For stuff about the 2024 election
It's not like Biden and Harris stopped the drone strikes. War Criminal is a matter of degree when it comes to US Presidents.
Rat Boy wrote:And now watch as centrists laud a war criminal.
He may be a war criminal, but he's our war criminal.
It's the which is worse: lawful evil or chaotic evil discussion.
I’m really dreading this debate. I feel like Harris has to have an absolutely flawless performance for the “neutral” media consensus to begrudgingly suggest she might have won. I don’t think she has it in her (few do have it in them).
If she makes more than 2 or 3 minor flubs, they may not directly say she lost, but the spin will be largely negative.
On the other hand, Trump can ramble incoherently and make stuff up the whole time and he’s guaranteed to secure at least a tie in perception. He merely has to avoid urinating on himself or inadvertently uttering a racial epithet and he gets a pass. The bar for him is so low a snail would have a hard time fitting under it.
It's not like Biden and Harris stopped the drone strikes. War Criminal is a matter of degree when it comes to US Presidents.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why drone striking an identified military threat is substantively different from shooting him with a sniper round or dropping a JDAM on him from an F/A-18. The only answers I tend to get is that drone strikes are icky.
If you are in a war, you use weapons of war.
I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why drone striking an identified military threat is substantively different from shooting him with a sniper round or dropping a JDAM on him from an F/A-18. The only answers I tend to get is that drone strikes are icky.
I got this one.
PRICE.
For the cost of one JDAM (and the pilots and airplane that dropped it) you can assassinate what, hundreds of "bad guys" with drones? Thousands? (depending on complexity of the drone in question - a Predator firing Hellfires is still hella expensive, though significantly cheaper than an F-22, whereas an off-the-shelf commercial drone with a grenade duct taped to it, not so much).
If I give you a gun but tell you that each bullet costs a million bucks, are you more of less likely to use it than one with bullets that cost 10 bucks each?
The problem isn't with any specific drone strike, the problem is how much lower the bar is to assassination.
Drones have created fewer bystander deaths.
You drop a 400lb bomb on a house, you just killed whoever was in the house.
You want to use a sniper? You have to fly them in, support them, get within a kilometer or so. All of that has political baggage no one wants.
Extra-judicial killings are just plain easier with fewer things to "deal with" afterward. Especially things like the law. And media. And bodies at a wedding. Etc.
This is the dream of every Big Shot Decision Maker in every human org since the first war party in caveman days: doing a thing with the smallest amount of "downsides."
Cost is an issue, sure, but the biggest factor that promotes indiscriminate use is that there is zero risk to the drone operator. No potentially messy situation for American leaders where pilots or soldiers are taken hostage or have their bodies paraded around.
And for the operators themselves, killing loses much of its weight when it’s over a video monitor.
Wait we don't ritually sacrifice drone operators who lose their aircraft?
I think the Dick Cheney break with core Republicans is more of a doctrinal thing, like the conflict between the Shover Robot and the Pusher Robot, or the incompatible visions of alt.pave.the.earth and alt.destroy.the.earth: you can't shoot faces that have already been eaten by leopards.
It's just a pride/jealousy thing. Trump took over the Republican Party that Cheney had spent so much time making it into what it currently is, and he can't stand to see someone else use it how he had planned to use it.
Paleocon wrote:I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why drone striking an identified military threat is substantively different from shooting him with a sniper round or dropping a JDAM on him from an F/A-18. The only answers I tend to get is that drone strikes are icky.
I got this one.
PRICE.
For the cost of one JDAM (and the pilots and airplane that dropped it) you can assassinate what, hundreds of "bad guys" with drones? Thousands? (depending on complexity of the drone in question - a Predator firing Hellfires is still hella expensive, though significantly cheaper than an F-22, whereas an off-the-shelf commercial drone with a grenade duct taped to it, not so much).
If I give you a gun but tell you that each bullet costs a million bucks, are you more of less likely to use it than one with bullets that cost 10 bucks each?
The problem isn't with any specific drone strike, the problem is how much lower the bar is to assassination.
That seems like a pretty specious argument. Is the only "moral" weapon one that puts the operator at risk and/or costs an exorbitant amount of a nation's resources? That would morally compel us to fight wars with line infantry and muzzle loading smoothbores. Every military innovation has to some extent improved price/performance and/or protected the personnel participating. The machinegun, the tank, trenches, the rifled barrel...
In any event, I ask the question again. How does the use of drones constitute a "war crime" when a bullet, knife, or cruise missile strike would make it otherwise acceptable?
Drone use itself doesn't constitute a war crime, but some of our past uses of them certainly do, especially the times when we knew there would be collateral damage and we ordered them anyways. That's where most of the opposition is coming from. We've already shown we are unable or unwilling to treat the capability with the respect it deserves. Because they're relatively so easy and inexpensive, we are likely to overuse them and use them when they aren't appropriate. Other methods aren't as easy, so we are more likely to be a bit more judicial in ordering them.
