Amazon.com Widgets
  • Yes, It affects the innocent people.

    Many people in Pakistan are traumatized due to the fact that every day they hear drones overhead. The poor innocent men, women, and children live in constant fear of being blown to pieces. Only 6% of all strikes actually are successful. All the other 94% are thousands of civilians dying because of a guy hundreds of miles away pressing a button.

  • Yes, they do with a term called "blowback"

    We are a country that prides itself on its efficient, well-run military and upholding the laws of war.
    Every time a drone strike kills a terrorist, it kills dozens of innocent civilians with it. People, and children especially, who witness these attacks and are personally affected by it, are now extremely resentful towards the U.S. They don't care that a terrorist was killed, they care that an American drone killed their family members or friends, and caused huge amounts of destruction to their neighborhood.
    We have the best military in the world- people-wise and money-wise. We can afford to do better. We also have the best intelligence in the world. Send a SF team (we have so many- rangers, green berets, navy SEALs, etc.), kill the terrorist, be out within 2 minutes and never come back. Innocent lives are spared, and the cycle of violence is put to a stop.

  • Drone attacks constitute to the deaths of children

    The war-weary United States, for which the phrase “boots on the
    ground” has become politically toxic, prefers to eliminate its terrorist
    foes from the skies.

    The main goals of U.S. counterterrorism are threefold: the strategic defeat of al Qaeda and groups affiliated
    with it, the containment of local conflicts so that they do not breed new enemies, and the preservation of the
    security of the American people. Drones do not serve all these goals. Although they can protect the American
    people from attacks in the short term, they are not helping to defeat al Qaeda, and they may be creating
    sworn enemies out of a sea of local insurgents. It would be a mistake to embrace killer drones as the
    Nonetheless, the
    prospect of living under the threat of instant death from above has made recruitment more difficult and kept
    operatives from establishing close ties to local civilians, who fear they might also be killed.
    But the benefits end there, and there are many reasons to believe that drone strikes are undermining
    Washington’s goal of destroying al Qaeda. Targeted killings have not thwarted the group’s ability to replace
    dead leaders with new ones. Nor have they undermined its propaganda efforts or recruitment. Even if al
    Qaeda has become less lethal and efficient, its public relations campaigns still allow it to reach potential
    supporters, threaten potential victims, and project strength. If al Qaeda’s ability to perpetuate its message
    continues, then the killing of its members will not further the long-term goal of ending the group.
    Not only has al Qaeda’s propaganda continued uninterrupted by the drone strikes; it has been significantly
    enhanced by them. As Sahab (The Clouds), the propaganda branch of al Qaeda, has been able to attract
    recruits and resources by broadcasting footage of drone strikes, portraying them as indiscriminate violence
    against Muslims. Al Qaeda uses the strikes that result in civilian deaths, and even those that don’t, to frame
    Americans as immoral bullies who care less about ordinary people than al Qaeda does. And As Sahab
    regularly casts the leaders who are killed by drones as martyrs. It is easy enough to kill an individual terrorist
    with a drone strike, but the organization’s Internet presence lives on.
    A more effective way of defeating al Qaeda would be to publicly discredit it with a political strategy aimed at
    dividing its followers. Al Qaeda and its various affiliates do not together make up a strong, unified
    organization. Different factions within the movement disagree about both long-term objectives and shortterm tactics, including whether it is acceptable to carry out suicide attacks or kill other Muslims. And it is in
    Muslim-majority countries where jihadist violence has taken its worst toll. Around 85 percent of those killed
    by al Qaeda’s attacks have been Muslims, a fact that breeds revulsion among its potential followers.

  • Drone attacks are pretty beneficial

    Drones are quite accurate, and can probably hit the target. Also, it takes over 100 people to control an armed drone, and the decision to fire is taken only when the remote pilots are sure that they have the right target.
    It also spares the lives of the soldiers from the side that is using the drones.

  • Drones kill more terrorrists

    Drones have killed many many terrorists,on the other hand less civilians.Drones are useful to the US because they protect,are controlled by humans,and do not risk lives.They are the cheapest of any militant aircraft.They are also used for farming and can help ,many others in many other uses than warfare.They also have killed the least amount of people than any other thing.

  • Lololo banana bob

    Drones are useful to the USA and have been stopping terrorists attacks everywhere. They do not risk the lives of bombers and are very trained. Drones are one of the most cheap strong militant weapons and kill very few civilians compared to other weapons. And good drones have a price range from 80 to a 100 million dollars and are already legal through the USA. And on top of that have there been any terrorist attacks since September 11, 2001? NO! Drones help soldiers and our country and are good for spying so I think drones are useful. So this is why

  • Drone Strikes are better than soldiers!

