Former Drone Operator Shares his Inner Torment

BobAthome
reply to post by Spookybelle

 

"We would be actively trying to eliminate these people regardless. ",,,and that ladies and gentleman,,,,is the "gist" of it.

its why??? again,, that eludes me.

I am not arguing the need for it and it would be wonderful if wars never happened or people didn't "need" to be eliminated.

But if it is going to be done then its best to do it with as few innocent deaths as possible and drones help with that.

Sure there is spill damage from every strike but its not as much as other means we may deploy to achieve the same results.

People act like we wouldn't be hunting these people down if we didn't have drone technology but that is not true. We'd probably end up invading an entire country just to get a few people.

Remember Noriega?

Spookybelle

rangerdanger
reply to post by Spookybelle

 

How about we don't fight a war?
We don't need to be there, we are only hurting the region, not helping.
So it's ok for us to kill as many other human beings as we want? As long as technology does the killing?

edit on 24-10-2013 by rangerdanger because: spelling

If you don't want to fight wars than that is fine but if you do fight them its best to use technology that decreases the amount of lives taken.

Wouldn't you agree?

Sounds like you are on your soapbox preaching anti-war rhetoric while missing the obvious ramifications of what you are implying.

If we don't use drones that means we either use airpower, artillery, or men on the ground, all of which mean more soldiers lives lost as well as innocent civilians.

So are you sure you want to end drone attacks? The targets we are aiming for are not only targets because we can hit them with drones you know. We would be actively trying to eliminate these people regardless.

This reminds me of a Star Trek episode. Two planets had been in a war for over 100 years (long time since I've seen the show). Anyway, their war was with technology too, like a game and the area they hit the computer (on the receiving enemy side) would calculate damage and lives lost. Whoever was in the area that was hit would have to go to the death chamber. This saved each planet money and resources because they didn't see the damage of the war. Yes, lives were actually lost, but the impact wasn't enough for them to stop the war.

I actually don't think tech is a better way to war, there is no better way of having a war, defending ourselves is different but we aren't doing that. TPTB need to stop the wars and let people live their lives.

reply to post by Spookybelle


"Remember Noriega? ",,,yes AND THE court trial,,,,which today seems too be ,,irrelivent.

If we ONLY used drones for warfare I could see some validity in your point, but since we use drones on top of soldiers on the ground, artillery etc...
I would imagine it saves a lot of US soldiers lives, but not the other way. It's ignorant to say "drones save lives" when they are being used to kill vast amounts of people. We aren't supposed to care about them though, because they are the "enemy". They kind of help with collateral damage, but they are still killing innocent women and children. Since they kill less innocents than bigger bombs I'm supposed to be glad?
I wish we didn't use drones in war. It means less accountability, and more time for war.

reply to post by rangerdanger


So would you prefer our armies to meet theirs on the battlefield then maybe we can have a replay of Battle of Antietam where 22,717 people died in just one day of fighting.

Would that put your mind at ease or would you rather see a couple thousand dead over a ten-year period?

Seriously....not sure what some of you guys are thinking.

reply to post by Spookybelle


I would like to see us end this wasteful war.
At least Antietam was for a legitimate purpose. Not some corporate sponsored 10 year war.
We only recently started using drones, so I don't understand why you keep comparing our "pre-drone" tactics to antiquated tactics we haven't used in decades.

Spookybelle
reply to post by rangerdanger

 

So would you prefer our armies to meet theirs on the battlefield then maybe we can have a replay of Battle of Antietam where 22,717 people died in just one day of fighting.

Would that put your mind at ease or would you rather see a couple thousand dead over a ten-year period?

why are those the only choices?
I'm pretty sure the death toll for the last 10 years is higher than "a couple thousand"

rangerdanger
reply to post by Spookybelle

 

I would like to see us end this wasteful war.
At least Antietam was for a legitimate purpose. Not some corporate sponsored 10 year war.
We only recently started using drones, so I don't understand why you keep comparing our "pre-drone" tactics to antiquated tactics we haven't used in decades.

