Obama's drone strikes have killed 178 children.

Nobody wants senseless death of innocents. There are two models of foreign policy which we have observed over the last decade. One model calls for classic use of military force to destroy terrorism by invasion. The other model calls for surgical strikes to destroy a defined enemy of the state. Both models sadly have collateral damage. One clearly has been successful in minimizing death.

http://web.mit.edu/humancostiraq/

Your hypocrisy astounds me, yet I have no doubt in your humanity in not wanting to see innocents slaughtered, yet in fairness.......what would your solution be if a known terrorists group was about to or had killed 4 thousand Americans. Do your really believe the invasion model is better.......and please do not change the subject about conspiracy or President Obama.......we are talking about theoretical response to a KNOWN threat.....what is your solution?

Teo,

There is much care take on a drone strike. More than any other airframe. I know this for a fact. How or why is none of your business. The ROEs are much more strict than on the ground. We cannot help it if the bad guys are going to hide behind children and try to get people like you to paint folks operating Preds and Reapers as the bad guys. There has to be a point when a shot must be taken and I guarantee you that there is much discourse up and down the chain and many shots not taken than are taken when targeting an HVI or HVT. If we eliminated every shot where there was even minimal risk, we'd never take out anyone. It is what it is and at night these folks running MQ-1s and MQ-9s are going to live with the shot taken despite the collateral damage because every precaution is taken and it IS saving AMERICAN lives. You won't ever understand because you've not even got a fathomable clue of how this process works.

https://www.aclu.org/national-security/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike

The ACLU and CCR have filed a lawsuit challenging the government's targeted killing of three U.S. citizens in drone strikes far from any armed conflict zone.

In Al-Aulaqi v. Panetta (Al-Awlaki v. Panetta) the groups charge that the U.S. government's killings of U.S. citizens Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi in Yemen last year violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process of law.

The killings were part of a broader program of "targeted killing" by the United States outside the context of armed conflict and based on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts.

I stilll have yet to see blame given where blame is due.... on the people who hide behind women and children knowimg they are targets. The enemy knows our ROEs and is using people like T to try and make drone operators and the military look bad and even quote scripture as well for those of us who practice a religion. Sorry T, but it ain't gonna work on me and knowing that I made sure just one person got home to their facility based on my actions that given day is all I need to sleep good. Those who hide behind women and children are the guilty party, not me.