American Tax Dollars at Work!

[JohnRM]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/21/us/texas-drone-strike-victim/index.html?hpt=hp_c1


Take a good look. Shakira is a four year old little girl from Pakistan that suffered this damage to her face after a US drone strike. I am posting this, because when I first saw it, it crushed me. I plan to copy this and post it to every forum I use and to make hard copies to pass around in my area. I want everybody to see what we're doing to people over there. Americans are paying for it and they need to see what they're getting for their money. They need to have this image right in their face. I want it to haunt them in their sleep. This little girl isn't the only one. We've done this to millions, over the years. We the People are responsible for this.

Who is going to respond and justify this? Who is brave enough?

For the rest of you, why isn't this stuff front-page? Why are we not angry about this? Do we, as Americans, not care?

 

[mangxema]

Why are we not angry about this? Do we, as Americans, not care?

Some people are, given the current political field it looks like a rather small number. The only public figure that comes to mind is Ron Paul.

 

[peter grimes]

I read and saw this article this morning on the train. I looked around me and wondered if I was the only person on the train who was aware.

What we're doing over there is horrific. The escalation of the drone war is one of my biggest problems with Obama.

 

[Murky]

You probably won't see stuff like this covered much in the mainstream media. I hope they bring this war to a conclusion soon. It doesn't seem like we're accomplishing much besides causing more death and destruction.

 

[Patroklos]

It is horrible, and the fault of the Taliban not the US.

I just read the actual article.

1.) There is no evidence her injuries are from a drone strike, its an assumption because one happened to take place in the area. It could have been a structure fire, it could have been endemic child/women abuse from Taliban ideology, it could have been from any number of normal inter tribal armed conflicts.

Who knows.

2.) The THREE children were found alive in a trash heap. Thats right, the Taliban or their Pakistani supporters literally threw these children away ALIVE to die instead of helping them. The Americans, on the other hand, flew the survivor half way around the world for the best medical care in the world.

3.) The thread titile needs to be changed to reflect reality.

 

[Traitorfish]

Didn't work then, no reason to think that it work now...

 

[emzie]

It is horrible, and the fault of the Taliban not the US.

The Taliban shares in responsibility, but you can't excuse all responsibility from the US.

 

[Patroklos]

No, its entirely the responsibility of the Taliban.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

No, its entirely the responsibility of the Taliban.

Devastating rebuttal.

 

[Patroklos]

No rebuttal is needed, I just exposed the OP article for the collection of lies and baseless assumptions it is ealier.

However, I am completely willing to entertain evidence for any of the claims the OP made. The article obviously isn't going to help, but perhaps you can help it out a bit?

 

[Traitorfish]

No, its entirely the responsibility of the Taliban.

It's the Taliban's fault that the US can't point it's damn guns in the right direction?

 

[Old Hippy]

@ Traitorfish ... re Madrid poster
I remember seeing a 100 most famous photographs docco .... #1 was the naked Vietnamese girl burned by napalm photo, the antiwar movement made great progress in its time, maybe people are just more jaded by sound bites now days, but I'm sure your fascist example had a lot of effect, on the fascist forces... long after the conflict was over too

which I presume was your point anyway ...

 

[emzie]

No, its entirely the responsibility of the Taliban.

Why?

One might argue using drones increases the risk of civilian casualties, over use of strike teams (which would increase the risk to soldiers, obviously). Western populations are going to be more tolerant news stories that mention civilian deaths than they are of caskets being flown home. Not attempting to minimize civilian causalities would be against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Geneva conventions.

Further, I'd question why we're at war with the Taliban still. Don't mistake this for me thinking they're fine folk.

 

[Patroklos]

It's the Taliban's fault that the US can't point it's damn guns in the right direction?

1.) US involvement is unattested, do you have evidence of this.

2.) The fact that a conflict the US is party to produces children as collateral damage is irrelevant as to who is responsible for it. One side of this conflict is intentionally endangering the civilian population as a mater of strategy. The other isn't.

