US Predator Drone sold out on Amazon

[Wishcumstrue]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-15/a...ng-reviews.html

Maisto International Inc.

[Kusje]

You can buy model jet planes and guns right in the toy section of any department store.... What's the big deal with a drone?

[I-LOVE-CARS]

Chey I tot can buy the 'REAL THING' [:p]

 

[Wishcumstrue]

You can buy model jet planes and guns right in the toy section of any department store.... What's the big deal with a drone?

 

Don't understand the sacasm by the American public? Go read the "buyers" remarks.

 

Aren't you that same joker who always fail to check the fact before pounding off ?

 

http://www.mycarforum.com/index.php?showto...t&p=4773806

[Kiario]

$49.99...

 

hmm, i bought their F-16, F14 etc at NTUC extra AMK at less than $10 leh, same brand.

[Wishcumstrue]

$49.99...hmm, i bought their F-16, F14 etc at NTUC extra AMK at less than $10 leh, same brand.

 

Online partition to the toy manufacturer to cease producing this toy with following statements:

 

Please stand with me against this shameful toy and call for the immediate discontinuation of the Predator Drone action figure made by Maisto. These vehicles are not "precision tools", they are killing children every day.

http://www.change.org/petitions/maisto-imm...dator-drone-toy

 

[WTF]

Like that need to ban all toy guns, bow and arrow toys etc liao as well.........

[Wishcumstrue]

Like that need to ban all toy guns, bow and arrow toys etc liao as well.........

 

During peacetime, US military don't use guns, bow or arrows for oversea killings - they use those for killing spree back home.

[Celicar]

Like that need to ban all toy guns, bow and arrow toys etc liao as well.........

And fast food.

[Wishcumstrue]

And fast food.

 

that still kills you...slowly.

[Cerano]

So what's your point here? New weapons are developed everyday and some just like nuclear weaponry are designed everyday.

 

The predator strikes are already extremely effective in any case. They destroy accurately reducing collateral damage while reducing risk to their own people.

 

If one day we have to fight a war, I'd rather have these and though we may end up killing some caught between in the line of fire, at least better them than us. It's a war after all

[Cerano]

During peacetime, US military don't use guns, bow or arrows for oversea killings - they use those for killing spree back home.

 

This happens in many places too not only the US. It happebs too in China just as in Korea or Japan or South Africa and Congo.

Thank god for the safety of our country but let us not take it for granted.

[Wishcumstrue]

So what's your point here? New weapons are developed everyday and some just like nuclear weaponry are designed everyday.

 

The predator strikes are already extremely effective in any case. They destroy accurately reducing collateral damage while reducing risk to their own people.

 

If one day we have to fight a war, I'd rather have these and though we may end up killing some caught between in the line of fire, at least better them than us. It's a war after all

 

By you replying to my thread already indicate that you understand what my agenda is.

 

This subject is hardly difficult to understand if you had read the news, the Bloomberg report and the Amazon reviewer's sarcasm.

 

I though being a pro-US person yourself, you probably had read or seen Western reports of those questionable "surgical strikes" had only created more animosity and legal questions on the CIA involvement in this global scale extra-judicial killings when there is full no scale war being waged by the US military since its withdrawal from Iraq -

 

Today, this is a CIA -driven war, beyond the scope of law and international rules.

 

Killer drone had, intentional or not, killed civilians, friendly troops.

 

Yes, this new killer-tech makes life easier and reduce troop lost from the drone users perspective. But that does not erase the moral and legal concern of how this technolofy is used since the drone started firing missiles at human beings on another side of the Earth.

 

What if the role is reversed with US being the receiving end ?

 

Will this force US gov to come to its senses and agree on international resolution at the UN for Drone-Reduction talk similar to what they did with former USSR on nuke talks ?

 

The Drone warfare is already out of the Bag - every nation, poor or rich, will ultimately be able to use drones for killing purpose legally or not.

 

 

In case you hadn't heard:

 

NYT: America

Edited February 19, 2013 by Wishcumstrue

[Cerano]

By you replying to my thread already indicate that you understand what my agenda is.

 

This subject is hardly difficult to understand if you had read the news, the Bloomberg report and the Amazon reviewer's sarcasm.

 

I though being a pro-US person yourself, you probably had read or seen Western reports of those questionable "surgical strikes" had only created more animosity and legal questions on the CIA involvement in this global scale extra-judicial killings when there is full no scale war being waged by the US military since its withdrawal from Iraq -

 

Today, this is a CIA -driven war, beyond the scope of law and international rules.

 

Killer drone had, intentional or not, killed civilians, friendly troops.

