Best
63 Comments
Post
  • #5
    !
    I don't I have what it takes to kill people from a trailer in Arizona via remote control. I am not a "drone gamer" as these people are. Not enough liquor on Earth could compensate for the sleepless nights.
  • #8
    !
    Using diplomacy keeps our service men and women out of harms way. Killing innocent civilians with remote-controlled military hardware while invading the air-space of other sovereign nations in violation of international law DOES NOT.
  • #11
    !
    @woodtick57 Depends on the need and reason, but that wouldn't be gutless like sending in drones. Too many people whom are not terrorists are getting killed. Too many kids. Not cool, man.
  • #19
    !
    @fact-check
    Diplomacy is great and we should use it when we get the chance and when potential benefits are forthcoming.
    But not actually sending in live people to carry out the strikes also keeps our service men and women out of harms way and the enemy knows that since we're sending in less people that means less people will be sent home in body bags and so their little "attrition game" isn't going to work.
  • R Load more replies

  • #7
    !
    Imagine if Iran was flying drones "for surveillance only" over US territory... Imagine if a thousand of our children were killed by drones in order to take out a suspected bad guy... What if our own government decides to use drones to watch us and shoot criminals on the run... Drone attacks are making enemies of the very people we claim they are protecting... if you want US troops to be safe, get them out of the Middle East!
  • #13
    !
    When these chickens (killer drones) come home to roost, millions of Americans will begin to sing a different tune.
  • #14
    !
    We would protect ourselves and shhoot thhem down.

    What makes you think 'thousands of children' were killed to get bad guys? did you just make that up? people that knowingly harbour int'l terrorists are themselves terrorists. even by US laws. if you harbor a felon, you are a felon.

    your views of isolationism have been proven to not work. a century ago...
  • #21
    !
    @fact-check
    Why are you paraphrasing a quote from Jeremiah Wright? Do you think that's going to win people against the drone strikes?
  • #22
    !
    @woodtick57 Why are you not aware that drone attacks are killing civilians? Why are you not aware that children have been killed by drones? Why do you not know that women and children have little power to oust a "known" terrorist in their midst? By your logic, any hostages are considered criminals since they didn't take action to get rid of the kidnappers. "Harbouring" is an act of complicity. These villagers getting torn apart by drone fire are not complicit in anything going on around them.

    (Am I an isolationist? You can tell that just by a few comments? Maybe you shouldn't listen to pundits so much)
  • R Load more replies

  • #28
    !
    Drones are simply tools of war like aircraft, missles, and guns. They do dull, dirty, and dangerous jobs without putting men & women in harms way. Remember U2 pilot Gary Powers?

    Take away drones and the job will still get done, only with US service men & women going in harms way to do it.

    If it needs to be done, I'd rather send in an unmanned aircraft over a manned aircraft any day.
  • #4
    !
    Every drone strike is positive thing for our fighting men and women. It is a feeble attempt but it strikes fear into the hearts of the Taliban pig turds. What a stupid thought..."reconsider drones." Hell, that's the only thing we go going right now.
    This is typical thinking by liberals...cut the military, neuter the CIA, what is next? I guess they will do anything to pay for free birth control.
  • #10
    !
    Your dehumanizing personification of the perceived enemy, is the very cause for the CLEAR AND PROVEN failure of the United States military to win the hearts and minds of the people in other nations.
  • #16
    !
    @fact-check dehumanizing the enemy is the way to keep sane men sane during and after a war. Just like killing from a distance is easier than killing face to face.
  • #20
    !
    @fact-check You have a choice when you go to war. To win you must kill. If you don't have the stomach to kill you will be killed. The Taliban are not a "perceived " enemy. They are a KNOWN enemy by every stretch of the imagination. And they are Islamic terrorists...that is why I call the pig turds. And, as far as "winning the hearts and minds" of the people in other countries is concerned...You cannot win the hearts and minds of Islamic terrorists unless you bow to their will. And, many other nations just want to appease the terrorists rather than stand up to them.
  • #37
    !
    @seedtick: The thousands of innocent civilians killed in drone attacks that violate the Geneva Conventions are NOT "islamic terrorists.
  • #38
    !
    @WilliamWallace: War is insane, and those whom would condone and promote the slaughter of innocent civilians with remote-controlled military aircraft are worthy of neither respect nor admiration.
  • R Load more replies

