View Poll Results: Are spy/assassinatin drones morally acceptable?

Voters
86. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    29 33.72%
  • No

    34 39.53%
  • Yes, with explanation

    20 23.26%
  • No or undecided with explanation

    3 3.49%
Page 33 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2331323334 LastLast
Results 321 to 330 of 331

Thread: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

  1. #321
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,114

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    That may be the intent, but playing into their hands isn't helpful. They are small and mobile. Armies mostly large and clumsy. A blunt force where something more precise and surgical is needed. Small groups are not nations and to treat them as such is folly.
    Yeah, I remember a few years ago when you were arguing that drones and special forces were all we really needed. Allow me to suggest some self-education for you, since you evidently do not know what you are talking about.

    Not that you will. I've offered you the relevant doctrinal and theoretical background for years and you have demonstrated yourself utterly unwilling to actually input new information if that information might challenge your preconceived notions on how to conduct the long war.

    And frankly, no where have I remotely suggested that we give up. The sound bite is so engrained in some they never really listen to what is being said. I want us to cut ally combat the problem, effectively, that one day it may actually end and not be endless like the situation in Palestine.
    That doesn't even make sense. "cut ally" ? what does that even mean.

    And while there are some differences between the situations, the British method could work, with perhaps some minor adjustments. The rationale is sound. Instead of repeatedly making the enemy more appealing than us.


    Look, all I really need to put out is this: using the British as the model of how to conduct counterinsurgency is.... well....

    well, it would sort of be like suggesting that we adopt the soviet central control mechanisms for food distribution. You are picking the worst of the current strategy ranges Their's is the Rumsfeld Doctrine squared. There is a reason that we always have to send in the Marines to clean up an area after it has been under British Control - because that is when it falls apart and the enemy has complete freedom of movement in the AO. Again, you skyline yourself as someone who has little to no background, experience, or education in that which you are pontificating about.

  2. #322
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Yeah, I remember a few years ago when you were arguing that drones and special forces were all we really needed. Allow me to suggest some self-education for you, since you evidently do not know what you are talking about.

    Not that you will. I've offered you the relevant doctrinal and theoretical background for years and you have demonstrated yourself utterly unwilling to actually input new information if that information might challenge your preconceived notions on how to conduct the long war.



    That doesn't even make sense. "cut ally" ? what does that even mean.





    Look, all I really need to put out is this: using the British as the model of how to conduct counterinsurgency is.... well....

    well, it would sort of be like suggesting that we adopt the soviet central control mechanisms for food distribution. You are picking the worst of the current strategy ranges Their's is the Rumsfeld Doctrine squared. There is a reason that we always have to send in the Marines to clean up an area after it has been under British Control - because that is when it falls apart and the enemy has complete freedom of movement in the AO.
    Your memory is faulty. I did suggest a quick in and out for OBL would have been better than invasion and nation building, a very different clam than you're trying to pass off.

    And the book you link has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're at at war with Pakistan, thus no counter insurgency there. You keep dancing around the issue. The issue is our effort against terrorism and not insurgency in any particular country.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  3. #323
    Sage
    EagleAye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Last Seen
    03-28-13 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    5,697

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    That may be the intent, but playing into their hands isn't helpful. They are small and mobile. Armies mostly large and clumsy. A blunt force where something more precise and surgical is needed. Small groups are not nations and to treat them as such is folly.
    And this is why Predators are so effective. They are precise and surgical. They can be operated without the large "footprint" of an army disrupting the countryside. Sending in a small special forces team can be equally counter-productive. If their position is revealed, then they are far too few to adequately defend themselves. And should they be forced to, the ensuing firefight would likely kill more civilians than any drone has ever kiled, and the very difficult to replace SF team would be lost as well.

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    And frankly, no where have I remotely suggested that we give up. The sound bite is so engrained in some they never really listen to what is being said. I want us to cut ally combat the problem, effectively, that one day it may actually end and not be endless like the situation in Palestine.

    And while there are some differences between the situations, the British method could work, with perhaps some minor adjustments. The rationale is sound. Instead of repeatedly making the enemy more appealing than us.
    I realize you don't intend to suggest giving up, but that is a logical outcome of what you're suggesting. Take away the drones, and you take away our most precise and effective weapon to date against the Taliban. The action you DO suggest involves police work effectively. If US policemen were permitted to operate in the Pakistani border areas and the policemen were Afghani or Pakistani, then your suggestions might have a hope. Since we cannot have them, I see no chance for it to work.
    Check out my Blog http://momusnews.wordpress.com/
    Sherry's Photography site: http://www.sheywicklundphotos.com/

  4. #324
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by EagleAye View Post
    And this is why Predators are so effective. They are precise and surgical. They can be operated without the large "footprint" of an army disrupting the countryside. Sending in a small special forces team can be equally counter-productive. If their position is revealed, then they are far too few to adequately defend themselves. And should they be forced to, the ensuing firefight would likely kill more civilians than any drone has ever kiled, and the very difficult to replace SF team would be lost as well.



    I realize you don't intend to suggest giving up, but that is a logical outcome of what you're suggesting. Take away the drones, and you take away our most precise and effective weapon to date against the Taliban. The action you DO suggest involves police work effectively. If US policemen were permitted to operate in the Pakistani border areas and the policemen were Afghani or Pakistani, then your suggestions might have a hope. Since we cannot have them, I see no chance for it to work.

    Only in comparison to traditional warfare. Bombing in general is blunt and not surgical in the way I'm speaking of.


    Getting small forces in, or bottling up, or drawing out within the proper framework can be more effective with less collateral damage, less recruitment incentive, less media manipulation possibilities, and less cost in both lives and dollars.

    And no, giving up is not the logical outcome. Force of will is always required. The fact is we can't invade enough countries, bomb enough villages, kill enough combatants with civilians realistically to ever see an end, or even a reasonable place of peace using the strategy we are following currently. We must change to something more effective.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #325
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,366

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Only in comparison to traditional warfare. Bombing in general is blunt and not surgical in the way I'm speaking of.


    Getting small forces in, or bottling up, or drawing out within the proper framework can be more effective with less collateral damage, less recruitment incentive, less media manipulation possibilities, and less cost in both lives and dollars.

    And no, giving up is not the logical outcome. Force of will is always required. The fact is we can't invade enough countries, bomb enough villages, kill enough combatants with civilians realistically to ever see an end, or even a reasonable place of peace using the strategy we are following currently. We must change to something more effective.
    There has never been a more effective way to attack the terrorists than drones which have the added advantage of not creating more targets for the groups to attack. Without the sucess in killing Americans, there is less interest in joining. Nothing upped the numbers for alQeada more than the mass invasion of Iraq. They were literally dying to get a chance at a G.I.

  6. #326
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,114

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Your memory is faulty.
    Not at all. That was your solution back when the Surge was just coming online, and for a couple of years after that. You are sort of a useful weather vane in that regards. You lack the grounding or background to have a coherent or consistent belief system, but you do accurately pass on whatever the conventional wisdom of left wing academia is at the moment. Back then it was "oh we should fight smart with special forces and drones", and so that is what you repeated. Now it has entirely discarded the "Afghan war good, Iraq war bad" shibboleth that was always the thinnest of veneers over its' true nature.

    And the book you link has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're at at war with Pakistan, thus no counter insurgency there. You keep dancing around the issue. The issue is our effort against terrorism and not insurgency in any particular country.


    I don't really know how much else I can help you, if you are simply unwilling to even pretend to process new information. A counterinsurgency is by definition not a war against a nation-state. However, you do require a willingness to devote the necessary troop numbers and resources to it.

  7. #327
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,114

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    There has never been a more effective way to attack the terrorists than drones which have the added advantage of not creating more targets for the groups to attack. Without the sucess in killing Americans, there is less interest in joining. Nothing upped the numbers for alQeada more than the mass invasion of Iraq. They were literally dying to get a chance at a G.I.
    I don't know if this is broken-clock syndrome, but yeah, that's not inaccurate. You get alot of street cred and recruits if you can post videos of yourself blowing up Americans. Much less so if you are helpless to protect yourself against them.

  8. #328
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by iguanaman View Post
    There has never been a more effective way to attack the terrorists than drones which have the added advantage of not creating more targets for the groups to attack. Without the sucess in killing Americans, there is less interest in joining. Nothing upped the numbers for alQeada more than the mass invasion of Iraq. They were literally dying to get a chance at a G.I.
    Disagree. And they have killed quite a few Americans. Some 4486 have been killed in those wars we started according to iCasualties: Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom Casualties. Excluding 9/11 and wars, Bush had 301 deaths linked to terrorism and Obama has 45 so far. I believe 2009 had 9 deaths, 2010 15, and 2011 17. http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2012/09/2...-by-terrorism/

    So, effectiveness is not something that numbers yet support. Effectiveness isn't body count 9have we learned nothing from VN?), but getting the result we want -- less terrorism.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  9. #329
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    Not at all. That was your solution back when the Surge was just coming online, and for a couple of years after that. You are sort of a useful weather vane in that regards. You lack the grounding or background to have a coherent or consistent belief system, but you do accurately pass on whatever the conventional wisdom of left wing academia is at the moment. Back then it was "oh we should fight smart with special forces and drones", and so that is what you repeated. Now it has entirely discarded the "Afghan war good, Iraq war bad" shibboleth that was always the thinnest of veneers over its' true nature.
    You are quite mistaken. Never was my argument. Never.





