There will never be an easy solution, but in discussing drones there are points that deserve deliberation;
The Pakistani government cannot be seen, publicly, to condone drone strikes. However, given the carnage being done by the taliban, which they are finding difficult to contain, behind the scenes they actually do.
Terrorists existed long before drones and to believe that ceasing their use would reduce terrorism is naive and dangerous.
Manned or unmanned - and no matter what care is taken - weapons cause collateral damage. But these weapons can be highly effective, as was demonstrated in the "taking out" of the pakistani taliban leader last week.
If the terrorists had the same technology they would, certainly, use it. At the moment they are restricted to suicide bombers and maniacs with AK's who massacre innocents in schools or shopping malls etc. If/when they acquire chemical, biological, or atomic weapons you will see just how "restrained" in there use they truly are.
All weapons can be used for evil. The difference is, who controls them and how they are used. You just have to ask yourself, who would you prefer to hold the military advantage?

@A10anis
ill answer that question.
neither.

your premise implies a moral "goodness" to one side while the other is "more" evil.
so you leave a choice of choosing the lesser of two evils.
yet both are evil.

how is it that when "they" perform violent acts of aggression it is "terrorism" but when "we" do the very same thing it is for the moral good.that somehow "our" violence is more righteous and justified.
see:http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terrorism

this is a classic hegelian dialectic=problem-reaction-solution

the choice of "lesser of two evils" totally ignores the first part.
the problem.
and the simple fact is:WE are the problem.
WE created the problem.
THEY react to the problem.
and then WE offer the solution.
in the form of violence.

i am not,by my commentary,dismissing the very actual and horrific truths of violence perpetrated by terrorists.

my point is simply:if you are going to look at a situation honestly you have to look at the board with open eyes.

let me put it in metaphorical terms:
which would you rather be eaten by?
a great white shark?
or a hammerhead?
neither...because BOTH are sharks.

i do totally agree with you in regards to pakistan.
they have been playing both sides for quite some time now,and lets not forget..they have nuclear weapons.

I think you are missing the point a bit though. In our world loaded with humans wishing harm to one another, you ARE sometimes left without any 'good' options.

With what the Taliban are, your choices are fight them or not. Neither choice seems very 'good'. Both choices mean watching people die as a result of the choice. If you do choose to fight them, how do you do so? Waging a ground war would mean MORE casualties than drones. Drones have been extremely effective in limiting casualties to the 'bad' guys more than any other technique available. They are still part of an act of war and mean people dying, which is hardly a thing to declare as 'good'. Insisting that there is a 'good' alternative to choose from though is more than naive, it's a lie that sounds sweet when you don't have to face the real consequences that Pakistani civilians do.

I think the whole Drone thing is a strawman. Obama is not a king who decides who is guilty and deserving of death, we have trials for that. Right now a list exists and the idea is someone decides. What if they decide that you are on that list tomorrow because you protested a corporation that has pull in the administration.

This is illegal, as it would be if it was being done to us, it is morally reprehensible and it shouldn't be allowed. America gets away with it because it holds the stick, it is powerful and can destroy weak countries. When a weak country with extremists has a nuclear bomb though, what will the outcome be?

Drones do not fight terrorism they are terrorism, and they create more and more terrorists daily.

So your "extremely effective" argument is just wrong, it is only effective at fostering more hatred, more anger.

You ignored the underlying argument. Policy towards tribal Pakistan is a no-win situation. If you can think of a 'good' or heck, even a better alternative please, please speak up. A great many very smart people have dedicated their lives to looking and there aren't many alternatives to be found. Long before 9/11 America was offering blank cheques to build schools for girls in tribal Pakistan. Even back then the money was refused because the schools would be burnt to the ground, and the people associated with it killed or run out of town for associating with the great Satan.

*commercial

Adding video to channels (Commercial) - requested by ant.

Follow the law. If there is some person or persons who are engaging in terrorist activity you ask them to be brought to justice and you bring evidence against them. America harbors way greater terrorists from people pleading for justice than Pakistan. There are ways to diplomatically go about this but instead America feels it owns the world and it can do what it wants.

The Magna Carta was created in 1215 and is the foundation for our laws including the concept of innocent until proven guilty. If we can't follow that, or the principles of the Nuremberg Trials we are pathetic.

