just to make it fair, even tho the link doesn’t work, i’ma say it’s your fantasy as well as the authors.
tit for tat, masturdebator.
Works for me. Here is another link to the same thing: Study: Militants, not civilians, are primary victims of drone strikes - USATODAY.com
so, honestly, Terr, can you answer:
what makes THIS source of information so much more reliable or true or honest than all the others that have been cited?
other than the fact it supports what you choose to believe, what makes it’s more legitimate or truthful?
a fun quote from yet another USA TODAY article:
another
it continues,
so, ok, TERR. let’s use the USAtoday as the most credible source of info.
all this supports every aspect of all the concerns we are voicing.
It’s Associated Press journalists conducting a study. That’s a little more reliable than a leftie web site pulling numbers out of thin air, or Pakistanis propagandizing against the US.
You can voice whatever concerns you like. You don’t get to make up facts. Like that “ten-to-one civilian to militant kill ratio”.
And who said USA Today is a credible source of information? The article I cited only reported on the study. You had problems for some reason with the original link, so I linked to a different reprint. USA Today didn’t conduct that study. Associated Press did.
The vitriol against drones specifically is puzzling to me. We have numerous methods of bombing targets with either zero or low risk to any soldier – shelling, cruise missile, stealth bomber etc.
I get how you can be against bombing, or these wars in general, but singling out drones, why? What is it that disgusts people so much about them?
This is a Warning to refrain from making direct personal insults against other posters.
[ /Moderating ]
Primarily, because the current program both uses drones and kills innocent civilians for no reason, and “the drone program” is a shorthand for the entire situation. Secondarily, because people who have bought into the notion that Our Troops have sacred lives but the untermenschen in other countries do not can more easily justify the continued random bombing of schoolchildren in Pakistan when they see it as bearing no risk for real people.
Well, it shouldn’t be. A drone is particular tool/weapon. If we’re targeting innocent civilians then I have a problem with that. And it’s irrelevant whether it’s done with a drone or a golden gun.
We’re randomly bombing schoolchildren in Pakistan?
Yes, when you get out of the fantasy world of “terrorists” and “militants” and into reality, you have to confront things like 168 children killed in drone strikes in Pakistan since start of campaign
I don’t ‘hate’ Obama, but nor am I a supporter of his. I voted for the Republican in both elections.
The power to authorize the use of military force lies with Congress. See the War Powers Act - Wikipedia]War Powers Act.
If you’re opposed to the war being waged under the 2001 AUMF, support Congressmen that also oppose it. If Congress repeals the AUMF, the drone strikes in places like Yemen are over.
I don’t know what other mechanism you have in mind to check the President’s use of force.
I’m aware. Your point being?
You used “signature strike” earlier to refer to double-taps, where two missiles are fired at a target, which has resulted in the deaths of ambulance crews and such.
The term actually refers to strikes that target individuals who display a pattern of behavior, rather than individuals who’ve been identified from intelligence sources and the like. See this article.
Consider where the incentives are in the targeting of terrorists and militants. If the President or a member of the executive branch refrains from targeting a given individual, the gain is the sparing of lives. The cost could be a future terrorist attack, or attacks upon U.S. soldiers.
If the President or a member of the executive proceeds with a strike, the cost, if civilians are killed or the target was not, in fact, a terrorist, the cost is political flak. The potential gain is the elimination of a threat to U.S. interests, without American lives being put at risk.
Given this, it’s only common sense that a free hand will be given to launch strikes. The price of not launching one, even if the information is sketchy, is perceived to outweight the price of launching one in which civilians are accidentally killed.
Until that fundamental reality changes or the AUMF is repealed, expect no significant changes to the drone program. For anti-drone folks, your opponent is the reality that Americans value their lives and security more than foreigners’ lives, or at least are willing to accept some collateral loss of life in foreign lands for their own security.
I think the disconnect is between what’s legal and what’s moral. Legal =/ moral. Just because you can do it, doesn’t mean you should do it.
