Shouldn’t all wedding parties be droned?
Based on the way I felt next day, I think mine did.
Palestinians have been known to stage (fake) casualties. I wonder if every AQ meeting is now required to be staged like a wedding party.
I find it hard to believe that there isn’t a memo taped to every drone operator’s monitor that says, “DO NOT BOMB ACTUAL WEDDING PARTIES!!”
You know, it’s pretty clear now that the drone program is rife with ‘mistakes’ and has resulted in the deaths of scores of civilians/noncombatants.
It also, as pointed out, is undoubtedly prolonging the War On Terror by making enemies of the US.
But there are still…umm…‘Pilots’ who want to fly the fucking things. Saw an article the other day about how drone ‘pilots’ are subject to PTSD. Considering how fucked up the whole thing is, I can’t say as how I feel sorry for them. Shoot a missile into a wedding party and now PTSD is ruining your life? Meh. Ok.
I’m far too realistic to waste my time like this. It won’t accomplish *any-*goddamn-thing.
What I’d like to see is any supporters that Obama has left to start hammering him on this issue and demand he stop these type of strikes. The left was wailing and gnashing their teeth when Bush was doing the same things, but is incredibly silent on this issue since “their” guy is the one allowing innocent people to be killed.
Where are the anti-war protesters that we were seeing when Bush was in power? They seem to be nowhere to be found. The hypocrisy is astounding.
Would it be better if the wedding party had been bombed by a manned plane?
Or blown up by a jihadist suicide bomb? That happens a helluva lot more often.
Exactly. Or, have a platoon of Marines drop in to shoot up the wedding and eat all the cake? The problem isn’t drones, it’s strikes of any kind with insufficient information.
Perhaps Yemen brides should be allowed to register for which kind of American strike they prefer on their special day.
Not better for the family, but one of my issues with drone attacks is that it is so low risk for the US. It takes away any manpower risk, allowing us to do a lot more bombing than we would if we were putting our own people at risk.
So, if we had to put our own people at risk, along with all the costs and risks associate with getting our people in place, it’s possible they wouldn’t have been bombed at all. We would save those missions for really high value targets. With drones, you can bomb low value or no value targets with impunity.
I spend too much money on frivolous items. So now every time I make a credit card transaction, I stab myself in the leg. That way, I’ll only use the card when I really have to.
What do you think of my plan?
Why just them? Last time I looked, about half of the country didn’t dig his chili and would gladly ask him to knock it off–where’s the pressure from them? The dislike for drone warfare isn’t partisan, numbnuts. Perhaps if Mr. Obama’s opposition had managed to present a viable alternative that wasn’t a sleezy puppet of the oligarchy (who doesn’t give one fine crap about foreign brownmen or their heathen weddings) then the new guy might have discontinued the anti-terrorism technique. In fact, who’s to say his supporters aren’t asking him to knock it off? Besides you, I mean.
Yeah, I haven’t seen any at all.
After literally a decade, protesting against what is basically the same thing tends to die down. There are plenty on the left condemning the drone strikes, and the amount complaining Obama isn’t liberal enough and yada yada is huge.
Is this in response to my post? If so, then, if you’re spending too much money to frivolous items, then you should spend less using whatever method it takes – cut up your credit cards, for example.
Is your analogy that credit cards make it too easy to spend money, just like drones make it too easy to bomb people?
I’m pretty lefty, and here I am complaining.
Why do the Republicans have to present an alternative? Last I checked, Obama is the Commander in Chief and can, with one order, stop the drone strikes. If he really wanted them stopped, no one is standing in his way.
What I’d like to see is people like this guy here protest Obama’s war policy the same way he protested Bush’s.
I’d like to see an all-Basset Hound musical adaptation of Stranger in a Strange Land, but it ain’t gonna happen. Life is full of these little disappointments.
The problem is that you see one guy, or even a handful, being inconsistent and then impute the same inconsistencies to a ridiculously large group of people. You see why that might raise some hackles, right?
If this is not terrorism I don’t know what is.
Don’t you mean “Nobel Piece Price”? ;(
" ‘Terrorist’ is what the big army calls the little army."
It’s not terrorism because we are the ones doing it. If we fly missiles into skyscrapers like Al Qaeda did with planes, that’s not terrorism because we’re the ones doing it.
Ugh. Please don’t make me defend the Bush-Obama doctrine here. There is a difference between the deliberate targeting of civilians and the accidental killing of civilians during a military or police action. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know it makes little difference to the dead or the dead’s loved ones, but I do think that intent matters when discussing what is and what is not an act of terrorism.
Anyone wishing to continue this further, please open a thread in GD.