nah, im just not into a president being able to craft a kill list at his discretion, kill american citizens, declare himself judge, jury, and executioner
not into terrorizing innocent civilians in their own sovereign country
not into perpetual wars
not into drooling over UN statistics as the gospel
not into exporting the deadliest weapons we can dream up to our "allies"
not into a president who subverts congress
not into sycophantic hypocrisy
0
gosh, i thought nukes were the future?
im misinformed?????
nah, im just not into a president being able to craft a kill list at his discretion, kill american citizens, declare himself judge, jury, and executioner
not into terrorizing innocent civilians in their own sovereign country
not into perpetual wars
not into drooling over UN statistics as the gospel
not into exporting the deadliest weapons we can dream up to our "allies"
With anything, they can be abused. But as of right now they seem to be working. As least that's what they are telling us (like Rooster said). This is one of the few aspects of the Obama Administration Republicans are happy with.
The first thread I ever started on Covers was the day after we got Bin Laden. It was titled "Are You Against Waterboarding..." It is on my home page if you want to check it out. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the media and others in this country. They are against waterboarding terrorists suspects because Bush did it and Obama is against it but are perfectly fine with using drones because Obama is doing it.
0
With anything, they can be abused. But as of right now they seem to be working. As least that's what they are telling us (like Rooster said). This is one of the few aspects of the Obama Administration Republicans are happy with.
The first thread I ever started on Covers was the day after we got Bin Laden. It was titled "Are You Against Waterboarding..." It is on my home page if you want to check it out. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the media and others in this country. They are against waterboarding terrorists suspects because Bush did it and Obama is against it but are perfectly fine with using drones because Obama is doing it.
You’re missing the point of the argument here… You’re
backtracking,,,
They also don’t pose a 4th amendment violation
within the international community. I guess you haven’t you read through the UN
charter for self-defense. You’re misinformed about that as well. You’re not
very knowledgeable about the legality and effectiveness of these drones it
seems like.. You and rooster seem to be pulling bullshit out of your ass. There’s
no nice way to say it.
It’s not about crafting a kill list at his discretion it’s
about self-defense and the breach of peace (the legality of drones) according
to article 39 and 51.. of the UN International law.
You thought nukes were the future?? You thought RP was
the future.. Again laughable.Paul bots
have been powered off my friend it’s time to move forward and advance as a
society and discriminate in the battle zone get ahead,,, It’s the president’s
job to gear up and argue among the international law community that these
drones are legalas is the basis for
targeted killings and it’s the president’s
job to defend the political legitimacyof the use of these predators strikes.Not move backwards in time abolishing departments, cutting all kinds of
aid, removing any kind of foreign occupation, eliminating any kind of imports..
Again stop following the rest of the paul bots and come back to reality rooster.
Never said I would be in favor of using drone strikes for
all out wars or military engagements. In terms of small (not perpetual wars, where
are you getting this horse shit ??)scale
operations, the technology and the practice of targeted killing maintains its
legality. The UN facts provide evidence
that they are working, you have on the other hand provided pieces of anecdotal bullshit
and petty sycophantic insults…..The
idea is that the CIA may use force and has the authority to act covertly under
orders from the president and disclosure to Congress, as long as provided in US
Law and UN international Law.
I suppose you oughta keep listening to the thumbnail
version of drone warfare as portrayed in the media… Keep feeding yourself that garbage..
I guess the venerable view of the law nations is all that
matters, not your vision of radical skepticism about the very existence of law
in international affairs…
Both rick and rooster you guys seem to miss the point
here,,,, the US govt has in recent years left a huge deficitas to how its actions constitute a coherent
statement of international law.. For once Washington should move to get ahead
of a contested issue of international legal legitimacy and “soft law”. The
Obama administration should get out in front of this practice and claim to the
people of this statethat this both a necessity
and acts on the humanitarian minimization of force..
0
You’re missing the point of the argument here… You’re
backtracking,,,
They also don’t pose a 4th amendment violation
within the international community. I guess you haven’t you read through the UN
charter for self-defense. You’re misinformed about that as well. You’re not
very knowledgeable about the legality and effectiveness of these drones it
seems like.. You and rooster seem to be pulling bullshit out of your ass. There’s
no nice way to say it.
It’s not about crafting a kill list at his discretion it’s
about self-defense and the breach of peace (the legality of drones) according
to article 39 and 51.. of the UN International law.
You thought nukes were the future?? You thought RP was
the future.. Again laughable.Paul bots
have been powered off my friend it’s time to move forward and advance as a
society and discriminate in the battle zone get ahead,,, It’s the president’s
job to gear up and argue among the international law community that these
drones are legalas is the basis for
targeted killings and it’s the president’s
job to defend the political legitimacyof the use of these predators strikes.Not move backwards in time abolishing departments, cutting all kinds of
aid, removing any kind of foreign occupation, eliminating any kind of imports..
Again stop following the rest of the paul bots and come back to reality rooster.
Never said I would be in favor of using drone strikes for
all out wars or military engagements. In terms of small (not perpetual wars, where
are you getting this horse shit ??)scale
operations, the technology and the practice of targeted killing maintains its
legality. The UN facts provide evidence
that they are working, you have on the other hand provided pieces of anecdotal bullshit
and petty sycophantic insults…..The
idea is that the CIA may use force and has the authority to act covertly under
orders from the president and disclosure to Congress, as long as provided in US
Law and UN international Law.
I suppose you oughta keep listening to the thumbnail
version of drone warfare as portrayed in the media… Keep feeding yourself that garbage..
I guess the venerable view of the law nations is all that
matters, not your vision of radical skepticism about the very existence of law
in international affairs…
Both rick and rooster you guys seem to miss the point
here,,,, the US govt has in recent years left a huge deficitas to how its actions constitute a coherent
statement of international law.. For once Washington should move to get ahead
of a contested issue of international legal legitimacy and “soft law”. The
Obama administration should get out in front of this practice and claim to the
people of this statethat this both a necessity
and acts on the humanitarian minimization of force..
How do you figure that domestic use of drones do not pose a forth amendment violation?
Wasn't sure which facet of the drones you were referring to I understand the article is about the use of drones over the US domestically. I was referring to the US utilizing drones over seas in other countries.
I would agree the use of drones over the United states is a contested issue. I'm not sure how I would ultimately feel about that. Whether it's a violation or not is up to the Supreme court to decide similar to the patriot act I would assume....
Your opinion on the use of drones domestically or mine really doesn't matter at all.
I'd more like to hear what you think of the use of drones internationally with regards to what I said in my previous post...
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
How do you figure that domestic use of drones do not pose a forth amendment violation?
Wasn't sure which facet of the drones you were referring to I understand the article is about the use of drones over the US domestically. I was referring to the US utilizing drones over seas in other countries.
I would agree the use of drones over the United states is a contested issue. I'm not sure how I would ultimately feel about that. Whether it's a violation or not is up to the Supreme court to decide similar to the patriot act I would assume....
Your opinion on the use of drones domestically or mine really doesn't matter at all.
I'd more like to hear what you think of the use of drones internationally with regards to what I said in my previous post...
You’re missing the point of the argument here… You’re
backtracking,,,
They also don’t pose a 4th amendment violation
within the international community. I guess you haven’t you read through the UN
charter for self-defense. You’re misinformed about that as well. You’re not
very knowledgeable about the legality and effectiveness of these drones it
seems like.. You and rooster seem to be pulling bullshit out of your ass. There’s
no nice way to say it.
It’s not about crafting a kill list at his discretion it’s
about self-defense and the breach of peace (the legality of drones) according
to article 39 and 51.. of the UN International law.
You thought nukes were the future?? You thought RP was
the future.. Again laughable.Paul bots
have been powered off my friend it’s time to move forward and advance as a
society and discriminate in the battle zone get ahead,,, It’s the president’s
job to gear up and argue among the international law community that these
drones are legalas is the basis for
targeted killings and it’s the president’s
job to defend the political legitimacyof the use of these predators strikes.Not move backwards in time abolishing departments, cutting all kinds of
aid, removing any kind of foreign occupation, eliminating any kind of imports..
Again stop following the rest of the paul bots and come back to reality rooster.
Never said I would be in favor of using drone strikes for
all out wars or military engagements. In terms of small (not perpetual wars, where
are you getting this horse shit ??)scale
operations, the technology and the practice of targeted killing maintains its
legality. The UN facts provide evidence
that they are working, you have on the other hand provided pieces of anecdotal bullshit
and petty sycophantic insults…..The
idea is that the CIA may use force and has the authority to act covertly under
orders from the president and disclosure to Congress, as long as provided in US
Law and UN international Law.
I suppose you oughta keep listening to the thumbnail
version of drone warfare as portrayed in the media… Keep feeding yourself that garbage..
I guess the venerable view of the law nations is all that
matters, not your vision of radical skepticism about the very existence of law
in international affairs…
Both rick and rooster you guys seem to miss the point
here,,,, the US govt has in recent years left a huge deficitas to how its actions constitute a coherent
statement of international law.. For once Washington should move to get ahead
of a contested issue of international legal legitimacy and “soft law”. The
Obama administration should get out in front of this practice and claim to the
people of this statethat this both a necessity
and acts on the humanitarian minimization of force..
so if a chinese dissident was hiding in the us, youd be ok with them sending in a drone to take him out without any consent
fuck the UN
but keep trying to convince yourself that if bush was still in office doing the same thing, you'd be defending him
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
You’re missing the point of the argument here… You’re
backtracking,,,
They also don’t pose a 4th amendment violation
within the international community. I guess you haven’t you read through the UN
charter for self-defense. You’re misinformed about that as well. You’re not
very knowledgeable about the legality and effectiveness of these drones it
seems like.. You and rooster seem to be pulling bullshit out of your ass. There’s
no nice way to say it.
It’s not about crafting a kill list at his discretion it’s
about self-defense and the breach of peace (the legality of drones) according
to article 39 and 51.. of the UN International law.
You thought nukes were the future?? You thought RP was
the future.. Again laughable.Paul bots
have been powered off my friend it’s time to move forward and advance as a
society and discriminate in the battle zone get ahead,,, It’s the president’s
job to gear up and argue among the international law community that these
drones are legalas is the basis for
targeted killings and it’s the president’s
job to defend the political legitimacyof the use of these predators strikes.Not move backwards in time abolishing departments, cutting all kinds of
aid, removing any kind of foreign occupation, eliminating any kind of imports..
Again stop following the rest of the paul bots and come back to reality rooster.
Never said I would be in favor of using drone strikes for
all out wars or military engagements. In terms of small (not perpetual wars, where
are you getting this horse shit ??)scale
operations, the technology and the practice of targeted killing maintains its
legality. The UN facts provide evidence
that they are working, you have on the other hand provided pieces of anecdotal bullshit
and petty sycophantic insults…..The
idea is that the CIA may use force and has the authority to act covertly under
orders from the president and disclosure to Congress, as long as provided in US
Law and UN international Law.
I suppose you oughta keep listening to the thumbnail
version of drone warfare as portrayed in the media… Keep feeding yourself that garbage..
I guess the venerable view of the law nations is all that
matters, not your vision of radical skepticism about the very existence of law
in international affairs…
Both rick and rooster you guys seem to miss the point
here,,,, the US govt has in recent years left a huge deficitas to how its actions constitute a coherent
statement of international law.. For once Washington should move to get ahead
of a contested issue of international legal legitimacy and “soft law”. The
Obama administration should get out in front of this practice and claim to the
people of this statethat this both a necessity
and acts on the humanitarian minimization of force..
so if a chinese dissident was hiding in the us, youd be ok with them sending in a drone to take him out without any consent
fuck the UN
but keep trying to convince yourself that if bush was still in office doing the same thing, you'd be defending him
What if said dissident had 4 red blooded American citizens living in the same apartment building. Would that be acceptable collateral damage? It would be considered a success in many circles. Doesn't really hit home til you think about that.
0
What if said dissident had 4 red blooded American citizens living in the same apartment building. Would that be acceptable collateral damage? It would be considered a success in many circles. Doesn't really hit home til you think about that.
If you look at the history of modern warfare it has always been a case of us growing in technology at a rate faster than our understanding of the ethical uses. Fire bombings in WWII were a great example of expedient battle changers that took a terrible human toll. The fire bombings of Dresden etc. when you disengage the actual act of killing the numbers are almost irrelevant. How many civilians died while targeting Ghaddafi's young grandchildren? When we are essentially engaged in a war that depends on limiting insurgents and capturing the "hearts and minds of a populous high civilian causality rates are unacceptable. It is counter productive. It creates generations of hate and fuels the insurgency. The idea of blowback is a real thing. Not just something that peacenik hippies talk about. There are tangible results of scorched earth policies that are not conducive to the wars of our age.
0
If you look at the history of modern warfare it has always been a case of us growing in technology at a rate faster than our understanding of the ethical uses. Fire bombings in WWII were a great example of expedient battle changers that took a terrible human toll. The fire bombings of Dresden etc. when you disengage the actual act of killing the numbers are almost irrelevant. How many civilians died while targeting Ghaddafi's young grandchildren? When we are essentially engaged in a war that depends on limiting insurgents and capturing the "hearts and minds of a populous high civilian causality rates are unacceptable. It is counter productive. It creates generations of hate and fuels the insurgency. The idea of blowback is a real thing. Not just something that peacenik hippies talk about. There are tangible results of scorched earth policies that are not conducive to the wars of our age.
rooster, if a chinese was dissident hiding and it came to the use of a drone to ultimately find the person I would agree that they would need some kind of consent to operate. um no.. you're wrong about your whole bush analogy. I was an staunch supporter of the Iraq war from the very beginning, believe it or not, One of the few things about bush I supported I guess because I was living in NY at the time of 9/11.. had a stronger connection then someone living out in Utah to these terrorist attacks.... However it's too bad that Bush never really had the technology. Although he did use drone strikes and targeted killings on a few al Qaeda members the number sky rocketed from 33 drones in 2008 to 188 in 2010. Regardless of how you feel about them domestically they've proven time and time again during the Obama administration's foreign policy agenda's to be successful..
rick, These are implausible theories that have no binding to them. Want to bring up that ticking time bomb theory regarding torture. That crap doesn't happen. Neither would it come to this..
