Monday, February 18, 2013

Hypothetical Domestic Drone Attacks

This  is in response to those of you who are complaining in social media about "drone attacks" launched by the commander and chief of our armed forces in protection of our national security. This definitely isn't a daily occurrence and similar to a "new toy" concept that the president is using. The war hawks that are complaining the loudest about this are the same ones who would prefer that we use our military (thousands of troops) to invade and attack a whole country needlessly. These are the same people who sent us to war in Iraq based on false premises and are still trying to argue that it was a good idea. The majority of this country doesn't think so. I like the idea of using mechanical means of attacking a small group of people instead of wiping out a whole town with carpet bombing and invading a whole country like we did previously, sending young American men and women into a meat grinder of insurgent guerrilla warfare - and the aftermath that is certain afterwards because of the unrest we cause by killing thousands of innocent men, women, and children so the president at the time could create a photo opportunity for himself and stand on the deck of an aircraft carrier with a sign boasting "Mission Accomplished".

If you fire one bullet there can be significant "collateral damage" and people in power have to weigh those options before they attack anyone. The people that President Obama sent drones to kill were all terrorists and criminals that were considered armed and dangerous. Using the U.S. military to handle a police action is tantamount to using a broadsword to lance a boil. The same people who are acting "up in arms" about the drone attacks are envisioning the president using them (drones) in the U.S. against U.S. Citizens. That is the main basis for their argument that using drones at all is wrong.
That would be completely ridiculous for the president to do when we have all of our own police agencies to handle those kinds of criminals here while in other countries, we don't have that kind of cooperation or manpower from the local authorities and we, in my opinion, are better off targeting the few people who are at fault instead of waging war on a whole country. Before you run your mouth about something you don't have the slightest clue about, I want you to imagine for a minute what it would be like to be our president. The American people are expecting you to protect them. A military or international police agency agent comes to the White House and gives you the location of an international terrorist and the joint chiefs of staff give you a heads up that a drone attack would be the most non invasive (on a national scale) tactic that would raise less diplomatic problems of a foreign incident nature. The national authorities in that country tell you that they agree this is a dangerous criminal and they are wary of trying to apprehend him/her/them without great danger to their citizens. They prefer you handle it. You set it in motion and kill the threat. We are only able to arrest, detain, and try people through our system of due process in this country.
Using the non-real scenario of "What if they start doing it here?" which is a logical fallacy straw man argument because no one is intending to make national security a threat to our own national security so you might as well be arguing about what Mothra and Godzilla could do to each other and which one would win, since they are both the same "non-reality" scenario mental exercise in mental masturbation. If you have nothing better to do, save your arguments for a real discussion that you have some researched "facts" to support instead of whining about something that will never happen.

No comments:

Post a Comment