Pakistani legislators demand end to drones

[The Northerner]

A panel of legislators in Pakistan has demanded that the U.S. stop drone attacks that have killed hundreds in that country. The panel also demands the U.S. apologize for an attack that killed 24 Pakistani troops at a border post last year. In addition, the panel called for new agreement terms with NATO before it will consider reopening a supply route to Afghanistan.

The demands were included in a draft to the Pakistani Parliament presented by Senator Raza Rabbani, chairman of the committee on national security on March 20. The U.S. has continued the unmanned aerial attacks in spite of previous Pakistani objections.

Rabbani charged that the Nov. 26 attack was a violation of Pakistani sovereignty and called for action against those responsible. The Pakistani government, responding to widespread public outrage, took swift action after the drone attack by closing a major NATO supply route.

Source: http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/pakistani-legislators-demand.html

[teddy51]

1. I don't know why the Pakistani military doesn't start shooting the Drones down! n/t

[limpyhobbler]

2. Drone strikes are an important tool to help kill terrorists.

It is much better to gather intelligence and then use a drone strike than it would be to bomb indiscriminately. It would be easier to capture and kill terrorists if some elements in Pakistan did not take actions like this to protect terrorists. They should really stop protecting and sheltering the bad guys. If Pakistan would get serious about catching these badguys, the drone strikes might not be needed as much.

[The Northerner]

3. So you're fine with the hundreds, if not thousands, of civilian deaths that drone strikes caused?

As long as those suspected "terrorists" are killed without trial?

[limpyhobbler]

4. I'm not "fine" with it, but think it beats the alternative of indiscriminate bombing.

We should make very attempt to avoid the type of devastating force such as we used against German and Japanese cities in World War II. Or the type of heavy bombing used against Iraq in 1990 and again in 2003. Hundreds of thousands of civilians probably died resulting from those airstrikes, all without benefit of a trial proving they were guilty. In fact most were guilty of nothing. Drone strikes suck, but they are very surgical and precise compared to that alternative.

[The Northerner]

5. And if those very "surgical & precise" drone strikes slaughter civilians are they still acceptable?

[limpyhobbler]

7. I already said, it sucks but seems to me the least bad option.

What actions would you suggest for fighting terror groups based in Pakistan? Do you have some better option ?

[The Northerner]

8. I'd suggest what Comrade Grumpy suggested

changing foreign policy completely which includes non-interference in other countries's domestic affairs.

[Comrade Grumpy]

6. There aren't just two choices here.

We could change our foreign policy and get the hell out of there, and stop creating Frankenstein monsters.

Either drone wars or indiscriminate bombing are guaranteed to generate a whole new crop of people who hate America, and with reason.