friends and family of the innocent killed won't be friendly with americans ever
If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
71–80 of 361 posts
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
It matters because it changes the fundamental nature of combat. If a pilot is in the plane you're risking an American life, not to mention a very expensive piece of equipment with numerous safety features etc. Now take away the risk to American life and lower the cost of the attack significantly, and viola, you've got a much itchier trigger finger now. If you've played MW3, which would you rather do, use the drone to…
> you've got a much itchier trigger finger now I doubt that. It would seem that a pilot sitting in a cockpit would be a lot more trigger-happy. Both pilots can make two types of mistake: don't recognize an enemy for what he is, or do the same thing with a civilian. If plane pilot mistakes an enemy for something else and said enemy succeeds in his efforts, the pilot will lose his place and may be his life. The drone p…
Clarification: I don't mean that the pilot has an itchy trigger finger, I mean the system or decision maker. I see how the two might be confused based on my original comment.
The commander/politician/leader is answerable and responsible for his soldiers, as such if the risk to the soldier's life is taken out of equation an attack suddenly begins to make more sense as it carrier lower risk & lower costs, therefore requiring less justification.
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#73It continues to baffle me why the fact they're drones matter in the slightest. They're not autonomous, they're flown by pilots who just happen to not be sitting in the aircraft they're flying. Manned aircraft have killed huge groups of innocent civilians more than once, but apparently that's fine because the pilot was sitting in the aircraft.
I think the point is that the drone strikes are happening in places where the US isn't even at war. They're just bombing any place they feel like and apparently not having a pilot sitting there seems to make it ok, or something...
That's not new either. The US carried out airstrikes in Iraq throughout the 90s despite not being "at war".
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
It matters because it changes the fundamental nature of combat. If a pilot is in the plane you're risking an American life, not to mention a very expensive piece of equipment with numerous safety features etc. Now take away the risk to American life and lower the cost of the attack significantly, and viola, you've got a much itchier trigger finger now. If you've played MW3, which would you rather do, use the drone to…
> you've got a much itchier trigger finger now I doubt that. It would seem that a pilot sitting in a cockpit would be a lot more trigger-happy. Both pilots can make two types of mistake: don't recognize an enemy for what he is, or do the same thing with a civilian. If plane pilot mistakes an enemy for something else and said enemy succeeds in his efforts, the pilot will lose his place and may be his life. The drone p…
Neither the pilot of a fighter/bomber or a drone gets to decide on the targets. They're given orders from above based on the intel provided to the commanders. So the issue isn't itchy trigger finger of the pilot, but itchy trigger finger of the commanders. The commanders have demonstrated over the last decade a willingness to send drones into situations they would not send fighters/bombers. There are few instances of US incursions with fighter aircraft over the last few years compared to the number of incursions with drones.
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#75It's okay when we do it.
Lets be honest here, if Bush were doing this the press and every damn Democrat in Congress would be up in arms and demanding halts and immediate investigations. so a better title would be, If Bush were President we'd ground out fleet.
Bush continually did much more heinous shit on a constant almost daily basis than just a semi-accidental strike somewhere.
So no, not really. Republicans are the ones halting congress in every single way and doing what you just suggested. It is the entire point of the party. Regressivism is extremely easy, just fight against any changes and if someone ever actually manages to change anything your platform is to change it back. Republicans and Democrats do not do the same thing, I am so tired of hearing about this.
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#76It continues to baffle me why the fact they're drones matter in the slightest. They're not autonomous, they're flown by pilots who just happen to not be sitting in the aircraft they're flying. Manned aircraft have killed huge groups of innocent civilians more than once, but apparently that's fine because the pilot was sitting in the aircraft.
This is an interesting point... I think it matters - possibly for a different reason. If you imagine from the ground: a terrorist car bomb VS a drone strike, they're virtually indistinguishable. Both are explosions without warning by the 'enemy.' It's almost a joke that people condemn terrorist acts and respond in kind.
Almost, but not quite. The difference would be that the US isn't killing civilians just for the sake of killing civilians to cause terror.
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#77Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is probably easier to get pilots to bomb civilians with a Playstation controller in what looks and feels like a video game, than an actual person present.
It's not a question of "ease". Military pilots take orders; COs tell them how high to jump, and that's what they do. Either they follow orders or they are relieved of duty (and possibly face court martial). Some drones are operated by a division of the CIA and are out of military control, however. This is probably the most worrisome aspect of the program. However, as long as 99% of their targets are bad guys, America…
"However, as long as 99% of their targets are bad guys, Americans are going to continue supporting the program."
The problem here is that 100% of the targets are bad guys while seemingly a very low percentage of the casualties are. Americans continue to support the program because the media does not do it's job. Instead they act as a mouth piece, a cheer leader, instead of doing actual journalism.
The War on Terror, much like the War on Drugs, is a utter failure. It has ZERO chance of being successful because of tactics like this.
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#78Not all that surpising. As was made clear during the Snowden leaks the USG doesn't consider human beings who aren't US citizens to have the same rights as Americans.
Here's something that will blow your mind. EVERY country considers its own citizens to have more rights than other countries. Otherwise we wouldn't have millions of people dying every year by preventable means. And there wouldn't be widespread despisement of refugees.
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#79It continues to baffle me why the fact they're drones matter in the slightest. They're not autonomous, they're flown by pilots who just happen to not be sitting in the aircraft they're flying. Manned aircraft have killed huge groups of innocent civilians more than once, but apparently that's fine because the pilot was sitting in the aircraft.
Would you think we can apply this same argument when it happens to be an american wedding?? Hell no. drones or no drones, we will definitely have some policy changes and definitely some heads will roll.
If the United States had firebombed Denver instead of Dresden, yes, the US government would have made sure it didn't happen again.
Re: If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding We'd Ground Our Fleet
#80I dont know which is tarnishing the American image worse the use of drones strikes or the Snowden leaks. What happens when our allies start to even say enough is enough.
Exactly this. I'm not a US citizen and I can not remember the last time someone spoke about the United States as something we should emulate or as a country we should support. Political panels with topics like "Are the US still our allies?" are popping up around me and I personally wouldn't affirm that statement. There is an overall feeling of meddling in other people's affairs associated with most US actions nowadays.
Germany already has declined participating in the attack on Iraq, but still provides plenty of passive (possibly also some active, even though that would be illegal) support (logistics, allowing air bases) and most people still perceive it as the right action.
It is hard to find recent surveys on the topic and especially Transatlantic Trends seems to refuse to ask the question if Europe should continue to support US military actions further and focuses mainly on the NATO (neither drone strikes nor the Iraq War are NATO operations).