Trump clears CIA to issue drone strikes

[Dill]

(03-16-2017, 02:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm not sure of your end game here, but it has gotten quite tiresome.

I would prefer a direct fire engagement that included positive identification, provide them with a chance to surrender their arms and perhaps themselves (as they may be acting against their will), and if required a direct fire engagement that focuses on destroying the enemy while doing all in my power to avoid collateral damage or friendly casualty.

The Taliban are human too. Ask yourself which form of engagement you would prefer if you were the Taliban or worse yet, just some local villager forced to walk with them.

That is a good answer, Bfine. I don't have some trick "endgame" I am working on you.

The question was designed to produce a response to clarify this statement: "life is sacred and that is why if it is to be taken in conflict it should be done in person."

Seems to me a drone strike would avoid a friendly casualty for sure. So you are not really doing all you can to avoid that by involving US troops in a direct fire engagement. 

My response would not be dictated by what the Taliban prefer; in all sincerity, I am sure they would prefer I give them my arms and then let them shoot me.

There is no local villager in the original scenario, but in your direct engagement version, I think he is still dead.