Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I see that right-wingers are playing the "Obama: Warmonger" card this week. I guess they felt it was time to switch it up after weeks of playing the "Obama: Muslim Sympathizer" card.
While I agree that there is a measure of partisanship underlying the discussion, the question of drone warfare is legitimate and under-scrutinized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd
Drones are a great way to spy on the enemy and gather information. It is also a good way to take out the enemy without putting any of our guys in harms way.
The last thing any President wants is flag drapped coffins coming home. It is bad for ratings. Drones help cut those numbers.
Of course there can be collateral damage such as killing civilians and irking so called friendly countries by taking over their airspace. There is also a chance of killing hostages which just happened when a drone hit a isis camp. An American and Italian hostage was killed in the strike but as we have seen anyone in the hands of isis is doomed to die a terrible death on the internet.
War is hell and drones remove some of that ugliness but it is still war.
Four concerns we ought to have about drone strikes:
1) Do they remove oversight over US military activity by Congress and, more importantly, the People? In a regular military conflict, you have regular front-page news covering casualties and operations, and you also have citizens whose friends and family are deployed overseas. In a drone conflict, the fighters may be living at home and piloting the drones at a base halfway around the world. The strikes see only limited and occasional reporting in US outlets, partly because US media do not think Americans are terribly interested in the killings (probably with good reason).
2) Do they lower the bar to military conflict and encourage use of force as opposed to diplomacy, policing, and cooperation? The US has used drone strikes in at least: 1) Pakistan, 2) Afghanistan, 3) Iraq, 4) Yemen, 5) Somalia, 6) Syria, 7) Libya, 8) Bosnia, 9) Serbia, and possibly 10) the Philippines and 11) Mali. Would the US have engaged in some of these strikes if lives had been at stake? Should it?
3) Are we setting new precedents that other countries will rely on as they obtain their own armed drones? What if China used drones to attack Tibetan separatists? Russia in Chechnya? Ukraine? Iran/Iraq/Turkey against Kurds?
4) What about the next step--autonomous targeting drones? We are almost certainly approaching an era of robotic warfare, and remotely-piloted drones are just the first step. How will we deal with weapons that make their own targeting decisions? How should we?
I see that right-wingers are playing the "Obama: Warmonger" card this week. I guess they felt it was time to switch it up after weeks of playing the "Obama: Muslim Sympathizer" card.
Strawman. I've never argued that. In fact I've argued the opposite on here.
If we have in fact killed potentially all told thousands of civilians under Obama's drones in the process...are we creating more terrorists and resentment to the US?
The drones can not beat the Jihad. Air power alone can not beat the Jihad. Unfortunately, needless U.S. interventions in the Middle East will continue to motivate and fuel the Jihad attacks against the U.S.
The drones can not beat the Jihad. Air power alone can not beat the Jihad. Unfortunately, needless U.S. interventions in the Middle East will continue to motivate and fuel the Jihad attacks against the U.S.
They don't need any motivation. It's all there in their book. America will always be the Great Satan even if we pulled all military personal from Europe Asia Africa, the Mid East and paved the Muslims a road to Rome while leaving.
Do you really believe the ratio is any lower in cities bombed by manned aircraft?
The issue of manned vs. unmanned aircraft is irrelevant, the question should be whether the reward is worth the damage caused.
The question is not whether it is manned or not.
The question is, is Obama's drone program - one that has been drastically increased under Obama, worth it in the long run if we are killing potentially thousands of innocent civilians in multiple countries, which certainly creates resentment to the US and some new terrorists.
Some of the best propaganda for terrorist groups are the thousands of dead civilians at the hands of Barack "Nobel Peace Prize Winner" Obama's drones.
It is a strategy that has proven highly effective, far more so than the alternative methods that have floundered badly under Republicans. Republican methods do more damage to OUR country, decimate the living hell out of OUR economy, kill far more of OUR people, and make matters WORSE for everybody.
As usual, the President's use of drones, is the superior choice, the superior strategy. I think the use of them should be greatly expanded. The only change I would make is to add the capability that if a drone goes down and is captured, it disintegrates or self-destructs.
They don't need any motivation. It's all there in their book. America will always be the Great Satan even if we pulled all military personal from Europe Asia Africa, the Mid East and paved the Muslims a road to Rome while leaving.
Yes, any fighting insurgency needs motivation, otherwise why would they fight. The U.S. has motivated the Jihad through supporting tyranny in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc...), U.S. needlessly intervening in the Middle East (Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, etc...), and U.S. support for Israel, particularly with the Israel/Palestine conflict.
As long as we ignore what motivates the Jihad, and substitute nonsense we will continue to be defeated by the Jihad.
It is a strategy that has proven highly effective, far more so than the alternative methods that have floundered badly under Republicans. Republican methods do more damage to OUR country, decimate the living hell out of OUR economy, kill far more of OUR people, and make matters WORSE for everybody.
As usual, the President's use of drones, is the superior choice, the superior strategy. I think the use of them should be greatly expanded. The only change I would make is to add the capability that if a drone goes down and is captured, it disintegrates or self-destructs.
All Obama has done is expand Bush's foreign policy of interventions that are often detrimental to U.S. interests. Notice it is not working any better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Absolutely
