Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Daily Dolt)   Slate magazine claims drone strikes save lives. Apparently some people have a problem with this   ( thedailydolt.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, William Saletan, funeral procession  
•       •       •

1410 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Feb 2013 at 3:25 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



165 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-02-24 09:11:53 AM  
Yep, and it makes the point well.
 
2013-02-24 09:25:30 AM  
Apparently Slate decided to rethink that cover title, too.  Now they're going with "In Defense of Drones: They're the worst form of war, except for all the others."
 
2013-02-24 09:38:28 AM  
Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

Should we maybe hate on snipers too? Submarines? Satellite surveillance?

Kind of need to know the boundaries for my outrage because, as it stands, I'm currently not feeling any.
 
2013-02-24 09:41:04 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

Should we maybe hate on snipers too? Submarines? Satellite surveillance?

Kind of need to know the boundaries for my outrage because, as it stands, I'm currently not feeling any.


Don't murder.  How about that?
 
2013-02-24 09:45:53 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.


The drones fire guided missiles. That's sort of the point. And the reason people object to them is because we're using them in situations were we wouldn't use a conventional aircraft. Risking a human pilot in Pakistan is something the US is only willing to do for extremely valuable objectives, but we think nothing of flying drones day-in, day-out, even though the people of Pakistan and the government (at least publicly) object to the practice. At the very least, the anti-americanism that that sort of wanton disregard fuels is dangerous. And the continual expansion of American militarism - into Somalia, Mali, Niger, the Philippines, Libya, Yemen, and probably more we don't even know about, has really severe ramifications for American that deserve much more debate than the sort of "and of course we have to bomb Mali because AL QAEDA" that we get treated to in the media.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-24 11:25:30 AM  

Alphax: Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

Should we maybe hate on snipers too? Submarines? Satellite surveillance?

Kind of need to know the boundaries for my outrage because, as it stands, I'm currently not feeling any.

Don't murder.  How about that?


Not very helpful in a war.

I guess we need conscientious objector status for drones.
 
2013-02-24 11:26:58 AM  

Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

Should we maybe hate on snipers too? Submarines? Satellite surveillance?

Kind of need to know the boundaries for my outrage because, as it stands, I'm currently not feeling any.


Suspect it's the humanity aspect. People freak about killing 100,000 people with a nuke. But kill them in onesies and twosies over a decade and they're fine with it.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-24 11:30:15 AM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

The drones fire guided missiles. That's sort of the point. And the reason people object to them is because we're using them in situations were we wouldn't use a conventional aircraft. Risking a human pilot in Pakistan is something the US is only willing to do for extremely valuable objectives, but we think nothing of flying drones day-in, day-out, even though the people of Pakistan and the government (at least publicly) object to the practice. At the very least, the anti-americanism that that sort of wanton disregard fuels is dangerous. And the continual expansion of American militarism - into Somalia, Mali, Niger, the Philippines, Libya, Yemen, and probably more we don't even know about, has really severe ramifications for American that deserve much more debate than the sort of "and of course we have to bomb Mali because AL QAEDA" that we get treated to in the media.


I think that if it was militarism that people objected to that they would say that instead of complaining about "drones".

Cruise missiles don't risk a pilot either and few people had a problem when we were using those against suspected terrorists.
 
2013-02-24 11:35:53 AM  
According to William Saletan's new cover story forSlate, drones actually save lives because they kill relatively fewer civilians than traditional weaponry.

Compared to all other forms of warfare it does.

Drones are the compromise between sitting on your hands and nothing absolutely nothing to combat emerging and active terrorist groups and all out invasion/occupation with boots on the ground.

The former does too little and the latter too much and is too costly in terms of blood and treasure.

If anyone has any better ideas I'm open to hear them but articles complaining about the drone program that don't offer meaningful alternatives are just pointless biatchfests.
 
2013-02-24 11:45:45 AM  

quatchi: According to William Saletan's new cover story forSlate, drones actually save lives because they kill relatively fewer civilians than traditional weaponry.

Compared to all other forms of warfare it does.

Drones are the compromise between sitting on your hands and nothing absolutely nothing to combat emerging and active terrorist groups and all out invasion/occupation with boots on the ground.

The former does too little and the latter too much and is too costly in terms of blood and treasure.

If anyone has any better ideas I'm open to hear them but articles complaining about the drone program that don't offer meaningful alternatives are just pointless biatchfests.


