2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumBernie Sanders says he would use drones to fight terror as president
Source: The Guardian
Democratic presidential contender decries drones potential to be terrible and
counterproductive, but says he would use them against key terrorists
Matthew Cantor in New York
Sunday 11 October 2015 15.27 BST
Bernie Sanders has said that as president, he would be willing to use drones in counter-terrorism operations.
In an interview with NBCs Meet the Press scheduled for broadcast on Sunday, host Chuck Todd asked the independent senator from Vermont if drones or special forces would play a role in his counter-terror plans.
All of that and more, Sanders said.
Asked to clarify, he added: Look, a drone is a weapon. When it works badly, it is terrible and it is counterproductive. When you blow up a facility or a building which kills women and children, you know what? Its terrible.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/11/bernie-sanders-drones-counter-terror
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)There he goes under the mass transit vehicle!
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... progressive hero like a public transportation vehicle!!
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...he stated he would implement a much more limited drone program. I don't have a problem with that position.
PatrickforO
(14,576 posts)This seems to be a mountain of a molehill type of situation...
treestar
(82,383 posts)Were absolute that the use of drones is wrong.
PatrickforO
(14,576 posts)That said, there really are some bad people out there who want to kill us, and drones are part of our defense against them. That said, Bernie's idea of a more limited use (with less 'collateral damage' implied) seems sound. Because right now, under Obama, drone attacks are creating more terrorists than they kill because the victims are profoundly outraged over that very same 'collateral damage' which in human terms is the killing or awful maiming of loved ones. Here's a link from the Atlantic about how our drone strikes are being used by terrorists as a recruitment tool: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/08/how-drones-create-more-terrorists/278743/
Now, treestar, like Howard Zinn, I believe that war should be banned. If all of us refused to go, then governments wouldn't be able to have the pissing contests that start stupid wars. That said, since I don't see that happening in the near future, I advocate that we keep our strength up and respond when and as necessary, then GO HOME. It's that third step that gets us in trouble. We don't go home. We stay - as Jon Stewart put it, 'we love you LONG time.'
The real problem isn't drones, it is the economic and political power of the deep state (formerly known as the military industrial complex). You can't tell me, for instance, that we went into Iraq for any other reason than raising profits for companies like Halliburton.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)...that save lives of American soldiers. However, current use seems to be indescrimately shoot at anything that moves and ask questions later. That does lead to a high number of civilian deaths, which is unacceptable of course. I think Sanders statements on drones falls in line with those feelings.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)...about a grayscale image, no matter how good the resolution, from 20k feet up, being remotely flown by some guy in a seat somewhere drinking coffee. No matter how good the intel is, you aren't going to be 100% on the target 100% of the time.
I sincerely believe they do try to make sure the targets are valid but because of how much they're used, failure is just going to happen. And that's why I'm against them.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)They are the cowards weapon and I would argue even dishonorable.
But I understand why Sanders would continue to use them because 1) the American public prefers them and 2) they prevent future Black Hawk Downs.
I would prefer that if we were to play world police that we'd go and arrest people and put our people in danger and actually prove that we're doing the right thing by going after these belligerent groups that kill people. But no one wants to hear about how Seal Team X lost 10 guys in an OP trying to get a guy when we could've just droned the base he was in.
stone space
(6,498 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)days before the debate?
hmm......
portlander23
(2,078 posts)And it's one of the issue on which I disagree with Mr. Sanders.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Same as it always has been.
BernieFan57
(80 posts)Bernie is comparatively passive and his focus is on inclusiveness and serving the citizens.
He is not longing to be the Top Cop on the block, enforcing western ways to ensure a steady stream of profits for the wealthy few.
Which is, in the end, what our foreign policy is all about.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I've heard on DU that amounted to failure to hold his feet to the fire, naive because no one should trust politicians.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)But since there has been a non firm stand already made on drones, we are to "assume" that its use will be at some incremental amount that is acceptable. Got it. Sanders supporters must be flexible to accommodate Bernied burgeoning reality.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)Clearly he knows many of his supporters are aghast at this statement but it shows he at least he understands the reality of the situation regarding drones.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He will be able to talk the Republicans into single payer, and such a persons can clearly convince Islamic extremists that they are wrong and should change.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)... the fiery Bern.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Bernie is evolving, yeah.
uponit7771
(90,346 posts)Autumn
(45,096 posts)I trust him to see that there is a lot of oversight on this.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Autumn
(45,096 posts)LuvLoogie
(7,009 posts)a lot more authentic and genuine.
Autumn
(45,096 posts)bigdarryl
(13,190 posts)President Obama.Not a knock on Sanders I just think that when a candidate becomes President some things are out of there control.Including Trade agreements.All Presidents republicans and.Democrat Presidents sign Trade agreements.I firmly believe that there are powers that be tell the President certain things they must do Wether they agree or not
MADem
(135,425 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But I appreciate that he isn't pandering to me and to other liberals who oppose drone use.
And this is how things work in the real world.
treestar
(82,383 posts)How can you support a candidate who says they would continue to use drones? We are supposed to stick to our principles. Looks like time to find another candidate.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)No, they haven't. So then the question graduates from "who would vs. who wouldn't," into a question of how and when they would use them.
PatrickforO
(14,576 posts)Really? Because unfortunately Clinton will be far MORE hawk-like on drones than Sanders will ever be. We need drones right now because we've made so many fucked up mistakes in foreign policy since 2001 (actually FAR predating that if you read your Chomsky and Zinn). We just don't need as much 'collateral damage' which is the euphemism for the killing and horrible maiming of victims of drones who were innocent and unrelated to the 'target.'
I like Bernie more because he said what he said, because it is a moderate position - he wants less collateral damage and more limited use. But he isn't taking drones off the table. And he shouldn't. I'm pretty liberal, but we are not currently in a position to beat those swords into plowshares. Not just yet.
Maybe 2 or 3 liberal presidencies later we will be. But not now.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)When people support a non-status quo candidate because of ideals, they're unrealistic uncompromising ideologues who don't understand the "real world."
When they accept that they differ with a position of their candidate -- or perhaps they agree with one of his pragmatic positions -- they're hypocrites.
Bullshit Catch 22.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)Drones, Israel / Palestine, how we should engage Russia, etc. I don't pretend he's perfect. I just realize that he's still better on those issues than the other people running, if only by a margin.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)So even we wild-eyed liberals won't get everything we want with Sanders. My friend above is incorrect when she tries to simplify this into a binary life-or-death principle. If Sanders had been announcing his intention to start a war with Iran, we'd be at that level. Buy I won't deign to play the starry-eyed, naive liberal who must have all or nothing, just so I can fit someone's stereotype. There's no margin in it.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)joshcryer
(62,276 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)who would be kicked out of court for leading guestions towards witnesses .
artislife
(9,497 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)With all of the HC posters jumping on Bernie over this issue she must have.
I guess I missed it.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's certainly not breaking news:
Advertisement
I think we have to use drones very, very selectively and effectively. That has not always been the case, Sanders said. What you can argue is that there are times and places where drone attacks have been effective.
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2015/08/31/3697175/bernie-sanders-wouldnt-end-obamas-drone-program-promises-to-use-it-very-selectively/
cpwm17
(3,829 posts)at least not since he's been in congress. He's just not as bad as the rest. Though he sure was antiwar back when he was of draft age.
Prism
(5,815 posts)It's when you introduce a lack of oversight, secret kill lists, etc. that it becomes an issue.
Response to Eugene (Original post)
postatomic This message was self-deleted by its author.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #46)
postatomic This message was self-deleted by its author.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)I don't trust her not to start another war just to prove she is strong on defense (i.e., for political reasons).
one_voice
(20,043 posts)sadly this is part of the world we live in. I also didn't crucify President Obama for using them.
Gloria
(17,663 posts)Last edited Sun Oct 11, 2015, 10:27 PM - Edit history (1)
All that and more?? But, but ....HRC is a HAAAAAAAAAAAWK!!!
riversedge
(70,239 posts)Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)If he simply means 'flying things with cameras', I'm fine with that for terror ops.
TexasBushwhacker
(20,192 posts)I much prefer a well run drone program to boots on the ground or even air strikes by piloted jets. But the key is, the program must be limited and well run.
kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)so loved, right?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)And it's not new he came out pro-drone a few months ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141193195
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)The double standard here is beyond belief.
Bernie gives an honest answer and gets attacked. Hillary lies about opposing TPP and is defended.
This place is going down hill fast.
Sheepshank
(12,504 posts)that's why this thread is about Bernie and not about Hillary. Bernie loyalists have been leading many to believe that wars would be done away with as would the use of drones because of (1) cost and (2) lives.
Looks like he evoloved...which is another thing Bernie loyalists are so proud of Bernie Not doing....it's all so very confusing.