Originally Posted by HBG (Post 11056665)

I've always wondered at the extreme hatred displayed by a large part of the Eastern world towards the US (the great Satan), but also towards the UK and the rest of Europe. You can't blame that hatred on the drones which are comparatively recent.

But they certainly don't help. It's hard to put myself into the mind of the millions of poor people living in those countries being droned on a regular basis, not as a pampered Westerner who has seldom gone short of anything. That I have worked hard is immaterial, those poor people scratching at a barren soil with their spades are working just as hard, if not much harder.

And then they hear the drones overhead, drones that can't tell whether they're working with their spades or holding a rifle. So they zap them anyway.

Those millions of poor people don't need any more encouragement to queue up for a rocket launcher and attack any target that reminds them of the people sending the drones. And they're angry enough to strap on a suicide belt to help their cause, as they've done in Volvograd. And in Moscow, Tel Aviv and Bagdad. And in London.

Originally Posted by Domino (Post 11056760)

yes, it does give cause for thought as to why "we" in the Western World should be seen with such hatred.
but the drones are not targeted at the ordinary person, they are targeting the leaders of bands of armed bandits, who are also hated but have to be endured. And that is why the ordinary person gets mixed up in all this, because they cannot do anything about the bully boys with their AK47's who live round the corner and hide in their homes. Very much like in Northern Ireland.

Originally Posted by Domino (Post 11056741)

well the Afghans proved the opposite against the Russians, giving a posting to Afghanistan as a worse alternative to Siberia.
And they have also done it against the US and the UK, although the latter has for decades really been the provider of "specialist" forces
But I expect the US regrets their making simple rocket systems readily available in the first conflict as they have also cropped up in the second - against them

Originally Posted by jimenato (Post 11055543)

I'm not really sure what point is being made here. Drones are bad - is there such a thing as a good weapon? Drones are indiscriminate - more so than aerial bombing or long range shelling? Drones have adverse effects upon the operators - don't all weapons?

The progress of warfare and weaponry has made the delivery point of killing force ever more remote from the deliverer - from hand to hand fighting to arrows, from long range gunnery to intercontinental ballistic missiles.

I don't see that drones are anything more than an extension of this process - and far less indiscriminate and devastating than some of the alternatives.

Originally Posted by Beaverstate (Post 11056832)

I actually believe they are more discriminate than say an F-18. They fly at far slower speeds and can make more reasoned decisions real time.

Originally Posted by HBG (Post 11056858)

I think that what the populations of those countries against whom they are used object to is the cowardly nature of their use, much the same as the Napalm bombs in Vietnam.

I would guess that the outcome in those countries will eventually be the same as the outcome in Vietnam.

Originally Posted by Fredbargate (Post 11056862)

Surely the outcome in Vietnam was decided by the Yanky populations unrest at the loss of lives of their own troops.

With drones this is not a problem.

Originally Posted by Fredbargate (Post 11056862)

Surely the outcome in Vietnam was decided by the Yanky populations unrest at the loss of lives of their own troops.

With drones this is not a problem.

Originally Posted by HBG (Post 11056931)

I think it was more of American and world opinion turning against what was plainly an unjust war. US troops were using turning their rifles into peace pipes, Cassius Clay refused to join in, the Beatles sang peace songs and that picture of the badly burned Vietnamese girl captured the futility of it all.

Public opinion is still onside after 9/11, but the withdrawal from Afghanistan, especially if the Taliban sweep back into power, might change all that. And withdrawal from a few other places might mean that the locals no longer want to bomb us.

Originally Posted by jackytoo (Post 11056878)

Exactly, drones don't expose troops to being shot or beheaded etc. They have been accurate at taking out a few terrorist leaders. have read where wedding parties in the desert have been wiped out but they would say they were weddings wouldn't they:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by steviedeluxe (Post 11056949)

Be nice if we were certain of that sentiment..
But in 2001 when the attacks were made in the US, the west were neither in Afghanistan nor in Iraq.
I don't think drone attacks, especially when made on nations we are not at war with, result in a positive outcome. But at the same time we do need ways of stopping the lunatic fringe. It's a tough balance.

Originally Posted by Domino (Post 11057099)

exactly who is the lunatic ??

and there should be no drone attacks on nations that we are not at war with.

some of the current problems are because of the need to meddle in foreign states back in the early 1900's and later, usually at the behest of commercial organisations (usually oil) - as we did in Iran for the company now known as BP.

Originally Posted by jackytoo (Post 11056878)

Exactly, drones don't expose troops to being shot or beheaded etc. They have been accurate at taking out a few terrorist leaders. have read where wedding parties in the desert have been wiped out but they would say they were weddings wouldn't they:rolleyes: