4 ms·
The article is long on opinion and short on data. I appreciate that's why it's in the opinion and not news section - and that the actual #s are hard to come by.
by omonra 10y ago
The article is long on opinion and short on data. I appreciate that's why it's in the opinion and not news section - and that the actual #s are hard to come by.
For me to have an educated view on the matter (as opposed to just climbing on top of a moral soapbox that violence is bad), I have to know how many people were killed, how many we meant to kill (under what criteria) and how many were killed by mistake / as collateral damage. For a sane observer to conclude that drone war is 'shameful', one has to have these numbers. Otherwise you can might as well consider WW2 and say 'We killed millions of Germans - how shameful of us!'
The numbers cited in the article are nonsense - what is the relation between the 'easy to get on' terrorist list and people targeted for drone strikes?
- bediger4000 10y ago* I have to know how many people were killed, how many we meant to kill (under what criteria) and how many were killed by mistake / as collateral damage. For a sane observer to conclude that drone war is 'shameful', one has to have these numbers.* Isn't that at least part of the issue? US citizens vaguely know that drone strikes take place, against people designated as "terrorists". But we know darned little else. It's all classified for various reasons. I agree with your point, but I believe that is a side issue. First, the US government has to do some major disclosure. Otherwise they're effectively acting without any restraint or debate or consent.
- omonra 10y agoBut did we have this information during any war? Ie that seems to be the standard MO for any theater of war. We as a society just write a massive benefit of the doubt check to the military and hope for the best.