Obama Thinks Drones Are Okay

[AProgressiveThinker]

In Obama's recent speech on May 23rd on drone strikes, he has argued in his speech that drone strikes are justifiable to use because they do kill terrorists (despite all the innocent civilians that are killed by them as well) His justification is that terrorists kill more people than drone strikes! Wow! We should not even be comparing ourselves to terrorists, drone strikes hurt more people than they help and create terrorists and create more of a hatred for America in the Middle East by leaving innocent civilians dead. It's time to hunt the terrorists, without leaving hundreds of civilians dead.

[Deep13]

1. Drones aren't the problem.

Murdering civilians is. If he were allowing the same kinds of attacks by manned aircraft, it would be just as bad.

[orpupilofnature57]

21. Opening a new mode of death, like the A-bomb, is

the problem . Who's the president in ten years, what's that administrations definition of an enemy of the state ?

[MADem]

2. Everyone does. There aren't many countries that either aren't using

them, or want them.

Hell, even IRAN has a few halfassed drones. China makes some AMAZING ones.

Drones are here to stay, like it, or not. They aren't going away. Shouting about them like they're brand new on the scene is like going out to the roadway and shaking your fist at the "horseless carriages" that are scaring the livestock.

I remember when, in the immediate decade following Vietnam, the Navy started doing drone work in a very hush-hush way. It was quite a concept to try to fly something around, and not just aim/dump it on a target. That was "exciting" and "fresh" and "new." But that was, what, four decades ago or more.

Drones aren't going away. They will, like GPS on your cellphone and "black boxes" in new cars, like security cameras on highways and in cities, become part of the landscape.

The time to gripe about those things was about thirty or forty years ago, too. It wouldn't have done any good, though, even back then; the research would have carried on--China and other countries have no compunctions about keeping an eye on things in a remote fashion. Ya gotta keep up, or be left behind. USA isn't ready to be left behind just yet.

So yeah, drones ARE OK. If you need to take someone out, it's better to send a drone than 20 of our finest young people to risk their lives--it's more cost effective, it causes less personal and political pain on this side of the equation. And on the other side, the people who are angry aren't going to be less angry because the coup de grace was delivered in person instead of remotely. Obligatory Preemptive Caveat: It would be best if no one had to be taken out at all, but that's not reality.

No shooting messengers for repeating self-evident truths.

[Jamaal510]

4. +1

"If you need to take someone out, it's better to send a drone than 20 of our finest young people to risk their lives--it's more cost effective, it causes less personal and political pain on this side of the equation. And on the other side, the people who are angry aren't going to be less angry because the coup de grace was delivered in person instead of remotely. Obligatory Preemptive Caveat: It would be best if no one had to be taken out at all, but that's not reality."

[BlancheSplanchnik]

6. When reading stuff like the OP, I always look for that one post in a thread

that is the most informational. Intelligent, but not only that; I really want to see wisdom in there too.

This is the one.

[MADem]

8. Why thank you, Blanche!! nt

[Bully Taw]

31. agree

and well said.

[NYC Liberal]

3. Drones are perfectly okay.

How they're used is a completely different debate.

[Tarheel_Dem]

5. And the American people agree with him.

"In U.S., 65% Support Drone Attacks on Terrorists Abroad"
http://www.gallup.com/poll/161474/support-drone-attacks-terrorists-abroad.aspx

[rawtribe]

7. This is why

we aren't even ranked in the top 20 amongst other civilized countries.

[MADem]

9. Link? nt

[rawtribe]

10. Sure...

http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/how-does-the-united-states-rank-in/

[MADem]

11. Your link doesn't back up your assertion. nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

14. That's exactly what I found. It's about imports, HIV infection rates & cocaine use.

Who the hell wants to be #1 in any of those?

[MADem]

17. We came out number five or so in disability payments. Sweden was first.

I guess we were not doing so well in consumption of certain kinds of fruits, though...but it that necessarily a mark of civilization?

It's an amusing list of statistics, but it doesn't prove what the poster claimed it proved.

[TrollBuster9090]

20. Sweden is first in MOST things, IMHO. :) nt

[MADem]

22. They're first in violent riots this week, poor dears... nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

12. I'm sorry we rank #23 in turkey & spiny lizard importation, but the subject here is "drones".

Perhaps I overlooked it? What an utterly ridiculous poll.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

15. But we're Number Two in asses!1!!11!!!

that's gotta count for something.

The U.S. ranks 2nd in asses
26 May 2009
According to the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, in 2006 the United States imported 10,772 asses, or 28.1% of the world’s total ass imports, making the United States rank second in that category. Yemen ranked first, importing 17,820 asses, or 46.4% of the world total.
http://rankingamerica.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/the-u-s-ranks-2nd-in-asses/

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. What's to become of domestic asses? First it was Honda, then Toyota, now Asses?

We don't make anything anymore.

