• #39
    The moron in the White House absolutely needs to be restricted. Killing terrorists is a good thing, if that is as far as it goes. But the vindictive bastard Obama is just one step away from flying them over America to take out his political enemies and start a civil war. Be careful if you assume that you would be safe from this emerging dictator.
  • #1
    Well then if they've created all these new insurgents I suppose the drone attacks should be stepped up.. maybe trippled.
  • #5
    @ErnestPayne we used to win wars when we fought t wars to win.. and of course without interference from limp wristed European socialists .
  • #13
    Hilarious. Another amurikan who slept through every high school history class and neither learned nor read anything afterwards. Alone, and unaided, since 1898 the only war you won on your own was the Spanish American War against the decrepit Spanish Empire. Let me know when you win in Viet Nam, Iraq, or Afghanistan. Oh, and please, no "we can nukem" nonsense.
  • #16
    @ErnestPayne Gee, who slept through history class here? WWI, WWII, both WON by a combined effort and ONLY when the US stepped in and provided more men and weapons and skill. Those wars were fought to the end, a winner declared and a victory obtained. Without US help, the French would be fluent in German now. It's laughable that the left, who enjoys the freedoms American men and women died to procure for them, are the first to stand up, raise their fist in the air, and denigrate those very people that guaranteed them the right to be an A.H. As to Afghanistan, Obama did his usual, he voted "Present", declared the war "over" and is leaving. The heck with keeping the peace. Irag is failing because he was too late at negotiating a peace keeping force, as was planned, and will soon be in league with Iran, who will soon have an atomic bomb, at which point you may want to build yourself a nice bomb shelter. Stern letters and offers of friendship will not deter them.
  • #19

    Technically the incidences of which you speak are conflicts and we weren't alone and unaided in those either!!!
  • R Load more replies

  • #64
    Drone killings of US citizens and civilians of sovereign nations that we are not at war with is the most dishonorable unamerican abuse of power so far this century
  • #32
    They should be eliminated. They are an abomination.

    It is bad enough that Congress no longer declares war on nations, and that we have stopped to "declaring" war on a concept (e.g. "terrorism").

    If you have any doubt that drone warfare should be called off, think of this... Would you support Pakistan hunting down their "enemies of the state", without benefit of charge or trial, in US airspace using drones? How would you feel if your family became collateral damage due to a drone strike against the neighbors?

    This is an inept strategy.
  • #21
    It keeps getting down played, but the Benghazi Embassy attack was claimed to be in responce to drone attacks. I am also wondering if most Democrats realize just how wide spread is our use of drones.
  • #17
    As things get worse in America the Govt will need Drones to keep us toeing the Party line. As we lose more and more of our freedoms and are forced to pay more and more and more to support the endless demands of Big Government many Americans won't be happy campers.
  • #15
    After all the liberal whining about waterboarding and any other form of torture to extract helpful information from foreign terrorists whose aim was to kill as many Americans as possible, why aren't they up in arms about this? This is worse than waterboarding.

    To me, if obama gets the okay to do this, who's to say he won't expand on his own and use them here in our country. For him the Constitution is just an old piece of paper someone wrote on a long time ago.

    And yes, I've been told he's a Constitutional lawyer, but I just don't see it.
  • #23
    Why are you comparing torture to war tactics? Drones are no different than sending manned jets and dropping bombs, so if the bombs are going to be dropped (which they have been for a decade), why not drop them w/out risking US lives? I understand if you are against the war on terror and would prefer no bombs being dropped at all (which is my stance), but I don't see how this relates at all to torture.
  • #36
    @AceLuby Agree with not using any bombs or planes at all. It's a sissy way to fight. There'd be less wars if people had to face the people they call their enemies, instead of hiding behind computers. It no longer takes courage to fight in a war or be a soldier if they fight with drones and such.
  • #66
    I so love the way people like you take a statement and spin it to mean something not at all intended. I merely compared the liberal whining about the waterboarding to their silence about this.
    I am not against the war on terror, I just don't think this president and Congress should be the ones making decisions and running it. They're the very ones who lost Viet Nam for us. You just can't run a war from a plushy seat in the vaulted halls of Congress and the White House.
  • #74
    @Bambi They are two different things. One is a war crime that has been banned internationally, yet was recently deemed 'legal' by some lawyers in DC. The other is a war tactic to keep US citizens from having to fly dangerous missions. The alternatives are to not bomb at all, or send in manned aircrafts, risking American lives. Since you are not against the war on terror, which one would you prefer?

