Drone strikes

War is war durhamjen. Christians pray.
We pray for God's will. Then whatever happens happens.

As regards drones.
I read this.
book.venuereading.com/Search.aspx?nightCount=1&arrivalDate=2015-12-9&roomCount=1&location=&promotion=&people=0
Taking that as 80% accurate, they seem to be better than some other methods?

[I do realise that whatever we say, you will not except war. Even if it is at your doorstep, you will do nothing and allow yourself and family to be killed].

What percentage of collateral killing by drones is acceptable for the greater or bigger good?
Ten, twenty, fifty?
Ninety percent of those killed by drones are not the intended target.

I do not find that at all acceptable.

I should, of course, have said .. I know what Anniebach means.

Heartfelt agreement with Jingl's last post.

I know what soon means. I have been reading comments by some Gnetters along the lines of ... well it's regrettable but some innocent people dying is going to be inevitable and probably the lesser of two evils ... and thought, mmm, so long as it's not you, your children or grandchildren no doubt.

Maybe we should ponder how this all came about and who is funding who and who is making the money from this conflict. I am listening to David Cameron telling the House that they need to consider a bombing campaign in Syria.
It is worrying how easily the killing of others is bandied about.

Thanks jingl and nigglynellie.

I am not sure I have changed my views at all from earlier in the year. I have certainly learnt more though.

Good idea.

For God's sake! Stop the pedantry, and use your brains.

I can see what soon means. It's perfectly straightforward. To say that there are bound to be dasualities of war but we act for the greater/bigger good, is a reasonable point of view. Where's the problem.

And, quoting Iam64

" soontobe - your current posts on the possibility of the Uk joining in the bombing in Syria are a far cry from those you posted earlier this year. I remember more than one occasion when you said you knew little about it and that as it was happening a long way away it wouldn't affect you."

Umm - I think it permissible to change your views as situations develop.

I am not disagreeing with the sentiments nigglynellie simply pointing out that we don't say " the bigger good" in English any more than we say the "smaller evil" (lesser evil)
"God is great!" (Or Jehovah or Allah if anyone prefers) not "God is big", The Great War or the Great North Road, for that matter, not big.
Just because a word can be used in different contexts shouldn't mean we reach for the wrong synonym.
Nothing to do with old or new definitions, just the right word for the phrase.
That is why non-native English speakers can find idiomatic English hard sometimes.

Sorry, but I for one certainly don't know what soon means.

soon, I understand exactly what you mean, and I guess other people do as well and are just being a bit pedantic! You know my feelings about Drones, and they haven't changed. War isn't a game, it has no rules as today's events have proved. To try and fight a war with one arm tied behind your back, or checking the rule book is worse than useless, and no country could expect it's armed forces to operate under those conditions. War is a vile business, but if needs be done, t'were best done quickly and efficiently.

That's a ridiculous statement, soontobe. What 'new meaning'?

I expect new dictionaries will soon have the new meaning, if they dont have already.

I didnt read the end of that thread.

Great does seem to be gramatically correct. But I think the meaning of the word has now changed. So we need to move with it's new meaning. So I dont think that great now fits what I was saying.

The greater good

I meant bigger not greater
It may not be gramatically correct, and I dont know a better way of saying bigger, but bigger is what I meant
I meant bigger as in more people, not greater as in best or better

Ah, soon, you might like to have a look at the "Great War" posts and the accepted meaning(s) of the word "great".
You might find that "greater" in fact is exactly right for what you wanted to say.

as you say Ana.

I thought you'd gone to bed, soon.

I dont think I saw much of that thread.

I am out of here.........again

We seem to be back to the 'Great War' misinterpretation again...

I meant bigger not greater.

It may not be gramatically correct, and I dont know a better way of saying bigger, but bigger is what I meant.

I meant bigger as in more people, not greater as in best or better.

"A study conducted by a US military adviser has found that drone strikes in Afghanistan during a year of the protracted conflict caused 10 times more civilian casualties than strikes by manned fighter aircraft.

The new study, referred to in an official US military journal, contradicts claims by US officials that the robotic planes are more precise than their manned counterparts.

It appears to undermine the claim made by President Obama in a May speech that "conventional airpower or missiles are far less precise than drones, and likely to cause more civilian casualties and local outrage".

Drone strikes in Afghanistan, the study found, according to its unclassified executive summary, were "an order of magnitude more likely to result in civilian casualties per engagement." "

From the Guardian. Drones are not more accurate.

The accepted phrase is the greater good, I am afraid, Soontobe, not "bigger", just as we say lesser of two evils not "smaller".
Just one of those English idioms .

PLus actually, that is a nonsense post really. As in not sense.

Time for bed

I said bigger good not greater good.
Plus no one tells anyone that.