  • #25
    !
    I am a conservative and a supporter of the military but I think the use of Drones has is a real moral issue. If we have no risk involved it's very difficult to make the right decisions.
  • #15
    !
    Limit use of drones? What are you kidding me? NOPE.
    Look maybe no one wants to admit it but there is a war going on. Terrorism is a most worthy opponent. They seem to be all over the world. If you attack a country you believe a particular cell come from, then the rest of the world says you are killing innocent people, then all the bleeding hearts start crying. Terrorist brought the fight here, on American dirt, we are in it now folks. To not stay aggressive is to lose. We are hated, we are thought to be weak and spoiled. They are not going to stop, ever! The fact that innocents die because of drone attacks, that is just a reality of war, even here in America that people need to get past. The message is clear, or should be, if America is the target, then retaliation will be swift and deadly. To terrorist anything else is weakness and a absolute sign they will keep coming. The innocents in these countries hide terrorist, they aid terrorist. Terrorist know of Americas humanity, and exploit it. Best counter to that is overwelm them, yeap, shock and aw.
  • #63
    !
    So are boots on the ground in Afghanistan winning the hearts and minds of the populous? If you live with the enemy then your are complicit. The children growup to become propagandized into jehadism. Radical Islam is the problem and it won't be easy nor puritanical to fight that kind of war. There is no better way to fight that kind of war as we don't have the numbers. And they will and are coming here.

    As Patten put it, "You don't win war by dying for your country, you win them by making the other poor dumb bastards die for theirs." Innocents are unavoidable presently. Innocents will die everywhere if terrorists are allowed to conduct their unholy war on 'non- believers.' Innocents become fodder for their radicalism.
  • #49
    !
    Some of what this guest author says makes sense and some of it doesn't.

    For example, when talking about Pakistani terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, he says "... fostering internal dissent may be a more effective approach to reducing the organization's violent activities then traditional military counter-terror tools." (Sure wish folks would learn the proper use of then and than ... sigh ...). Fine, infiltrate, but that could take a lot of time, and how many innocent civilians should we allow this group to kill before we drone 'em?

    I do agree that the military and the CIA could easily get "drone happy" and more thought should be taken on this issue, but perhaps there are some very serious bad guys planning who knows what RIGHT NOW and wouldn't it be a good thing to get them before they get us?
  • #50
    !
    The CIA is already "drone happy," and according to reports Petraeus was asking for more. Unfortunately, tha targeting and scope of attacks did NOT reduce civilian casualties. As Americans increasingly tend to focus on the fact that drones prevent casualties to U.S. troops, perhaps they might begin to consider that indiscriminate killing of unarmed and innocent civilians is a VIOLATION of the Geneva Conventions.
  • #43
    !
    Killing is killing no matter the means. What the US should do is reconsider it's use of military power as one of it's main tools to push it's geo political agenda. I am not against war when it is necessary. But I have to say I have not seen a necessary war in my lifetime. And I am 60 years old.
  • #36
    !
    No why would any one want to do that... What the people of America don't want to fight this ridiculous "war on terror" that's never going to end everybody was all for war when that idiot cowboy was talking about waging war on the world and who cares how many "innocent" woman and children get vaporized as far as im concerned if you hang out with terrorist your a terrorist and you deserve to die preferable a horrible death getting blown up ain't painful but woman and children strap bombs to there chest all the time to be martyrs so why don't we just cut out all the innocent people that get blown up bc somebody wants to go see god we grant there wishes and rain hell down upon their heads and they can go see who ever they want and they can be martyrs without killing anyone innocent
  • #35
    !
    I think drones put too much distance between the realities of war and death. These things are flown like a video game, and it becomes way too easy to start nailing everything in with a hammer. We need to stop drone strikes NOW. Aggressive militarism is what puts our soldiers in danger. I would be in favor of drones if we kept a military to defend ourselves - not invade every country who's turn for "democracy" has come.

    But as it is now - the article is completely right about the CIA seeing way too many nails.

    Also - are drone strikes cheaper? If they are cheaper and video game like in maneuverability you basically reduce the amount of thinking and hesitation before bombing. We need to think twice, and twice more before we bomb someone, and enter into conflicts we don't belong in.
  • #30
    !
    As long as the strikes are hitting reliable targets and not just some kid playing 'call of duty'. And the people that is making the calls are held accountable. Kill'em all
  • #17
    !
    "...identifying key members within a social structure and encouraging them to become U.S. supporters or at least be neutral."

    With this kind of forward thinking you should run for office. Thousands of dead and wounded and all we needed to do was make friends in the region. What can you possibly consider offering someone win exchange for their God and their redemption?
  • #3
    !
    What does Patraeus' leavingg have to do with an effective tool of our military?
    The uest author gave no back-up for his assertion tat it caused more instability in Pakistan. having more Taliban ruled villages in Pakistan would lead to more instability.

    i would bet that drone strikes are more 'collateral damage sensitive' than any other air stirike capabilities.

    Was this listed as an op-ed piece?
Post