When he was in office, former President Barack Obama earned the ire of anti-war activists for his expansion of Bush's drone wars. The Nobel Peace Prize-winning head of state ordered ten times more drone strikes than the previous president, and estimates late in Obama's presidency showed 49 out of 50 victims were civilians. In 2015, it was reported that up to 90% of drone casualties were not the intended targets.
Current President Donald Trump campaigned on a less interventionist foreign policy, claiming to be opposed to nation-building and misguided invasions. But less than two months into his presidency, Trump has expanded the drone strikes that plagued Obama's "peaceful" presidency.
"During President Obama's two terms in office, he approved 542 such targeted strikes in 2,920 days—one every 5.4 days. From his inauguration through today, President Trump had approved at least 36 drone strikes or raids in 45 days—one every 1.25 days."
That's an increase of 432 [sic] percent.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 20 2017, @02:37PM (6 children)
1) It can be, but is not necessarily, disproportionate.
2) So what? Force should always be used in an overwhelmingly disproportionate manner or it shouldn't be used at all.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @03:09PM (1 child)
I think he prefers general carpet bombing and leveling the city as a whole. It is more fair to people because they all have an equal shot of getting it. With drones, the civilians who hang around high value targets have unfair odds.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Monday March 20 2017, @08:13PM
Sounds like somebody drank the military's kool-aid.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 [theguardian.com]
https://www.justsecurity.org/33333/drones-accurate-piloted-aircraft-2/ [justsecurity.org]
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/01/obama-continue-signature-strikes-drones-civilian-deaths [theguardian.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 20 2017, @08:29PM (1 child)
So, what you're saying is, if someone walks up to you and starts punching you, you should either completely ignore it, or go on a rampage and kill every living thing within 50 miles.
Got it.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday March 20 2017, @09:17PM
No, I am saying you should beat them so badly that they never consider doing it again though.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Tuesday March 21 2017, @02:45AM (1 child)
Whenever the antagonist is sitting in a chair 12,000 miles away from the target, that is disproportionate and especially cowardly.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Tuesday March 21 2017, @12:29PM
You're thinking in terms of fair. That is not just wrong but downright idiotic when it comes to war.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.