I find the claims about precision, just going after the bad ones, highly dubious.
 
2013-02-24 11:46:53 AM  

vpb: Alphax: Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

Should we maybe hate on snipers too? Submarines? Satellite surveillance?

Kind of need to know the boundaries for my outrage because, as it stands, I'm currently not feeling any.

Don't murder.  How about that?

Not very helpful in a war.

I guess we need conscientious objector status for drones.


It's not a war, when you blow up a family get together in a nation that no one is at war with.
 
2013-02-24 11:52:58 AM  
img203.imageshack.us
 
2013-02-24 12:03:53 PM  

Alphax: I find the claims about precision, just going after the bad ones, highly dubious.


I think the collateral damage is probably a lot more than the military lets on to be sure and I am also concerned about what this will do to America's image in the eyes of the rest of the world in the long term, especially the Islamic world, but until the moderates reign in the extremists here we sit.
 
2013-02-24 12:22:57 PM  

quatchi: Alphax: I find the claims about precision, just going after the bad ones, highly dubious.

I think the collateral damage is probably a lot more than the military lets on to be sure and I am also concerned about what this will do to America's image in the eyes of the rest of the world in the long term, especially the Islamic world, but until the moderates reign in the extremists here we sit.


I heard about someone asking the CIA about taking people alive, for greater intelligence gathering, and the person being interviewed said it was CIA policy to prefer to take them alive.  When asked how many they had done that with, he came up with one example, as opposed to over 300 dead in drone strikes..   I wish I could remember which person was being interviewed..
 
2013-02-24 01:10:35 PM  

quatchi: Alphax: I find the claims about precision, just going after the bad ones, highly dubious.

I think the collateral damage is probably a lot more than the military lets on to be sure and I am also concerned about what this will do to America's image in the eyes of the rest of the world in the long term, especially the Islamic world, but until the moderates reign in the extremists here we sit.


It's rather naive to think some "moderation" is the best answer to everything.  If we took a "moderate" response to slavery, it would have never been outlawed.  If we took a "moderate" response to equal rights, we wouldn't have equal rights.  Why is some undefined "moderate" response to war suddenly good?  And if you think this moderation is good, why can't you say what it is?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-02-24 01:48:34 PM  

Alphax: vpb: Alphax: Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

Should we maybe hate on snipers too? Submarines? Satellite surveillance?

Kind of need to know the boundaries for my outrage because, as it stands, I'm currently not feeling any.

Don't murder.  How about that?

Not very helpful in a war.

I guess we need conscientious objector status for drones.

It's not a war, when you blow up a family get together in a nation that no one is at war with.


If the people at the get together are at war us then we are at war with them.  There isn't any cease fire when they hide out in another country.
 
2013-02-24 01:54:26 PM  

GAT_00: quatchi: Alphax: I find the claims about precision, just going after the bad ones, highly dubious.

I think the collateral damage is probably a lot more than the military lets on to be sure and I am also concerned about what this will do to America's image in the eyes of the rest of the world in the long term, especially the Islamic world, but until the moderates reign in the extremists here we sit.

It's rather naive to think some "moderation" is the best answer to everything.  If we took a "moderate" response to slavery, it would have never been outlawed.  If we took a "moderate" response to equal rights, we wouldn't have equal rights.  Why is some undefined "moderate" response to war suddenly good?  And if you think this moderation is good, why can't you say what it is?


Islam has to reign in its extremists. I don't really care how they do it. Put them all up against a wall and shoot them if that's what it takes. I'd obviously prefer something less bloody and extreme.

Was that the type of specifics you were hoping for?

I'm just saying that if the US and the rest of the world picks up their ball in the ME  and goes home it won't solve anything and will indeed go on to exacerbate the problems in the future by allowing extremists to flourish.
 
2013-02-24 02:11:14 PM  

quatchi: I don't really care how they do it. Put them all up against a wall and shoot them if that's what it takes.


Ah yes, moderation.  Shoot everyone who is a "problem" and move on.
 
2013-02-24 02:40:31 PM  

vpb: Alphax: vpb: Alphax: Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

Should we maybe hate on snipers too? Submarines? Satellite surveillance?

Kind of need to know the boundaries for my outrage because, as it stands, I'm currently not feeling any.

Don't murder.  How about that?

Not very helpful in a war.

I guess we need conscientious objector status for drones.

