Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

MadHound

(34,179 posts)
17. You're not thinking very clearly, nor very far ahead.
Fri Mar 8, 2013, 07:38 AM
Mar 2013

For every innocent a drone kills, a dozen or more pissed off people are created. These people are mad at the US and many of them are ready to do anything to get back at us. That includes initiating future attacks against, much in the style of 911. Thus, with these drone attacks, we are laying the foundation for our own downfall. The blowback is going to be hell on earth.

Furthermore, these drone strikes are illegal, immoral. They violate the sovereignty of various nations, thus violating international law. They are not precise, and they kill dozens of innocents with each strike.

Imagine, if you will, that there was a drone strike on the Dalai Lama here in the US? After all, according to the precedent we've set with our drone policy, China would be perfectly within its right to do so. After all, according to the Chinese, he is a terrorist. Yes, he lives in a foreign nation, one whose sovereignty they would have to violate, but it isn't as if we haven't violated the sovereignty of of Pakistan, Somalia and other countries. Sure, taking out the Dalai Lama would kill twelve or fifteen surrounding innocents, but hey, isn't that what the US does?

According to our own drone policy and practices, China would be perfectly within its rights to launch a drone strike on the US in order to take out the Dalai Lama, and the right to launch another if they've gotten bad intelligence and missed with the first one(or second, or third).

Now do you understand the problems with drones? Obama's drone policy goes against international law, kills innocents, and puts all of us in danger.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Dead to me. All of 'em. MannyGoldstein Mar 2013 #1
I know, I know... nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #3
What if it's agreeing on the importance of cutting the deficit? JVS Mar 2013 #58
I only watch Ed and Rachel still. Cleita Mar 2013 #2
Nice to see that there's still intelligence and wisdom at MSNBC. MadHound Mar 2013 #4
I only watch Al Sharpton. graham4anything Mar 2013 #5
I LOVE Al, him and Ed are my favorites that I never miss. The rest I can take or Raine Mar 2013 #16
I love Reverend Al JustAnotherGen Mar 2013 #26
Likewise....... MzShellG Mar 2013 #53
Is MSNBC now the latest poutrage on DU? I can't go over to Meta to find madinmaryland Mar 2013 #6
The latest is liberals actually agreeing with Rand Paul nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #8
Question BO 08 Mar 2013 #14
You're not thinking very clearly, nor very far ahead. MadHound Mar 2013 #17
Every day 35 people die from bullets/guns. Constant. No change in that...yet graham4anything Mar 2013 #19
What does that have to do with Obama's drone policy? MadHound Mar 2013 #20
You're strictly OwnedByCats Mar 2013 #59
How many future terrorists are being created? nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #25
many times less BO 08 Mar 2013 #39
I suspect you have no clue what blowback means. nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #54
I suspect you are wrong BO 08 Mar 2013 #60
Whatever...I still remember after 911 nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #62
It appears OwnedByCats Mar 2013 #61
It's the hubris of Empire nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #63
Well, if that is the case, then other countries have the same right, no? sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #28
yes they do BO 08 Mar 2013 #38
Well, I haven't noticed any of them using them at all so far. sabrina 1 Mar 2013 #40
doesn't appear to you. BO 08 Mar 2013 #41
Because it's a means of projecting force without stirring up much political backlash back home. Marr Mar 2013 #49
I'll stick with Stephanie Miller. nt Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #7
What Paul did was nothing but a publicity stunt, he is not a true believer. krawhitham Mar 2013 #9
Yup, and...his father nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #10
ProSense makes my point better than I did krawhitham Mar 2013 #18
Of course, party before country nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #21
Actually, ProSense Mar 2013 #29
Do me a favor and send this to Rachel Maddow nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #32
Exactly. Well said. This filibuster accomplished nothing besides attention for Rand Paul. stevenleser Mar 2013 #33
+1 n/t zappaman Mar 2013 #46
Brennan is a torturer and I think he should not have been nominated The Second Stone Mar 2013 #11
Where Venn diagrams are useful nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #12
Noooooo. Only thing close to sanity remaining on cable. Zax2me Mar 2013 #13
Agreed, but she agreed that Rand Paul did something good nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #23
So true! zappaman Mar 2013 #15
Two people from opposing parties can think Mar 2013 #27
Odd that the self-proclaimed "moderates" suddenly can't understand that. Marr Mar 2013 #50
Indeed think Mar 2013 #52
Odd how the proportions are always the same & no one ever says anything about the NON-overlaps. patrice Mar 2013 #43
Right. No differences whatsoever! zappaman Mar 2013 #47
What are you saying? Marr Mar 2013 #51
Yeah, Well. Thank God We're So Awash In Liberal Media Sources These Days..... Paladin Mar 2013 #22
I am not...it is the logic a few here are using nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #24
From OP post: "(Major sarcasm notice) " think Mar 2013 #30
Hi back at you nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #31
Perhaps think Mar 2013 #42
I think you illustrated the point perfectly Puzzledtraveller Mar 2013 #48
Ed & Tweety have have already declared whose running fadedrose Mar 2013 #34
MSNBC & Rand Paul fadedrose Mar 2013 #35
That might be part of it nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #36
The Rand Paul segments on both Lawrence's & Ed's shows were excellent, Nadin! pacalo Mar 2013 #37
Rand Paul segments liberal from boston Mar 2013 #44
What Lindsay Graham said was very unexpected! pacalo Mar 2013 #55
I happened to watch 'em nadinbrzezinski Mar 2013 #56
Thanks, Nadin... pacalo Mar 2013 #57
Paul's stunt was like a tweet from Ashton Kutcher Politicub Mar 2013 #45
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I guess it's time to thro...»Reply #17