Drone strike

I'm aware of that, OP's talking about Predator/Reaper drones I believe. My understanding is that the majority are flown by stateside pilots, though if you happen to have any information to the contrary it'd be very relevant to this thread. Even if they were in Afghanistan, they really wouldn't be in very much danger, because as far as I know the major bases and fobs are very secure, and they sure as fuck wouldn't go outside the wire..

relevant:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/us/drone-pilots-waiting-for-a-kill-shot-7000-miles-away.html?_r=0
 
198 probably missed completely or were duds. Those fucks can't hit the broad side of a barn from 10 feet away.

When I stayed at VBC for a little the indirect alarm would literally go off 20-30 times a night. The only thing they ever hit there were foreign (African) contractors tents.
 
Sapperdaddy, as a vet I want to recommend that you see the situation through other perspectives besides your current situation. When I was in I would of just spewed out facts about accuracy and reasons to justify murder. But, now as a civilian I cannot justify the reasons for murder. 1 civilian is too many. If the military wants to claim numbers then why are there any murders? What if those were American lives? Uncle Sam might not give a shit but as a human being I cannot justify it.
 
A little spelling error from saying it out loud where it sounds like

"G-watt" is understandable. And you ignored a big chunk of my post about

the cost of this war and the unjustness of it..

 
you obviously have your opinions cememted and an inability to change your mind about something when you say that. The LA times is a major editorial and opinion columns still have to abide by the code of ethics for journalism and you definitely have to cite credible/reputable sources. furthermore, the fact that these facts are old hardly negates the accuracy of the information.
 
That principle is 100% independent of the type of weapon used. So either you have an issue with war and weapons or you have an inexplicable conviction that death by UAV is wrong and by another aircraft is ok.

Don't talk down to me like I'm 5 by the way.
 
had a professor mention these this semester in my war and strategic defense class, both great links.

http://www.livingunderdrones.org/numbers/

http://drones.pitchinteractive.com/

Also, the governments definition of "combatant" allows them some leeway in terms of counting their unintentional kills. All military-aged men killed in a drone strike zone are considered to have been combatants "unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent." Basically, guilty until proven innocent which isn't going to matter because he's already dead.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all

StartFragmentEndFragment

StartFragmentEndFragment
 
They already do all of that with helicopters, in fact I can cite that as fact as a family friend of mine is one of the pilots for the CSPD. Border Patrol uses UAV's now and probably saves some moola on gas to do so. Don't know.

UAVs (in my view) are simply more efficient ways of doing some of the same stuff we've been doing for years, so I don't get why people are specifically irked by them and not their predecessors.
 
No, this isn't true. The only thing I'm saying is that there are better sources than the one you posted. I'm not making an attempt to make any point there. I have been saying that I don't see UAVs specifically as an issue. The means of commencing war or espionage are inconsequential in my mind.

Who cares if I stab you with a knife or a sword? People shouldn't stab people is the concern isn't it?
 
I think people are just disturbed by what they perceive as the disconnect between a pilot and his actions, as opposed to someone who's actually in the air and sees what is happening in real life. I don't really agree with that, and I think it's unfair to the pilots, but that's what most people dislike about it.

Side note, if we didn't have UAV's, do you think we'd try to use normal aircraft to do the things we're doing now? Would we put pilots in the air over Pakistan, or Yemen or wherever?
 
You make a great point there, I imagine it's becoming easier to try to covertly and cheaply send a UAV across the line considering it is much less risky and expensive. That would probably be the best answer to my question about why fear the UAV.

I couldn't speak to whether or not the government is getting bolder due to that or if it simply gives them another capability, but I'd be curious to know.
 
Great point about the helicopters.. yeah so I'm realizing more and more my problem is more the war (for lack of better name) than the drones
 
this could be argued either way.... but in my opinion i really dont give a fuck about what happens to them. tough luck for whoever happened to be within the kill radius of the JDAM/tomahawk or whatever they use. Rather have them die than americans. if it makes our lives better, im all for it.
 
This made me lol.

"Whatever atrocities are committed, so be it, as long as it makes life easier for me and my friends."

And btw, it doesn't make your life better at all. The taliban in Afghanistan poses little to no threat at the moment to citizens on American soil. I won't get into a huge debate over this, but we really are just a peacekeeping force there right now. We aren't defending America from a foreign enemy.
 
ok ok true... it really has no effect on us. but its my opinion. you can disagree all you want. either way i still dont care about any of them. sounds harsh i know
 
"The taliban in Afghanistan poses little to no threat at the moment to citizens on American soil.” This is correct.
 
Ahaha what a fucking joke. You know what the US's definition of a militant is? A military aged male. That's it. So when you hear a report saying "6 militants were killed in a drone strike" or something along those lines, it means 6 random military aged males were killed. If the only fucking collateral damage is on people who associate with terrorists then why has the US engaged in double tap strikes that actively seek to kill people trying to help the wounded and why are random civilians like the woman mentioned in this article http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/27/drones-attack-pakistan-family-rehman-congress killed literally all the fucking time.

You sir are a moron.
 
You really don't understand why we are in Afghanistan. The Taliban took Afghanistan over after the Soviets invaded and left plunged this country into a 3rd world Islamic extremist country allowing groups like Al-Qaeda to thrive from Afghanistan. They made money from the poppy and marijuana production here and were able to fund and plan attacks without a government interfering. They had training camps, weapon production, and a safe haven here. The Taliban protected them and allowed it. We went after Al-Qaeda and the Taliban naturally came into it.
 
I know why we're there, and I never said I had a problem with it. I was merely stating that we were NOT defending American soil at this time, so if someone thinks the fact that there are soldiers over in Afghanistan makes them safer as an American, it really doesn't. We're there primarily as a peacekeeping force trying to stabilize the new government and avoid it being taken over again by the Taliban.

I know you're actually there, so your word is more important than mine, but that's what I've gathered from hearing people talk about why we're there.
 
Just something to think about too. Drone strikes have killed civilians ok. But what about the carpet bombings and the 2 nukes we dropped in WW2? Was that alright that those killed 1000's more civilians? I guess its alright because the enemy was more clear then now. Its war good people die.
 
This is a good point. I think the reason people get upset about drones is the disconnect from the operator to their target. It seems less humanized and more robotic and impersonal. Not really a valid concern, but I think this is the way people view drones. It's not really any different than if a bomber drops a bomb and it kills civilians, but people see it differently.
 
A lot of times when I'm high I realize we are lucky to be born where we are. Your father could have been considered a terrorist for protecting his hometown from outside entities and you see him as a hero. You are of age and considered a militant and the bomb happens to get dropped on you and your pop while driving to the ski hill for some early morning turns. It is 2013. There must be a better way to solve things than any innocent lives being taken. In America we won't even murder a serial killer who gets caught in the act without a trial. But, we drop bombs from an unmanned vehicle on a wedding party in a country that most of us would never even know if it was not for our imperialistic ways.
 
I often consider how lucky I was to be born here as well. Whenever I feel greedy or feel like I deserve more out of life, I remember that I could have a sand-blasted house from a monsoon in Southeast Asia, or be starving to death in the Congo. I don't even want to think about what my life would be like if I was born in North Korea, or the Middle East, or some other terrible corner of the world. We have it MUCH better than we realize in the USA.
 
Have you been reading any of Jeremy Scahill's books?

Awlaki's life was so grey I find it very hard to base an argument off of his assassination. The amount of terrorists he was linked to that actually attacked America was alarmingly high and it was very apparent that he was an enabler by justifying any terrorist attack on American civilians and soldiers. Tactically Awlaki made a very logical target, he could reach islamic citizens in many western countries and indirectly influence their decision to kill citizens. This is why I really don't buy the argument that it was wrong to kill him.

Remember that we are not fighting a nation or even a strictly uniform group but an ideology of extremist islam, we can't finish this war by simply killing terrorists that actually carry out acts of violence, we have to destroy the root of the problem which is the violent ideology imposed by certain people (Awlaki later in life, UBL, KSM, etc).

Now just related to this discussion I would like to point out that America has been very successful so far in limiting Al Qaeda's capabilities to the point of the group struggling to exist. This is highly credited in my opinion to JSOC and the CIA's drone programs. What really worries me is if in ten years the children in the Middle East that were affected by these programs through family deaths will continue the jihad against America. I am not a fan of drone programs for that reason, the collateral damage is far to high.

At the moment the US and her allies have access to very highly trained soldiers who can kill AQ members just as effectively but with lower collateral damage. I would prefer to see Delta, DEVGRU, SAS, JTF2, SASR, GROM etc. carrying out more missions and drone attacks decreasing. The reason I am including foreign tier 1 units is because to phase out drone strikes it will require more special ops than America can handle herself.
 
He still was an American citizen and had right to due process.

"children in the Middle East that were affected by these programs through family deaths will continue the jihad against America. I am not a fan of drone programs for that reason, the collateral damage is far to high.” I couldn’t agree more.

And was there any justification for killing his 16 year old son????
 
This is where I jump back and forth on this issue. Yes, by American law he has the right to due process, however this is a war and bureaucracy does get in the way of the effectiveness of fighting a war in certain specific circumstances. There are times in which laws that were designed to protect America's citizens can endanger them. This is why I'm torn, what is the point of government if laws are not upheld 100% of the time? What is the point of government if it can't do everything in its power to protect its citizens?

It's hard to find information on the death of his son, from my understanding the drone strike was targeting insurgents and his son was collateral damage in the attack.
 
people arent upset that drones are used, they are upset because these people are executed without any charge or anything. DoD says "we think that person is a terrorist, kill him" without finding out if they are or not. drones make it easier to assassinate people for literaly no reason other than "we think they might be bad." fuck that. i hope all of you supporters of this program act surprised when this shit starts coming down on american soil. "that wont happen!!" ok, sure. as of now, if you are a suspected terrorist, in america, you can be taken away with no charge and be locked up indefinately, AND tortured (oh yeah, they lied about that too, huh) untill you confess. look it up. the national defence authorization act. welcom to amerika
 
We've been at war for 12 years. They've exhausted any weapons we gave them. Most weapons they use now they get from Pakistan (aks, RPGs, dishkas, recoilless rifles, and Russian rockets and mortars). The IED components are all old Russian artillery or HME. We might have seen blowback in the very beginning but not now.
 
Which nation are we fighting a war against? Or a group of people in a country? Imperialism much? To me it looks like we're weaseling our way into control of those countries. Not a surprise to me all the areas we fight for are high in natural resources.
 
Well you see theres no natural resources that are worth anything in Afghanistan, Iraq yes there was oil. But in Afghanistan there is literally nothing. No oil, a small mining industry (ours is much larger and more abundant), and nothing else other then rock and sand. We aren't fighting a war against any nation we are fighting a war on terrorism and terrorists. I don't know if you remember the day of September 11th but we were attacked on our soil. We went to hunt down and bring to justice the people that made that day possible. In the process we are helping rebuild a war torn country basically from the ground up.
 
Anyone who think that the war in Afghanistan is about resources should honestly read at least one book on the war, it becomes very clear that with a bit of concrete information (not the pseudo-info of the net) that the war is not about imperialism or resources.
 
I know who you're referring to and I can assure you that you don't know what you're talking about in the slightest.
 
Eh, that's not really fair of me to say at all.

I guess what I meant to say was his life was pretty fucked up after he did that. It was ugly for everyone involved, he made a huge mistake. If you see the HUD tapes it's more understandable what mindset he was in, but his decision to attack is tactically confusing (and in hindsight that's even easier to say since it was an obvious horrible mistake).
 
You're right, man. Keep following orders. Keep fighting this war against "terrorism" if that helps you sleep better at night.

The real terrorist are Wall Street, bankers, senseless politicians and investors of the war..
 
I'm a Vet too man. When I was in I was as hard up as you were. I would immediately discredit anybody who talked shit against what I signed up for. Then, I realized what I really signed up for. Thousands and thousands are against the war. The mission of the sub I was on was pointless. I can't explain. But, billion dollars later, few broken marriages, and a broken mast we accomplished ZERO.
 
I take that back... I exaggerated a bit. I guess in the eyes of most we got shit done. Just didnt seem like a worth it cause so my personal feelings translate to getting nothing done.
 
anyone who thinks the war in aghanistan is purely about terrorists should honeslty read atleast one aswell. Aghanistan is one of the most mineral rich countries in the world becuase their resources have not yet been mined. But the resources are there, and they amount to trillions of dollars in estimated value. Why do you think the russians wanted afghanistan so bad? It wasn't because of terrorism.
 
Afghanistan: Lithium

And Bin Laden was not behind the 9/11 attacks, I know this barbecue, the FBI told me so.

The war on terror is merely about oil or resources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top