It's not a war, when you blow up a family get together in a nation that no one is at war with.

If the people at the get together are at war us then we are at war with them.  There isn't any cease fire when they hide out in another country.


And who says they are at war with us?
 
2013-02-24 03:10:35 PM  

GAT_00: quatchi: I don't really care how they do it. Put them all up against a wall and shoot them if that's what it takes.

Ah yes, moderation.  Shoot everyone who is a "problem" and move on.


Obvious hyperbole is obvious to all but the opbliious.

Curious now.

Do you think extremist Islamic militant groups like AQ seizing power in the ME and in N Africa is a real threat to global security?

Do you think there's way to solve that problem that doesn't include the hard power/stick of military action combined with the soft power/carrot of diplomacy?

Do you really think that stopping all military engagement with these guys will make things better?

Honest, serious questions.
 
2013-02-24 03:18:11 PM  

quatchi: GAT_00: quatchi: I don't really care how they do it. Put them all up against a wall and shoot them if that's what it takes.

Ah yes, moderation.  Shoot everyone who is a "problem" and move on.

Obvious hyperbole is obvious to all but the opbliious.

Curious now.

Do you think extremist Islamic militant groups like AQ seizing power in the ME and in N Africa is a real threat to global security?

Do you think there's way to solve that problem that doesn't include the hard power/stick of military action combined with the soft power/carrot of diplomacy?

Do you really think that stopping all military engagement with these guys will make things better?

Honest, serious questions.


And now we're back to the original problem with your statement.  Dealing with those isn't moderation.  It can't be.  You're talking about wiping out our enemies.  So your desire for "moderation" is pointless.
 
2013-02-24 03:32:30 PM  
Can't we develop smaller explosives for the missiles or something?

As far as drones themselves go, I'm on the fence. They're preferable to invading nations to get at a criminal/terrorist gang, but I really don't like the idea of people living under all-seeing death bots.
 
2013-02-24 03:32:37 PM  
The author William Saletan is a "liberal Republican"

Which means he is Jewish Neoconservative in favor of endless wars in the middle east for those keeping score at home.
 
2013-02-24 03:33:58 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

Should we maybe hate on snipers too? Submarines? Satellite surveillance?

Kind of need to know the boundaries for my outrage because, as it stands, I'm currently not feeling any.


I totally agree. However: The military fetishists don't like it because any fat geek in his mom's basement can do it. There's no heroism involved. The military industrial complex are suspicious of it because it is so incredibly cheap, potentially undermining their budget. The conspiracy theorists left and right think it's the first step to Terminators.
 
2013-02-24 03:34:06 PM  

GAT_00: And now we're back to the original problem with your statement.  Dealing with those isn't moderation.  It can't be.  You're talking about wiping out our enemies.  So your desire for "moderation" is pointless.


*sigh*

Three questions and still no answers forthcoming?

Maybe I should have added a 4th?

I'm talking about the vastly more numerous Islamic moderates disempowering a small percentage of the global Islamic community which are extremists.

If they can do that alone just by giving them a good talking to I'm all for it but I'm also not naive enough to think it will work.

I'm looking for potential solutions to a real problem that you haven't even acknowledged is a real problem much less presented any kind of game plan for.

Now, do you want to try again?
 
2013-02-24 03:43:43 PM  

Vectron: The author William Saletan is a "liberal Republican"

Which means he is Jewish Neoconservative in favor of endless wars in the middle east for those keeping score at home.


What does being Jewish have to do with any thing?
 
2013-02-24 03:44:18 PM  
Not killing people at all would save a lot more lives.
 
2013-02-24 03:46:20 PM  
We need to rein in the expression "reign in" which immediately identifies you as illiterate. You can reign in a country if you're the king and you can rain in Spain if you're mainly on the plain, but you rein in a horse when it's running too fast and a drone program when it's overstepping its bounds.

Ask me about the proper past tense of "wreak" some time.
 
2013-02-24 03:47:02 PM  

Alphax: Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

Should we maybe hate on snipers too? Submarines? Satellite surveillance?

Kind of need to know the boundaries for my outrage because, as it stands, I'm currently not feeling any.

Don't murder.  How about that?


You clearly don't comprehend the definition of "murder."
 
