Missile strikes reportedly kill 28 in Pakistan

[Metskins]

I should clarify my remarks as well

I don't believe missle strikes are the way to go, because missles blow stuff up and leave tons of shrapnel and destruction behind

If we in conjunction with the Pakistani's drop in a joint Navy Seals/Army Ranger team that goes in and kidnaps these leaders (see how we got Ramzi Yousef back in the mid 1990s) that is far more effective

Fewer people die. Fewer buildings are blown up. We get the bad guy, and there are less engraged angry pahtans down in Karachi, strapping on suicide vests and walking into the Marriot

You don't believe in missile strikes because they leave a mess behind?

Go ask the Israelis what they think of targeted missile strikes. They were the biggest reason for the drop in terrorism over the past five years. They were able to go after those that made the bombs, and the command and control sites. Same thing in Iraq.

It'd be great if every time we wanted to we could dispatch a Seal Team inside another sovereign country to snatch somebody but something tells me that the increased exposure would have more negative impact in terms of international relations. Not to mention the fact that you're putting more Americans lives at risk every time you do that.

[Teller]

HH,

Note: I may be talking out of my ass, but what the odds of a 100% fatality, only to insurgents? Seeing as how these missile strikes are never as accurate on the ground as claimed, it stands to reason that some innocent civilians most likely lost they lives. The article however fails to give enough detail. But, what the article does say, is that a village was targeted, not a military operation. So, if in fact some taliban were killed, if they are in a village, that should mean they are hiding amongst civilians, and by extension, brought civilians into the line of fire. One more thing, the article does not mention how many injured. With 2 missiles landing, there are gonna be people who get injured, one way or another.

But hey, like I said, I could be 100% wrong.

OK, that's a far cry from the initial post of "applause for most likely killing innocent people?"

I agree with you that there might have been collateral damage, but I would also submit for the record that no one on earth works harder to avoid civilian casualties than the United States.

[Mad Mike]

The assumption I will base it on is we probably killed a bunch of pahtans.

The problem is, pahtans have no clue why missles are coming in and blowing stuff up around them

We are literally talking about the most uneducated and ignorant people on earth. So whatever intel we get from them, well who the hell knows if its any good, because these incredibly simply people have no idea what is going on

What they do know is this. 28 of their people got killed. To them these people weren't "bad" because they were one of them

The pahtans also know that it was either the government of Pakistan or the Amrikans who did this. Probably the Amrikans.

They'll then harbor and support anyone who will get revenge against the Amrikans. And the cycle will begin again, as a suicide bomb goes off somewhere this month in Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore, Multan, Quetta or Peshewar.

I understand what you are saying but I cant bring myself to care. I'm sorry that it's their dumb luck to be in that position, but they are harboring enemies of America who have killed thousands of us. Given a choice of doing nothing and dropping a missile in, I chose to drop the missile after doing the best I can to make sure we don't kill civilians.

[Jumbo]

I should clarify my remarks as well

I don't believe missle strikes are the way to go, because missles blow stuff up and leave tons of shrapnel and destruction behind

If we in conjunction with the Pakistani's drop in a joint Navy Seals/Army Ranger team that goes in and kidnaps these leaders (see how we got Ramzi Yousef back in the mid 1990s) that is far more effective

Fewer people die. Fewer buildings are blown up. We get the bad guy, and there are less engraged angry pahtans down in Karachi, strapping on suicide vests and walking into the Marriot

True

People that think this works/is a good idea, need to read about Vietnam, especially parts dealing with Cambodia.

True

OK, that's a far cry from the initial post of "applause for most likely killing innocent people?"

I agree with you that there might have been collateral damage, but I would also submit for the record that no one on earth works harder to avoid civilian casualties than the United States.

There are people highly deserving of becoming "fine red mists" in my corrupted human judgment, but I like to be real fussy about the target being genuine and restricted.

True.

Unless you count all the countries that simply aren't continuously involved in armed conflict across the globe to protect their interests, decade after decade. (That's suposed to be a factual and objective comment, not a Commie-loving America-hating comment ).

Really, though, we are who we are, and we are going to be "involved" including use of violent force across the globe for the foreseeable future, and I prefer our side.

But I'm afraid we may not be always be doing all we can in the limiting collateral damage dep't, including choice of policy as well as tactics.

It's always worth looking at with a goal to do better while still serving the cause of national security, IMO.

[PeterMP]

What is the alternative? Let them blow people up in Afghanistan and then have a home base in Pakistan even if we know where they are and where the bombs are coming from?

Just saw that whether or not our target was in the wreckage is not confirmed.

Essentially, you want to bring a "civil society" to a region that has never had such a thing. Historically, there isn't really a model that has worked.

What has worked is bringing a "civil society" back to an area where society had badly "decomposed" (normally due to war) so my first suggestion would be to carry that out. Increase the size of the military so that you have enough people to go in and really take over the area with the idea that you are going to occupy it for the next 10 years or so. If you are going to do that, you are talking about doing all of Pakistan though becuase I don't think the Pakistani goverment would survive you just taking over the tribal regions.

Relistically, I don't think that's going to happen.

Other than that, I don't know what will work. What I do know is historically this approach has failed multiple times, and things that have that sort of track recording of failing don't normally start to work so in that sense I'd suggest you're better off trying almost anything else.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

We are literally talking about the most uneducated and ignorant people on earth. So whatever intel we get from them, well who the hell knows if its any good, because these incredibly simply people have no idea what is going on

Wait, so we bombed the Dallas Cowboys practice facility?

Sweet!:point2sky

[TMat184]

I'm sure its extremely hard to differentiate the live civilians from AL Queda operatives there. You just never know what looks to be a pakistani citizen, is actually a suicide bomber that could take out a whole lot of our troops. If we have Al Queda targets and are able to eliminate them without sacrificing troops I think we have to do it. Al Queda must be eliminated...

[Vicious]

He is shooting for the moon while he is taking a dump on us http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27466701/

[Teller]

He is shooting for the moon while he is taking a dump on us http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27466701/

Wrong thread?

[Vicious]

Nah, it has to do with the administration, just like this move does. They are trying to get as much done as they can before they are forced out. This includes deregulation and killing OBL.

[Teller]

Nah, it has to do with the administration, just like this move does. They are trying to get as much done as they can before they are forced out. This includes deregulation and killing OBL.

I gotcha.

[Seabee1973]

Isn't this exactly what Senator Obama said he would do regarding Osama Bin Laden and al-Queda?

I seem to remember Senator McCain and others villifying him for this approach (violating Pakistan's borders) when he espoused it.

Now it's okay because the current Administration is doing it?

I think Obama said he would swoop in on a Helo offer him a room at the WH for a few weeks while Talking to him about who and where he was going to bomb next.

[SkinsHokieFan]

You don't believe in missile strikes because they leave a mess behind?

Go ask the Israelis what they think of targeted missile strikes. They were the biggest reason for the drop in terrorism over the past five years. They were able to go after those that made the bombs, and the command and control sites. Same thing in Iraq.

.

Iraq and Palestine are much different then the tribal areas

It is very hard to fathom (and I couldn't fathom it till I was speaking to people from the region last year while in Pakistan) but these are people who are so uneducated and simple, they literally have no aspirations of anything

Randomly killing them sets off the worst human instincts in them

(This is a far cry from an educated Iraqi population, and relatively educated Palestinian population)

[NattyLight]

Just in time for the Election.

[SkinsHokieFan]

Just in time for the Election.

This has been going on since July (essentially since Musharaff became powerless in Pakistan)

Every time after we strike, another suicide bomb goes off

See the Marriot bombing in Pakistan in September