@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.