Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Malice » Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:55 am UTC

Kulantan wrote:
Malice wrote:Our choices boil down to doing nothing (which is extremely problematic for obvious reasons) or some kind of military intervention


This really isn't obvious to me. Doing something isn't always going to keep folk safer than "doing nothing", that is why the advice is not to go into a burning building. Also I love how much detail you go into with military options with no investigation of the many different ways we could "do nothing".


The long-term problem is extremism, and the best way to fix that is nation-building. But the short-term problem is terrorism, and terrorism is not a problem that can safely be ignored. If you have a better option for dealing with the short-term problem, I'd be happy to hear it.

Malice wrote:Drone strikes are not a good option, but they are the least bad option at the moment. The long-term solution is for countries like Pakistan to have stable, cooperative governments


"We will drone you till you cooperate" isn't really a way to win a war of hearts and minds. Plus I find it telling that the goal isn't a peaceful and happy Pakistan, it is a cooperative Pakistan.


I covered "happy and peaceful" under stable. Regardless, I don't need Pakistan to like America; I need them to be fucking civilized enough to police their own extremists/terrorists/mountains so we don't have to do it for them, because doing it for them sucks for everybody. A country can dislike and resent us without harboring mass murderers--terrorists grow in situations of unrest, inequality, and autocracy, social attributes that are independent of allied status. Hell, we've been good friends with Saudi Arabia for a long time, but that didn't stop the 9/11 hijackers from being Saudi.

Finally, from "the US's perspective" why the balls do we have such counter productive bullshit like the insistence that all males of military age are combatants if they happen to get blown up, even if they get blown up in a double tap strike when trying to aid some other presumed combatant? Why the double tap strikes when they are a classic terror tactic and morally shittier than a septic tank?


I don't condone those things. (Do you have a cite for the double taps, though? The original article has, like 4th-hand information, with the article citing the report citing "evidence".) They're not integral to the policy of drone strikes against otherwise unreachable enemies, though.
Image

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Kulantan » Fri Sep 28, 2012 5:08 am UTC

Malice wrote:The long-term problem is extremism, and the best way to fix that is nation-building.

Ah yes, nation-building that most successful of all strategies. After a mere decade the gleaming spires of Kabul truly are the wonder of the Middle East and for only a modicum of expenditure.

However I do have reservations with our nation building efforts along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. My major one is that there isn't any going on...

Malice wrote:But the short-term problem is terrorism, and terrorism is not a problem that can safely be ignored. If you have a better option for dealing with the short-term problem, I'd be happy to hear it.

For the short term, getting those who are at risk out of the risky area is an idea. Basically an immediate end to what has become a vanity war in Afghanistan.

Malice wrote:I don't condone those things. (Do you have a cite for the double taps, though? The original article has, like 4th-hand information, with the article citing the report citing "evidence".) They're not integral to the policy of drone strikes against otherwise unreachable enemies, though.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 ... -funerals/
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 ... or-drones/
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 ... -pakistan/

Those are directly from the citations on Stanford report.

If they aren't integral then perhaps the CIA should stop bombing rescuers.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby sardia » Fri Sep 28, 2012 5:29 am UTC

Malice wrote:
Kulantan wrote:
Malice wrote:Our choices boil down to doing nothing (which is extremely problematic for obvious reasons) or some kind of military intervention


This really isn't obvious to me. Doing something isn't always going to keep folk safer than "doing nothing", that is why the advice is not to go into a burning building. Also I love how much detail you go into with military options with no investigation of the many different ways we could "do nothing".


The long-term problem is extremism, and the best way to fix that is nation-building. But the short-term problem is terrorism, and terrorism is not a problem that can safely be ignored. If you have a better option for dealing with the short-term problem, I'd be happy to hear it.

Malice wrote:Drone strikes are not a good option, but they are the least bad option at the moment. The long-term solution is for countries like Pakistan to have stable, cooperative governments


"We will drone you till you cooperate" isn't really a way to win a war of hearts and minds. Plus I find it telling that the goal isn't a peaceful and happy Pakistan, it is a cooperative Pakistan.


I covered "happy and peaceful" under stable. Regardless, I don't need Pakistan to like America; I need them to be fucking civilized enough to police their own extremists/terrorists/mountains so we don't have to do it for them, because doing it for them sucks for everybody. A country can dislike and resent us without harboring mass murderers--terrorists grow in situations of unrest, inequality, and autocracy, social attributes that are independent of allied status. Hell, we've been good friends with Saudi Arabia for a long time, but that didn't stop the 9/11 hijackers from being Saudi.

Finally, from "the US's perspective" why the balls do we have such counter productive bullshit like the insistence that all males of military age are combatants if they happen to get blown up, even if they get blown up in a double tap strike when trying to aid some other presumed combatant? Why the double tap strikes when they are a classic terror tactic and morally shittier than a septic tank?


I don't condone those things. (Do you have a cite for the double taps, though? The original article has, like 4th-hand information, with the article citing the report citing "evidence".) They're not integral to the policy of drone strikes against otherwise unreachable enemies, though.

You may not condone such things, but saying stuff like "Drone strikes are the best out of a bad situation" means you do support it. As to a possible solution to the short term problem of terrorism? Insurance policies. Take the money spent on the war on terrorism, and spend it instead on premiums for an insurance policy for the victims of terrorist attacks. The amount of money that it takes to compensate victims of terrorism(policy only covers Americans) is far less than what it takes to bribe the Pakistanis, Iraqis, Yemenis, Somalis, and Afghans. Oh, Egypt and Israel too, they demand a lot of money to fight terrorism. Of course this is a libertarian viewpoint as opposed to the hawkish cowboy Bush the 2nd views you were espousing. Plan B? Genocide, preferably with some biological warfare thrown in as well. If you have the balls for it, genocide is a good way to tame wild lands that have hostile populations. There, that's two options that can solve the problem.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Zamfir » Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:05 am UTC

How does this insurance work? If you die, the insurer sends 5000 gold pieces worth of diamonds to your party members?

Silas
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 9:08 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Silas » Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:22 am UTC

sardia wrote:As to a possible solution to the short term problem of terrorism? Insurance policies. Take the money spent on the war on terrorism, and spend it instead on premiums for an insurance policy for the victims of terrorist attacks. The amount of money that it takes to compensate victims of terrorism(policy only covers Americans) is far less than what it takes to bribe the Pakistanis, Iraqis, Yemenis, Somalis, and Afghans. Oh, Egypt and Israel too, they demand a lot of money to fight terrorism.

Are you really comfortable suggesting that, instead of keeping our people from being killed in the first place, we should just pay off their survivors, because that's cheaper?
Felstaff wrote:Serves you goddamned right. I hope you're happy, Cake Ruiner

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Kulantan » Fri Sep 28, 2012 6:42 am UTC

Well, we should take sensible precautions (like grounding wires) but declaring a War on Lighting Strikes is counter productive.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Malice » Fri Sep 28, 2012 8:46 am UTC

Kulantan wrote:
Malice wrote:The long-term problem is extremism, and the best way to fix that is nation-building.

Ah yes, nation-building that most successful of all strategies. After a mere decade the gleaming spires of Kabul truly are the wonder of the Middle East and for only a modicum of expenditure.

However I do have reservations with our nation building efforts along the Afghanistan/Pakistan border. My major one is that there isn't any going on...


There should be. I'm arguing for a particular set of actions, not [whatever the administration is doing in its totality].

Malice wrote:But the short-term problem is terrorism, and terrorism is not a problem that can safely be ignored. If you have a better option for dealing with the short-term problem, I'd be happy to hear it.

For the short term, getting those who are at risk out of the risky area is an idea. Basically an immediate end to what has become a vanity war in Afghanistan.


I'm not saying we should or should not get out of Afghanistan; but that doesn't seem to address the actual problem, unless you think the sole victims of terrorism are US troops on the ground.

Malice wrote:I don't condone those things. (Do you have a cite for the double taps, though? The original article has, like 4th-hand information, with the article citing the report citing "evidence".) They're not integral to the policy of drone strikes against otherwise unreachable enemies, though.

http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 ... -funerals/
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 ... or-drones/
http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/20 ... -pakistan/

Those are directly from the citations on Stanford report.

If they aren't integral then perhaps the CIA should stop bombing rescuers.


Yes. Yes, they should.

--

sardia wrote:You may not condone such things, but saying stuff like "Drone strikes are the best out of a bad situation" means you do support it.


No, I'm pretty sure I can support a type of action but decry one particular method of implementation. I do wish I had a credible candidate to Obama's left that I could vote for, though.

As to a possible solution to the short term problem of terrorism? Insurance policies. Take the money spent on the war on terrorism, and spend it instead on premiums for an insurance policy for the victims of terrorist attacks. The amount of money that it takes to compensate victims of terrorism(policy only covers Americans) is far less than what it takes to bribe the Pakistanis, Iraqis, Yemenis, Somalis, and Afghans. Oh, Egypt and Israel too, they demand a lot of money to fight terrorism. Of course this is a libertarian viewpoint as opposed to the hawkish cowboy Bush the 2nd views you were espousing.


