Skip to main content

Alexis C. Madrigal at The Atlantic writes that When it comes to drones, men are from Mars and women are from some other planet not named after the Roman God of perpetual war:
Pew's out with an international poll that shows, across countries and overall levels of support, a striking gender gap exists on support for American drone strikes.

Women were much less likely to approve of "the United States conducting missile strikes from pilotless aircraft called drones to target extremists in countries such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia."

Pew international poll on women and drone warfare
In Japan, for example, support for drone strikes was 30 percentage points lower than their male counterparts. The smallest gaps—in France, South Korea, and Uganda—were 14, 14, and 13 percentage points, respectively. On average, there was a 22-point gap between male and female support for drone strikes, and it didn't matter if there was considerable overall support for strikes or not.

"Gender gaps are also often seen in global surveys over the use of military force, with women far less likely than men to say that force is sometimes necessary in the pursuit of justice," wrote Bruce Stokes, Director of Global Economic Attitudes at the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project, in introducing the data. "But the gender difference over drone strikes is unusually large."

The most directly comparable poll we could find focused on conflict in the Persian Gulf in the early 90s. Researchers asked whether respondents would support US military action if the embargo in Iraq failed. On average, men supported the option more than women by 7 percentage points. But there was considerably more geographic variation. Women in Ankara (the researchers surveyed by city rather than country) showed more support for the intervention than men there. Musocvites were roughly even, too. The differences were small in Lagos and Rome; largest in Stuttgart (-17), Tokyo (-15), and Mexico City (-15). The drone data, by contrast, shows a much more consistent pattern.

In 2003, Tufts University's Richard C. Eichenberg conducted a meta-analysis of polling on gender differences in the United States related to war. He found that what he called "baseline average foreign policy restraint" differed between men and women by an average of 12 percentage points. That is to say, women were less likely to support military action by an average of 12 percent. 

But he also showed that the polling language could create big changes in how much support men and women were willing to give the use of force. […]

Please answer the same poll question Pew asked internationally below.

Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2009Dear Mr. President:

Dear Mr. President: I am writing you today because I am outraged at the notion of involving government in healthcare decisions like they do in other countries. I believe healthcare decisions should be between myself and my doctor.

Well, that is not strictly true. I believe healthcare decisions should be between myself, my doctor, and my insurance company, which provides me a list of which doctors I can see, which specialists I can see, and has a strict policy outlining when I can and can't see those specialists, for what symptoms, and what tests my doctors can or cannot perform for a given set of symptoms. That seems fair, because the insurance company needs to make a profit; they're not in the business of just keeping people alive for free.

Oh, and also my employer. My employer decides what health insurance company and plans will be available to me in the first place. If I quit that job and find another, my heath insurance will be different, and I may or may not be able to see the same doctor as I had been seeing before, or receive the same treatments, or obtain the same medicines. So I believe my healthcare decisions should be between myself, the company I work for, my insurance company, and my doctor. Assuming I'm employed, which is a tough go in the current economy.

Tweet of the Day:

Happening now on the House floor: Drunk History w/ Steve King

On today's Kagro in the Morning show, Greg Dworkin's round-up included the "Carlos Danger" name generator, the Amash-Conyers amendment, and how Steve King's racism continues to damage the Republican brand. We puzzled over the backstory of Laura Clawson's post about the Ohio woman who had all her belongings stolen by a bank that got the wrong address on an eviction. Then, a deep dive into the moving parts of the Amash-Conyers result. Lastly, more discussion of "The Last Days of Big Law" with Armando, which wandered instead into the universality of the money chase and the MBA-ization of the "learned professions."

High Impact Posts. Top Comments.


Do you approve of the United States conducting missile strikes from pilotless aircraft called drones to target extremists in countries such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?

8%358 votes
16%727 votes
29%1303 votes
41%1808 votes
1%72 votes
2%95 votes

| 4366 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  On This Day in 1965 (26+ / 0-)

    A major change occurred in the world of folk and rock music on July 25, 1965. Bob Dylan plugged in and went electric as he played "Maggie's Farm" at the Newport Folk Festival.

    The crowd reaction was less than friendly


    Before he took the stage at the 1964 Newport Folk Festival—the annual event that had given him his first real national exposure one year earlier—Bob Dylan was introduced by Ronnie Gilbert, a member of The Weavers: "And here he is...take him, you know him, he's yours." In his 2004 memoir, Chronicles: Volume One, Dylan would write about how he "failed to sense the ominous forebodings in the introduction." One year later, he would learn just how possessive the Newport audiences felt toward him. On this day in 1965, Bob Dylan went electric at the Newport Folk Festival, performing a rock-and-roll set publicly for the very first time while a chorus of shouts and boos rained down on him from a dismayed audience...

    And what did the man himself think of the unfriendly reception he received from what should have been the friendliest of audiences? Some say he was extremely shaken at the time, but with four decades of hindsight, his feelings were clear. Reflecting on Ronnie Gilbert's "Take him, he's yours" comment, Dylan wrote, "What a crazy thing to say! Screw that. As far as I knew, I didn't belong to anybody then or now."

    Support Small Business: Shop Kos Katalogue - A Riddle Wrapped in a Mystery Inside an Enigma

    by JekyllnHyde on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:30:45 PM PDT

    •  electrified folk music was a shock (12+ / 0-)

      Dylan actually managed to change the definition of what constitutes folk music!

      Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
      Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

      by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:43:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No It Didn't. (5+ / 0-)

        It was the final nail in the coffin of the cultural definition of folk music meaning music made by folks, the common people, stolen from them by the professional singer-songwriters and their producers in the 50's/60's, and half a century later I side with those who back then booed Dylan.

        Don't get me wrong -- I would never deny Dylan's genius at the novel path he created and all he inspired. You wanna play jazz bagpipe, put up a group and hit the jazz circuit like Rufus Harley did. Just don't sneak it into a Scots Ceilidh calling it a traditional party piece.

        Like American liberals, folk musicians were forced to retreat to a lesser known label, "traditional" musicians. Traditional music has long since been co-opted by the world music and  commercial singer-songwriters and stage bands, leaving the players of peoples' music lacking access to the mainstream as they've been since the First Gilded Age. And no word to properly describe what they do, since in the modern world it's not proper for people to do anything for people.