You'll need to clarify for me what the rule of law in tribal Pakistan is. Plenty of evidence has been brought against terrorist criminals living in the region, and the Pakistani military, let alone police, are either unwilling or unable to attempt the arrest of said criminals. What do you propose as the right course of action in this scenario?

No this isn't true. The US started a War with Afghanistan refusing to give any evidence against Osama Bin Laden. They said hand him over or else, and they didn't have any evidence against them which the CIA admitted 8 months after the War was launched.

The US doesn't present evidence, they don't go to the World Court and they don't even tell the Pakistani Military or Government when they are going to attack someone. They do what they want.

Also there is plenty that you CAN do when a country simply refused to hand over criminals. We don't do them, we simply kill now. Bush Jailed people without evidence, Obama kills them and innocent civilians.

do me a favor. Remove yourself from the conversation if your just going to spout idiotic crap. The first Interpol warrant for Bin Laden's arrest was issued in the 1990's. If you want to protest a lack of evidence and proof you are choosing to live in a dream world. I won't debate fiction with you.

@bcglorf

i think it is rather you who missed my point and are aligning with the same argument @A10anis laid out.

i am not dismissing the horrific violence perpetrated by "terrorists".
what i AM dismissing is the "lesser of two evils" premise.

because it is hypocrisy on steroids.

now i realize you and i highly disagree on this matter.
thats ok..we can disagree.

people can use all the nationalistic jingoism they wish to make this situation a more "feel good" narrative.
they can point to the dead,tortured and beheaded to justify their own brand of violence.
they can flag-wave and pat themselves on the back that our form of violence is somehow "less" violent and "more" noble.

and it still would not change the fact that the reasons behind normal people turning to fundamentalist,reactionary violent groups can be found at our own feet.

this is the part of the equation that so many people i talk to seem to either willingly or unwittingly...ignore.

responsibility lies at the feet of those who created this violent ballet,just as it does with those who perpetrate the violence.

its like you hitting me in the face everyday at school and one day i hit you back.
but with a bat.
and you run to the principle and cry to have me arrested for hitting you in the face with a bat.
ignoring the fact you had been violent with me for many days prior.

moral question:who is wrong?
or in the context of this discussion:who is more evil?

@bcglorf
@Yogi is correct.
the US refused to provide evidence that bin laden was responsible for 9/11.

your counter with the 90's interpol has nothing to do with his statement.

they are two separate instances which have nothing to do with each other.

the reason why the US refused to provide any evidence that bin laden was responsible for 9/11 was because he wasnt.

the best that the state department could produce was a possible monetary contribution.

It has everything to do with it. Years previously the Taliban held an 'Islamic' trial of Bin Laden and America submitted evidence. The Taliban court accepted the evidence and dismissed the charges against Bin Laden anyways. Now the important note you all are ignoring is the court didn't dismiss the charges claiming Bin Laden never did what was claimed. No, instead the court deemed that his actions were in keeping with proper Islamic law. The Taliban had accepted documentation proving Bin Laden's guilt ages ago and said they thought his actions acceptable.

To still, to this day, insist that everything would've been so different if only the US had submitted evidence all over again that the outcome this time would've been any different is insanity and I can't believe anyone honestly is willing to expect others to share such a delusion.

If you say we needn't accept a lesser evil then please do share it with us. Simply walking away and ignoring the taliban as they slaughter thousands of Pakistani's every month in their quest to over throw the Pakistani government doesn't seem to me like some noble and 'good' course of action. If you've managed to discover a course of action here worthy of the name 'good' or even just not 'bad' I'm all ears.

@bcglorf
1.can you provide evidence that bin laden was responsible for 9/11?

and is it your contention that if the taliban had found bin laden guilty in the 90's 9/11 would have never happened?

im not being confrontational.i am trying to follow your logic.
maybe i am missing something.

