No matter what the intention is, the killing of innocent civilians is never a PR success story. Toscano was right to be so aggressive in defending the overall idea and purpose of drones. It was the only way to counter the negative perception of drones. Use more drones, lose less soldiers. Simple math that everyone can do.
But the car crash comparison? That's a hell of a stretch. Car crashes are accidents. A missile strike on a group of human beings? Not quite the same thing, Mike. We don't talk about banning cars because cars are a necessity in today's society, and we train and license people to use them. Drones aren't exactly the same thing. Comparing the two is an absolute horrible argument and made Toscano look foolish.
I'm all for justifying the use of drones and I agree with the general idea of drones and the purpose they serve. Fighting forest fires and finding missing persons, who wouldn't agree to that? Focusing on those aspects, rather than trying to fight with bogus car crash statistics, is what I would have presented to the general public when defending the use of drones.
Oops. Sorry, Michael. *remotely piloted vehicles.
No comments:
Post a Comment