TruthElixirX

Maybe not the people piloting, but the people ordering them to. It makes it a lot more trivial for everyone involved than actually hopping in a jet and blowing up some weddings that way.

He isn't a sack of shit for having an opposing view point. He is a sack of shit for this middle ground all sides have a valid point and the truth is somewhere in the middle bullshit.

>What is sad now in the USA is that there are very few politicians who speak the truth and very few news outlets that don't just cooperate in the propaganda.

There never were any. Name this mystical time when he U.S. government was some benevolent force for good and not constantly lying to the civilian population to push them to unwanted wars.

You're a sack of shit:

>I'm not here to argue for or against the drones.

Congrats on being a mediocre person who doesn't believe in anything or have any opinions. This is the most offensive thing I think, even more than me disagreeing with you. Just picking middle of the road bland boring contrariness.

>We all know war is hell.

Apparently "we" don't because people continue to wage war.

>We know using weapons to attack people creates horrific, real human harm.

No, making it into a game complete with an Xbox controller abstracts the realness from it.

> So starting off listing the effects of weaponry on humans tells us nothing about drones. It just tells us about the horrors of war. Given this is an article about drones it should be very drone specific.

It isn't about drones, its about killing people. Who gives a fuck if it is a drone or a spoon. It is clearly an article about shitty wars being pursued by shitty people, not about how technologically advanced drones are.

>Today if we make a mistake we bomb the wrong home and kill everyone. 25 years ago we bombed the entire village.

What a false fucking dichotomy. How about not bombing fucking anyone? And who the fuck is "we"? I didn't bomb anyone and will continue to not bomb anyone.

>"The view is so pixelated it makes decisions tough" Can you imagine military people who fight/fought on the ground in real combat and order in strikes reading that? Surrounded by smoke and fire and deafening noise and hoping (or maybe not caring) that the strike they call in hits the right target/s vs all the nearby civilians also hiding and cowering in a village?

Again, false dichotomy. It does not have to be grainy drone feeds or confused soldiers on the ground. There are more options than A or B.

>The military is aware of the impact on these operators.

That doesn't mean they give a shit. I am aware of the drug addict a few houses down. I don't care.

>Lastly, imagine how you'd feel reading a similar opinion piece on Fox News from a gun ho former operator talking about all the American lives he saved by observing and taking out "the bad guys".

I wouldn't care. I don't care about "American lives" and I don't care about insurgency lives. I care about people regardless of nationality. I feel bad for the jack asses on both sides that eat up the lies of their leaders and kill each other in the name of nothing.

>What's even better with drones we're not losing American solider lives and dramatically reducing the number of innocent civilians killed vs how we would have approached the same problem just 25 years ago.

Its amazing how redefining anyone that is an adult male who dies as an enemy combatant reduces civilian deaths as well.

>War is hell. The issues are complex. Trusted new sources add to the debate. Biased ones feed their viewership what they know they'll eat up and do little, maybe even damage, the search for truth.

Being a boring middle of the road stick in the mud does more damage than anything.

>but also considers what happens when you don't deploy soldiers/drones/etc.

Nothing happens. Nothing. The reason those people are pissed is because of the U.S. government constantly fucking with them and poking them. Over throwing governments, secret renditions, locking up loved ones in Guantanamo with no trial indefinitely. I'd be fucking pissed too.

How is a guy two continents away carrying an AK a threat in any sane fashion? He sure as hell can't use the gun to fly over the ocean.

>Recently, the Guardian ran a commentary by Britain's secretary of state for defence Philip Hammond. I wish I could talk to him about the two friends and colleagues I lost, within one year leaving the military, to suicide. I am sure he has not been notified of that little bit of the secret UAV program, or he would surely take a closer look at the full scope of the program before defending it again.

I doubt he gives a shit, and the reason we are in this mess is because most people think people like him do give a shit, they are just "misinformed."

>It's the society (government) that pays for leaves.

So the companies in Canada don't pay taxes? Sign me up!

No thanks, I quite enjoy what I am getting in exchange for my privacy from Google, Apple, Facebook, et al.

>What about cleaning up your own house first?

These corporations, to my knowledge, have never used their data to:

* Spy on love interests

* Kill people abroad unilaterally

* Construct court cases against people

* Imprison people for victimless crimes (or any crime for that matter)

* Add me to no-fly lists

* Forcibly extract money from me to make me pay for their programs