Best
99 Comments
Post
  • #7
    !
    We do not need to lose American lives by needlessly putting them in harms way. These drone attacks have been incredibly successful and should continue. The terrorists operate in areas that are hostile towards the United States. We would lose far more American lives if we tried to go in there with troops and civilian casualties would happen anyway. With the drones the bad guys get killed and Americans don't. While I feel for the drone pilot that had to go through this horror, he is still alive. Had he been on the ground in the same area he very well might be dead now.
  • #12
    !
    What exactly classifies someone as a "terrorist"? Someone who wants to separate themselves from foreign invaders???

    Oh, and might I ask why we are fighting the war on "terror", when we are arming "terrorist" in Syria???

    You people are as sick as the individual/s who killed those innocent children in Connecticut!!! You oppose mass murder of women and children domestically, but when it comes to a foreign entity or and unborn baby you are all for murder!!! Kinda hypocritical on your part!!!
  • #19
    !
    Like Nancy Lanza, right? A lot of supposed to be responsible adults are terrorizing their children, right now, in America. Those parents are really heroic, I'm sure it can't be helped, it's the American way. I hope other Americans get over what their children grow up to do. Perhaps not a mass killing but torturing one of their daughters in a domestic abuse situation or killing someone else's family, while driving drunk or riding through a ghetto, statutorily exploited a young Black male's needs.

    Saving American lives isn't the objective, at all. Deciding how those lives will be loss seems to be the call of the day. Cattleprod is one of the mentally incapacitated. A child walking around the corner of a building doesn't equate to a man shielding himself with her. But every time someone can't walk down the streets of America without feeling safe, people cry foul. And you wonder why there is no privacy in America? They're ensuring the public's safety. Easier to monitor these rodents through the wireless communication's infrastructure, THE ERA OF PROGRESS, 1890!
  • #20
    !
    @Malitia_Man I never thought I'd be agreeing with you but here it is. People are just sick and don't even have a clue. As far as your militia, it'll never happen. Only the president can activate a militia. Check the Militia Act of 17 ninety something, it's clarify things for you.
  • #23
    !
    @PNWest What of the children and innocent civilians that die? Do you feel their lives have less value then american lives? If the drone takes out only actual enemy combatants or terrorist that is fine, but do you realize any time civilians are killed that violates the Geneva convention...

    I think wa should involve risk of loss of life, especially when the drones are attacking in a nation that has not attacked the u.s. If it becomes possible for the u.s. to face no risk of death to our own I fear it will be even easier to launch wars of aggression against nations that do not attack us. That being said, one of the few military engagements by the u.s. I support is the war against al quada, because the did attack the u.s. but I note the crowning event in that war, the bringing down of bin laden, required actual risk to u.s. forces. why? cause he was important enough to risk loss of life. that should be the case with everyone we target, it should not be easy to rain death upon people, civilians, women and children, particularly if their nation did not engage the u.s. in war.
  • R Load more replies

  • #8
    !
    This is a good example of why we shouldn't be involved in wars for profit of corporate America. When the time comes that drones do some good (and they have done much good in wiping out Al-quida) our drone "pilots" aren't already fried from the constant violence that we wreck on innocents for the purpose of "nation building". Drone have a place in modern warfare. I support them. I don't support wars for the profit of corporations such as Iraq was.
  • #3
    !
    Is this this not a good reason to put boots on the ground? It would alleviate a lot of mistakes. It would allow us to take control of an area, set up a perimeter and secure it, and make the time invested in the war shorter. Instead we opt for this impersonal video game style execution without trial (remember obama is against waterboarding, but okay with execution) the go to method of executing a war. It's not right. It just isn't.

    Btw, where oh where are the anti-war protesters? They were of such abundance during the Bush years.
  • #9
    !
    I am against the wars, and I disagree that putting American troops in harm's way stops the deaths of children. They can just as easily be caught in the crossfire, or by indirect fire, or even be used as human shields. All you will succeed in doing by sending combat teams into do what a drone strike does is getting more Americans killed. Unless you eliminate all air support for the ground troops you propose to send in, you will also not stop collateral deaths from the air.
  • #14
    !
    The massacres of Iraqi civilians by US forces in Ballad, Haditha and Baghdad contradict any contention that boots on the ground are somehow less likely to lead to mass murder. In my own time, Lt Rusty Calls orchestrated the My Lai killings in Viet Nam.
  • #22
    !
    This is a good teachable moment and good reason to remind this operator of security and to shut his GD mouth!! He at war and s..t happens all too frequently.
    Neo - Who's boots are you so willing to put on the ground?? Since the elimination of the draft and its not your son we think nothing of multi deployments. Then our vets return with PTSD and we woner why. We called it the 1000yd stare. You talk as if you're fighting a traditional war setting up perimeters and securing it. That's laughable when friend and foe are indistinguishable and intermingled . Minimize our losses-take out their leadership, at minimal risk to our troops sounds like a better stategy,
  • #46
    !
    @martydotcom Since no one wants to send troops in and all I have an alternative solution. How about we send them home from America first instead of granting them amnesty and quit doing business with them i.e. sending them food, water, money etc. etc. etc...

