Afghanistan - What is the objective?

If the American government did not object to attacks on its own population, what would you call it?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I dont think Pakistan wants these drones to take out entire villages and rile up the people there against the government. Fact of the matter is that Pakistan feels surrounded. India, the USA and various other countries are heavily involved in Afghanistan which leads Pakistan to feel uncomfortable. This may be one of the reasons the Taliban arent being completely trampled down by the pakistani government.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Good for you.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Off topic. This is from the UK.

Iraq inquiry set up 'after July'

David Miliband confirms in the Commons that an inquiry will be held.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7963406.stm)

It will be interesting from a legal perspective to see where this goes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Obviously, these aren't indescriminate attacks, we are targeting the kind of people who killed Benazir Bhutto. How many civilians got killed on that day? 136. That's a 99.3% civilian death rate.

 

You have it exactly backwards. It's only because Pakistan is unable (or unwilling) to deal with this matter that US drones are there in the first place.

And under that exact same law, it is perfectly legally to launch attacks across such a border, if the territory in question is being used to launch armed attacks on you. Nobody is obligated to sit on their hands and be attacked from Pakistani territory, just because Pakistan doesn't want them attacking there. It is incumbent upon Pakistan to fulfill the obligations of sovereignty, if they want to enjoy its privileges.

Hey, the drone strikes may or may not be a good strategy for the US. But that's a very different question than whether they constitute an unlawful violation of Pakistani sovereignty.

 

According to the reports coming out of those towns they are indiscriminate.

You cannot compare those villages to the people that assassinated Bhutto. The Bhutto family has their most loyal support up in those villages and towns. If you want to know who killed her ask yourself who profited from Bhuttos death? I admit, I dislike the Bhutto family because they, together with Zia, started the decline of Pakistan. But I would have rather seen her than Zardari. Who profited? Wasnt Musharraf. Who gained power and is now abusing it?

 

It's a propaganda war as much as anything. A ground assault would kill many, many more people, yet would also be justified in some circumstances.

 

You realize that if the US exits Afghanistan, these attack will stop? What matters in the FIRST place is (arguably) the ongoing occupation of Afghanistan for which there is no end in sight and no clear strategy.

Of course, but NOT if the civilian casualty rate is sitting at 80%.

Yes. It is and will remain a gray area, until all hell breaks loose.

 

Its like saying that Hamas invading the US would be justified because US weaponry attacked and killed Gazans. Ofcourse, somehow international law would be broken if Hamas did that

 

No, they are obviously overjoyed to see their citizens slaughtered by foreigners.

Sigh.

 

The attacks on US forces, you mean? Sure. But the attacks on Afghanistan will not stop in such an event. They will intensify, with the goal of overthrowing the elected Afghan government and (re-)installing a theocratic dictatorship. And recall that the entire reason the US is in Afghanistan in the first place is that said theocrats allowed their territory to be used to launch attacks on the United States.

Disporportionate or reckless actions are unacceptable in their own right. But that, again, is a separate issue from whether strikes inside Pakistan are, a priori, illegal.

Do you have a source for this 80% civilian casualty rate? That's far in excess of any numbers I've heard.

 

quadraphonics, don't you know any casualty if it is Muslim is counted as a civilian.

2 terrorist hiding behind 8 wives, that gives you a 80% civilian casualty rate.

 

Yes. I understand this, and the solution is not an easy one.

Given the civilian casualty rate, I would argue that by their nature (imprecise) they are illegal.

(http://www.entekhabnews.net/USA-NEWS/Politics/14574.html)

 

It is common knowledge in Pakistan that Zardari killed Bhutto, and now Zardari is covering up his support for Predator drone strikes on Pakistani civilians. The US fully supports Zardari, while the Pakistani people hate him. Now what does this make Zardari, a friend or enemy of the Pakistani people?

Also, the Pakistani population is vehemently opposed to the murder of more than 100 of its civilians a month by US drone attacks. The US have even killed Pakistani policemen of Frontier Corps in such attacks. This is the kind of thing which topples governments, the Pakistani constitution declares such attacks as a declaration of war.

The US has a very bad tendency to make enemies of its friends in the region due to its meddling in their affairs and lack of respect for their sovereignty.

 

StrawDog

The strikes are any but imprecise, and the civilian casualties are questionable as they are reported by the Terrorist and are not confirmable by independent source.

 

The governments of Afghanistan under Karzai and the Zardari Pakistani government allied to America are terrorist?

Buff, please stop embarrassing yourself. You know this means America is the number one terrorist right, because it backs both governments. The contradiction, LOL.

http://www.reuters.com/article/homepageCrisis/idUSLK173911._CH_.2400

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090326/ts_nm/us_pakistan_missile

 

According to Buff every brown person there is a terrorist so he cant trust what they say.

 

Hmm. Maybe you should support your accusation of bigotry now?

 

What indepedent source? The Lancet?

 

Just read Buffs history of posts. According to him everyone in that region can be considered a terrorist so no point in listening to them