In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2011
Online now 1994 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
on U.S. soil... AG Holder didn't rule it out. I undertand he said it was unlikely but that should never happen. Drone attacking Americans on U.S. soil should never be an option.
It doesn't surprise me with this administration
I've already given up on earth, one of these days is gonna be really bad and I just hope Im not around for it
fsufsu said... I've got about 10 great stories on Lane but all you need to know is he will never be a loser, that's for sure.
I'm not a Dem or Reb. Just an Independent and decide on what they run on instead of their part affiliation. This is one of the more scarier thoughts IMO. I'm ok with a drone doing surveillance and all that in the U.S. but not strikes on Americans. If a foreign military invades sure use the drones but not on Americans.
Same here man. I'm afraid that day is coming sooner than later
Meh. If one of these rednecks with an AR15 starts running around killing kids I have no problem calling in an air strike. Lets be honest, a ton of Americans deserve to be shot with an air strike.
I take it you have never heard of collateral damage ?
Or do you just believe smart bombs are as good as the US says they are ? cause they aren't.... fyi
No doubt but if the FBI or one of our law enforcement agencies can't handle it then we have more issues.
The problem is that is probably not what they would be used for.
We have a ton of issue. If they had used a drone strike instead of sending in officers to get that cop in California one guy would still be alive today. I would have had zero problem with them blowing up someones property to save a life.
So you are okay with someone's property being damaged that they worked hard for?
Detroit could use a nuclear bomb. Just start over.
Where are all the libs that were screaming and crying when bush pushed wire taps?
Even surveillance drones make me uneasy; all of this skepticism is fueled greatly by this administrations lack of addressing the issue.
Why would they go to drones when snipers have worked just fine for the last 50 years?
What if someone else was in there that we didn't know about? Or what if the bomb missed by a few hundred yards and took out something else. Or what if he dipped out as the law enforcement backed off and took cover and we just wasted a quarter of a million dollar missile. I understand that he was going to fight to the death but what if he decided to throw his gun out the window and surrender just before a missile was dropped. Every American has a right to a trial.
To save another life? lol, yeah, I'm ok with that.
Seems like the police department involved with the police officer sucked anyway. He was right under their nose the entire time and took them forever to find him.
This is not even in the same discussion. Surveillance isn't close to actually dropping a bomb on U.S. soil. BTW I was with the libs not liking the wire taps. This is apple to oranges though IMO.
That's not the argument. We are asking would it be OK to kill someone with a drone if it saved the lives off others. There is no justification to say no IMO. Cost/benefit is another argument.
Lulz at Glenn Beck website reference
It's not apples to oranges.
I'm against the wire taps too, but the underlying issue of both matters is executive power.
Lulz all you want. I guess those documents he was showing are fake too right?
This post was edited by Jeff4SC 13 months ago
This post was edited by justinboze 13 months ago
So you would be cool with cruise missiles or anything else weapon wise being used on U.S. soil if it may save other lives. There are always alternatives to everything. I'm not ok with the danger that comes with bombs being dropped on our soil.
Again, this isn't the issue. The issue is that no specific guidelines have been stated.
It was literally said that an imminent threat did not necessarily mean an immediate threat.
So, is it ok for law enforcement to kill someone today they suspect is going to shoot up a school in a month?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports