Drone strikes. Whats your opinion

but the problem is in the way the U.S is using them without even a shred of responsibility. BossPerson

Out of all the people who have problems with drones, I sometimes wonder why they don't use a legit criticism, like this one. Props.

In all other news, I enjoy my daily reminder that Zeviander is an idiot in every single type of topic he posts in.

a winners way to fight a war

osirisx3

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

I don't see whats the big deal with drone strikes, they save american lives , but i would like to hear OTs opinion.

 

With luck we can get some discussions going.

LJS9502_basic

It's wrong, it's just wrong.  I don't care who the president is.  It's wrong.

If you think lives are being saved you are so misinformed.  It's so wrong it legitimizes terrorism. 

the operator is killing at no risk to himself.  That's morally repugnant.  This is how it legitimizes terrorism and puts everyone's lives at risk. 

The fact that you can send robots out to do your war for you means you don't have to worry about flag draped coffins coming back.  So the political cost of waging war is minimized.  As less and less people are involved, society looks the other way and turns a blind eye to it. 

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Audacitron"]

It's wrong, it's just wrong. I don't care who the president is. It's wrong.

If you think lives are being saved you are so misinformed. It's so wrong it legitimizes terrorism.

Audacitron

the operator is killing at no risk to himself. That's morally repugnant. This is how it legitimizes terrorism and puts everyone's lives at risk.

The fact that you can send robots out to do your war for you means you don't have to worry about flag draped coffins coming back. So the political cost of waging war is minimized. As less and less people are involved, society looks the other way and turns a blind eye to it.

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

I don't see whats the big deal with drone strikes, they save american lives , but i would like to hear OTs opinion.

 

With luck we can get some discussions going.

frannkzappa

It's wrong, it's just wrong. I don't care who the president is. It's wrong.

If you think lives are being saved you are so misinformed. It's so wrong it legitimizes terrorism.

How is it wrong? the point of war is to kill the other guy.

with this kind of ignorance, we might as well just accept permanent war and nuke the f*ck out of the place.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Audacitron"]

 

It's wrong, it's just wrong.  I don't care who the president is.  It's wrong.

 

If you think lives are being saved you are so misinformed.  It's so wrong it legitimizes terrorism. 

Audacitron

the operator is killing at no risk to himself.  That's morally repugnant.  This is how it legitimizes terrorism and puts everyone's lives at risk. 

The fact that you can send robots out to do your war for you means you don't have to worry about flag draped coffins coming back.  So the political cost of waging war is minimized.  As less and less people are involved, society looks the other way and turns a blind eye to it. 

if you can send a guy into the field and he is in no danger he gets to hold his fire and confirm the target and the worst thing that happens is he loses his drone.

drones could be the most humane thing to ever happen to war when the next generation of pilotless vehicle comes along.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Audacitron"]

 

It's wrong, it's just wrong.  I don't care who the president is.  It's wrong.

 

If you think lives are being saved you are so misinformed.  It's so wrong it legitimizes terrorism. 

Audacitron

the operator is killing at no risk to himself.  That's morally repugnant.  This is how it legitimizes terrorism and puts everyone's lives at risk. 

The fact that you can send robots out to do your war for you means you don't have to worry about flag draped coffins coming back.  So the political cost of waging war is minimized.  As less and less people are involved, society looks the other way and turns a blind eye to it. 

the operator is killing at no risk to himself.  That's morally repugnant. Audacitron

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

It's wrong, it's just wrong. I don't care who the president is. It's wrong.

If you think lives are being saved you are so misinformed. It's so wrong it legitimizes terrorism.

Audacitron

How is it wrong? the point of war is to kill the other guy.

with this kind of ignorance, we might as well just accept permanent war and nuke the f*ck out of the place.

War is fundamental to human nature.

Also the overuse of nukes is not condoned as it will inevitably negatively affect the home nation.

No point to them other than to diminish America's moral standing. America can't kill every Muslim extremist because 

1. there are too many of them
2. they are followers of what is fundamentally an extreme and domineering religion

America should not be involved in the Middle East. It has never been shown that uncivilized people can be refined by intervention short of genocide. Development will come on its own when their culture becomes sufficiently advanced. As it stands their culture is more protective of superstitious beliefs than the life of their fellow man.

We should however strive to protect our culture within our own boundaries. Immigration should never be granted to people whose culture is so at odds with our own. Their culture does not give respect and so should not be given respect in our land. This policy would also have the incidental effect of reducing if not eliminating Muslim terrorism on our soil. Muslims cannot commit terrorist attacks on our soil if they do not have access to it. Immigration reform is well within the rights of any soverign nation and that is an infinitely more moral and effective approach than drone strikes.

