United States Biden administration policies and actions - megathread

Reader mode
Robovski said:
Just going to put this out there, but if we aren't in a declared war, maybe blowing up people next to "targets" should be unacceptable. Because murder.
Click to expand...
And so.you are saying we should never fire on anyone then? Because that is how you cause that
 
Zachowon said:
And so.you are saying we should never fire on anyone then? Because that is how you cause that
Click to expand...
Honestly, we should not drone strike people on Presidential authority at all. As a tool of war I can see it but I don't see a War on Terror or War on Drugs as a war in the formal sense. Just because we can does not mean we should. You want those bad guys? Get local government help and send a team. This is just some sanctioned version of anti-terrorism and is terrible for our nation's image and a stain on our national character. War is when we accept murder, not peace, and while I can see how this practice of strikes is expedient and "useful" it's also morally repugnant and is at a high cost of lives of people who are not the "target" and were never intended for execution. Why should human life be so cheap? Because they are foreigners? Because they are near "bad people"? I thought freedom of association was something we believed in as Americans. And since when should I just trust the judgment of the people in power that they are capable of deciding this on our behalf?
 
Robovski said:
Honestly, we should not drone strike people on Presidential authority at all. As a tool of war I can see it but I don't see a War on Terror or War on Drugs as a war in the formal sense. Just because we can does not mean we should. You want those bad guys? Get local government help and send a team. This is just some sanctioned version of anti-terrorism and is terrible for our nation's image and a stain on our national character. War is when we accept murder, not peace, and while I can see how this practice of strikes is expedient and "useful" it's also morally repugnant and is at a high cost of lives of people who are not the "target" and were never intended for execution. Why should human life be so cheap? Because they are foreigners? Because they are near "bad people"? I thought freedom of association was something we believed in as Americans. And since when should I just trust the judgment of the people in power that they are capable of deciding this on our behalf?
Click to expand...
You do know every strike we do in a foreign country like the middle east are sanctioned by the host governments right?
 
Zachowon said:
You do know every strike we do in a foreign country like the middle east are sanctioned by the host governments right?
Click to expand...

Does this change the moral issue, the reputational issue, or the devaluation of human life, or how we use a functional tool of terror by just dropping explosives from the sky on foreigners and US citizens? Because it really doesn't matter if the local government was on board with us doing this for it to be wrong Zach. To be clear, I am not attacking our military here, I am attacking our government that makes these orders and tries to justify these actions. When US citizens are executed by legal order we expect a trial and due process because they have things like rights. We expect our government to continue to follow such processes in the execution of it's functions be that here or abroad because US laws apply to US citizens regardless of where they are or who they are dealing with. If these local governments wanted these people dead, that should have been something they should have done by their own processes and it can be on their hands and not at the cost of the American public.
 
Last edited:
Robovski said:
To be clear, I am not attacking our military here, I am attacking our government that makes these orders and tries to justify these actions. When US citizens are executed by legal order we expect a trial and due process because they have things like rights.
Click to expand...
There are obvious, practicality based exceptions to that, and this is one of them. If the guy was even remotely interested in getting his due process, he should have surrendered himself to the nearest US embassy, he had years to do that. Much like if in USA some ordinary criminal, say, a murderer, fortifies himself in his house with a small arsenal and explosive traps, the police is not going to keep throwing bodies at him through his suppressive fire to capture him alive, he's more likely to get a SWAT sniper's bullet. But if he comes out with his hands up, then the police is obliged to take him alive and deliver him to his trial.
This applies hundredfold to areas of dubious status outside of USA, like failed states where convoys of pickups full of RPG totting islamists rule the hinterlands, and where even low flying combat aircraft are at risk.
Robovski said:
We expect our government to continue to follow such processes in the execution of it's functions be that here or abroad because US laws apply to US citizens regardless of where they are or who they are dealing with. If these local governments wanted these people dead, that should have been something they should have done by their own processes and it can be on their hands and not at the cost of the American public.
Click to expand...
Not really, that kinda conflicts with the concept of law of the land, which is to a large degree applied over the world. For example, US citizens who are 19 years old can go to Canada and legally drink alcohol, because the law of Canadian land allows it. Meanwhile a Canadian citizen who is 19 year old can go to USA and not be allowed to drink alcohol, because the law of that land says 19 year olds can't drink alcohol.
 
