• 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!

Kent State and Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki

Because if we let AQ run away they would attack us more. This has been proven.

We agree that we need to get out of Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean to let AQ re-establish itself. Hopefully, it will over soon.
 
RJKarl said:
Because if we let AQ run away they would attack us more. This has been proven.

We agree that we need to get out of Afghanistan, but that doesn't mean to let AQ re-establish itself. Hopefully, it will over soon.
Click to expand...

It will never be over if we keep killing civilians and creating more and more generations of Arabs who see America only as a faceless, nameless oppressor (which is what drones do). We can defend our borders and our embassies without using drones to go into remote villages and kill innocent civilians.
 
It will clearly diminish when we leave Afghanistan as there will be less reason. Until we are out next year, this is done to protect our troops.

At that point the discussion will amp up dramatically.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
It will never be over if we keep killing civilians and creating more and more generations of Arabs who see America only as a faceless, nameless oppressor (which is what drones do). We can defend our borders and our embassies without using drones to go into remote villages and kill innocent civilians.
Click to expand...

This is the correct answer. Stop meddling in every country's affairs, stop propping up governments we think will help our interests, stop being world police. The US government should be focused on taking care of the US within our territory. We spend trillions "fighting terrorism" when we could spend a fraction of that to actually secure our borders and be safer. Ironic our "War on terror" has the built in feature of guaranteeing terrorism continues to thrive.
 
People who are anti drone must love seeing american-flag covered coffins
 
I don't know anything about this particular story. But I'm not sure I understand the complaint about drones. We have been bombing targets from the sky with airplanes for almost 100 years now. How do drone strikes differ from plane strikes?
 
DeaconSig said:
I don't know anything about this particular story. But I'm not sure I understand the complaint about drones. We have been bombing targets from the sky with airplanes for almost 100 years now. How do drone strikes differ from plane strikes?
Click to expand...

I agree. A precision Hellfire missile strike using a drone is better than this alternative:

2eplfzd.jpg


Particularly in the case of dealing with insurgents/guerilla type fighters, who exist and thrive by hiding among the local populace, there will almost inevitably be some collateral damage -- a euphemism for mostly innocent people getting hurt -- no matter how careful you are. I personally had to go out and compensate victims of collateral damage from our counter-battery fire in Iraq. It sucks.
 
DeaconSig said:
I don't know anything about this particular story. But I'm not sure I understand the complaint about drones. We have been bombing targets from the sky with airplanes for almost 100 years now. How do drone strikes differ from plane strikes?
Click to expand...

Can you imagine air force bases everywhere we have drone bases? Drones don't just substitute for human forces (to the extent that they do, I agree with people saying Obama using drones in Yemen is preferable to W invading countries). They dramatically expand the area in which we kill human beings for questionable national defense purposes.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Can you imagine air force bases everywhere we have drone bases? Drones don't just substitute for human forces (to the extent that they do, I agree with people saying Obama using drones in Yemen is preferable to W invading countries). They dramatically expand the area in which we kill human beings for questionable national defense purposes.
Click to expand...

Using different tactics does not mean that we are killing more people, or more innocent people. Every technological advance has made our military more efficient and maneuverable, you could have made the same argument when we started sending battleships and submarines all over the world, or flying jets off aircraft carriers
 
Last edited:
seventwofour said:
That is bullshit.
Click to expand...

Whatever, I don't live in a liberal bubble I live in the real world where sometimes force is justified. Whether or not force is justified in this instance is difficult to discern as we don't know the whole story and rarely do in cases like this. Hindsight is 20/20 and like I said, it is what it is.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Whatever, I don't live in a liberal bubble I live in the real world where sometimes force is justified. Whether or not force is justified in this instance is difficult to discern as we don't know the whole story and rarely do in cases like this. Hindsight is 20/20 and like I said, it is what it is.
Click to expand...

EXCLUSIVE: If no one is willing to go on record about the story, force wasn't justified.
 
i feel like you've backed yourself into a corner and are just holding out because you don't want to admit you might be a little wrong
 
ImTheCaptain said:
i feel like you've backed yourself into a corner and are just holding out because you don't want to admit you might be a little wrong
Click to expand...

If my corner is that it is deeply wrong to bomb and murder 16 year old American citizens without due process, I am quite happy to be "backed into it."

If some worthwhile objective had been achieved by killing this kid, someone in the administration would have went on record about it. Kanhoji will PM me about this. Wonder if he killed Abdulrahman himself.
 
The White House Honey Ale is a good thing and Obama's administration released the recipe before the petition even had enough signatures to qualify for a response.

On the other hand, it is taking lawsuits to get to the bottom of the drone policy. Congresspeople can't even get responses from the administration. If the government had nothing to hide, they wouldn't be hiding it. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/doj-drones-paper_n_2619582.html
 
The same false dichotomy is being presented here that gets presented in most debates about drones. The choice isn't between unfettered and unaccountable drone warfare or simply leaving al-Qaeda alone. It's between having a system where the executive branch and the CIA are allowed to conduct attacks on anyone, anywhere with the only oversight being their own vaguely worded guidelines or a system where such life and death decisions are more transparent and accoutable to the people they're supposed to protect. You can still take the war to al-Qaeda and even still use drones without having to sign off on permenant drone attacks in half a dozen countries shrouded in secrecy and accountable to no one but unnamed members of the Administration and the CIA.

The vagueness of the recently leaked guideslines should worry all Americans.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...cans-twists-imminent-threat-like-bush/272862/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top