Honest Question: Why is there so much criticism over Obama and Drones?

B

BRUTALITOPS

on indefiniate mod break
Contributor
Note: I am not talking about innocent people being bombed. Obviously people get upset over that for valid reasons. So please for the love of god and all that is holy do not turn this conversation into that.

Innocents get bombed with missiles, conventional aircraft, tanks, they get shot at, etc, but the focus of everyone's complaints are always about the inherent evilness of the drones themselves. It's just drones drones drones drones drones drones.

So why are there so many political cartoons about them, why does the onion have drones flying over washington D.C., why do board members here almost exclusively refer to drones? They are just one of many vessels of destruction.

I guess what I am saying is, I do not understand the limited focus and why everyone seems to be attached to the big bad evil drone in the sky as the ultimate concept to rally against, as opposed to looking at the whole picture.

Drones kill terrorists as well. Drones can be awesome, and they have no risk to our pilots that fly them. Booya.
 
Well, MY criticisms are about the removal of direct human control. I know that at the end of the radio connection is some human, but that's dissociative. Both for the drone pilot and those on the other end. In my opinion anyways.
 
How associated are bomber pilots at 20,000 feet with the people they are bombing below them? I would argue not very much. That type of thing has to be still very impersonal. You just press a button and pull away.
 
It just goes to more of the selective hypocrisy of the American people

Obama's spending pisses of republicans but they looked the other way when Bush pissed away money
Gitmo made liberals come out of their jeans in anger when Bush opened it, but Obama keeping it open for business gets no play

I am sure that if Bush were raining drone strikes down upon the heads of muslims the collective media shit storm would rival Abu Ghraib
 
The more distant and impersonal the killing, the easier it is to kill. If it were hand to hand, William Wslkace style, there would be less enthusiasm for killing is my belief. If leaders still led the charge, like El Sid, there would be less war, but that is just my thoughts.
 
Rana said:
The more distant and impersonal the killing, the easier it is to kill. If it were hand to hand, William Wslkace style, there would be less enthusiasm for killing is my belief. If leaders still led the charge, like El Sid, there would be less war, but that is just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

You know, I think I am going to have to really go against the grain here. I would argue that drone killing may actually be more personal, and here is why.

I read a pretty in depth article about the people that man these drones, and a lot of time they don't just fly in and get out. They do a lot of recon. Sometimes drone pilots stalk their target for days, circling above their homes, following their daily routine. One drone pilot said he would see people sleeping on their roofs at night (in the summer I guess this is what a lot of afghans do) and even saw a couple having sex on their roof.

They would get to know their targets, before dropping a bomb on them. I think in comparison to just flying over in a plane in the sky, one could argue drones are more personal in that regard, in spite of the fact that the pilots are somewhere in new mexico.

The more distant and impersonal the killing, the easier it is to kill.
Click to expand...

I dont find a problem with this, assuming ones cause is righteous. I think you are arguing this from a perspective of getting into un-needed conflicts and wars. But there obviously are justifiable conflicts out there, and if we can make it so our returning troops aren't depressed, have life long handicaps, or PTSD, isn't that a good thing, all the while effectively completing their mission?
 
Last edited:
The Kicker of Elves said:
Note: I am not talking about innocent people being bombed. Obviously people get upset over that for valid reasons. So please for the love of god and all that is holy do not turn this conversation into that.

Innocents get bombed with missiles, conventional aircraft, tanks, they get shot at, etc, but the focus of everyone's complaints are always about the inherent evilness of the drones themselves. It's just drones drones drones drones drones drones.

So why are there so many political cartoons about them, why does the onion have drones flying over washington D.C., why do board members here almost exclusively refer to drones? They are just one of many vessels of destruction.

I guess what I am saying is, I do not understand the limited focus and why everyone seems to be attached to the big bad evil drone in the sky as the ultimate concept to rally against, as opposed to looking at the whole picture.

Drones kill terrorists as well. Drones can be awesome, and they have no risk to our pilots that fly them. Booya.
Click to expand...
It's the nature of an impresonal death that offends many. I agree with you that this is hypocritical. Dead is dead. Whether you are killed by someone personally shooting you with a fire arm, dropping a bomb on you or clubbing you over the head. I think that some also view it the "Law of the west" attitude and view it as cowardly.

Keep in mind that a certain amount of the opposition is just plain partisan politics. I heard those on the left criticising Bush for using drones and you don't hear a peep from those same people now that Obama is in office. To state the obvious, the reverse is also true.
 
I Love America said:
It just goes to more of the selective hypocrisy of the American people

Obama's spending pisses of republicans but they looked the other way when Bush pissed away money
Gitmo made liberals come out of their jeans in anger when Bush opened it, but Obama keeping it open for business gets no play

I am sure that if Bush were raining drone strikes down upon the heads of muslims the collective media shit storm would rival Abu Ghraib
Click to expand...
I think that's a fair assesment. I do believe a lot of the criticism on drone strikes is partisan in nature. I only know of one person on JPP who has opposed the drone strikes that has been consistent about it.
 
Rana said:
The more distant and impersonal the killing, the easier it is to kill. If it were hand to hand, William Wslkace style, there would be less enthusiasm for killing is my belief. If leaders still led the charge, like El Sid, there would be less war, but that is just my thoughts.
Click to expand...
I agree with you but maned bombing and missle strikes are just as impresonal. Why no outrage over them?
 
The Kicker of Elves said:
You know, I think I am going to have to really go against the grain here. I would argue that drone killing may actually be more personal, and here is why.

I read a pretty in depth article about the people that man these drones, and a lot of time they don't just fly in and get out. They do a lot of recon. Sometimes drone pilots stalk their target for days, circling above their homes, following their daily routine. One drone pilot said he would see people sleeping on their roofs at night (in the summer I guess this is what a lot of afghans do) and even saw a couple having sex on their roof.

They would get to know their targets, before dropping a bomb on them. I think in comparison to just flying over in a plane in the sky, one could argue drones are more personal in that regard, in spite of the fact that the pilots are somewhere in new mexico.



I dont find a problem with this, assuming ones cause is righteous. I think you are arguing this from a perspective of getting into un-needed conflicts and wars. But there obviously are justifiable conflicts out there, and if we can make it so our returning troops aren't depressed, have life long handicaps, or PTSD, isn't that a good thing, all the while effectively completing their mission?
Click to expand...
I'd still say that's pretty damned impersonal.....not to mention creepty that some one can stalk you with the intent to kill from half a world away.
 
Rana said:
The more distant and impersonal the killing, the easier it is to kill. If it were hand to hand, William Wslkace style, there would be less enthusiasm for killing is my belief. If leaders still led the charge, like El Sid, there would be less war, but that is just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

I don't like drones, period, and I'm angry that Obama stepped up their use. But drone criticism seems to be tied to Obama only, when did we ever hear about them in previous administrations? And it also angers me that drones are killing Pakistanis, i.e. Muslims, yet it wasn't that long ago that righties were saying "kill 'em all and let Allah sort them out." Hypocrisy much?
 
Additionally, my problems deal with how much more pervasive the idea of drones over America is. Because there is less inherent risk, it makes abuse of power much more likely. Drone controllers have less to risk by say, mistakenly bombing a daycare center, then a SWAT team.
 
In my world, Billy, it's not the pilots who get court martialed for shooting down an airliner without proper cause. Nor is it the senior controller talking with the pilot. It's the mission commander on an operations floor who is far away from the battle.
 
Threedee said:
In my world, Billy, it's not the pilots who get court martialed for shooting down an airliner without proper cause. Nor is it the senior controller talking with the pilot. It's the mission commander on an operations floor who is far away from the battle.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know. It was a simplistic post. That's what happens when I try to do shit from my phone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top