2.is it your position that the causation of the current situation cannot be rectified?so therefore we must deal with it.

i have offered no course of action.
so whatever you have taken from my commentary is assumed on your part.

i do not understand your logic.
and i mean that in the most sincerest and human way.

so our country imposes sanctions that starve millions.
lets ignore that.
our country deposes and sometimes assasinates democratically elected leaders to impose depsots and tyrants who kill,maim and murder tens of thousands.
but thats not up for discussion.
our country fabricates evidence to go to war.
millions are the death toll.
but lets not examine that.

lets examine the thousands that are killed in a country that is a fight within their own borders.

and even those borders were an arbitrary drawing by the west (england in this case),which only serves to destabilize a region that was rich in culture and a far more moderate religious state than you find it today.

it is WE who radicalized THEM.
and we did it for our corporations.for profit.
to exploit regions illfit to defend themselves.
WE are the bully.
WE are the empire in star wars.

WE have lost the right to say anything in a moral argument in regards to a countries right to self determine.
because WE have shown ourselves to be,by far,the worst perpetrator of violence,murder,covert assasinations,political manipulation and brought untold suffering to countries across the globe.

WE are the greater of those two evils.
and it is about time WE shut the fuck up and leave other sovereign countries alone.
that is a course of action.
because to do otherwise the bile of hypocrisy would drown out any sense of true morality.

My point is the situation exists and we do not have time machines. You posit drones are the wrong answer. I am simply asking you provide a better one then. The simplest alternative would presumably be doing absolutely nothing. Doing nothing as Pakistan heads towards either becoming a failed state or one run by Islamic jihadists doesn't seem a 'good' alternative.

@bcglorf

i did not posit drones are bad.
i didnt posit anything actually,except to refrain from the conversation entirely.
(our government,not you or i).

you or i can discuss ad nauseum and would have every right to.
we can and many do actually volunteer their time to help those in need,helpless or hurt.
some very brave souls travel to these broken countries to help ease the suffering of ordinary folk.

and you already know my answer to your query.
diplomacy is the only resolution and the reason is twofold:
1.diplomatic talks almost always are started with a cease and desist of all aggression.
2.it allows a multilateral approach therefore diffusing the hypocrisy i spoke about.

many people in this country are reluctant to look at what their own government has perpetrated in their name.
maybe out of fear...or pride.
but in my opinion any real conversation has to begin with absolute truth.

so by my vicious criticism of my governments foreign policy over the past 50 years does not mean that i ignore all the great achievements,great accomplishments and great ideals.

so if i was to posit anything on this thread it would be this:
we have lost our way.
the very things that made us great have become whispers lost in a cacophony of paranoid musings by the powerful and we sold our freedom to be cocooned in the safety of consumerism.
and while the wolves howl at the door we are fed platitudes of american exceptionalism and handed flags to wave in remembrance of good-deeds from days long past.
individualism has been ratcheted up to a fever pitch of self-aggrandizing twitter feeds and selfies.
that a persons self worth is based on their ability to purchase status symbols.
where news has become opinion and everybody has a right to one.
where facebook is a place to post your own,personal cartoon all the while never really communicating with anyone.

we have become afraid little children.

and its time to grow up.

I would say diplomacy as a solution to Islamic jihadism is as naive as was diplomacy with the nazis. Pakistan's current rule of law is the death penalty for blaspheming the name of the prophet, and not only is that too secular for the taliban jihadists, it is so intolerably so that they are waging a war against civilians over it. The proudly claim credit for shooting children on school buses, and proudly note their intent to finish Malala off if given the chance. What kind of diplomacy do you expect to see followed exactly?

Should Pakistan's military and police really refuse to meet the countless taliban attacks on civilian targets with no use of force? Should they really just proceed to try and talk to the criminals prosecuting these crimes every single week? I think it's a strategy doomed to horrific failure, and one that invariably leads to far more death and suffering.

History doesn't exactly bare out that ignoring dictators and extremists leads to them just giving up and playing nice. Brutality was terribly successful and effective for the Pharoahs. Same for the Caesars. Same for Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Kim Jong Il and on and on and on. There comes a point when failure to face evil with force just emboldens and strengthens it.

@bcglorf

i attempt to convey a point and you shift the point.
i address the point you move the goal posts.

ok..how about this.
lets say i agree that sometimes force is a necessary tool?
(which i do actually).
and how about we amend that YOU as an american stay the fuck out of it and sit your pretentious ass down and let those who actually would benefit do the violence.

or is YOUR force somehow more righteous and noble than some others?

hypocrisy AND arrogance..
yeah..they hate us for our freedom.thats it...has to be.
wouldnt happen to have anything to do with us being pretentious hypocritical cunts.

sorry man.
i have failed to convey a point that to me is self evident and non-controversial.

we as a country are cunts.arrogant,hypocritical cunts.
who are just scared over-grown children.

the army is accepting applications.maybe you can be a drone pilot and kill you some brown people!
you seem awfully enthusiastic in bringing the violence.
america hurrah..fuck yeah.

sorry bc.
cant help ya.
seems my failure is total.