        THIS  is folk music, made the way folks do it when they're among folks. Particular to my people.

        We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

        by Gooserock on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:47:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Traditional music (0+ / 0-)

          ... done with traditional instrumentation sounds the best to my ears.

          I also love traditional Celtic music as one of my favorites and my Pandora streams are full of various Celtic artists and groups.  Instrumental Celtic music is great to play in the background as one is doing tedious searches through un-transcribed documents.  I also like bagpipe music, which is something not many people can understand.  One does, or does not, like it, I think.  Bagpipes can be very modern and even played with rock and roll - Paul McCartney's Mull of Kintyre, for instance.

          I'm the one who detests high-pitched electric guitars squealing, esp. the solo in the middle of the song.  There's always that one note that hits  my left ear drum and makes it vibrate very painfully.  No, I don't have a hearing problem - if anything, my hearing is possibly too keen.  This is probably why I never took to modern "rock and roll" when it turned all angry and electric and crashing sounds that drown out all hope of ever actually hearing lyrics.

          Give me old rock and roll any day, or classical guitar playing any form of music from Neil Diamond to Gipsy Kings to flamenco, etc.  Acoustic guitars are the best!

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:52:27 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You might like this (0+ / 0-)

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:31:14 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  i agree with you completely (0+ / 0-)

          what Dylan did was not traditional folk music.  Some started calling it "folk rock".  There are people who have never heard real folk music played on traditional acoustic instruments and sung as the common people sing it.

          I would have booed Dylan also.  It was the Newport FOLK Festival for FSM's sake!  You wouldn't go to a classical music concert and play A Fifth of Beethoven and expect to get applause either.

          Although the worst thing Dylan ever wrote is still better than a Fifth of Beethoven.

          Do not assume that when I say Dylan changed the definition of folk music that I approve of that redefinition.  I enjoy Dylan, and I enjoy folk rock, but I also know what real folk music is and what the people at Newport were expecting.

          Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
          Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

          by TrueBlueMajority on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:26:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Folk music is passed from generation to (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        claude, TrueBlueMajority


        Each leaves its imprimatur. If it weren't Dylan, it would have been someone else in his generation. He's a genius, sure enough. One of the best concerts I ever attended was Dylan playing with Petty.

        But if  Dylan had not led the way, someone else would have. This step seems inevitable, but like Hillary, Armstrong, Amundsen, he gets credit it for going there first.

        © grover

        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:06:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The question is not whether Dylan did something (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          good.  The question is whether it's folk music.

          Mozart,  Gershwin, Beethoven, etc, etc, etc all did very cool things with music, but it wasn't folk music.

          The real question, I think, is whether it is sufficient that music be produced for ordinary people, or by them.

          If for, then damned near everything is folk music.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:37:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  On this date 40 yrs ago Richard Nixon decided he (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ichibon, Simplify, NonnyO

      would refuse to hand over subpoenaed documents and tapes to the Senate Watergate Committee, setting off a constitutional crisis over "Executive Privilege".  

      "If Wall Street paid a tax on every “game” they run, we would get enough revenue to run the government on." ~ Will Rogers

      by Lefty Coaster on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:03:08 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  948,069 registered users on dKos now. (19+ / 0-)

    Here are the 10 newest registered users on dKos.  Hope to see their comments and diaries here soon!  (If they're not spammers.)


    And since our society is obsessed with numbers that end in a lot of zeros as milestones, here's a special shoutout to users:
    #946,100: franklincrabtree3
    #946,200: naqonocipak
    #946,300: MarcellakocyHiwort
    #946,400: YansyVabalenidtine
    #946,500: VaceniobceArevydalo
    #946,600: imalayfiela
    #946,700: byDiaganneAivytken
    #946,800: BrendenAllen (spammer)
    #946,900: LowieBailey
    #947,000: ceGurleyRutirhavie
    #947,100: aqCharlsygieVancydyke
    #947,200: MaestraB
    #947,300: DehovixiezeSperling
    #947,400: ElyjoiegsegeMair
    #947,500: Donellacok146
    #947,600: LajuahenriaMeyplvin
    #947,700: buHavelinsceLakia
    #947,800: victoriamitchelles52
    #947,900: pizza2shield
    #948,000: priest06jet

    We've added a whopping 2,005 more users in the last 24 hours.  This is a continuation going back to May where we've been absolutely flooded with new users.  I'm pretty sure almost all of these new users are spammers or bots.  While the rate had been getting faster, it seems they suddenly started slowing down right when Hurricane Sandy hit.  It slowed down to under 1,000 new users in a 24-hour period, and we were back down to somewhat over 100 new users every 24 hours or so, until about January 30th, when it exploded again.  What are they planning?

    And for your Diary Rescue music pleasure, here's Frankie Valli & the Four Seasons' "Walk Like a Man".

  •  It's hilarious how often Republicans (17+ / 0-)

    (Faux News in particular) bemoan the "Lamestream Media" and claim there is a giant underground conspiracy to defame them.

    If anyone has perfected media manipulation and skullduggery, it's the Right Wing Noise Machine.

    The Secret Conservative Google Group that Plots Right-Wing Domination:

    For years now, the right-wing media have claimed left-wing journalists are colluding with each other on a secret email listserv. And they were half-right! As it turns out, a secretive, strategy-plotting online cabal of political journalists and party activists does exist. It's just that it's made up of conservatives.

    Mother Jones' David Corn, who is like the NSA to the right-wing, has uncovered the secret Google group for "Groundswell," the right-wing coalition headed up by Ginny Thomas (pictured), conservative activist and wife of Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas, and boy does it sound like a fun place:

    ------"Load up on guns, bring your friends. It's fun to lose and to pretend."------- Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:34:58 PM PDT

  •  Lots'a gangs in Congress. (9+ / 0-)

    They ought'a start flyin' colors.

    Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

    by franklyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:36:10 PM PDT

  •  drones (14+ / 0-)

    Why would anyone think that drone strikes wouldn't lead to more terrorism? I just can't wrap my head around the idea that anyone thinks this is a good idea. (Not to mention that I find it immoral in the first place.)