    Be a great start. Wait. That was tried twice already and both times it lead us into World Wars. You need a human to make the decision on whether to shoot or not to shoot. And if this guy is really having a problem, shouldn't he be seeking medical assistance instead of going to the press?
  • #4
    !
    Drones should be outlawed. It take the humanity out of killing and makes it a game. If you can't look the person you are killing in the eyes... that person probably does not deserve to die.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #50
    !
    @Heavy-Fed Oh, I am quite aware that humans can be the most vicious animals on the planet. Your use of the word "humanity" was more along the type of usage that means "the quality or state of being humane". Drones are not games, neither are video guided bombs and missiles. Just because you see an image of the people that are about to die as the missile closes in does not make their deaths any more inhumane than dropping a load of dumb bombs from 8000 feet aimed by a B-17 bomb sight. War is all about killing, so If you are going to protest about the inhumanity of war then don't go half way. Protest against hydrogen bombs and the whole mess. Don't have any illusions that driving a knife into a man's heart while looking him in the eye is any more noble than firing a drone missile at him from a distance, and it doesn't mean that the man fighting for the other side is any more deserving of death. Deserve has nothing to do with it.
  • #56
    !
    @Dan_Tien 8000 feet is a lot closer than the other side of the world. We're raising cold blooded killers with these first person shooter games that prevail the video game market... drones are just an extension of that. Then we wonder why a 20 year old kid goes off and shoots a bunch of people. HE'S BEEN TRAINING FOR THAT HIS WHOLE LIFE!!!!
  • R Load more replies

  • #32
    !
    @jamesmitchell HuffPost just picked it up a couple hours ago.http://www.huffingtonpost. com/2012/12/17/pain-continues- after-war-for-american-drone-p ilot_n_2317809.html
  • #18
    !
    Yes they should!!! Maybe it'll make the Amerikan sheep change their opinion on the use of drones, foreign and domestic!!!!

    The people who are in favor for any type of drone use, are as sick as the individual/s who killed those innocent children in Connecticut!!! You oppose mass murder of women and children domestically, but when it comes to a foreign entity or an unborn baby you are all for murder!!! Kinda hypocritical on your part!!!
  • #25
    !
    Malitia_Man All name calling aside, I do agree with your main premise. Drones do kill too many civilians...they might kill the enemy but they do kill and cause injury to the innocent. Drone warfare and policy(if there is hardly any) needs to be thoroughly reviewed.
  • #98
    !
    "Should they receive more media attention?" What a laugh. When wikileaks tried to bring media attention to the US military shooting of civilians and children (the video released by Bradley Manning), the terrorist states of America tried to silence them by illegally cutting off funding.
  • #80
    !
    My BS meter is pinging just a tad here. Why was this coming from Der Spiegel, a German magazine? If it's newsworthy, why isn't it coming from a domestic media source? Nothing against Der Spiegel, their reputation is pretty solid, but this makes me suspicious. In any case, to answer the Politix question, no, we don't need our pirhannic media circling these drone pilots hoping for stories of blood.
  • #68
    !
    Two things. 1) unless the guy actually had flown a REAL airplane, he is not a pilot and 2) it looks like not all the drone gamers are sick sadistic murderers after all. This is a good sign, however his murdering of a child is inexcusable.
  • #63
    !
    yes - considering that drone strikes have significantly increased under Obama, attention should be paid to any military person involved with bombing targets in foreign countries. this drone pilot is a good example of why..
  • #53
    !
    I belief that no one, would rather see an innocent child harmed.. That's the human factor, but in war it's just collateral damage. If the rules of engagement where followed, and your executing an order. Simper Fi
  • #52
    !
    It's a sad fact of life that when you wage war, innocents will die.
    I don't like Drone strikes. But anything that takes away the loss of life of our young men and women serving their country, I can get behind.
    Nuclear bombs are also a horrible thing, but they saved millions of lives since the first was used in WWII.
    We can argue about it day and night. But the only way loss of life ends is by stopping war machines in the first place. Arguing numbers is just semantics.
  • #81
    !
    That they saved lives in WWII is debatable. Some historians believe we could've just blockaded Japan for a little more time, avoided sending in any ground troops, and Japan would've surrendered. The evidence, Japanese diplomats were already presenting overtures towards surrender. The decision to drop the bomb had less to do with minimizing losses and more to do with sending a message to the Soviet Union.
  • R Load more comments...
Post