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.
To answer the specific question of the thread title: Repulsive Progressive Hypocrisy: Tell Us How Dropping Bombs From a Drone Is More Humane/Acceptable Than From Manned Jets
From a military perspective--given that the command to commence operations will have been given in either case--using drones is more desirable when possible because it is much more militarily accurate and precise. It's even more militarily accurate than GPS-guided munitions because it permits more last-minute decision making, and more precise because the weapon is not merely steered to a geographic coordinate, but guided to a specific target (which might be in motion).
In my career, I saw the accuracy of munitions increase by a magnitude of magnitudes. During Vietnam, it took an average of 21 bombing missions to successfully strike one target. That was 20 missions that struck somethiing other than the intended target. A B-52 strike destroyed an area the size of three football fields (and a heck of a lot of them still managed to totally miss their targets). Hanoi looked in places like the dark side of the moon from aerial photography.
By the time of the imagery-guided Tomahawks of the Persian Gulf War, guided munitions were pinpoint down to the square meter. Tomahawks could be accurately aimed at doors, even through specific windows. Looking for a Tomahawk strike on aerial photography was often looking for a pinhole in the roof of a building.
With missiles launched from drones, we're down to putting them though the windows of moving vehicles.
From a military perspective, this can be said: "What we aim at, we hit. If we hit it, we were aiming at it."
This essentially makes the concept of "collateral damage" much less acceptable because it's much more avoidable. It puts much more pressure on good intelligence and good senior decision making. That is a good thing from a military perspective. Soldiers--at least American soldiers-- really don't intend to be in the business of killing civilians.
Well, since we have a bunch of mindless monkeys on this forum that need everything explained to them, i'll offer this:
1) Jets drop bombs.
2) Drones drop bombs
3) Liberals hate the idea of a jet dropping a bomb (it's called "war" for the illiterate and liberals hate war)
4) Liberals have no problem dropping a bomb from a drone (it's called "war" for the illiterate and liberals hate war.)
5) Bush dropped bombs from jets. Liberals hated him for it.
6) Obama dropped bombs from drones. Liberals love him for it.
It's called hypocrisy. Do I need to hyperlink to Miriam-Webster for you?
I think it's called a strawman argument, actually.
If Bush the Lesser & Co. had stopped at dropping bombs instead of going full-on boots-on-the-ground invasion, they wouldn't be so roundly despised today.
As Ralph_Kirk points out, the game changer isn't drones - it's PGM.
Well, since we have a bunch of mindless monkeys on this forum that need everything explained to them, i'll offer this:
1) Jets drop bombs.
2) Drones drop bombs
3) Liberals hate the idea of a jet dropping a bomb (it's called "war" for the illiterate and liberals hate war)
4) Liberals have no problem dropping a bomb from a drone (it's called "war" for the illiterate and liberals hate war.)
5) Bush dropped bombs from drones. Liberals hated him for it.
6) Obama dropped bombs from drones. Liberals love him for it.
It's called hypocrisy. Do I need to hyperlink to Miriam-Webster for you?
Actually, Obama is catching a lot of flack from liberals over continuing the war in Afghanistan. I would dispute that any liberals are actually "loving" him for it.
This is the one issue where the cons will cite humanitarian groups and random Pakistanis...ironic and hypocritical and has nothing to do with them actually giving a **** what happens in another country.
There are a lot of assumptions in there, probably because you have made it your only mission in life to think you know what liberals believe. And you fail miserably.
Bush used drones and conservatives loved him. Obama used drones and conservatives hate him. End pointless thread.
Did you read the article? Of course you didn't. Why? Because it points out quite clearly the truth, which is that liberals have engaged in "repulsive progressive hypocrisy." You can't handle the truth so you run like a scalded dog far, far away.
Actually, Obama is catching a lot of flack from liberals over continuing the war in Afghanistan. I would dispute that any liberals are actually "loving" him for it.
Why are you limiting your critique to Afghanistan? Obama has employed drones all across the Middle East. He has not limited his strikes to Afghanistan. Where is the critique? Also, did you read the article? If not, why not? Repulsive progressive hypocrisy is clearly pointed out....is that too much for you to handle?
Did you read the article? Of course you didn't. Why? Because it points out quite clearly the truth, which is that liberals have engaged in "repulsive progressive hypocrisy." You can't handle the truth so you run like a scalded dog far, far away.
It doesn't matter what the article says, your assumption is that all liberals oppose war and support drones, which is plain garbage. I support both when necessary. Look, your strawman assumption is shattered.
I think it's called a strawman argument, actually.
If Bush the Lesser & Co. had stopped at dropping bombs instead of going full-on boots-on-the-ground invasion, they wouldn't be so roundly despised today.
As Ralph_Kirk points out, the game changer isn't drones - it's PGM.
Did you read the article? If not, why not? Can you debunk ANY of the truths pointed out?
It doesn't matter what the article says, your assumption is that all liberals oppose war and support drones, which is plain garbage. I support both when necessary. Look, your strawman assumption is shattered.
The only strawman is that you are running like a scalded dog from the "repulsive progressive hypocrisy" pointed out in the article. You're too scared to read it and so you deflect like the typical liberal that you are.
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.
