Do you support Drone warfare or not?

[Ken Burch]

Also, if you post a response in addition to answering the poll, express your views on whether or not we should consider it different that a Democratic administration uses drones than we would if a Republican adminstration was using them.

19 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes, I support Drone warfare in all instances
	2 (11%)
	No, I oppose Drone warfare in all instances
	8 (42%)
	I support it in some instances but not others.
	9 (47%)
	Other
	0 (0%)
	No opinion
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[leftstreet]

1. With, or without any oversight or judicial review?

[Ken Burch]

2. Good questions.

Still...does judicial review really matter if you've already been blown to bits?

And does oversight in these cases really make a difference? How much oversight can really be carried out in "the fog of war"?

[leftstreet]

6. Well, but there is no 'fog of war.' It's Imperialist Occupations

But yes, while judicial review can't reassemble bodies blown to bits, it does have a deterrent effect

We'll never know where we'd be now if Bush/Cheney Inc had been investigated

[Ken Burch]

7. OK, that's a good point. Thanks for the further response. n/t.

[el_bryanto]

3. What if it was being used in war? Would that need judicial review?

Although using them as tools of assassination is pretty popular right now - they could be used in many other circumstances and for other purposes.

Bryant

[leftstreet]

8. Get back to this when someone is actually 'at war' with the US

There is no 'war' right now

[el_bryanto]

9. If there is no war than drone warfare is impossible? nt

[leftstreet]

12. Hmm...Imperial Occupation Droning is indeed a mouthful

[pampango]

23. The AUMF is about as close to a declaration of war against a non-state actor as you can get.

Perhaps if we revoked the AUMF there would be no legal justification the use of ANY military force - drones, bullets, missiles or bombs.

The AUMF authorizes the use of military force. You might argue that the AUMF has outlived its usefulness, if it ever had any, and creates more terrorists or legal problems than it eliminates, but others might argue that it matters little whether the military force we employ under AUMF is in the form of drones, jets, helicopters or soldiers with rifles. None of them are going to get clearance before they kill someone while they are in the field fighting.

Is the issue that we shouldn't be killing 'alleged' or 'possible' terrorists (due to the inherent ambiguity of 'alleged' or 'possible') with drones, bombs, missiles or bullets or that we shouldn't be killing them with drones?

[Ken Burch]

4. Could those who've said "in some instances but not others" specify

which instances, to them, would be acceptable and which would not? Thanks.

[el_bryanto]

5. Poorly worded poll

Always is always a bad term to use in a poll.

To those who say Always support - do you really support it's use in targeted assassination of, say, reporters? (this is facetious, as nobody is going to say Always support, I think).

To those who say never support - what if it was used to deliver food or supplies to troops cut off behind lines, or to find such troops?

Bryant

[Ken Burch]

10. I don't think they'd ever use drones to deliver food to troops.

As I understand it, the sole purpose of drones is to blow people and things up. They don't have cargo capacity as far as I know.

Also, we know you're "Bryant" by now, so you don't have to keep posting your name within the post text.

[slackmaster]

14. Maybe not yet for military people who are deployed; however...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/21/burrito-bomber-starts-the-drone-delivered-mexican-food

[Ken Burch]

24. Please tell me the propulsion system for that is NOT refried beans.

[slackmaster]

28. It's OK Ken. Refried beans are only an optional component of the ordnance package.

[Ken Burch]

33. It's still a war crime, though.

[el_bryanto]

15. Really? that bugs you?

I'm sorry.

Bryant

P.S. Why couldn't the retrofitted with that capacity? if they can carry weapons why not other materials? But even if you reject that how about using them to soften up an area that our troops are about to have to attack?

[Ken Burch]

16. It doesn't bug me, just thought you should know.

I was under the impression that you thought you HAD to post your name.

As to the retrofitting...since drones are designed to crash into things, wouldn't the rations get smushed beyond use? From what I've heard, MRE's are bad enough when intact.

[cthulu2016]

11. I chose "all instances" because

the question presumes that some sort of warfare is sanctioned, and the question is whether to use drones... about the weapon itself

To me, they are an unexceptional tool of war—just very accurate artillery.

So I support their use in all instances where blowing people up is called for in the sense that I do not oppose it.

That does not mean that I advise their use in all instances.

If they are not the right tool for a specific job then of course a different tool should be used. But that's not really about whether I "support" drones.

[Ken Burch]

17. Thanks for explaining your choice. n/t.

[NoOneMan]

13. Why should our glorious best-and-brightest be endangered when killing people en masse?

Just because we are at war doesn't mean we should resort to barbarism and endanger Americans!

Frankly, I worry about the drone operators and the stresses they might experience when bombing wedding parties. We should outsource their jobs or replace them with computers.

