U.S. Presidential race - Democrat Discussion

[cubby]

Sounds like we shouldn't be using drones then.

And, before anybody responds, saying that "shit happens in war" isn't a valid counter.

You mean we shouldn't be acknowledging reality? Mistakes happen in war, period - saying they don't is tantamount to saying you don't understand the real issues.

[Grizzly Willy]

Do more intelligence gathering before going and making more enemies? "Mistakes were made" rings hollow.

You know, if, during the presidency of George Bush, somebody told me that Democrats would be defending the deaths of innocents in the war in the Middle East, I would have called them crazy.

You mean we shouldn't be acknowledging reality? Mistakes happen in war, period - saying they don't is tantamount to saying you don't understand the real issues.

My point isn't that it doesn't happen, it's that it isn't an excuse.

[starlord]

Do more intelligence gathering before going and making more enemies? "Mistakes were made" rings hollow.

You know, if, during the presidency of George Bush, somebody told me that Democrats would be defending the deaths of innocents in the war in the Middle East, I would have called them crazy.

My point isn't that it doesn't happen, it's that it isn't an excuse.

so no amount of mistakes are acceptable?

[Grizzly Willy]

They shouldn't be brushed away with an excuse.

[starlord]

i mean, ideally that would be the case. but this isnt an ideal world. "Just do better" also rings hollow. ultimately its a gamble: do we go after this guy now or allow him to continue his nefarious deeds until we're 1000% sure?

[cubby]

They shouldn't be brushed away with an excuse.

They aren't, and you're belittling the issue by saying that are.

[Grizzly Willy]

Alright, so I did some research, and most of the information claims that the rate of error is actually a lot smaller than people make it out to be. The Long War Journal gives drone strikes a failure rating (meaning they killed civilians) of ~0.04%. I do understand that perfection is unnatainable in these situations, and I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing under the assumption that the percentage was much higher, and that we shouldn't use the reality of the situation as an excuse not to improve. The data, however, shows that efforts have been made to ensure that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum.

[cubby]

i mean, ideally that would be the case. but this isnt an ideal world. "Just do better" also rings hollow. ultimately its a gamble: do we go after this guy now or allow him to continue his nefarious deeds until we're 1000% sure?

Precisely.

---------- Post added 2012-09-28 at 09:39 PM ----------

Alright, so I did some research, and most of the information claims that the rate of error is actually a lot smaller than people make it out to be. The Long War Journal gives drone strikes a failure rating (meaning they killed civilians) of ~0.04%. I do understand that perfection is unnatainable in these situations, and I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing under the assumption that the percentage was much higher, and that we shouldn't use the reality of the situation as an excuse not to improve. The data, however, shows that efforts have been made to ensure that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum.

On an "olive branch" level, I'm glad you both looked for and then posted this info. I'm also delighted that the "failure" rate is much lower than previously reported.

[Grizzly Willy]

I'm not unreasonable. Or at least I don't try to be.

[Spectral]

We don't even know who we're killing half the time.

That's a reason to get better at identifying targets, not to stop killing targets.

---------- Post added 2012-09-28 at 07:30 PM ----------

Alright, so I did some research, and most of the information claims that the rate of error is actually a lot smaller than people make it out to be. The Long War Journal gives drone strikes a failure rating (meaning they killed civilians) of ~0.04%. I do understand that perfection is unnatainable in these situations, and I wasn't arguing that. I was arguing under the assumption that the percentage was much higher, and that we shouldn't use the reality of the situation as an excuse not to improve. The data, however, shows that efforts have been made to ensure that civilian casualties are kept to a minimum.

Holy shit, I'm generally a proponent of drone strikes and didn't realize the number was that low. That's pretty amazing that we've come so far in war that an action with an incredibly low fatality rate for innocents and zero risk for American troops is something that's debated. In any previous decade, the vast, vast bulk of people would have said, "fuck it, let's always use that then".

[Felya]

so no amount of mistakes are acceptable?

When we are the ones starting the wars, no amount of mistakes should be acceptable. After all, it was our choice to put our selfs in a position for the mistakes to happen. The drones better not fail, because no one attacked us to put us in such a position, but our selfs.

[Deleted]

Error rate of 0.04%? Sounds like total bullshit.