    •  The Democratic Party used to understand blowback. (9+ / 0-)

      Heck, it understood 9/11 was blowback.

      Now, all these things have been muddied.

      People are losing a sense of what the Party stands for.

      See my sig.

      SECURITY, because ticking time bomb mushroom cloud of terror!!
      Shop Kos Katalogue

      by Words In Action on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:59:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  They've conflated blowback (0+ / 0-)

        with blaming the victim.  Blaming the victim should be reserved for sex crimes.  

        •  And what, exactly, is the difference? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Blowback is convenient and meaningless.

          Gosh -- we propped up the Shah in the 1950s, ergo 9/11.

          Although, as I recall, 9/11 was plotted by somebody we helped to arm in a fight against the Sovients in Afghanistan.

          If 9/11 was blowback, it was blowback for helping to drive Iraqi troops out of Kuwait. That action was done with the cooperation -- and military support -- of most of the Islamic nations in the area.

          Unfortunately, Osama Bin Laden had wanted to replay Afghanistan and be the hero of Kuwait, an idea foiled by the international coalition Bush 41 had assembled.   That likely had much to do with Al Qaeda's declaration of war on the United States a few years later.

          Regardless of what we do, when we do it, and for whose benefits, our actions will piss somebody off. As such, blowback is a pointless concept, unless -- what you really wan to do is blame the victim.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:59:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's more than propping a Shah. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Words In Action, JeffW, TheMomCat

            The US and Britain have a long a toxic history that didn't start or end there, chronologically or regionally.  The idea that "regardless of what we do, and for whose benefits, our actions will piss somebody off" is a lame excuse for a cruel history of colonial repression and repeated interventions that blatantly violated the interests of democracy and economic well-being throughout the non-Western world, everywhere from Africa to the Middle East to South Asia to the Philippines to Northeast Asia to South America.  It is inexcusable, and only a matter of time before people somewhere would say they'd had it with that shit.  

            •  Yes, along with the Soviet Union, China, etc. (0+ / 0-)

              "Lame excuse" is a lame response.

              Countries do what countries do.  Our history is far from the worst and certainly far from the longest.

              Blowback is a useless concept.

              Good for idiots to blather about over coffee.
              Good for venting hatred and trying to look smart in the eyes of fellow idiots.

              But useless.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:34:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  unmanly and chickenshit (4+ / 0-)

            This is becoming how America fights wars without body bags for our precious "heroes", because they make such bad optics.  The bottom line is that the MIC gets to steam right along stealing the national treasury and no one objects if there is no American blood shed.

            Meanwhile, put yourself down there on the ground in flyover country Bumfuckistan, and tell me what you would "feel" about faceless death from above guided by geeks in a trailer in Nevada, smug and secure that they don't actually have to get down in the dirt with mere groundlings and actually, y'know, fight, mano-a-mano and maybe get hurt?

            Prolly cop one hell of an attitude about, eh?  I sure would. Eventually an attitude like that gets one willing to do anything, whatever it takes, to strike any blow back they could.  We've already seen where that leads.

            Droney,  the spokesman for American arrogance.  What could possibly go wrong?

            don't always believe what you think

            by claude on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:30:39 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I have to agree. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              I think it also sends a terrible message:

              "We are happy to kill you. We are happy to casually kill you without trial or reason. We are happy to kill you spouses, children, friends, parents.  Anybody we please.

              We are, however, afraid to show up so you can kill us."

              Sounds like a dare to war.
              The real kind.

              LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

              by dinotrac on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:37:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  WTF? THIS is what I am talking about. No sense (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JeffW, Eikyu Saha

            of history or international relations anymore in this party.

            BLOWBACK is for a half-century of the shittiest Mid-East policy imaginable.

            SECURITY, because ticking time bomb mushroom cloud of terror!!
            Shop Kos Katalogue

            by Words In Action on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:16:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Women do seem to be (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NonnyO, Words In Action

        more reasonable than men, not surprising.

        What struck me were the "overall" figures, where the US is way out of line with pretty much everyone else.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:29:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe it partly depends on (8+ / 0-)

      whether you look at it in absolute terms, or in comparison to other methods.

      Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

      by AaronInSanDiego on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:08:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This is the problem I have. (4+ / 0-)

        I am philosophically against drones, despite being an older male, but I also see the bind Obama is in.  If he sends in troops to capture someone like Awlaki (who apparently inspired the Boston bombings) it could cause more fatalities than the drones, as well as costing some American lives.  He would take heat for that.  If he does nothing he is (according to a lot of people) siding with the terrorists.  It is a Catch 22.  If I could figure out a better way to handle it I would, but it is a terribly difficult problem.  Do I trust this current government to not further misuse such methods? - maybe.  But here is the problem - what if some really dictatorial type gains the presidency in the future?  Thus I have some difficulty with this coming and going. War, as Sherman observed, is hell.  There is no such thing as a nice neat war.  Even in World War II we had Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki in which thousands of civilians met gruesome deaths or maiming.

        It would help if we had better oversight, but I do not think any president will willingly give up such power. Same problem with spying. In the long run we need some oversight we can trust, not just faceless people appointed by John Roberts.  

        •  That's why we should declare actual war and peace (0+ / 0-)

          like back in the olden days. That gives both them and us an out.

          -We need Healthcare Reform... but i'm selfish, I Need Healthcare reform-

          by JPax on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:29:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Congress gave the power with AUMF (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          atana, claude

          It was not theirs to give away since only Congress has the power to declare war - or not - and only Congress has the power to finance a war for two years [Article I, Section 8].

          No one had a constitutional convention and changed the wording of the US Constitution - right?

          Cretinous Congress Critters - realistically - knew (in '01) that Al Quaeda was a little gang of international criminals who represented no one but themselves so they chickened out and gave that spoiled brat Dumbya the power to use the US military to go after common criminals (whom he 'creatively' lied about and made more powerful than they were/are by calling them ter'rists), and then the little chickenshite used the AUMF power to invade Iraq and start a real illegal and unconstitutional war.

