Shared publicly  - 
Check out the President's best quotes from his Google+ Hangout. 
Patrick John Coppock's profile photoPete Patron's profile photoVrushali M.'s profile photoAlexander Soe's profile photo
When your a parent  of a 21 year old field officer in the US armed forces, and your child is in direct combat with the enemy, then you can tell me what you think of using DRONES in warfare. Otherwise, shut your danm pie hole!
+Audie Collins , honestly, I have never thought of it that way. That is a point that will cause me to reconsider my perspective on the situation. Thank you.
+Audie Collins I like you! And you remember this! No soldier is responsible for his fighting on the battle field when acting under the orders of a Chief in command! Yahweh taught me that! If our country is wrong, it's the chief that was wrong no one else. As a chief in America in the Cherokee Indian nation, I don't believe the Arab to have been our enemy. 
+Audie Collins  I agree mostly with your sentiment, but I think the issue of Drones is very complicated.  Obviously we want to minimize risk to our soldiers, in every way we can.  However, there is a somewhat philosophical question, "does not having a human cost make us more likely to use force"?  If the answer is yes, we absolutely should make using Drones the 2nd to last resort, with sending troops in to be the last resort in every situation.  If we're talking about signature strikes it's a totally different question, and I find it hard to believe anyone thinks that practice follows international law.  If we're talking about targeting US citizens with drones, again... hard to believe anyone is actually okay with this.   But let me put it this way... why does it have to be troops or drones?  Are there not other options, including:  not fighting, economic sanctions, negotiation, etc?  There are a myriad of possibilities where we literally don't have to send anything.
Right, I agree.  We have several treaties and UN agreements where we pledged not to use assassination as a lawful method of strategy execution.  A HUGE part of our history and global leadership ability came from the appearance of being governed by the rule of law and seeking justice.  If we let go of that legacy, the world quickly starts seeing us as a mass of greedy children, willing to do anything to make a buck.  That's not the reputation we were building at the beginning; I'm not sure why there isn't resistance to reinforcing that reputation now.
I mean obviously we've been using assassinations the whole time, but at least we had the self respect to execute it in secrecy and avoid trying to justify it by instead denying it.  Now it's like we're proud to be pissing on the Constitution and natural laws that give us something worth defending.
Even then, an attempt should be made at arrest.  If the suspect resists and fires upon us, it warrants prejudice.. but a good faith attempt is miles away from assassination.
Will Humanity retain our Sense of Free Will? Will Humanity remain in touch with Human Emotion's or will we hand over the Kill Switch to Emotionless Drone's with set Kill List, Search and Destroy Parameters? 
A funny argument could be made that our founding father's made it implicitly clear that the rights defined in the bill of rights were endowed by virtue of being human, not by the government of the US or by virtue of being a citizen.  Under that logic, our Constitution should be held to defend all of humanity, meaning due process should apply to enemy combatants as well.
My great grand dad chief double head met George Washington. It's his signature that ceded you land. This is not the foundation on which we agreed! I believe there is even an article that says if the government does not follow these same laws and foundation then there was another duty of the descendants of the English settler. Remember that? 
I like flying killer robots as a term better than drones

They're not robots.  They're waldos.
+Wyatt Strang Obama didn't invent thus technology and is not responsible for its existence. Any American that joined a terrorist organization should be taken out.
Swarm technology US leading the drone race to spread radioactive waste around the globe #DU coming to a neighborhood near you.. 
Drones aside, this was a bold step for a president to take, and a clear sign that he believes in transparency and reaching out to regular folks.  If anyone thinks any Republican president would ever do this, even if they knew every question beforehand or wrote every question themselves, they are deluding themselves.

I don't agree with Obama on everything, but overall he is doing an excellent job and deserves our support on the good things he is doing.
+Wyatt Strang Well maybe this is just European commie ideology speaking, but you already live in a country where policemen can burn prisoners at will while media voluntarily stops reporting, which sounds pretty much like a police state to me.
Did anyone challenge him or was it typical bullshit from the mouth of a bold faced anti-American liar?
there was a bold faced anti-american liar challenging him...
In my opinion, drones are a good choice when used appropriately. They keep our soldiers out of harms way, and that's a good thing.

Anyone that believes that we wouldn't be trying similar missions with human resources is deluded. All drones are doing is making it safer for our troops.

Now the use of domestic drones for policing and things like that, we start to question the age old question of safety vs liberty.

What's more important the safety of our society or our freedom? History shows a strong back and forth about how to answer this. Post 9/11 the answer has been safety, with critics becoming stronger all the time. It's difficult to find the balance, but it's something we much achieve.
+michael bourgoin well a) your army has no business outside your country. not drones, not troops, not special ops, and not cia ops either.
if your interests "need" to be defended outside your borders by any other means than diplomacy you did something very wrong, and are massively disrespecting other countries sovereignty. putting them on an axis of evil, or declaring them hostile to your own country, or defining their interests detrimental to your interests doesn't grant you that right either. 

and b) one of your guys said that who ever is willing to give up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither.
but i guess i agree with you that it's not as simple as that.
or rather the question is what are freedoms one should have, and what are things that can't be considered personal freedom, but rather are a violation of other's rights freedoms or safety.
Okay that was great. Now please quit hanging out and giving speeches and start fixing our economy.  It's been 4 long years and my hope is running out...
+Alex Wilson To be fair, Lincoln was fighting a Civil War, not a War on Terrorism against a stateless enemy - a danger less likely to affect me than the Civil War was likely to affect most Americans.  

Differences are indeed crucial to understand.
+Audie Collins I agree with you but have one small caveat. He choose to join the service. And in the words of one of our great super heroes, "he knew the job was dangerous when he took it". 
Add a comment...