2013-02-24 03:47:13 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

The drones fire guided missiles. That's sort of the point. And the reason people object to them is because we're using them in situations were we wouldn't use a conventional aircraft. Risking a human pilot in Pakistan is something the US is only willing to do for extremely valuable objectives, but we think nothing of flying drones day-in, day-out, even though the people of Pakistan and the government (at least publicly) object to the practice. At the very least, the anti-americanism that that sort of wanton disregard fuels is dangerous. And the continual expansion of American militarism - into Somalia, Mali, Niger, the Philippines, Libya, Yemen, and probably more we don't even know about, has really severe ramifications for American that deserve much more debate than the sort of "and of course we have to bomb Mali because AL QAEDA" that we get treated to in the media.


That and the precedent we're setting for the use of drones.  We have a monopoly now so we're the ones who create the protocols for how they are used.  So far the protocol is whenever we want wherever we want, reguardless of how the bombed nation may feel about it.  Now imagine China, Russia or Iran using drones in this fashion when our monopoly runs out.  We likely would be less than pleased, so we should think about setting a better example.

\Though part of me still does really think targeted killings and intelligence work is a much better way to run the war on terror than ground invasions started in the Bush era.
\\And part of me wants us to end the war on terror altogether aside from intelligence work, arrests and black ops incursions.
 
2013-02-24 03:47:17 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

Should we maybe hate on snipers too? Submarines? Satellite surveillance?

Kind of need to know the boundaries for my outrage because, as it stands, I'm currently not feeling any.


Well, the fact that we are dropping bombs that often hurt innocent people would be a good place to start the outrage.

If it's not important enough to send your guys in for a surgical strike, it isn't worth chancing the deaths of innocent civilians with a drone strike.
 
2013-02-24 03:52:37 PM  
i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2013-02-24 03:55:20 PM  
newtribeearth.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-02-24 03:55:51 PM  

vpb:


Cruise missiles don't risk a pilot either and few people had a problem when we were using those against suspected terrorists.


A cruise missile is on a one way trip and it HAS to ruin someones day when it gets there. Drones go out all the time and never fire a single shot. Just like a sniper their primary job is to be a pair of eyes downrange. Blasting people comes second.


HotWingConspiracy: Can't we develop smaller explosives for the missiles or something?

As far as drones themselves go, I'm on the fence. They're preferable to invading nations to get at a criminal/terrorist gang, but I really don't like the idea of people living under all-seeing death bots.


At that point it becomes a question of funding. The drone we use now were designed around an existing weapon. The hellfire was originally intended to be an anti tank weapon. It will always be cheaper to have a platform that uses existing ordinance instead of creating some from scratch.
 
2013-02-24 03:56:47 PM  
Drones bombing Pakistan reminds me of Nixon invading Cambodia except no US casualties.
 
2013-02-24 03:58:46 PM  

clambam: We need to rein in the expression "reign in" which immediately identifies you as illiterate. You can reign in a country if you're the king and you can rain in Spain if you're mainly on the plain, but you rein in a horse when it's running too fast and a drone program when it's overstepping its bounds.


For all intensive purposes they mean the same thing

Ask me about the proper past tense of "wreak" some time.


There is no reason to call him smelly on top of all that
 
2013-02-24 04:03:41 PM  

cman: Vectron: The author William Saletan is a "liberal Republican"

Which means he is Jewish Neoconservative in favor of endless wars in the middle east for those keeping score at home.

What does being Jewish have to do with any thing?


I'm sure one of our resident bigots who searches fark for threads that mention Jews will be here soon enough to explain it to you.
 
2013-02-24 04:04:23 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

The drones fire guided missiles. That's sort of the point. And the reason people object to them is because we're using them in situations were we wouldn't use a conventional aircraft. Risking a human pilot in Pakistan is something the US is only willing to do for extremely valuable objectives, but we think nothing of flying drones day-in, day-out, even though the people of Pakistan and the government (at least publicly) object to the practice. At the very least, the anti-americanism that that sort of wanton disregard fuels is dangerous. And the continual expansion of American militarism - into Somalia, Mali, Niger, the Philippines, Libya, Yemen, and probably more we don't even know about, has really severe ramifications for American that deserve much more debate than the sort of "and of course we have to bomb Mali because AL QAEDA" that we get treated to in the media.


But many of the same people who complain about unmanned drones apparently would have no problem with military action by fighter/bombers -- not to mention large quantities of infantry -- both of which also not infrequently kill civilian bystanders. It's the "inhuman" technology they seem upset about, not the government policy of military strikes. Personally, if there's going to be any military action at all -- and you know there will be, like it or not -- I'd much rather it be carried out by drones. They operate "surgically," they don't bleed, and they don't leave behind widows.

