Drone pilots to get medals?

page: 1
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I couldn't believe this when I first read it, but then nothing should surprise me anymore.

Drone pilots to get medals?


The Pentagon is considering awarding a Distinguished Warfare Medal to drone pilots who work on military bases often far removed from the battlefield.


This is just as ridiculous as giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize. If we're going to give drone pilots medals,we might as well start giving serial killers medals too. Drone warfare may be effective for the murderous governments of the West but it's just as pathetic as the people who set roadside IED's, maybe the US will start giving the Taliban medals too.


Pentagon officials have been briefed on the medal’s “unique concept,” Charles V. Mugno, head of the Army Institute of Heraldry, told a recent meeting of the Commission of Fine Arts, according to a report in Coin World by our former colleague Bill McAllister.

Mugno said most combat decorations require “boots on the ground” in a combat zone, but he noted that “emerging technologies” such as drones and cyber combat missions are now handled by troops far removed from combat.


It looks like it took a lot of "geniuses" to come up with this foolishness. Your tax dollars are being put to good use as you can see



The Pentagon has not formally endorsed the medal, but Mugno’s institute has completed six alternate designs for commission approval


Well, it's not official, but they seem to have their mind made up. I mean really, they have 6 different designs to choose from. This isn't a joke!


A “manned aircraft . . . that scrapes the top of a combat zone, well outside the range of any realistic threat” is deemed in “combat,” Blair writes, but a Predator firing a missile is considered “combat support.”

The proposed medal would rank between the Distinguished Flying Cross and the Soldier’s Medal for exceptional conduct outside a combat zone.


I can't believe this garbage.

168 children killed in drone strikes in Pakistan since start of campaign

War Related Death and Injury in Pakistan, 2004-2011


Pakistan is at war. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there are several interrelated armed conflicts underway in Pakistan. By this report's conservative estimate about 35,600 Pakistanis have been killed from 2004-2010 and more than 40,000 have been injured during that period by the various parties to the conflict. Given the pace of the fighting in 2011, several thousand more have likely already been killed and wounded this year. Specifically, from January to through August 2011 about 400 have been killed in drone strikes, and another 500 killed in 2011 by militant suicide attacks. Since 2004, perhaps as many or more civilians may have died due to armed conflict in Pakistan as have died in Afghanistan. Most of the fighting is concentrated in the Northwest, but the bloodshed not infrequently affects civilians throughout the rest of the country


What kind of maniacs gives child killers a medal?

Psychopatic maniacs is the answer to that question.
edit on 11-7-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: add content




posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
I see no problem with giving the drone operators service medals. They give those out like candy at a Birthday party. My Father once joked before he passed away and I learned what he did on his second tour in Vietnam that his Vietnam Service Ribbon was the prettiest thing he ever saw awarded for serving Ice Cream. He'd been on the supply ships off the Northern Coast on his first trip...hence the Ice Cream Ref.

So...a medal to say they did that and participated in combat operations sounds fair. They sure aren't earning a true combat medal or merit based award, in my view. Giving them something of their own prevents some idiot from just saying 'we have nothing else...so...' and going ahead to give them the same medal an Airman at Bagram or the former Camp Victory would have received after really being there in person.

Of course, if these really come to be awarded with some meaning of risk and sacrifice implied, someone needs to explain how a 19-20yr old in an Air Conditioned trailer at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada or a little parking lot in a nondescript suburb of Kuwait City risked anything more than paper cuts and eye strain.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Its a P.R. stunt. The average american is currently against drone use believe it or not. Especially use in our own country.

However if they connect the public with the operators of the drones then it might not seem like such a psychopathic venture to have drones dropping bombs on people.

Give the operator a medal and most of the sheeple will just assume that it is just another good american soldier protecting his country. They wouldn't give out medals to murderers right?, nah good shot Capt. Obvious here's a medal.


CX

posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:48 PM
link   
I actually hate the whole medal system with a passion.

Yes some are deserved, but I've seen men get medals and titles for doing naff all, whilst the ones who risked thier lives got not even a mention. I remember speaking to a US soldier who said he got one for flying over a combat zone.


I'm sure they just give a few out now and again to keep the troops happy, i'm not surprised so many end up on ebay or thrown at protests.

Hopefully Downing Street will have a few land at their door on the 24th.....i'm sure you could get them over the gates there.

CX.
edit on 11/7/12 by CX because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I understand the point you are trying to make but I think your perception of the situation differs than mine. We don't always agree on certain subjects but I appreciate the way you express your opinions so I still star your posts as long as they are not too far beyond my perception of which ever topic we are discussing.

IMO drone warfare is just as cowardice as setting roadside IED's. I am completely against these drone strikes due to the fact that most of the strikes kill innocent civilians (most often women and children) and the murderers who condone this label the victims as "militants".