That seems like a pretty specious argument. Is the only "moral" weapon one that puts the operator at risk and/or costs an exorbitant amount of a nation's resources? That would morally compel us to fight wars with line infantry and muzzle loading smoothbores. Every military innovation has to some extent improved price/performance and/or protected the personnel participating. The machinegun, the tank, trenches, the rifled barrel...
You've missed my point entirely. If the economic cost of an action is a tenth/hundredth/thousandth of another action, you're far more likely to take the cheaper action. You're absolutely correct that there's little moral difference between a corpse killed by a bomb dropped from an F-22 and a one killed by a drone. But there's going to be a much bigger pile of bodies killed by drones (and therefore a larger moral hazard) than by F-22s because the mighty American dollar enables precisely that.
I’m really dreading this debate. I feel like Harris has to have an absolutely flawless performance for the “neutral” media consensus to begrudgingly suggest she might have won. I don’t think she has it in her (few do have it in them).
If she makes more than 2 or 3 minor flubs, they may not directly say she lost, but the spin will be largely negative.
On the other hand, Trump can ramble incoherently and make stuff up the whole time and he’s guaranteed to secure at least a tie in perception. He merely has to avoid urinating on himself or inadvertently uttering a racial epithet and he gets a pass. The bar for him is so low a snail would have a hard time fitting under it.
I think Harris is going to flay and quarter him. And the headlines afterwards will be 'Unlikeable Harris' Aggressive Attitude Alienates Moderates'
“Trump flies into an incoherent rage during debate, visibly defecating himself on stage, proves he’s presidential material.”
"Trump's Passionate Natural Response To Harris Goading Shows Maturity" - NYT
“Harris was the undisputed winner of last night’s debate. Here’s how that’s bad for her campaign.”
Drone use itself doesn't constitute a war crime, but some of our past uses of them certainly do, especially the times when we knew there would be collateral damage and we ordered them anyways. That's where most of the opposition is coming from. We've already shown we are unable or unwilling to treat the capability with the respect it deserves. Because they're relatively so easy and inexpensive, we are likely to overuse them and use them when they aren't appropriate. Other methods aren't as easy, so we are more likely to be a bit more judicial in ordering them.
I don’t think that really follows though. Historically, we have done far more collateral damage when the equation required us to factor in the safety of our own assets. Capet bombing of cities comes to mind and was a measure we undertook because the human and material cost to our side would have been astronomical had we decided to continue committing to precision strikes with insufficient technology. If we or any nation is given a choice between the loss of our military lives and collateral damage, the choice will almost always be collateral damage. Give a different choice between loss of an unmanned asset and the deaths of uninvolved persons and the equation shifts dramatically.
Mistakes do happen and we mess up despite safeguards but on the whole drone strikes are a lot less damaging than similarly effective alternatives.
*mod*
The drone discussion is off topic for this thread. Take it elsewhere if you’d like to continue it please.
Certis flying into the conversation undetected to deliver a pinpoint tactical strike with minimal collateral damage. Justified or forum war crime?
Certis flying into the conversation undetected to deliver a pinpoint tactical strike with minimal collateral damage. Justified or forum war crime?
gave you a like but you're fired
gave you a like but you're fired
By engaging you're in the blast radius as well. Acceptable collateral damage. Mission accomplished! Polls remain within the margin of error. Canada sleeps soundly tonight.
My prediction for a post-debate headline:
Harris' Missed Opportunity
Subheadline:
Vice President Harris may have won the debate, but her failure to do X could cost her the election
Harris too dismissive of Trump’s sincere question about her blackness
Trump's newest "stand back and standby" healthy discourse for US and the world.
Liberals go into meltdown after Trump vows to 'jail political enemies'
Yes those crazy liberals who believe in the rule of law....
Clearly the headline implies that conservatives are ok will abandoning the founding principles of the country.
My prediction for a post-debate headline:
Harris' Missed OpportunitySubheadline:
Vice President Harris may have won the debate, but her failure to do X could cost her the election
Nah.
"Orange Is The New Black: How Trump Is Changing The Narrative On Race"
“How Trump’s Fatal Aneurysm During Debate Guarantees His Path to Victory in November.”
Liberals go into meltdown after Trump vows to 'jail political enemies'
Yes those crazy liberals who believe in the rule of law....
Clearly the headline implies that conservatives are ok will abandoning the founding principles of the country.
eh, not surprised to see that kind of headline from the Daily Mail.
WSJ editorial board calls Trump's plan to appoint Elon to head a government efficiency commission his "best idea".
Mr. Trump said the restless Mr. Musk volunteered for the job, and he does seem well-suited for it. His Space X has demonstrated how a private business can do better than NASA in sending rockets into space. He’s seen the waste and inefficiency of government first-hand, and he could no doubt call on many people from the private economy to help.
No mention of how he's run Twitter into the ground I see. And what happened to all the money spent on his tunneling company?
Can someone please hit me with one of those neuralyzers from Men in Black or some similar device, so I can just fast forward through the next two months. I don't think my mental health can take this. Although I'm starting to fear as soon as I wake up, they'll need to hit me again for another 2-4 years. We are so screwed.
Pages