Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Then you tell us how we carry on the fight against Al Qaeda once we've eliminated the use of drone strikes,
and, presumably, once we've eliminated the other forms of air strikes that are similar in nature to a drone strike.
Do that for us.
Here is one way which seems to work and really is the only way. Bombing an ally country to which we are not at war seems to have the opposite effect then the one desired.
How Yemen May Defeat al-Qaeda
Could tiny, impoverished Yemen be showing the way to vanquish al-Qaeda? Thats the subject of my latest article in the current issue of TIME magazine. This summer, unnoticed by most of the world, Yemeni troops reclaimed territory that for over a year had been controlled by the terrorist networks local franchise, known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsila (AQAP). The fighting was intense and bloody, but in the end the jihadists were soundly beaten. Many were killed, and those who fled are now finding it much harder than before to find shelter among tribesmen in the more remote parts of the country.
Read more: How Yemen May Defeat al-Qaeda | TIME.com
But that occurred concurrent with the ongoing drone use in Yemen by us.
You've managed to make the opposite point you intended.
Freewill, you are making the government's argument? Something new everyday.
Here is one way which seems to work and really is the only way. Bombing an ally country to which we are not at war seems to have the opposite effect then the one desired.
How Yemen May Defeat al-Qaeda
Could tiny, impoverished Yemen be showing the way to vanquish al-Qaeda? Thats the subject of my latest article in the current issue of TIME magazine. This summer, unnoticed by most of the world, Yemeni troops reclaimed territory that for over a year had been controlled by the terrorist networks local franchise, known as al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsila (AQAP). The fighting was intense and bloody, but in the end the jihadists were soundly beaten. Many were killed, and those who fled are now finding it much harder than before to find shelter among tribesmen in the more remote parts of the country.
Read more: How Yemen May Defeat al-Qaeda | TIME.com
But that occurred concurrent with the ongoing drone use in Yemen by us.
You've managed to make the opposite point you intended.
Oh gosh you are something. No where in the article were drones mentioned there fore no credit was given to drones for what the Yemen people did.
But here is their opinion on drones:
U.S. Drone Strikes In Yemen Spur Growing Anti-American Sentiment
At one point do we stop and ask ourselves is pissing off a country that we need in the "war" on terror not going to work?
Drones - its a method - who cares?
If its illegal and/or morally wrong to kill someone - then its illegal and/or morally wrong to kil them. It doesn't matter how they were killed, does it?
On the other hand - if its legal and/or morally right to kill someone - such as legitimate military targets - then why is it wrong to use a method which places U.S. servicemen at a minimal risk?
Seems to me that the same folks who were fine with us setting Baghdad on fire using smart bombs and - at the same time - placing U.S. pilots at risk - are against using unmanned aircraft to conduct more surgical strikes of military targets. Do you guys want U.S. servicemen to die, or do you just hate Obama?
This is simple military or LEO activity.
The issue is technology, not the president.
Drones - its a method - who cares?
If its illegal and/or morally wrong to kill someone - then its illegal and/or morally wrong to kil them. It doesn't matter how they were killed, does it?
On the other hand - if its legal and/or morally right to kill someone - such as legitimate military targets - then why is it wrong to use a method which places U.S. servicemen at a minimal risk?
Seems to me that the same folks who were fine with us setting Baghdad on fire using smart bombs and - at the same time - placing U.S. pilots at risk - are against using unmanned aircraft to conduct more surgical strikes of military targets. Do you guys want U.S. servicemen to die, or do you just hate Obama?
When exactly did America go to war with children in Pakistan?
So you support Al Qaeda having instant safe havens simply by putting themselves in proximity to children?
Drones - its a method - who cares?
If its illegal and/or morally wrong to kill someone - then its illegal and/or morally wrong to kil them. It doesn't matter how they were killed, does it?
On the other hand - if its legal and/or morally right to kill someone - such as legitimate military targets - then why is it wrong to use a method which places U.S. servicemen at a minimal risk?
Seems to me that the same folks who were fine with us setting Baghdad on fire using smart bombs and - at the same time - placing U.S. pilots at risk - are against using unmanned aircraft to conduct more surgical strikes of military targets. Do you guys want U.S. servicemen to die, or do you just hate Obama?
These people who oppose the use of drones are effectively saying that they want to end the war against Al Qaeda.
Collateral Damage has been wiped from the rights memory since 2008
The point of the OP was about methods of killing. If those methods arbitrarily kill children then perhaps they need to be looked at. I'm absolutely certain you'd call dead children collateral damage had Bush been President.The hypocrisy of you leftist loons is unbelievable.