          Obama is using the unconstitutional AUMF to authorize drone strikes.  [One would think a con law prof would have enough sense to know it's unconstitutional, just as spying on US citizens and other people around the world by hoovering up all our communications violates the 4th Amendment - a right we do not fully have since the Patriot Act is still in effect; that needs repealing in full, too.]

          Congress could take the unconstitutional AUMF power away - if they wanted to - by simply repealing the unconstitutional and illegal AUMF in full.

          Congress could also repeal - in their entirety, not bits and pieces! - the Patriot Act, MCA '06 (wherein habeas corpus was taken away!), FISA fiasco '08, and MCA '09.

          That would almost have us back to where we were before 12 Dec 2000..., except for the many people who died for lies.

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:41:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Article I, Section 8 (0+ / 0-)

            Doesn't the fact that we have annual appropriations address this?

            Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

            by AaronInSanDiego on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:51:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Address funding for war? (0+ / 0-)

              Article I mentions 'taxes' twice (Sections 2 & 8) and 'revenue'  (Sections 7, 8, & 9), and 'appropriations twice (Sections 8 & 9).

              Section 8 has several paragraphs (separated by semi-colons in the transcription and written as paragraphs) all relating to armies and navies and militias.

              These 'paragraphs' are the ones I'm referring to ("Use" is referring back to "To declare War"):

              To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

              To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

              To provide and maintain a Navy;

              To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

              I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

              by NonnyO on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 02:02:02 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  This has been a problem since .... (0+ / 0-)

            the Korean War.  The last war Congress actually declared was World War II.  One could easily blame this problem on Congress and it would be a bipartisan blame.  Like I said no president, no matter how principled, likes to give up power - save perhaps George Washington, although Abraham Lincoln (by most reckoning our greatest president) asked Congress to judge his actions.

            These days Congress is to a large degree a bad political joke.  Not that there are no good senators (we have two excellent senators and Elizabeth Warren comes to mind) and representatives (ours is a oil-company tool), but a large minority (and in the case of the house, majority) seem hell-bent to undo all the social progress of the last 150 years.

    •  You know what else leads to more terrorism? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Ignoring the problem, or pretending that all of it comes from US foreign policy.  It doesn't.

  •  SpiiwresFhuiyxlomena (12+ / 0-)

    Sounds like a new drug for ED

    It's the Supreme Court, stupid!

    by Radiowalla on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:37:47 PM PDT

  •  Why do more men approve of this (13+ / 0-)

    barbaric practice?
    May be that as Harry Belafonte says, women are just smarter.
    We recognize that when the precision drones - that are not that precise at all -  kill innocent men, women and children that we are just making more "terrorists."

    Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

    by JoanMar on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:41:19 PM PDT

  •  why women disapprove of drones more than men (8+ / 0-)

    that mystifies me also.

    the only possible thing I can think of is that maybe men identify more personally with the soldiers who are spared from putting their bodies in harm's way each time unmanned drones are used?

    it seems sexist to think it is because women are more humanitarian and valuing of all life, but that could be true also?

    Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D.
    Drop by The Grieving Room on Monday nights for support in dealing with grief.

    by TrueBlueMajority on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:42:47 PM PDT

    •  That's a dangerous game to play. (4+ / 0-)

      First of all... I don't know what the answer is. It's troubling whenever you read stuff like that. But then we could look at infanticide rates and conclude that there is something fundamentally wrong with women. Or you could look at male dominance in science and conclude that men are smarter than women. And of course that would be wrong.

      Mark Twain was right about statistics. When used properly, they can inform. But when used recklessly, they're the worst form of slander. A good rule of thumb is to resist the urge to ever say anything like this sex, or that ethnic group is better or worse because of an isolated statistic someone found. It's just a bad idea.

      Both men and women are capable of good and evil. It manifests itself in different ways, and sometimes these numbers can tell us important things about ourselves. But I really have no use for anyone pushing resentment between the sexes. Enough of that already.

      You can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America.

      by Eric Stratton on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:09:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Arguably a confound (5+ / 0-)

      Men are more likely to lean conservative in their political views, at least in Western countries. Accordingly, they are more likely to hold authoritarian positions. Accordingly, they are more likely to approve extra-judicial assassinations of civilians. Just as they are more likely to approve torture. Sex may be no more than a counfound in this. That is, conservative/authoritarian-leaning women may be just as likely to approve of drone strikes as conservative/authoritarian-leaning men.

    •  That is my thinking. (5+ / 0-)

         In some certain cases I can see where drones are called for. Like when the lines on a battlefield are clearly drawn.   Or if you can see the enemy advancing.
         But the ongoing use of drones as a police tool. Just makes the killing never stop.
         And how many of us think that we are the only people on the planet capable of manufacturing drones.

      Florida The Worst State. The Daily Show

      by nellgwen on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:38:00 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Women are not more humanitarian. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eikyu Saha, TrueBlueMajority

      They're just less physically aggressive.  An evil woman vs. an evil man in control would just have a higher ratio of prisons to guns and bombs.

    •  Men like drones (0+ / 0-)

      because they go boom and they get the bad guys.  Women just want to make everything all complicated and stuff.  It's like fifty shades of puce.  

    •  This is a great series. n/t (11+ / 0-)

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:54:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I prefer to let my photos be what they are (0+ / 0-)

      without any interference.  It just seems to me that playing with color and contrast is a kind of cheating.  If nature doesn't cooperate, tough shit - I'm not going to use technology to "correct" what's actually there.

      •  The brilliant landscape photographer Galen (5+ / 0-)

        Rowell explained it this way: the camera often doesn't capture what the human eye actually sees. The camera is not without limitations even in the hands of a genius. It's our job to make the camera "see" what we do.

        In the old days of film (well, we shot slide), that meant stopping down or up, using filters, adjusting aperture, changing lenses, lying in the mud for 2hours  until the camera saw the shadows you had seen earlier in the day, etc.

        What we couldn't capture in the field, if we were shooting film especially, we could further try to develop in the darkroom.

        The point was NEVER to create fraudulent work. It was never to create images of stuff that wasn't there, like more saturated colors, more dazzling lights, or gimmicks. That's not what we landscape photographers do.

