Drone strikes in Pakistan

SVreX wrote: In reply to Curmudgeon: Ok, so I think I am understanding your perspective to be, essentially, that AQ has had (significant) presence and activity in Pakistan, therefore the nation of Pakistan should be held responsible for the actions of AQ, right? I think it is a fine line (or perhaps a slippery slope) to blame a sovereign nation for the actions of a militant extremist group that exists in their borders. There really is a separation there, unless we are saying that Pakistan is not sovereign (completely different argument). A NATION is bombing a sovereign NATION. I hope someone doesn't start dropping bombs across our border because we've got stupid people here who have done stupid things.

Actually, it's been pretty clear for some time that the Pakistani government (or at least their military intelligence service, ISI) has at least not actively interfered in AQ operations in their country. It's debateable whether they have actively assisted them although it would not surprise me to find that they have.

Drone operations inside Pakistan appear to have had the quiet support of the Pakistani government. The source of this information? None other than Wikileaks. http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/12/01/wikileaks.pakistan.drones/index.html So it's not exactly one sovereign nation bombing another. In fact, this means the Paki government is sorta schizophrenic: they are pandering to both sides.

Genocide is not targeting a certain group. it's targeting a certain group to extinction.

This is more profiling.

And Svrex sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.

SVreX wrote: A NATION is bombing a sovereign NATION.

“We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them.” — George W. Bush, 9/20/01

“And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” — George W. Bush, 9/20/01

We wouldn't be having this discussion if Pakistan would do the right thing. Which, without putting words in his mouth, is what I believe Curmudgeon is trying to say.

I do not condone drone strikes at all. Completely indefencible to invade a sovreign countries' airspace to bomb their citizens. And if the Pakistani government is complicit, then let them run the drones and bomb their own people. I would like to point out that drones are not the same level of technology as say a long range missile or a nuke. At some point a Drone will be used on America.

carguy123 wrote: Genocide is not targeting a certain group. it's targeting a certain group to extinction.

No it is not.

The legal definition (according to the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide) defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

There is not a clear definition of what "in part" actually means.

But it clearly does not mean "to extinction". If it did, then Nazi Germany would not have been genocide, because there are still Jews alive.

Semantics arguments are really boring.

Hate to tell you bearmtnmartin, but it seems the Pakis have run some of their own drone missions as well. Maybe, just maybe, they have a reason for that?

I keep coming back to: catch the top targets, turn them over, the drone strikes end. Is that such a hard concept to grasp? Ask the Pakistani ISI why they don't just come to grips with reality. Maybe ask them why they couldn't catch OBL when he was less than 2 miles from the Pakistani version of West Point, that would be a very interesting Q and A session.

Of course, the drone strikes could end and be replaced by ground troops. I am not sure I prefer that; I am not nuts about risking American lives over there any more than we have to. Since there is a coalition force in the area, perhaps Canadian troops could replace American and British drones?