If that's an acceptable solution to you, then surely we can use drone strikes all we want as long as we compensate the victims' families. That's going to be significantly cheaper than compensating American terrorist victims.

Plan B? Genocide, preferably with some biological warfare thrown in as well. If you have the balls for it, genocide is a good way to tame wild lands that have hostile populations. There, that's two options that can solve the problem.


Really? "Well if we're going to kill a couple of hundred people we might as well wipe out their entire population"? Really?
Image

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Red Hal » Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:43 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Red Hal wrote:
alexh123456789 wrote:
Red Hal wrote:While I don't disagree with you, 10% of the US defence-related expenditure for 2012 still equates to about $142billion. I'm not foolish enough to suggest this would pay for free healthcare for all; it would just about pay for the UK's healthcare bill for the NHS($162 billion), but it could pay for circa 18% of Americans to have free healthcare.


Total 2010 healthcare costs were about 2.6 trillion, so it'd be about 5%, plus healthcare costs have likely risen, reducing it even further.
Which is why I pro rata'd the UK model to arrive at my figures. U.S healthcare is one of the least cost-effective systems on the planet.


That's...not an accurate way of determining what our system would cost, though.

Additionally, US health care is not among the least cost-effective on the planet. It is below average for a group of the wealthiest nations, if you do not factor out our record-breakingly bad dietary concerns. This only holds true, even then, for a very few metrics.



Realistically, just because something costs X in country A does not mean it will also cost the same price in country B.



Oh I agree about it not being accurate, but it is a better indicator of what is possible than merely scaling the expensive and underperforming U.S. model.

Now that's quite a claim I'm making, so let me back it up with some evidence: http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media ... l_2010.pdf
How about life expectancy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... expectancy
How about spend per capita? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita
Additionally, when you tabulate per capita healthcare spend by life expectancy, out of the 191 resulting data points the U.S. ranks 191st. (Table spoilered below)

Spoiler:

