Comment: what?

(See in situ)

In post: Rand > Ron

what?

I'll assume I know what you were trying to say, and respond accordingly. If someone is "in the act" of committing a murder, what is the difference between using a rifle, or a drone to stop the murderer? Nothing. I'm starting to think you don't really know how drones are used. We are killing people who aren't armed, who are not in combat, and who aren't even aware that anyone is around. They are able to do this because drones fly so high, the enemy can't hear them, and they are deadly accurate. Most poeple think drones are just unmanned jets. They don't realize that we are breaking laws of war with our murdering of non-combatants. When Rand says that it is okay to use a drone on someone "in the act", all he is saying is that a drone is just like a rifle. It is a tool for war, or protection, and if we are in combat, there is no reason not to use a drone if it is effective. HOWEVER, we are using them abroad, on people who aren't engaged in combat, who aren't armed often times, and who pose no immediate threat to our troops. If we used a rifle to do what we are doing with drones, it would be no less than a war crime, killing non-combatants. People aren't even aware we are doing that, so they don't know we have a drone issue abroad. They just think we are using drones the same way we use Jets, in combat. Rand is opening the floodgate to that information getting out. However, he has never said it was okay to use drones on non-combatants, or in illegal wars. He has simply started the converstion by questioning our use of them here. You are just assuming he is okay with how we use them abroad, simply because he didn't start the debate there.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).