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

Morning Star 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...

You do realize that for using your brain you will automatically become a weakness in your parties eyes and they will shun you.

Great post, great point. That point wouldn't get across if a Democrat had posted it. It's not drones that are the target, it's Obama. When you start accepting that Fox News and other brainwashing media is FOS most of the time you start to notice the hypocricy. Note, this hypocricy is on both sides.

67007_457926934262825_1235847357_n[1].jpg
 
Rune said:
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.
Click to expand...


Allahu Akbar to pRune....the useful idiot.
 
Rune said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah...they were a little different, but the concept was the same. They had movie cameras attached to them. I'm not one of the paranoids out there concerned about other nations getting their hands on our drone technology...I trust our government.
 
Rune said:
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.
Click to expand...

So, WWII was a wasted effort?
 
Howey. said:
Yeah...they were a little different, but the concept was the same. They had movie cameras attached to them. I'm not one of the paranoids out there concerned about other nations getting their hands on our drone technology...I trust our government.
Click to expand...

This has NOTHING to do with whether or not you trust your government. For example, at one time, only the US had nukes. At least one drone has already fallen into enemy hands.
 
Rune said:
Can something become obsolete in 70 years?
Click to expand...

Why do you think nations still have militaries? Also, there was a constant, and still present, threat after WWII, even though the Soviets were never directly engaged. Again, Europe has always had to maintain standing armies of some form due to the presence of Russian aggression.
 
Threedee said:
Why do you think nations still have militaries? Also, there was a constant, and still present, threat after WWII, even though the Soviets were never directly engaged. Again, Europe has always had to maintain standing armies of some form due to the presence of Russian aggression.
Click to expand...

I understand that we are not all similarly enlightened.
 
Threedee said:
That's a really helpful comment, Rune. Is it in the best interests of any given nation on this Earth to disband their militaries, and why/why not?
Click to expand...

No, we are not ready. Too many people still feel war is required. This doesn't mean war is not obsolete though. It is.
 
Rune said:
No, we are not ready. Too many people still feel war is required. This doesn't mean war is not obsolete though. It is.
Click to expand...

So, what do we do the next time someone ignores our standing military and unleashes an attack upon US citizens? Pray for their remorse?
 
I think a better response to Iraq, and Iran, and Saudi, and Syria, and Afghanistan, and every other one of those damned countries, would be to just allow/assist Turkey in reconquering the ME, restablishing Ottoman rule, and then seeing what happens. It's cheaper and less costly than island hopping over the entire region with no real hope for success.
 
Threedee said:
I think a better response to Iraq, and Iran, and Saudi, and Syria, and Afghanistan, and every other one of those damned countries, would be to just allow/assist Turkey in reconquering the ME, restablishing Ottoman rule, and then seeing what happens. It's cheaper and less costly than island hopping over the entire region with no real hope for success.
Click to expand...

That's right. Let them wipe each other out first.
 
P.S. They didn't actually wipe each other out when the Ottoman Empire did rule over the region. They aren't at all advanced in any way since 1921, so I would assume that they would fail to wipe each other out this time around. Either way, civilization wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top