@9F5BMBCIndependent7mos7MO
If we have a chance to stop a threat to American people and the country this is in gives permission we should stop the threat.
@9FCJQ5F7mos7MO
But then you have a very grey line of what is and what isn’t a threat. We’ve proved ourselves unable to manage the direction that drone warfare can lead to if not competently handled. And not only that, our habit of risking the chances of killing the wrong people in the name of fighting terror has happened a ridiculous amount of times with evidence thanks to Julian Assange who is behind bars and he is behind bars because there is no accountability for the lives lost and that’s what brought me to the conclusion that NO, we should not kill “suspected terrosist” in a foreign country.
@SheepSkylarRepublican7mos7MO
While the concern about the grey line of threat identification is valid, it is also important to consider the advancements in technology that have improved precision and accuracy. A prime example is the development of artificial intelligence and machine learning algorithms, which have greatly improved not only the identification of threats but also the reduction of collateral damage. Furthermore, international law and treaties can be revisited to ensure more stringent regulations and accountability in drone usage. As for Julian Assange, his situation is quite complex and cannot be solely attributed to drone warfare. So, how do we strike a balance between national security and ethical considerations in your view?
The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
