US drones kill 40 in Pakistan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-12784675

Tribal elders promise revenge.

You people are real good at making enemies.

Good thing that Gaddaffi called that cease fire then.

Because you would have certainly seen casualties like that and far higher when setting up the no fly zone.

Pretty good chance you still will.

I don't see how a "you people" does any good. Who are, "You people?"

From the side of many in the US, "You People" was the group of 40 killed. From RickDeckard, "you people" is anyone doing something he doesn't like.

"You people" leads to rather indiscriminate conflict resolution, and the start of threads like this.

Why make the same mistake over and over again?

The cease fire was a fake.

Oh and at this point I don't care. It's obvious Pakistan is in bed with terrorism, jerking us around, and has little control of that area anyway.

We should be drone attacking anything we come across.

I was referring to the American military, and American hawks in general. Sorry if I was imprecise.

Unintended consequences of live fire attacks in a civilian population? Let alone one where it's extraordinarily difficult to tell between enemy and bystander?

Yes, they are related.

The No Fly Zone starts with 100 of these strikes. While it might be a good idea politically, and even morally, it has consequences. And some of those are bound to be innocent bodies.

And: RickDeckard has been arguing in favor of the No Fly Zone, while a large number of us have been saying the US should just keep out of it.

So who is the hawk here?

I don't agree with the assesment that the no-fly zone must start with 100 of these strikes. If it does, I will quickly oppose it.

Of course, they certainly aren't going to be using drones in Libya.

Children even...

Collateral damage eh?

*Holds up a burning shoe with some goo in it*

Why don't you tell her you're sorry?!?

Where's you're sorry now?!?!?!

Then you are willfully ignorant.

No, they are going to start with offshore tomahawks. The navy is already in position.

It sounds then like you are in favour of a No Fly Zone that is not enforced, meaning, one that doesn't actually accomplish anything, but makes people feel good, as if they did something by "being in favour".

I am in favour of a no-fly zone being enforced by engaging any attempt by Gadaffi's forces to violate it, not be pre-emptively destroying their ability to do so. The UN resolution as drafted seems to be much too broad to me.

You want a no fly zone that allows flights, eh.

But, if their capability to fly isn't removed, what good is a no-fly zone?

He's not stating he doesn't want a no fly zone.

He's stating he doesn't want the initial bombardment to wipe out the dictator's forces ability to resist the no fly zone, because 1) we'd still achieve domination of their air space and 2) he'd rather see military folks get killed than have any unintended consequences.

What he's choosing to ignore is that isn't an option, and calling for a no fly zone would definitely lead to civilian deaths.

So it's okay to have a no-fly zone as long as we (the hawks, US Military, etc) leave Libyan defenses intact so they can fire upon us first.

Because we don't know if they will use any defenses against us - let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

"Don't fire until fired upon" and all that. :b:

Fucking amazing line of thought. I'm speechless.

He is not saying he doesn't want a no-fly zone, but what it seems like he is expecting would do just that.

I'm not hearing why that's not an option.

Also, I'd add that I'd like US involvement to be as minimal as possible, lest I be accused of wanting Americans killed.

Because leaving the Libyan AA systems intact GREATLY increases the risk to Allied pilots. They are being asked to risk their lives for the Libyan people. The very least they deserve is the safest way to carry out their mission. That means taking out the AA first.

So it is an option, it's just not one you're prepared to accept.

Those who join the military fight voluntarily. They should accept some degree of danger. Blowing the fuck out of Libyan civilians defeats the purpose of protecting them.

You really are dumb. People join the military with the understanding that they might die. However, the also know that those in control will make every effort to minimize that risk. A big coward like you, who never puts his life in danger has no place at all telling them they should be at greater risk due to your misguided ideals.

They shouldn't be there, then the Libyan civilians won't be at risk from Allied pilots.

And you have no place telling a Libyan child that he needs to get blown to smithereens because of your ideals. There are choices here, none of them perfect.

The choice then is obvious. We stay out and the libyans handle their own mess. That's what we've been saying. You have no right to put our pilots at risk for your ideals.

I disagree.

Then sign up and put your own life at risk. Coward.

I do not wish to. If those in the military do not wish to, then they shouldn't sign up either.

Fortunately people like you have no decision making power over anyone's life.