        There are plenty of lines of photography that do that, and it's very entertaining. But pure landscape photographers strive only to create what they saw and what they experienced. (Shooting weddings, I'd use soft filters and other more gimmicky tricks that make people look really nice without losing the authenticity of the day --some wedding photographers go way overboard on gimmicks. I don't.-- But landscape photography is about capturing what is actually there.)

        With digital we still do a lot of timing and aperture work right there in the field. The desktop is our darkroom. We still don't create falsified images.

        There is no reason to accept the limitations of your camera as "true." Even the best camera is more limited than the human eye. The best thing, it seems to me, is to learn the limits of your camera, learn how to compensate for them and uphold a code of ethics. If you do choose to edit beyond what was truly there, just say so.

        © grover

        So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

        by grover on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 01:05:18 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  What grover said (0+ / 0-)

        As grover said above, better than I did in my diary, if you actually want to see what is "actually there"  you will in fact need to do some adjustments in your photos.

        All of the best landscape photographers from Ansel Adams to Galen Rowell, Art Wolfe, David Muench, John Sexton, Carr Clifton and Larry Ulrich, just to name a few, make or made adjustments to their photographs before or during printing.

        I'll be the first to admit that I hold to a much stricter limit when it comes to making adjustments to pictures I've taken with my big boy equipment, but when shooting with an iPhone I'm more relaxed. If you read through some of my earlier iPhone diaries you'll see that when I stared this "Picture of the Day" thing years ago my goal was to take the picture on my iPhone, edit it on my iPhone then upload and post it from my iPhone. There are times when seeing the image is hard due to being out in the bright sun etc... and my editing wasn't great. But the way I look at it I'm not trying to shoot for the Sierra Club calendar here, I'm just having fun with my phone, and sharing the results with my DKos friends.

    •  This series looks very cool (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grover, bsegel

      and useful. Checking it out this weekend.

  •  Letterman tonight: (10+ / 0-)

    'Breaking News! Donald Trump demands to see Carlos Danger's birth certificate!'


    ------"Load up on guns, bring your friends. It's fun to lose and to pretend."------- Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:44:34 PM PDT

  •  The best thing that politicians can do (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    high uintas, Aunt Pat, Jeff Y, nellgwen

    for the public is to be straight with them; to be down to earth; to let 'em in on the joke.

    Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

    by franklyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:45:20 PM PDT

  •  Plastic Steve King Jesus (10+ / 0-)

    About the Fool part

    Did Steve King Just Compare Himself To Jesus?

    Under attack for his comment that undocumented youths are drug mules with cantaloupe-sized calves, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) took to the House floor Thursday afternoon to offer a rambling defense. King recounted a long-ranging history of Western civilization, beginning with a version of Greece in which Aristotle, Plato and Socrates “challenged each other intellectually, like gunslingers did it in the West with guns, they did it with their brains.” Ultimately, he concluded that the U.S. was a bastion of civilization under siege from Mexican drug dealers.

    King also seemed to compare himself to Jesus, who was allowed to “face his accusers” so they couldn’t “make allegations behind his back,” gesturing to himself at one point:


     As you remember, Mr. Speaker, the high priest said to Jesus, did you really say those things? Did you really preach those things? And Jesus said to the high priest, as the Jews were watching, ask them. They were there, they can tell you. That was, Mr. Speaker, the assertion by Jesus that he had a right to face his accusers. That principle remains today in our law that we have a right to face our accusers. And when he said ‘ask them, they were there, they can tell you,’ he’s facing his accusers and demanding they testify against him rather than make allegations behind his back. And what happened when Jesus said that? They believed and the high priest believed that jesus’ answer was insolent, and the guard struck Jesus. And Jesus said, ‘If I speak wrongly you must prove the wrong. If I speak rightly, why do you punish me?’ He asserted his right to be innocent until proven guilty before a Roman court. Those two principles remain today in our law, a right to face your accuser, innocent until proven guilty, you face that — proven guilty, you face that jury of your peer. you need a quick and speedy trial. they didn’t have that then. the punishment came quickly whether right or wrong.

    I want 1 less Tiny Coffin, Why Don't You? Support The President's Gun Violence Plan.

    by JML9999 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:49:11 PM PDT

  •  Watch this... (9+ / 0-) is really scary.

    Makes me wonder about the Michael Hastings accident.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:51:48 PM PDT

  •  Really hate to say this, BUT, (6+ / 0-)

    I've been noticing that we (MSNBC) are as pathetic as Faux, lately. One more Weiner Wag, and I'm outta here.
    Nevermind that MSM spends 10 minutes on a baby's names, and 5 seconds on the fact that a bunch of the Arctic is in the Gulf of Mexico, now. Where the hell are our people on the real issues? Waiting on ABfucking C?!
    Damned if it don't seem like.

    Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

    by franklyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:54:12 PM PDT

  •  Ya see, ladies, it's like this... (6+ / 0-)

    Drones is like great big flyin' penises.  We men had spears, and swords, and lances.  Then we had muskets and rifles.  Then we had bombs, but those could only fall downward.  Now we got these high-tech penis surrogates that fly all by themselves and shoot lethal death!  Woo-hoo!

    Odds and ends about life in Japan:

    by Hatrax on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:55:36 PM PDT

  •  it only took three Death's Head divisions... (7+ / 0-)

    ...of the Waffen SS to destroy whatever good will the German Army had when they invaded Russia with three Army groups comprising 117 crack divisions, North, Center, and South. Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941, was the largest invasion of WWII. Hitler said, "“when the attack on Russia starts the world will hold its breath.” The Russian people actually looked to Hitler's Wehrmacht as "liberators", much the same as Iraq looked at us as a welcome relief from the barbarity of Saddam.

    That is, until the dreaded Death's Head Divisions of the Waffen SS started summarily slaughtering millions of Russian non-combatants--though admittedly not on such a wholesale scale--just like what Predator Drones have done to thousands of innocent civilian non-combatants in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

    In the short term, Predator droning may be the best way for our military to rain hell on "suspected terrorists" with minimal casualties on our side, but over the long haul, it serves only to create more generations of enemies out of the children who survived, to instill more hatred towards America, and it continually reminds historians (like me) how futile fighting endless wars against an ideology in general is as an effective policy of deterring future 9/11's.

