return2ozma@lemmy.world to Not The Onion@lemmy.worldEnglish · vor 8 MonatenA Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining upwww.usatoday.comexternal-linkmessage-square31linkfedilinkarrow-up1120arrow-down110
arrow-up1110arrow-down1external-linkA Nobel Peace Prize for Trump? World leaders are lining upwww.usatoday.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to Not The Onion@lemmy.worldEnglish · vor 8 Monatenmessage-square31linkfedilink
minus-squareKairos@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6arrow-down2·vor 8 MonatenThat’s one isolated metric. This is probably better than sending an army.
minus-squareCenzorrll@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up6·vor 8 MonatenIt’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@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down5·edit-2vor 4 Monatendeleted by creator
minus-squareKairos@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4arrow-down2·vor 8 MonatenI’d rather have neither. I’m just saying some isolated metric doesn’t give the full picture.
minus-squareMagnum@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down1·edit-2vor 4 Monatendeleted by creator
minus-squarephutatorius@lemmy.ziplinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·vor 8 MonatenYou’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@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·edit-2vor 4 Monatendeleted by creator
minus-squareKairos@lemmy.todaylinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·vor 8 MonatenIf 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@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·edit-2vor 4 Monatendeleted by creator
minus-squareLettyWhiterock@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2·vor 8 MonatenI 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.
deleted by creator
I’d rather have neither. I’m just saying some isolated metric doesn’t give the full picture.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
I think it paints a strong picture if you think bombing/striking/whatever other countries is wrong.