Give Obama Credit: Drones Are Better Than Boots

[Michigander_Life]

I think we are all in agreement that using unmanned drones is better than using manned aircraft, which is better than using boots on the ground. It would be better if we weren't involved militarily, in any way shape or form, but Bush got us into this mess. Bush broke Iraq and left Obama holding the broken mess.

POTUS is a reasonable, logical and ethical man. I don't think he will get us committed or over extended, like the Chimp did.

[Maedhros]

1. The problem with drones lies with the rules of engagement for their use.

Despite being touted as "surgical" weapons, drones are not very discriminatory at all. They are targeted using behavioral "signatures" that often conflate funeral and wedding services as "terrorist" meetings, resulting in many innocent people being killed. Often they are targeting using cell phone metadata to identify the "terrorist," which also has problematic outcomes. Troops on the ground have much better situational awareness than a Hellfire missile, so they have some advantages over the remote-controlled alternative.

Perhaps the bigger problem with drones is that they provide a false sense of security in their use, so that people are much more accepting of drone deployment than troop deployment. This leads to the acceptance of continual war in the form of drone strikes as normal instead of horrific.

[cheapdate]

2. Brace yourself...get ready to be called "babykiller".

I agree that individually targeted missiles fired from unmanned aerial vehicles are clearly more "desirable" and
"better" than heavy payloads of conventional munitions dropped from heavy bombers.

[morningfog]

7. But this is not an "either or" quesiton. It is a "whether at all" question.

[cheapdate]

62. I don't have an answer to the "whether at all" question.

My default answer would be "not at all". However, it's possible to imagine circumstances where it would be justified and warranted. Even under those circumstances, I would lean heavily toward "not at all".

Watching passively while Iraq violently disintegrates with the potential for the violence to spread across the region and knowing that the United States played a major role in creating the entire mess is probably the best option. It's hard to see how the situation could be improved by more US involvement.

[whatchamacallit]

3. Yes, turning killing into a video game with no moral component

is better for Americans and their delusions.

[SomethingFishy]

17. +1

Got to it before I could..

Used to be "liberal" meant anti-war.. not "The Bravery Of Being Out Of Range".

[whatchamacallit]

21. +1

[Lucinda]

26. Amused to Death is one of my all time favorites

The entire thing is brilliant.

[think]

29. Brilliant is a great description....

[SomethingFishy]

31. I wasn't sure if anyone would know what it was...

Roger Waters is the only person on the planet who has ever intimidated me. As a roadie I am around stars all the time and never saw them as anything but normal people. But when our tours crossed paths (It was the 4th time I got to see The Wall) and I actually ran into him I was speechless. Here was a guy who taught me so much through his music, and got me through many low points in my life I just couldn't come up with the words to tell him. He did sign a brick for me...

[Lucinda]

35. How very cool! I'd love to meet him.

Pink Floyd is my fav band....and I was iffy on some of Waters solo projects until Amused to Death. I am constantly recommending it to people. I think everyone should listen to it, from start to finish.

[SomethingFishy]

36. More relevant today than ever...

[cui bono]

100. Sadly, this board is far from liberal now. So is the Dem Party. n/t

[Lancero]

25. But...but...but...

I thought video game's didn't cause killings?

[quaker bill]

113. The news I have read shows some of the pilots

suffering PTSD. I think the "no moral component" notion proves to be false. This makes sense to me as shooting a person is equally immoral regardless of the distance between the shooter and the target.

[1000words]

4. Certainly makes it easier to rationalize our involvement in a crime.

[morningfog]

5. Manned aircraft are flying over Iraq, too.

There are currently 150 troops on the ground. Plus 275 to protect the embassy.

Re-entering Iraq with the military is by choice. You have no idea what Obama will do once the bombs start falling and things spiral. Nor do you know how it will be left when he leaves office.

This is a mistake.

[Kelvin Mace]

6. Well, no actually...

According to a recent report:

The Obama administration’s embrace of targeted killings using armed drones risks putting the United States on a “slippery slope” into perpetual war and sets a dangerous precedent for lethal operations that other countries might adopt in the future, according to a report by a bipartisan panel that includes several former senior intelligence and military officials.

The group found that more than a decade into the era of armed drones, the American government has yet to carry out a thorough analysis of whether the costs of routine secret killing operations outweigh the benefits. The report urges the administration to conduct such an analysis and to give a public accounting of both militants and civilians killed in drone strikes.

“There is no indication that a U.S. strategy to destroy Al Qaeda has curbed the rise of Sunni Islamic extremism, deterred the establishment of Shia Islamic extremist groups or advanced long-term U.S. security interests,” the report concludes.

The panel also said there was little reason to conclude that drones create a “PlayStation mentality” — turning war into a video game that eliminates the psychological costs to drone pilots.
Continue reading the main story Continue reading the main story
Continue reading the main story

In fact, the report said, because drone pilots watch their targets sometimes for days and weeks before pulling the trigger — and then see them blown up on a high-resolution video screen — they are more susceptible to post-traumatic stress than pilots of manned aircraft.

The panel instead reserves the bulk of its criticism for how two successive American presidents have conducted a “long-term killing program based on secret rationales,” and how too little thought has been given to what consequences might be spawned by this new way of waging war.

The report also claimed that contrary to belief on the left, collateral deaths are less than "conventional" air strikes, but according to the Gen. Stanley McChrystal, "The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes ... is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who've never seen one or seen the effects of one."

POTUS is a reasonable, logical and ethical man.

"Logical" is open for debate, but there is nothing "reasonable" or "ethical" about murdering people with drones, especially without due process or a formal declaration of war.

One of these days the "drone will be in the other country" and a terrorist group or foreign group will use a drone to attack people on American soil, kind of like the did 13 years ago.

[Journeyman]

8. A poem for you, by Thomas Merton . . .

My name is Adolf Eichmann.

A poem (c. 1962) by Thomas Merton, a Trappist monk of the Abbey of Gethsemani, Kentucky.

My name is Adolf Eichmann.
The Jews came every day
to vat they thought vould be
fun in the showers.
The mothers were quite ingenious.
They vould take the children
und hide them in bundles of clothing.
Ve found the children,
scrubbed them,
put them in the chambers
and sealed them in.

I vatched through the portholes
as they were droven und chant:
“Hey, mein Liebe, heyyy."
Ve took off their clean Jewish love rings,
removed their teeth and hair –
for strategic defense.
I made soap out of them,
I made soap out of all of them;
and they hung me,
in full view of the prison yard.

People say,
“Adolf Eichmann should have been hung!”
Nein.
Nein, if you recognize the whoredom
in all of you,
that you vould have done the same,
if you dared know yourselves.

My defense?
I vas a soldier.
People laugh,
“Ha ha! This is no defense,
that you are a soldier.”
This is trite.
I vas a soldier,
a good soldier.
I saw the end of a conscientious day’s effort.
I saw all the work that I did.
I, Adolf Eichmann,
vatched through the portholes.
I saw every Jew burned
und turned into soap.
Do you people think yourselves better
because you burned your enemies
at long distances
with missiles?
Without ever seeing what you’d done to them?
Hiroshima . . . Auf Wiedersehen . . .

[xchrom]

9. +1

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Not killing is better than either.

[840high]

77. Yes.

[lunatica]

11. Boots on the ground

means death on both sides. In Iraq it means thousands of civilian deaths due to collateral damage. That means innocent people who have the bad luck of being caught in the firepower and death to foreign soldiers such as ours being sent to become cannon fodder for profit to those who send them there.

Groups like ISIS use terror, murder and revenge on their own countrymen. They execute hundreds of people in every town they take within hours so we know there is no judge or justice or courts involved. Some one or some small group of leaders is making the snap decisions of who gets murdered. Does anyone think they don't have plans for terror, murder and revenge against the West? Unfortunately the use of Drones seems to be the least worst choice in order to try to contain ISIS where they are now. Once they start spreading their brand of justice to the world outside of the Middle East not even Drones will be effective, and first world countries won't even allow them most likely.