 

[Old Hippy]

1.) US involvement is unattested, do you have evidence of this.

2.) The fact that a conflict the US is party to produces children as collateral damage is irrelevant as to who is responsible for it. One side of this conflict is intentionally endangering the civilian population as a mater of strategy. The other isn't.

I see we have different views of what constitutes endangering children

 

[Traitorfish]

1.) US involvement is unattested, do you have evidence of this.

Intellectual cowardice. You know full well that, regardless of the details of this individual case, the US had, does and will continue to maim and kill innocent civilians. That much is completely undeniable.

2.) The fact that a conflict the US is party to produces children as collateral damage is irrelevant as to who is responsible for it. One side of this conflict is intentionally endangering the civilian population as a mater of strategy. The other isn't.

So as long as the other guy throws the first punch, it doesn't matter if you take out three passers by and a dog in the process of taking him down?

 

[Murky]

1.) US involvement is unattested, do you have evidence of this.

2.) The fact that a conflict the US is party to produces children as collateral damage is irrelevant as to who is responsible for it. One side of this conflict is intentionally endangering the civilian population as a mater of strategy. The other isn't.

I don't think people are saying that the USA is intentionally killing civilians, but that doesn't change the fact that wars produce collateral damage. When you use drones, it may increase the risk to civilians.

We have thankfully moved away from the WWII bombing of cities type of strategy. We still have a ways to go to in reducing collateral damage. The only sure fire way is not to go to war in the first place. Sometimes your enemies leave you no other option, but I don't believe that is the case in this particular war.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think people are saying that the USA is intentionally killing civilians...

What's the distinction, I wonder, between intentionally killing civilians, and doing things that you know will certainly kill civilians? When does "murder" become mere "collateral"?

 

[Patroklos]

Why?

One might argue using drones increases the risk of civilian casualties, over use of strike teams (which would increase the risk to soldiers, obviously).

Why would introducing soldiers hundreds of miles behind enemy lines magically reduce civilian casualties? On the contrary, when you start sending units rumaging through villages in hostille territory you are probably going to INCREASE casualties. Also, that takes time and coordination that jepardizes the mission, making no level of casualties worth it.

If you were talking about clearing buildings inside an occupied zone I agree with you (conditionally), however introducing troops into that situation is an EXTREME escalation of hostilities and is going to probably cause a set pitched battle. Not good.

And you are assuming it is possible. No offense, but the nonchalant way people hand wave the dificulties (or even posibility) or being able to do what you ask is sort of niave. "JUST SEND IN THE SPEC OPS!" is not really an answer in most situations.

Western populations are going to be more tolerant news stories that mention civilian deaths than they are of caskets being flown home.

Not nessecarily true, there is probably a ratio (grisly math to be sure) where that is not the case.

Not attempting to minimize civilian causalities would be against the spirit, if not the letter, of the Geneva conventions.

Iraq and Afghanistan are complete miracles of civilian protection from any measure you care to use. Wars like this used to claim millions of lives in just a few years, now we are counting in the tens of thousands after a decade. And that is with one side intentionally targeting civilians.

Drones save civilian lives because the reduce the overall foot print needed to accomplish those missions. How many lives do you think would have been lost if we had marched a few infantry corps over the Pakistani border to accomplish the same thing?

Further, I'd question why we're at war with the Taliban still. Don't mistake this for me thinking they're fine folk.

A valid arguement for another thread. But as of right now we are at war with them, and a dubiously attributed child injury as horrible as it might be in isolation does not invalidate the drone (areial really, manned aircraft would be doing the same thing wihtout the drones) program as a whole.

 

[emzie]

A valid arguement for another thread. But as of right now we are at war with them, and a dubiously attributed child injury as horrible as it might be in isolation does not invalidate the drone (areial really, manned aircraft would be doing the same thing wihtout the drones) program as a whole.

In that context, I'll agree with you... with the caveat that I think it's a bit arbitrary to put the blame on the enemy because we decided they're still the enemy.