Another drone down

No, Dollar Bill’s fine, I’m talking about those drones that don’t like the Taliban. Question: if we worry about the technology of these craft falling into enemy hands, why don’t we have explosive devices included in their fuselage? I’m sure there’s a good reason why not, but I’m curious.

7 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

7 responses to “Another drone down

  1. This episode shouldn’t’ mean we get all agitated that billions in taxpayer money is being wasted on high tech toys. No sirree! If anyone thinks there is any money wasted inside the Pentagon, then they’re just spouting Commie, liberal propaganda. As Rickie Santorum said at one of the GOP debates, “we shouldn’t’ cut one penny out of military spending.” Nope, no savings at the Pentagon, even if the weapons systems don’t work, and the overruns cost us billions. True Tea Partiers know that defense spending doesn’t count as real spending by the government. Isn’t’ that convenient?

  2. Is there a Fake Dollar Bill among us? The Original Dollar Bill signs in as “DollarBill”, two caps, one word. The one here is lower case, two words, and links, but to nothing. I smell a phony.

  3. Unmanned aircraft, like missiles, aren’t equipped with self destruct charges out of concern that the enemy would learn how to trigger them.

  4. And on DB’s issue of wasting money on high tech toys, the remotely piloted drones are enormously less expensive to build and operate than manned aircraft, in addition to not putting our pilot’s lives at risk.

    Clean miss, Bill.

  5. Stump

    EOS, I think it’s still the original Dollar Bill. His spelling has never been too consistent, and the puerile, demeaning tone (“Rickie” Santorum, “banksters”) is the same.

  6. Cobra

    No matter how Mr. Bill chooses to spell his name, with every comment he projectile vomits on FWIW, he continues to solidify his status as supreme fecal-writing douchenozzle.