@return2ozma@lemmy.world to Not The Onion@lemmy.worldEnglish • 11 days agoA Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining upwww.usatoday.comexternal-linkmessage-square37fedilinkarrow-up1117arrow-down19
arrow-up1108arrow-down1external-linkA Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining upwww.usatoday.com@return2ozma@lemmy.world to Not The Onion@lemmy.worldEnglish • 11 days agomessage-square37fedilink
minus-squareKairoslinkfedilinkEnglish4•10 days agoThat’s one isolated metric. This is probably better than sending an army.
minus-square@Cenzorrll@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish6•10 days agoIt’s a dumb metric as well, seeing as warfare evolves and modern drones were mostly untested before Bush 2.0. Bush did the beta testing, it worked. Obama continued their use. It’s like saying more people used iPhones in 2015 than in 2008.
minus-squareMagnum, P.I.linkfedilinkEnglish-2•10 days agoHow is that better. You do realize this is very sophisticated bombing. Would you rather have a guy run into your house or the house of your family or some super sonic mach 3 drone? What kind of contest is that anyway.
minus-squareKairoslinkfedilinkEnglish2•10 days agoI’d rather have neither. I’m just saying some isolated metric doesn’t give the full picture.
minus-squareMagnum, P.I.linkfedilinkEnglish2•10 days ago That’s one isolated metric. This is probably better than sending an army. Sounds like you were saying getting drone striked is probably better, but English is not my native language so you are probably right
minus-square@phutatorius@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglish2•9 days agoYou’ll end up pink mist either way, but a drone strike can be targeted more precisely, so it’s likely to cause far fewer innocent casualties.
minus-squareMagnum, P.I.linkfedilinkEnglish3•9 days agoA drone strike more precisely targeted than a guy going in? OK interesting. Probably the reason civilian casualties are so low
minus-squareKairoslinkfedilinkEnglish0•10 days agoIf I had a gun to my head and was forced to choose whether a ground/army invasion is better than the drone strike, I would choose the latter. However, I’d prefer neither happen.
minus-squareMagnum, P.I.linkfedilinkEnglish2•10 days agoWhy do you want to die fast and give your life to the enemy like a gift? What is this, I american’t anymore
minus-square@LettyWhiterock@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglish2•edit-210 days agoI think it paints a strong picture if you think bombing/striking/whatever other countries is wrong.
That’s one isolated metric. This is probably better than sending an army.
It’s a dumb metric as well, seeing as warfare evolves and modern drones were mostly untested before Bush 2.0.
Bush did the beta testing, it worked. Obama continued their use. It’s like saying more people used iPhones in 2015 than in 2008.
How is that better. You do realize this is very sophisticated bombing. Would you rather have a guy run into your house or the house of your family or some super sonic mach 3 drone? What kind of contest is that anyway.
I’d rather have neither. I’m just saying some isolated metric doesn’t give the full picture.
Sounds like you were saying getting drone striked is probably better, but English is not my native language so you are probably right
You’ll end up pink mist either way, but a drone strike can be targeted more precisely, so it’s likely to cause far fewer innocent casualties.
A drone strike more precisely targeted than a guy going in? OK interesting. Probably the reason civilian casualties are so low
If I had a gun to my head and was forced to choose whether a ground/army invasion is better than the drone strike, I would choose the latter.
However, I’d prefer neither happen.
Why do you want to die fast and give your life to the enemy like a gift? What is this, I american’t anymore
I think it paints a strong picture if you think bombing/striking/whatever other countries is wrong.