posted at 1/31/2013 10:10 PM EST
In response to Newtster's comment:
In response to 12-Angry-Men's comment:
Someone explain to me how it would be possible to insert a spec op team into Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia, capture a target and then exfiltrate the team and prisoner. And do it repeatedly, for each target.
As much as you chickenhawks think spec ops are all Rambo's, no one is going to risk an entire team in a hostile country, with no support to capture one target. The rewards don't come close to the risk of losing 7/8/10 guys in a hostile foreign country. Not to mention the fact that if the shiiat does hit the fan- the PR the terrorists would get from dragging the bodies of the soldiers through the streets would be devastating.
If ya'll think it's worth the risk, then get your backsides down to the nearest recruiting station and sign up. They'll teach ya everything ya need to know ...
I don't think anyone is recommending that we send in commandos to capture people. What they are saying is that it is hypocritical to exaggerate about definitions of "torture" and claim you are all for "American values" and then shoot rockets out of nowhere at terrorist suspects with the knowledge that there will be innocent people killed as well.
Really, how can one crow about how saintly you are by banning whatever you define as "torture" and then kill thousands of innocent civilians, including children, with the drones? If BUsh were doing this you would be howling about how evil he was.
Yeah, sure, a suspect in detention is different than one you suspect in the field. That's more of a legal argument. Morally speaking, what's the difference? Not a shiiteload.
Personally I am OK with both. Interrogate with the most effective means possible and shoot the missles from drones.
In war, innocent people get killed. That is a fact of life.
The idea that the people surrounding a known terrorist don't know that said terrorist's objective is to kill Westerner's, doesn't exactly make these people out to be as 'innocent' as some would like you to believe. Yes, they might not actively participate in the terrorist actions but they are aiding and abetting the terrorist by harboring him/her. Didn't baby-Bush say as much with his 'with us or against us' speech?
And just quit with your strawman arguments by trying to project what everyone would say. It's a bullshiat cop out.
The use of drones strikes, and the resulting collateral damage, is akin to the bombing runs of WWII or Vietnam. In fact, they are much more discriminant and precise, reducing said collateral damage to a minimum.
You wage war with the most effective, most advanced weapons in your arsenal.
You don't send soldiers on what could be a failed mission if you don't have to.
To paraphrase Gen Patton; "You don't win wars sacrificing lives for your cause, you win wars making the other guy sacrifice his life for his cause."
And by-the-by, the idea of capturing these terrorists is exactly the argument presented by the OP. It's either that or just leave them alone to continue to plot attacks. Pick one.
There are no other alternatives.