Drones, and the victims they cause

[duraaraa 203]

Our country does a lot of things that I don't agree with. To me, though, the biggest issue are the drone strikes.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/20884/is-america-like-adam-lanza-u-s-drone-strikes-have-killed-176-children-in-pakistan-alone

I have never been to Pakistan, but I have worked with kids for a long time. Kids are awesome, and one could find endless potential in every child. The fact that the U.S. doesn't really mind killing 176+ children in Pakistan gives me nausea when I pay my taxes.

I'd like to hear people's opinions on this. This is, to me, a huge issue.

[Ban Hammer 13,333]

dislike the collateral damage of drones.

[decocker 7,198]

dislike drones 100%.

[himher 634]

Highly dislike droning random people

[GandD 5,966]

dislike the collateral damage of drones.

Me too

[james&olya 1,121]

I hate seeing innocents die. I worry that drones make it too easy to make war and that the killing of innocents may increase as a result. But if we are truly needing to be at war then everyone must realize that, as with all wars, innocent people will die. Would it really be better if we had large numbers of young American soldiers there getting killed and further inflaming anti-american sentiments? Maybe at least that would help demonstrate the legitimacy of our grievance by having some real skin in the game. No good answers here that work in the real world as it exists now.

[spookyturtle 9,465]

Is there more collateral damage with drones than there is with cruise missiles, bombs, artillery fire, etc?

[Sarah Elle-Même 660]

Oh boy! The one thing Rand Paul and I agree on except maybe the 2nd Amendment

Drones ought to be a less complicated issue for me as my brother is a US Marine who has been on deployment [and is currently deployed] for OEF. Part of the purported logic behind them is that it keeps our troops safer by killing off "vital" targets without the bloodshed of direct combat. This is a false assertion, though. Maybe in the immediate term we may not have so many casualties on our side, but drone strikes provide endless anti-US PR opportunities for the Taliban and other insurgency/terrorist groups, who see new recruits streaming in all the time ready and able to do harm to our troops and to the local population. This is aside from the glaring legal issues of targeting US citizens for execution without trial and striking targets in countries we are not engaged in war with (which frankly, don't matter to most people even though they should). What really needs to happen is for us to leave Afghanistan. Now. And never look back.

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=b01a319ecae60e7cbb832de271030205

Worth a watch. Especially the testimony of Farea Al-Muslimi, a Yemeni youth activist. Not just plugging this because he's a dead ringer for my fiance . There may not be nearly as many drone strikes in Yemen as in Pakistan and Afghanistan, but their presence has royally pissed off a lot of people in a country where most of the population supports anti-terrorism efforts (despite what that wanker Chris Matthews says).

[james&olya 1,121]

What really needs to happen is for us to leave Afghanistan. Now. And never look back.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Is there more collateral damage with drones than there is with cruise missiles, bombs, artillery fire, etc?

Exactly. Missiles and bombs kill people not drones. A drone is just delivery vehicle. They would be just as dead if an f 15 or apache had cooked off the missile. Drone sounds like a futuristic robot evil thing so people go nuts. Then the can't think for themselves nuts jump on the bandwagon. Kind of like the assault weapon debate. Assault weapons look diffrent. So people jump on that bandwagon

Edited April 25, 2013 by The Nature Boy

[Teddy B 17,252]

Exactly. Missiles and bombs kill people not drones. A drone is just delivery vehicle. They would be just as dead if an f 15 or apache had cooked off the missile. Drone sounds like a futuristic robot evil thing so people go nuts. Then the can't think for themselves nuts jump on the bandwagon. Kind of like the assault weapon debate. Assault weapons look diffrent. So people jump on that bandwagon

I agree that drones are not the cause of innocent deaths, it's the weapon dispersed from it that causes the death and destruction. Drones are a very useful intelligence tool also. With war comes the loss of innocent lives, unfortunately that's the way it is.

I don't want to derail this thread, but no one I know that is in favor of an assault weapons ban is so because they "look different". It's because of the ease in which they can kill large amounts of people.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Teddy B

[GandD 5,966]

Exactly. Missiles and bombs kill people not drones. A drone is just delivery vehicle. They would be just as dead if an f 15 or apache had cooked off the missile. Drone sounds like a futuristic robot evil thing so people go nuts. Then the can't think for themselves nuts jump on the bandwagon. Kind of like the assault weapon debate. Assault weapons look diffrent. So people jump on that bandwagon

By that rational have we made it from guns don't kill people, people kill people to guns don't kill people, the bullets fired from the gun does?

I also don't dislike assault weapons because of their look. I don't understand their purpose. But I don't think I ever will because I don't think I'm going to have to fight the government in my lifetime. They do look really fun to fire and the times I've held them they were really cool to handle. I really appreciate the craftsmanship/engineering that goes into many high powered guns. But I don't see that as enough for them to exist considering their potential.

[Sarah Elle-Même 660]

I don't want to derail this thread, but no one I know that is in favor of an assault weapons ban is so because they "look different". It's because of the ease in which they can kill large amounts of people.

Not to derail the thread further, but it surprises me how few people know what an actual assault rifle is. Real assault rifles are illegal. No one is walking around anywhere outside a military base with an M-16.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Not to derail the thread further, but it surprises me how few people know what an actual assault rifle is. Real assault rifles are illegal. No one is walking around anywhere outside a military base with an M-16.

Trying to explain to these people that an Assault look alike weapon is no more or less lethal than other weapons is pointless.

[duraaraa 203]

My issue isn't that drones are being used (although I don't like the idea of being spied on by drones at all times... that would be hell.) My issue is that the government doesn't mind killing innocent children to fight terrorism. Supporters say that the terrorists hide behind the women and children for safety. Well, when someone robs a bank and takes hostages, we don't go in shooting all the hostages, do we?