Code: Select all

Country   Per capita   %GDP   Life expectancy   Cost/Year of life
 Eritrea   18   3.1   55.6   0.32
 Congo, Democratic Republic of the   23   7.3   63   0.37
 Burma   27   2.2   50.7   0.53
 Comoros   39   3.5   63   0.62
 Niger   40   5.9   57.8   0.69
 Bangladesh   44   3.3   63.2   0.70
 Ethiopia   37   4.3   51.7   0.72
 Central African Republic   32   4.3   43.3   0.74
 Madagascar   46   4.4   57.7   0.80
 Mauritania   54   2.6   62.4   0.87
 Pakistan   62   2.6   65.2   0.95
 Mozambique   39   4.7   38.3   1.02
 Malawi   49   9.1   48.1   1.02
 Liberia   46   11.9   44.8   1.03
 Burundi   50   13   48.1   1.04
 Nepal   66   6   63.2   1.04
 Guinea   58   5.5   54.4   1.07
 Guinea-Bissau   48   8.6   44.9   1.07
 Kenya   66   4.2   61.6   1.07
 Benin   61   4.1   55.6   1.10
 Tanzania   57   4.5   51.4   1.11
 Haiti   69   6.1   59.1   1.17
 Togo   70   6.2   56.7   1.23
 Mali   65   5.6   52.1   1.25
 Gambia, The   75   5.5   58.6   1.28
 Papua New Guinea   70   3.2   54.6   1.28
 Afghanistan   57   7.4   43.9   1.30
 Indonesia   91   2.3   68.7   1.32
 Laos   84   4   63   1.33
 Tajikistan   95   5   64.1   1.48
 Burkina Faso   82   5.9   50.7   1.62
 Senegal   102   5.7   61   1.67
 Timor-Leste   112   13.9   66.5   1.68
 Syria   123   3.1   72.3   1.70
 Congo, Republic of the   108   2.7   63   1.71
 Chad   86   6.4   49.3   1.74
 Iraq   107   3.3   57.8   1.85
 Côte d'Ivoire   88   5.4   47.5   1.85
 Philippines   129   3.7   69.5   1.86
 Zambia   80   5.9   42.1   1.90
 Ghana   114   7.8   59.6   1.91
 India   122   4.2   63.2   1.93
 Nigeria   113   5.2   57.8   1.96
 Kyrgyzstan   123   5.7   62   1.98
 Mongolia   131   3.8   63.9   2.05
 Cambodia   118   5.7   57.3   2.06
 Uzbekistan   134   4.9   64   2.09
 Turkmenistan   124   1.9   59   2.10
 Yemen   133   4.8   61.1   2.18
 Uganda   112   7.8   50.8   2.20
 Solomon Islands   139   5.3   62.7   2.22
 Rwanda   102   9.4   44.6   2.29
 Cameroon   117   5.3   50   2.34
 São Tomé and Príncipe   153   8.7   63.6   2.41
 Vanuatu   170   3.9   68.3   2.49
 Fiji   168   3.5   66.6   2.52
 Sierra Leone   104   13.3   41   2.54
 Sudan   147   6.9   57.1   2.57
 Cape Verde   176   4.4   68.3   2.58
 Angola   183   3.3   70.9   2.58
 Tonga   194   5   72.3   2.68
 Sri Lanka   187   4.1   68.8   2.72
 Lesotho   119   7.6   42.9   2.77
 Vietnam   201   7.2   72.3   2.78
 Djibouti   153   6.9   53.6   2.85
 Bolivia   194   4.5   63.4   3.06
 Marshall Islands   251   14   77.3   3.25
 Armenia   224   3.8   68.4   3.27
 Morocco   231   5.3   69   3.35
 China   265   4.3   75.5   3.51
 Nicaragua   251   9.4   69.9   3.59
 Honduras   248   6.3   66.9   3.71
 Egypt   261   4.8   69.1   3.78
 Guyana   247   8.1   64.2   3.85
 Samoa   264   5.9   68.5   3.85
 Paraguay   281   6   69.7   4.03
 Bhutan   263   5.5   64   4.11
 Swaziland   287   5.8   67   4.28
 Belize   323   4.5   73.3   4.41
 Tuvalu   266   9.7   59   4.51
 Guatemala   308   6.5   66.7   4.62
 Moldova   320   10.7   65.1   4.92
 Thailand   328   4.1   66.5   4.93
 Jamaica   364   4.8   70   5.20
 Peru   381   4.5   68.9   5.53
 Cook Islands   361   4.3   63   5.73
 Kiribati   304   12.5   53   5.74
 El Salvador   410   6   68.8   5.96
 Federated States of Micronesia   408   13.3   67.7   6.03
 Algeria   437   5.4   70.9   6.16
 Azerbaijan   395   4.3   63.8   6.19
 Georgia   433   8.7   67.1   6.45
 Ecuador   466   5.7   72.1   6.46
 Cuba   495   12   76.2   6.50
 Dominican Republic   465   5.6   69.3   6.71
 Gabon   384   2.6   56.4   6.81
 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines   486   5.2   69.5   6.99
 Libya   502   3   71.7   7.00
 Jordan   496   9.4   70.8   7.01
 Kazakhstan   444   3.9   61.6   7.21
 Tunisia   500   6.4   67.8   7.37
 Colombia   517   5.9   69.2   7.47
 Albania   569   6.8   73.4   7.75
 Suriname   532   7.2   67   7.94
 Ukraine   502   6.8   62.1   8.08
 Oman   600   2.1   74.2   8.09
 Namibia   440   6.9   52.5   8.38
 Nauru   440   14   52.5   8.38
 Malaysia   621   4.3   72   8.63
 Iran   613   5.5   69.4   8.83
 Grenada   593   6.7   67   8.85
 Venezuela   683   5.4   70.9   9.63
 Saint Lucia   698   7   71.8   9.72
 Mauritius   681   5.5   69.5   9.80
 Macedonia, Republic of   738   6.8   71.8   10.28
 Dominica   584   6   53.6   10.90
 Belarus   688   5.6   63.1   10.90
 Mexico   837   5.9   73.7   11.36
 Maldives   769   13.7   67.6   11.38
 United Arab Emirates   888   2.5   77.2   11.50
 Saudi Arabia   831   3.6   70.9   11.72
 Serbia   867   10   71.7   12.09
 Romania   840   5.4   69   12.17
 Turkey   845   6.1   69.4   12.18
 Kuwait   932   2   76   12.26
 Panama   924   7.2   73   12.66
 Seychelles   911   4.2   71.7   12.71
 Brazil   875   8.4   68.8   12.72
 Bosnia and Herzegovina   937   10.3   72.2   12.98
 Equatorial Guinea   658   1.9   50.4   13.06
 Uruguay   982   7.8   72.8   13.49
 Antigua and Barbuda   958   4.7   70.9   13.51
 Costa Rica   1,059   9.4   76.5   13.84
 Bulgaria   974   7.1   69.5   14.01
 Chile   1,088   7.5   75.5   14.41
 Lebanon   1,009   8.8   69.9   14.43
 Argentina   1,062   7.4   71.6   14.83
 Brunei   1,131   2.3   75   15.08
 Palau   991   10.8   65.2   15.20
 Russia   985   4.8   64.3   15.32
 Saint Kitts and Nevis   698   5.8   44.6   15.65
 Montenegro   1,162   8.4   72.4   16.05
 Bahrain   1,282   3.7   74.3   17.25
 South Africa   843   8.2   48.8   17.27
 Poland   1,271   7   71.3   17.83
 Latvia   1,206   6.6   67.3   17.92
 Trinidad and Tobago   1,237   4.7   67.8   18.24
 Lithuania   1,318   6.6   67.5   19.53
 Estonia   1,325   6.1   65.9   20.11
 Barbados   1,498   6.7   74.4   20.13
 Botswana   1,053   7.6   50.5   20.85
 Croatia   1,553   7.8   72.3   21.48
 Malta   1,664   7.3   77.3   21.53
 Hungary   1,506   7.2   69.2   21.76
 Qatar   1,691   2   75.2   22.49
 Singapore   1,833   3.3   79   23.20
 Cyprus   1,838   6   76.5   24.03
 Bahamas, The   1,737   7.2   70.6   24.60
 Czech Republic   1,830   7.1   73.4   24.93
 Slovakia   1,849   8   70.7   26.15
 Israel   2,093   8   80   26.16
 Taiwan (Republic of China)[3]   2,080   6.5   72.3   28.77
 Slovenia   2,420   8.3   74.1   32.66
 New Zealand   2,655   9.7   78.2   33.95
 Korea, South   1,806   6.5   53   34.08
 Portugal   2,578   10.6   75   34.37
 Japan   2,817   8.3   79   35.66
 Italy   2,836   8.7   79.4   35.72
 Spain   2,941   9   77.7   37.85
 Greece   3,010   10.1   77.1   39.04
 United Kingdom   3,222   8.7   78.1   41.25
 Australia   3,365   8.5   78.9   42.65
 Finland   3,299   8.8   76.1   43.35
 Andorra   3,128   7.5   70.9   44.12
 Iceland   3,583   9.2   80.2   44.68
 Sweden   3,622   9.4   78.7   46.02
 Canada   3,867   9.8   78.3   49.39
 Ireland   3,797   8.7   76.5   49.63
 Denmark   3,814   9.9   76   50.18
 France   3,851   11.2   76.1   50.60
 Niue   2,360   13.5   46.4   50.86
 Germany   3,922   10.5   76.5   51.27
 Belgium   4,096   11.1   76.5   53.54
 San Marino   3,690   7.1   68.5   53.87
 Austria   4,150   10.2   76.9   53.97
 Netherlands   4,283   9.9   77.5   55.26
 Switzerland   4,815   10.7   78.7   61.18
 Norway   5,207   8.5   77.8   66.93
 Luxembourg   5,750   6.8   75.7   75.96
 Monaco   5,996   3.6   65.1   92.10
 United States   7,164   15.2   75.6   94.76
 Korea, North   …   …   53   #VALUE!
 Somalia   …   …   46.9   #VALUE!
 Zimbabwe   …   …   44.1   #VALUE!


