• Kairos@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 days ago

    I’d rather have neither. I’m just saying some isolated metric doesn’t give the full picture.

    • Magnum, P.I.@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      That’s one isolated metric. This is probably better than sending an army.

      Sounds like you were saying getting drone striked is probably better, but English is not my native language so you are probably right

      • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        You’ll end up pink mist either way, but a drone strike can be targeted more precisely, so it’s likely to cause far fewer innocent casualties.

        • Magnum, P.I.@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 days ago

          A drone strike more precisely targeted than a guy going in? OK interesting. Probably the reason civilian casualties are so low

      • Kairos@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        If I had a gun to my head and was forced to choose whether a ground/army invasion is better than the drone strike, I would choose the latter.

        However, I’d prefer neither happen.