Milhouse
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2011
- Messages
- 18,632
- Reaction score
- 3,856
Then you are an idiot.
perhaps he is, but what point are you refuting? obama clearly does not care about killing women and children.
Then you are an idiot.
"Before any strike is taken, there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured—the highest standard we can set," President Obama promised back in May.
Does anyone believe that, if not for our lethal drone program, the United States would've sent the Air Force or ground troops to fire on this wedding party? The thousands of drone strikes we've carried out in recent years suggest that drones decrease the cost of lethal action so much that the U.S. takes it more often now than we would if we didn't have a drone fleet at the ready—and not, as their defenders sometimes argue, that drones are saving us from air strikes and ground invasions.
Friedersdorf weighs in. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/if-a-drone-strike-hit-an-american-wedding-wed-ground-our-fleet/282373/ It appears that this was not an "accident" - the convoy was intentionally targeted and blown up. "only" 5 vehicles out of 14 were targeted, presumably because someone thought they knew that people who were suspected of connection to Al Qaeda were in those five vehicles.
So what you have here is a situation where someone weighed the pros and cons of blowing up a wedding convoy to kill 5 people who were suspected of being "connected" to AQ, and decided the pros outweighed the cons.
We killed something between 0-5 people who might be terrorists, and in the process created about 100 more who will actively support anything and anyone who wants to kill Americans. Hard to see how the pros outweigh the cons.
Our arrogance knows no bounds. Again, just imagine what the reaction would be if another nation attempted to take out some suspected terrorists and instead blew up the whole goddamn wedding party? I just can't imagine.