AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (12 comments)

  1. Nickolaus

    The vast majority of Americans are idiots that don’t understand that government is just a bunch of people with guns playing god.

    1. Dugald A. Taylor

      First they came for al Qaeda, and I said nothing, because I was not al Qaeda…

  2. I oppose drone warfare here and everywhere. I’m American. I am neither Republican nor Democrat. I may not be part of a majority, but I hope people out there know that not all of us are imperialist statist warmongering fools.

  3. Dugald A. Taylor

    First they came for al Qaeda, and I said nothing, because I was not al Qaeda…

  4. Drones are a weapon. We do kill those who are trying to kill us. We send thousands of our young people to kill those we think are trying to kill us. We send war planes to sow shock and awe …. so in some respects it feels like we are confusing our policies to kill those who are trying to kill us – with the weapon of choice.

    Personally, I’d much rather see a fleet of drones doing it rather than thousands of our young people trying to nation-build and getting sliced and dice for their efforts.

    drones are not going to go away. ultimately even non-state actors will get them and use them like they do now with RPGs, stinger missiles, etc.

    Having said all of this – I will admit that if we started using drones in Europe or South America to hunt down bad guys like drug lords… there may well be a serious change of heart with those who currently think drones are ok.

    On the other hand – as drones find their way into the hands of bad guys, things like US warships and overseas bases may well find themselves targets.

    one thing is for sure – we’re not going back.

  5. Lets go back in History to WWII assume we could have killed Tokoyo Rose one of whom at least was an american citizen. Would that have been ok? I think the answer back then was that she was a traitor and should get what she deserved.

  6. the distinction seems somewhat related to the idea that the US is killing US citizens without due process – i.e. a violation of their due process.

    But the US kills citizens all the time without a trial when they use deadly force in confrontations where police feel their own lives might be in danger.

    They shoot the sucker and then there usually is a follow on investigation to determine if it was a ‘righteous’ killing or the police did err and some of them will be charged.

    Police will use a sniper to take out someone holding hostages… and seldom is there an investigation of that.

    so.. it’s not at all unprecedented….

  7. I guess it matters if the American abroad is identified as a terrorist.

    It would matter more if he were an actual terrorist rather than being identified as one. Have you seen the number of false positives on no-fly lists and other identification mechanisms? Who decides that the ‘target’ on the screen is the person who is supposedly wanted as a terrorist and who actually determines that s/he is really a terrorist or not?

    1. are people who are blown to smithereens by bunker busters, or cruise-missiles or Blackhawk helicopters any better identified?

      boots on the ground kill thousands of innocents … drones kill 1/100 of a percent.

      1. boots on the ground kill thousands of innocents … drones kill 1/100 of a percent.

        They both kill innocents. That makes the people who take those actions terrorists, which is ironic considering the conflict was supposed to be against terror.

        And you are pulling numbers out of your butt again. Most of the victims of drone strikes are innocent. When you fire a missile at a wedding because you think that some bad guy is there it is hard to avoid killing kids, women, and innocent men who are not terrorists and have no interest in terrorism. At least with boots on the ground you can be more selective about who you shoot at. (Unless you are a psycho who loves the kill and does not care about who he is shooting at.)

        1. re: number from butt – yup but just looking at the number of civilian casualties from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars vs drone strikes in general.

          but perhaps and even better analogy would be an artillery shell or bomb vs a smart bomb (gps guided) or a drone.

          I’m not advocating war or weapons – just pointing out that some of the more modern ones can be more precise and (in theory) not kill as many collaterally.

          1. re: number from butt – yup but just looking at the number of civilian casualties from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars vs drone strikes in general.

            They still kill innocent people ijjit. And they create many enemies that make you less safe. They also set a nice precedent that the government will use to justify drone strikes inside the US.

            but perhaps and even better analogy would be an artillery shell or bomb vs a smart bomb (gps guided) or a drone.

            A smart bomb that hits a targeted wedding party kills far more innocent people than a dumb bomb dropped in the hope of hitting that party.

            I’m not advocating war or weapons – just pointing out that some of the more modern ones can be more precise and (in theory) not kill as many collaterally.

            Sure you are. You justify the killing of some innocent people on the grounds that you could have killed far more if you indiscriminately dropped bombs and shot at anything that moved. With fools like you as friends the peace movement does not need many enemies.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content