    I also think you need to do a little bit of studying on why congress is in charge of declaring war, who is in charge of our military, and the reason why we lost Vietnam, despite defeating them 10:1. I'll give you a hint... if someone invaded our country like we did Vietnam, how difficult would you think it would be for them to control us... we'd all die before being ruled by an outsider...
  • #7
    I don't like obama turning war into a simple video game. There is something inherently unholy about that method. However, the liberals on this site are adamant that we just bomb random villages and kill innocent women and children with no regard to the pain and heartache and blow back this will create. Doesn't the liberal "hands off" style of war that has no goal to accomplish remind you of the terrorists themselves? No wonder liberals have such an affinity for terrorists, they think just like them.
  • #26
    ah neo, you know...i normally ignore your clearly partylined and ignorant posts, but this one...just a little to far from the truth. Liberals didnt create the war. The article clearly mentioned most democrats do not support this kind of warfare. now that thats cleared up, let me ask this. now that you have a symbol to project upon, what is the difference between a jdam artillery strike and a hellfire missle from a drone. both project payloads over long distances. the drone actually has like 6 cameras observing every situation and it is controlled by a human. it is the policies of which the drone can be used of which we all have a problem. but no, lets not pay attention to common sense or do any thinking for ourselves. lets just say the most uninformed and propaganda driven thing we can possibly come up with. "the liberals on this site are adamant that we just bomb random villages and kill innocent people" you have not one inkling of evidence of this or do you even know what your talking about. fact. the policies of the middle eastern war has been under bi-partisan counil if not right leaning since the beginning of the war. you are the reason i cannot support republican policies 100 percent. you are the reason this nation is divided. you are worse than the media because you do not even hide the fact that your blatantly lying. im actually half convinced that you are a person making fun of right only leaning partyliners.
  • #92
    "I don't like obama turning war into a simple video game. There is something inherently unholy about that method. "

    You know, Bill Maher got fired for saying much the same thing. Is that you, Bill? C'mon, it's all right, you can come out of your "Neo" disguise. ;)
  • #43
    No I do not. There is collateral damage in every war and there is less with drones than with boot on the the ground. We have become a nations of losers of wars. Because we won't fight by the same rules those we war with. They attack women and children then hid behind women and children. That's regrettable. But when they decide to stop attacking non Islam is when I would to decide to stop using drones on them. There are no civilians in Islam.
  • #10
    The drones are in effectively robots, replacing flesh and blood U.S. Service personal on the battlefield, thereby saving American lives.
    I am all for drones on the battlefield used against the enemy.
    I am opposed to using them against our own citizens on American oil. I am opposed to Police using them to spy on citizens without a warrant.
    I am not opposed to using them against U.S. citizens on foreign soil aiding and abetting the enemy. If you lie with dogs you get fleas. If you lie with terrorists, you get drones.
  • #53

    And ruin soldiers lives who fly them. At least one had to walk away from his position due to the trama of watching women and children die from his orders.
  • #58
    @NavinRJohnson Very true. I am sure that operating these drones is a horribly stressful job. Hopefully these guys will get the help that they need. However - at least these guys can WALK away from the job without their legs being blown off by IEDs.
  • R Load more replies

  • #99
    ONLY on foreign enemy soil ....not on american soil EVER ,,,reason being ..invasion of privacy and a hint that this government is becoming a dictator state or communist state ...If we use them to eliminate criminals on our own soil there WILL be innocent by standards..
  • #94
    There is NO difference between a US drone attack and a bomb put on an airplane. Both are murders committed from a distance by terrorists. Countries that use remote control weapons are the worst war criminals of all.

    When people resist the invasion of their countries, they (try to) use the same weapons (or weapons of the same destructive power) as the invading army. When invaders had swords, the resistance used swords. When invaders had guns, the resistors had guns. When invaders had tanks and airplanes, the resistance used ambush, suicide bombs, homemade missiles, IEDs, etc. to even the fight.

    Now that the US is engaging in the worst sort of terrorism, the cowardice of killing from a distance without any danger of being harmed, what do you think Al Qaeda are going to do? Give up? They'll make even more effort to get their hands on chemical or biological weapons, or get a nuclear weapon and use it on US soil. You better expect tens of thousands or even millions dead the next time there's an attack inside the US.
  • #98
    sounds like you might not mind volunteering yourself or your children if you have any,
    to go to the front lines of war and ask for a peaceful resolution.
  • #93
    No, and hell no" and waterboarding, what ever is necessary, to bring an end to what is always bullsh** political,or bleeding heart, wars. if these politicians don't agree then
    send their kids to fight for them. another thing! if any bleeding heart's, that disagree
    with the thought that unintended casualties are not a part of war, well all I can say is we don't wan't to hear you cry if a terrorist, wreaks havoc here in the homeland!
  • #91
    The prez has too much authority on assaniations. That is what it really is. If you don't like a small leader just feed him some lead!
  • R Load more comments...