CMU's Snooping Robot Headed for Iraq

mike_the_kid writes "Here's an interesting article about a robot near the end of development at CMU. It's a four-wheeler called the Dragon Runner. This robot has no 'right side up,' so no matter which way it lands, its ready to go. The user (currently projected to be a US Marine) throws the robot over a fence or up a flight of stairs. The robot has cameras that send live video back to the operator, and directional microphones that can relay as well. A cool feature is that it can tell the operator where there is movement (via audio or tactile feedback)." We first mentioned the Dragon Runner a while back, but the previous article was more about the Dragon Eye, a small remote-controlled airplane.

Comments

I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[Anonymous Coward]

Right? RIGHT???

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[daniil]

WMD found

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[randyest]

Mr Blix said today that the discovery of the nerve agent was not a sign that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed weapons of mass destruction before the war last year.

Presumably this is because time has elapsed since then and, given the difficulty of proving a negative, any WMD found could be (and would be, by some) dismissed as having been brought in by insurgents after the fact.

That is to say, Mr. Bush can never have this war justified by finding WMDs. Opponents will just say that (1) America planted them there or (2) insurgents brought them in out of desperation after the war started.

Interesting conundrum for W. there, no?

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[parcel]

That is to say, Mr. Bush can never have this war justified by finding WMDs. Opponents will just say that (1) America planted them there or (2) insurgents brought them in out of desperation after the war started.

Interesting conundrum for W. there, no?

Maybe i'm missing something, but shouldn't those WMDs have been found before dropping a bunch of bombs and killing a bunch of people, rather than after? anyone still remember that 'innocent until proven guilty' thing? it was at least at some point the cornerstone of our justice system?

interesting conundrum, indeed.

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[blair1q]

No, the fact is, Mr. W claimed he had proof that there were WMD in Iraq. And he claimed it many times.

It was clear he had no proof at all, and was hoping that finding something during the illegal search would justify it.

It doesn't justify it when the cops are busting a meth lab, and it won't justify it when Bush is angling for approval.

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[Ralph Wiggam]

Just before the war started, Rumsfeld not only stated that Saddam possesed large quantities of chemical weapons, but Rumsfeld said that he knew exactly where they were. If he had been at all correct, those weapons would have been found within days of the invasion over a year ago.

Face it. We were all lied to.

-B

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[NanoGator]

"Opponents will just say that (1) America planted them there..."

It's interesting how people assume that the USA lied about the WMDs, but they didn't lie again and claim they found weapons.

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[Anonymous Coward]

War and the justice system are orthogonal institutions. One has nothing to do with the other.

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[randyest]

Maybe i'm missing something, but shouldn't those WMDs have been found before dropping a bunch of bombs and killing a bunch of people, rather than after?

That would be nice. Unfortunately, sometimes they don't let you find them first. Sorta like with search warrants -- they're usually given before the Bad Thing is found on account of the relative difficulty of finding it before you're allowed to try to find it. See? Probable cause is the only thing you can argue about here, I'm afraid.

anyone still remember that 'innocent until proven guilty' thing?

Yep. And 10 outstanding priors and several very reasonable arrest warrants is a damn good reason to take someone in and hold them until they get their day in court where that is decided, as will happen in this case. The fact that the suspect has an army and is the leader of a country should have no impact on this procedure.

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[Carewolf]

Presumably this is because time has elapsed since then and, given the difficulty of proving a negative, any WMD found could be (and would be, by some) dismissed as having been brought in by insurgents after the fact.

No, it is because the nerve gas was old, and was abandoned after the previous Gulf war.
Blix comment was from before the age of the shell had been determined.

Why are you assuming critics of US are lieing and making stuff up to make Bush look bad?
He can perfectly well do that on his own!

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[parcel]

War and the justice system are orthogonal institutions. One has nothing to do with the other.

Maybe not in some countries, but as you may have noticed over the past few years, the legislative branch of the U.S. government has quite a bit to do with war.
No, we should not have been required to unequivocally prove the existence of WMDs. Going to war shouldn't necessarily be held to the same standards - the stakes are a lot higher. But perhaps that means they should correspondingly be held to higher standards. IMHO, If we are going to go to war over something, have our soldiers die over something, have 'acceptable losses' of civilian lives, we ought to have made damn certain that it's true. Not this bait-and-switch of "WMDs!!! *waving hands* but look over here! Saddam was a horrible person!!"

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[parcel]

Fair enough. Still, with the stakes as high as they are, shouldn't we have been a touch more careful? Even with '10 outstanding priors', the 'search warrant' was executed, and nothing was found. Is that reason enough to send our soldiers to war?

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're going for the its OK to be lied to once but not twice argument?

I don't quite undertand how that justifies the war.

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[iminplaya]

Give 'em time. The war ain't over yet. The day is young. Or maybe they used them all up while doing our dirty work for us in our proxy war against Iran.

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[killjoe]

Look at it this way.

W, Cheney, wolfowitz, rumsfeld, powell, CIA, FBI etc were all duped by Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi fed the CIA "intelligence" about the trucks with chemical weapons factories in them and the aluminum tubes. The entire administration bought this line hook line and sinker so much that Powell risked his integrity to go before the world and present this as if it was fact.

It's astonishing that the secy of state would not pick up the phone and call up a weapons expert asking them if the aluminum tubes could actually be used in centirfuges (these ones could not) but he did not. He just believed what somebody told him.

This administration is truly a confederacy of dunces. They were duped by a guy who is probably a spy for the iranians and they paid him millions of dollars. They went into a war with no planning for what they would do after they took over the country. They changed their story 10 times as to why they went to war in the first place. Honestly could anybody else have fucked it up this bad?

Getting back to your point. Why would anybody believe anything W says? It's clear he is completely out of the loop on anything that's going on in his administration and he is supremely gullable. You could stick any random series of words in front of him and he'd read it to the cameras without checking first.

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[Anonymous Coward]

They do know where they are. They traveled to Seria right before the war started.

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[NanoGator]

"So you're going for the its OK to be lied to once but not twice argument?"

No, moron. I didn't say anything was okay. I said it's weird that they'd lie once but not twice. Doesn't make sense. Either they're remarkably inconsistent or, gee whiz, maybe they truely believed they were there. Either way, it certainly damages the whole "Bush lied to get to Iraq" argument that flies around here.

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[mycuntz]

Funny that a robot has turned this in to a debate about WMD. I mean, who cares about WMD. Saddam broke 19 (NINETEEN) UN resolutions and the UN would just keep throwing another resolution out there instead of doing what they said that they would do if he broke one. It was agreed upon, unanamously, that the UN would use heavy force if Saddam didn't comply. After 19 failures to comply, the UN was looking like a major farce, as it is. I know why they wouldn't enforce their resolutions and so do you. They were all involved in scams in the oil for food program. The United States was tired of this dictator defying the world and the UN as well as tired of the outdated, farcicle UN doing their underhanded dirty deals with the dictator that produces nothing but evil and death. If I approached you 19 times asking to see the gun in your pocket and you avoided me and did everything you could to not show me your pockets, I am just going to assume that you have a gun and shoot you first.Funny that a robot has turned this in to a debate about WMD. I mean, who cares about WMD. Saddam broke 19 (NINETEEN) UN resolutions and the UN would just keep throwing another resolution out there instead of doing what they said that they would do if he broke one. It was agreed upon, unanimously, that the UN would use heavy force if Saddam didn't comply. After 19 failures to comply, the UN was looking like a major farce, as it is. I know why they wouldn't enforce their resolutions and so do you. They were all involved in scams in the oil for food program. The United States was tired of this dictator defying the world and the UN as well as tired of the outdated, fascicle UN doing their underhanded dirty deals with the dictator that produces nothing but evil and death. If I approached you 19 times asking to see the gun in your pocket and you avoided me and did everything you could to not show me your pockets, I am just going to assume that you have a gun and shoot you first.

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[Keith McClary]

They were duped by a guy who is probably a spy for the iranians and they paid him millions of dollars.

Or maybe the whole thing was an Iranian plot:

Iran used Chalabi to dupe U.S., report says

Re:I'm sure it can find the WMD's

[killjoe]

Oh man that's rich.

The entire govt of the US was pwoned by the Iranians. What the fuck? Just how stupid is this administration? Didn't they do a fucking background check on this guy? Didn't they watch him? Didn't they keep track of his finances? They paid him millions!.

