Benghazi Will Screw Obama, Which He Deserves

[Hauldren Collider]

How can it screw him? He's not running for office anymore. So, what? His legacy is stained by "Obama lies" screeching?

Certainly the assassination of Americans without due process (not to mention, drone warfare in general) will loom larger in history's eyes.

Uh, what's the problem with drone warfare? Is that somehow worse than regular warfare?

[Hauldren Collider]

Bill Clinton was basically just playing Mad Men. It's not a national security matter, but he was a sleazy boss who was grabby with the young ladies in his office. Defending him is kind of odd behavior for feminists.

QFMFT

[Imran Siddiqui]

Uh, what's the problem with drone warfare? Is that somehow worse than regular warfare?

With regular warfare, we at least can pretend we are doing all we can to avoid civilian casualties.

[snoopy369]

With regular warfare, we at least can pretend we are doing all we can to avoid civilian casualties.

Actually, in some ways drone warfare (in the future, with better drones) might turn that around. Right now, a Marine walks down a road and sees a teenage boy running towards him with what looks like a rifle. He's going to shoot him, right? Probably close to 100% of the time. He's afraid for his life, and will defend himself, even if it turns out it's a toy gun and the boy is running out to thank him for saving the family from Al Qaeda. But with drones, with sufficiently good sensors/etc. and a thoroughly developed rules of engagement, you can allow more time to identify friend or foe (or civilian) since it's not the end of the world if a drone is lost (particularly if we get better at making drones that are both more resistant to being lost, at least to regular gun fire, and cheaper to make).

[Lorizael]

Actually, in some ways drone warfare (in the future, with better drones) might turn that around. Right now, a Marine walks down a road and sees a teenage boy running towards him with what looks like a rifle. He's going to shoot him, right? Probably close to 100% of the time. He's afraid for his life, and will defend himself, even if it turns out it's a toy gun and the boy is running out to thank him for saving the family from Al Qaeda. But with drones, with sufficiently good sensors/etc. and a thoroughly developed rules of engagement, you can allow more time to identify friend or foe (or civilian) since it's not the end of the world if a drone is lost (particularly if we get better at making drones that are both more resistant to being lost, at least to regular gun fire, and cheaper to make).

I'm opposed to warfare in general, but okay with it if it involves super-intelligent robots. Maybe someday we can have drone politicians as well.

[Hauldren Collider]

With regular warfare, we at least can pretend we are doing all we can to avoid civilian casualties.

I don't see how this changes with drones. They're no different than manned airstrikes. Let's get rid of all our bombers, attack helicopters, and fixed-wing close-air support! Artillery, too, while we're at it. In fact, we should just go ahead and wipe out all our fire support and have an army composed entirely of maneuver units. There's a plan for success.

[snoopy369]

I think the problem with drones right now is that they're not equipped with good enough sensors to allow someone to make an accurate FoF identification, so sometimes they end up firing at the wrong people, and/or not seeing civilians in the area of the target. I suspect also that they're new enough that we just don't have good enough RoE yet to minimize civilian casualties. But I'm optimistic.

[Hauldren Collider]

Their sensors (for that purpose) are really no worse than anything you have on an F-16. The sensors you use for identifying bad guys is usually infantry on the ground directing fire support. When we do drone strikes in Pakistan or in places where we don't have infantry, we have to rely on intelligence assets.

Our rules of engagement in Afghanistan are already ludicrously strict. Civilians die in war, it's inevitable. I'd love to see civilian casualties go down, but not to the point where we lose wars. (This of course is assuming that the war is worth the cost in human lives, and I'm talking more generally than Afghanistan right now.)

[Hauldren Collider]

Since World War II, iirc, and probably World War I, fire support has killed far more enemy combatants than infantry. Infantry these days are mostly useful for directing fire support, which is the stuff that actually kills people. I spoke to a retired army officer (LtCol I think?) back in December who was in charge of some infantry training thing (forget which) and he told me that for most soldiers in the US Army, their rifle was pretty much a piece of jewelry. Mostly their job in combat is to help the airplanes and helicopters and artillery batteries hit their targets, and to hold strategic positions.

Maybe MTG will come in and correct me, and if so, I defer to his wisdom.

[Colonâ„¢]

There was an article on BBC a while ago about a drone controller (or whatever you call the guys who pushes buttons for those things) who had witnessed a child getting killed in an operation and quit his job over it. The message being the psychological impact of knowing you're reponsible for the death of an innocent person. Which is a bit ironic because drones are also often criticised for being these dehumanizing objects that shields the killers from facing the consequences of their actions.

[regexcellent]

A lie during a witch hunt is ****ing meaningless.

It was during a sexual harassment trial. Not a witch hunt. They weren't trying to nab him for cheating on his wife, he was getting sued because he relentlessly hit on his female staff and he used the Arkansas state cops as his pimping service.

[self biased]

It was during a sexual harassment trial. Not a witch hunt. They weren't trying to nab him for cheating on his wife, he was getting sued because he relentlessly hit on his female staff and he used the Arkansas state cops as his pimping service.

hey man, don't hate tha playa, hate tha game.

[regexcellent]

Oh, also: either Bill Clinton had sex with a LOT of women, or he had really bad taste in them, given the number that were willing to sell him out for 15 minutes of fame. Monica herself strikes me as very, very creepy...they found the cumstain on her dress...it ain't hard to wash that out of clothes, so apparently she kept it in her closet, unwashed, splattered in batter for months.

[kentonio]

Obama would refer to them as bitter clingers to guns, religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them. I would simply call you a moron and say that policy difference account for most of the so-called hate and hysterical overreactions on the part of snoopy and yourself account for the rest of the perception.

That's because you're a racist little dip**** who hasn't got the balls to admit that the scary coloured man in the White House just makes you uncomfortable.

The sheer quantity of lies that you ****ers use to defame this president are simply staggering. He could cure cancer tomorrow and you'd say that he had the cure for years and was holding it back to benefit his cronies and was actually responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths.

Seriously, there's so many things that you could oppose this president on and still maintain some integrity, but instead you attack him on literally every single thing he says, does or even implies. I was willing to give a lot of you the benefit of the doubt for a long time in case you were just hyper partisan dumbasses, but I've reached the conclusion that no, you actually are just racist ****s.

[DinoDoc]

you actually are just racist ****s.

It seems the vehemence you carry on with this line of attack with no degree of rhetorical or factual support indicates a large amount of psychological projection on your part.