Is there a method of conducting a war that has zero collateral damage? Or do you expect Obama to be the first person ever to find a way?
Repeat after me: Collateral damage in a war is ALWAYS bad. No matter if its Obama or Bush or anyone else.
These people who oppose the use of drones are effectively saying that they want to end the war against Al Qaeda.
Nobody said that at all. Why do you insist on making things up? In the real world it's called LYING.
Then you tell us how we carry on the fight against Al Qaeda once we've eliminated the use of drone strikes,
and, presumably, once we've eliminated the other forms of air strikes that are similar in nature to a drone strike.
Do that for us.
When exactly did America go to war with children in Pakistan?
So you support Al Qaeda having instant safe havens simply by putting themselves in proximity to children?
Yes, pretty much yes. If no direct imminent threat to the US.
Did anybody say that the Bush Administration had been responsible for the death of a Pakistani child through the use of drones?"...When did Bush kill children in Pakistan with drone aircraft? Link please."
Does such minutiae matter?
The Bush Administration has apparently done their share.
Beginning with a first-ever Death Strike in October 2002 against an Islamist group in Yemen that racked up a body-count of 6.
How many drone-based Death Strikes did the Bush Administration undertake in either Iraq or Afghanistan in the period September 2001 - January 2009?
I haven't got a clue.
I don't have access to a list of those missions.
And I don't have the time or energy or desire to go looking.
Perhaps you can find that for us and publish it here.
And when you do, I'm guessing that you'll find a whole lotta sorties on that list.
With at least some of them resulting in collateral civilian casualties - including children.
Iraq and Afghanistan were/are active combat zones with a strong US presence.
Waziristan is an active combatant refuge zone that is attacked frequently by US drones.
Legally, in theory, and in practice, the distinctions are blurred and near-to-pointless.
In all of those cases and in all of those regions we were/are using drones to attack our enemies.
If you intend to make a partisan issue out of it, you might want to take a deep breath and rethink that position, before getting too badly bogged down in an un-winnable and rather pointless exchange with those who see very little 'partisanship' attached to the topic of drone use, other than short-memoried political opponents trying to make something out of nothing. IMHO.
Oh, and, as an aside, we also might want to look at Drone Inventories during the two Administrations, to gauge how large a fleet was available to each President. I'm guessing that the fleet is much bigger now (during the Obama Administration) than it was then (during the Bush Administration).
I'm also guessing that the Bush Folk would have used them more frequently, had they had a larger fleet at the time.
I'm also guessing that the larger Drone Fleet of today was created, at least in part, through contracts issued by the Bush Folk, as well as the Obama folk.
But, of course, I could be wrong.
The president is authorized as Commander in Chief to take action to protect the nation.
Drones are no different than other weapons: they are technology.
Anyone who condemns the president in using these weapons support al quada.
End of subject.
Then you tell us how we carry on the fight against Al Qaeda once we've eliminated the use of drone strikes,
and, presumably, once we've eliminated the other forms of air strikes that are similar in nature to a drone strike.
Do that for us.
Withdraw from their countries, leave them alone and watch our own borders for "terrorists". This war on terror, like every other war, is a complete failure. You can not fight an idea with bombs and guns. All we're doing over there is making more enemies, which leads to more "terrorism" and then more war.
Both sides of the coin cheer, as long as it's their team doing the war making.
The nobel peace prize recipient ought to know that, but instead, he's cut from the same statist cloth as Bush.
I've supported going after, hunting down, and killing or capturing the forces of al qaeda since 2001.
I've supported going after, hunting down, and killing or capturing the forces of al qaeda since 2001.
So you support failed policy. i got that much already.
And when al qaeda is able to regroup, refit, and retrain unmolested, until the next 9/11,
who will get credit for that failure?
Drones - its a method - who cares?
If its illegal and/or morally wrong to kill someone - then its illegal and/or morally wrong to kil them. It doesn't matter how they were killed, does it?
On the other hand - if its legal and/or morally right to kill someone - such as legitimate military targets - then why is it wrong to use a method which places U.S. servicemen at a minimal risk?
Seems to me that the same folks who were fine with us setting Baghdad on fire using smart bombs and - at the same time - placing U.S. pilots at risk - are against using unmanned aircraft to conduct more surgical strikes of military targets. Do you guys want U.S. servicemen to die, or do you just hate Obama?
This is simple military or LEO activity.
The issue is technology, not the president.
