UN investigates US drone strikes

[Officer of Engineers]

On the note of this UN Investigation, who cares? It's just another waste of paper that is going to sit on a shelf somewhere. Like anyone is actually thinking that this could lead to charges.

[zraver]

AM, what exactly is the problem you have with an ally of your nation attacking targets your military cant/wont be able to effectively target? Is the US an ally or an enemy? I think its time for Pakistan to get off the fence hopping routine and pick a side and be counted.

[TopHatter]

AM, what exactly is the problem you have with an ally of your nation attacking targets your military cant/wont be able to effectively target?

Maybe because it exposes them as the impotent double-dealers that they are?

[zraver]

Maybe because it exposes them as the impotent double-dealers that they are?

That certainly is the appearance they are giving.

[Agnostic Muslim]

AM, what exactly is the problem you have with an ally of your nation attacking targets your military cant/wont be able to effectively target? Is the US an ally or an enemy? I think its time for Pakistan to get off the fence hopping routine and pick a side and be counted.

The problem I have is with unilateral, unauthorized (and therefore illegal) military operations by a foreign nation (even an ally) on Pakistani soil.

Coordinated and/or joint military operations would be acceptable, but the US has consistently refused to do so.

[Agnostic Muslim]

John Brennan - Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism - is President Obama's nominee for CIA Director and is widely acknowledged as the architect of the US drone program. On 4.30.2012. Mr. Brennan gave a rather lengthy speech on drone strikes at the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C.

This snippet effectively encapsulates the position of the US government in regards to drone strikes:



The full text of his presentation is available here

Brennan's arguments are essentially the same ones made earlier on this thread and which I have argued against in previous posts.

[Agnostic Muslim]

The UN doesn't care. If you don't get that, then you really are barking up the wrong tree.

You consistently fail to understand the point being made - the Western judicial and legislative systems did not 'care' for blacks, women and minorities either. It took decades for legislative and judicial reforms to take place and social attitudes to start changing. In the institution of the UN we have the basic skeleton of a system - a system that needs significant reform.

Hogwash. Those National Institutions bled real blood for their progress. The UN just lives high off the hog.

Those national institutions did no 'bleeding' - the blood was that of people protesting, 'begging and groveling' (in the context of your comments) for their rights - MLK was not 'part of the judicial and legislative system'.

HORSE PUCKEY! No one is going to defend your rights but yourself. Pick up a weapon. Man the walls. Die like men. Go begging to an entity that puts flowery words on pieces of paper is as helpful as used toilet paper.

So are you seriously suggesting that Canadians and Americans who disagree with their judicial and legislative systems should 'pick up weapons' and 'go to war with the State'? Do you consider the actions of men like Martin Luther King who chose pacifism as a means of protest as 'begging an entity and putting flowery words on paper to be used as toilet paper'? Is that the opinion you have of writing such as 'Letter from Birmingham Jail'?

Real men died for their courts and laws. Get back to me when real men did the same for that piece of manure.

Real, innocent men, women and children have died in Pakistan as a result of unauthorized and illegal US military strikes in Pakistan - it is their blood that has caused various groups to resort to various means of protest and legal action to highlight US atrocities and violations of international law, and in essence call for reform of the UN.

[Doktor]

AM,

What you fail to distinguish is that UN is not a government.

Any government, even most totalitarian will lean towards public opinion. There is no public opinion that will shape UN actions, only pure interests of the member nations. Even more to those with veto powers.

[Officer of Engineers]

You consistently fail to understand the point being made - the Western judicial and legislative systems did not 'care' for blacks, women and minorities either. It took decades for legislative and judicial reforms to take place and social attitudes to start changing. In the institution of the UN we have the basic skeleton of a system - a system that needs significant reform.

NO! YOU CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DO NOT GO IN FRONT OF MURDERER JUDGES WHO DON'T CARE.

Those national institutions did no 'bleeding' - the blood was that of people protesting, 'begging and groveling' (in the context of your comments) for their rights - MLK was not 'part of the judicial and legislative system'.

HORSE PUCKEY! The bleeding started with the American Civil War. Over 600,000 Americans died creating that institution.

So are you seriously suggesting that Canadians and Americans who disagree with their judicial and legislative systems should 'pick up weapons' and 'go to war with the State'? Do you consider the actions of men like Martin Luther King who chose pacifism as a means of protest as 'begging an entity and putting flowery words on paper to be used as toilet paper'? Is that the opinion you have of writing such as 'Letter from Birmingham Jail'?

I am suggesting that those who wore the uniform believed in our Consitutions enough to defend what is right. There is NOTHING right about the UN.

Real, innocent men, women and children have died in Pakistan as a result of unauthorized and illegal US military strikes in Pakistan - it is their blood that has caused various groups to resort to various means of protest and legal action to highlight US atrocities and violations of international law, and in essence call for reform of the UN.

So, what the hell is wrong with your own laws? What the hell is wrong with you that you can't defend your own laws? Why go begging to a judge who let over a million people tortured to death in Cambodia, a million freeze in Afghanistan under the Soviets, 800,000+ butchered in Rwanda, 100,000 freeze in each Yugoslavia and Chechnya?

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting different results.

Maybe men in the future would finally live up to the UN's promise but this bunch of quacks should be ignored.

[Agnostic Muslim]

AM,

What you fail to distinguish is that UN is not a government.

Any government, even most totalitarian will lean towards public opinion. There is no public opinion that will shape UN actions, only pure interests of the member nations. Even more to those with veto powers.

I understand very well that the UN is not a government, however, what I am pointing out is that without an institution akin to a 'world government' that governs relationships, disputes and agreements between States, going forward, we will continue to see a 'law of the jungle' with powerful states acting as they wish and trampling any weaker States that get in their way. The UN is a highly flawed system, and it needs significant reform, but it is a major component of the only system of institutions governing international relations between States that we currently have.

Public opinion is a reflection of the 'pure interests of the public' - by extension the 'pure interests of member nations in the UN' (where those nations have some form of representative governments at least) will essentially be a reflection of their respective 'public opinions'.

[Doktor]

To prevent a law of the jungle, you need police force. To enforce the rules.

Who/what is that going to be?

[Officer of Engineers]

The UN is a highly flawed system, and it needs significant reform, but it is a major component of the only system of institutions governing international relations between States that we currently have.

Horse Pucky. Bilateral treaties have more say than that piece of crap. What is your treaty obligations to the US? You can toss the US out of Pakistan, refuse their money, and declare war on the US - ALL WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS.

[Agnostic Muslim]

Horse Pucky. Bilateral treaties have more say than that piece of crap. What is your treaty obligations to the US? You can toss the US out of Pakistan, refuse their money, and declare war on the US - ALL WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS.

And who or what enforces Pakistan's decisions if the US chooses to ignore them and continue to unilaterally carry out military operations inside Pakistan under its existing weak excuses?

Pakistan certainly does not have the military or economic resources to take on the US.

Bilateral treaties have no more say than any other agreement, inside or outside the UN, without any kind of enforcement mechanism.

[Agnostic Muslim]

To prevent a law of the jungle, you need police force. To enforce the rules.

Who/what is that going to be?

Absolutely - and creating and structuring that 'police force' under a 'democratic UN' (without nations hiding behind the veto) is something member nations have to debate and come to an agreement on.

[Doktor]

Absolutely - and creating and structuring that 'police force' under a 'democratic UN' (without nations hiding behind the veto) is something member nations have to debate and come to an agreement on.

Do you seriously believe that any of the N5 would participate in creating and maintaining a force that would be mightier then their national military?