    Drones have been known to accidentialy kill civilians including men, women, and children. Soldiers on the other hand do more damage than drones. MQ-9 Reapers can launch a precision strike from the sky in order to kill targets that we may never be able to find again for years. The M1-Abrams is a main battle tank that is only as accurate as its operator. Reapers can be launch to get to a target location in less time than it would take armor and infantry units to get to that same location. If you are not able to take out an HVT, that HVT may disappear while troops are trying to get through the village. Then we are stuck having to search for him, and he may not reappear for several years. Drones are not in direct combat, so drone operators are not as worried about themselves. Soldiers are directly engaged into urban environments, and all it takes is for someone to approach them. If a soldier enterprets a civilian as a terrorist, then that will not look good to the media and to foreign people.

  • Drone attacks r good...

    Many people say drone attacks are not a good thing. But what about all the people who lose their brothers, who lose their fathers or lose their husbands in man-to-man wars. More people die in wars that consist of only men rather than machines that do not even have anyone inside. So what would be the loss if an unmanned, mechanical machine is destroyed? Wouldn’t it be safer if we did not put our countries military in the battle field and keep them out of harm’s way. Wouldn’t that save more lives on whichever side that owns and is using the drones. Fewer families would grieve over their dead relatives and the battles would be over sooner than they started. Drones can allow us to secure dangerous threats while at the same time getting some valuable information about how best to proceed against in the war against terror and prevent future attacks. Anyways, what other defense do Pakistan and other countries have against terrorists and the Al-Qaeda? Once again I would like to say that drone attacks could save innocent lives and demolish the terrorist threats. They are the only weapons we can use to completely wipe the terrorist threat. Al-Qaeda has been taking innocent lives for too long. This is why I believe that we can save our own lives and drone attacks are also building a sense of unity between all the countries that are trying to wipe out the terrorist and Al-Qaeda threat and we are all learning how to work together to get rid of a bad element. Drone attacks are very accurate, more accurate than an airplane bomb attack or artillery attack. A drone attack is usually targeted on terrorist strongholds which are usually in remote areas such as caves, deserts, mountains, etc. This is why there are lesser chances of a civilian getting threatened by a drone attack.

  • They b good

    Many people say drone attacks are not a good thing. But what about all the people who lose their brothers, who lose their fathers or lose their husbands in man-to-man wars. More people die in wars that consist of only men rather than machines that do not even have anyone inside. So what would be the loss if an unmanned, mechanical machine is destroyed? Wouldn’t it be safer if we did not put our countries military in the battle field and keep them out of harm’s way. Wouldn’t that save more lives on whichever side that owns and is using the drones. Fewer families would grieve over their dead relatives and the battles would be over sooner than they started. Drones can allow us to secure dangerous threats while at the same time getting some valuable information about how best to proceed against in the war against terror and prevent future attacks. Anyways, what other defense do Pakistan and other countries have against terrorists and the Al-Qaeda? Once again I would like to say that drone attacks could save innocent lives and demolish the terrorist threats. They are the only weapons we can use to completely wipe the terrorist threat. Al-Qaeda has been taking innocent lives for too long. This is why I believe that we can save our own lives and drone attacks are also building a sense of unity between all the countries that are trying to wipe out the terrorist and Al-Qaeda threat and we are all learning how to work together to get rid of a bad element. Drone attacks are very accurate, more accurate than an airplane bomb attack or artillery attack. A drone attack is usually targeted on terrorist strongholds which are usually in remote areas such as caves, deserts, mountains, etc. This is why there are lesser chances of a civilian getting threatened by a drone attack.

  • Drone attacks do not do more harm than good.

    The point of drone attacks is that we want to send someone in there to do an attack without having our own people having to suffer. We are doing that effectively but sometimes we can make mistakes. Those mistakes that we make are the ones that make it to the news and thats how people start to perceive these attacks as bad. We are doing more good than bad but that is not what is shown in the papers.

  • No, drone attacks do not do more harm than good

    Drone attacks do not do more harm than good because drones are safe ways the US can gain information without any casualties. It is very beneficial for the US to use high technology to gain whatever information it needs to maintain world stability and make sure the global community will remain peaceful.

  • No, drone attacks can beneficial--even though there are some risks.

    Drone attacks are a somewhat safe way to help end wars in a certain regions. The reason that government officials elect to use drones is to cut down on violence in a region and prevent opposing sides from continuing to fight. However, there are instances where the drone misfires and innocent victims are injured or killed.

  • Drones are more accurate

    While I think that the emotionless element to drone attacks can cause loss of life to innocent civillians if they are simply following a planned routine schedule, I believe that it puts the militay service men and women less in harms way themselves. I don't think that the human element to war should ever truly be eliminated, but there's less room for human error (physical target wise. The same can't be said for bad intell though) when a drone that is programmed to a target, hits its mark.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.