Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

The Northerner

(5,040 posts)
Tue Jan 31, 2012, 03:20 AM Jan 2012

Civilian Deaths Due to Drones are Not Many, Obama Says

WASHINGTON — President Obama on Monday defended the use of drones to strike suspected terrorists in Pakistan and elsewhere, saying the clandestine program was “kept on a very tight leash” and enabled the United States to use “pinpoint” targeting to avoid more intrusive military action.

Mr. Obama, in an unusually candid public discussion of the Central Intelligence Agency’s covert program, said the drone strikes had not inflicted huge civilian casualties. “We are very careful in terms of how it’s been applied,” he said. “It is important for everybody to understand that this thing is kept on a very tight leash.”

The president made the remarks in answer to questions posed by people during a live Web interview sponsored by Google Plus, the social media site of Google. He also spoke about the economy, laughed at a comedian’s impersonation of him, and declined a woman’s request to sing or do a dance.

The subject of drones came up when a viewer asked Mr. Obama about a report in The New York Times on Monday about the State Department’s use of drones for surveillance purposes to protect its diplomatic installations in Iraq. Mr. Obama confirmed their use for surveillance, but said he thought the article was “a little overwritten.” He added that drones were a key part of the country’s offensive against Al Qaeda.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/31/world/middleeast/civilian-deaths-due-to-drones-are-few-obama-says.html

20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Civilian Deaths Due to Drones are Not Many, Obama Says (Original Post) The Northerner Jan 2012 OP
.............. Angry Dragon Jan 2012 #1
the dead civilians will be glad to hear they are "not many" - executed without charges or trial msongs Jan 2012 #2
Agreed & I also wonder if someone here is willing to defend this policy... The Northerner Jan 2012 #4
Cold man. Can fascist be added? K&R (nt) T S Justly Jan 2012 #3
The American people love war, gotta appeal to the 60% who want war with Iran... joshcryer Jan 2012 #5
What American people want war with Iran? A link will do nicely. Thanks. (nt) T S Justly Jan 2012 #6
Here's two: joshcryer Jan 2012 #7
Looks like a couple of colonels in Alexandria, Va and another one in Tel Aviv ... T S Justly Jan 2012 #9
Eh, best I can do. joshcryer Jan 2012 #10
Goodnight ... T S Justly Jan 2012 #11
One is too many. Norrin Radd Jan 2012 #8
I agree and it should not be addressed so lightly. morningfog Jan 2012 #19
Is that how it was easy for you to make jokes about them, sir? Their use is no big deal? BlueIris Jan 2012 #12
I could fill your screen with photos of dead children from those drones. Bonobo Jan 2012 #13
Politicians speak in relative terms and miss the heart of the matter lunatica Jan 2012 #14
"I think people who are outraged at this but can accept outright war are just as bad." Bonobo Jan 2012 #16
How about the politicians and pundits and even the military lunatica Jan 2012 #18
This is patently untrue EFerrari Jan 2012 #15
Over 168 children died in Pakistan by the drone war. Galle Jan 2012 #17
In exactly the same way Mittens' $374,000 in speaking fees hifiguy Jan 2012 #20

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
5. The American people love war, gotta appeal to the 60% who want war with Iran...
Tue Jan 31, 2012, 03:47 AM
Jan 2012

And another campaign promise kept...

 

T S Justly

(884 posts)
9. Looks like a couple of colonels in Alexandria, Va and another one in Tel Aviv ...
Tue Jan 31, 2012, 04:39 AM
Jan 2012

"commissioned" some surveys. Pure "opinion" on my part, you could say. Fits the conditions
of the question, though. But, definately worth the

joshcryer

(62,265 posts)
10. Eh, best I can do.
Tue Jan 31, 2012, 04:46 AM
Jan 2012

If you surround yourself with sycophants who are anti-war, good for you, but the 60/40 spread is what I experience in daily life. American's love blood, love war, just give 'em a reason to grit their teeth and champion it. I'm open to being convinced otherwise, of course, but we wouldn't have elected the MIC fascists that we have if we weren't gung ho for it.

 

morningfog

(18,115 posts)
19. I agree and it should not be addressed so lightly.
Tue Jan 31, 2012, 10:23 AM
Jan 2012

It is good he finally is taking ownership, but his justifications are sad.

BlueIris

(29,135 posts)
12. Is that how it was easy for you to make jokes about them, sir? Their use is no big deal?
Tue Jan 31, 2012, 08:09 AM
Jan 2012

Sometimes, I am absolutely embarrassed by this president.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
13. I could fill your screen with photos of dead children from those drones.
Tue Jan 31, 2012, 08:25 AM
Jan 2012

Were they Al Queda?

Were they killed for our security?

Will their loved ones want/demand/work for revenge?

Are they entitled to revenge? Justice?

Should I post the pictures? No... I am sure you don't want to see what a portion of your taxes are used for.

Should you see? should you be forced to look?

Is that not the least thing the American people owe to the innocent victims?

Tough questions.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
14. Politicians speak in relative terms and miss the heart of the matter
Tue Jan 31, 2012, 08:26 AM
Jan 2012

Relatively speaking it is much better to target the enemy individually and kill a few innocents in the vicinity than it is to carpet bomb the shock and awe out of an entire city and countryside killing hundreds if not thousands who just happen to be in the way.

But that's because they aren't going to consider any alternative to war. It just never occurs to them that it could be possible to put as much effort into promoting peace than it does to put effort into promoting war. If none of your alternatives is lack of war in any way, then war it will be.

By the way, I think people who are outraged at this but can accept outright war are just as bad. War is an abomination no matter how you try to spin it. And when the premise is already an abomination then atrocities enacted during wars are no less.

Bonobo

(29,257 posts)
16. "I think people who are outraged at this but can accept outright war are just as bad."
Tue Jan 31, 2012, 09:18 AM
Jan 2012

I bet there are zero people that fit into that category.

lunatica

(53,410 posts)
18. How about the politicians and pundits and even the military
Tue Jan 31, 2012, 10:09 AM
Jan 2012

who think war is honorable yet they're outraged at actual individual atrocities that get into the news? It's OK to kill an entire family as long as they're just collateral damage from some shock and awe bombing, but if a few soldiers get carried away and rape the 14 year old daughter and later execute her along with her entire family suddenly these same people are outraged. Dead through acts of war is still dead.

I'd say you would lose that bet.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
20. In exactly the same way Mittens' $374,000 in speaking fees
Tue Jan 31, 2012, 11:10 AM
Jan 2012

"isn't a lot" of money.

And does al Qaeda - the real one - even exist anymore as anything more than the fever dreams of Internet commandos in the Arab world?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Civilian Deaths Due to Dr...