Quantcast

Comments about ‘Michael Gerson: Arguments against drones masked a real foreign policy agenda’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, March 13 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Maudine
SLC, UT

Thank you for a reasonable editorial illustrating what so many common-sense Americans already know.

It is refreshing to read an editorial based in facts and directed to moderate Americans instead of appealing to either side's fear fringe.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Why should a persons citizenship make a
difference how law enforcement deals
with them? All people who are accused of
committing crimes should have due process.

If a person is holding a knife to an other
persons throat, or just about to explode a
bomb, law enforcement now may justifiably
shoot them. Due process is not legally or
morally required. And citizenship ought not
be taken into account.

If an airliner is headed to a city with intent to
ram into a building, the military will shoot it
down. Guilty and innocent will die if this
happens, but shooting it down will be the
right thing to do.

If terrorists who are citizens are about to
release a toxin into the air in a city, or about
blow up a building and a drone is needed to
kill them before they do this . . . . What is
Wrong with this?

one old man
Ogden, UT

Enhanced interrogation = okay.

Zapping a terrorist = not nice.

Hmmmmmm.

Iolanthe
Providence, UT

This editorial is very slanted by the writer's personal opinions. I greatly appreciate Rand Paul's courage to be the voice of dissent against an encroaching government. Too few people have read enough history to see we are starting to repeat history. Too many people are afraid of being bored or afraid of conflict and will not research, probe or learn. They choose to be hand fed by the media.

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

WHENEVER someone can get both "R's" and "D's" to agree on something - thats a good thing.

Mr. Gerson seems to think we are obligated to commit U.S. troops to foreign countries in order to fight the war on terror.

I don't believe that. It MAY have been necessay 10 yrs. ago, but with drone use, and targeted special forces operations I think we can hunt terrorists WITHOUT committing 100k of U.S. troops.

I always thought when we finally ended the Vietnam war that we were through "nation building". The last 10 yrs we have gotten right back into that (losing) business.

We can no longer afford to be the worlds policeman. We have citizens in the U.S. who can't even afford basic healthcare. Never mind about EVER achieving the American dream.

We CAN have a strong military (for self-protection)but lets put a damper on the military/industrial complex that is draining the U.S. economy.

cjb
Bountiful, UT

Re Fitness Freak

I couldn't have said it better. I wish I'd said it myself.

m.g. scott
LAYTON, UT

I'm late to the party on this one, but should anyone still be reading....

Re: Fitness Freak

It is not the military/industrial complex that is draining the U.S. economy, it is the entitlement obligations being covered by borrowed money that is. Remember, even though it does cost a lot to fund the defense department, it creates employment for thousands who have gone to college and trained for skills. I respect that kind of government spending more than the spending on programs that just pay people whether they work or not.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments