• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Drone strike in Yemen kills 15 civilians headed to a wedding

I hate the drone strikes and think it is bad policy.

But any of you who condemn this but support shock and awe attacks and conventional war tactics have you head up your ass. Women and children die by the score in either.

Condemn all of it or STFU.
 
Explain to me the difference between a drone strike and a strike from a manned aircraft. Is the theory that we won't fly manned missions over Yemen so we shouldn't be able to use drones?
 
DeaconSig said:
Explain to me the difference between a drone strike and a strike from a manned aircraft. Is the theory that we won't fly manned missions over Yemen so we shouldn't be able to use drones?
Click to expand...

Could be a product of my age (only really been paying attention to this sort of news post 9/11, in the drone era) or more media coverage of it, but were/are there that many examples of this sort of thing happening with piloted missions?

sent from my Galaxy Note II via Tapatalk 4
 
RevDeac06 said:
Could be a product of my age (only really been paying attention to this sort of news post 9/11, in the drone era) or more media coverage of it, but were/are there that many examples of this sort of thing happening with piloted missions?

sent from my Galaxy Note II via Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II

Not the same thing, but this is a pretty good example of the fundamental shift in warfare in the modern era. When weapons took to the air, warfare ceased being waged honorably (if it in fact ever was).
 
Agreed, but that's one example. Seems that this sort of thing happens often with drones, but less so with pilots.

sent from my Galaxy Note II via Tapatalk 4
 
RevDeac06 said:
Agreed, but that's one example. Seems that this sort of thing happens often with drones, but less so with pilots.

sent from my Galaxy Note II via Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...

My theory is the same as I feel about guns, the further away killers are moved from their victims the easier it is to pull the trigger. Sure someone can murder someone with a club, but it's probably a lot taller psychological barrier than pushing a button from thousands of miles away.
 
Deacfreak07 said:
My theory is the same as I feel about guns, the further away killers are moved from their victims the easier it is to pull the trigger. Sure someone can murder someone with a club, but it's probably a lot taller psychological barrier than pushing a button from thousands of miles away.
Click to expand...

Right, completely agree. Just wondering if there were as many accidents with pilots as drones, as some seemed to suggest that it was the same.

sent from my Galaxy Note II via Tapatalk 4
 
RevDeac06 said:
Could be a product of my age (only really been paying attention to this sort of news post 9/11, in the drone era) or more media coverage of it, but were/are there that many examples of this sort of thing happening with piloted missions?

sent from my Galaxy Note II via Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...

I mean, we certainly have used manned aircraft to bomb people and installations throughout Iraq (in 2 wars) and Afghanistan. We bombed the shit out of N. Vietnam for a period of time.

I think the US honestly tries to limit civilian casualties. Probably more than any country in the world actively involved in fighting a war. But there is also a "better them than us" component to it, and I would suggest that is exactly what the American people want.

Let me ask a different question that might help clarify positions. If one of our intelligence agencies developed actionable intelligence suggesting that members of AQAP were going to be meeting at a certain spot at a certain time in Yemen, do people on the board think:

(a) we can't do anything about it- Yemen is a soverign nation with whom we are not at war, therefore we cannot take action in Yemen;
(b) we can take action, but only through us of manned airstrikes or ground troops; or
(c) kill the bad guys any which way we can, including through the use of drones?
 
RevDeac06 said:
Right, completely agree. Just wondering if there were as many accidents with pilots as drones, as some seemed to suggest that it was the same.

sent from my Galaxy Note II via Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...

The drone era is also magnified by the globalized internet age. The idea of hearing from citizens in Vietnam was unheard of 50 years ago.
 
DeaconSig said:
I mean, we certainly have used manned aircraft to bomb people and installations throughout Iraq (in 2 wars) and Afghanistan. We bombed the shit out of N. Vietnam for a period of time.

I think the US honestly tries to limit civilian casualties. Probably more than any country in the world actively involved in fighting a war. But there is also a "better them than us" component to it, and I would suggest that is exactly what the American people want.

Let me ask a different question that might help clarify positions. If one of our intelligence agencies developed actionable intelligence suggesting that members of AQAP were going to be meeting at a certain spot at a certain time in Yemen, do people on the board think:

(a) we can't do anything about it- Yemen is a soverign nation with whom we are not at war, therefore we cannot take action in Yemen;
(b) we can take action, but only through us of manned airstrikes or ground troops; or
(c) kill the bad guys any which way we can, including through the use of drones?
Click to expand...

I'm firmly in the camp of (a) unless (b) is negotiated with the local government. I just don't really understand the legality of (c). If some American bro was planning on doing damage in another country and that country came killed him on our soil, wouldn't we be livid? With or without collateral damage. If innocents were killed, it would be the biggest story ever.
 
bmoneydeac said:
I'm firmly in the camp of (a) unless (b) is negotiated with the local government. I just don't really understand the legality of (c). If some American bro was planning on doing damage in another country and that country came killed him on our soil, wouldn't we be livid? With or without collateral damage. If innocents were killed, it would be the biggest story ever.
Click to expand...

Same here. Or, better yet, find a way to end the "war" instead of just making it a normative part of our foreign policy.
 
see, now this is a much better use of US defense dollars; fuck that warcraft monitoring shit
 
DeaconSig said:
Explain to me the difference between a drone strike and a strike from a manned aircraft. Is the theory that we won't fly manned missions over Yemen so we shouldn't be able to use drones?
Click to expand...

Try Joseph Wiesenbaum or even McCluhan. The conscious separation from the act itself is considered the primary objection. It is one more step removed from human emotion...having to pull the trigger as opposed to pushing a button.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top