Did you feel bad about a civilian killed in Iraq? Japan? WTC?

[superleeds]

You believe what you want. I'll believe the military has a budget and a brain.

[BonJoviJones]

[ QUOTE ]
It's because it's more efficient and economical. Morals don't come into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say there's a large factor of increasing public support for a military action. It sends a clear message (to the public) that care is being taken with regard to innocents.

Think about the Powell Doctrine and the incrediable attention it paid to public support.

In that way, you could say that increased prescision is both a function of morals (of the general public) and of the militaries increased desire for highly targeted attacks.

I don't think you can seperate it like that.

[superleeds]

Because of course no way would this by product be exploited. Jesus people, there far from perfect yet, they miss all the time. The military is run on supply and demand needs, thay are not just boys with toys.

[ThaSaltCracka]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is one of the reasons we spend billions developing guided weapons systems that can put a bomb through a air-conditioner vent

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=...;u_sid=1482603

[/ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]
A U.S. Marine fighter jet dropped a bomb and damaged a building in an accident

[/ QUOTE ]

[US Conservative]

Very few, if any, civilians are killed by US actions. Reports have been exaggerated by the liberal media.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's because it's more efficient and economical. Morals don't come into it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have any data to support that? Once we control the sky do you really think it would be cheaper to use these expensive sophisticated weapons than to drop a bunch of cheap junk? Maybe even stuff leftover from vietnam? Not to mention nukes which would be much much cheaper.

There may be some non-angelic reasons like we'd like to end up with a usable country that can produce oil or something like that, but I wouldn't even put it past the military to think that killing fewer people is better.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not because it is cheaper, the fact is people don't like wars, guided weapons systems like this help keep the support of the people by reducing collatoral damage, this alone makes it worth spending billions just for the political advantage. It's the morality of ordinary Americans at work, not the US government.

Mack

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel sorry for all three groups. The lack of discussion/focus on this side of the Iraq war in the US really disappoints me and makes it clear for me that there is a clear divide between US and European mentality on these issues and that Europe should try to become more independent of the US. Too much has been achieved on this continent (with help from US after WWII) in understanding that a man of another nationality has his value and rights even if he looks different, to throw it into the bucket to please a cynical superpower.

[/ QUOTE ]

Anyone who tries to address this side of the debate is shot down as cheaply attacking the current administration, or denigrating the efforts of forces 'protecting our way of life', nothing could be further from the truth. It saddens me that it has become so reprehensible for me to feel empathy for a fellow man, regardless of his nationality. So many smart people on here, so many thinking about today and not tommorrow.

Mack

[ACPlayer]

[ QUOTE ]
It's the morality of ordinary Americans at work, not the US government

[/ QUOTE ]

I would actually say that it is the ability to manipulate and appease the morality of the ordinary American at work. Many Americans and most supporters of the war are made to "feel better" about the murders (the OP used the correct term) by the words like "collateral damage control" or by arguments like "we are not as bad the other guy".

[BonJoviJones]

[ QUOTE ]
I would actually say that it is the ability to manipulate and appease the morality of the ordinary American at work. Many Americans and most supporters of the war are made to "feel better" about the murders (the OP used the correct term) by the words like "collateral damage control" or by arguments like "we are not as bad the other guy".

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps you'd prefer a WWII-style carpet bombing? Or a nuke attack?

It seems like we should feel better, no quote-unquote snarkyness needed. These weapons are a good option for both our policy and military objectives. They aren't perfect, of course, but no one has ever said they were.

You seem to have a problem with their use, but I can't really figure out what it is.

[mackthefork]

[ QUOTE ]
I would actually say that it is the ability to manipulate and appease the morality of the ordinary American at work. Many Americans and most supporters of the war are made to "feel better" about the murders (the OP used the correct term) by the words like "collateral damage control" or by arguments like "we are not as bad the other guy".

[/ QUOTE ]

A more argumentative way of saying the same thing? It makes ordinary people feel better about what their government is doing in their name, a kind of 'at least we are trying' mentality.

Mack