Reply With Quote
I would wonder where George Zimmerman got a drone.
Among the many more important things that aren't covered at all in these debates..
I would wonder where George Zimmerman got a drone.
Yes, democrats think they are morally superior, because the will unleash countless cruise missiles and drones. Sure, this saves US lives, but they kill indiscriminately. The Middle East zealots probably flew those planes into our buildings as a counter attack to president Clinton exhausting our cruise missile supply. What will happen after all this indiscriminate killing Obama is doing?
You don't think bombing a whole city with phosphorous bombs killed indiscriminately?
If you are talking about the 2004 Fallujah incident, they only used phosphorous aerial flares and phosphorus smoke screens. The accuser took back his claims, saying he never saw burned victims.
I'm pretty sure that Bush used quite a few drones as well. I don't think it's just red team or blue team relying on drones. Do you really think McCain or Romney would/will use less drone strikes?
I'm not saying otherwise. My point is that republicans use them sparingly rather than in countless numbers like the democrats do.
Sparingly...we have a govt contractor who took back everything, so it didn't happen,,,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FallujahThe U.S. military first denied that it has used white phosphorus as an anti-personnel weapon in Fallujah, but later retracted that denial, and admitted to using the incendiary in the city as an offensive weapon.[17] Reports following the events of November 2004 have alleged war crimes, human rights abuses, and a massacre by U.S. personnel.[18] This point of view is presented in the 2005 do entary film, Fallujah, The Hidden Massacre.
Sorry, that does not compute...
What do you mean?
It's not hard to figure out."It was used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants," spokesman Lt Col Barry Venable told the BBC - though not against civilians, he said.
The US had earlier said the substance - which can cause burning of the flesh - had been used only for illumination.
BBC defence correspondent Paul Wood says having to retract its denial is a public relations disaster for the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4440664.stm
If you cannot figure out what happened just 7 years ago how on Earth do you expect us to buy your bull about 30 years ago?
How many people did it hurt?
I see you you rely on the common persons addition to wiki, which any of us can edit. Did you read the attached note [17]? no you didn't. It is flat out obvious you didn't. You are just parroting an internet article as fact. One that has spin.
If you believe everything you read on the internet, I can direct you to some sites...
What if Trayvon died (not had died) in the WTC attack?
Certainly the heat and sabot rounds from the Army that you served weren't very discriminate either, neither were the cluster bombs, napalm or daisy cutters the USAF (that I served) used.
Let's not get all pious now.
Deny, deny deny...don't believe your own lying eyes..
Robert Holmes Tuttle, U.S. ambassador to the United Kingdom, stated in November 2005 that U.S. forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons."[12] However, on 15 November, within a week of Ambassador Tuttle's statement, Pentagon spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Barry Venable noted that the use of white phosphorus was conventional, that it was not illegal, and stated to the BBC: "It has been used as an incendiary weapon against enemy combatants."[13] In particular,
Sorry, but even as a conservative I have to disagree. The military under Bush killed just as indiscriminately. Do you think a pilot from a gunship can more easily identify friend or foe from,oh 3k feet than the cameras on a drone where a room full of people are making the assessment and a recon team on the ground is lasing a target?
Killing people sucks, but think how much better we would be today if Bush had gone into Iraq with killer drones instead of a military occupation..
Oh, and you need to ween yourself from nuzzling the teat of others and think for yourself. Between you and Boutons, there's no teat left for anyone else.
How much better would we be? You have to have boots on the ground when there's a manhunt. If you think we don't have boots on the ground when a drone strikes in most cases you're misinformed. The drone doesn't make the decision to engage. There are still eyes and ears on the ground and a high level commander calling the shot. The drone is just the firing mechanism. Pretending it's some Skynet device might be the ignorant trend but it's pretty naive.
These are the enemy's worse nightmare. They come in undetected and are quiet, and they pack a ing punch. Most of all they can spend a great amount of time in your area and they are equipped with the technology to ID targets much better than a tomcat at 430kts with limited fuel.
I would say its been pretty en effective...and we got boots on the ground in Pakistan didn't we?
Yes, that was the point. We had to ID OBL. A drone strike wouldn't have given us any confirmation in that case. We get confirmation in most cases even with UAVs from intelligence in the area.
WE had plenty of intelligence in Iraq, nobody knew where the WMDs were because they were destroyed after Saddam tried to use them in the first war and it didn;t work like it had with Iran, although probably, I suspect, the cause of Gulf war syndrome..
If you think we went into Iraq to look for WMDs, not to secure oil fields and topple the Hussein government, I've got a bridge to sell you. Gulf War syndrome was too many REMFs filing disability because they saw dead people.
Also, if you think this in-fighting going on in the ME isn't exactly what we want you're mistaken. Get them killing each other and we don't have to do it. One rises, we either negotiate peace with him or we kill him. They cannot run organized training camps if they are too busy blowing each other up in the markets.
PTSD is nothing to kid about...I never said we went into Iraq to look for WMD...we went because the world is running out of oil...
It's existed as long as there have been stressful situations. It's always the REMFs that get it. They join to be all the can be and all they could be was a shotgun rider in a supply convoy because they got to sleep indoors.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