[wandy]

18. Now here's an idea. Let's do all warfare by remote controle......

Drones, robotic dogs that can run at 90 miles an hour, the whole 9 yards.
All we would need is a desert and a whole bunch of robots and computers.
Or even better! Let's virtualise the whole thing. The folk that do Warcraft have been doing that for years.
http://us.blizzard.com/en-us/games/war3/
Given todays modern PCs the graphics would be a dam sight better than the old Duke Nukem shootem up.
http://www.hulu.com/#!watch/452429
We could all join in the fray.
Mankind's apparent lust for perpetual war would be satisfied by killing pixels rather than people!
Did you're neighbor just tick you off? No problem! Roll that make pretend drone out of you're make pretend garage and use Googel maps to blow his butt to kingdom come!
The war would never end. There would always be newer add-ons, bigger monitors, more responsive joysticks.
No one could ever win! Their could be code that provided for 'resistance movements'.
Local skirmishes? No problem. Just a plug-in.

Oh, wait just one problem. Comparing the cost of a PC to the cost of a drone, the M.I.C. would not approve.

Just a thought. I guess we will have to continue killing real people to support Corporate welfare.

[Ken Burch]

21. Would we also agree, in that scenario,

(since not all countries have deserts)that the civilian populations of any country where such warfare was to occur would be evacuated until the cessation of hostilities, then allowed to return with full compensation for any material losses they would have incurred during the remote control warfare?

(this is a pressing concern, since in almost all cases, the civilians of any particular country usually haven't done anything, themselves, to have caused or justified the warfare in question).

I'd go one further on your proposal, actually...let's just turn all wars into video games.
(I realize this would lead to Lana Del Ray entertaining the troops, but let's put that aside for the moment).

[wandy]

42. Avoiding 'messing up the scenery' is why you would do it virtually. This gets better and better.

You want to use depleted uranium war heads? An Icon in the lower right hand corner tells you how much environmental damage you have done.
Kill off some innocent civilians (collateral damage). That's going to cost you! Not them, their just pixels, remember?
Need more/better weapons? amazon/joesarmory.com. Swipe that credit card.
All out nuclear war? Blue screen of death, "do you want to send information about this problem to Microsoft"?
Lana Del Ray? I'm old. I would want the USO entertainer to be what I've wanted for Christmas since time out of memory.
Pat Benatar!

[tech3149]

19. I'm one of those "others"

I support the idea of using drones because I understand how effective and cost-effective the technology has become. I'm for anything that doesn't put "our side" at more risk than is needed.

My problem is with the intelligence and policy that direct their usage. Our government can bray and haw all day long singing the "surgical capabilities" of their drone strikes and poo-poo collateral damage. Any misinterprentation of the "intelligence" or broad interpretation of the "signature strike" guidelines.

When you start killing people long distance by what they may appear to be doing you've jumped the shark and can't be trusted.

[Ken Burch]

22. Thanks for that post. n/t.

[SomethingFishy]

20. I voted no to all. Here's why:

After the shootings in Connecticut the gun debate went into full swing. The pro "gun in every American hands" people wanted to blame video games for the increase in mass killings.

Well, what happens when the video game actually does become reality? What happens when you are able to pull the trigger on your little joystick and actually kill another human being while sitting in a comfortable chair, in a climate controlled room drinking Red Bull and eating Cheetos?

We have reduced, and you can call it what you will, killing, murder, collateral damage, war, drone strikes, we have reduced it to blips on a screen. We have no emotional investment. We have gotten to the point where many citizens watch our indiscriminate bombing of other nations on tv and actually cheer for the death and destruction of nations our government calls "enemies". And I'm supposed to trust that the Government is telling me the truth, that there is no "cherry picking" of intelligence or that they are not outright lying, that the people we are killing... deserve it, and that any "collateral damage" is worth it.

Maybe I'm just too liberal. I still believe that if we spent the money we spend killing people on things like feeding them, building roads, infrastructure, schools and hospitals that we may be able to end terrorism without firing a single shot.

I'll quote Yoda to finish:

"Mmmmm if it's security you want, then build a society that no one wishes to attack you must Mmmmm"

[DearHeart]

27. Excellent response! I agree with you. nt

[Rex]

25. War is a no win option.

The fact that we have so many wars going on, on things that were once considered ideological debates is deplorable. We need a new approach to these things that does not included killing.

Maybe, diplomacy? I know...way out of fashion.

[Fire Walk With Me]

26. Drone warfare is too video-game derived, utterly dehumanizing its targets. End drone warfare utterly

[SomethingFishy]

39. +1 Dehumanizing, that was the word I was looking for in my response..

Thanks.

[Agschmid]

29. I'd put more options in the poll...

To broad of a scope to say Yes or No... I feel like Chuck Hagel right now.

[magical thyme]

30. the war on terror is wrong and a failure

It was wrong from its inception.

It is a complete failure; it has created more enemies than we can kill, while destroying untold lives.

It was a fabrication intended to cover a Middle East resource grab (FAIL) and to perpetuate the MIC.

Changing tactics to keep it more out of sight does not make it right or better.

Furthermore, I am very disappointed in the continued power grab by this administration.

[justiceischeap]

31. I voted in some instances

As I posted in another thread today about drones and the moral dilemma they pose, my thoughts are this:

• I'd rather see drones used than our men and women killed in combat.
• I understand there is often collateral damage from drone strikes, no matter how precise they claim to be. That said, I would imagine, the loss of innocent life due to a drone strike compared to all out war, would probably be less.
• I don't like the idea of leaving the decisions to less than scrupulous people but then again, we leave declaring war up to the same people.
• We don't live in a non-violent utopia, as much as many of us (myself included) would like to. There is going to be war, violence and death. Do we really need to damage soldiers emotionally and physically to achieve our goals in war if we don't have to?

I'm not referring to whom we can use the drones against, btw, that's a whole other discussion. I'm talking about the use of drones in the abstract.

PS... every online test I've ever taken to see where I fall on the political scale puts me at very liberal and I do consider myself very liberal but I also know that we can't look at things like war and weapons in black and white. There are shades of grey. If you think using a joystick to end life equates sitting in a basement drinking mountain dew and eating cheetos, just look at the faces from the photo of the Bin Laden strike. Those people, particularly Obama, had to make a decision to end a life. He didn't pull the trigger but he was responsible and you could see who took that responsibility very seriously.

[TheKentuckian]

32. Always no. Too cheap, too little blowback, too clean, to few involved between order and execution.

God help us as AI is developed and wedded to remotes.

[shanti]

34. absolutely not!

i see drones in the same light as cluster bombs and i hated them too.

[quaker bill]

35. Other - I oppose all warfare and find drones irrelevant

I don't care whether Ds or Rs are doing it either.

+/- year or so ago some drone strikes were authorized that happened to kill a citizen of the US. Many drone strikes have been authorized that have killed foriegn nationals.

They did it because they thought it was legal, eithical, and wise. Now, a year later, they release a paper summary of why they thought it was legal, ethical, and wise. People are all up in arms about the paper. Nothing has changed. They already told us this, the only news is that what they have been saying is actually also on paper. The citizens are still just as dead as they were a year ago, by the same means and for the same reason.

[meow2u3]

36. Drones should be used only in declared wars

And then again, only for recon or in zones where the terrain is too dangerous for human soldiers to venture.

[sadalien]

37. choice 3 should state

"as long as they have a D after there name"

[shenmue]

38. Yeah, this is not a loaded question.

Sigh. Remember when Democrats had freedom of opinion, and respected one another even when they were different?

I'm going to play with my dog.

[Ken Burch]

41. Actually, it isn't. Every conceivable option was listed, and without editorial comment.

There was no other way TO have phrased the poll questions.

And since the poll has shown a majority, at this point, being at least somewhat pro-drone(I assume YOU are pro-drone)what are you complaining about?

[Deep13]

40. We all support it through our taxes. nt

[Blue_In_AK]

43. I see some good uses for drones

as in the case of that drone that helped get the Russian tanker to Nome with the fuel last year, but I am opposed to drone warfare. I think it makes war too easy.

[scarletwoman]

44. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I oppose ALL drone warfare, period.

You know, China vehemently condemns all activism on behalf of Tibetan sovereignty, and violently suppresses all pro-Tibetan sovereignty protests.

Now, suppose China declares all activists who agitate on behalf of Tibet to be "terrorists". I belong to the "Free Tibet" mailing list - I send them money, I sign petitions, I've attended protest rallies condemning China's occupation of Tibet. So, in the eyes of the Chinese government, I would be an anti-China "terrorist".

If China was as commited to drone warfare as the U.S. is, it would mean that they would consider themselves perfectly justified in tracking down my home address and sending a drone to drop a bomb on my house, in the name of their "war on terrorism". China wouldn't be declaring war on the U.S., they would just be declaring war on "terrorists" like me, who signed up on the Free Tibet email list.

And if the bomb dropped by a drone on my house happened to take out my neighbors, too - well, that's just collateral damage.

Do folks find that scenario outrageous? So do I. Just as outrageous as the U.S. government using drones to drop bombs on citizens of countries with whom we are not "officially" at war.

I am sick of my country's government dropping death from the skies all over the world, wherever they please. It's been going on all my life (born in 1949) - I will NEVER be okay with it.

sw

[Blue_In_AK]

45. I wish I could recommend your post, SW

I love your example.

[fadedrose]

46. It shouldn't be done routinely - SNL

If there's enough information found by using a drone, maybe send in a specialist.

Some of these highly-trained people get turned on in a scary situation, gawd lov'em. If they can get volunteers, get the bad guy that way. They'll kill less people.

On SNL last week, a replay, they showed a cartoon of drones blowing up a building, farm, whatever, and they demolished it. Then a little sheep managed to come out, the drones returned and fired at the poor sheep till it was pulvarized - and this was SNL. Frightening but educational...

SNL is sometimes right on the mark.

[lonestarnot]

47. I do not support ANY fucking warfare thank you.

[fadedrose]

48. I support drones for surveillance...

Surveillance is already being used everywhere...