President Obama seems to have always thought things out by being as proactive as possible regarding the repercussions of what is done in the present and he seems to be aware of the bad or worst dilemmas of his choices. He seems to function with future eventualities and possible outcomes in mind. Even long after his Presidency is over. I think that's why he uses Drones. Not using them allows Al Qaeda and ISIS to grow unabated and exponentially, free of any restraints. If ISIS is Allowed to spread their brand of revenge and death freely across the planet without any restraints it would be a far worse eventuality than attempting to take them out with Drones in their own back yard. As unpleasant as it is, using Drones to target individuals seems inevitable and even necessary.

[Savannahmann]

12. I think you are wrong.

Drones are a step away from boots on the ground, that is true. However using drones is not a good thing by any stretch of the imagination.

There are many things that are not as bad as the theoretical alternative, but that does not make them good things. I could use a number of examples that would get everyone objecting to my post and alerting on it.

What I will do is use an argument from World War II. There were some who understood how awful the Atomic Bomb would be. A handful of people even raised the question of the laws of war. Those people were told that the Atomic Bomb would be better, more humane, than the firebombing of cities like Tokyo. Even if that was true, even it that was 100% absolutely undeniably true. It did not mean that the Atomic Bomb was a good and humane way to fight a war. At some point the level of human suffering has reached 11 and we need to reconsider some things.

For the sake of argument I will allow that a drone may be better than putting our troops in harms way from our point of view. But is it a good way to enforce policy? I say enforce because that is what violence is. It is using force to make your diplomatic point. Do you think that the families of the dead at a wedding feel good that the Americans did not open fire with machine guns? "Well Bob, at least they didn't open up on us with artillery." Has the use of Drones done anything to end the threat of Terrorists?

There are few arguments that we humans can make that are so shallow that they are literally nothing but surface. This is one of those arguments.

[woo me with science]

14. There are more reputable lines of work

than shilling for death.

[m-lekktor]

15. wow. UNREC

[Michigander_Life]

16. Why don't you support PBO?

Do you doubt his intelligence? His competence?

[Marrah_G]

33. ~facepalm~

[morningfog]

82. I don't support him when I disagree.

He's making a big mistake. I think he is flat work to be engaging the US military in Iraq. I heard no justification or objective. Stupid mistake. I sure as he'll do not support it.

[bobduca]

88. Herpa Derp

Last edited Sun Jun 29, 2014, 01:28 AM - Edit history (1)

if you are going to join the loyalty-brigade pop-and-lock squad your non-sequitur accusations need to be better than that!

[Warren Stupidity]

98. That is your argument?

[Michigander_Life]

99. "Wow. Unrec" is worthy of argument?

Good luck.

[SomethingFishy]

18. You think drones will end the "War on Terror"?

How many "terrorists" do you think we need to kill to stop the "War On Terror"? Is there a number? You talk about logic yet you espouse using the same tactics over and over again knowing damn well it doesn't work. Einstein had a word for that.... Insanity.

It does not take a strong nation to drop bombs, it takes a strong nation not to drop them.

[TheKentuckian]

19. Better why? So we can covertly kill at will, minimizing blowback and costs at home?

Insure that as few Americans as possible are in the loop to stave off pesky concerns of conscience and eyes on abuses?

Make it easier to bury in black budgets?

Make plausible deniability in place that we even take the actions?

Fuck no, it is way worse.

[Michigander_Life]

20. It minimizes American casualties

That alone makes it better. Obama is competent and intelligent. I trust him.

[TheKentuckian]

22. Only from a highly privileged perspective and then if dealing death is

good as long as they aren't your tribe and then only if there is no cost to our collective soul and no pushback/fall out.

This not about Obama, he is only a stop in a succession.

[Gravitycollapse]

41. Like coffee without caffeine. You can drink it all day and not get the shits.

[Puzzledtraveller]

23. Exactly

No flagged draped coffins of our soldiers coming home, some of them anyway, and the media sure as hell won't cover the carnage brought on by our drones, children blown to pieces, no way.

[cheapdate]

72. And what about the violence, oppression, dislocation, and murder carried ouy by ISIS?

The United States played a major role in creating the conditions in Iraq for ISIS. By almost all accounts, ISIS is willing to use extreme violence to subjugate whole populations. What about those victims? Better they should lose everything including their lives rather than have the United States dirty it's hands in Iraq any more?

(Obviously that's a pointed question. Not trying to be dickish, but is it really that simple? No lethal force from the US under and circumstances?)

[TheKentuckian]

78. What about the violence, oppression, dislocation, disenfranchisement, and murder of the puppet

regime?

What about all of the above caused by our own actions?

Are we really having a "freedom bombs" discussion here and are we really trying to act like we are the calvary coming in for the good guys?

Hell, are we pretending we didn't create the very monsters we are supposed to be saving folks from by blowing them up?

What makes you think we can bomb the toothpaste back in the tube? This pass was as predictable as the rising sun. There was no other plausible outcome so maybe consider that before getting riled up and foolishly convinced to destroy in a powder keg in the first place.

This is one of the more foolish efforts ever, there was no good outcome and this is the fruit of our stupidity and every further digging in will make it even worse, more unstable, costly, and destructive with piles of victims on our heads.

Keep fucking around and the whole region will be going up and the same folks will be wringing their bloody hands wondering "who could have predicted" and calls for more blood and treasure to be poured into the hemorrhage because when you are a hammer there is nothing but nails or you aren't useful.

Our puppet has been a piece of shit and why anyone is surprised by that I don't know. Look at who propped him up and why. Granted Obama wants him out but it is just to change a dirty diaper so that we can play the fresh face angle while keeping all that underlies him in place.

[grasswire]

83. excellent post, and wise

Profit has trumped peace, again.

[cheapdate]

84. I see.

Last edited Sat Jun 28, 2014, 10:00 PM - Edit history (1)

Just for future reference, I asked a general question. I didn't make a statement, except to recognize the major role that the United States played in creating the mess to begin with -- a point which you seem to have overlooked in your rush to reverse-engineer my entire outlook on US foreign policy based on a single, conversational, question.

The United States' illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq caused the deaths of least a half-million people and caused massive and widespread destruction to that county's cities, towns, schools, hospitals, and infrastructure. As well as the physical damage, the war shattered the country's civil and political institutions, destroyed the social fabric, and traumatized the national psyche.

The Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and other affiliated militant, jihadist groups have seized large areas in Iraq and are determined to use any and all means necessary to seize the entire country (and surrounding territories) and replace it's corrupt, ineffective, Shia dominated government with an Islamic Caliphate conforming to their own strict interpretation of Islam.

The United States should not under any circumstances involve itself in these events. We are not obligated by virtue of our role in waging war against them and utterly destroying their country, and further digging in will make it even worse, more unstable, costly, and destructive with piles of victims on our heads.

We can't bomb the toothpaste back in the tube. These events were as predictable as the rising sun. There was no other plausible outcome so therefore any involvement would be foolish.

[CrispyQ]

104. "Battle not with monsters lest ye become one."

Excellent posts, Kentuckian.

[bigtree]

24. drones just give the illusion of clean hands. WE are the merchants of their misdeeds

Last edited Fri Jun 27, 2014, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)

. . . the insulation of American life and limb just makes warring more palatable and, thus, more likely.

Production for Use
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025157679

[historylovr]

37. And what would Hildy write about this, I wonder?

Too bad she was only a brilliant character in a great movie. We need a few like her today. I love that scene, surreal as you say it is. Stark truth though, and a perfect quote for the use of drones and for this thread.

[Thinkingabout]

27. K & R

My thoughts also.

[countryjake]

28. American weapons are best when used moderately.

(credit goes to KamaAina for posting today's Borowitz Report)

[Jamaal510]

30. K&R

No method of warfare is perfect, but there have been less of our own troops killed using this method than with boots. I also want to share this excerpt from a related article:

Critics argue that drones violate international law, especially the most basic precept, sovereignty, which stipulates that no nation will use force to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. However, when nations send terrorists across borders, as Iran does, or cannot control terrorists within their countries that attack us or our allies, we should attribute a new exception to the precept of sovereignty. That is, if terrorists from country A attack people in country B, they forfeit their right to be protected by sovereignty, as they cannot first violate sovereignty and then ask to be protected by it. (I write “new exception” because most nations of the world have already agreed to the Responsibility to Protect, which makes sovereignty conditional when a nation allows genocide to take place within its borders.)

There are those who argue that drones alienate people. However, polls conducted by Pew Research Center show that people in the countries at issue, such as Yemen and Pakistan are no more hostile to the U.S. than are people in Arab countries where drones were not used, and that people in said nations were quite hostile to America before drones were employed.

Finally, one should note that the U.S. government exercises very tight control over the use of drones. There must be at least two independent sources of intelligence before someone can be added to the target list, there are numerous targets against which drones may not be used, and, for many other targets, high-level approval is needed, up to the head of the CIA and even the president.

P.S. The link where I found that is http://thediplomat.com/2013/10/in-defense-of-drones/

[freshwest]

42. That is a thought provoking piece there. I am thinking about your excerpt:

'...forfeit their right to be protected by sovereignty, as they cannot first violate sovereignty and then ask to be protected by it...'

I agreed, then guessed the next argument to be made is that, in assisting allies to maintain their society, civil or not, is the worth of supporting them. They are often not respected or trusted by Americans online. In fact, we could argue endlessly 'whose' ally they really are.

I feel some objections are that we are trespassing on the sovereignty of the nation who requested or allowed the USA to fly drones over their territory. Because by our own standards, those governments are not legitimate, while some would gloss over the merit or legitimacy of ISIS - ISIL. as they appear to be acting as the avengers of Saddam Hussein, who many say should have been left in place, massacres and all, to spare us going into Iraq in the first place.

There is a sloppiness in the assertion that neither us nor the drones are not welcome in other countries.

At times DUers applaud the use of drones, even lethal ones, if it is used for causes they support. Such as Sea Shepherd using them to find Japanese whalers, drones to kill elephant poachers, or this morning OP of using them to watch farms for animal abuse.

One of the most prolific live streaming reporters named Tim in NYC following Occupy made a video of a drone he made to fly about and record events. Surviellance by one side okay but not by the other.

I think for some, it's more the feeling of nothing between one and the sun, moon and stars; living in a state of nature of a sort countless humans have throughout our history, and prehistorically, is being taken away from us. That we are unwillingly becoming part of a technocratic global grid that cannot be trusted and dp not respect us.

But many people in the world are eager to build this grid. Those who are not, are called terrorists by some for not modernizing in culture amd accepting change to go along. And I think that is what is driving some of the extremists, their fight against science and universality in culture, and we are conflicted.

Not all change is positive, nor is all tradition. Just ruminating here as I woke up in too much pain to sleep. This thread is a good opening to thinking about why drones exist.

[Lucinda]

32. The use of drones is merely expedient, and shady as hell IMO.

There are always consequences, even if the operators aren't in harms way physically, they suffer damage.

http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/201311/drone-uav-pilot-assassination#ixzz2j1kqr9mJ

[woo me with science]

34. The incessant propaganda grows old.

The drone program slaughters, increases secrecy, and removes accountability. And the MIC and its blood for profit are being fed under this administration just like any other. Nobel Peace Prize, my ass.

Barack Obama seeks $65 billion in war funds
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025160975

[Michigander_Life]

43. Does my post say war is good?

Or merely that drones are a better option than boots on the ground? I think my post is clear: I would prefer no military involvement.

[woo me with science]

44. Yes, by attempting a lame and disgustingly invalid "lesser of two evils" argument,

the clear rebuttals to which you have deliberately and ostentatiously ignored throughout this thread.