let's not derail the thread -- Zamfir
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Kulantan » Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:51 am UTC

Malice wrote:There should be. I'm arguing for a particular set of actions, not [whatever the administration is doing in its totality].


There should be nation building? Was my jab about Kabul too subtle? Nation building doesn't work, certainly not with the formula the US uses. Plus this is the bit of Afganistan/Pakistan where the US is droning because its (in your words) "otherwise unreachable".

Malice wrote:I'm not saying we should or should not get out of Afghanistan; but that doesn't seem to address the actual problem, unless you think the sole victims of terrorism are US troops on the ground.

Withdrawing from Afghanistan isn't going to magically stop attacks on Americans. But nor is staying there. What staying there does do is provide a big proximate target for those with AKs, IEDs and RPGs.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Red Hal » Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote: let's not derail the thread -- Zamfir
Wilco.
Kulantan, its not going to stop the attacks immediately, I absolutely concur, but noone expects wounds to heal immediately. Real, lasting peace can only be achieved if all parties want it. Right now there is a not insignificant number of human beings in the world who want to see the U.S. wiped from the map. Bombing them isn't going to change that opinion. Not bombing them is a first step toward changing it. I'm not going to pretend that this issue is going to be resolved in anything less than a generational scale but it has been proven time and time again that you can't deter an enemy that isn't afraid of death. Much better is to persuade your enemy to stop being your enemy.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby LaserGuy » Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:45 pm UTC

Malice wrote:If that's an acceptable solution to you, then surely we can use drone strikes all we want as long as we compensate the victims' families. That's going to be significantly cheaper than compensating American terrorist victims.


Are you sure? How many Americans do you think die to terrorist attacks per year?