[MADem]

18. HA!!!! I know where they are all, too--they're the Majority in the House of Representatives!!!!!!

[trusty elf]

33. Ain't that the truth!

[IMG][/IMG]

[indepat]

37. And neither are we even ranked in the top 20 amongst other countries in quality-of-life ranking

factors because, in a right-wing-soused society, the MIC, large corporations, and the uber-wealthy are gorged with governmental largess at the expense of all else.

[TrollBuster9090]

19. I believe his exact quote was "Drones are the SMALLEST shit sandwich I can find for us to eat."

He didn't say "Drones are okay." He said they were the least crappy option on a list of very crappy options.

The alternatives:

1. Trying to improve America's image, and reassure the Muslim world that America is not an enemy of Islam. (DOING it! With that pesky detail about the drones notwithstanding)

2. Do nothing while Americans are murdered by terrorist attacks, despite swearing an oath to protect Americans.

3. Dump dozens of Army divisions on the ground, knock down governments and attempt to create secular democracies in their place at the point of a gun; like a ham-fisted, brain damaged 'big foolish giant' (aka: the 2001-2009 'policy').

4. Dump bombs on villages from fighter jets flown by pilots. (aka the same policy as drones, only with the added fun of having live U.S. military personnel violate foreign air space, and risk getting shot down, killed, or tortured by (justifiably angry) people who were underneath those bombs.) Or

5. Drones.

[zipplewrath]

26. Quote please

"...despite swearing an oath to protect Americans."

Can you quote that oath? Because the one I'm familiar with only mentions "...preserve, protect, and defending the CONSTITUTION of the United States". This whole concept of "I have to do nasty things despite the constitution" dates back at least to Iran/Contra and seems a bit of a silly notion.

Oh, and you forgot #6

Arrest people instead of bombing them and then put them on trial. We've done it before. We seem to have stopped trying.

[indepat]

38. And many of those who have taken the oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution

of the United States have pitched in to chip away at many constitutional freedoms, be it the so-called Patriot Act, the right to lawfully protest by the crushing of the OWS movement, and extreme measures to keep us safe at the expense of liberty. All the while many of those in favor of extreme measures to keep us safe insist the proliferation of assault weapons on our streets and even block background checks.

[AProgressiveThinker]

39. That's not true

There are plenty of other options, we can do what we did in the Bin Laden raid in Abbottabad, how many civilians died there, again? 0

[another_liberal]

23. Drone murders are illegal and immoral!

Would we ever accept as justified another nation using killer drones to assassinate United States citizens in this country? Of course we would not!

The President may have gotten some John Woo type at Justice to write him a weasel-worded memo stating the drone program is perfectly legal (because we are "At War With Terror" or some such crap) but that does not make it so. This country will not remain the World's only Super Power forever. Future generations of Americans will have to suffer who knows what kind of retribution for our arrogant, murderous use of these weapons against uncharged, untried suspects and innocent civilians. We are not "exceptional," and we are not above the laws which govern other nations.

[dotymed]

30. K&R

It is sad and arrogant of Americans to think along "American Exceptionalism" lines. We are not "exceptional" in what really matters to (non-elite) people. In fact we rank very low in the areas that really matter (choose among
practically unlimited data) many of the lists are compiled by "our" government.

Education, health care, infant mortality, equal justice, wealth equality, fair elections, civil liberties, government transparency, living wages, and the list goes on and the party never ends.....

These are the things that really count.

Yes, drones create more "terrorists" (if drone strikes occurred here, the "terrorists" would be called "freedom fighters&quot than they KILL.
A democracy would require a vote be taken before "we" KILL people. A republic would require that a majority of "our" representatives agreed on the "targets" before "we" KILL more human beings.

I know a SEAL member that travels the world KILLING and causing havoc in sovereign nations that most people have no idea "we" are involved in. He or "they" could assassinate these "terrorists" with hardly any collateral damage, they do it ALL the time.
He doesn't tell anyone where he is deployed to or what his mission is. He gets his orders, trains constantly and then disappears for a while. His wife and family do not know when he will return from wherever. He is comparatively well paid ( not elite but his super nice home is paid off (in-ground pool and all) and his family vacations frequently, all over the world), he is very quiet and unless you knew him, you would think that he is just another extremely physically fit soldier.
Drones are not the best way we have to KILL those that have been chosen. They are probably one of the worst ways but the MIC profits handsomely every time one is used. IF Americans knew what is done in their name, daily, they would truly know the futility of attempting to keep their guns in case they need to fight tyranny in America.
Please read, CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN, by John Perkins. When he refers to the "Jackals" that are used as a last resort to convince other countries to do what corporate America wants. Know that they are mostly U.S. (highly trained) soldiers with technology that is beyond imagination.
These people blend right in with our population. They are very self-controlled and from the few that I have met,
are outwardly great people and enjoyable company. They have a specialized skill-set, they are not crazed killers, unless they are ordered to be.

