Drones

@frimmel:

The issue isn’t just about the method. Drones are merely a method. The thing is if the method is easy enough and removed enough and clean enough it is easy to do things you might not if you had to do it yourself and it becomes really easy not to worry about whether those things should be done, if you’re right to do them.

I’m thinking Stark in the very beginning of “A Game of Thrones” with the deserter. Or maybe Patton with his dislike of push button bombing, “Nothing is glorified, nothing is reaffirmed.” Star Trek, “A Taste of Armageddon.” Too much removal and you easily lose what it was you were after in the first place.

You are right, we should put away all our guns and fight with swords.  Isn’t the point of modern warfare to preserve the lives of countries citizens?  Why put people in harms way if you don’t have to?  I do not advocate purely autonomous robot fighting like the Terminator- of course there has to be a human element to it, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use modern technology.

You could say a drone strike is the most humane of them all because it can hover overhead, be sure of the target, and strike at will- this gives the drone pilot ample ability to minimize collateral damage (of course IF the pilot does that).  This is much harder to do with other ways to do the strike.  Think about other ways to get a missile into the area. Â

BJ…

I don’t disagree with some of what you’re saying but… this whole “Humane”, “Sure of the target” thing is a bunch of crap.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24164/a-list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen

I want you to scroll down and read the names of those children outloud to yourself, and decide if you think you “may” be misinformed on the “humane” angle.

Of course, there’s the whole concept that those children could be considered combatants, and “child soldiers”, putting IED’s and crap in roads etc; but that doesn’t really work in say… the “Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | female” case, does it?

In short, we are blowing up little kids with drones, so… go left or go right, I think it’s fair people pause on this item for consideration.  Don’t you? :P

Hmm… Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye.  Four years old. Does yours or anyones version of humane make it right BJ?

Anyways… don’t anyone take me for a bleeding heart. It’s war and people die. I understand the bigger concepts at work here.

To me, the killing is much less the problem than the lying about it. If we’re going to change the world, and if that change will cost lives. FINE.  But lets be open about it, get it done, and STOP screwing around.

@BJCard:

@frimmel:

The issue isn’t just about the method. Drones are merely a method. The thing is if the method is easy enough and removed enough and clean enough it is easy to do things you might not if you had to do it yourself and it becomes really easy not to worry about whether those things should be done, if you’re right to do them.

I’m thinking Stark in the very beginning of “A Game of Thrones” with the deserter. Or maybe Patton with his dislike of push button bombing, “Nothing is glorified, nothing is reaffirmed.” Star Trek, “A Taste of Armageddon.” Too much removal and you easily lose what it was you were after in the first place.

You are right, we should put away all our guns and fight with swords.  Isn’t the point of modern warfare to preserve the lives of countries citizens?  Why put people in harms way if you don’t have to?  I do not advocate purely autonomous robot fighting like the Terminator- of course there has to be a human element to it, but it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use modern technology.

No one is debating the efficacy of drones.

I have already addressed your points earlier in this thread. I’d point you to Garg’s earlier post pointing out the issue isn’t the drones. It is whether the use of drones constitutes war or murder and whether we’re executing criminals before they’ve committed a crime.

The question is whether or not what we’re doing with them is right, whether the powers that be are being honest with us and themselves.

My point about Stark is when a man who’d committed a capital crime needed to be put to death, the man with the power and responsibility for making that decision went out, looked the man in the eye, heard what he had to say for himself, and then swung the sword with his own hands. I don’t think any of the people making the decisions on drones have that kind of honor or even the concept of that kind of honor.

The question is not whether or not we are using the right tool but whether we should be doing the job at all.

@Gargantua:

You could say a drone strike is the most humane of them all because it can hover overhead, be sure of the target, and strike at will- this gives the drone pilot ample ability to minimize collateral damage (of course IF the pilot does that). � This is much harder to do with other ways to do the strike. � Think about other ways to get a missile into the area. �

BJ…

I don’t disagree with some of what you’re saying but… this whole “Humane”, “Sure of the target” thing is a bunch of crap.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24164/a-list-of-children-killed-by-drone-strikes-in-pakistan-and-yemen

I want you to scroll down and read the names of those children outloud to yourself, and decide if you think you “may” be misinformed on the “humane” angle.

Of course, there’s the whole concept that those children could be considered combatants, and “child soldiers”, putting IED’s and crap in roads etc; but that doesn’t really work in say… the “Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye | 4 | female” case, does it?

In short, we are blowing up little kids with drones, so… go left or go right, I think it’s fair people pause on this item for consideration. � Don’t you? :P

Hmm… Salma Abdullah Mokbel Salem Louqye.  Four years old. Does yours or anyones version of humane make it right BJ?

Anyways… don’t anyone take me for a bleeding heart. It’s war and people die. I understand the bigger concepts at work here.

To me, the killing is much less the problem than the lying about it. If we’re going to change the world, and if that change will cost lives. FINE.  But lets be open about it, get it done, and STOP screwing around.

I can see where you are coming from, I just feel that a drone strike is better than using a conventional air strike or a tomahawk missile fired from miles away.  Would more children have died on these larger strikes?  I believe so, hence the more humane aspect.  We could go back to carpet bombing, but I doubt that would be tolerated these days.  Maybe a ground assault?  Would that be better?

Many times these enemy combatants deliberately hide in civilian areas.  How do we combat that?  It is a tough situation.  I have to believe that the people doing the strikes are doing their best to minimize civilian casualties.  Again, I don’t think drone pilots are any farther removed than the Fire Control Technician on a ship firing a missile or the F-18 pilot firing air-to-ground munitions.

No one is debating the efficacy of drones.

I have already addressed your points earlier in this thread. I’d point you to Garg’s earlier post pointing out the issue isn’t the drones. It is whether the use of drones constitutes war or murder and whether we’re executing criminals before they’ve committed a crime.

The question is whether or not what we’re doing with them is right, whether the powers that be are being honest with us and themselves.

My point about Stark is when a man who’d committed a capital crime needed to be put to death, the man with the power and responsibility for making that decision went out, looked the man in the eye, heard what he had to say for himself, and then swung the sword with his own hands. I don’t think any of the people making the decisions on drones have that kind of honor or even the concept of that kind of honor.

The question is not whether or not we are using the right tool but whether we should be doing the job at all.

Well, if you are arguing the bigger picture - i.e. why we are fighting Islamic Extremism or why we are fighting in Afghanistan, then that is a whole other can of worms.  I’m just arguing that drone strikes are no different than any other long range weapon.

If you are insinuating that a drone pilot has no honor, and only does as ordered even if he/she feels it is wrong, than again that is a whole other topic.  If you mean the big wigs ordering ‘hits’ on known terrorists, then what would you have them do instead?

I agree that drone strikes are simply another long range weapon and I am not saying that the pilots have no honor.

I am not going to open the other can of worms that you’ve correctly identified.

@frimmel:

I agree that drone strikes are simply another long range weapon and I am not saying that the pilots have no honor.

I am not going to open the other can of worms that you’ve correctly identified.

Fair enough- I am not trying to be combative, just debating.  Thanks for your input.

We’re the problem because of the Moral picture we’ve painted ourselves in…

Is it murder, or is it war? Who’s to say.

Oh the days of imperialism are missed…

@Gargantua:

We’re the problem because of the Moral picture we’ve painted ourselves in…

Is it murder, or is it war? Who’s to say.

Oh the days of imperialism are missed…

I guess it depends on your point of view.  One thing is certain- the western democracies are at war with extremist Islam.

Skip extremism.  From an objective/historical/factual point of view, Islam in general is a more accurate description.

It’s definetly over the 50% hump.

@BJCard:

@frimmel:

I agree that drone strikes are simply another long range weapon and I am not saying that the pilots have no honor.

I am not going to open the other can of worms that you’ve correctly identified.

Fair enough- I am not trying to be combative, just debating.  Thanks for your input.

We’re good. We’re in the same game and the same page of the rulebook.  :-)

@Gargantua:

Skip extremism.  From an objective/historical/factual point of view, Islam in general is a more accurate description.

It’s definetly over the 50% hump.

You really think that the western world is at war with over 50% of Muslims?  Wow, I hope that’s not the case- something like 1.6 Billion people in the world are Muslim…

@BJCard:

@Gargantua:

Skip extremism.  From an objective/historical/factual point of view, Islam in general is a more accurate description.

It’s definetly over the 50% hump.

You really think that the western world is at war with over 50% of Muslims?  Wow, I hope that’s not the case- something like 1.6 Billion people in the world are Muslim…

If it weren’t for Garg being 'Nadian, I’d say we’re American: we’re at war with everything.

@Jermofoot:

@BJCard:

@Gargantua:

Skip extremism.  From an objective/historical/factual point of view, Islam in general is a more accurate description.

It’s definetly over the 50% hump.

You really think that the western world is at war with over 50% of Muslims?  Wow, I hope that’s not the case- something like 1.6 Billion people in the world are Muslim…

If it weren’t for Garg being 'Nadian, I’d say we’re American: we’re at war with everything.

Nah, we aren’t at war with Easter Island.

Nah, we aren’t at war with Easter Island.

That is only because your Generals could not find it on a map!

@BJCard:

@Gargantua:

Skip extremism.  From an objective/historical/factual point of view, Islam in general is a more accurate description.

It’s definetly over the 50% hump.

You really think that the western world is at war with over 50% of Muslims?  Wow, I hope that’s not the case- something like 1.6 Billion people in the world are Muslim…

Well lets look at the last few years…

Iraq - Muslim Nation
Afghanistan - Muslim Nation
Iran (Bombings / Assassinations / Rhetoric) - Muslim Nation
Libya (Supporting rebels / air campaign) - Muslim Nation
Syria (Just watch today’s news, "America’s next step in Syria) Muslim Nation
Yugoslavia/Bosnia - Muslim Nation
Somalia - Muslim Nation

You’re right, I don’t see anything in common (Sarcasm).

Well lets look at the last few years…

Iraq - Muslim Nation
Afghanistan - Muslim Nation
Iran (Bombings / Assassinations / Rhetoric) - Muslim Nation
Libya (Supporting rebels / air campaign) - Muslim Nation
Syria (Just watch today’s news, "America’s next step in Syria) Muslim Nation
Yugoslavia/Bosnia - Muslim Nation
Somalia - Muslim Nation

You’re right, I don’t see anything in common (Sarcasm).

Iraq- technically we are not at war with them now
Afghanistan- technically we are not at war with them, but we are fighting the Taliban
Iran- no
Libya- yes there was a quick war here
Syria- I doubt we put troops on the ground here
Yugoslavia/Bosnia- haven’t been at war there for a while…

There are a ton of muslim-majority nations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim-majority_countries

So, yes, we are at war with far less than 50% of Muslims.

Not to mention the majority of those we initiated…but that won’t stop Garg from rejecting reality.

@Jermofoot:

Not to mention the majority of those we initiated…but that won’t stop Garg from rejecting reality.

Oh so America initated 9/11?

I was unaware.