User talk:Pbfreespace3/Article Refutation 5

Talk welcome.

Careful. You are using the same logic that the US uses when using drone strikes and such. Do you support the use of drones to kill militants, with their families or hosts being acceptable collateral damage? Personally I think it depends on a case by case basis but can be justified, but I just want to make sure you are consistent in applying your ideals here... CorruptUser (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's talk about drone strikes. I tend to oppose the US drone program in Yemen and Pashtunistan because of the incredibly high civcas rate. However, I am not opposed to their use to take out high-value targets. The strikes (though not all drone) on Zarqawi, Awlaki, Akhtar Mansour, and Emwazi were all actions that I either support or don't mind. If I were president, you would only see drone strikes in Yemen and Afghanistan/Pakistan to kill high-level leaders and groups of armed enemy fighters.
 * The logic that the US uses in drone strikes would be sound if they killed mostly enemy fighters, but they don't. They kill mostly civilians with varying degrees of involvement in the enemy activity, from logistical to none. The rules of engagement change when you have a ground force close to the combat. I'm being rather vague here, I know. I would need a scenario laid out for me for you to understand where exactly I fall on this issue. Could you please do that? PBfreespace (talk) 19:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)