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Technically since the operator isn't out in the field....his life is being saved. So saying no lives are being saved is misinformation. Riverwolf007

the operator is killing at no risk to himself.  That's morally repugnant.  This is how it legitimizes terrorism and puts everyone's lives at risk. 

The fact that you can send robots out to do your war for you means you don't have to worry about flag draped coffins coming back.  So the political cost of waging war is minimized.  As less and less people are involved, society looks the other way and turns a blind eye to it. 

if you can send a guy into the field and he is in no danger he gets to hold his fire and confirm the target and the worst thing that happens is he loses his drone.

drones could be the most humane thing to ever happen to war when the next generation of pilotless vehicle comes along.

that's an interetsing thought.  If drones are going to be used, they really have to be held to a standard higher than that we expect from soldiers.  You can't just kill a bunch of people and then claim self defence.  For a drone there can be no such thing.

Of course that's just the utopian vision of drone warfare.  That's not how it looks from the other side with the buzzing threat of death from the sky.  Inhuman, unaccountable, unpredictable.  In terms of winning hearts and minds, in terms of moral authority, you can never win with this technology.

No point to them other than to diminish America's moral standing. America can't kill every Muslim extremist because

1. there are too many of them
2. they are followers of what is fundamentally an extreme and domineering religion

America should not be involved in the Middle East. It has never been shown that uncivilized people can be refined by intervention short of genocide. Development will come on its own when their culture becomes sufficiently advanced. As it stands their culture is more protective of superstitious beliefs than the life of their fellow man.

We should however strive to protect our culture within our own boundaries. Immigration should never be granted to people whose culture is so at odds with our own. Their culture does not give respect and so should not be given respect in our land. This policy would also have the incidental effect of reducing if not eliminating Muslim terrorism on our soil. Muslims cannot commit terrorist attacks on our soil if they do not have access to it. Immigration reform is well within the rights of any soverign nation and that is an infinitely more moral and effective approach than drone strikes.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

this thread has nothing to do with Muslim extremists or Americas involvement in the middle east. please stay on topic and avoid strawmen.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

the operator is killing at no risk to himself. That's morally repugnant. This is how it legitimizes terrorism and puts everyone's lives at risk.

The fact that you can send robots out to do your war for you means you don't have to worry about flag draped coffins coming back. So the political cost of waging war is minimized. As less and less people are involved, society looks the other way and turns a blind eye to it.

Audacitron

if you can send a guy into the field and he is in no danger he gets to hold his fire and confirm the target and the worst thing that happens is he loses his drone.

drones could be the most humane thing to ever happen to war when the next generation of pilotless vehicle comes along.

that's an interetsing thought. If drones are going to be used, they really have to be held to a standard higher than that we expect from soldiers. You can't just kill a bunch of people and then claim self defence. For a drone there can be no such thing.

Of course that's just the utopian vision of drone warfare. That's not how it looks from the other side with the buzzing threat of death from the sky. Inhuman, unaccountable, unpredictable. In terms of winning hearts and minds, in terms of moral authority, you can never win with this technology.

you do realize that drone warfare is highly restricted and regulated by the US military. drones are held to higher standards.

They are cutting edge.  And the future.  I like them.

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

 

the operator is killing at no risk to himself.  That's morally repugnant.  This is how it legitimizes terrorism and puts everyone's lives at risk. 

 

The fact that you can send robots out to do your war for you means you don't have to worry about flag draped coffins coming back.  So the political cost of waging war is minimized.  As less and less people are involved, society looks the other way and turns a blind eye to it. 

Audacitron

if you can send a guy into the field and he is in no danger he gets to hold his fire and confirm the target and the worst thing that happens is he loses his drone.

drones could be the most humane thing to ever happen to war when the next generation of pilotless vehicle comes along.

that's an interetsing thought.  If drones are going to be used, they really have to be held to a standard higher than that we expect from soldiers.  You can't just kill a bunch of people and then claim self defence.  For a drone there can be no such thing.

Of course that's just the utopian vision of drone warfare.  That's not how it looks from the other side with the buzzing threat of death from the sky.  Inhuman, unaccountable, unpredictable.  In terms of winning hearts and minds, in terms of moral authority, you can never win with this technology.

In all other news, I enjoy my daily reminder that Zeviander is an idiot in every single type of topic he posts in.coolbeans90

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

No point to them other than to diminish America's moral standing. America can't kill every Muslim extremist because

1. there are too many of them
2. they are followers of what is fundamentally an extreme and domineering religion

America should not be involved in the Middle East. It has never been shown that uncivilized people can be refined by intervention short of genocide. Development will come on its own when their culture becomes sufficiently advanced. As it stands their culture is more protective of superstitious beliefs than the life of their fellow man.

We should however strive to protect our culture within our own boundaries. Immigration should never be granted to people whose culture is so at odds with our own. Their culture does not give respect and so should not be given respect in our land. This policy would also have the incidental effect of reducing if not eliminating Muslim terrorism on our soil. Muslims cannot commit terrorist attacks on our soil if they do not have access to it. Immigration reform is well within the rights of any soverign nation and that is an infinitely more moral and effective approach than drone strikes.

frannkzappa

this thread has nothing to do with Muslim extremists or Americas involvement in the middle east. please stay on topic and avoid strawmen.

okay...what exactly do you think drone strikes are intended to do? Who are the intended targets?

I oppose them for the same reason I oppose air and missile strikes.  It takes away the risk and makes the decision to attack too simple.  Taking lethal action is supposed to be a difficult decision to make.  The political fallout of headlines screaming "US SOLDIERS DEAD" is an important counter-balance; it helps decision-makers ask themselves if they're really doing the right thing.

Oleg_Huzwog

I see what your saying but soldiers also have the annoying tendency to suffer from PTSD and purposely kill a bunch of civvies. See Robert Bales 

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

No point to them other than to diminish America's moral standing. America can't kill every Muslim extremist because

1. there are too many of them
2. they are followers of what is fundamentally an extreme and domineering religion

America should not be involved in the Middle East. It has never been shown that uncivilized people can be refined by intervention short of genocide. Development will come on its own when their culture becomes sufficiently advanced. As it stands their culture is more protective of superstitious beliefs than the life of their fellow man.

We should however strive to protect our culture within our own boundaries. Immigration should never be granted to people whose culture is so at odds with our own. Their culture does not give respect and so should not be given respect in our land. This policy would also have the incidental effect of reducing if not eliminating Muslim terrorism on our soil. Muslims cannot commit terrorist attacks on our soil if they do not have access to it. Immigration reform is well within the rights of any soverign nation and that is an infinitely more moral and effective approach than drone strikes.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

this thread has nothing to do with Muslim extremists or Americas involvement in the middle east. please stay on topic and avoid strawmen.

okay...what exactly do you think drone strikes are intended to do? Who are the intended targets?

To kill enemy combatants, not necessarily Muslim extremists.

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

[QUOTE="Riverwolf007"]or we switch to 100% automated vehicles with all tanks, planes and infantry or whatever within reason being replaced with drones and you get to not panic and shoot everything around you like a madman because you are in no personal danger.

if you can send a guy into the field and he is in no danger he gets to hold his fire and confirm the target and the worst thing that happens is he loses his drone.

drones could be the most humane thing to ever happen to war when the next generation of pilotless vehicle comes along.

frannkzappa

that's an interetsing thought. If drones are going to be used, they really have to be held to a standard higher than that we expect from soldiers. You can't just kill a bunch of people and then claim self defence. For a drone there can be no such thing.

Of course that's just the utopian vision of drone warfare. That's not how it looks from the other side with the buzzing threat of death from the sky. Inhuman, unaccountable, unpredictable. In terms of winning hearts and minds, in terms of moral authority, you can never win with this technology.

you do realize that drone warfare is highly restricted and regulated by the US military. drones are held to higher standards.

ah yes, such high standards.

Drones killing innocent Pakistanis, U.N. official says

Predator Drone Mistakenly Kills 2 U.S. Servicemen: Report

US Drones have nearly perfect record of failure

[QUOTE="PWSteal_Ldpinch"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

this thread has nothing to do with Muslim extremists or Americas involvement in the middle east. please stay on topic and avoid strawmen.

frannkzappa

okay...what exactly do you think drone strikes are intended to do? Who are the intended targets?

To kill enemy combatants, not necessarily Muslim extremists.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

that's an interetsing thought. If drones are going to be used, they really have to be held to a standard higher than that we expect from soldiers. You can't just kill a bunch of people and then claim self defence. For a drone there can be no such thing.

Of course that's just the utopian vision of drone warfare. That's not how it looks from the other side with the buzzing threat of death from the sky. Inhuman, unaccountable, unpredictable. In terms of winning hearts and minds, in terms of moral authority, you can never win with this technology.

Audacitron

you do realize that drone warfare is highly restricted and regulated by the US military. drones are held to higher standards.

ah yes, such high standards.

Drones killing innocent Pakistanis, U.N. official says

Predator Drone Mistakenly Kills 2 U.S. Servicemen: Report

US Drones have nearly perfect record of failure

aside from the friendly fire (which happens way more from on the ground forces) i don't see the problem. It's war, civilians are going to die. No reason to go crazy.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

 

that's an interetsing thought. If drones are going to be used, they really have to be held to a standard higher than that we expect from soldiers. You can't just kill a bunch of people and then claim self defence. For a drone there can be no such thing.

 

Of course that's just the utopian vision of drone warfare. That's not how it looks from the other side with the buzzing threat of death from the sky. Inhuman, unaccountable, unpredictable. In terms of winning hearts and minds, in terms of moral authority, you can never win with this technology.

Audacitron

you do realize that drone warfare is highly restricted and regulated by the US military. drones are held to higher standards.

ah yes, such high standards.

Drones killing innocent Pakistanis, U.N. official says

Predator Drone Mistakenly Kills 2 U.S. Servicemen: Report

US Drones have nearly perfect record of failure

Much less casualties than a ground assault or airstrike. 

Drone strikes arent as accurate as we would like.  I understand they can be used, but I'd rather it be with more discretion.

No point to them other than to diminish America's moral standing. America can't kill every Muslim extremist because 

1. there are too many of them
2. they are followers of what is fundamentally an extreme and domineering religion

America should not be involved in the Middle East. It has never been shown that uncivilized people can be refined by intervention short of genocide. Development will come on its own when their culture becomes sufficiently advanced. As it stands their culture is more protective of superstitious beliefs than the life of their fellow man.

We should however strive to protect our culture within our own boundaries. Immigration should never be granted to people whose culture is so at odds with our own. Their culture does not give respect and so should not be given respect in our land. This policy would also have the incidental effect of reducing if not eliminating Muslim terrorism on our soil. Muslims cannot commit terrorist attacks on our soil if they do not have access to it. Immigration reform is well within the rights of any soverign nation and that is an infinitely more moral and effective approach than drone strikes.

PWSteal_Ldpinch

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

you do realize that drone warfare is highly restricted and regulated by the US military. drones are held to higher standards.

frannkzappa

ah yes, such high standards.

Drones killing innocent Pakistanis, U.N. official says

Predator Drone Mistakenly Kills 2 U.S. Servicemen: Report

US Drones have nearly perfect record of failure

aside from the friendly fire (which happens way more from on the ground forces) i don't see the problem. It's war, civilians are going to die. No reason to go crazy.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

ah yes, such high standards.

Drones killing innocent Pakistanis, U.N. official says

Predator Drone Mistakenly Kills 2 U.S. Servicemen: Report

US Drones have nearly perfect record of failure

NoSpeakyEnglish

aside from the friendly fire (which happens way more from on the ground forces) i don't see the problem. It's war, civilians are going to die. No reason to go crazy.

not every drone strike leads to a dead family, only a very small percentage. If this sort of thing was done by ground forces the casualties would be much higher.

Also what does "justice" have to do with anything.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Audacitron"]

 

ah yes, such high standards.

 

Drones killing innocent Pakistanis, U.N. official says

 

Predator Drone Mistakenly Kills 2 U.S. Servicemen: Report

US Drones have nearly perfect record of failure

NoSpeakyEnglish

aside from the friendly fire (which happens way more from on the ground forces) i don't see the problem. It's war, civilians are going to die. No reason to go crazy.

I agree that drone strikes do more harm than good but it's not like "your people" aren't jumping at the opportunity to send themselves and their whole communities to be with allah. America is giving "your people" a chance to be with Allah in paradise :P 

Don't you believe in pardise?

the operator is killing at no risk to himself.  

Audacitron

The guy dropping JDAM's on mud-huts in his jet isn't in all that much danger either. :roll:

I would be okay with them if they did not result in the murder of civilians. No government has a right to needlessly put the lives of innocent civilians at risk, including those of enemy nations. Wars are against governments and militaries, not civilians. If a government needlessly kills civilians then it is just another terrorist organization.Laihendi

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]I would be okay with them if they did not result in the murder of civilians. No government has a right to needlessly put the lives of innocent civilians at risk, including those of enemy nations. Wars are against governments and militaries, not civilians. If a government needlessly kills civilians then it is just another terrorist organization.lo_Pine

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]I would be okay with them if they did not result in the murder of civilians. No government has a right to needlessly put the lives of innocent civilians at risk, including those of enemy nations. Wars are against governments and militaries, not civilians. If a government needlessly kills civilians then it is just another terrorist organization.Laihendi

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]I would be okay with them if they did not result in the murder of civilians. No government has a right to needlessly put the lives of innocent civilians at risk, including those of enemy nations. Wars are against governments and militaries, not civilians. If a government needlessly kills civilians then it is just another terrorist organization.Laihendi

The fact that ron paul didn't win means the the educational system is still working to some degree.

Democracy is still a terrible thing though.

I am 100% for Drone Strikes. People forget Drones are to Kill Bad People. I also don't get what the big deal is with drones.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="lo_Pine"] I can't wait for your ebook to come out.frannkzappa

The fact that ron paul didn't win means the the educational system is still working to some degree.

Democracy is still a terrible thing though.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] My book will mostly be about the US public education system and its influence on the 2008 and 2012 elections, so it is only loosely relevant to drone strikes.lo_Pine

The fact that ron paul didn't win means the the educational system is still working to some degree.

Democracy is still a terrible thing though.

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

The fact that ron paul didn't win means the the educational system is still working to some degree.

Democracy is still a terrible thing though.

frannkzappa

As a weapon to wage war drones are somewhat ineffective. They are being used in the Middle-East and Pakistan because those countries have no capable anti-air defense. Try bombing targets in Russia with those drones and they would be shot down with ease.

As for their current use by America, it is my opinion that they are a waste of money. They are being used to fight insurgents however no good counterinsurgency manual or study anywhere would suggest their use alone. If you don't have a presence on the ground then the drones are simply a waste of money and a lazy way to try and effect change. America shouldn't even be involved in such a pointless war. America and NATO should withdraw completely from the region, they're only worsening the situation. 

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] What system has/is been better than democracy?lo_Pine

What you just said made ZERO sense.

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]The ideal government would be an authoritarian meritocratic technocracy.

frannkzappa

What you just said made ZERO sense.

Useful.

Wish we would use more viper strikes than hellfires though.

Edit: I am a drone operator for the Army. If you have any questions I'll answer them.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] That is already a primary influence in democracy. It is called the MIC.lo_Pine

What you just said made ZERO sense.

There is nothing democratic about technocracy.

And the MIC (if you mean the military industrial complex) has nothing to do with technocracy nor technocratic principles. Though the military itself does operate on quasi technocratic and meritocratic principles.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] My book will mostly be about the US public education system and its influence on the 2008 and 2012 elections, so it is only loosely relevant to drone strikes.lo_Pine

The fact that ron paul didn't win means the the educational system is still working to some degree.

Democracy is still a terrible thing though.

European Monarchy would be a good start. England had a decent system.

What has democracy given us but a gradual degeneration of society? Nowadays all we can talk about be equality. Equality this, equality that. Right to this, right to that. Entitlement. Complacency. Dysgenic breeding patterns. Some of the most idiotic policies imaginable. I could go on for  a while. Without a doubt we have less liberty than under monarchy.

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

What you just said made ZERO sense.

frannkzappa

There is nothing democratic about technocracy.

And the MIC (if you mean the military industrial complex) has nothing to do with technocracy nor technocratic principles. Though the military itself does operate on quasi technocratic and meritocratic principles.

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] Explain.lo_Pine

There is nothing democratic about technocracy.

And the MIC (if you mean the military industrial complex) has nothing to do with technocracy nor technocratic principles. Though the military itself does operate on quasi technocratic and meritocratic principles.

technocracy has nothing to do with technology.

MIC=/=military

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"][QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

There is nothing democratic about technocracy.

And the MIC (if you mean the military industrial complex) has nothing to do with technocracy nor technocratic principles. Though the military itself does operate on quasi technocratic and meritocratic principles.

frannkzappa

technocracy has nothing to do with technology.

MIC=/=military

[QUOTE="frannkzappa"]

[QUOTE="lo_Pine"] The military is based soley on meritocratic and technological principals. IT does not operate on 'quasi' technocratic principles. The military is based on meritocracy and its superiority to foreign militaries is based on its technology. lo_Pine

technocracy has nothing to do with technology.

MIC=/=military

I'm starting to think you are an idiot. Go read "the republic" and come back.

agree with op. Kill terrorists, save americans.

agree with op. Kill terrorists, save americans.

MakeMeaSammitch