Discussion
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22653476
Obama defending the drone strikes policy yesterday. The idea of it makes me uneasy, it's not far off state sponsored terrorism in my eyes. I'm not naive enough to think that without drones state sponsored killings would stop, but the drones appear to cause a lot of collataral damage. Also I think the public nature of these strikes is counter productive, in the sense that they only encourage further hatred for the US and the west as a whole.
Mind, I think the following excerpt from a BBC article sums up the US opinion on foreign policy. Why should it be ok to kill suspected criminals without trial using missiles in other countries that you are not at war with but not on your own soil?
"The use of unmanned drones in foreign countries has been overwhelmingly backed in US opinion polls.
However, the same polls reveal that few support the use of drones on US territory."
Obama defending the drone strikes policy yesterday. The idea of it makes me uneasy, it's not far off state sponsored terrorism in my eyes. I'm not naive enough to think that without drones state sponsored killings would stop, but the drones appear to cause a lot of collataral damage. Also I think the public nature of these strikes is counter productive, in the sense that they only encourage further hatred for the US and the west as a whole.
Mind, I think the following excerpt from a BBC article sums up the US opinion on foreign policy. Why should it be ok to kill suspected criminals without trial using missiles in other countries that you are not at war with but not on your own soil?
"The use of unmanned drones in foreign countries has been overwhelmingly backed in US opinion polls.
However, the same polls reveal that few support the use of drones on US territory."
happygoron said:
"The use of unmanned drones in foreign countries has been overwhelmingly backed in US opinion polls.
However, the same polls reveal that few support the use of drones on US territory."
One imagines there must a growing industry creating fully automated anti-drone systems.However, the same polls reveal that few support the use of drones on US territory."
Drone on drone will be the inevitable outcome.
I'm also willing to bet one of the first countries to adopt the use of drones on home soil will be UK - "to protect the innocent".
Justayellowbadge said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
I'm also willing to bet one of the first countries to adopt the use of drones on home soil will be UK - "to protect the innocent".
Wow. edit - Actually they've already been used over here - by Merseyside police.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/07/drones...
The military (and CIA types?) like them becasue drones allow them to bomb someone much more cheaply than a cruise misile would and for much less cost/danger than putting a manned aircraft in to do the same job. It also lets them choose when to strike, rather than when the manned plane gets there as the drone can stay there for much longer. The reason for disliking them is really the technological advantage they give the high tech nations, really otherwise they're no different to air strikes.....which you're quite within your rights to dislike on the basis that they can appear to be basically summary executions.
Victor McDade said:
Justayellowbadge said:
Ozzie Osmond said:
I'm also willing to bet one of the first countries to adopt the use of drones on home soil will be UK - "to protect the innocent".
Wow. Ozzie Osmond said:
Guess which country already has the most CCTV cameras per capita on the planet?
Well when you put it like that, it is a most convincing argument. The correlation between 'owning a camera' and 'want to drop depleted uranium ordnance on your neighbours' being as well known as it is.
Can't see why I never made the connection before.
Perhaps it's because I'm not a paranoid reactionary mentalist.
But then, that could just be what they want me to think...
t up but for other stuff?Zod said:
Fittster said:
Can the US Pres legally kill however he likes via a drone strike?
Take an extreme example, could he order a drone strike against a US citizen?
He's already done so outside the US.Take an extreme example, could he order a drone strike against a US citizen?
I think on the BBC news last night they mentioned 350+ drone strikes in Pakistan since 1996.
That's 350 strikes against a sovereign state they're not at war with, nor employing sanctions against (or are they?) or that the UN security council has endorsed for combat actions.
IIRC drones are also used on the Canadian border!
Barry O makes it sound acceptable with his immaculate presentation, however.
That's 350 strikes against a sovereign state they're not at war with, nor employing sanctions against (or are they?) or that the UN security council has endorsed for combat actions.
IIRC drones are also used on the Canadian border!
Barry O makes it sound acceptable with his immaculate presentation, however.
The Don of Croy said:
I think on the BBC news last night they mentioned 350+ drone strikes in Pakistan since 1996.
That's 350 strikes against a sovereign state they're not at war with, nor employing sanctions against (or are they?) or that the UN security council has endorsed for combat actions.
IIRC drones are also used on the Canadian border!
Barry O makes it sound acceptable with his immaculate presentation, however.
Immaculate presentation? Saying 6 syllables and then pausing, looking the other way and saying another 6 syllables is not exactly breathtaking is it?That's 350 strikes against a sovereign state they're not at war with, nor employing sanctions against (or are they?) or that the UN security council has endorsed for combat actions.
IIRC drones are also used on the Canadian border!
Barry O makes it sound acceptable with his immaculate presentation, however.
It must be a very strange, removed form of warfare. The operator sits in a portacabin in Nevada next to his mate, orbiting a funeral in Pakistan waiting for permission to fire a missile at some unsuspecting jihadist down below. He fires it and then goes home after his shift. A few days later they find out if they got the target or not.
el stovey said:
It must be a very strange, removed form of warfare. The operator sits in a portacabin in Nevada next to his mate, orbiting a funeral in Pakistan waiting for permission to fire a missile at some unsuspecting jihadist down below. He fires it and then goes home after his shift. A few days later they find out if they got the target or not.
Heard an interview with one the Brit pilots in Afghanistan. Seemed very clear the last thing it was was detached or video game like - they were acutely aware what they were doing.Justayellowbadge said:
el stovey said:
It must be a very strange, removed form of warfare. The operator sits in a portacabin in Nevada next to his mate, orbiting a funeral in Pakistan waiting for permission to fire a missile at some unsuspecting jihadist down below. He fires it and then goes home after his shift. A few days later they find out if they got the target or not.
Heard an interview with one the Brit pilots in Afghanistan. Seemed very clear the last thing it was was detached or video game like - they were acutely aware what they were doing.I would think it's a lot less stressful to kill someone via remote control.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff