Hacker News Reader

Comment by protomyth | Hacker News Reader

I am pretty sure if you did the poll in Pakistan, they would like us to pick someone else. The double drone hit with the second designed to kill civilian rescue workers is particularly bad.

View on HN

I'm pretty sure that if Pakistan wasn't harboring Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists that continue to destabilize the region then America wouldn't have to. Pakistan has to get their act together.

So: When a republican president goes to war in Afghanistan that at the time was "harboring Osama Bin Laden and other terrorists" that were successfully targeting the US, it's "disastrous". When a democratic president bombs civilians on a day-to-day basis for the same reason (although the threat to the US is much less direct), it's really the fault of the other country on the receiving end.

Gotcha.

Whilst I agree in part to the point you make, that Pakistan should be dealing with terrorists that use it as a safe haven.

I can not agree with your sentiment that because Pakistan does not, America therefore has a right to fly drones into its land to indiscriminately kill.

It's not indiscriminate. An invasion would be though - and that's what would happen if Pakistan destabilized further.

Rights don't exist - they are merely useful fictions and are subject to "the guy with the guns makes the rules" rule.

I understand that it's not likely to be intentionally indiscriminate, however when the civilian casualty rate is so high it sure does seem indiscriminate.

Precision bombs are not perfect: http://livingunderdrones.org/report/

And you would be correct. Pakistan prefers Romney.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com