    "I wish to have no connection with any ship that does not sail fast, for I intend to go in harm's way." John Paul Jones

    by ImpeachKingBushII on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:56:09 PM PDT

  •  'Dr. Danger' would be a great name for a punk band (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The Real Carlos Danger Is a Republican Who Wants You to Leave Him Alone:

    "Carlos Danger" is not only the narcissistic online coif Anthony Weiner adorned to shield his identity while sexting his dick (again), it's also the government name of a real 37-year-old psychiatrist with a real medical practice, a real Miami address, and a real phone number. And the real Carlos Danger wants you to leave him alone.

    Dr. Danger does not want to talk to you. His answering service does not want to talk to you. His staff of receptionists—who've been forced to be the frontline defense against 48-hours' worth of Jerky Boy phonecalls—really, truly, absolutely does not want to talk to you.

    ------"Load up on guns, bring your friends. It's fun to lose and to pretend."------- Kurt Cobain

    by Jeff Y on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 08:57:58 PM PDT

  •  I don't think Hillary disapproves droning, so (0+ / 0-)

    there is at least one woman that doesn't disapprove of drones (OK, the poll says over 50% of US women approve of drones, so Hillary's support is less than shocking).  And she's going to be running for president, so for those that disagree with her on this issue, they need to get a credible candidate to oppose her in the primaries, and the sooner that they get that candidate, the better.

    I'm surprised at the high support for drone use by German men.  The Der Spiegel diaries we are treated to would seem to indicate that Germany is a left wing utopia that would never countenance something as "barbaric" as drones, yet 58% of men there support it. The women don't, and there are more women than men (I assume), so the overall support is only in the 40's, but that's a lot higher than I expected even for the overall support.

  •  I'm wondering what the gender breakdown (3+ / 0-)

    of "No Opinion" and "Other" is.

    Gondwana has always been at war with Laurasia.

    by AaronInSanDiego on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:05:53 PM PDT

  •  New unit spotted... (17+ / 0-)

    at the alien refueling station. As an arachnophobic type, I'd be tempted to hit it with a drone.

    No one knows what it's like, To be the bad man, To be the sad man, behind blue eyes....

    by blueyedace2 on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:08:55 PM PDT

  •  I voted 'other.' (7+ / 0-)

    (Male, here.)

    I vehemently disapprove of using assassination techniques anywhere, which is what 'targetting extremists' really means, particularly when we will jump to act on really, really poor-quality information and without consideration of the stance of the target (that is, whether he's actually engaging in hostilities right now, or actively transporting supplies to support hostilities, or all the other things that are done by armies to support active warmaking) or who's around them.  It's one thing to shoot a guy shooting at you from half a mile away -- or one that's right in front of you and trying to kill you.  It's entirely another to attack someone sitting, possibly unarmed, in a car with their families.  I guess it comes down to giving them a chance to retreat or surrender, or to actively oppose you and accept the consequences.  That doesn't happen when -anything- drops a bomb on some guy sitting at a wedding or a funeral or what have you.

    On the other hand, I have no problem with using drones to engage legitimate military targets or those actively engaging in military support activities; if you're getting bombed by a Predator or by an F-16 or an A-10 or a goddamn B-52 Stratofortress or a guy tossing what amounts to an oversized, contact-fused grenade out of a Fokker triplane, you're just as dead if the bomb lands within effective range.

  •  ...not being a hard case here, but I voted "other" (6+ / 0-)

    because the word "extremist" is not the same as "criminal" or "enemy" so I want more American-made justice in our "attacks."

    I have a drone now, so listen when I'm talking to you.

    Honesty is not a policy. It's a character trait.

    by Says Who on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:09:55 PM PDT

  •  A Question (4+ / 0-)

    So, did the people that expected all Democrats to vote for the Amash amendment also expect then to vote for the bill?

    The bill, H.R. 2397: Department of Defense Appropriations, also has this in it:

    Guantanamo Bay –The legislation prohibits funding for transfers of Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. or its territories, prohibits funding to modify any facility in the U.S. to house detainees, and places conditions on the release of detainees to other countries.  These provisions are similar to language contained in the fiscal year 2013 Defense Appropriations legislation.

    I guess I am not understanding the logic here.

  •  Drone. Can be used as a weapon. (4+ / 0-)

    WW 2. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population. Many, many were killed indiscriminately due to actual battles. Twice, missiles rained down on, Baghdad.
    I think we are talking about the wrong thing here. The question is, and always has been, the morality of war.
    But this is so much easier.

    Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

    by franklyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:14:10 PM PDT

  •  YouTube pulled all the copies... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tony Situ, helpImdrowning

    so it looks like DailyMotion is the only place where you can now find "The Picnic Panic", one of the funniest musical sketches I saw as a kid growing up.

    Um... anyone know why the embed doesn't work??

  •  No justifying the unjustifiable (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Targeted "extrajudicial" assassinations of people who aren't clearly military combatants engaged in armed conflict with the United States and her allies are by definition lawbreaking. They by necessity break the laws of whichever country they are carried out in. Oversight by super-secret shadow courts that the target of the attack has no representation before may provide a smoke screen of legality, but does nothing to make the process legal. It is a tragedy that the actions of the United States government undermine the very possibility of any enduring international legal framework that could protect the citizens of the U.S. and all other nations from the threat of international terrorism.

  •  Historically, (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, NonnyO

    women are just plain tired of all the droning and whining and would just like to get a few minutes of peace if that is at all possible!

    Go play outside. And don't hit each other. I'll call you when dinner's ready.

  •  drones (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Drones are bad because soon the "bad" guys will get them also--and target US citizens.  No matter how you feel about the ethics involved, this fact makes drones nuclear lite.  When it was just us, Hiroshima saved American lives, when Russia got the bomb, thet must never be used.  Men are hypocrites.

