I find the policy as disgusting as you, but drones are merely a tool, a new technology, much like when airplanes were first used for war.

entire region with 100x the civilian casualties.

I suspect that Drone Derangement Syndrome is more about bashing the administration to depress Democrat voting the 2014 mid terms.

Some I believe are sincere, but many only care about issues that can discredit or harm the Democrats. This week it is drones. Next week, it'll be something else.

Time will tell.

It's about morality and the conduct of a nation in regards to international law and respect for the rights of individuals in any part of the world.

Drones aren't a fuck you to terrorists. They are a fuck you to anyone who is powerless and poor who might end up fucking dead because we decided to kill a fucking militant anytime & anywhere and collateral damage (women & children) be damned.

A fucking militant isn't a fucking terrorist every time either. Sometimes fucking militants are people who want to be free from the mother fucking dictators we still support.

Until America ends propping up dictators for soulless multinational corporations there will always be militants for our mother fucking drones to kill along with friends, family, and any poor sap in the way.


Fuck drones
Fuck dictators
Fuck acting like it is all about defending America rather than corporate profits in oil rich lands and lands that we want to control for strategic purposes.....

We aren't under an imminent threat of a terrorist attack every mother fucking time a drone kill is made. In fact most of the time there is ZERO chance of an imminent threat!

The term "imminent threat" is utter mother fucking bullshit use to fake people into believing there was a legitimate reason to assassinate someone.

FUCK!@!!!!!!!

How hard is it to understand that some of us are genuinely concerned about our government's ongoing history of aggression? I find it exceedingly strange that so many intelligent, enlightened people cannot see that the US government's conduct represents a serious threat to peace and security in the world. If so many liberals are ready to make excuses for US government brutality, what chance is there of ever persuading those on the right to see the truth of these matters?

Democrat voting the 2014 mid terms." <--- And you would be entirely wrong about that. It stops the discussion many times when you say things like that but it does not make you correct but it always makes you offensive to someone trying to express their thoughts.

My griping does little to stop people from "expressing" their "thoughts."

That would be a lot more honest.

"I suspect that Drone Derangement Syndrome is more about bashing the administration to depress Democrat voting the 2014 mid terms."

Because people can't have honest feelings about this policy?

Is too dehumanizing, too emotionally uninvolved, too much like playing games are deranged?

Is there a place I need to sign up? Somewhere I'm supposed to add my name to the deranged hater list?

I agree with this take on it:

My point is that pulling the trigger to launch a missile STILL requires a human, be they in the aircraft itself or on the ground, so I do not see the drones themselves as the problem.

Every time we make it easier to kill from a distance, to not put our own skin into it, it seems we decide we like killing even more and are less discriminating about who we kill. The initial thought of being far away from danger is certainly rational but it leads us to become more irrational in our use.

Easy I guess to tell you why I find it all disgusting. I find our warlike nature and our need to try to be #1 by any means available disgusting. There is no value in any of it.

I think you nailed it right there. I guess the drones probably do play a role in this issue, greater than I imagine, but to me, the policy itself should be attacked, which would then stop the use of drones for its implementation.

Single syllable, long vowel. Like 'Bane'.

That plus too many need something to complain about or they aren't happy.

people can't be honestly upset about the US killing innocent people and poorly justified human targets?

But for some it does seem like the latest bandwagon to jump onto, creating hypothetical situations out of whole cloth.

Where is the passion for stopping war itself? Why doesn't that merit 75 posts on DU in 3 days?

I'm all for stopping war-- just seems like talking about drones is the best way into that conversation right now.

This discussion (and others like them) are really poor reflections on DU. The image of a "left leaning" website is difficult to keep up with all this warmongering and defenses of the indefensible.

But I always am.

"Drones are humane because we could always carpert bomb our targets......"

The word "drone" scares people. And you're right, the issue applies equally for bombing runs, artillery barrages, and infantry assaults

So, the only way is with policy. And there are those who will have policies which will be counter to what common sense would approve.

This is a sticky wicket. How does a country administrate such a policy when the inevitable is that drones are likely here to stay.

I write this post, not to take a position for or against, but to introduce part of what I see as a possible dilemma in debating such policies.

In other words, drone tech is easy and cheap. Even high school students are building them.

I don't like how they are being used, but I also see that it's likely that they're here to stay. You can't put that tooth paste back into the tube.

Just putting this out there for (hopefully reasonable) discussion.

There's several issues here that people seem to be trying to rolling into one...let me try to separate some key ones.

Firstly, drones are the latest and definitely not the last new technology that is changing how war is conducted. If we are at "war" (which hasn't been declared since 1941...subject for another time) then if this technology saves our soldier's lives and hastens the end of the conflict, then its use is not only justified it should be encouraged. It also serves as a valuable surveliance tool that promises to get more evasive as better cameras and other sensors are developed. The technology won't go away and is proliferating...other countries are looking to add drones to their military...and this leads to the next point.

We're using drones in what many would consider outside the "theater of war". There's no international laws governing the use of this technology and could easily lead to the escalation of "third world" wars as weaponized drones controlled from hundreds or thousands of miles away duke it out with civilians in the crossfire. The international community needs to look into this issue as we'll see more use of this technology in the future.

The last matter is the invasion of American privacy that drones present. Also the ability of a government to target American citizens without any due process who they deem as an "imminent threat". I'll be honest...I was not satisfied with Holder's explanation or with Brennan avoiding using the word "torture" while trying to denounce it. There needs to be oversight on using this or any new technology against American citizens. If they're threats...then get a warrant from a judge or panel. While I may trust this administration in their judgement in using drones, that may not be the case with a rushpublican in that position.

Cheers...

We should be looking to eliminate war itself, not get bogged down in minutiae about hypothetical situations.

Food for thought, for sure.

... by making it more deadly. When Maxim invented the machine gun, he thought it would bring an end to all war because war would become too horrible to sustain. They were always wrong.

That said, war has become steadily *less* deadly over time, though that risk has been spread over larger and larger groups. In the 17th century, casualty figures of 25%-30% were commonplace; by the 19th century that would be a disaster. A figure that high is unheard of in the 20th century. (Not to mention the fact that most soldiers died of dysentery before they ever saw a battle back then.)

The drones are just a a tool logic doesn't mesh to me in no small part because of the arguments in their favor like protecting American lives, cost efficiency, saving us from engaging troops in ground battles, families are not divided and asked to sacrifice, and yes even the relative cleanness of the attacks.

All that makes war safe, cheap, easy to proliferate, bloodless, and the real nitty gritty decisions to kill in too few and ever fewer hands. When AI is combined with drones and mechs on the ground then the loop will be tiny of those who can say no or at least no more.

War is supposed to have real costs, it is supposed to be disruptive and inconvenient, war is supposed to send home broken minds and bodies. War is supposed to leave a mark on souls and conflicts to conscience. War is supposed to demand sacrifice from populations. When terrible crimes are committed there are supposed to be human minds that can say no and tell the truth. There is supposed to be risk, if there is no risk there are little in the way of costs then wars of literal whimsy are available to us.

Drones make perpetual war more plausible, autonomous battle droids all but guarantee it. It is not my goal to make it easier, cheaper, less painful, and sanitized. Wars should have human constraints and skin should be in the game, no skin means it is too damn easy to say yes and keep saying yes and more please.

I also understand that genies don't so easily go back into bottles, we allow proliferation and advancement of this shit and there will be a day that such things are abused, it won't be a damn thing to be done. Never agree to make your long adds zero while removing legal and logistical limits on power. Concentration of power comes with serious risks, the circle of deciders becomes too small and the costs become too easy to hide.

You make great points!

Hard to separate the two. As it is, I'd reassess the "kill list" policy first.

Killing the policy would kill the use of the drones for that purpose.

Where there's a will . . . but, the President requires our urging and support on this. Longer term, we need legislation to outlaw extrajudicial executions of US Citizens.

I have difficulty accepting that this administration refuses to do so because of the precedent set by the last one and that they just do not want to give up that power. So if that is not the reason, which it appears to be the most likely, what is it?

Only the President has the power to do that in the short-run, and it takes an Act of Congress and/or a SCOTUS decision to make that 9more or less) permanent. But, that longer-term fix will be harder to do, as a practical and political matter, particularly if Obama stays tied to this policy.

War is the problem.

Until we can evolve to a different level, and iron out our differences without violence, we're just refining the technology.

Technology, I may add, that's been being used on American citizens for a long time now.