    I don't really know how much else I can help you, if you are simply unwilling to even pretend to process new information. A counterinsurgency is by definition not a war against a nation-state. However, you do require a willingness to devote the necessary troop numbers and resources to it.
    First the information isn't new. Second, as I pointed out, it is really off topic.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #330
    User Thetexastrigger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Last Seen
    02-22-13 @ 10:45 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8

    Re: Assassination Drones are OK or morally questionable?

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    From your link:



    Now, admittedly, I took math for the non-math major, but that seems to indicate that between 73.51 and 82.5% of the deaths were combatants. Nice tag with the "high level", though, given that most drone missions are not against top tier targets.

    And this isn't even going in to their deeply flawed methodology - the same that haunted the since-disproven Lancet Survey in Iraq. As a hint to the authors, "Go ask a bunch of Pakistanis if they think drones kill too many people, and then take what they tell you at face value" sucks as a collection method.

    Not that the authors likely care. I like how you identify them as "Stanford and NYU". Because they identify themselves as "Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (IHRCRC)" and "Global Justice Clinic (GJC) at NYU School of Law".

    Fine obersavtions...I did not take the time to vet that source. I think I found the originals. Here is a news article that uses the figures I was walking about. AndHere is its source. A study conducted by the New America Foundation. I actually looked at this one's methodology and it seems sound but always tough to know. Empirical evidence and statistics are always tricky. All of it's estimates are much lower. The NAF found that since 2004 (it ends in 2010 i believe), 1,372 and 2,125 people have been killed in pakistan via our drone strikes. Of these, 1061 to 1584 were called militants, the rest being innocents. Again, the 2% kill rate comes from "high value targets" or what NATO deemed "strategically important enemy personnel".

    Now to tackle your points.

    (1) If I assume that all of that 73-82% are actually enemy combatants, that still means that 18 to 25% of those we kill are innocent. If that many americans were killed for any reason along these same lines, it would be national news and an absurd tragedy. What do we hear when it's pakistani's? Whispers over fox and cnn news. Even these numbers are unacceptable. We hear that these strikes are surgically accurate, yet if a surgeon told you he was successful at amputating the right limb 75%, I think you might find these odds a bit troubling if you were going under his knife, right?

    (2) If you think that study and its numbers are bull**** (I'm not necessarily saying they aren't), you cannot then turn around and use those numbers to claim "hey, 73 to 82% is pretty good!" If the numbers are wrong, the numbers are wrong. Don't use the source to support your point while also denigrating it to rebuttal mine. That isn't very intellectually honest.

    (3) Drone strikes should be inadmissible for the same reason that nukes should be. Any weapon that cannot be used with pinpoint accuracy (i.e. any weapon with assured collateral damage) has no place anywhere in this world. If you can't use it without killing an innocent person, don't use it.

    (4) I want to go ahead and put it out there that the 2% hit rate on high value targets may not be right either. It is damn near impossible to track this stuff, and I think the state purposefully designs it to be. With that said, hopefully the source I provided is a close to right as is out there.

    (5) If it is true that we have a hit rate of 73 to 82% on enemy combatants, no one knows what that means. What the US government defines as a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" has often times proven to be paranoid at best. Take, for instance, Brandon Raub, an ex-marine turned 9/11 truther. He was detained and forced to undergo psychiatric evals for making a facebook comment that was anti-government and "terrorist in nature". I wouldn't call myself a truther (mainly because our state does enough evil publicly [like drone strikes] for me to hate it as it is). I've seen what he wrote, and its nothing. If he's a terrorist, who else is? If it is politically or militarily advantageous to label someone as such, they will do so. As far as I can tell, our military has killed far more innicent people over the past 10-15 years than al quada ever did.

    (6) As for the NYU/Standford thing...my mistake. Again, I grabbed it in haste...however, it does appear that it did come from NYU. I suppose I mistook that stanford for stanford univ.

    look forward to your reply.
    If men are not angels, then who shall run the government?

Page 33 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2331323334 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •