US drone attacks counter productive: Pakistan

[The Northerner]

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2012, 09:28 PM - Edit history (1)

Pakistan's Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said US drone strikes targeting Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants were counter productive and his country had not given permission for such attacks.

"First of all I want to inform you that we did not allow or give permission to fly drones from Pakistan," Gilani told Al Jazeera television in an interview broadcast on Saturday.

"Drones are counter productive and we have discussed it thoroughly with the US administration."

Gilani said the "collateral damage" from drone attacks was counter productive because it undermined his government's efforts to separate tribes from militants, and also violated Pakistan's sovereignty.

Read more: http://www.emirates247.com/news/world/us-drone-attacks-counter-productive-pakistan-2012-02-13-1.442772

[limpyhobbler]

1. We have not had any big attacks in the US.

Al Qaeda has been decimated.

I think President Obama deserves a lot of credit for keeping the American people safe.

This war is horrible but it's a good thing we have drones otherwise it would be even more horrible.

[The Northerner]

2. And what about the countless civilian deaths, violations of sovereignty, and lack of due process?

Would such policies be acceptable if another country subjected our country to the same treatment?

[IamK]

3. nothing bad has ever came out of blowing up people you don't like....

[limpyhobbler]

5. Terrorists are using civilians as human shields. The local government is protecting the terrorists.

Due process? It's not a court, it's a war. We already were subjected to attack and we went there to find who did it. And we are succeeding.

Would such policies be acceptable if another country subjected our country to the same treatment?

In my opinion this question makes not so much sense.

I understand your point of view and the importance of respecting the sovereignty other countries.
You make a good point but I respectfully disagree.

The United States has a right to self defense. We can not sit by and wait to be attacked. President Obama promised when running for President to take the War on Terror into Pakistan if the Pakistan government was unwilling or unable to combat terrorist groups.

I am glad to see President Obama keep his promise with the goal of keeping the American people safe from further attacks.

If the local government (Pakistan) would take the lead on combating the terrorist groups, then the drone strikes and other US actions would be largely unnecessary. Unfortunately, they have taken the opposite role, and in many cases the government there actually protects and hides the terrorists. Even worse, the Pakistani Army and Intelligence Service actually support the bad guys, as many documents have shown. Search google I guess. If they would police their own country, that would be much preferable to the drone strikes.

So basically it's self defense.

[The Northerner]

6. Does the right to self-defense include the right to kill suspected militants and local civilians?

And why doesn't my opinion make "not so much sense"?

Because Country A is permitted to commit acts against other countries which they're not permitted to commit against Country A?

[limpyhobbler]

8. You have a valid concern. I understand it but I just disagree.

Does the right to self-defense include the right to kill suspected militants and local civilians?

I don't know.

I view it like we are fighting a fascist army similar to World War II. I think we have the same rights we did as when fighting Hitler's army.

And why doesn't my opinion make "not so much sense"?

I just meant that I respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

Because Country A is permitted to commit acts against other countries which they're not permitted to commit against Country A?

Which is country A? Do you mean that the United States is country A? If so yes, I think it is OK for the United States to attack terrorist groups in Afghanistan and/or Pakistan to help keep America safe from attacks. Also almost all the American people agree with that, I would guess.

I disagree with this formulation people sometimes make where if one country does something then that means any country can do it. Or if it's wrong for one country then it is wrong for all countries. In my view the United States and Afghanistan/Pakistan have very different global roles and there are going to be times when the US does something that it is not OK for others to do. We have a unique role and position in the world relating to our overwhelming military power, considerable economic power, and as (when at our best) standard bearers for freedom and democracy. I don't think it's correct to create these formulations where all nation states are bound to the same rules as that bears no resemblance to reality nor should it, as our countries stand for different things.

[cloudbase]

7. Pakistan knows and agrees with what's going on,

and there's no violation of soveriegnty. These statements of indignation are meant for Pakistani domestic consumption.

Back to business as usual.

[msongs]

9. good training for when OUR government starts using drones against US nt

[rudycantfail]

10. People here have

come to see drone attacks in a brand new light since around 2009.