 

Yes, this new killer-tech makes life easier and reduce troop lost from the drone users perspective. But that does not erase the moral and legal concern of how this technolofy is used since the drone started firing missiles at human beings on another side of the Earth.

 

What if the role is reversed with US being the receiving end ?

 

Will this force US gov to come to its senses and agree on international resolution at the UN for Drone-Reduction talk similar to what they did with former USSR on nuke talks ?

 

The Drone warfare is already out of the Bag - every nation, poor or rich, will ultimately be able to use drones for killing purpose legally or not.

 

 

In case you hadn't heard:

 

NYT: America

[Wishcumstrue]

Unfortunately legality should only ever be used to justify war. Not to limit it.

This is especially the case in peacetime.

.

I don't quite understand what you are trying to bring across in above.

Do you mean that war can be justified under the Law ?

Or are you saying law should not limit one's use of certain new weapon, as in this case the weaponized drones?

if you believe the 2nd reason is justifiable, wouldn't that open the door to other parties to use Drone, legal or not?

 

 

 

In fact I think there will come a day for sure that all nations rich or poor will eventually end up using drone warfare.

If the US ends up on the other side, I wouldnt be too surprised myself too since its always a cat and mouse game. Thats why defence scientists spend so much effort trying to outwit the enem

 

This is why I foresee that there will eventually an intenation agreement on the usage of drone for deadly missions.

 

The Drone is just another tools for warfare and it certainly does not justify the means to an end when one party enjoys the temporary advanrage when it has become clear that CIA is illegally conduciton non-judicial killing.

 

US is now behaving like a child with a brand new toy to play with.

 

The irony is the Predator toy itself has become a stigma of lawlessness being practice by US intelligences.

 

That is the point I want to highlight in this thread.

 

 

 

[Cerano]

.

I don't quite understand what you are trying to bring across in above.

Do you mean that war can be justified under the Law ?

Or are you saying law should not limit one's use of certain new weapon, as in this case the weaponized drones?

if you believe the 2nd reason is justifiable, wouldn't that open the door to other parties to use Drone, legal or not?

 

Law's purpose amongst others is also to rightfully justify war. Especially when innocent civilians are at risk from the activities of a few extremists.

Secondly, as you already know even the SAF is relying on alot of unmanned technology today. I dont think there is any doubt that in the near future we will start posessing UCAVs of our own. Likewise there is nothing wrong with owning drones with the ability to destroy.

 

The only issue is when rogue nations with uncertain, shady intents decide to procure such. Then we have a problem.

 

 

This is why I foresee that there will eventually an intenation agreement on the usage of drone for deadly missions.

 

The Drone is just another tools for warfare and it certainly does not justify the means to an end when one party enjoys the temporary advanrage when it has become clear that CIA is illegally conduciton non-judicial killing.

 

US is now behaving like a child with a brand new toy to play with.

 

The irony is the Predator toy itself has become a stigma of lawlessness being practice by US intelligences.

 

That is the point I want to highlight in this thread.

 

The UCAV is merely in a position where it is advanced and the law hasnt caught up yet to define its jurisdictions and parameters of use clearly. However, the US Military has strict regulations itself on the use of UCAVs and certain missions are authorised by the CIC himself

 

[Wishcumstrue]

there is nothing wrong with owning drones with the ability to destroy.

 

You miss my point again (surprised!)

 

Question here is NOT about having a killer drone.

 

Question is about how this is used without the purview under any laws nor civilian guideline - which US is currently doing under CIA control, not by the US military.

 

You need to understand that US is now officially not in war in any country, and yet, it plays the judge and executioner all under its own hidden "evidence".

 

You cannot ignore the fact that this is not first time US had done this to other countries especially on those who cannot fight back.

 

Strange that you use the term "rogue" nation, when we are have been debating over a country that uses it own rules and verdict via the remoteness of its Drone with a civlian death rate of 20% of the deaths.

 

And yet, you readily agree with US's claims that its military work under "strict regulations".

 

So what are the rule of engagement? Did the Pentagon or CIA publish these "regulations" ?

 

 

 

[Wishcumstrue]

When PRC announced recently it had a choice NOT to use its own killer drones over another country's sky, TheYoungTurks online-news took a swap at US gov own liberal policy.

 

As I said earlier, in not too distance future (say within 5 years time), this same global remote semi-autonomous weapon system can also be used against the US interest if no international legal agreement on its usage limitation is made.

 

Sooner or later, the US will find itself in the same position as the Taliban terrorist and forced to come to the table to discuss on the drone warfare control talk.

 

TheYoungTurks asked why China can decide not to use drone while the US gov is free to use killer drone?

 

PRC's known projects and deployed drones.