Because we are discussing the use of technology in war, not the necessity of war itself.

Technology does not increase our likelihood to engage in conflict as history shows, we are all too willing to go to war no matter what weapons we use.

Given this fact, don't you want to see us use the technology that will most likely decrease the number of people killed?

If you assume the fact that we are going after these individual regardless, what method would you propose that would have less impact then drones do?

Obviously nothing short of some sort of warfare is going to accomplish your goals so how would you go about it?

rangerdanger

Spookybelle
reply to post by rangerdanger

 

So would you prefer our armies to meet theirs on the battlefield then maybe we can have a replay of Battle of Antietam where 22,717 people died in just one day of fighting.

Would that put your mind at ease or would you rather see a couple thousand dead over a ten-year period?

why are those the only choices?
I'm pretty sure the death toll for the last 10 years is higher than "a couple thousand"

Possibly, but nowhere near as high as any other war we've conducted for a similar amount of time. Would you like the statistics for the Korean or Vietnam wars, or the World Wars perhaps. Do you know how many millions of innocent people were killed in those conflicts?

Wonder why this thread only has 3 flags so far?

(Im the 4th to flag it)

Guess what?

Most of the people I ask is it worth it for US to exterminate much of the world, just to achieve 1 world government?

About 9/1 tell me YES, anything's worth establishing a 1 government language currency etc.

Seriously? That very government is forked! Look at Rome! and look at UK always burning in riots. In the end, this is self-instinction.

Brilliant, Homo sapien sapiens neoamericanus!

reply to post by gardener


Exactly. We create drones to save our own asses. All the while killing and destroying as much as we want. Drones only enable that behavior.
As an American, I feel shame.

gardener
Wonder why this thread only has 3 flags so far?

(Im the 4th to flag it)

Guess what?

Most of the people I ask is it worth it for US to exterminate much of the world, just to achieve 1 world government?

About 9/1 tell me YES, anything's worth establishing a 1 government language currency etc.

Seriously? That very government is forked! Look at Rome! and look at UK always burning in riots. In the end, this is self-instinction.

Brilliant, Homo sapien sapiens neoamericanus!

I'd assume most people are here to discuss the topic at hand and not partake in some silly race to collect stars.

And a one-world government is impossible. Been tried and failed miserably every time. It will never work in a million years.

You can't make everyone believe in the same thing and you can't ever have enough people to force them to accept it.

Spookybelle

rangerdanger

Spookybelle
reply to post by rangerdanger

 

So would you prefer our armies to meet theirs on the battlefield then maybe we can have a replay of Battle of Antietam where 22,717 people died in just one day of fighting.

Would that put your mind at ease or would you rather see a couple thousand dead over a ten-year period?

why are those the only choices?
I'm pretty sure the death toll for the last 10 years is higher than "a couple thousand"

Possibly, but nowhere near as high as any other war we've conducted for a similar amount of time. Would you like the statistics for the Korean or Vietnam wars, or the World Wars perhaps. Do you know how many millions of innocent people were killed in those conflicts?

I would like those statistics, but only if they show the death toll on both sides.

rangerdanger
reply to post by gardener

 

Exactly. We create drones to save our own asses. All the while killing and destroying as much as we want. Drones only enable that behavior.
As an American, I feel shame.

So are you contending that if we did not have drones we would not be hunting terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen or wherever?

rangerdanger

Spookybelle

rangerdanger

Spookybelle
reply to post by rangerdanger

 

So would you prefer our armies to meet theirs on the battlefield then maybe we can have a replay of Battle of Antietam where 22,717 people died in just one day of fighting.

Would that put your mind at ease or would you rather see a couple thousand dead over a ten-year period?

why are those the only choices?
I'm pretty sure the death toll for the last 10 years is higher than "a couple thousand"

Possibly, but nowhere near as high as any other war we've conducted for a similar amount of time. Would you like the statistics for the Korean or Vietnam wars, or the World Wars perhaps. Do you know how many millions of innocent people were killed in those conflicts?