    Under capitalism, man exploits man. Under communism, it's just the opposite. John Kenneth Galbraith .

    by melvynny on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:53:32 PM PDT

  •  Innocent people getting killed by governments? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Before drones?
    Who'da thunk?

    Betchu REALLY wanna vote, now.

    by franklyn on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 09:55:57 PM PDT

  •  Male or female (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Elizaveta, NonnyO

    I felt quite discouraged to see the percentage of people here who approve.

    'A civilization flourishes when people plant trees under whose shade they will never sit' Greek Proverb

    by janis b on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:04:24 PM PDT

  •  So, it's around midnight, and you live... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, helpImdrowning

    ...on the northwest side of Chicago, and then you hear a bigass helicopter flying overhead. Whaddya think that tells you?

    Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

    by JeffW on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:21:23 PM PDT

    •  that Abbottabad is farther east of Evanston /nt (5+ / 0-)

      Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

      by annieli on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:30:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  My first thought would be "life-flight" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MTmofo, NonnyO, annieli

      and a hope that whoever is being airlifted makes it through ok.  That may be because I work in a hospital, though.

      "On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps...of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again."

      by middleagedhousewife on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:03:52 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  medevac for a heart attack is my first guess, why? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NonnyO, annieli

      -We need Healthcare Reform... but i'm selfish, I Need Healthcare reform-

      by JPax on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:42:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The hospital is nearby (0+ / 0-)

      The Lifebird helicopter is delivering a patient.  Or coming in to pick up a patient with a critical condition to fly said patient to another hospital that specializes in whatever is wrong with the critically ill/injured patient.

      That's a straight answer - IRL I live close to the local hospital and when I hear the helicopter I know it's delivering or picking up a patient, and when they fly directly overhead instead of approach from a different direction it makes everything in my old place shake.  There's also a national guard training facility in an adjoining county so when I hear thundering sounds every few months and the sky is clear, I know they're doing military training exercises.

      I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

      by NonnyO on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 01:34:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The copter was travelling from... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        annieli, Calamity Jean

        ...northwest to southeast. That says to me that the President and or First Lady are in town.

        We get smaller amounts of copter traffic, being situated north of the Kennedy Junction and bracketed by the Edens and Kennedy Expressways, but when a big bird flies that route, I figure it's heading for Kenwood.

        Float like a manhole cover, sting like a sash weight! Clean Coal Is A Clinker!

        by JeffW on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 08:39:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Interesting - Not a connection... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          ... I would have ever made.  I never read or hear about them leaving DC for the weekend and heading back to Chicago.  Vacations in HI with his family, yes - just not Chicago.

          I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

          by NonnyO on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 09:22:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  'cuz as queen bees, good help is hard to find (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, AaronInSanDiego, MTmofo, NonnyO
    Why Do Women Disapprove of Drone Strikes So Much More Than Men Do?

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:25:25 PM PDT

  •  Why Do Women Disapprove of Drone Strikes So Much M (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, helpImdrowning

    For the same reason that men are much more likely to get involved into a bar fight.

    Card-carrying member of the Illuminati.

    by DarkOmnius on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 10:34:23 PM PDT

  •  Women are all about creation (0+ / 0-)

    Men are about destruction.

    Therefore the drone gap.

    Daily Kos an oasis of truth. Truth that leads to action.

    by Shockwave on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:14:25 PM PDT

  •  Two reasons to disapprove of drone strikes (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    AaronInSanDiego, Simplify, JeffW

    1)  It's unconstitutional and illegal.  Congress never should have given the executive war powers with AUMF.  IMHO, it's unconstitutional on the face of it because no one changed the constitution and took away war powers and the power of the purse to pay for two years of war.

    2)  Drones kill innocent people along with the criminals - that's just wrong on many levels.

    Why should women give birth to children knowing they will only grow old enough to go be killed or permanently maimed in a war after they've invested eighteen years in successfully raising those children to adulthood...???

    Yes, with that question one knows the subconscious answer as to why control-freak men want to outlaw abortion: if women decide, on their own, that they don't want to give birth to future soldiers and practice birth control and abort potential future soldiers, there won't be enough people to populate future armies and navies (and mercenaries won't have anyone to recruit).

    Or the women could go all Lysistrata on men and refuse to have sex with them until they end war....

    There's no difference between one's killing and making decisions that will send others to kill. It's exactly the same thing, or even worse.
      ~ Golda Meir
    An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
      ~ Gandhi
    This is the OTHER reason to repeal ALL of AUMF in its entirety and the Bushista-now-Obama policy of "preemptive strikes" or "preemptive war" using the US military against what are merely criminal gang members, not part of any nation's military forces (which is unconstitutional as well as the fact it violates various treaties which are incorporated into the US Constitution as the "law of the land" - which makes it 'doubly unconstitutional' so to speak):
    Japan to mull pre-emptive strike ability in defense update
    Reuters  By Linda Sieg  25 July 2013
    [More of the article at link.]
    TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan is likely to start considering acquiring the ability to launch pre-emptive military strikes in a planned update of its basic defense policies, the latest step away from the constraints of its pacifist constitution.

    The expected proposal, which could sound alarm bells in China, is part of a review of Japan's defense policies undertaken by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's government, an interim report on which could come as early as Friday. The final conclusions of the review are due out by the end of the year.

    The hawkish Abe took office in December for a rare second term, pledging to bolster the military to cope with what Japan sees as an increasingly threatening security environment including an assertive China and unpredictable North Korea.

    Article 9 of Japan's constitution, drafted by U.S. occupation forces after its defeat in World War Two, renounces the right to wage war and, if taken literally, rules out the very notion of a standing army. In reality, Japan's Self-Defense Forces are one of Asia's strongest militaries.

    I'm sick of attempts to steer this nation from principles evolved in The Age of Reason to hallucinations derived from illiterate herdsmen. ~ Crashing Vor

    by NonnyO on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:22:57 PM PDT

  •  Agent Orange (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The horror of modern war.  Just read it.

    "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" ~Dr. Samuel Johnson

    by ActivistGuy on Thu Jul 25, 2013 at 11:43:20 PM PDT

    •  blanket denial (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NonnyO, JeffW, ActivistGuy
      U.S. officials have long held, however, that there’s no proof that Agent Orange is to blame for the same diseases and birth defects in Vietnam.
      Really. Then what did cause it? Their imaginations? Sick.

