I do think the "fun sized" reference is a coping mechanism more than anything. When you are around death all the time you have to find ways to compartmentalize it.

 

And this article shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, Obama has been pretty clear that he likes using special forces instead of troops and the drones are a form of special forces.

 

Furthermore, I don't see the Drone program as the issue, I see using the Drone program as a band-aid as the issue. The Drone program is closely related to all the spying programs and it is Obama's way of dealing with world problems. In other words, kill using Drones because even though there will be more collateral damage, no Americans will be hurt and Spy on everyone in America to protect the homeland.

 

Additionally, even though I would handle the world different than Obama at least the guy made good on his campaign promise to remove the troops. America elected him on that platform and he did what he said he was going to do.

We can't compare what happened in WWII to today, unless we are in fact targeting innocent people.

 

A very large number of civilian deaths during WWII were not caused by "collateral damage". You have over 11 million Jews who the Nazis targeted, between 20-25 million Russian civilians deaths caused by the Nazis, then in retaliation the Russians raped and murdered a number of Germans, especially as the allies were rolling towards Berlin.

We can't compare what happened in WWII to today, unless we are in fact targeting innocent people.

 

A very large number of civilian deaths during WWII were not caused by "collateral damage". You have over 11 million Jews who the Nazis targeted, between 20-25 million Russian civilians deaths caused by the Nazis, then in retaliation the Russians raped and murdered a number of Germans, especially as the allies were rolling towards Berlin.

 

This. The exponentially greater civilian (as opposed to combat) deaths in WWII was, I believe, an aberration. For example, civilian deaths in WWI were about 1/4 (as opposed to triple) those in WWII. About 40% of the deaths in Vietnam were civilian (and it wasn't for lack of trying).

We can't compare what happened in WWII to today, unless we are in fact targeting innocent people.

 

A very large number of civilian deaths during WWII were not caused by "collateral damage". You have over 11 million Jews who the Nazis targeted, between 20-25 million Russian civilians deaths caused by the Nazis, then in retaliation the Russians raped and murdered a number of Germans, especially as the allies were rolling towards Berlin.

 

Say we take off 35,000,000 according to your statement, that still leaves 10,000,000, quite a large number. Showing that in fighting a war there is collateral damage. It is sad that innocents are killed, but it is a historical fact that innocents become causalities. Think of all the innocents being killed the Middle East and Africa. Being killed because they are Christians or their of a different sect of the Islamic faith.

Having a bad day and cannot come up with anything better?

Putting things into perspective. What is currently happening is nothing to what happened 70 years ago. No one wants anyone to die, but if you have fanatics that are out to get you, you must be prepared to fight and unfortunately innocents die in the process. You don't think that the Allied leadership, not counting Stalin, took into account potential civilian causalities? Yet, they went ahead with their battle plans, because they had a war to win. Good thing current thinking did not prevail with Allied leadership or the war would have been lost.

 

Nope.

 

Just my opinion - and I seem to be in the minority - that a conflict where civilian casualties triple military casualties is something we shouldn't be shooting for. To coin a phrase.

 

But evidently I'm wrong.

Reading a book now about an assassin sharp shooter who accidentally kills a little girl as she jumps in her daddy's arms at the last minute. Dad was a horrible man responsible for hundreds of innocent deaths. Shooter is shook and messed up emotionally for a long time. Fiction? Yes. But relatable.

Will there be collateral damage? Sadly yes, but as a general rule we go to great lengths to have a few innocent deaths as possible. But of course you will have a few who will want to kill anyone they see innocent or not.

Today I would think collateral damage would be at its lowest with our superior intelligence and tactical weapons. Shouldn't come near the total wars that it's being compared to...

Today I would think collateral damage would be at its lowest with our superior intelligence and tactical weapons. Shouldn't come near the total wars that it's being compared to...

 

You would think, and you would hope.

 

I hope.:thumb:

Nope.

 

Just my opinion - and I seem to be in the minority - that a conflict where civilian casualties triple military casualties is something we shouldn't be shooting for. To coin a phrase.

 

But evidently I'm wrong.

 

I don't think you're wrong.

 

Like myself, I think there are those that are realistic. As JD said, war is an ugly business.

 

It's a sad fact that innocents will die. While every measure is taken to avoid these deaths, they still happen. I dare say, in a large part, to terrorists using innocents as human shields. Our smart bombs are very precise but they can only be so precise.

Depending on what info you look at there have been 115,000-170,000 civilians killed in Iraq since 2003. That's a far cry from the 44,000,000 in WWII (when you take out the 11,000,000 Jews that were killed).

It is US policy to murder children abroad and yet we have terrorists inside our borders.

 

Something is not working.

It is US policy to murder children abroad and yet we have terrorists inside our borders.

 

Something is not working.

 

Please show me that policy.

Please show me that policy.

 

The policy is in the actions. Knowingly launching attacks knowing that non-combantants will be killed is policy.

 

Most would consider such actions extreme. With today's technology drones can be on station for days or weeks. But the approach seems to be to go for the kill quickly and without regard to the 'collateral damage'. Not just risking collateral damage but knowing it will occur.

 

Its hard to guage the reasoning for using soley drone attacks while innocents are in cross-hairs. Some still call it a 'war' on terror but it is war that is overly clean from the US side and seems to have no strategy to end. Push-button and video driven. Easy and clean and with no risk. No prisoners to take to Gitmo, no risk of special forces deaths in a capture mission, no chance of losing the contact even with 24 x 7 drone coverage. Just destroy and move on.

 

Sometimes knowingly killing specific innocents has been done. Not just large scale bombings in Japan or the Dresden bombings. But to keep Germany from gaining the A-bomb a ferry carrying some of the last of Germany's heavy water was intentionally sunk in Norway knowing that most on the ferry would be killed. And those are very tough decisions. At least they used to be.

 

The pointing being that such extreme measures are not yielding results. We now have in-country Islamic terror cells. So while some note that Trumps statements are used for recuiting, they ignore that indiscriminant killing may paint the US in such a negative light that 'recruiting' is easy. After these attacks the 'producers' of recruiting probably use the after-math in recruiting videos.

It is US policy to murder children abroad and yet we have terrorists inside our borders.

 

Something is not working.

 

Policy?