You all know I'm close to the pacifist end of a scale. I sometimes, very rarely, consider war to be a lesser evil than others, once a situation has already gone terribly wrong. But it is still always an evil. Winning a war is not a victory, but a serious, terrible defeat. So while @Ramen tried to be cute next door in his thread, the deaths he lists are worthy of memory and their killing worthy of condemnation. Killing is wrong. Killing civilians is worse. In fact, it's murder -- and while killing an enemy soldier in the field might be extenuated for his opposite number, the warlord sending him there doesn't have that luxury of conscience. In a democracy, that's us. There are two crimes here: War; and the casual sacrifice of innocent civilians in war, which compounds it. But I am surprised by the insistence of some people that drones make this worse. It seems to me that if drones threaten to turn war into the senseless and careless killing of civilians, then they only make visible what has been fact at least since the 18th century. Drones have a potential of making war invisible; of reducing the costs for the attacking side, both monetarily and in human lives; and in fact, they have the potential of reducing the number of dead even in the country that's being attacked. Those dead will be more easily proven to be innocent; but they always are and always have been. So, submitted for your consideration: Drones don't make war worse. They make visible how evil war is and always has been. Telling ourselves that it was and still would be somehow more ok if we sent other people, or even went ourselves, into risk of death as a price we pay for killing others, is some warped kind of sacrificial logic, ultimately an ideology that serves the original evil of war.