I would like a response from the community on this forum as to the perceived morality or immorality of the use of unmanned or drone weapon systems.  I'm not looking for cut and paste jobs of articles from the Huffington Post here folks.  I'm interested in what you think. 

I feel that morality or immorality would apply to those individuals on the ground giving intelligence.  The drone weapon technology, as I understand it, does not cause mass destruction, and if used properly could save young American lives, and reduce civilian casualties.

signreader, why do you always end up resorting to this.  This is a thread about the perceived morality or immorality of a certain high profile weapon system being employed.  Please don't turn it into a personal attack. 

I think there's little disagreement that war is hell, but for those who profit from war; and likely they'll also agree.  The argument about distance and faceless enemies', thus detachment when killing, is not in my estimation a good reason not to use this weapon system.  Soldiers are trained to kill.  That is what they do.  In the long run it may be good to have effectiveness on the battlefield without the resultant stress and psychological problems associated with mangled bodies.  I have always believed it doesn't take a war and such a large footprint in Afghanistan to dislodge and disrupt terrorist.  If you have good ground intel I think the weapon system is excellent.  Use it along with intelligence folks and Afghan /Pak Intelligence and, bring the American troops home.   

Hayfa if they're hitting the right target there is no need to hold them back.  I have no problem with the weapon.  It is the intelligence on the ground which concerns me; are we hitting a legitimate target or wedding party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-vV2HDWa4c -

• No legal framework for operating of drones /the legitimacy and ethics =?
  

• May Constitute extra judicial killings & Multiple civilian deaths violating human rights standards; if no place to go for redress they are expendables /the effectiveness=?

• And Cheney has weighed in "Obama Has Learned That Bush Policies Were Right"
• Now all bets are off
  

18 veterans commit suicide each day

Suicide attempts by Iraq and Afghanistan veterans remains a key area of concern. In fiscal 2009, which ended Sept. 30, there were 1,621 suicide attempts by men and 247 by women who served in Iraq or Afghanistan, with 94 men and four women dying.

In general, VA officials said, women attempt suicide more often, but men are more likely to succeed in the attempt, mainly because women use less lethal and less violent means while men are more likely to use firearms.

Suicide attempts among veterans appear to follow those trends, officials said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/20/us-raymond-davis-lahore-cia?CMP=twt_gu - American who sparked diplomatic crisis over Lahore shooting was CIA spy

Sign Reader, this thread is about drones.  Look at the thread title.  Take your off topic rants elsewhere.

http://www.dawn.com/2011/03/18/rare-condemnation-by-pm-army-chief-40-civilians-killed-in-drone-attack.html - Rare condemnation by PM, army chief: 40 killed in drone attack

What will people do for money?

FeldmanHall�s study showed that what people say they will do in a given situation and what they really do are two very different things. If given a hypothetical situation of a choice of giving someone an electrical shock for money or walking away, most people answered they would never be able to inflict pain on another person.

However, in a real-life scenario, with real money and real electric shocks, the actions were much different. In FeldmanHall�s study, subjects were placed in an MRI scanner and then given the choice to either administer an electrical shock to a person located in another room and make money (one British pound) or not inflict pain and receive no money. They also broke down that one pound into percentages based on the severity of the shock, so they would receive the full pound for administering a severe shock and less for more mild shocks.

The subject in the MRI was shown a video of the person receiving the shock and would either see just the person�s hand jerk or be shown both the hand jerk and the person�s face. Each participant was given the choice to shock another person 20 times, with the opportunity to make 20 pounds.

In the hypothetical scenario, 64 percent of participants said they would never administer a shock to someone else for money. However, in the real world that number changed, and in a big way. When faced with real money, 96 percent chose to shock the person in the other room for http://www.physorg.com/tags/money/ - money .

What seemed to make the difference in how many of those 20 chances the participants took was what video they were watching. On average, those watching just the hands jerk walked away with 15.77 pounds, but those watching the faces as well, left with only 11.55 pounds.

The study also showed that when these individuals were presented with a moral dilemma, they showed heightened activity in the insula, a part of the brain believed to be attached to emotion. It is this lack of emotion and real dilemma that FeldmanHall believes is what is missing in traditional hypothetical dilemmas.