That's the sophistry of the Third Way. They are also not in favor of fellating the banks and imposing vicious austerity on the people. They just realize it is the better option, because Republicans would do that *plus* give the poor mandatory transvaginal ultrasounds.

[Michigander_Life]

45. If there are two options

One being a manned aircraft dropping a bomb, and one being an unmanned aircraft dropping a bomb, the end result is that a bomb still gets dropped.

Do you support Prrsident Obama? Do you think be is intelligent, ethical, competent and capable?

[woo me with science]

46. No, there aren't.

There aren't just two options.

That's the familiar manipulation, to pretend there are just two options. Slaughtering this way, or slaughtering that way. In fact, with the Third Way joining Republicans on virtually every issue, there seems to be mostly one option.

Chomsky wrote about this tactic, narrowing the debate to pretend that the bloody corporate solutions are the only solutions. I would add that trying desperately to make it about Obama the person rather than the bloodshed for profit is another tired act. It's textbook Third Way, and it's sad and pathetic at this point.

[Michigander_Life]

47. Your attacks on Obama are transparent.

[woo me with science]

48. Right on cue.

That's how twisted the Third Way messaging has become. Even discussions about human beings in the target of drones, about policies of slaughtering without accountability in countries where we are not at war, about the blowback this murder-by-computer causes....

It all comes down, in the incessant messaging of the Third Way...

...to protecting Obama.

[Michigander_Life]

49. Cue on right.

Your points sound like Tea Party propaganda wrapped in pretend progressive clothing.

[woo me with science]

50. That was predictable, too.

It's really all you guys have, isn't it? The denial of the actual record. The desperation to make it all about Obama, a partisan loyalty test. The pointing fingers and trying to smear anyone who calls out the absurdity as a Tea Partier or Libertarian or racist.

It's all a well-worn book of propaganda, and it reeks at this point. The pages are falling out.

It's very simple to tell which side people are on, Michigander-Life. You watch the policies being defended. Not the personalities or the color of the jacket or the self-proclaimed party affiliations. You watch the policies, and the money behind them.

Third Way defense of MIC slaughter for profit, of secret "Kill Lists" and secret laws and secret courts....It reeks just like Republican defense of these things, because they are the very same policies, backed by the very same profitmongers.

The talking points get very, very old.

[Michigander_Life]

51. With all this predictability, you should change your name to Miss Cleo.

In the mean time, those of us who aren't blinded by racism will continue to support President Barack Obama because he is intelligent, ethical, capable and competent.

I think it's insanity that people get worked up over a bombing not because of the bombing itself, but because of the means in which the bomb was delivered to it's target.

[woo me with science]

52. Wow. "In the mean time, those of us who aren't blinded by racism...."

These are sounding more and more like computer-generated responses...picked up on the word "racism" and ran with it without nuance or shame. If not, it's a sad testament to how "bottish" human responses can become, when the messaging is so programmed and contrived.

We also seem to be stuck in the loop of "mandatory last answer in the thread."

Oh, my.

[KG]

64. wow. they ran through the shtick 4 posts!

[Comrade Grumpy]

53. That was really low, lame, and ugly. You should delete your smear.

You're really reaching now.

You seem familiar, too. What was your last screen name?

[Michigander_Life]

54. Do you deny that PBO has been attacked by racists since his presidency began?

[Comrade Grumpy]

55. Sure he has. But that doesn't make criticism of his policies racist.

it's just an ugly smear, a desperate retort, and a deflection from the argument you yourself started.

[grasswire]

57. bullshit, bullshit

Shame on you.

[Maedhros]

69. Your "arguments" are laughably inept.

When exchanging posts with Woo, don't bring a spork to a gun fight.

[cui bono]

73. Who says no one is "worked up over the bombing itself"?

Btw... I think you forgot to put in the link to that other site I believe you like so much, irrc.

[Michigander_Life]

75. What site?

[morningfog]

94. You emotarian, you.

[CrispyQ]

106. You should delete your post.

A newbie implying a long-time valued member is racist, is bad form.

