genius.

[Breadknife]

Are you agreeing [with] me or disagreeing with me?

Why can't it be both?

Quite easy, I suppose, if they had read my submission a certain way, but I was really trying to narrow down where the disconnect was, because it didn't seem to be a relevent reply. Not relevent as a reply to my own text, anyway, in the manner I'd intended it. But there was always the possibility of unintended meanings being misread and/or slipping through.

Had it been a reply with no quoting of my own message at all, I could see it being a direct answer to the thread-title, of course, so it occurs to me that it was an accidental "Quote" instead of "Reply to thread".

[The Emerald Legion]

Absolutely. Not for PR reasons. Just for Good People reasons.

Oh and if you think the Yemenis are going to be bought off with a pack of skittles, a goat, and $500, you might have another thing coming.

... the country that's first plan to "Show those Russians" after sputnick was to nuke the moon in such a manner that the cloud of dust and debris would block out the sun are supposed to be "good" people now?


This country has always been the Affably Evil supervillains of the western world.

[Agritum]

Yes. Since when has the US ever been unable to afford war?

Revolutionary war.
Civil War.
World War II.
Afghanistan and Iraq wars.

All of these put considerable stress on the US economy (in the form of debt) and none involved civilian compensation. Each and every one would be ruinous if civilians had been compensated for deaths, injuries, lost livelihood and property destruction.

I think you liberals are trying to do to war what you did to Capital Punishment: make it too expensive, then use the expense as a reason not to make war. Like you don't have better reasons.

Because mobilizing troops, managing logistics, purchasing services from contractors, replacing destroyed hardware is totally cheap.

[Placken]

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.

i guess. The west gets away with every genocide, invasion of a sovergin state, invasion of foreign airspace, war it causes

There is really only one crime in war, and that is to lose. Besides, Truman was VP during the war, an essentially powerless position. Also, pretty much every side engaged in massive carpet bombing in WWII targeting cities, causing many civilian deaths. The only real difference with Nagasaki, is that it killed so many people in one go. I don't believe there has been anyone charged for collateral damage or accidental targeting. It has only been intentional targeting of non-military targets that is a war crime.

anyway, any reparations will be viewed by anti-Americans with this response.

It is proof that Americans are guilty murders, who murder for fun and then buy off the poor victims, so they can keep murdering. Also, it is too little, and too late. So basically, it would just draw more unwanted attention to the issue, and be a PR nightmare.

[Imperializt Russia]

Major cities in all European countries, and also Japan, had been extensively targeted with the primary intention of killing civilians to demoralise and also weaken infrastructural workforces. Civilian targets.
Endless quotes from the war will openly admit this.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have had military targets nearby but it was the city in general that was actually targeted. Nagasaki probably qualifies as a war crime more than Hiroshima, simply because many evacuees from Hiroshima were actually sent to Nagasaki.

[L Ron Cupboard]

War is expensive enough already. You want to pay compensation to victims??

The US is not at war with the Yemen or Pakistan.

[Imperializt Russia]

War is expensive enough already. You want to pay compensation to victims??

The US is not at war with the Yemen or Pakistan.

Semantics. A war is being fought, and actions of that war are being fought in Yemen and Pakistan.

[Benuty]

War is expensive enough already. You want to pay compensation to victims??

The US is not at war with the Yemen or Pakistan.

A shadow war is still very much a war even if the legality of it is not open about it.

[Asasia]

They should, but they wont.

[L Ron Cupboard]

The US is not at war with the Yemen or Pakistan.

Semantics. A war is being fought, and actions of that war are being fought in Yemen and Pakistan.

And it is killing children in those countries. Is there really a good argument for not compensating for the deaths of those children?

[The Emerald Legion]

Semantics. A war is being fought, and actions of that war are being fought in Yemen and Pakistan.

And it is killing children in those countries. Is there really a good argument for not compensating for the deaths of those children?

Yes. Precedent. When, previously, has the US paid reparations to civilians caught in the crossfire?

[Benierra]

War is expensive enough already. You want to pay compensation to victims??

The US is not at war with the Yemen or Pakistan.

yer but the USA never declared war against North Korea and that was definitely a war.

Also I think they should compensate the victims of drone strikes (but not with money).

[Jamessonia]

And it is killing children in those countries. Is there really a good argument for not compensating for the deaths of those children?

Yes. Precedent. When, previously, has the US paid reparations to civilians caught in the crossfire?

The same could be said about freeing the slaves. Any good reason not to? Precedent.

[Eligeria]

This is war. What else is to be expected? Collateral damage happens. If it wasn't for Al-Qaeda then this war wouldn't have even been declared. All the more reason to hate Al-Qaeda and their allies.

[The United Soviet Socialist Republic]

Yes. When the Americans blow up innocent people's homes and kill innocent civilians, they better pay some compensation.

[The Crimson Horde Khanate]

NO!!!! Because Murica is the world police!

To Punish and Enslave!

[The Emerald Legion]

Yes. Precedent. When, previously, has the US paid reparations to civilians caught in the crossfire?

The same could be said about freeing the slaves. Any good reason not to? Precedent.

There was precedent to freeing slaves.

[Jamessonia]

The same could be said about freeing the slaves. Any good reason not to? Precedent.

There was precedent to freeing slaves.

Not in the US.

[Seleucas]

Yes, but better still that the US should end its drone bombing campaign entirely.

[Vakolic]

If yo're going to bomb nations ou're not at war with, at least pay the people you're bombing.