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Kulantan » Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:56 pm UTC

I completely agree Hal. I wasn't saying withdrawal doesn't help long term. What I was trying to say was that is not a case of violence being the regrettable short term necessity versus withdrawal and peace the long term goal.

LaserGuy wrote:Are you sure? How many Americans do you think die to terrorist attacks per year?

Well obviously we would compensate the Pakistanis less. I suggest that three fifths of an American should do it.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Malice » Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:57 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:
Malice wrote:If that's an acceptable solution to you, then surely we can use drone strikes all we want as long as we compensate the victims' families. That's going to be significantly cheaper than compensating American terrorist victims.


Are you sure? How many Americans do you think die to terrorist attacks per year?


None lately, thanks largely to my anti-terrorist rock. (Donations toward the care and well-being of the rock can be sent to me via PM.)
Image

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Red Hal » Fri Sep 28, 2012 2:57 pm UTC

Kulantan, I now understand your position.

Laserguy, the number you require is 24.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

Jonesthe Spy
Posts: 108
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:05 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Jonesthe Spy » Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:08 pm UTC

Interesting word "traumatize", like how a kid could be "traumatised" because the other kids in school were being mean to him. Somehow doesn't pack the punch of "Innocent people being murdered by drones"...Noticed the subheading used the far more accurate 'Terrorized". Can't help thinking that some BBC editor wanted to soften things up a bit so it didn't make the U.S. look quite like the indiscriminate killers they are.

User avatar
sam_i_am
Posts: 624
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 3:38 pm UTC
Location: Urbana, Illinois, USA

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby sam_i_am » Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:20 pm UTC

Jonesthe Spy wrote:Interesting word "traumatize", like how a kid could be "trauamised" because the other kids in school were being mean to him. Somehgow doesn't pack the punch of "Innocent people being murdered by drones"...Noticed the subheading used the far more accurate 'Terrorized". Can't help thinking that some BBC editor wanted to soften things up a bit so it didn't make the U.S. look quite like the indiscriminate killers they are.


Of course "traumatize" is an accurate word. It means To apply Trauma, which is a powerful shock or impact that leaves a permanent scar.

It's most commonly used to refer to some inflicted psychological damage. And I dare say that knowing someone who got killed by a drone will leave you with psychological damage.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:46 pm UTC

sam_i_am wrote:
Jonesthe Spy wrote:Interesting word "traumatize", like how a kid could be "trauamised" because the other kids in school were being mean to him. Somehgow doesn't pack the punch of "Innocent people being murdered by drones"...Noticed the subheading used the far more accurate 'Terrorized". Can't help thinking that some BBC editor wanted to soften things up a bit so it didn't make the U.S. look quite like the indiscriminate killers they are.


Of course "traumatize" is an accurate word. It means To apply Trauma, which is a powerful shock or impact that leaves a permanent scar.

It's most commonly used to refer to some inflicted psychological damage. And I dare say that knowing someone who got killed by a drone will leave you with psychological damage.


It's very accurate. Being around conflict is known to be traumatizing. My reaction to the headline was "well, of course". Seeing people get blown up is kind of what psych trauma IS.

That said, I'm still a fan of drones. At least one less person is involved. Now, if only we can get drones on both sides....

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Red Hal » Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:17 pm UTC

I like where you went with that. Shades of Banks' surface detail perhaps?
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby sardia » Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:26 pm UTC

Malice wrote:
As to a possible solution to the short term problem of terrorism? Insurance policies. Take the money spent on the war on terrorism, and spend it instead on premiums for an insurance policy for the victims of terrorist attacks. The amount of money that it takes to compensate victims of terrorism(policy only covers Americans) is far less than what it takes to bribe the Pakistanis, Iraqis, Yemenis, Somalis, and Afghans. Oh, Egypt and Israel too, they demand a lot of money to fight terrorism. Of course this is a libertarian viewpoint as opposed to the hawkish cowboy Bush the 2nd views you were espousing.


If that's an acceptable solution to you, then surely we can use drone strikes all we want as long as we compensate the victims' families. That's going to be significantly cheaper than compensating American terrorist victims.

Plan B? Genocide, preferably with some biological warfare thrown in as well. If you have the balls for it, genocide is a good way to tame wild lands that have hostile populations. There, that's two options that can solve the problem.


Really? "Well if we're going to kill a couple of hundred people we might as well wipe out their entire population"? Really?