Robovski said:
Does this change the moral issue, the reputational issue, or the devaluation of human life, or how we use a functional tool of terror by just dropping explosives from the sky on foreigners and US citizens? Because it really doesn't if the local government was on board with us doing this for it to be wrong Zach. To be clear, I am not attacking our military here, I am attacking our government that makes these orders and tries to justify these actions. When US citizens are executed by legal order we expect a trial and due process because they have things like rights. We expect our government to continue to follow such processes in the execution of it's functions be that here or abroad because US laws apply to US citizens regardless of where they are or who they are dealing with. If these local governments wanted these people dead, that should have been something they should have done by their own processes and it can be on their hands and not at the cost of the American public.
Click to expand...
You are asking for the chance to let someone who will kill tens to hundreds of US lives because a person around them is a US Citizen. At that point they are no longer US, and are a traitor to the country for working with and being involved with enemies.

You obviousyl don't understand how conflict and fighting works.
 
www.reuters.com

Biden follows Trump in defending Puerto Rico benefits exclusion

President Joe Biden on Monday said his administration will defend at the U.S. Supreme Court a law that excludes Puerto Rico from a federal program that provides benefits to low-income elderly, blind and disabled people, adhering to the same policy as his Republican predecessor...
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com

"but vaush said we could push biden left! 😭😭😭"
 
Zachowon said:
And how do you recommend them getting thier due process when they have yet to come back to the US and they happen to be next to a target?
Click to expand...
How do we normally deal with law-breakers who are not in a US or US-friendly jurisdiction?
 
Captain X said:
How do we normally deal with law-breakers who are not in a US or US-friendly jurisdiction?
Click to expand...
Depends on how wanted they are.
We generally don't if they are in a country we can't operate in. Like Russia or China or North Korea.
Middle East? Depends on what they did.
 
Zachowon said:
Depends on how wanted they are.
We generally don't if they are in a country we can't operate in. Like Russia or China or North Korea.
Middle East? Depends on what they did.
Click to expand...
Well there you go. We generally don't send drones and shoot missiles at them, do we? I mean, really what it amounts to is targeted assassination, except a lot of other people end up caught in the crossfire and occasionally the actual target gets away in the bargain.
 
Captain X said:
Well there you go. We generally don't send drones and shoot missiles at them, do we? I mean, really what it amounts to is targeted assassination, except a lot of other people end up caught in the crossfire and occasionally the actual target gets away in the bargain.
Click to expand...
The problem here is failed states. If you have an allied state, you just ask. If you have a neutral state, you mediate requests like that through Interpol or other more or less international institutions or directly negotiate with the government, sane countries don't want terrorists or the like around even if they haven't offended against them specifically. Problems arise with downright hostile states, but in their case, at least you know where they stand and what you can and cannot do against them, sanctions being likely involved, possibly some kind of cloak and dagger stuff if that's important enough.
And last but not least, there's the huge gray area called failed states. Formally/legally sovereign, but in practice not really in control of much of their territory, sometimes not much beyond the capital, probably with moderate at best interest in going to downright war over some third party's beef with a criminal or terrorist with those who do control the rest (because if they could win it, they already would have, for own sake). That is if they don't happen to be a client state of someone who wants to screw with you, or aren't maintaining a tense peace with the other guys. Obviously some of the most wanted criminals in the world would be very interested in living in areas like that. What are your options there? None of the previous ones work really. Its airstrikes or commandos. Bond/KGB stuff if you feel cocky.
 
Captain X said:
Well there you go. We generally don't send drones and shoot missiles at them, do we? I mean, really what it amounts to is targeted assassination, except a lot of other people end up caught in the crossfire and occasionally the actual target gets away in the bargain.
Click to expand...
Marduk put it in a great way.

Let me put it in simple terms.
If friendly ask. If nit enemy nor friendly ask nicer. If enemy but not war zone ask and plan. If enemy and war zone? Do what ever it takes with the least amount of American deaths.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top