[bobduca]

89. Project much?

[Michigander_Life]

91. Is that the new catch phrase?

Useful when you have not an argument and nary a position.

[bobduca]

92. You are combative and transparent

when you accuse others of being transparent, that's projection coming from someone rudely attacking people for disloyalty and accusing them of things not in their posts.

[Maedhros]

67. Signature strikes are not ethical.

Execution of American citizens without due process is not ethical.

Collective psychological punishment of entire villages and regions (http://www.livingunderdrones.org/living-under-drones/) is not ethical.

So no, I do not support President Obama on the issue of drone warfare.

[Michigander_Life]

68. Do those strikes become ethical

If the pilot is in the aircraft cockpit, instead of in the remote cockpit?

[Maedhros]

71. No. As is said in my first response, the problem is not the technology

but the rules of engagement.

Your posts are tiresome. Bye bye.

[Michigander_Life]

74. So there's nothing inherently wrong with drone strikes

You just object to the military action. I'll stand by my assertion that drone strikes are better than boots on the ground. The OP indicated my preference against military action in general. But drone strikes are the lesser of two evils.

Why needlessly put our troops in harms way?

[woo me with science]

70. Collective psychological punishment of entire villages and regions (http://www.livingunderdrones.org

Collective psychological punishment of entire villages and regions (http://www.livingunderdrones.org/living-under-drones/) is not ethical.

Thank you. Imagine if it were done to us in Bedford, Massachusetts or Arlington, Virginia. We would call it terrorism.

[annm4peace]

38. how about we just send boots

many children are starving in Iraq and many froze during the winter.

lets send them books and boots and coats and food.

[think]

103. Sounds much better to me /nt

[Alex P Notkeaton]

39. Hear Hear!

K R!

[Gravitycollapse]

40. As Slavoj Zizek puts it, this is like coffee without the caffeine, soda without the sugar...

We have a drive to get what we want but we also have the desire to minimize the risk. In the end, what we have is an action which is satisfying, but meaningless.

What does it mean to be at war when our side risks nothing but machines? Equally important, what does it mean to our enemies?

[Warren Stupidity]

56. Far more sanitary way to kill them pesky furrners.

[Michigander_Life]

87. Far less risky for our servicemen and women.

[Warren Stupidity]

93. Like I said, sanitary furriner extermination.

And what could possibly go wrong? It is not like our drones routinely kill the wrong people.

[grasswire]

58. don't drones require spotters on the ground?

To identify the target locations?

[Michigander_Life]

59. No they don't, they have cameras that relay back to the operator

[grasswire]

60. how does a camera identify a terrorist? nt

[Michigander_Life]

61. How does a surveillance camera read the text messages on your phone as you peruse through a store?

Cameras are pretty sophisticated nowadays.

[grasswire]

65. here, for your edification...

.....is an article on the network that must be in place in order to target drones.

http://www.wired.com/2010/09/cia-snitches-are-pakistan-drone-spotters/

People on the ground are essential to the process. If not military, then CIA assets.

And regarding your phone in a store example: simplistic and not analogous.

[Michigander_Life]

66. Surely there is an immeasurable amount of intelligence proceeding drone strikes

For now.

[woo me with science]

63. Remember, they changed the definition

so that any male within a certain age range who has been droned to smithereens was, simply by virtue of his having been male, of a certain age, and bombed to smithereens, "an enemy combatant."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002757012

[TheKentuckian]

76. They remember, they just want everyone else to forget so they can spin the fairy tales of goodness

and wisdom.

Immoral, callous, short sighted, hand to mouth, transactional, image (I almost said personality but I think even that is too deep for many) driven, and most importantly stupid fuckers.

The most foolish thing is the Obamawashing factor. Let's just assume they are dead on about this particular fella, what happens in three years or ten or sixteen?
Hell, they could arguably be right about Obama now and still fail to account for the at least neck deep filth beneath him that he must rely on for information, advice, expertise, and execution many of which are embedded right wing loons from Reagan and both Bushes that have led us into mess after mess for a generation leaving all kinds of fucked up devastation in their wake, some of which we barely grasp due to the complicit corporate media and lots of secrecy.

You can't fix stupid. There is a lot of stupid at play in deep ways here and it is dangerous.

[woo me with science]

79. I heart this post for its brutal honesty.

Amen, Kentuckian. The rot is deep, and the abuse of power will continue long after this administration has walked out of the White House for the last time. It's a pathetic and deceitful tactic, the constant drive to make it all about Obama.

It's all propaganda and repetition of propaganda, and it has the deliberate purpose of appealing to the stupid and normalizing what should be unthinkable...shifting the window of acceptability so that we end up civilly "debating" what should not even be remotely debatable to citizens of the United States of America.

As though there is even a question about whether it is right or wrong to be slaughtering across sovereign borders of countries with whom we are not at war.

As though there is even a question about whether the President of the United States of America should have secret "Kill Lists," or be defending secret laws and secret courts.

As though there is even a question about how we would respond and what we would call it if other countries were sending flying death machines to hover over our own cities.

And the term, "Obamawashing" is the very best description of that pathetic excuse for argument that I have seen yet.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. This is one of the most amoral positions I have ever seen taken on DU

Horrific views supported by poorly crafted yet vile verbiage. Every cheap rhetorical trick in the handbook.

[Michigander_Life]

86. So manned aircraft are somehow not as bad as unmanned ones?

What makes it better if the pilot is in a cockpit within the aircraft, compared to being within a cockpit controlling the aircraft remotely?

[countryjake]

81. A reasonable, logical and ethical question...

[JEB]

85. Well, it costs less money and less US blood.

Just because it's immoral, and inflaming with plenty of collateral murder victims doesn't mean the empire can't kill anybody it wants.
edit to add:
For any reason we deem acceptable, with no oversight or due process. Oh and it is so much less toxic than nuclear.

[markpkessinger]

112. If a country is going to insist on waging war, then it damend well SHOULD cost that country!

And that includes the U.S.!

[JEB]

114. We are paying a huge price for using drones the way we do.

We are inciting more terrorism by the loss of innocent life which is an unbearable cost or at least it would be in a moral nation.

[Bonobo]

90. Nope. Zero credit.

False choice. Drone strikes cannot accomplish what ground troops can. But it IS good at giving the appearance of going something while boosting defense contractors profits, so there is that.

[Orsino]

95. Drones are not better than boots.

They cannot do the job of trained troops on the ground or of crewed aircraft.

Sure, drones can be spun in a PowerPoint presentation as money-savers, and there are some tasks they do amazingly well...but they are mostly pork. They are also more sinister, as drone strikes guarantee less accountability for violence--fewer (or no) witnesses and participants to tell the tale afterward.

[mattclearing]

96. Death from above is never justified.

It's not ok to kill people, and it's especially not ok to kill people at no personal risk. Drone warfare is the most cowardly sort of murder.

[Michigander_Life]

97. Your use of absolutes diminishes the value of your post.

[mattclearing]

110. If you say so. nt

[SammyWinstonJack]

101. ...

[rug]

102. For whom?

For whom the bell tolls
by John Donne

No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee.

[scarletwoman]

105. No, "we" are NOT "all in agreement"!

Who the hell are you, thinking you can speak for anyone besides yourself?

I do not approve of ANY U.S. military action in Iraq. NONE!

You don't get to say "we" unless you are referring to yourself and the mouse in your pocket. Period.

[Michigander_Life]

107. So boots on the ground is better than an unmanned plane in the sky?

[scarletwoman]

108. What part of "NO U.S. military action" do you not get? (nt)

[Michigander_Life]

109. You're painting yourself into a corner

[Jasana]

111. Yes I believe POTUS is a good man but....

there's a larger concept behind these drones and that is; it makes war a little too easy. That's why I'm very uneasy about drone warfare.