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
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: AP IMPACT: study suggests drones kill far fewer civilians than many Pakistanis believe [View all]MadHound
(34,179 posts)7. So we should just continue to kill people,
Keep the war machine going, killing innocents and making obscene profits for the MIC?
Is that what you propose?
So how long should we stay? What would be considered victory?
Oh, and al Qaeda is gone, and most of the "bad guys" there are much like you and me, innocents caught in the crossfire, with the choice to either lay down and die, or resist the invasion of a foreign enemy.
Just because politicians and generals agree with you doesn't make you, or them, correct.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
75 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
AP IMPACT: study suggests drones kill far fewer civilians than many Pakistanis believe [View all]
limpyhobbler
Feb 2012
OP
In World War II the ratio was 1 civilian for every 2 dead soldiers for the Axis powers
Johnny Rico
Feb 2012
#12
the very serious problem wth your analogy is that most of the civilians that were
truedelphi
Feb 2012
#25
How does that affect kill ratios and whether they are bad or good? You dont really explain that. nt
stevenleser
Feb 2012
#53
You are asking how the people who lived there knew who was who?Because that is who provided the info
stevenleser
Feb 2012
#51
Not sure why people have a hard time believing there are some hardcore terrorist groups
limpyhobbler
Feb 2012
#6
We should defend our country from fascist terrorists who are plotting to kill us.
limpyhobbler
Feb 2012
#10
Targeted assassinations that allow for the murder of innocents IS TERRORISM!
Nostradammit
Feb 2012
#33
Well, if we are to stay true to the original intent of the people who started this country
Nostradammit
Feb 2012
#37
All due respect to you, there is no such thing as war without civilian deaths.
stevenleser
Feb 2012
#58
you're right. let's just continue to utilize the same costly and ineffective methods..
frylock
Feb 2012
#63
It's easy to understand if you think those terrorist groups pose a real threat.
limpyhobbler
Mar 2012
#71
Obama, Clinton, Panetta, and Petraeus? Aren't they the ones who escalated the war?
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2012
#9
We were attacked by a multistate terror group on 9-11 why did you choose not to address that?
stevenleser
Feb 2012
#57
It poses an insignifican "threat" to America, except that it's bankrupting us.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Feb 2012
#32
So it sounds like we need to take steps to change both reality and perception n/t
DisgustipatedinCA
Feb 2012
#11
Yes, well said, and to extend your analogy, people here insist on superficial interpretations
stevenleser
Feb 2012
#55
These numbers are worse than what the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found.
joshcryer
Feb 2012
#30
It's interesting that some are reflexively attacking the article with no backup whatsoever
stevenleser
Feb 2012
#54