Bush's whole strategy during the Iraq war though was to utilize a small mobile army moving from village to village. Didn't work obviously and many outside his circle of trust knew this but he was too stubborn to take advice from anyone else. The notion of the U.S. getting attacked by non-state combatants (terrorists) presents a clear dilemma. You can't declare war on terror, well I guess you can Bush did in the "Global war on terror"... And wasn't he correct? As a practical matter this global characterization of a long struggle like the Cold War is very accurate. Whether or not you think we shouldn't be there at all is a different discussion but because we're there right now (and should be using drones there rather than our own blood for self-defense purposes) and the minimal levels of targeted killing meets the threshold of the UN charter for self defense. So why not take advantage of this technology and reduce the number of our own soldiers death count as well as collateral damage abroad. The technology is only going to get better like you pointed out and the civilian causalities from the beginning of the Obama admin up until now as a result of drone usage has decreased drastically.
0
rooster, if a chinese was dissident hiding and it came to the use of a drone to ultimately find the person I would agree that they would need some kind of consent to operate. um no.. you're wrong about your whole bush analogy. I was an staunch supporter of the Iraq war from the very beginning, believe it or not, One of the few things about bush I supported I guess because I was living in NY at the time of 9/11.. had a stronger connection then someone living out in Utah to these terrorist attacks.... However it's too bad that Bush never really had the technology. Although he did use drone strikes and targeted killings on a few al Qaeda members the number sky rocketed from 33 drones in 2008 to 188 in 2010. Regardless of how you feel about them domestically they've proven time and time again during the Obama administration's foreign policy agenda's to be successful..
rick, These are implausible theories that have no binding to them. Want to bring up that ticking time bomb theory regarding torture. That crap doesn't happen. Neither would it come to this..
Bush's whole strategy during the Iraq war though was to utilize a small mobile army moving from village to village. Didn't work obviously and many outside his circle of trust knew this but he was too stubborn to take advice from anyone else. The notion of the U.S. getting attacked by non-state combatants (terrorists) presents a clear dilemma. You can't declare war on terror, well I guess you can Bush did in the "Global war on terror"... And wasn't he correct? As a practical matter this global characterization of a long struggle like the Cold War is very accurate. Whether or not you think we shouldn't be there at all is a different discussion but because we're there right now (and should be using drones there rather than our own blood for self-defense purposes) and the minimal levels of targeted killing meets the threshold of the UN charter for self defense. So why not take advantage of this technology and reduce the number of our own soldiers death count as well as collateral damage abroad. The technology is only going to get better like you pointed out and the civilian causalities from the beginning of the Obama admin up until now as a result of drone usage has decreased drastically.
rooster, if a chinese was dissident hiding and it came to the use of a drone to ultimately find the person I would agree that they would need some kind of consent to operate. um no.. you're wrong about your whole bush analogy. I was an staunch supporter of the Iraq war from the very beginning, believe it or not, One of the few things about bush I supported I guess because I was living in NY at the time of 9/11.. had a stronger connection then someone living out in Utah to these terrorist attacks.... However it's too bad that Bush never really had the technology. Although he did use drone strikes and targeted killings on a few al Qaeda members the number sky rocketed from 33 drones in 2008 to 188 in 2010. Regardless of how you feel about them domestically they've proven time and time again during the Obama administration's foreign policy agenda's to be successful..
rick, These are implausible theories that have no binding to them. Want to bring up that ticking time bomb theory regarding torture. That crap doesn't happen. Neither would it come to this..
Bush's whole strategy during the Iraq war though was to utilize a small mobile army moving from village to village. Didn't work obviously and many outside his circle of trust knew this but he was too stubborn to take advice from anyone else. The notion of the U.S. getting attacked by non-state combatants (terrorists) presents a clear dilemma. You can't declare war on terror, well I guess you can Bush did in the "Global war on terror"... And wasn't he correct? As a practical matter this global characterization of a long struggle like the Cold War is very accurate. Whether or not you think we shouldn't be there at all is a different discussion but because we're there right now (and should be using drones there rather than our own blood for self-defense purposes) and the minimal levels of targeted killing meets the threshold of the UN charter for self defense. So why not take advantage of this technology and reduce the number of our own soldiers death count as well as collateral damage abroad. The technology is only going to get better like you pointed out and the civilian causalities from the beginning of the Obama admin up until now as a result of drone usage has decreased drastically.
look chachi.......
your "connection" to whatever you experienced had nothing to do with the irag war
the iraq war was in 2003
we went into afghanistani in 2001 as a response to the bombings on 9/11
you are the one who has no clue what he is talking about
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
rooster, if a chinese was dissident hiding and it came to the use of a drone to ultimately find the person I would agree that they would need some kind of consent to operate. um no.. you're wrong about your whole bush analogy. I was an staunch supporter of the Iraq war from the very beginning, believe it or not, One of the few things about bush I supported I guess because I was living in NY at the time of 9/11.. had a stronger connection then someone living out in Utah to these terrorist attacks.... However it's too bad that Bush never really had the technology. Although he did use drone strikes and targeted killings on a few al Qaeda members the number sky rocketed from 33 drones in 2008 to 188 in 2010. Regardless of how you feel about them domestically they've proven time and time again during the Obama administration's foreign policy agenda's to be successful..
rick, These are implausible theories that have no binding to them. Want to bring up that ticking time bomb theory regarding torture. That crap doesn't happen. Neither would it come to this..
Bush's whole strategy during the Iraq war though was to utilize a small mobile army moving from village to village. Didn't work obviously and many outside his circle of trust knew this but he was too stubborn to take advice from anyone else. The notion of the U.S. getting attacked by non-state combatants (terrorists) presents a clear dilemma. You can't declare war on terror, well I guess you can Bush did in the "Global war on terror"... And wasn't he correct? As a practical matter this global characterization of a long struggle like the Cold War is very accurate. Whether or not you think we shouldn't be there at all is a different discussion but because we're there right now (and should be using drones there rather than our own blood for self-defense purposes) and the minimal levels of targeted killing meets the threshold of the UN charter for self defense. So why not take advantage of this technology and reduce the number of our own soldiers death count as well as collateral damage abroad. The technology is only going to get better like you pointed out and the civilian causalities from the beginning of the Obama admin up until now as a result of drone usage has decreased drastically.
look chachi.......
your "connection" to whatever you experienced had nothing to do with the irag war
the iraq war was in 2003
we went into afghanistani in 2001 as a response to the bombings on 9/11
you are the one who has no clue what he is talking about
Yeah and yet he wasn't in afganistan last year when he captured and killed him,,, I guess I'm not into sycophantic hypocrisy... but that's not what your republican butt buddies were saying half a decade ago....
None of you posts really have anything to do with what I was supporting, utilizing drones overseas... And your chinese dissident examples, domestic examples really have no reason to be discussed,,, its not up to rooster or what he thinks. The U.S govt will do what they need to do regardless of whether you're picketing on the side of the street like those libs & dems were when bush enacted the patriot act.
0
Yeah and yet he wasn't in afganistan last year when he captured and killed him,,, I guess I'm not into sycophantic hypocrisy... but that's not what your republican butt buddies were saying half a decade ago....
None of you posts really have anything to do with what I was supporting, utilizing drones overseas... And your chinese dissident examples, domestic examples really have no reason to be discussed,,, its not up to rooster or what he thinks. The U.S govt will do what they need to do regardless of whether you're picketing on the side of the street like those libs & dems were when bush enacted the patriot act.
Yeah and yet he wasn't in afganistan last year when he captured and killed him,,, I guess I'm not into sycophantic hypocrisy... but that's not what your republican butt buddies were saying half a decade ago....
None of you posts really have anything to do with what I was supporting, utilizing drones overseas... And your chinese dissident examples, domestic examples really have no reason to be discussed,,, its not up to rooster or what he thinks. The U.S govt will do what they need to do regardless of whether you're picketing on the side of the street like those libs & dems were when bush enacted the patriot act.
my "shoe is on the other foot" example has every reason to be discussed
it is the reason your support of terror will never work in the long term, it is a failed ideology that has been proven, no matter the technological advances
no matter what your UN stats conjure up
actually, i was picketing the patriot act, you can ask my senator
now go get yourself a fresh cup of kool-aid
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
Yeah and yet he wasn't in afganistan last year when he captured and killed him,,, I guess I'm not into sycophantic hypocrisy... but that's not what your republican butt buddies were saying half a decade ago....
None of you posts really have anything to do with what I was supporting, utilizing drones overseas... And your chinese dissident examples, domestic examples really have no reason to be discussed,,, its not up to rooster or what he thinks. The U.S govt will do what they need to do regardless of whether you're picketing on the side of the street like those libs & dems were when bush enacted the patriot act.
my "shoe is on the other foot" example has every reason to be discussed
it is the reason your support of terror will never work in the long term, it is a failed ideology that has been proven, no matter the technological advances
no matter what your UN stats conjure up
actually, i was picketing the patriot act, you can ask my senator
That article is extremely misleading..... What drones is the article even referring to aerial spy drones or attack combat drones,etc....? It doesn't specify at all..... As well as it being all speculation anyway....