We do compensate families of those killed with literal blood money. It's common practice for the CIA when they accidentally kill people. That's how one of their officers got out of a double murder plus hit and run. They paid out a few million dollars to end the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Al ... nt#Release

You have an interesting point about compensating terrorist victims except that Obama is saying that nobody here was a victim. All the people killed were labeled terrorists to make it sound like no civilians were ever hurt. In addition, you fail to realize the cost of a patrolling squadron of drones is 120$ million/year. It would defeat the purpose of saving money if my proposed savings resulted in 0 cuts to military spending. You just proposed that we compensate victims and maintain spending on war.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/2 ... 07827.html

I'm just saying that people are dumb enough to pay for life insurance, why not have terrorism insurance. On the "high" chance that you get killed by a terrorist, you'll get a payout. What do you think the premiums would be for 500 million people? The hardest part of this plan would be something huge like another 9/11. Now compare that to the additional taxes paid in response to the war on terrorism. -$1 trillion dollars over 10 years. That's right, we didn't pay any extra in response to 9/11, we paid less money in the form of tax cuts, and borrowed the rest. The value of a human life is definitely not infinite, it's not even that much, $7 million tops.

As for Plan B, case in point, Native Americans. There were millions of them, but several waves of white people bearing guns and smallpox put an end to that. You don't have to get them all, just give the survivors tax exemptions decades later so they can build casinos to make up for their shattered culture and utter despair. You forget how long we've been playing this silly game, and it a game. Remember the soviet union? and when they invaded Afghanistan? What did we do there? We sent them money and guns so they could fight for their lives. When the soviets pulled out, what did we do? We didn't give a shit about Afghans. Now a couple hundred people called Al Qaeda hid there with the Taliban, so we invaded. Right from the start, goalposts start falling. First it was invade, liberate and democratize. Then fight all the fundamentalists to keep them busy. Then negotiate with just Taliban to separate them from Al Qaeda, which in turns means abandoning women and other ethnic minorities. Pretty soon it'll be Pakistan's problem to deal with since we have more important matters, like China. Remember Iraq, that's whats gonna happen in Afghanistan, except it'll be uglier.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:20 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:I like where you went with that. Shades of Banks' surface detail perhaps?


I am indeed a fan of the Culture novels, =)

Terrorism insurance seems like it would be covered under life insurance, no? And anyways, insurance is a recovery plan, not a preventative plan. It's not a bad idea, but just because my home is insured against fire....I'm not gonna throw away the fire extinguisher.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7594
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Zamfir » Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:31 pm UTC

I'm just saying that people are dumb enough to pay for life insurance

Uh, why do you think people have life insurance?

User avatar
EdgarJPublius
Official Propagandi.... Nifty Poster Guy
Posts: 3715
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 4:56 am UTC
Location: where the wind takes me

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby EdgarJPublius » Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:44 pm UTC

Terrorism insurance is actually a thing.
It's typically provided by governments to business and property owners to cover damage and other losses from terrorism that other insurance providers won't.

There's also kidnapping and ransom insurance that can cover lots of terrorism related incidents. (An interesting note, companies with K&R insurance for their employees are typically forbidden to tell the covered employees about it to prevent the insurance policy becoming a factor in the negotiation or employees kidnapping themselves for the insurance money)
Roosevelt wrote:
I wrote:Does Space Teddy Roosevelt wrestle Space Bears and fight the Space Spanish-American War with his band of Space-volunteers the Space Rough Riders?

Yes.

-still unaware of the origin and meaning of his own user-title

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby sardia » Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:36 pm UTC

Usually they are persuaded to the peace of mind that it grants oneself. I dunno, maybe they were thinking of all the money they could collect if they die before the terms expired. My parents always regretted the life insurance they paid when they moved to New York. It was a gamble that could have been invested in other places for a greater return.
EdgarJPublius wrote:Terrorism insurance is actually a thing.
It's typically provided by governments to business and property owners to cover damage and other losses from terrorism that other insurance providers won't.

There's also kidnapping and ransom insurance that can cover lots of terrorism related incidents. (An interesting note, companies with K&R insurance for their employees are typically forbidden to tell the covered employees about it to prevent the insurance policy becoming a factor in the negotiation or employees kidnapping themselves for the insurance money)

I was thinking of the costs vs benefits of the war on terrorism. Think of all the damage caused by terrorism, now think how much it cost to invade a country to stop said terrorism. The math doesn't add up, terrorism causes relatively little damage, and yet we have such a disproportionate response. If we really wanted peace of mind, saying the government will be there if you are terrorized would help just as much as saying we'll invade the hell out of them for revenge.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Red Hal » Tue Oct 02, 2012 12:38 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote: It's not a bad idea, but just because my home is insured against fire....I'm not gonna throw away the fire extinguisher.
... or to use an older version of that saying: "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel to a tree."
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

induction
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 8:00 am UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby induction » Tue Oct 02, 2012 2:43 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Usually they are persuaded to the peace of mind that it grants oneself. I dunno, maybe they were thinking of all the money they could collect if they die before the terms expired. My parents always regretted the life insurance they paid when they moved to New York. It was a gamble that could have been invested in other places for a greater return.


