Pentagon to triple the number of drones

[Rez O. Lewshun]

That requires a discussion of the ROE that we can't go into here. But the answer is a resounding no. We go to extreme measures to ensure civilian safety before kinetic activity. Stop believing everything you read in the press. Regardless of what you believe, they have their own agenda.

So.... the press is wrong? Does this include non US news?

All of the reporting, or just when the press reports innocent civilians killed by US weaponry?

 

[SIG600]

You should thank God you live in a country that condones your free speech. Talking to you is more painful than slamming my head against a wall. It's war, people die. Not all of them deserve it. Why don't you go to a VFW and punch a WWII vet for carpet bombing Japan or Germany? You obviously know more than the rest of us.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

You should thank God you live in a country that condones your free speech.

What if I am an atheist? Who should I thank? You?

Talking to you is more painful than slamming my head against a wall.

Does that mean the truth hurts? That it is uncomfortable?

It's war, people die. Not all of them deserve it.

you just told me not to believe the press... that it wasn't true that innocents die, but now, they do and they don't deserve it?



Well not really war, in the legally declared sense... but physically and in the real sense.... sure...

Why don't you go to a VFW and punch a WWII vet for carpet bombing Japan or Germany? You obviously know more than the rest of us.

I don't think those guys fooled themselves in what they were doing. They recognized the ugly truth in it. Perhaps that is why the Greatest Generation didn't talk much about it... they came back home and did the best they could in getting back to civilian life. Those guys have class.

 

[Kuma]

So.... the press is wrong? Does this include non US news?

All of the reporting, or just when the press reports innocent civilians killed by US weaponry?

In general, the press is always wrong about everything. Whenever they are reporting about something that I know a lot about (say aviation) they make remarks and describe details that I shake my head and say to myself..."they do not know what they are talking about". Based on 40+ years of thinking that, I am pretty sure that they convey about 40% truth and 60% hyperbole.

With that being said, during times of war civilians are often hurt, maimed and killed. That is sad. They may or may not be totally "innocent" but the fact remains that they get hurt or killed during war. In the crusades, thousands died from blunt force and the cutting of a blade. In world war I, thousands died from chemical attack, during WWII millions died from the firebombing of cities, V-missiles into metropolises, and attempted genocide of an entire religious sect. Recently, Ethiopia and Eritrea killed millions of each other over tribal concerns.

While I agree that death and pain for the innocent is wrong, drones change the scale drastically. Twelve killed in Pakistan? Twelve? Among them were multiple known terrorists and agents?

More drones mean more intel. More intel means more situational awareness, more SA means less "innocents" get hurt. Some will always get hurt.

This is the price of trying to rid the world of terrorist bastards who would kill thousands to make their point heard.

 

[Hobit]

This message is hidden because Rez O. Lewshun is on your ignore list.

 

[Kharma Police]

So.... the press is wrong? Does this include non US news?

All of the reporting, or just when the press reports innocent civilians killed by US weaponry?

If only ALPA pilots following the ALPA Code of Ethics were flying those drones, then no civilians would have been killed.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

In general, the press is always wrong about everything. Whenever they are reporting about something that I know a lot about (say aviation) they make remarks and describe details that I shake my head and say to myself..."they do not know what they are talking about". Based on 40+ years of thinking that, I am pretty sure that they convey about 40% truth and 60% hyperbole.

With that being said, during times of war civilians are often hurt, maimed and killed. That is sad. They may or may not be totally "innocent" but the fact remains that they get hurt or killed during war. In the crusades, thousands died from blunt force and the cutting of a blade. In world war I, thousands died from chemical attack, during WWII millions died from the firebombing of cities, V-missiles into metropolises, and attempted genocide of an entire religious sect. Recently, Ethiopia and Eritrea killed millions of each other over tribal concerns.

While I agree that death and pain for the innocent is wrong, drones change the scale drastically. Twelve killed in Pakistan? Twelve? Among them were multiple known terrorists and agents?

More drones mean more intel. More intel means more situational awareness, more SA means less "innocents" get hurt. Some will always get hurt.

This is the price of trying to rid the world of terrorist bastards who would kill thousands to make their point heard.

Also, the drones add a new factor to warfare... it is clean... the drone team isn't on site weilding the same weapon.. it is defintely an unfair fight. (war isn't fair... just an observation...).

Also, drone operations is based upon intel. Intel isn't always accurate. Meaning, if you are on the battlefield facing your enemy you know who your enemy is... he is right there with a similar weapon trying to kill you.


So if civilian deaths in war are unfortunate, but acceptable, is it also acceptable if "they" kill my family and claim all is fair in war?

Finally, when does it all end? Or is this the way it has always been and always will be? Our grandchildren are simply fodder for the war machine?

 

[zippy]

Also, drone operations is based upon intel. Intel isn't always accurate. Meaning, if you are on the battlefield facing your enemy you know who your enemy is... he is right there with a similar weapon trying to kill you.


So if civilian deaths in war are unfortunate, but acceptable, is it also acceptable if "they" kill my family and claim all is fair in war?

Finally, when does it all end? Or is this the way it has always been and always will be? Our grandchildren are simply fodder for the war machine?

You appear to have some background in aviation... was it acceptable when aircraft were hijacked and flown into the World Trade center? Would it have been acceptable if the shoe bomber, or the Nigerian were sucessful in blowing up the aircraft they were on in flight? Is it acceptable for things like that to continue to happen?

In the perfect world, there would be no conflict, no hunger or poverty but the world is far from perfect. Hopefully one day it will be, but it is going to be a very long time.

War is not fair, and War is not perfect. As previously stated, use of kinetic weapons in the current conflict minimized the number of casualties on the recieving end (even if you believe that those killed surrounding the target are "innocent")... you fear about the youth being fodder for the war machine... imagine the increase of casualties on all sides if the United States replaced drone attacks with what you support... face to face combat between forces on the ground.

It is very easy to blindly criticize something you fear and don't understand. You have the right to publicly cry out against the operations of the US military... for that right, you are welcome.

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

You appear to have some background in aviation... was it acceptable when aircraft were hijacked and flown into the World Trade center? Would it have been acceptable if the shoe bomber, or the Nigerian were sucessful in blowing up the aircraft they were on in flight? Is it acceptable for things like that to continue to happen?

No these acts are not acceptable... are the acts committed by the US against innocent civilians acceptable?

In the perfect world, there would be no conflict, no hunger or poverty but the world is far from perfect. Hopefully one day it will be, but it is going to be a very long time.

I like the way you think, but it is flawed in that you put the responsibility of a better world onto the shoulders of future generations. Perhaps guys landing on Normandy or flying B-17 missions over Germany assured themselves that what they were doing was worth it so future generations won't have to go to war... yet here we are...
killing each other.

War is not fair, and War is not perfect. As previously stated, use of kinetic weapons in the current conflict minimized the number of casualties on the recieving end (even if you believe that those killed surrounding the target are "innocent")... you fear about the youth being fodder for the war machine... imagine the increase of casualties on all sides if the United States replaced drone attacks with what you support... face to face combat between forces on the ground.

Actually I don't support war at all. I already gave at the office and my kids aren't available to a society that believes our children are born to die in war.

It is very easy to blindly criticize something you fear and don't understand. You have the right to publicly cry out against the operations of the US military... for that right, you are welcome.

What don't I understand...???? at the start of this post I agreed that 9/11 and shoe bomber attempts are unacceptable... so now the question becomes are our attacks acceptable....?? Why is what they did unacceptable and what we do acceptable? One could argue that they started it with 9/11, however, I am willing to say thay "they" will say it we started it before 9/11. That is the problem with war... and when does it end?

Isn't real democracy the ability to question ourselves and our actions? What seems concerning... is not questioning. If we desensitize ourselves or ignore or even refuse to accept the truth, is that really moral? If we want the benefit of victory, as a free society should not also accept the responsibility?

 

[chignutsak]

We are blowing up militants. Great. While doing so, innocents will inevitably be part of the tally, no matter what elaborate precautions are taken. Fog of war and all of that. Let's say we take out some bad guy commander, but in doing so, take out a dozen or so women and children along with the bad guy. They have made a value judgment and essentially said their lives are worthless. Bureaucrats safe at HQ and idiots posting on internet boards might say that is an acceptable trade-off. But you have (further) enraged hundreds, if not thousands, of locals. They will be even more resolute and determined against occupiers. Instead of getting one step closer to your goal by taking an important bad guy out, you have now escalated the conflict, and their hatreds of us and everything we stand for, just as it may seem to us.

Remember, most of these folks are illiterate. They don't give one rat's azz about our Constitution, our government, 9/11, or have access to Faux News, MSDNC, or moronic blogs. They are instead concerned about day-to-day survival, which means basic subsistence and staying on the good side of the local tribal chieftain. Whether or not said chieftain is viewed by the US as a good or bad guy is completely meaningless to them; if it takes hemp, poppies, or pomegranates to keep chief happy, so be it. When does it end? It doesn't. If war is your business, then I suppose you are a happy camper. But tell me something, are you ready to send your sons and daughters to war in order to prop up contractor's stock price's? You damn well better, their blood is needed.

I, for one, am glad that an end game is supposedly near. We, as a nation, cannot afford an open-ended commitment to this area. There is NO upside to this, unless you are a UAV contractor.