[02potato]

24. HOW ABOUT THIS SCENARIO...

---------------GOOD MORNING CHICAGO ------ THEIR IS AN ACCIDENT ON I-290 AT THE BELLWOOD EXIT IN THE CLEAN UP STAGES THE LEFT 2 LANES ARE OPEN. ----ALSO ---- WE ARE TOLD TO AVOID CANTERBURY STREET IN WESTCHESTER BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 10;00 AND 10;15 THIS MORNING DUE TO PLANS OF A CHINESE DRONE STRIKE OF A PRE-CONVICTED AND SENTENCED DISSIDENT OF THEIR GOVERNMENT.
---FULL COOPERATION IS EXPECTED---

---IN OTHER NEWS.............

[Yavin4]

25. "It's time to hunt the terrorists, without leaving hundreds of civilians dead." How?

When Seal Team 6 killed Bin Laden, they killed innocent people as well.

[zipplewrath]

27. Same way we do in Chicago

We don't tolerate the police killing innocent people to arrest criminals. How about we stop justifying killing innocent people because we're too lazy to arrest and try the guilty people.

[Yavin4]

28. Chicago is a lot different from Abbottabad

The same tactics don't apply.

[zipplewrath]

29. Yes, that's the official excuse

A more accurate description might be "they can't complain", as oppose to Chicago where they can take it to court, put people in jail, vote people out of office.....

[AProgressiveThinker]

40. Not really true

That's not true, the people they did kill were armed and trying to kill the SEALS, drones may not be that bad but the way they're being used is awful, Obama is not a true liberal, he's a neo-con.

[Yavin4]

45. Oh Please. Stop it.

Come on.

[tblue]

32. Well done!

Keep it up. Drones are creating more 'terrorists' than they kill. I never would have voted for this.

[AProgressiveThinker]

43. Thanks!

I appreciate it!

[SCVDem]

34. Small manned military hardware.

Japan made mini 2 man subs and got some into Pearl Harbor. These days they would have had more success.

America has a mini prop, the BD-5. The BD-10 is a supersonic jet version.



James Bond/Roger Moore flew it in one of the movies.

The aircraft is smaller than some of our drones and could easily be outfitted with Hellfire missles.

Here we have a manned, not drone with a life at risk doing the same mission with the same results.

Now we can discuss the mission rather than the hardware. It's the mission killing civillians now that we have eliminated the RPV factor.

Happy?

Since the BDs are kit aircraft and home built they would be cheaper than the fleet of our existing and next gen RPVs.

The price of a pilot is how much?

[lhooq]

35. Audacity of Nope

With all this emphasis on technology (i.e., drones), I think we are missing the larger point, namely, these are extrajudicial killings. No oversight is involved. How else could Obama get away with assassinating the 16 year old son of Anwar al-Awlaki? Who decides whose name appears on the White House kill list?

Does anyone remember the War Powers Act of 1973 and the actions of Nixon / Kissinger that spawned it?

As loyal Obama liberals, we're supposed to keep quiet and always rally around our man who can do no wrong? He's the first African American President. He once taught constitutional law (so he should know). At least he's not as bad as Bush. Yada yada yada. So many rationalizations.

Obama's abusing Presidential powers and ought to be opposed. What a sad day when liberal hypocrites say nothing leaving it to Rand Paul and his ilk to (for once) speak the truth.

Read on --
http://news.firedoglake.com/2013/05/28/liberal-hypocrisy-isnt-free/

[SCVDem]

36. You do know that congress approved of these, right?

There goes another talking point, extrajudicial, out the window.

[AProgressiveThinker]

41. Again, not true

Many of these drone strikes did not go through the approval of Congress, and even if it did, these drone strikes violate the Constitution and the War Powers Act. I guess it wouldn't matter so much so that is bypasses the Constitution (I don't care much about the Constitution) but the fact is, these drones are completely ineffective. There was one drone strike in Dattakhel targeting a terrorist and it ended up killing 30 more civilians.

[SCVDem]

46. Department of Corrections

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says his administration informs Congress about every drone strike America orders.

In a national security speech Thursday, Obama said the administration has briefed the appropriate congressional committees about all drone strikes outside of Iraq and Afghanistan, such as in Yemen.


I misunderstood the Presidents comment and thought it was before the strikes and not after.

I apologize for the error and stand corrected.

[AProgressiveThinker]

42. Totally true

The Obama Administration has bypassed Congress, the Constitution and the War Powers Act for many of these drone strikes, the fact is, a true liberal would not stand on Obama's side; Obama is a neo-con.

[adieu]

44. The weapons employed

throughout the history of warfare have always been attempting to distance the attacker from the attacked while avoiding a minimal loss in accuracy. Whether it's a longer club, a longer spear, arrows, moats, trebuchets, guns, cannons, bombs, or ICBMs, the goals have always been the same: try to kill the other person from a longer distance.

Drones are just another step on this evolutionary path of weaponry. As it is, I'd prefer to have drones than the alternative: mass bombings or launching missiles. The collateral damage from the latter is much worse than from the former.

Of course, I'd prefer the third alternative: no weapons and no wars.

[DeSwiss]

47. Killing babies is never okay. n/t

[circlethesquare]

48. Obama Administration Admits to Dronning US Citizens...How Many?

From: www.davidpakman.com