Also rooster and austin seem to be misinformed here as well.
Drones are the future.. If there's one thing America is good at its technology.. Because humans are really designed god awfully.... if you think about it. Can't withstand any kind of damage etc...
I'm not purporting at all that we compile an army of solely drones and convert our military in to robots by any means. But in terms of small scale self defense attacks to take out top terrorist leaders. we should be all means use drones use them to OUR ADVANTAGE!. Death from above...Inevitable attacks that work and provide a hell of a lot less collateral damage. Without risking our own soldiers....
But like I said in my previous post one
of the most important aspects of warfare is preserving the life of your
own men, while killing those of the enemy. If the general risks the
lives of his own men when a safer alternative exists, than that general
is not acting the best interest.
If terrorists are going to suicide bomb themselves this is the best counter to that. Why the fuck would or should we risk our own soldiers lives to combat suicide bombers? Explain that one....
According
to a 2009 study a UN report cited that :
"The 233 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, including 20 from 2011, from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 1,435 and 2,283 individuals, of whom around 1,145 to 2,283 were described as militants in reliable press accounts. This, the true non-militant fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 21%. in 2010 is was 6 %.....
i am many things, but misinformed is not among them. read my original post. i am not debating the relative merits of drones as a technology. drones on their own are agnostic. it is their application that gives me pause.
a bunch of ivy league wonks in a conference room circle jerking each other and self reinforcing their beliefs and selecting targets is not my idea of a process.
present evidence about why someone is targeted.
clearly delineate the process on drone/no drone decision.
provide post mortem. did we get them? who else did we get? why did we miss? what were the intel shortcomings? how can we improve?
present results. what defines success? how can we improve?
none of this can be done under the veil of secrecy...
and stop with the meaningless stats. did you even read the range of your asinine stats? a range of around 1145 to 2283 out of a population of 2283? so your mornonic stats are a range of +/- roughly 50%???? what a joke.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
That article is extremely misleading..... What drones is the article even referring to aerial spy drones or attack combat drones,etc....? It doesn't specify at all..... As well as it being all speculation anyway....
Also rooster and austin seem to be misinformed here as well.
Drones are the future.. If there's one thing America is good at its technology.. Because humans are really designed god awfully.... if you think about it. Can't withstand any kind of damage etc...
I'm not purporting at all that we compile an army of solely drones and convert our military in to robots by any means. But in terms of small scale self defense attacks to take out top terrorist leaders. we should be all means use drones use them to OUR ADVANTAGE!. Death from above...Inevitable attacks that work and provide a hell of a lot less collateral damage. Without risking our own soldiers....
But like I said in my previous post one
of the most important aspects of warfare is preserving the life of your
own men, while killing those of the enemy. If the general risks the
lives of his own men when a safer alternative exists, than that general
is not acting the best interest.
If terrorists are going to suicide bomb themselves this is the best counter to that. Why the fuck would or should we risk our own soldiers lives to combat suicide bombers? Explain that one....
According
to a 2009 study a UN report cited that :
"The 233 reported drone strikes in northwest Pakistan, including 20 from 2011, from 2004 to the present have killed approximately between 1,435 and 2,283 individuals, of whom around 1,145 to 2,283 were described as militants in reliable press accounts. This, the true non-militant fatality rate since 2004 according to our analysis is approximately 21%. in 2010 is was 6 %.....
i am many things, but misinformed is not among them. read my original post. i am not debating the relative merits of drones as a technology. drones on their own are agnostic. it is their application that gives me pause.
a bunch of ivy league wonks in a conference room circle jerking each other and self reinforcing their beliefs and selecting targets is not my idea of a process.
present evidence about why someone is targeted.
clearly delineate the process on drone/no drone decision.
provide post mortem. did we get them? who else did we get? why did we miss? what were the intel shortcomings? how can we improve?
present results. what defines success? how can we improve?
none of this can be done under the veil of secrecy...
and stop with the meaningless stats. did you even read the range of your asinine stats? a range of around 1145 to 2283 out of a population of 2283? so your mornonic stats are a range of +/- roughly 50%???? what a joke.
i am many things, but misinformed is not among them. read my original post. i am not debating the relative merits of drones as a technology. drones on their own are agnostic. it is their application that gives me pause.
a bunch of ivy league wonks in a conference room circle jerking each other and self reinforcing their beliefs and selecting targets is not my idea of a process.
present evidence about why someone is targeted.
clearly delineate the process on drone/no drone decision.
provide post mortem. did we get them? who else did we get? why did we miss? what were the intel shortcomings? how can we improve?
present results. what defines success? how can we improve?
none of this can be done under the veil of secrecy...
and stop with the meaningless stats. did you even read the range of your asinine stats? a range of around 1145 to 2283 out of a population of 2283? so your mornonic stats are a range of +/- roughly 50%???? what a joke.
