Skip to main content

View Diary: Handy candidate comparison chart (171 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Cool. (0+ / 0-)

    I had to respond though because the people for whom the drone usage is a top topic often omit the information about what the Romney camp is potentially capable of doing if they were to take power.  Some don't mention it because they assume that people understand how much worse Romney would be and some probably want to avoid that so as to put the max pressure on the Obama Administration to stop the drones.  I understand that two years ago - not so much in the last few days before a close election where a really fucking crazy group of people could potentially win.

    •  I don't understand your reasoning (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      David Futurama, drklassen

      Obama is the POTUS, not Romney. Obama is the one killing innocent civilians with his drone strikes, therefore he must be held accountable (accountability - what a novel idea!). Isn't it how it's supposed to work?

      “In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.” Terry Pratchett

      by 420 forever on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 07:49:32 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Between now and next Tuesday (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        renbear

        people can choose someone other than Obama - that particular someone would be MUCH worse on the FP front and would kill many, many more civilians were they to get the chance.

        I am no fan of Obama.  He's far to the right of me on a ton of issues and I have a long list of complaints, but Romney would be a disaster for this country.  Disaster.  That's a hard cold reality.  

        I will also note that my assessment of the Romney camp comes in part from personal experience.  Those NeoCons you see on TV - they are as nuts, scared and knee-jerk in real life as they appear to be on TV.  It is not an act for effect.  It is real and it is irrational - and really fucking dangerous.

        I don't want to spend my life holding people accountable for senseless killings, I'd much rather prevent the killings.  Holding Obama accountable at this moment in history could easily result in MORE killings if it gave advantage to Romney and his insane NeoCon team.

      •  Just curious (0+ / 0-)

        and please don't flame me but can you explain your opposition to drone strikes beyond the killing of innocent civilians? It seems to me that the targeting of specific individuals responsible for certain terrorists acts via drone strikes is certainly preferable to a non-surgical strike or even marching troops in.

        The individuals targeted are going to be taken out - its just the mechanism that is used to do so.

        •  uhm (4+ / 0-)
          ...can you explain your opposition to drone strikes beyond the killing of innocent civilians...
          maybe next week (after Nov 7th) the convo about this (on DKos) can continue.

          Get out there and get peace, think peace, live peace, and breathe peace, and you'll get it as soon as you like.” ~ John Lennon

          by Lady Libertine on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 09:22:27 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think the problem is the focus on the drones (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            kefauver

            which really distracts from what I believe most here who have a major problem with them are motivated by, which is anti-war sentiment in general.

            vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

            by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 10:01:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  while i am against the current crop of wars... (4+ / 0-)

              for other reasons (you are probably correct in assuming a general anti-war bias) the use of drones is foolish for practical reasons.  some of those are the same reasons that the use of other blunt instruments like air assaults with conventional weapons and troop invasions are impractical and foolish.  

              first, the "surgical" precision of drones is total hype.  the recent stanford/nyu study on their use in pakistan showed that 98% of drone strikes fail to hit a high value target and they have killed and maimed far more civilians than "the most transparent administration ever" is willing to fess up to.

              second, some of us lived through vietnam.  we learned things from that experience that are applicable to this situation.

              here's a great article to give you some food for thought, and here's a snippet:

              The Twisted Logic of Drone Warfare

              The main argument for using attack drones is that they are hurting the “enemy” and draining him of his strength and will to fight. But this then begs a simple question. Is that true?

              The Pentagon has about 7,000 drones at its disposal, not all of them being for attack purposes. One region that has seen their greatest use is the Afghanistan / Pakistan theatre, or “AfPak” as the area is commonly called. For several years now a sustained targeted drone campaign has been carried in an effort to weaken the “insurgents” (who are, for the most part, local Afghan fighters). It has been estimated that over the past decade somewhere between 1,800 to 3,100 people have been killed in the region by US drone strikes. And while the US government would argue that the vast majority of the people killed were combatants, some estimates show that for every “insurgent” killed, 10 civilians were also killed.

              So are drones effective at reducing the will of the “enemy” to fight? Recent figures out of Afghanistan are discouraging. The number of attacks reportedly carried out by “insurgents” in the period from April to June 2012 was actually 11% higher than during the same period of 2011. This resulted in almost 110 attacks a day during the month of June 2012, the highest number of attacks for that month since the war began. These statistics do not appear to be in line with an effective counterterrorism policy that is sapping the will of the enemy to fight. On the contrary, one could argue that drone strikes are only encouraging more violence on the part of the “insurgents.”

              i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

              by joe shikspack on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:11:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's completely practical; that's why they're (0+ / 0-)

                being used.

                1. Cheaper to fly

                2. Doesn't put pilot's lives at risk

                The article you included is a subjective take on the moral or ethical logic, which is obviously gray at best in any case of armed conflict. Still, if you assume we would be shooting missiles or conducting airstrikes if drones didn't exist, then I still don't understand the "logic" behind focusing on drones themselves.

                Also, and this is just my opinion, it turns people off as an oft-repeated buzzword and distracts from real conversations about how and why strikes are conducted in general.

                vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

                by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:31:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  if we were using those other instruments... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  420 forever, Agathena

                  i would be complaining about them, too.  if drones had not been invented, history shows that the sort of people who are willing to kill people with drones are not in the least put off by killing in even larger numbers with other instruments.  the problem is not the instruments, it is the idiots that are prosecuting a war whose stated purpose (responding to those that executed the 9/11) expired long ago.  

                  i'm part of the 99% - america's largest minority

                  by joe shikspack on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:39:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Well we agree on one part at least (0+ / 0-)
                    the problem is not the instruments,
                    Perhaps we can collaborate on efforts to hold the administration to, or even hasten, the Afghanistan withdrawal if Obama is reelected.

                    vigilant "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

                    by GoGoGoEverton on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 01:55:23 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Have you read about the WWII Blitz in London? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  drklassen, joe shikspack, joanneleon

                  I have actually spoken to Londoners who lived through the Nazi drone attacks. They couldn't be shot down and they terrorized the population.

                  The V1 They had no pilot and made a droning noise. As soon as the droning noise stopped people had 15 seconds to escape from the powerful blast that followed.

                  The V2 - The V2's arrived without any warning sound. They also flew very fast and high up in the air; much too high to be shot down by the anti-aircraft guns of fighter aircraft.

                  Think of what drones are doing to the innocent populations in Somalia, Pakistan all the other targeted countries. Broaden your awareness enough to encompass the entire picture of a drone attack from the person pushing the buttons to the horror the weapon inflicts on innocent people.

                  ❧To thine ownself be true

                  by Agathena on Wed Oct 31, 2012 at 04:20:03 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Drones "doesn't put pilot's lives at risk" ... (0+ / 0-)

                  How many lives do pilots have, anyway?  But this:

                  "Dear Religion, this week I safely dropped a man from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

                  Dear Religion, this week you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school.  This week I bombed a child gathering firewood by remote control from thousands of miles away, and then bombed the people who came to carry away her body.  Yours, Science.

          •  Sure. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Lady Libertine, kefauver

            I don't mean to lessen the impact of the drones. Merely to suggest that if it were an F-18 strike, cruise missile or troops - the body count would be much higher. See you after 11/7.

        •  In one word: (0+ / 0-)

          Assassination.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site