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

Superfreak said:
But didn't the two of you state we should have kept up the no fly zone and sanctions against Saddam rather than go in and remove him?
Click to expand...

No, I claimed they were being used, why go in and occupy. It did not mean I supported them, it was just fact. The sanctions were also decimating the Iraqs, they were no threat and we found that to be the case.
 
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...

They put pilots out of a job.
 
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...
Radical muslims love hand to hand... at least hand to throat.
 
Sinn Fein said:
Why is it obsolete?
Click to expand...

No longer needed, does not serve purported purpose.
War enriches the the few, who profit from both sides at the expense of the many, who lose on both sides.
For a good example, consider the Soviets in Afxstan. Literally bankrupted the country and accomplished what?
Or the US in Irag. Or Vietnam Or Afxstan. Or Korea.
As I said in the quote you posted, we are not yet ready as a society to abandon war, yet it is indeed obsolete.

At one time wars were fought for food, survival. Since we could now easily feed the world population were there a will to do so, wars are only fought for profit, therefore are obsolete.
 
Rune said:
No longer needed, does not serve purported purpose.
Click to expand...
And what is the 'purported' purpose?

At one time wars were fought for food, survival. Since we could now easily feed the world population were there a will to do so, wars are only fought for profit, therefore are obsolete.
Click to expand...
What wars were these?
 
It's because it was one of the hot buttons when Bush was in office, the constant drone (pun intended) was that it caused more terrorists through collateral damage. Basically, Rs bring it up because they want to point out the hypocrisy of those who hated it before Obama, and those people pay lip service to drone hating to protect against the hypocrisy label.
 
Damocles said:
It's because it was one of the hot buttons when Bush was in office, the constant drone (pun intended) was that it caused more terrorists through collateral damage. Basically, Rs bring it up because they want to point out the hypocrisy of those who hated it before Obama, and those people pay lip service to drone hating to protect against the hypocrisy label.
Click to expand...

Huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top