So you know, I'm not American. I think your problem is the same a great many people share, and that's the belief that America is far more special than it actually is. America has a history littered with all kinds of horrific awful things, as you've spent a great deal of time pointing out. The trick is, if you take a look at any country and you find the same thing. The colonization by the British you already touched on. I'll include the mention of the colonization that most other european nations also partook in as well. I'll also ask you take a look at Russian and Chinese histories as well. There's an awful lot of dead people in that history, and never for very good reasons. Actually, look at the whole of human history and it's always been that way.

I insist on pointing this out because it MATTERS to how we view our world and actions today. America is no more special than any other nation. I instead ask on looking at the details and asking oneself if the actions taken by any state in a particular instance is leading to more or less death and suffering. I look at the drone strikes in tribal Pakistan and see enthusiastic murderers being killed off more efficiently than any ground offensive the Pakistani army could muster, if it actually saw any profit in it. Truth is though, the Pakistani army WANTS the suffering, it makes them look good, or at least makes the civilian governments look bad, which to them is the same thing.

I believe that the end of current American involvement in tribal Pakistan will lead to more deaths and suffering than it's continued involvement, both long and short term.

@bcglorf
how come it always take you 4-5 posts to get an idea across that i can relate to?
its frustrating.

dont know how you got i feel america is some kind of 'special" place.
again i seem to have failed in conveying how wretched i think my government has been for the past few decades.

irregardless...
not american eh?
interesting.....
so you think america should play the global police?
and what exactly gives us that right?
because we have the bigger guns? bigger military?

since it cant be on moral grounds it HAS to be military might.

and america only likes to play with those countries it wants/covets/desires in order to perpetuate this global hegemony thing is has going on.

god you are confusing.
on the one hand you wish to see injustice brought to its knees and are willing to make a deal with the devil to do it.

yet on the other hand you reference history as if you have a semblance of understanding and if THAT is the case then you KNOW nothing is a delineated black vs white dynamic.
nothing is ever as simple or easy as it appears.

so you choose to use american military might to crush the religious zealots and in doing so create more...
but your argument appears to be:if we use drones LESS jihadists will be created and this is a good thing.

no.
it..is ..not.

you cant have it both ways.
you cant have your justice with zero (or less) consequences.
there will ALWAYS be consequences.

do you allow a country to work their problems out (as horrific as it can become).
OR do you go in and possibly extend the suffering of normal folk?

how long?
how long do you think it morally right to intrude on another country and most likely extend conflict,while feeding the rage and resentment creating even more fanatics and zealots who only desire is to bring the suffering to your your door?

and here is what really blows me away.
you are utterly oblivious to just how arrogant your statements are.
yes they are coming from a moral outrage.
yes they are coming from a reaction to horror.
but it is still arrogant all the same.

who are you?
who are you to dictate to anyone how or what they should do?

are there homeless in your country?
are there people starving?
is there injustice?
horrors?

or is it only the countries populated by brown people where the injustices warrant violence?
should america come to your country and clean house there as well?

hell,you wanted us in syria and now pakistan.
any other country you want us to drone?
specific people?

or is it a specific religion?
you seem awfully unsure of those muslim folk.
isreal has been doing all kinds of nasty things to the palestinians for the past 80 yrs.
how come no mention of america droning them?

are you starting to see why your argument makes no sense to me?
it is illogical.

because at the end of the day the poor and less fortunate will always pay the price.
how high a price are you willing to pay for seeing a wrong righted?
does it matter that those people you wept for and were outraged for paid an even higher price?

violence begets violence.
if history taught you anything it had to be that equation.

and a drone strike is violence.
it is intimidation.
it is assasination.
and it is wrong.
without a declaration of war passed by congress and no accountability it is wrong.

i will not make a deal with the devil to get justice today.
because when payment comes due the injustices wrought will tower over everything.
i know you disagree with me.
know that i am ok with that.

