"Targeted killings" should be our method of choice when our problem is
an individual or a small group.Thank you, Obama, for this common
sense approach.Too bad we did not have the wisdom to take our Saddam
Hussein this way.
It's a new kind of war. Use it when needed to save American lives.
Re: ". . . Bill Clinton . . . launched cruise missiles against . . . bin
Laden . . . . If the missiles had killed him, would that have been
improper?"It's a little sill to engage this debate at a
time when we are so clearly committed to the tactic, and when there is such
overwhelming evidence, both of its efficacy in preventing death and injury to
innocents, and of its covert acceptance by our Islamic allies.We
might all wish for a day -- pending the establishment of world peace, of course
-- when honorable warriors fight what battles may be, on terrain far removed
from innocent civilians and their property.But we didn't get a
vote in this shadow war's tactics. They were decided by a dishonorable
enemy, committed to commission of internationally-recognized war crimes as its
primary tactic.Our only alternative to targeted killing is total,
abject surrender to evil incarnate and the loss of our freedom and
civilization.And that's WAY too high a price to appease a tiny
cabal of sophomoric liberal and academic elites, so laughably removed from
Why do targeted killings need to be defended? Terrorists need to die, not the
entire town or country that they live in.
I have no problem with these killings. The part of me that was raised christian
has some reservations; the prince of peace did not say 'cap thine
enemy', but rather went on about turning the other cheek. Thou shalt not
kill is fairly difinitive, too. But we've all managed to lawyer and lie our
way around those edicts, although not everyone will admit it.
I voted for Obama but I don't really like it. I don't trust that
everyone killed is going to really be a terrorist. We've seen reporters
killed by the Army thanks to leaks. Weddings and homes bombed, torture,
illimination of habeus corpus - a right much older than the US.It
all comes from this line of thinking that the rule of law and courts are too
burdensome. It's a path to ruin. We won't be the only ones with such
remote killing capacity for long.
You mean like -- 12 years of "fighting", 1.5 Million troops
deployed, $2.6 Trillion spent, 6,000 U.S. causalites and nearly 300,000 Itaq and
Afghanistan soliders and civilians killed.vs.6 Navy
Seals - and Osama Bin Laden is dead?
Where it's necessary to use force, yes. But killing is still terrible, and
our strikes often kill civilians.In calculating the costs vs.
benefits, one of the costs is the further alienation of the local population and
all the relatives and sympathizers of the victims. To achieve lasting peace, we
must use prove both to the enemy and the rest of the world that we respect
civilian life and do not disregard the humanity of all the other people sucked
into the conflict.Any time we choose to use deadly force, we must
follow the principle of minimum necessary force, lest we create more enemies
than we destroy.