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.
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?
So I'll widen it: Obama is catching flack from his use of drones every from liberals. Nobody is "loving" him for it.
Except, maybe, for military men who don't have to execute those missions on the ground. You're not going to find too many soldiers who hate drones per se.
(You can find some Air Force fighter pilots who hate them, though.)
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.
Operational consistency has absolutely nothing to do with the liberal hypocrisy pointed out in the article. If we save one pilot, awesome. But that's not what drives liberal hypocrisy. Read the article and come back with a more relevant response than some diatribe about "accuracy."
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.
And in 2007 you didn't give a **** if a couple of civilians were collateral damage...so we can talk about repulsive conservative hypocrisy if you would like. It goes both ways.
So I'll widen it: Obama is catching flack from his use of drones every from liberals. Nobody is "loving" him for it.
Except, maybe, for military men who don't have to execute those missions on the ground. You're not going to find too many soldiers who hate drones per se.
(You can find some Air Force fighter pilots who hate them, though.)
77% of liberals approve of Obama's drone wars. Please, for the love of God, tell us how you interpret that to mean that liberals aren't "loving" Obama for it.
And in 2007 you didn't give a **** if a couple of civilians were collateral damage...so we can talk about repulsive conservative hypocrisy if you would like. It goes both ways.
One thing I've learned over the past 5+ years is that liberals have never been able to comprehend that by resorting to "Bush did it!" as a response that they've already lost the argument. Because that's not the answer one would have expected from the constituency that voted in the Hope N CHANGE President.
77% of liberals approve of Obama's drone wars. Please, for the love of God, how you interpret that to meant that liberals aren't "loving" Obama for it.
Operational consistency has absolutely nothing to do with the liberal hypocrisy pointed out in the article. If we save one pilot, awesome. But that's not what drives liberal hypocrisy. Read the article and come back with a more relevant response than some diatribe about "accuracy."
Nobody is "loving" Obama for continuing war by any means.
But if it were not Obama, nobody would "love" a Republican for doing the same thing with manned aircraft.
Manned aircraft versus drones is an obfuscatory debate. During WWII, the Allies would certainly have targeted any importan Axis official they could locate, and did. That has always been the case. During the Persian Gulf war, we believed that Saddam Hussein kept on the move in a certain model of RV. You'd better believe we targeted the hell out of ever RV in Iraq we could locate (jiust in case intel got the model wrong).
However moral or immoral it might ultimately be, that kind of decision has and will always be the same: Kill them when you can find them.
Ahhhh...ok...now I get it! Liberals can dodge the hypocrisy by claiming to be one of the 23% even as they slobber and trip over themselves defending this President at every turn! I get it now!
Ahhhh...ok...now I get it! Liberals can dodge the hypocrisy by claiming to be one of the 23% even as they slobber and trip over themselves defending this President at every turn! I get it now!
Your assumptions are shattered. I support drones used by whomever just as some always oppose them.
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.