As far as Pakistan is concerned: I'm politically and socially on the rather far left in most respects, but I also grew up in the military and I served a hitch myself (40+ years ago). Pakistan is not only not our friend, they have frequently acted like an enemy. I was flatly opposed to the Irag invasion and I definitely would not support a full-scale invasion of Pakistan. But surgical strikes to take out people who almost certainly, in almost all cases, mean us harm? I have no problem at all with that. And the collateral deaths are a small fraction of what they would be in an old-style operation. If Pakistan doesn't like it, they might attempt to control the internationally active terrorist organizations to whom they give comfort and aid.
 
2013-02-24 04:10:35 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Can't we develop smaller explosives for the missiles or something?

As far as drones themselves go, I'm on the fence. They're preferable to invading nations to get at a criminal/terrorist gang, but I really don't like the idea of people living under all-seeing death bots.


they have, first drones fired Hellfires which were built for attack helicopters and weigh 100 lbs and have a 20 lbs warhead. Now they have the Griffin which is half the size. It's just important to remember that life is not the movies, a laser guided bomb is accurate within 10s of feet not inches and the missiles in feet.
 
2013-02-24 04:17:35 PM  

vygramul: cman: Vectron: The author William Saletan is a "liberal Republican"

Which means he is Jewish Neoconservative in favor of endless wars in the middle east for those keeping score at home.

What does being Jewish have to do with any thing?

I'm sure one of our resident bigots who searches fark for threads that mention Jews will be here soon enough to explain it to you.


well, he is a Texas Jew boy which is a whole other category

media.philly.com
 
2013-02-24 04:20:20 PM  

Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

Should we maybe hate on snipers too? Submarines? Satellite surveillance?

Kind of need to know the boundaries for my outrage because, as it stands, I'm currently not feeling any.


I only today finally understand a rational reason some people object to this.  Usually, you get replies that basically don't distinguish between drones and f-18s.

The objection that makes some amount of sense is that it potentially makes war an almost frivolous exercise.  It's not enough to put pilots at risk, because, really, how many pilots have we lost to Al Qaeda ground fire?  It's also about expense, which explains the difference between a drone and a cruise missile.  Four hellfire missiles plus fuel plus maintenance is cheaper than four cruise missiles plust the platform costs for launching them.

So the bar for whether to go and kill someone is lowered, and lowered, and lowered, until we are in a constant, endless war against an enemy that, in all seriousness, won't be eliminated from the air (the air force has always sought the holy grail of not needing the other services anymore).  Do you see an end in sight to this war?  I don't.  That bothers me.  Whether the drones contribute to that significantly, I haven't pondered long enough to come to a conclusion I'm comfortable sharing.  But if they do, then maybe it really is a problem.

Of course, getting rid of drones probably doesn't make sense and probably isn't going to happen.  The question is how to convince our nation's leaders, whose risk-aversion means that he'd rather be criticized for killing some muslims somewhere no one really is certain exists than being raked over the coals as a result of the loss of four Americans in an embassy attack that was pretty much unavoidable.  The incentives are all wrong here, and we're at least partly at fault for them.
 
2013-02-24 04:22:08 PM  
I'm all for drones. Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan? Fark 'em. They're all corrupt liars anyway. We're going after the people who want to hurt us the direct way. They don't want quiet, pilot-less death over them? Have them take care of the terrorists themselves then, so we don't have to.

/still think most of the anti-Drone stuff is the MIE being fearful of losing out on big contracts to smaller, more agile firms.
 
2013-02-24 04:23:05 PM  

saintstryfe: I'm all for drones. Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan? Fark 'em. They're all corrupt liars anyway. We're going after the people who want to hurt us the direct way. They don't want quiet, pilot-less death over them? Have them take care of the terrorists themselves then, so we don't have to.

/still think most of the anti-Drone stuff is the MIE being fearful of losing out on big contracts to smaller, more agile firms.


MIE?
 
2013-02-24 04:25:12 PM  

mksmith: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: Vodka Zombie: Still don't understand why drones get people all up in arms when helicopters and guided missiles don't.