War Related Death and Injury in Pakistan, 2004-2011


Pakistan is at war. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that there are several interrelated armed conflicts underway in Pakistan. By this report's conservative estimate about 35,600 Pakistanis have been killed from 2004-2010 and more than 40,000 have been injured during that period by the various parties to the conflict. Given the pace of the fighting in 2011, several thousand more have likely already been killed and wounded this year. Specifically, from January to through August 2011 about 400 have been killed in drone strikes, and another 500 killed in 2011 by militant suicide attacks. Since 2004, perhaps as many or more civilians may have died due to armed conflict in Pakistan as have died in Afghanistan. Most of the fighting is concentrated in the Northwest, but the bloodshed not infrequently affects civilians throughout the rest of the country


These cowards do not deserve any recognition as insignificant as it may be. In fact, when humanity finally comes around and realizes how screwed up we are and decide to fix things, anyone who participates and or authorizes this type of warfare should be tried and jailed as murderers.

ETA: I added this link and content to my OP
edit on 11-7-2012 by Corruption Exposed because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 01:57 PM
link   
As a service medal its not so ridiculous.

True, theres no personal risk involved, but you are possibly making decisions to kill people in real time. In some cases due to bad intel possibly innocent people, and then getting to see your bloody handiwork in HD.

Like it or loath it, its here to stay as a facet of modern war and its not the same as stacking tins of peas.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 

You're right that we don't agree on everything, but agreement isn't necessary for respect and I think we've always shared that. In this case, I can actually see your point. I might even surprise you by saying that to some extent, I agree 100% and without reservation. The extent comes where drones stopped being the ultimate life and mission saver when the dangers were literally too extreme for human pilots or the requirements for loiter time, impossible for a human to meet.

I cannot find fault with a thing you're saying for policy issues where drones now freely roam a nation in what amounts to a true Hunter/Killer tasking to search for targets of opportunity. As any kid who had a BB gun and some freedom can testify, things no one ever meant to be shot end up with holes in them when little boys run out of legitimate things to shoot and adult supervision isn't nearby. I think this has morphed into much the same thing. In this case, the little kids are the Pentagon, DHS and a Commander in Chief who loves gizmos more than the lives of others.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


As much as I am against drone warfare, I am willing to admit that there have been some missions where I would have considered a drone strike to be worthy. An example of a worthy drone strike IMO would be on a known military installation against the enemy in time of war. I'm not talking about BS intel such as the crap Bush and Powell fed us in Iraq, or the faulty un researched strikes on villagers, I'm talking about dropping bombs on Hitler if he existed today. People like that would be the only time I would condone drone warfare. Regrettably I do not consider myself worthy of choosing who lives or dies or who is the good or bad guy so this would obviously not be a job I'm comfortable with.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by justwokeup
As a service medal its not so ridiculous.

True, theres no personal risk involved, but you are possibly making decisions to kill people in real time. In some cases due to bad intel possibly innocent people, and then getting to see your bloody handiwork in HD.

Like it or loath it, its here to stay as a facet of modern war and its not the same as stacking tins of peas.


Regrettably I'm not quite sure I understood the tone of your post...no offense. I believe you may have missed my main point of my OP, but that's okay, perhaps I did not do a good enough job of explaining my point.

My main concern is that as effective as this type of warfare maybe, it is unethical and morally wrong. There is no justification for bombing whole villages in the hopes of killing one "militant" who in reality is just a regular Joe defending his homeland from a barbaric invasion based on corporate and strategic expansion. These wars are just garbage, and the methods they fight these wars are even worse.

These are just my thoughts so I don't necessarily expect all of you to agree with me.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


Do you see any difference between piloting a drone, firing a tomahawk from a submarine 50 miles off the coast or dropping a JDAM from a B52 unseen and untouchable above?

To be honest i don't and I don't see the need for special outrage about this category of weapon.

If your going to kill somebody you are going to kill somebody. The rightness or wrongness of the death is unaltered by whether you are there or not.

To be honest there is nothing inherently immoral about using buried or hidden explosives against enemy combatants either.

Either only becomes immoral if deployed with depraved indifference to civilian casualties. Thats a problem of leadership, not the chosen tool.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed

Originally posted by justwokeup
As a service medal its not so ridiculous.

True, theres no personal risk involved, but you are possibly making decisions to kill people in real time. In some cases due to bad intel possibly innocent people, and then getting to see your bloody handiwork in HD.

Like it or loath it, its here to stay as a facet of modern war and its not the same as stacking tins of peas.


Regrettably I'm not quite sure I understood the tone of your post...no offense. I believe you may have missed my main point of my OP, but that's okay, perhaps I did not do a good enough job of explaining my point.

My main concern is that as effective as this type of warfare maybe, it is unethical and morally wrong. There is no justification for bombing whole villages in the hopes of killing one "militant" who in reality is just a regular Joe defending his homeland from a barbaric invasion based on corporate and strategic expansion. These wars are just garbage, and the methods they fight these wars are even worse.

These are just my thoughts so I don't necessarily expect all of you to agree with me.


No probs. I posted a follow up to clarify. Perhaps we are talking at cross purposes.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 




Do you see any difference between piloting a drone, firing a tomahawk from a submarine 50 miles off the coast or dropping a JDAM from a B52 unseen and untouchable above?


That is a very good question.

To be honest, I think those other methods are also unecessary, but that is just my opinion. I don't see a difference whether the strike comes from a drone or all the other options you mentioned.