There is term life insurance (just like auto insurance, if you die during the policy term, the insurance company pays your family) and whole life insurance (a combination of life insurance and an investment instrument). If they were thinking of their life insurance as an investment, they probably had whole life, which most people regret buying because the return is very often negative (you get out less than you put in). Even in the best cases, the return is pretty weak compared to many other investments.

People who buy term life insurance are usually trying to make sure that their families will be financially taken care of if they are no longer able to provide an income. There is nothing dumb about it. Regretting buying life insurance because you didn't die is pretty silly in most cases.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby sardia » Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:34 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote: It's not a bad idea, but just because my home is insured against fire....I'm not gonna throw away the fire extinguisher.
... or to use an older version of that saying: "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel to a tree."

The analogy would start breaking down since it's not one home, but millions, and the fire extinguisher is a fleet of robotic firefighting planes dumping tons of water on any place that show signs of fire. I would not appreciate a plane dumping water over my backyard because I had a barbecue and then be dumped on again to make sure that any one who approached a house deluged in water also did not start a fire.

Really it would be an argument about the cost effectiveness of various approaches to firefighting and terrorism.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 02, 2012 6:43 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Red Hal wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote: It's not a bad idea, but just because my home is insured against fire....I'm not gonna throw away the fire extinguisher.
... or to use an older version of that saying: "Trust in Allah, but tie your camel to a tree."

The analogy would start breaking down since it's not one home, but millions, and the fire extinguisher is a fleet of robotic firefighting planes dumping tons of water on any place that show signs of fire. I would not appreciate a plane dumping water over my backyard because I had a barbecue and then be dumped on again to make sure that any one who approached a house deluged in water also did not start a fire.

Really it would be an argument about the cost effectiveness of various approaches to firefighting and terrorism.


In that case, we don't toss out the firefighting drones...we just use them a bit better.

Also, dammit, I want fleets of firefighting drones.

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby curtis95112 » Fri Oct 05, 2012 8:13 am UTC

They might even save more lives and property than the War on Terror.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby sardia » Fri Oct 05, 2012 9:23 am UTC

Actually firefighting is best done like war, with troops on the ground. There's been cases of politicians demanding aerial water bombardments because it looks cool and gives the appearance of politicians taking doing something, and the end result is the water would wash away fire retardant laid down by other firefighters. This means it was beyond useless and tying up resources, it actually made the fires worse.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Oct 05, 2012 1:14 pm UTC

curtis95112 wrote:They might even save more lives and property than the War on Terror.


Well, it's hard to be less effective than the TSA, at any rate.

Ariel bombardments of water are situationally effective(I know people who are involved in this line of work)...they are not helpful in every situation, but they absolutely can be in many. IE, don't drop it on your fire retardant. And of course, planes can drop stuff other than just water. UAVS could likely be a lot smaller/operate a lot closer to the fire(I'm back in the realm of theorizing here, of course), so they might offer some situational advantages over manned planes.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby sardia » Fri Oct 05, 2012 10:53 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
curtis95112 wrote:They might even save more lives and property than the War on Terror.


Well, it's hard to be less effective than the TSA, at any rate.

Ariel bombardments of water are situationally effective(I know people who are involved in this line of work)...they are not helpful in every situation, but they absolutely can be in many. IE, don't drop it on your fire retardant. And of course, planes can drop stuff other than just water. UAVS could likely be a lot smaller/operate a lot closer to the fire(I'm back in the realm of theorizing here, of course), so they might offer some situational advantages over manned planes.

That reminds me of that cheesy action flick inferno. They put out a massive fire with a fuel air bomb to suck out the oxygen. I should google that to see if it actually works. If it does, drones would be great for firefighting.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Oct 08, 2012 2:36 pm UTC

sardia wrote:That reminds me of that cheesy action flick inferno. They put out a massive fire with a fuel air bomb to suck out the oxygen. I should google that to see if it actually works. If it does, drones would be great for firefighting.


Explosions have put out fairly major fires before, so, at least in theory, it should work. On the flip side, you're blowing the crap out of an area, so that's likely to have some nasty consequences. Probably a situationally useful tool, but you wouldn't want to make it your first resort.

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Report says drones are traumatising Pakistani civillians

Postby curtis95112 » Tue Oct 09, 2012 8:24 am UTC

Yeah, you usually want your buildings standing after the fire's put out.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests