Read Story on Drone Strikes. Post a comment on this blog. Include your comparison between this policy and Pres. Bush's use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Comment should be about a paragraph. Go to youtube and view a drone strike; predator drone strike
The following tests may help you decide which political party best reflects your views:
Take all three political party quizes:
1. Are you a republican or democrat?
2. What political party are you?
3. What political party is right for you?
I support drones because it's an easy and safer way (for the USA) to attack threats to our country. In a way it is very wrong and risks the lives of innocent people but in the end it is also saving the lives of THOUSANDS of people in the US and out. I do think we should plan it out a little more and get the victim when they are definitely alone because what if someone there is a spy or something planning to take down a terrorist and we kill them? not smart. So over all I support them.
ReplyDeleteI think the drones actually help out a lot. They should be kept and should continue being used now. The drones are a valuable asset to the United States and should only be used with certain interests.
ReplyDeleteDrones and enhanced interrogation seem like different things to me. One, I don't understand why President Obama is so against waterboarding, or ANY enhanced interrogation, yet he is willing to risk other civilian's lives by using the drones. With waterboarding, it is one person being tortured until they talk. With drones, many lives are put at risk (which is good if they're terrorists) but there are also innocent lives taken also. I think that any tactic should be used by the President to kill terrorists, whether if it is just strictly by drones, or enhanced interrogation. I wish that President Obama would consider enhanced interrogation again.
ReplyDelete-Carlin Johnson
I do not condone the use of drones to kill al Qaeda members. I believe that there is a better alternative such as a missile that simply stuns the members so that they may be taken into American custody. The risk that innocent people will be killed is too great to be worth the death of a few members.
ReplyDeleteI think the policy that Obama has is inhumane but at the same time affected because he is able to eliminate Taliban officials that the United States are unable to detain. I also think that since Obama is going this and killing civilians in the process, there is no reason for him not to have water boarding as a way to get information out of people that we do capture. If he says that is against what America does, well so is killing innocent people
ReplyDelete-Adam Wheatley
I think that drones should be used because it is an extremely affective way to keep our country safe. Why put the life of thousands at risk when you can get straight to the source and stop the attack before it happens? I think there is crucial information someone could have and we have the right to be told it. However, I think that the overall process needs to be reconsidered in order for it to be more affective and safe.
ReplyDelete-Amanda Pezick
In my opinion, I think that it is very smart for the president to use drones to kill upper-level/ higher ranked terrorists. We are not risking the lives of our soldiers or any innocent people living in foreign countries. We are also saving the lives of innocents here or in other places. We are only targeting the terrorists and no one else so i think the drones are a good idea.
ReplyDeleteI support the use of drones, as long as the get the right person in the end. Yes, it's risky to other people in the area, and they may be civilians, but in the end if they get the right person (who is a threat) then a few lives lost are worth it. The drones are safer (for Americans). Drones don't put troops on the front lines and saves many of their lives. The drones don't just protect Americans, they help for the whole world, because it's not just America being attacked. So yes, I do support the use of drones
ReplyDeleteI feel that the drones need to undergo further reform to become more justified and appease international law. They should be used sparingly to reduce unwanted casualties. I also think that they are so venerated by the Pakistan people because they are designed as human replacement killing machines. The Pakistan would most likely view this differently if our soldiers were to compromise their lives for this cause it would be more honorable, justifiable, and more equal (to an extent).
ReplyDeleteI think this policy and the use of drones is a very helpful way of eliminating terrorist threats and terrorist in general. The drones do the job thats needed without having to send troops and risk casualties. I feel that drones should continue to be used and that like Bush's policy of interrogation they are both useful and should both be used in order to keep the United States safe from terrorist in the future.
ReplyDeleteKelton Heverly
I support the use of drones in war and in use on the battlefield or even to use for surveillance of an area before infiltrating it. I also believe that this is just the start of the use of unmanned drones. Other countries will pick up and perfect the use of this technology just as we are trying to do. Its one thing to send a soldier out to take a few lives to save many, but soldiers also have a conscious and can avoid killing foreign citizens. Drones have one objective and that is to destroy the intended target, threat or not. I pretty much just don't support the use of drones outside of a war zone, causes to much controversy.
ReplyDeleteI think the use of drones is very similar to President Bush's use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Only because basically they are tracking, targeting, eliminating threats to the US in different ways. Drones attack a mass of people who are a threat to America, the interrogation tortures people to find out threats to America. I think the use of drones can be effective if they are used in the right way and are used only to protect the U.S. and its citizens
ReplyDelete-Cassidy Wilson
I'm not against the Drone Strikes, I'm just confused as why Obama would be against Bush's water boarding, when each strategy give results and can both be seen as cruel. One isn't better than the other, but the drones are working better. The drones, to me seem to keep America safer faster because they are taking out possible threats instead of just receiving information, like with water boarding.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the drone policy is inhumane! I mean yeah I'm all for catching Taliban but come on for most American's to basically say, "Oh no we can't torture them. That's not what America is about. Let's just blow them up!" NO that is a prime example of what America is not! Yes is an easier way to kill the targets, BUT that does not mean that it's anymore "American", than torturing them! Honestly, blowing someone up is a little too far. Torturing is the better alternative than Obama's policy beings that innocent people are at risk! I'm clearly against Drones. - Julie Weiss
ReplyDeleteDrones are very interesting with the idea that they can see things for miles and miles away and attack them on point. Drones, in President Obama's belief are the most idea thing to use. However, President Bush thought that water boarding and other forms of "enhanced interrogation" seemed like the best idea to attack the enemy. I think the main difference is that with Bush's ideas, they were torturing people, but the government was not killing innocent people that have been injured with the Drone attacks. I believe that Drones, yes are very useful, but are just as bad as the enhanced interrogation. If you can justify the use of one, you can certainly justify the use of the other. They both are forms of protection for the United States and they can help us locate and take down future terrorist, however, when innocent lives are taken away, things do not seem to be right. The Drones, I believe, should only be used when necessary, and not whenever we feel. They should be used in an environment only where they are needed and not in non-war zones. I also think that President Obama should be able to say that he approves all the Drone attacks because he is in charge of the purpose. The Drones seem ideal and set a good purpose, but any of the defense mechanisms are arguable.
ReplyDeleteMaddie Petrancuri
I support the drones because it can take out the terrorist we are looking for in a more technical and easy way. We should learn more about the drones. The drones help save many American lives. The drones and Bush's policy should both be used because they are helpful ways in keeping the United States safe.
ReplyDeleteNick Eufrasio
I think that drones are very helpful. It is a safer way for the United States to stop attacks against our country. I do not understand why Obama is against water boarding. I believe that water boarding is less harsh but also very affected. The drones are killing civilians in the process that may not have anything to do with any type of threats against the United States.
ReplyDelete-Mike Trainer
I think that using the drones is not right. I don't believe drones are effective because unless they take out all the people involved, the people the kill can be replaced. Not only that but innocent people are getting involved unnecessarily too. At least when water boarding was involved no civilian was involved also.
ReplyDeletei think that the use of drones is a very effective in helping to eliminate the terrorist threats that this country faces. This is also similar to bushes enhanced interrogation techniques. Each president trying to make this country safer by trying to eliminate the threats that this country face. If the president uses drones in the right way i think he has a chance in protecting the united states. -Colleen Shalkowski
ReplyDeleteThe drone policy may be an effective means at killing important terrorist threats, but if innocent lives are lost, then this cannot be they way to go. As stated in the article, some of these targets are very easily replaced, even the important ones. Trent's idea of a stun-missile is a better alternative if anything. I am more for the enhanced interrogation techniques because the men these techniques are used on are worth less than any innocent lives. It may be the best method, at least for the time being, because it has in fact proved effective in getting information and getting clean kills at times. If innocents are not harmed and it gets answers, it is definitely a better idea than destroying unlucky bystanders. Young children and people with a long life ahead of them could have their dreams and very lives obliterated via dead parents or losing their own life. I'm most surely going to have to be Liberal Hippie ........ in this situation. However, depending on how grave the specific situation may come to be, I would recommend it. - Sean DeLacy
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, i think using drones is an excellent idea. The president made a good decision with bringing in drones to help make America, our country, a safer place. Those terrorists are a big threat to us and we need drones to help kill those people. Our soldiers are not being affected by it so i think its not a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteI"m for both drone and waterboarding. First, it's awesome how we can track down people with a missel and just blow them to pieces, especially when you know they're terrorists planning on trying to find us first. Another thing is that its keeping our soldiers alive and keeping them from going to war. Yes, it may kill civilians but how do you know one day they wont become in charge or help them ? Or maybe you think they're civilians but they really aren't? In my opinion, you can't trust anybody these days especially the ones in foreign countries. Bush's idea is also a good idea. You get suspected terrorists and you would do enhanced terrogation techniques. After a while they can't take it anymore and confess to who's the leader or whoever is calling the shots. Again, you can't trust anybody. It's their job to keep our country safe and by all means do anything to make sure they do their job.
ReplyDeleteCarlie Costanzo