The drones fire guided missiles. That's sort of the point. And the reason people object to them is because we're using them in situations were we wouldn't use a conventional aircraft. Risking a human pilot in Pakistan is something the US is only willing to do for extremely valuable objectives, but we think nothing of flying drones day-in, day-out, even though the people of Pakistan and the government (at least publicly) object to the practice. At the very least, the anti-americanism that that sort of wanton disregard fuels is dangerous. And the continual expansion of American militarism - into Somalia, Mali, Niger, the Philippines, Libya, Yemen, and probably more we don't even know about, has really severe ramifications for American that deserve much more debate than the sort of "and of course we have to bomb Mali because AL QAEDA" that we get treated to in the media.

But many of the same people who complain about unmanned drones apparently would have no problem with military action by fighter/bombers -- not to mention large quantities of infantry -- both of which also not infrequently kill civilian bystanders. It's the "inhuman" technology they seem upset about, not the government policy of military strikes. Personally, if there's going to be any military action at all -- and you know there will be, like it or not -- I'd much rather it be carried out by drones. They operate "surgically," they don't bleed, and they don't leave behind widows.

As far as Pakistan is concerned: I'm politically and socially on the rather far left in most respects, but I also grew up in the military and I served a hitch myself (40+ years ago). Pakistan is not only not our friend, they have frequently acted like an enemy. I was flatly opposed to the Irag invasion and I definitely would not support a full-scale invasion of Pakistan. But surgical strikes to take out people who almost certainly, in almost all cases, mean us harm? I have no problem at all with that. And the collateral deaths are a small fraction of what they would be in an old-style operation. If Pakistan doesn't like it, they might attempt to control the internationally active terrorist organizations to whom they give comfort and aid.


No, I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who hates drones but would be okay with invading Pakistan (again).

The argument is that, if the action isn't worth the possible death of an American soldier, why is it okay to potentially kill a foreign non-combatant?
 
2013-02-24 04:28:11 PM  

zedster: vygramul: cman: Vectron: The author William Saletan is a "liberal Republican"

Which means he is Jewish Neoconservative in favor of endless wars in the middle east for those keeping score at home.

What does being Jewish have to do with any thing?

I'm sure one of our resident bigots who searches fark for threads that mention Jews will be here soon enough to explain it to you.

well, he is a Texas Jew boy which is a whole other category

[media.philly.com image 300x343]


Kinky Friedman rules.
 
2013-02-24 04:30:13 PM  

whcrow: Drones bombing Pakistan reminds me of Nixon invading Cambodia except no US casualties.


upload.wikimedia.org
Yeah that was a precision operation. As I recall there were about 10,000 bombing raids.
 
2013-02-24 04:31:01 PM  

quatchi: If they can do that alone just by giving them a good talking to I'm all for it but I'm also not naive enough to think it will work.


And neither do I, but I didn't come in here and say that we need moderation to solve everything.  You did, and I challenged it.  And despite that, you have dodged it ever since in your quest to back me into some corner that I don't think I have.
 
2013-02-24 04:31:22 PM  
If you're against any sort of warfare, you're against drones.If you're against making it too easy to go to war - even though war is sometimes necessary, you're against drones.If you think war is sometimes a necessary evil, you're for drones if you want to limit casualties (fewer people die than if a plane drops a bomb from a higher altitude).If your for war because it is profitable or because you like the idea of being a warrior without risking your own skin, you're pro-drone because the public will be less likely to turn on you if you're not sending their kids into the battlefield.
 
2013-02-24 04:32:15 PM  
I don't have any data on the ratio of bystanders killed to targeted persons killed.  I'm just gonna mull it over speculatively here:

Pilot in chopper, fighter, whatever, on the spot:  he's stressed from the flight to the target area, moving fast, maybe under enemy fire.  He may have to kill on the way to his target area and back.  He's in a hurry to nail the target and GTFO back to safety.

Drone pilot in Nevada:  no personal danger, air-conditioned comfort, lots of time to scout the target area, distinguish targets from non-targets, learn when they are apart, choose his moment to kill.

For minimizing accidental kills, I'd bet on the latter.

Are more missions executed thanks to drones, increasing the total number of innocent deaths?  IDK.  If there are fewer innocent deaths per mission, then the total number of missions would have to increase more in order to achieve an increase in total innocent deaths.
 
2013-02-24 04:36:52 PM  
withfriendship.com

Ah, for the good old days when nobody counted the casualties bombing shiat was cool.
 
Displayed 50 of 165 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report