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

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.

No, there are several of us. I have never supported them. I believe there are others as well.
 
A bush button war just makes war all that more acceptable to the masses.
Well the ones who are not being killed that is.
 
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

You got a point.....but the only place I hear news of drone use is on Fox.....the other media pretty much ignores the whole issue unless the
mission kills some prominent AQ type and no children.
 
Yeah, I know. It was a simplistic post. That's what happens when I try to do shit from my phone.

It's all good. You have a much broader understanding of military operations than I have. All I can really talk about is air defense/control/sovereignty and things pertaining to it such as shootdowns.

:clink:
 
A bush button war just makes war all that more acceptable to the masses.
Well the ones who are not being killed that is.

I disagree, and I'll give this one little shout-out to antiwar protestors such as Rana. War can only be regarded as personal/impersonal to those fighting in it. To everyone sitting at home watching it play out, it matters not how the war is conducted. Despite that fact, there are still people willing to stand up and speak out or protest, even though there aren't battlefields of two lines hacking at each other with broadswords, pikes, and lances...
 
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.

Imagine how distant and impersonal it would be if we called the victims of drone strikes fetuses. It wouldn't be like killing a human at all. It would be just like removing a clump of cells.
 
I disagree, and I'll give this one little shout-out to antiwar protestors such as Rana. War can only be regarded as personal/impersonal to those fighting in it. To everyone sitting at home watching it play out, it matters not how the war is conducted. Despite that fact, there are still people willing to stand up and speak out or protest, even though there aren't battlefields of two lines hacking at each other with broadswords, pikes, and lances...

I disagree and I'll give this one little shout-out to war supporters, such as 3-D. War can only be regarded as obsolete, ruthless, and damaging to all, especially but not limited to those who prosecute it.
To everyone who profits from it, it matters not who loses, who wins, who dies or who is maimed, as long as profits roll in.
Despite that fact, there are still people willing to stand up and defend war, against all reason, even though war, in any form ends in the same results.
 
Last edited:
Wars will always be fought. In the past, wars were fought to achieve a gain of some sort, whether it be financial, social, or religious. At least one country came out on top, regardless of the casualties involved. This is why I've always claimed there will be no nuclear war, as nobody will gain from it.

We are facing now the birth of a new age of technological warfare. In a few years, our wars will be fought from behind desks, our warriors will be manning computers; with the support of field personnel and troops.

Our enemies, far from being as technologically superior as we are, will be forced to resort to centuries-old combat and terror tactics. Among them, the use of children, women and the elderly as both shields and weapons - playing against our own respect for the victims of war.

In Nazi Germany, Korea, and Vietnam, opposing soldiers congregated in or near hospitals and schools in an attempt to prevent attack. Terrorists today do the same.

It won't work.

As far as the use of drones; if they prevent the deaths of American soldiers, I'm all for it. Let the people living in terrorist nations worry about their children, women and elderly.
 
That's great Howie, until they start being used in non-terrorist nations and owned by terrorist nations.
 
I disagree, and I'll give this one little shout-out to antiwar protestors such as Rana. War can only be regarded as personal/impersonal to those fighting in it. To everyone sitting at home watching it play out, it matters not how the war is conducted. Despite that fact, there are still people willing to stand up and speak out or protest, even though there aren't battlefields of two lines hacking at each other with broadswords, pikes, and lances...

Thanks, I think
 
That's great Howie, until they start being used in non-terrorist nations and owned by terrorist nations.

Drones have been used for decades by several nations, but never as effectively as the US. They were used in Germany and Vietnam as well as the Gulf War. Of course other modern nations will try to duplicate them. We're already addressing that.
 
Drones have been used for decades by several nations, but never as effectively as the US. They were used in Germany and Vietnam as well as the Gulf War. Of course other modern nations will try to duplicate them. We're already addressing that.

No. Without realtime GPS, the earlier weapons were no more drones than were arrows flung by aboriginals.

You are highly delusional if you think we can deter other nations from acquiring drone technology.
 
Back
Top