These aren't a bunch of ivy league wonk..... There are military commanders, lieutenants... etc.. operating this equipment in Nevada .. in terms of the drones oversea at least.. I dont know where you got the idea that ivy league assclowns are using this equipment..
All of your questions are answered by military commanders, the president. You want all those answers join the military........
They have been deemed effective by the Obama administration in reducing the the number of civilian deaths. Obviously you can't put a number on the precise amount of deaths.... Whats your point? Do you think people have an exact number of deaths for each event that has occurred throughout this this worlds existence???
My point is those statistics represent the reduction in civilian deaths in Iraq and countries in which drones strikes have been present.
0
Quote Originally Posted by AustinHoopDream:
i am many things, but misinformed is not among them. read my original post. i am not debating the relative merits of drones as a technology. drones on their own are agnostic. it is their application that gives me pause.
a bunch of ivy league wonks in a conference room circle jerking each other and self reinforcing their beliefs and selecting targets is not my idea of a process.
present evidence about why someone is targeted.
clearly delineate the process on drone/no drone decision.
provide post mortem. did we get them? who else did we get? why did we miss? what were the intel shortcomings? how can we improve?
present results. what defines success? how can we improve?
none of this can be done under the veil of secrecy...
and stop with the meaningless stats. did you even read the range of your asinine stats? a range of around 1145 to 2283 out of a population of 2283? so your mornonic stats are a range of +/- roughly 50%???? what a joke.
These aren't a bunch of ivy league wonk..... There are military commanders, lieutenants... etc.. operating this equipment in Nevada .. in terms of the drones oversea at least.. I dont know where you got the idea that ivy league assclowns are using this equipment..
All of your questions are answered by military commanders, the president. You want all those answers join the military........
They have been deemed effective by the Obama administration in reducing the the number of civilian deaths. Obviously you can't put a number on the precise amount of deaths.... Whats your point? Do you think people have an exact number of deaths for each event that has occurred throughout this this worlds existence???
My point is those statistics represent the reduction in civilian deaths in Iraq and countries in which drones strikes have been present.
These aren't a bunch of ivy league wonk..... There are military commanders, lieutenants... etc.. operating this equipment in Nevada .. in terms of the drones oversea at least.. I dont know where you got the idea that ivy league assclowns are using this equipment..
All of your questions are answered by military commanders, the president. You want all those answers join the military........
They have been deemed effective by the Obama administration in reducing the the number of civilian deaths. Obviously you can't put a number on the precise amount of deaths.... Whats your point? Do you think people have an exact number of deaths for each event that has occurred throughout this this worlds existence???
My point is those statistics represent the reduction in civilian deaths in Iraq and countries in which drones strikes have been present.
i am not talking about the joystickers in the desert working the killbox360. i am talking about the folks who feed them targets.
you are telling me to shut the fuck up because OBAMA is running a program and OBAMA is telling me it is successful and we the american people just need to take him at his word?
if you are comfortable with that, then quite frankly i have nothing more to discuss with you.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
These aren't a bunch of ivy league wonk..... There are military commanders, lieutenants... etc.. operating this equipment in Nevada .. in terms of the drones oversea at least.. I dont know where you got the idea that ivy league assclowns are using this equipment..
All of your questions are answered by military commanders, the president. You want all those answers join the military........
They have been deemed effective by the Obama administration in reducing the the number of civilian deaths. Obviously you can't put a number on the precise amount of deaths.... Whats your point? Do you think people have an exact number of deaths for each event that has occurred throughout this this worlds existence???
My point is those statistics represent the reduction in civilian deaths in Iraq and countries in which drones strikes have been present.
i am not talking about the joystickers in the desert working the killbox360. i am talking about the folks who feed them targets.
you are telling me to shut the fuck up because OBAMA is running a program and OBAMA is telling me it is successful and we the american people just need to take him at his word?
if you are comfortable with that, then quite frankly i have nothing more to discuss with you.
i am not talking about the joystickers in the desert working the killbox360. i am talking about the folks who feed them targets.
you are telling me to shut the fuck up because OBAMA is running a program and OBAMA is telling me it is successful and we the american people just need to take him at his word?
if you are comfortable with that, then quite frankly i have nothing more to discuss with you.
What I'm saying is under the Obama admin these drone strikes have been extremely effective in taking out the top Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders.
I myself do not know the capacity of the strategic plan that the military and the CIA use to determine these strikes.
I don;t know the answer to that but then again you could ask them same thing about a ton of stuff involved with Obama.. in fact ther are still people that doubt the validity of Obama's birth certificate and believe he was born in kenya.. or wherever.. If you cherry pick individual issues what's the point?
0
Quote Originally Posted by AustinHoopDream:
i am not talking about the joystickers in the desert working the killbox360. i am talking about the folks who feed them targets.
you are telling me to shut the fuck up because OBAMA is running a program and OBAMA is telling me it is successful and we the american people just need to take him at his word?
if you are comfortable with that, then quite frankly i have nothing more to discuss with you.
What I'm saying is under the Obama admin these drone strikes have been extremely effective in taking out the top Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders.
I myself do not know the capacity of the strategic plan that the military and the CIA use to determine these strikes.
I don;t know the answer to that but then again you could ask them same thing about a ton of stuff involved with Obama.. in fact ther are still people that doubt the validity of Obama's birth certificate and believe he was born in kenya.. or wherever.. If you cherry pick individual issues what's the point?
What I'm saying is under the Obama admin these drone strikes have been extremely effective in taking out the top Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders.
I myself do not know the capacity of the strategic plan that the military and the CIA use to determine these strikes.
I don;t know the answer to that but then again you could ask them same thing about a ton of stuff involved with Obama.. in fact ther are still people that doubt the validity of Obama's birth certificate and believe he was born in kenya.. or wherever.. If you cherry pick individual issues what's the point?
as a matter of policy, we cannot as a nation direct military attacks on sovereign nations at the behest of the executive branch with no oversight and zero input from the legislative arm of the government. it will lead to abuse. absolute power corrupts absolutely.
can we use drones on mexican cartels? can we use them on the syrians? can we use them in egypt? how about russia? maybe china? who decides???????/
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
What I'm saying is under the Obama admin these drone strikes have been extremely effective in taking out the top Taliban and Al Qaeda leaders.
I myself do not know the capacity of the strategic plan that the military and the CIA use to determine these strikes.
I don;t know the answer to that but then again you could ask them same thing about a ton of stuff involved with Obama.. in fact ther are still people that doubt the validity of Obama's birth certificate and believe he was born in kenya.. or wherever.. If you cherry pick individual issues what's the point?
as a matter of policy, we cannot as a nation direct military attacks on sovereign nations at the behest of the executive branch with no oversight and zero input from the legislative arm of the government. it will lead to abuse. absolute power corrupts absolutely.
can we use drones on mexican cartels? can we use them on the syrians? can we use them in egypt? how about russia? maybe china? who decides???????/
i am not talking about the joystickers in the desert working the killbox360. i am talking about the folks who feed them targets.
you are telling me to shut the fuck up because OBAMA is running a program and OBAMA is telling me it is successful and we the american people just need to take him at his word?
if you are comfortable with that, then quite frankly i have nothing more to discuss with you.
0
Quote Originally Posted by AustinHoopDream:
i am not talking about the joystickers in the desert working the killbox360. i am talking about the folks who feed them targets.
you are telling me to shut the fuck up because OBAMA is running a program and OBAMA is telling me it is successful and we the american people just need to take him at his word?
if you are comfortable with that, then quite frankly i have nothing more to discuss with you.
as a matter of policy, we cannot as a nation direct military attacks on sovereign nations at the behest of the executive branch with no oversight and zero input from the legislative arm of the government. it will lead to abuse. absolute power corrupts absolutely.
can we use drones on mexican cartels? can we use them on the syrians? can we use them in egypt? how about russia? maybe china? who decides???????/
Again, read through my posts. I haven't said a single thing about whether or not to use drones for mexican cartels syrians etc...
If it turns out in the future that these drones deem more useful in other areas than so be it. That's not their primary purpose as of now.. And I'm not sure it will be.
Specifically regarding the notion of self defense and small scale operations according to the UN charter.
0
Quote Originally Posted by AustinHoopDream:
as a matter of policy, we cannot as a nation direct military attacks on sovereign nations at the behest of the executive branch with no oversight and zero input from the legislative arm of the government. it will lead to abuse. absolute power corrupts absolutely.
can we use drones on mexican cartels? can we use them on the syrians? can we use them in egypt? how about russia? maybe china? who decides???????/
Again, read through my posts. I haven't said a single thing about whether or not to use drones for mexican cartels syrians etc...
If it turns out in the future that these drones deem more useful in other areas than so be it. That's not their primary purpose as of now.. And I'm not sure it will be.
Specifically regarding the notion of self defense and small scale operations according to the UN charter.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