Wikipedia:

Reports of the number of militants versus civilian casualties differ.[12] In a 2009 opinion article, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution wrote that drone strikes may have killed "10 or so civilians" for every "mid- and high-ranking [al Qaeda and Taliban] leader."[13] In contrast, the New America Foundation has estimated that 80 percent of those killed in the attacks were militants.[14] The Pakistani military has stated that most of those killed were hardcore Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.[15] The CIA believes that the strikes conducted since May 2010 have killed over 600 militants and have not caused any civilian fatalities, a claim that experts disputed and have called absurd.[12] Based on extensive research, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that between 391 – 780 civilians were killed out of a total of between 1,658 and 2,597 and that 160 children are reported among the deaths. The Bureau also revealed that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners, tactics that have been condemned by legal experts.[16][17][18] Barbara Elias-Sanborn has also cautioned that, "as much of the literature on drones suggests, such killings usually harden militants' determination to fight, stalling any potential negotiations and settlement."[19]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan

[Wells]

Error rate of 0.04%? Sounds like total bullshit.

Well let's see some data from your end then.

[Deleted]

Well let's see some data from your end then.

The wiki article has lots of reputable sources ranging from 20% innocents to much higher and lower. Altough CIA claims there have been zero civilian casulties. I guess they just post-mortem declare everyone that died to have been part of Al-Qaida.

[Felya]

what would you suggest as an alternative? drones are lauded for not risking american soldiers lives.

How about the country that prides it self on the fairness of due process, have the same respect for the countries we want to be more like us? We are taking our drone targets, from the same government that had Bin Laden down the road from their version of the CIA. This is the competence we are stacking our trust on.

[Deleted]

A report by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, released 4 February 2012, stated that from under the Obama administration (2008–2011) drone strikes killed between 282 and 535 civilians, including 60 children.

A Standford University and New York University research supports the accuracy of this Bureau of Investigative Journalism report as well.

[Spectral]

Sounds like total bullshit.

Then you cite this shit:

In a 2009 opinion article, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution wrote that drone strikes may have killed "10 or so civilians" for every "mid- and high-ranking [al Qaeda and Taliban] leader."[13]

Way to make it quite clear that you're exercising some very strong motivated reasoning.

[Wells]

And that's not even including the unicorns that may have been killed.

[Spectral]

A Standford University and New York University research supports the accuracy of this Bureau of Investigative Journalism report as well.

Do you honestly, truly believe that you're arriving at the conclusion that these studies are correct because you're well informed about them and think they use the best methods possible and aren't just experiencing confirmation bias?

I don't hestitate admit I have no sound idea of how many innocents were killed.

[Felya]

In a 2009 opinion article, Daniel L. Byman of the Brookings Institution wrote that drone strikes may have killed "10 or so civilians" for every "mid- and high-ranking [al Qaeda and Taliban] leader."

That's his opinion?

In contrast, the New America Foundation has estimated that 80 percent of those killed in the attacks were militants.

Getting closer...

The Pakistani military has stated that most of those killed were hardcore Al-Qaeda and Taliban militants.

Of course they did, they are the ones providing the targets.

The CIA believes that the strikes conducted since May 2010 have killed over 600 militants and have not caused any civilian fatalities, a claim that experts disputed and have called absurd.

That is absurd...

Based on extensive research, the Bureau of Investigative Journalism found that between 391 – 780 civilians were killed out of a total of between 1,658 and 2,597 and that 160 children are reported among the deaths. The Bureau also revealed that since President Obama took office at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims and more than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners, tactics that have been condemned by legal experts.

That seems more on par to what I was lead to believe.

Barbara Elias-Sanborn has also cautioned that, "as much of the literature on drones suggests, such killings usually harden militants' determination to fight, stalling any potential negotiations and settlement."

That's any military offensive and is not unique to drones. What sort of literature do you need, to know that people who have their family and friends killed, would want revenge.

---------- Post added 2012-09-28 at 11:54 PM ----------

The wiki article has lots of reputable sources ranging from 20% innocents to much higher and lower. Altough CIA claims there have been zero civilian casulties. I guess they just post-mortem declare everyone that died to have been part of Al-Qaida.

Why must it be post mortem? They are given the targets by Pakistan government. The none terrorist declaration is what happens post-mortem, because when attacks happen, they are against what is thought and told by Pakistan government, to be terrorist.

Are you asserting that drones target civilians and than declair them terrorist? Because that's bullshit...