Drones compared to boots on the ground and civilian deaths

[Zaap]

The drones most important to Obama are all the ones that make lame excuses for him right here stateside.

 

[bradly1101]

I think you are missing the point of a weapon system. War isn't about fighting fair. If you can kill your enemy from a distance without endangering US soldiers then I am all for it. It really isn't any different than using aircraft with PGM. The drones just don't put any US airmen at risk and with no humans inside have and have longer loiter time. How is a US aircraft dropping a PGM and a drone dropping a PGM any different for innocents?

It's not, I'm whining about war just getting easier and easier with these 'advanced' weapon systems.

 

[JEDIYoda]

It's called spin or disinformation or whatever...

Uno

prove it............

 

[HOSED]

It seems we have 4 options here:
1. Invade with armed ground troops with air support
2. Use the drones remotely
3. 1 & 2
4. Stay out of other countries and recind most or all of the treaties & organization memberships that lead to these entanglements ... (My Choice)

Man my life was easy when I had a job ... I did not take any interest in such matters.
PS I am looking for alternative new sources, Now I read the Phila Inquirer every day and to balance its propaganda I watch RT online as well as on OTA television ( I especially learn a lot from the progressive Thom Hartmann).

 

[brycejones]

I don't know, but the one thing I liked about Romney was that he was 100% up front about the fact that there would be more boots on the ground everywhere... he was hypertestosteronal as some would say.

Conversely, I can't stand this cloak and dagger shit Obama has always done... he attacks like a pussy out of the darkness.

Real presidents can drop a terrorist from a km out with a 50 cal?

 

[dawheat]

The drones most important to Obama are all the ones that make lame excuses for him right here stateside.

Honest question - which one do you support. Personally I do fall between 1 and 2 - I certainly don't want any American lives put in danger, even at the expense of non-American lives. I'd like less collateral damage, but not at the expense of a threat to America being able to go free. It's certainly not pretty and not the world I wish we lived in.

1. Continue drone strikes whenever we have a IDed hostile

2. Fewer drone strikes (only when we can guarantee minimal collateral damage)

3. Much fewer drone strikers (only when we can guarantee minimal collateral damage and get prior approval from impacted countries)

4. No drone strikers - send in the SEALs

5. No drone strikes and no military action outside of a formal declaration of war

I feel like everyone should have to share their beliefs before jumping straight into right wing - left wing name calling.

 

[thraashman]

Honest question - which one do you support. Personally I do fall between 1 and 2 - I certainly don't want any American lives put in danger, even at the expense of non-American lives. I'd like less collateral damage, but not at the expense of a threat to America being able to go free. It's certainly not pretty and not the world I wish we lived in.

1. Continue drone strikes whenever we have a IDed hostile

2. Fewer drone strikes (only when we can guarantee minimal collateral damage)

3. Much fewer drone strikers (only when we can guarantee minimal collateral damage and get prior approval from impacted countries)

4. No drone strikers - send in the SEALs

5. No drone strikes and no military action outside of a formal declaration of war

I feel like everyone should have to share their beliefs before jumping straight into right wing - left wing name calling.

This is part of the problem. There's a bunch of people who want to bitch and moan at anything the President does but they don't have any alternative solutions to offer. I can't imagine any sane person wants to send in a massive amount of troops. And it's unfair and unrealistic to overwork SEAL teams by sending them on constant missions. Drones are the best option for keeping American soldiers out of harms way but then have likely the highest collateral damage count. Then of course there's the "do nothing" option, but that seems unlikely to work. 9/11 happened following what was probably our quietest decade in the middle east in the last 70 years.

 

[unokitty]

Drones without appropriate intelligence are worse than useless.

No war has ever been won by a drone.

Killing one 'terrorist' leader and having two more pop up to take his place is not progress... History is pretty clear that playing wack a mole with terrorists lacks effectiveness..

At the same time, history shows that using military assets in an attempt to accomplish political goals leads to situations like Viet Nam and Korea...

Drones are good for killing. But killing alone doesn't win wars...

Uno
Sentry Dog Handler
US Army 69-71

 

[tommo123]

the government considers any male casualty of military-service age in the strike area as a militant.

so does that mean that the males over 18 who died during 911 would be classed as "militants"?

 

[JTsyo]

Drones without appropriate intelligence are worse than useless.

No war has ever been won by a drone.

Killing one 'terrorist' leader and having two more pop up to take his place is not progress... History is pretty clear that playing wack a mole with terrorists lacks effectiveness..

At the same time, history shows that using military assets in an attempt to accomplish political goals leads to situations like Viet Nam and Korea...

Drones are good for killing. But killing alone doesn't win wars...

Uno
Sentry Dog Handler
US Army 69-71

Trouble is we're not willing to engage the true masters of the terrorists. We kill the figureheads but those supplying the money and training are left alone. There's not enough political willpower to go after them. The American people are satisfied by the efforts of killing the low level thugs, heck some are even not happy with that much effort. There's no motivation for the government to pursue the true threat that are imbedded with our allies.

 

[zinfamous]

Drones without appropriate intelligence are worse than useless.

No war has ever been won by a drone.

Killing one 'terrorist' leader and having two more pop up to take his place is not progress... History is pretty clear that playing wack a mole with terrorists lacks effectiveness..

At the same time, history shows that using military assets in an attempt to accomplish political goals leads to situations like Viet Nam and Korea...

Drones are good for killing. But killing alone doesn't win wars...

Uno
Sentry Dog Handler
US Army 69-71

I agree with all of this, but take issue with the bolded. Arguments structered this way are always very poor arguments.

"No x has ever x'ed" is only true until it is no longer true.

 

[momeNt]

Reprogramming isn't deep enough in our military at the moment. The military needs to be able to get the soldiers to see that the children are potential enemies, and kill them if necessary.

Now if that means that they actually practice on children to help desensitize them, if its for the good of our nation, I think we need to be able to find helpless children for them to practice on. For some, a quick ending by a bullet is better than a life in the sex trade.

 

[piasabird]

Drones take over and kill us all.