Comment by throwmeaway33 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwmeaway33 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

To play devil's advocate: (and this isn't to excuse the US's actions, but to illustrate a major difference between what happened and what you're talking about)

The big difference in this case is that we have tacit (or maybe even explicit) consent from the Yemeni government to hunt Al Qaeda. So the representatives of the people of that country are allowing us to kill these people basically on their behalf. (which doesn't make it OK, but is a major differnce)

It's not just that we are bullying Yemen into allowing us to bomb people in their country - it's that the Yemini authorities (and probably most of the population) don't want these people operating in their country but they lack the resources and infrastructure to stop them themselves; and that's where we come in.

Bare in min that we also give Yemen a lot of military aid so that we DON'T HAVE TO come in and do their law enforcement for them. In this case that wasn't sufficient and we intervene on their behalf

To make your example comparable you would need to have a person that is evading US authorities, operating in the US, and that we are completely incapable of stopping (and only some other country could do it for us?)

Bullshit.

Here is why: Yemeni government != Yemeni people. The authorities, probably, don't mind letting US drones kill people, simply because it won't be them getting killed.

Imagine the US military firing tear gas and water cannons on protesters in Turkey and saying "It's OK, your government gave us permission". The major problem in the Middle East is that, the governments can get away with not giving a fuck about the people.

"Imagine the US military firing tear gas and water cannons on protesters in Turkey and saying "It's OK, your government gave us permission". "

I think you're having reading comprehension issues. It's not just that the gov't are requesting help. The reason we are involved in Yemen is because the Yemini gov't is incapable of exerting it's own will b/c they are weak and poor. Their interests are also strongly tied to our interests - so that's why we intervene.

Your example has is not at all analogous. The Turkish gov't is not incapable of tear gassing and water cannoning protesters, so they fail the first criteria of being incapable of carrying out their will. The example also fails the second criteria for intervention - that it's strongly in the US's interest.

"Yemeni government != Yemeni people"

Who else can you appeal to in Yemen to get permission to operate drones?

And are you seriously suggesting that the Yemeni people are supporting Al Qaeda? If they are, then they become the "enemy".

The way it works for other nations is we tell them: 1 - You will fight Al Qaeda in our country 2 - If you are incapable, we will help you do it by providing military aid. 3 - If you are still incapable we will us our own armed forces to make sure you are able to. 4 - If you are not willing to fight Al Qaeda or are actively defending them they we will intervene anyways.

The last point either leads to the case of the Taliban where we destroy them because they are defending Al Qaeda, or to Pakistan where they are forced to accept our help.

Ok. What about Pakistan? Oh shit, did I just blow your argument to hell? So sorry!

Aw, downvoted, for pointing out that the US carries out drone assaults in sovereign territories without consent.

Well, bury your head in the sand all you like.

Come on. The PK government is perfectly happy to say one thing to its population, another to the US and a third to the Talibans. It's just like European governments acting incensed at the notion of extraordinary renditions (like they didn't know about before) or at NSA spying (like they don't do the same thing). It's called "hypocrisy" and it's a common policy tool.

Downvoted for being wrong. Pakistan works with the US -- they don't want to appear to be working with the US.

I am not aware about now, but there was a while when Pakistan authorities denied US land crossing its territory in its way to supply Afghanistan. That divergence seemed pretty real.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com