Drones - its a method - who cares?

[NYcarbineer]

Drones - its a method - who cares?

If its illegal and/or morally wrong to kill someone - then its illegal and/or morally wrong to kil them. It doesn't matter how they were killed, does it?

On the other hand - if its legal and/or morally right to kill someone - such as legitimate military targets - then why is it wrong to use a method which places U.S. servicemen at a minimal risk?


Seems to me that the same folks who were fine with us setting Baghdad on fire using smart bombs and - at the same time - placing U.S. pilots at risk - are against using unmanned aircraft to conduct more surgical strikes of military targets. Do you guys want U.S. servicemen to die, or do you just hate Obama?

These people who oppose the use of drones are effectively saying that they want to end the war against Al Qaeda.

 

[tjvh]

When exactly did America go to war with children in Pakistan?

Collateral Damage has been wiped from the rights memory since 2008

The point of the OP was about methods of killing. If those methods arbitrarily kill children then perhaps they need to be looked at. I'm absolutely certain you'd call dead children collateral damage had Bush been President. The hypocrisy of you leftist loons is unbelievable.

 

[BlindBoo]

When exactly did America go to war with children in Pakistan?

We didn't.

But children in the Waziristan province of Pakistan sometimes get hurt if they are too close to an al-Qaeda or Taliban leader or safe-house or operating-base that we target with drones or commandos or other military assets, because the Government of Pakistan cannot (or will not) destroy it or them on their own. Unfortunate. Regretable. Likely to continue, unless the Pakistanis get their act together and rid their province of such a presence, themselves.

Both Bush II and Obama have used drones extensively, right? How is this partisan?

--------------------

IMHO: Anything that (a) kills America's enemies in asymmetrical warfare but (b) spares American military lives and (c) minimizes collateral damage and casualties (as opposed to carpet bombing, for example) gets a 'yes' vote in my book.
.

Good answer. It's not a patisan policy. The Echo-Chamber however is highly partisan and will disagree with President Obama if he says the sky is blue.

 

[tjvh]

Drones - its a method - who cares?

If its illegal and/or morally wrong to kill someone - then its illegal and/or morally wrong to kil them. It doesn't matter how they were killed, does it?

On the other hand - if its legal and/or morally right to kill someone - such as legitimate military targets - then why is it wrong to use a method which places U.S. servicemen at a minimal risk?


Seems to me that the same folks who were fine with us setting Baghdad on fire using smart bombs and - at the same time - placing U.S. pilots at risk - are against using unmanned aircraft to conduct more surgical strikes of military targets. Do you guys want U.S. servicemen to die, or do you just hate Obama?

These people who oppose the use of drones are effectively saying that they want to end the war against Al Qaeda.

Nobody said that at all. Why do you insist on making things up? In the real world it's called LYING.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Drones - its a method - who cares?

If its illegal and/or morally wrong to kill someone - then its illegal and/or morally wrong to kil them. It doesn't matter how they were killed, does it?

On the other hand - if its legal and/or morally right to kill someone - such as legitimate military targets - then why is it wrong to use a method which places U.S. servicemen at a minimal risk?


Seems to me that the same folks who were fine with us setting Baghdad on fire using smart bombs and - at the same time - placing U.S. pilots at risk - are against using unmanned aircraft to conduct more surgical strikes of military targets. Do you guys want U.S. servicemen to die, or do you just hate Obama?

They hate Obama. If Obama says, "Up" the Right Wing Media immediately says, "Down!!!"; then the echo chamber (including many Republican Members of Congress) parrot ("Down, down, down) until the next faux crisis.

Under the Bush Administration those killed during the occupation of Iraq were returned home in secret. The RW thought this was fine and a benefit to the fallen's family. Today the RW goes hysterical over the deaths of four American's in Benghazi and punctuates their hysteria with graphic details on how the Ambassador died and under what circumstances with total disregard for his family.

Under the lbj administration, 59,000 were killed in Vietnam. Those who weren't were spat upon by the flower child generation. Amazing that a generation could be that stupid to throw blame at a soldier who was forced into the military under lbj's forced draft and not direct their rage towards their own party.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When exactly did America go to war with children in Pakistan?

So you support Al Qaeda having instant safe havens simply by putting themselves in proximity to children?

Please tell me how you got all that out of that one sentence?

I asked you a question, which, since you cannot answer, completes the implied point of the question.

 

[Freewill]

Casualty Estimates


CIA Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004–2013
Total US strikes: 368
Obama strikes: 316
Total reported killed: 2,537-3,533
Civilians reported killed: 411-884
Children reported killed: 168-197
Total reported injured: 1,173-1,472


US Covert Action in Yemen 2002–2013
Confirmed US drone strikes: 46-56
Total reported killed: 240-349
Civilians reported killed: 14-49
Children reported killed: 2
Reported injured: 62-144
Possible extra US drone strikes: 78-96
Total reported killed: 275-442
Civilians reported killed: 25-48
Children reported killed: 9-10
Reported injured: 76-98
All other US covert operations: 12-76
Total reported killed: 148-366
Civilians reported killed: 60-87
Children reported killed: 25
Reported injured: 22-111



US Covert Action in Somalia 2007–2013
US drone strikes: 3-9
Total reported killed: 7-27
Civilians reported killed: 0-15
Children reported killed: 0
Reported injured: 2-24
All other US covert operations: 7-14
Total reported killed: 47-143
Civilians reported killed: 7-42
Children reported killed: 1-3
Reported injured: 12-20

 

[tjvh]

When exactly did America go to war with children in Pakistan?

We didn't.

But children in the Waziristan province of Pakistan sometimes get hurt if they are too close to an al-Qaeda or Taliban leader or safe-house or operating-base that we target with drones or commandos or other military assets, because the Government of Pakistan cannot (or will not) destroy it or them on their own. Unfortunate. Regretable. Likely to continue, unless the Pakistanis get their act together and rid their province of such a presence, themselves.

Both Bush II and Obama have used drones extensively, right? How is this partisan?

--------------------

IMHO: Anything that (a) kills America's enemies in asymmetrical warfare but (b) spares American military lives and (c) minimizes collateral damage and casualties (as opposed to carpet bombing, for example) gets a 'yes' vote in my book.
.

Good answer. It's not a patisan policy. The Echo-Chamber however is highly partisan and will disagree with President Obama if he says the sky is blue.

When did Bush kill children in Pakistan with drone aircraft? Link please.

 

[ClosedCaption]

When exactly did America go to war with children in Pakistan?

Collateral Damage has been wiped from the rights memory since 2008

The point of the OP was about methods of killing. If those methods arbitrarily kill children then perhaps they need to be looked at. I'm absolutely certain you'd call dead children collateral damage had Bush been President. The hypocrisy of you leftist loons is unbelievable.

Is there a method of conducting a war that has zero collateral damage? Or do you expect Obama to be the first person ever to find a way?

Repeat after me: Collateral damage in a war is ALWAYS bad. No matter if its Obama or Bush or anyone else.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Drones - its a method - who cares?

If its illegal and/or morally wrong to kill someone - then its illegal and/or morally wrong to kil them. It doesn't matter how they were killed, does it?

On the other hand - if its legal and/or morally right to kill someone - such as legitimate military targets - then why is it wrong to use a method which places U.S. servicemen at a minimal risk?


Seems to me that the same folks who were fine with us setting Baghdad on fire using smart bombs and - at the same time - placing U.S. pilots at risk - are against using unmanned aircraft to conduct more surgical strikes of military targets. Do you guys want U.S. servicemen to die, or do you just hate Obama?

These people who oppose the use of drones are effectively saying that they want to end the war against Al Qaeda.

Nobody said that at all. Why do you insist on making things up? In the real world it's called LYING.

Then you tell us how we carry on the fight against Al Qaeda once we've eliminated the use of drone strikes,

and, presumably, once we've eliminated the other forms of air strikes that are similar in nature to a drone strike.

Do that for us.

 

[Freewill]

when Bush invaded?

Bush invaded Pakistan? Are you for real?

I'm not sure why it matters which country a child is from...but did you not see the protests against Bush for military operations in Pakistan?

First of all those were covert operations so to protest would be damn hard. Find the details and show the details. If what Bush did was a war crime then certainly what Obama is doing is a bigger war crime, or just as big. Besides, if memory serves me right, there were protests about going into Pakistan. But to say there was wide spread attack doesn't seem right.

On top of that, someone being a hypocrite does change what is going on.

 

[tjvh]

So you support Al Qaeda having instant safe havens simply by putting themselves in proximity to children?

Please tell me how you got all that out of that one sentence?

I asked you a question, which, since you cannot answer, completes the implied point of the question.

You asked a question and insinuated what you thought my response would be, which is the same thing as making shit up. Like this: "NYcarbineer thinks its ok to kill children when they are standing next to Al Qaeda operatives therefore NYcarbineer hates children". That is what you are doing, and it is completely disingenuous and very adolescent. If you cannot ask a question without adding a disingenuous snarky twist, then you are not worth conversing with.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

These people who oppose the use of drones are effectively saying that they want to end the war against Al Qaeda.

Nobody said that at all. Why do you insist on making things up? In the real world it's called LYING.

Then you tell us how we carry on the fight against Al Qaeda once we've eliminated the use of drone strikes,

and, presumably, once we've eliminated the other forms of air strikes that are similar in nature to a drone strike.

Do that for us.

Withdraw from their countries, leave them alone and watch our own borders for "terrorists". This war on terror, like every other war, is a complete failure. You can not fight an idea with bombs and guns. All we're doing over there is making more enemies, which leads to more "terrorism" and then more war.

Both sides of the coin cheer, as long as it's their team doing the war making.

The nobel peace prize recipient ought to know that, but instead, he's cut from the same statist cloth as Bush.

 

[Freewill]

When exactly did America go to war with children in Pakistan?

So you support Al Qaeda having instant safe havens simply by putting themselves in proximity to children?

Yes, pretty much yes. If no direct imminent threat to the US.

 

[tjvh]

Collateral Damage has been wiped from the rights memory since 2008

The point of the OP was about methods of killing. If those methods arbitrarily kill children then perhaps they need to be looked at. I'm absolutely certain you'd call dead children collateral damage had Bush been President. The hypocrisy of you leftist loons is unbelievable.

Is there a method of conducting a war that has zero collateral damage? Or do you expect Obama to be the first person ever to find a way?

Repeat after me: Collateral damage in a war is ALWAYS bad. No matter if its Obama or Bush or anyone else.

The hypocrisy is that when Republicans do it it is bad, when Democrats do it it is a necessary evil. Why do you not get this simple fact?

 

[ClosedCaption]

The point of the OP was about methods of killing. If those methods arbitrarily kill children then perhaps they need to be looked at. I'm absolutely certain you'd call dead children collateral damage had Bush been President. The hypocrisy of you leftist loons is unbelievable.

Is there a method of conducting a war that has zero collateral damage? Or do you expect Obama to be the first person ever to find a way?

Repeat after me: Collateral damage in a war is ALWAYS bad. No matter if its Obama or Bush or anyone else.

The hypocrisy is that when Republicans do it it is bad, when Democrats do it it is a necessary evil. Why do you not get this simple fact?

Repeat after me: Collateral damage in a war is ALWAYS bad. No matter if its Obama or Bush or anyone else

 

[NYcarbineer]

When exactly did America go to war with children in Pakistan?

So you support Al Qaeda having instant safe havens simply by putting themselves in proximity to children?

Yes, pretty much yes. If no direct imminent threat to the US.

Well, we finally got that out of you.

Can we at least counterattack them AFTER the next 9/11?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

and in this case, breaking the law.

 

[Kondor3]

"...When did Bush kill children in Pakistan with drone aircraft? Link please."

Did anybody say that the Bush Administration had been responsible for the death of a Pakistani child through the use of drones?

Does such minutiae matter?

The Bush Administration has apparently done their share.

Beginning with a first-ever Death Strike in October 2002 against an Islamist group in Yemen that racked up a body-count of 6.

How many drone-based Death Strikes did the Bush Administration undertake in either Iraq or Afghanistan in the period September 2001 - January 2009?

I haven't got a clue.

I don't have access to a list of those missions.

And I don't have the time or energy or desire to go looking.

Perhaps you can find that for us and publish it here.

And when you do, I'm guessing that you'll find a whole lotta sorties on that list.

With at least some of them resulting in collateral civilian casualties - including children.

Iraq and Afghanistan were/are active combat zones with a strong US presence.

Waziristan is an active combatant refuge zone that is attacked frequently by US drones.

Legally, in theory, and in practice, the distinctions are blurred and near-to-pointless.

In all of those cases and in all of those regions we were/are using drones to attack our enemies.

If you intend to make a partisan issue out of it, you might want to take a deep breath and rethink that position, before getting too badly bogged down in an un-winnable and rather pointless exchange with those who see very little 'partisanship' attached to the topic of drone use, other than short-memoried political opponents trying to make something out of nothing. IMHO.

Oh, and, as an aside, we also might want to look at Drone Inventories during the two Administrations, to gauge how large a fleet was available to each President. I'm guessing that the fleet is much bigger now (during the Obama Administration) than it was then (during the Bush Administration).

I'm also guessing that the Bush Folk would have used them more frequently, had they had a larger fleet at the time.

I'm also guessing that the larger Drone Fleet of today was created, at least in part, through contracts issued by the Bush Folk, as well as the Obama folk.

But, of course, I could be wrong.

 

[tjvh]

Is there a method of conducting a war that has zero collateral damage? Or do you expect Obama to be the first person ever to find a way?

Repeat after me: Collateral damage in a war is ALWAYS bad. No matter if its Obama or Bush or anyone else.

The hypocrisy is that when Republicans do it it is bad, when Democrats do it it is a necessary evil. Why do you not get this simple fact?

Repeat after me: Collateral damage in a war is ALWAYS bad. No matter if its Obama or Bush or anyone else

And I agree, my original post was addressing the OP's seemingly complete obliviousness to the drone issue, nothing more. It was all the other liberal nuts who went into full blown meltdown mode, going so far as to manufacture words I never said. It's called lying.