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:02:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the most sad of things (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Simplify, NonnyO, JeffW

    noone here seems to have noticed, but there was a very heavy train accident recently in Spain. A high velocity train derailed near Santiago de Compostela, in a sharp curve.

    Eighty people died (about 220 were aboard the train).

    such things can happen due to material failure and other things, real accidents, always tragedies. But now it begins to appear that in this case, maybe, the train machinist caused the accident himself, recklessly - apparently he seemed to have a history of trying out just how fast he could go over the speed limit on this particluar section. If that really was the cause, it adds another hard to bear layer to this disaster. (And the machinist survived, He has been arrested. But what good does that do now.)

    •  Translates as "engineer" or "operator" (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NonnyO, JeffW

      rather than "machinist." But yes, it's a pretty awful possible cause. Any cause is awful, I suppose, but straight-up recklessness...

      Government and laws are the agreement we all make to secure everyone's freedom.

      by Simplify on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:04:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Chris Mathews' comment, Re: POTUS (0+ / 0-)

    On his "Let Me Finish" segment (20130725), Chris had a very good comment about the President Obama Haters even after all this time.

    Ref. link:

  •  Why? Because they can put themselves (0+ / 0-)

    Into the place of the civilians being killed and can compare them to their family and friends being killed just because a terrorist happens to be walking through their neighborhood.

    Let's get real here and face facts: Many times, even the FAMILY MEMBERS of terrorists do not know that they are that and when they do, they distance themselves from those family members, even overseas in the Middle East.

    Most Muslims want little to nothing to do with terrorists, family members or not.

    We also need to start having a discussion on if it is America's own bad actions in the world in the past 75+- years that has lead to terrorism.
    I've had this discussion in real life with various people and at the end, they say "You are right, this is karma for the bad things that we have allowed our government to do overseas!"

    Such as trying to put the Shah back into power (what turned Osama against us).
    Such as supporting dictators (cough... Saddam).

  •  Testosterone? Don't Drone me, Bro! (0+ / 0-)

    -We need Healthcare Reform... but i'm selfish, I Need Healthcare reform-

    by JPax on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 12:43:42 AM PDT

  •  Too bad they haven't studied the technological (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    angle.  I suspect fewer women are fascinated by technology than men.

    Drones are this wonderful combination of many things:

    1. War
    2. Technology
    3. Helplessness

    I think helplessness may resonate with a lot of women, who tend to be more aware of their physical vulnerability than men.  The idea of a drone dropping out of the sky without warning to kill you -- pretty scary stuff.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 01:02:57 AM PDT

  •  I have a problem with your language in the poll... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    "to target extremists" should be, I believe, "to target alleged extremists".

    Once you find out the US deems any male killed by a drone to be an extremist - it makes that term suspect.

    I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. ~Thomas Jefferson

    by bobdevo on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 02:37:59 AM PDT

  •  Drone strikes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm not surprised about the gap between men and women on the drones.

    Based on anecdotal conversations at family dinner tables, some men think the drones are really cool.  I think men tend to be more impressed by war toys than women.

    And children are getting killed by these drones.  You'd think that would weigh on the consciences of both men and women, but I guess it's it's disproportionate.

    Mostly, I think its' the male fascination with war toys thing.  I'm not fascinated by them. More like sickened by them and by the thought of living under them.

    "Justice is a commodity"

    by joanneleon on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 04:24:48 AM PDT

  •  Revision to Drone question. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    To clarify the poll question,

    "If by drone strikes, you mean, in place of sending in a military assault team." Then my answer would be Yes.

    Now if we wouldn't be sending in any military at all against this target otherwise. Then my answer is No.

    Drones should only be used to prevent troop casualties in operations that were already going to be done one way or another with troops on the ground.

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 05:00:04 AM PDT

  •  I answered "other" (0+ / 0-)

    because I think the poll question is faulty as it stands.  Faulty for relying on the vague term "extremist" and combining at least 3 decision points in the question.  I think it would work better if it was broken down a little more:

    Do you approve of the United States conducting missile strikes from pilotless aircraft called drones to target extremists in countries such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia?
    1) Should we target "extremist" forces.  (I find "extremist" too vague to be a useful tag for a question like this.)

    2) Should those countries be the geographical theater for such attacks?

    3) Should drone launched missiles be the technology used or should troops or something else be used?

    I'm not liberal. I'm actually just anti-evil, OK? - Elon James White

    by Satya1 on Fri Jul 26, 2013 at 06:24:12 AM PDT

  •  Why? Because We're Instinctively (0+ / 0-)

    Mother's.  For me? It's that simple and the explanation under this "umbrella" are numerous.

  •  There's a problem with the drone debate (0+ / 0-)

    (and also a problem with your poll)

    The problem is that we usually aren't told or don't adequately discuss what alternatives would likely happen if the drone strikes were not allowed.

    I mean, if I had to choose drone strikes vs a full-blown invasion to stop terrorists in that country, I would likely choose drone strikes in a heartbeat.

    If I had to choose drone strikes vs sending in covert op teams to try to capture or kill these guys instead, I might still opt for drone strikes.  You're probably going to ill them anyway and likely some additional collateral damage, so why take the extra risk?

    If I had to choose drone strikes vs thinking we know where the bad guys are and doing nothing, I might certainly be still temped to use drone strikes.

    For me, the issue isn't drone strikes per se, but the way they can potentially be abused due to insufficient oversight and debate.  War is not pretty, and casualties amongst the inocent are pretty much inevitable no matter what you choose to do, including choosing to do nothing.

  •  Mirror this to gender gaps in military service? (0+ / 0-)

    I wonder how the perception of the use of drones would look when compared to gender gaps in military service.

    Is it, or is it not relevant?

    As in: in countries where men are more likely to be in a combat role, do men more or less favor the use of drones?

    While it is very frequently discussed that the use of drones reduces the resistance towards using force...

    One factor often left off the table here is that drones mean less of your own soldiers die.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site