@enoch,

I think our gap is from very disparate world views and taking for granted we'll each work out for ourselves more than we do.

I used to really hang onto the saying that war is the ultimate failure of democracy. It resonated with me, and it seems to me that it's very much were you are coming from? Looking at history more and more though, I've come to see that saying is more the way we would wish our world to be, and not how it really is. Instead I see our history telling out the truth that diplomacy is the ultimate goal of war.

Peace is a fleeting and pretty much impossible state of existence for us it seems. The only time peace ever lasts is when war and conquest simply won't lead to greater gains than it. Time and time and time again history has shown that the only time war and violence weren't followed was when the gains from it were not worth the cost. How many times in history did an invading nation turn back because the other side stood back and refused to fight back? It just doesn't happen, get enough people united and they will use whatever method is to their greatest advantage, and all too often that is violence.

In Pakistan the taliban are making huge gains through violent repression of everyone that opposes them. It is extremely effective because those living in the region are unable to fight back for lack of unity and numbers. The Pakistani military meanwhile is unwilling to fight back, because they have more to gain by letting the taliban kill Pakistani civilians while the elected government is nominally 'in power'. Negotiation with the Taliban is impossible to my eyes unless and until their use of violence no longer benefits them. The fastest and surest way of accomplishing that is meeting them with that same force and ensuring they lose more than they gain with each attack.

It's a brutal, but also very simple assessment I think. It also leads to drone attacks being the one method of fighting back directly at them that leaves the least number of collateral casualties in it's wake. It takes more than a year for drones to kill as many people as the Taliban do in a month. Of those killed by drones, from 50-90%(depending who's counts you believe) are identifialy Taliban militants and leaders. That includes taking out the Taliban's top leader twice in the last 5 years with them, and if you include American actions in Pakistan in general, it nets Bin Laden as well.

I'd urge you not to take that as a western or American centric goal or objective. The thousands killed each month I list as justification and wanting protection for are nearly 100% Pakistani Muslims.

Those drones fly almost as high as our defense industry stock prices!!! Muahahahahaha. We'll follow the law alright, the law of supply and demand -- and our clients demand drones !! Where was the talk of "government shutdown" when we had a Syrian war to sell? (p.s. that salesman is fired.)

@bcglorf
thank you for that well thought out commentary.

we still disagree but i always appreciate when someone i disagree with can enlighten me in how they came to their conclusions.

what appears to many my abhorrence to authority is actually my perception between power and powerlessness.
the ruthlessness of power.
the vulgarity and twisted logic power uses to oppress and control.

look at the words you use to describe pakistan.
we both agree on what is happening but disagree on how to deal with it.

cant thank you enough bc.
very few will interact with respect and not come to prejudiced conclusions.

I'd still like to understand how you believe diplomacy to be a more workable solution. If diplomacy is to be the solution to extremism in Pakistan, I presume you look to the moderate leaders in Pakistan for the answers? When I go through the list of such leaders, a disturbing trend is observable.

Shahbaz Bhatti was an elected member of the National Assembly lobbying for repealing Pakistan's death penalty for blasphemy. He was assassinated on March 2, 2011.

Salman Taseer was a governor in Pakistan, lobbying for repealing Pakistan's death penalty for blasphemy. He was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards on January 4, 2011.

Benazir Bhutto, the nations first female Prime Minister had returned after being chased off by the nations military to run in the 2008 elections. She was assassinated on December 27, 2007.

This list is just highlights, countless more moderate leaders keep ending up dead in Pakistan. Meanwhile, elected figures like those from parties like the JUI-F survive, and give speeches in Pakistan's National Assembly declaring Osama Bin Laden an Islamic hero, and the assassins that killed those in the prior list as heroes as well.

I don't mean to be rude about it, but I just don't understand why you believe that diplomacy alone can be expected to succeed in such circumstances?

I found this discussion very interesting and I agree with many points made.

The first thing I thought of about these drone strikes is:

drone strike vs Dresden, Germany end of the WW2.

Drones are technology that is keeping "some" people alive that would be obliterated by indisciminant bombing.

Other than that one little idea of avoiding an entire city/village being flattened, I do not see how anyone can win in these tough situations.

It's a messy world. I wish we had some real solid positive choices but I'm not sure we do.