I would like those statistics, but only if they show the death toll on both sides.

Fair enough.

Google death statistics_____________war. Fill in the blank.

Take you 20 seconds to look it up.

Spookybelle

rangerdanger
reply to post by gardener

 

Exactly. We create drones to save our own asses. All the while killing and destroying as much as we want. Drones only enable that behavior.
As an American, I feel shame.

So are you contending that if we did not have drones we would not be hunting terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen or wherever?

No, I'm saying that drones make it easier.
I mean, if you still think terrorism is a real threat, then I don't see this friendly debate continuing.
Make no mistake, we are killing more innocent people than "terrorists" these days.
If we didn't have drones we would just do what we did originally (2002-ish) and shoot missiles at them.

Spookybelle

rangerdanger

Spookybelle

rangerdanger

Spookybelle
reply to post by rangerdanger

 

So would you prefer our armies to meet theirs on the battlefield then maybe we can have a replay of Battle of Antietam where 22,717 people died in just one day of fighting.

Would that put your mind at ease or would you rather see a couple thousand dead over a ten-year period?

why are those the only choices?
I'm pretty sure the death toll for the last 10 years is higher than "a couple thousand"

Possibly, but nowhere near as high as any other war we've conducted for a similar amount of time. Would you like the statistics for the Korean or Vietnam wars, or the World Wars perhaps. Do you know how many millions of innocent people were killed in those conflicts?

I would like those statistics, but only if they show the death toll on both sides.

Fair enough.

Google death statistics_____________war. Fill in the blank.

Take you 20 seconds to look it up.

It's your argument man, and you DID offer.

rangerdanger

Spookybelle

rangerdanger
reply to post by gardener

 

Exactly. We create drones to save our own asses. All the while killing and destroying as much as we want. Drones only enable that behavior.
As an American, I feel shame.

So are you contending that if we did not have drones we would not be hunting terrorists in Pakistan or Yemen or wherever?

No, I'm saying that drones make it easier.
I mean, if you still think terrorism is a real threat, then I don't see this friendly debate continuing.
Make no mistake, we are killing more innocent people than "terrorists" these days.
If we didn't have drones we would just do what we did originally (2002-ish) and shoot missiles at them.

You just nailed it.

Drones make it easier, hence the reason we use them.

Its far better to circle overhead waiting for your target, identify him, then take him out as opposed to storming into a village, holding everyone at gunpoint, at possibly having to torture people for the information.

And if you think a missile shot from a plane has less damage than a drone missile you would be mistaken.

rangerdanger

Spookybelle

rangerdanger

Spookybelle

rangerdanger

Spookybelle
reply to post by rangerdanger

 

So would you prefer our armies to meet theirs on the battlefield then maybe we can have a replay of Battle of Antietam where 22,717 people died in just one day of fighting.

Would that put your mind at ease or would you rather see a couple thousand dead over a ten-year period?

why are those the only choices?
I'm pretty sure the death toll for the last 10 years is higher than "a couple thousand"

Possibly, but nowhere near as high as any other war we've conducted for a similar amount of time. Would you like the statistics for the Korean or Vietnam wars, or the World Wars perhaps. Do you know how many millions of innocent people were killed in those conflicts?

I would like those statistics, but only if they show the death toll on both sides.

Fair enough.

Google death statistics_____________war. Fill in the blank.

Take you 20 seconds to look it up.

It's your argument man, and you DID offer.

Your the one that wants to see them and they are only a couple clicks away....its not hidden information. You can just as easily go to the same place I would if you want to know.

If you don't want to believe me because I'm not going to be your lap dog than that's fine but common sense should tell you I'm right.

There were literally millions of innocent Vietnamese killed in our bombing campaigns comared to the hundreds of thousands (pessimistic guess there) that have been killed in the ME conflicts.

reply to post by Spookybelle


We got into Vietnam on a farce anyway. That's just another corporate war that paid out the big bucks to a select few.
No need to take it personally just trying to add a little levity.
I know full well how google works, and how to use it.