General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCivilian 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 Agencys covert program, said the drone strikes had not inflicted huge civilian casualties. We are very careful in terms of how its 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 comedians impersonation of him, and declined a womans 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 Departments 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 countrys 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
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)msongs
(67,193 posts)The Northerner
(5,040 posts)T S Justly
(884 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)And another campaign promise kept...
T S Justly
(884 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)61% http://www.ibopezogby.com/news/2012/01/12/ibope-zogby-poll-61-support-military-action-should-iran-close-persian-gulf-sea-route/
52% http://news.investors.com/Article/597432/201201111732/52-percent-favor-military-action-to-stop-nuclear-iran.htm
What? You think American's are progressive anti-war folk? Will take two more generations or more before the majority of American's aren't blood hungry.
T S Justly
(884 posts)"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)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.
T S Justly
(884 posts)Norrin Radd
(4,959 posts)morningfog
(18,115 posts)It is good he finally is taking ownership, but his justifications are sad.
BlueIris
(29,135 posts)Sometimes, I am absolutely embarrassed by this president.
Bonobo
(29,257 posts)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)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)I bet there are zero people that fit into that category.
lunatica
(53,410 posts)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.
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)and I wish he wouldn't do this.
Galle
(15 posts)But no worries, someday we'll win the war on terror.
hifiguy
(33,688 posts)"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?