I was rather disturbed by the massacre by NATO in Libya with the Tomahawk and jet airplane strikes so yes those methods bother me as well. I don't have the stats to back this up so you can consider it as speculation but drone warfare is a constant reality for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan and more recently Yemen and a few other countries from what I have seen.

Sorry, I'm just terribly against innocents being slaughtered then the culprits of the murder justify their actions by labeling the victims as "militants" or "terrorists".

No way in hell does this deserve any recognition in the form of a medal.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Corruption Exposed
reply to post by justwokeup
 




Do you see any difference between piloting a drone, firing a tomahawk from a submarine 50 miles off the coast or dropping a JDAM from a B52 unseen and untouchable above?


That is a very good question.

To be honest, I think those other methods are also unecessary, but that is just my opinion. I don't see a difference whether the strike comes from a drone or all the other options you mentioned.

I was rather disturbed by the massacre by NATO in Libya with the Tomahawk and jet airplane strikes so yes those methods bother me as well. I don't have the stats to back this up so you can consider it as speculation but drone warfare is a constant reality for the people of Afghanistan and Pakistan and more recently Yemen and a few other countries from what I have seen.

Sorry, I'm just terribly against innocents being slaughtered then the culprits of the murder justify their actions by labeling the victims as "militants" or "terrorists".

No way in hell does this deserve any recognition in the form of a medal.


I understand your position now.

The fact its drones is really a red herring. You object to the nature of the operations being carried out and your objections are with rules of engagement really, thats always within the political realm. The president could stop this with the swipe of a pen.

In that context to single out Drone pilots for sole disdain is a bit unfair, you would really have to apply the same disdain to all the aircrew, sailors and submariners killing people they never see at the behest of higher command.

The medals are to recognise the service. Recognise that whats being done is unusually hard compared to normal civilian life (whether physically, mentally or both). They are not medals for valour, there are different medals for that and none of it is in any way tied to the rightness or wrongness of the war we sent them to fight.

If the country is fighting unjust wars (or non wars) its the press and the population that are derelict in their duty.



posted on Jul, 11 2012 @ 04:38 PM
link   
If they give the cooks medals I don't see why they would not give a drone pilot a medal, you would have to be stupid not to see that the fighter pilot will soon be a thing of the past.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I see no problem with giving the drone operators service medals. They give those out like candy at a Birthday party. My Father once joked before he passed away and I learned what he did on his second tour in Vietnam that his Vietnam Service Ribbon was the prettiest thing he ever saw awarded for serving Ice Cream. He'd been on the supply ships off the Northern Coast on his first trip...hence the Ice Cream Ref.

So...a medal to say they did that and participated in combat operations sounds fair. They sure aren't earning a true combat medal or merit based award, in my view. Giving them something of their own prevents some idiot from just saying 'we have nothing else...so...' and going ahead to give them the same medal an Airman at Bagram or the former Camp Victory would have received after really being there in person.

Of course, if these really come to be awarded with some meaning of risk and sacrifice implied, someone needs to explain how a 19-20yr old in an Air Conditioned trailer at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada or a little parking lot in a nondescript suburb of Kuwait City risked anything more than paper cuts and eye strain.


The medal will be higher than a Bronze Star ....




A recognition of the evolving 21st Century warfare, the medal will be considered a bit higher in ranking than the Bronze Star, but is lower than the Silver Star, defense officials said.

The Bronze Star is the fourth highest combat decoration and rewards meritorious service in battle, while the Silver Star is the third highest combat award given for bravery. Several other awards, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, are also ranked higher, but are not awarded for combat.


www.boston.com...

This is a joke ... a drone pilot gets a decoration higher than those who were in actual combat .... not flying a video game console? pitiful and pathetic ....



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
Well you get trophies and medals playing Playstation and xbox ,just rewards and motivation to encourage even greater performance ,not much different in this situation where the drone pilots are far removed from burning flesh
.
It's only a game right?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
You shouldn't be so surprised - the US Armed Forces give medals these days for trimming your toenails in the same time zone as a combat zone. Take a look at a picture of Petraeus, or another high-up in the US Armed Foces, and then compare his salad bar to a picture of Ike when he was SACEUR. See the difference?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Corruption Exposed
 


First thing I thought of was "achievement unlocked".......you have killed 3 insurgents with one hell fire rocket.....

Or kill insurgent at night without heat vision and while at bingo fuel......

This is gay.

EDIT:
gamer culture is now warrior culture......like to see how they value any life, and their enemies death.
like to see how the honor of the armed forces fares in the long run.......

edit on 13-2-2013 by zedVSzardoz because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:32 PM
link   
reply to post by zedVSzardoz
 


Hahahahahahahhaha me tooooo




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
This is pretty simple...Do as you're told...kill who we tell you to kill...and we give you a medal!

A wonderful way to compel compliance to orders that may seem "objectionable."

The weapons and the men who push the buttons on them are a theater removed from the action
anyway. For purposeful intent these young men are playing a video game. So if they grease the tracks
just a little more with medals these young soldiers will happily comply...as they eat Cheetos and sip soda





top topics
 
16
<<   2 >>

log in

join