Skip to main content

View Diary: Drones, Drones, Drones, Drones (40 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Do you really think that we'd have (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ffour, David Futurama

    manned aircraft hovering 24/7 over parts of Pakistan?

    A country that we're not even really at war with (other than as part of the GWOT, which means we're pretty much at war with everyone and everything as the situation shifts . .. . .).

    •  Pakistan seems to be protesting pretty softly. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OIL GUY, Quicklund, Adam AZ, Loge

      C'mon, you and I both know there's a wink and a nod going on there.

      And, no, we're not going to be sending in drones where there's a stable government that can control their territory and allow us to capture and extradite our enemies.

      That's why we didn't bomb Pakistani cities -- the local cops were good at rounding up KSM and a few of the others.

      "Michael Moore, who was filming a movie about corporate welfare called 'Capitalism: A Love Story,' sought and received incentives."

      by Bush Bites on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:09:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pakistan wants our drones there because (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        just another vet, ffour

        90% of the time, they're involved in fighting their civil war for them, they have nothing to do with our national interests wrt to combating terrorism aimed at the USA.

        Why the fuck are we doing that?  And, if our troops were at stake, would we be doing it?

        Think about those questions against the (rather idiotic) premise offered in this diary.

        •  Pakistan at the very beginning barred airstrikes (0+ / 0-)

          Way back in 2001 when the US was preparing to go into Afghanistan our government was of course putting the pressure on Pakistan for overflight rights and other supporting needs. Right from this beginning point Pakistan made it known that she would not tolerate airstrikes by the USAF/USN inside Pakistani territory. That would be seen as an inability by Pakistan to protect its own airspace and/or evidence of a failed nation. I remember bits of this story appearing on the news.

          But that was when the drone concept was just getting rolling. Originally drones were used 100% of the time for recon. Pakistan was willing to allow these stealthy things to take pictures.

          It was only later that they were retrofitted with some missile capability. So Pakistan was sort of like the frog in the pot of heating water. Drones shifted gradually from spy planes to weapons. However Pakistan could have told the US to stop using drones at any point. So it is hard to conclude anything other than Pakistan wants the drones there too. Or at least prefers them there to the political fallout from denying them.

    •  If we decided we needed the intel, yes. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OIL GUY, Adam AZ, KayCeSF

      We sent a spy plane over Russia, during the Cold War.  We will send people where we need them.

      "But the problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence." - President Clinton

      by anonevent on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 06:17:44 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  You seem to have no idea what the drones (4+ / 0-)

        are doing over there

        Or are being deliberately obtuse, who knows.

        If not the latter, here's something that might clue you in

        •  Different conversations (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KayCeSF

          Would it be better to have manned aircraft flying higher, versus would it be better not to have air strikes at all.  If we're going to have air strikes, I'd rather have drones specifically because they have a greater capability to limit collateral damage.  And I'd rather have air strikes than ground invasions or doing nothing.  But both should take a backseat to using carrots, and largely have, but drones get more attention because of the new technology factor, which the diarist is right to note is secondary.

          Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

          by Loge on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 09:59:57 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, the drones are used to deliberately increase (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            David Futurama

            the collateral damage.  I guess you aren't familiar with the "double tap" method where a missile is fired and then we deliberately wait until rescue workers show up to launch a second missile to kill them as well.

            You have watched Faux News, now lose 2d10 SAN.

            by Throw The Bums Out on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:22:05 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  That doesn't contradict what I said (0+ / 0-)

              which was conditional.  It's not the same as shock and awe or carpet bombing, and of course, the double tap method isn't necessarily inconsistent with limiting collateral damage in all cases (we're not talking about the Red Cross here), and can be used by manned planes as well in at least some circumstances. I wish there were greater transparency, but I don't trust the critics not to exaggerate either.  But the point is, it's an argument not about the drones but a narrower one about current drone policy.

              Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

              by Loge on Thu Mar 07, 2013 at 10:40:38 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site