If we’re killing too many civilians versus the military advantage gained by killing the target, then that’s illegal/war crime. I’m guessing the ICRC (Red Cross) or other Human Rights watch groups has investigated this and reported their findings to the UN/ICC/Appropriate Court. It’s very likely the UN itself has investigated.
What can the UN do? They usually condemn. That’s what they did to Syria and that really helped (internet sarcasm insert here). They also have the ability to refer cases to the ICC or appropriate international court. This is pure textbook and I’m not commenting on the fact we’re the US and the biggest guy in the room by far. However, bit by bit, it destroys our image.
If it’s legal, then you can ask your Congressman/Senator that you want it to stop.
Yay! Terrorists and miltants are just a fantasy.
That link is an estimate of civilians killed during this conflict. Even if we assume it is correct, it is not the same thing as “random bombing of schoolchildren in Pakistan”.
If there were a sortie where the US knew that children would be in a building, with a militant, and decided to fire anyway, I’d certainly be interested to hear about it.
Otherwise I will continue to assume that such deaths are entirely accidental or (non-deliberate) collateral damage.
I happen to think that Obama is not acting immorally with the drone strikes.
You’re confusing two different things. First, its moral because Obama is acting morally and taking out legitimate targets. Second, their countries are weak and have little or no ability to enforce their laws, and have given us permission to do so (Pakistan can kick us out any time, but they don’t because we give them lots and lots of money) and that makes the drone strikes legal. Third, other countries won’t do it to us because we can enforce our laws and we are pretty good about not letting our terrorists escape and hide in the mountains without attacking them, so they have no reason to attack us. And last, it is hypocrisy to say that we can do it but they can’t, but I never claimed it wasn’t. So we’re being hypocritical in this case, oh well, Pakistan should do more to kill their terrorists instead of build mansions for them. Until they do that, we are justified.
Wikipedia link. I guess one could argue that the US (under Bush) wasn’t involved, or that there was no way to know children would be in a school. But if it walks like a drone attack and talks like a drone attack…
- He’s taking out both legitimate and illegitimate targets. Drones cannot “target” individual terrorists or small groups, only areas, which are measured by blast radii.
- Yes, the countries in question don’t have adequate abilities to fight terrorism. But I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to violate their sovereignty. As for permissions, from the earlier NYT article:
From the Stanford study:
- We are lucky to have the policing capabilities, money, power, etc. required to not be at the mercy of drone strikes from other countries. Hopefully that will always be the case.
Ah, missed this. I addressed each of your ridiculous claims in previous posts and noticed, with amusement, that you just ignored it. I note with even more amusement that you actually think I backpedaled on anything I said, when not only did I address that but pointed out you were merely trying to parse my words in an effort to make yourself look less foolish. 
Didn’t work man…sorry. It’s almost like you don’t realize that people can, you know, scroll up and see for themselves! It’s one of those hidden features that many people don’t know about.
The idea that the only people killed by the drones are “militants” is indeed a fantasy, as has been shown above, because Obama has decided that one of the sufficient conditions for being a “militant” is to be killed by a bomb. It’s insane, evil logic. The other fantasy is that some guy in Pakistan with an AK-47 is somehow threatening the security of the United States.
So that you could tell me it’s the “militant’s” fault for using human shields and bad things happen in war and why don’t I let the adults do their serious adult things like bomb “the bad guys” with video game controllers, yes.
because of the multiple reasons given. the CIA runs this program and it absolves them from typical oversight. it allows a circumvention of law and order and judicial process. it allows them reprieve from standardized policy, for some crazy reason. it in essence legalizes unilateral, superlegal assassination.
for some reason other programs are considered “military” and have oversight. this one, tho, in specific, lacks it.
the term actually alludes to a sort of lack of discrimination when deciding who to bomb, something more along the lines of “this is bad guy territory, so anyone there clearly is a bad guy” which means anyone who responds to the destruction is CLEARLY a bad guy by association of being on the premises.
such strikes barely qualify as even legal.
such events allow them recourse to blow up rescuers, funerals, or american minor children of suspects. who are, again, not “guilty,” but merely "suspect.