Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
Anonymous commenting is allowed
#1 - iamtheblackgoat (03/21/2013) [-]
inb4 drones are bad butthurt nonsense

Drones save a lot money, time, and American lives, and the unfortunate fact that they're responsible for minor collateral damage and a few civilian casualties isn't enough to completely warrant that they be phased out of combat
User avatar #53 to #1 - badgerclan (03/22/2013) [-]
Imagine if at any given time, without warning, a missile could come out of the sky and kill you or the people around you. And then sometimes the drone comes back and hits again when the first responders show up to help survivors. Any adult male in the area around a strike is considered an "enemy combatant" without even knowing who they are. Sometimes they just see somebody while flying and kill them, like a few months ago farmer that was farming at night, a custom in the area. How would you feel if you and your were subjected to instantaneous death from above that could come at any time and you can't do anything about?

They save money? Sure. Time? Hey, by that logic why send in SEALs to the Bin Laden compound when we could just nuke the city? American lives? Well, if we reign terror on all the innocent people in one region of the world, traumatizing and completely ******* off everybody in the world for years on end it must be okay because we can protect a few American soldiers by stopping them from doing what they ******* SIGNED UP TO DO!
#41 to #1 - roarflmao ONLINE (03/22/2013) [-]
Hey guys, why dont we go around the world and give everyone cholera. I mean its alot better than the ******* plague
User avatar #47 to #41 - whycanticaps (03/22/2013) [-]
I think I'd rather have cholera than the plague, but that's just me
#48 to #47 - roarflmao ONLINE (03/22/2013) [-]
Yeah, comparing the both isnt really fair since cholera is nothing compared to the black plague. What i meant is just that even though its better then the plague none is master race
User avatar #37 to #1 - sodaberg (03/22/2013) [-]
They' don't kill as many people as jet fighters dropping gigantic bombs do
User avatar #30 to #1 - cumwhore (03/22/2013) [-]
I don't have a problem with drone use in a theater of war, we should just declare war first.
User avatar #29 to #1 - coolcalx (03/22/2013) [-]
the idea that you can kill people without being put in any danger is scary as **** .
#24 to #1 - newall (03/22/2013) [-]
actually drones are responsible for less collateral damage than almost all the un-guided and JDAM bombs dropped from conventional aircraft so far in the "war on terror" in the middle east.

#23 to #1 - anonymous (03/22/2013) [-]
You are disgusting
User avatar #13 to #1 - secretdestroyers ONLINE (03/22/2013) [-]
I think that was the same mentality we had when we were sending Japanese-Americans to internment camps after Pearl Harbor. Y'know that "better safe than sorry" attitude that we use now to justify the slaughtering of innocent civilians.

And, btw, all military technology is going to cost more money which is what makes defense spending such a great thing to cut to help get the economy back on track. The day any elected official suggests it, however, is the day that they're never heard from again!
#54 to #13 - anonymous (03/22/2013) [-]
Couple of things here.

1. America wasn't slaughtering civilians in internment camps. I won't say accidents or sickness didn't happen, but you are making it sound like America was sending them to a furnace

2. America could cut it's entire military twice and it would still run a deficit.
User avatar #11 to #1 - allamericandude (03/22/2013) [-]
It's not "what" the government is using, it's "how" and "when" they are using it.

Drones as a technology are ******* awesome. But the government is using them to kill people without due process and without a declaration of war. Also, the government is not explicitly prohibited from targeting civilians on US soil (they said that they "would not" do such a thing--and such a scenario would be extremely unlikely--but "would not" is nowhere near as definitive as "can not".)

That's the crux of the debate. It would be the same if the government was using regular manned aircraft.
User avatar #58 to #11 - trojanmannn (03/22/2013) [-]
If a fugitive is armed and dangerous and you can kill him without collateral damage, why not?
User avatar #69 to #58 - allamericandude (03/22/2013) [-]
That's not what the debate is about. It's about the ability of the government to target unarmed non-combatants--even civilians--without due process, in a country where they have not declared war, even on US soil.
#62 to #58 - anonymous (03/22/2013) [-]
Because you have the right to a trial?
User avatar #63 to #62 - trojanmannn (03/22/2013) [-]
If someone is about to kill someone else law enforcement has the right to kill them, right?
#64 to #63 - anonymous (03/22/2013) [-]
Because they can precisely kill someone with a gun, you can't just take out a guy with a ******* missile while he has a hostage.
User avatar #65 to #64 - trojanmannn (03/22/2013) [-]
yeah I was giving an example. Like if there's a fugitive barricaded in a building by himself, you could kill him without the danger of a police breach, no?
#66 to #65 - anonymous (03/22/2013) [-]
But no one is in immediate danger, you could easily just tear gas the house and wait for him to come out virtually blind from the gas.
User avatar #67 to #66 - trojanmannn (03/22/2013) [-]
just a theoretical idea. I don't like the fact that the Government has the ability to eliminate who ever they want without repercussions.
#68 to #67 - anonymous (03/22/2013) [-]
They've already killed an american citizen overseas with a drone strike without trial, and there was no political or even ******* media backlash.
User avatar #70 to #68 - trojanmannn (03/22/2013) [-]
there never is. media in the u.s is pretty heavily controlled. It's much more socialist than people think.
User avatar #38 to #11 - sodaberg (03/22/2013) [-]
They're killing people in Pakistan without due process because it really is illegal isn't it? The problem is the US is left with little choice when it comes to violating Pakistan's sovereign territory. Pakistan gets billions of dollars to spend hunting terrorists, but they do a lousy job to keep getting money from the US. Pakistan doesn't capture or kill enough terrorists so drones get sent in. America should really focus on building better governments in the Middle East if they want to continue hunting terrorists, and to stop giving people reasons to become terrorists
#45 to #38 - teenytinyspider (03/22/2013) [-]
Pakistanis are not American Citizens, therefore, they don't get the due process. It's the thought looming that they could easily turn and gun down American Citizens without due process.
User avatar #76 to #45 - coolcalx (03/22/2013) [-]
Geneva Convention, dude.
#6 to #1 - comehonorfacetwice (03/21/2013) [-]
It's funny how when a pilot 'accidentally' kills innocent civilians, they are charged, but when drones 'accidentally' kill innocent civilians, nobody is charged.
 Friends (0)