MattStafford: I still maintain that not participating in any sort of military action would be a better deterrent to terrorism than any of our current policies. It appears that drone striking is our best option if we decide that we do need to take military action, however, I would still say it isn't our best option. It seems like we think that we can kill all of the terrorists without addressing the underlying causes creating the terrorists, which is completely naive. Unless you want a perpetual cycle of killing terrorists, letting the next batch show up in their wake, and then killing that group (which would not be surprising to me if certain policymakers wanted that cycle), this policy isn't going to get us anywhere.The second problem I have with this, and I shied away from it because I don't know all of the legalese, is that we are essentially taking everything the administration says at face value. If they kill someone, they do not have to provide evidence on how they determined that that person should be killed. In addition, it appears there is no accountability when it is clear that the wrong person is killed. While this may be entirely legal per whatever statutes are on the books right now, it certainly rings false when I think about what we as a country should be doing.
If you like these links, you'll love
Come on, it's $5 a month, just do it.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Sep 25 2017 06:05:27
Runtime: 0.424 sec (423 ms)