What a bunch of retards running this country. Thanks for the link.

June 30, eh?

[grub]

If they're sending these things to Iraq so late in May does anyone really believe that Iraq will be handed back to the Iraqis on June 30?

Re:June 30, eh?

[MoonFog]

It's a prototype, they most likeley want to try it out and see if it's worth the money.
For now, at $46,000 a copy for the prototypes, no one is eager to blow any Dragon Runners apart.

Re:June 30, eh?

[LostCluster]

Just like the infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech, June 30th is just another mile marker that'll cause people to think that the war is over, when really it won't be.

June 30 is not the day that US troops will walk out leaving the country alone, it's just the day that Paul Bremer gives his authority to Iraqis that the USA will hand pick and announce shortly.

Iraq still doesn't have a stable military or police force that's capable of stamping down warlords who declare themselves mayor of a town, and until that is established, there's no way legit government would be able to survive the challenges from such insurgents.

So, at least the frist attempt at forming a stable Iraqi government will happen on June 30th... but that still is a long way from America being out of there.

Re:June 30, eh?

[AKnightCowboy]

If they're sending these things to Iraq so late in May does anyone really believe that Iraq will be handed back to the Iraqis on June 30?

This is just a mopping up operation of some holdout insurgents. We should have them cleaned up by June 29th for the handover the next day. Nothing to worry about here folks.

PS: Please send 100,000 more marines with this shipment of robots.

Re:June 30, eh?

[in7ane]

"at $46,000"

I for one would like to know just how much benefit the extra $45,845.02 gets you after being able to get something similar with this ($39.99) and this ($114.99) and maybe some duct tape or super glue.

I understand that an infrared camera and a microphone will add a few extra hundred, but the thing, once again, will be defeated by stairs, and the extra bit of ruggedness can be overcome by getting a few dozen of the cheaper off the shelf things instead.

Not to make light of somebody's research, but this is just someone who is out for some grant money from the government considering the current administration's willingness to spend on all things military (well, tech in the military at least).

Re:June 30, eh?

[randyest]

I for one would like to know just how much benefit the extra $45,845.02 gets you after being able to get something similar with this ($39.99) and this ($114.99) and maybe some duct tape or super glue.

How about (these are all in the article):

- 20 mph

- the ability to drop it from a 3-story building without damage

- the ability to throw it from a vehicle travelling 45mph without damage

- a directional microphone and sensors that can detect motion up to 30 feet away

- unified hand-held controller/view screen (with force-feedback cues to indicate direction of detected motion!)

- lots more range (the thinkGeek toy has 100ft range; the article doesn't say the range of this snooping robot, but it'd have to be a lot more to be useful in its intended application

Not to mention, the thinkgeek toy is mass-produced, while the snooper is still prototype only:

But if and when the device goes into volume production, the price is likely to drop 40 to 50 percent, Moreau said.

Re:June 30, eh?

[gnu-generation-one]

"I for one would like to know just how much benefit the extra $45,845.02 gets you after being able to get something similar with this ($39.99) and this ($114.99) and maybe some duct tape or super glue."

You're assumuming its primary mission is to drive around houses taking photos.

Perhaps it's primary mission is transferring lots of $40K checks from the taxpayer to someone's company?

Re:June 30, eh?

[in7ane]

The thinkgeek toy probably goes marginally slower (although I've seen some very fast R/C cars, so don't be too sure that it can't do 20mph) and is less rugged. Although if you are placing a really big order you can go tot he manufacturer and ask them to make the exact same thing out of a stronger plastic - add a few hundred per unit at most.

I mentioned the microphone and the sensors, those can easily be bought, and would not cost more than a thousand or so (your home security system has them).

"unified hand-held controller/view screen (with force-feedback cues to indicate direction of detected motion!)"
Like a portable color tv? somehting like the PS controler has? I didn't realize that either of those cost that much - try ebay if you really want to save money maybe :)

Range can be jacked up by giving more power to the transmitters - the 100ft range is probably more to do with not being so powerful as to come under a different set of FCC regulations, rather then the transmitter (even then, how expensive do you think a transmitter is?).

To put the cost of this toy into perspective, 40 to 50 percent of $45K is still more than what you can buy a car for - they are getting ripped of.

So the question still stands, what are the extra 40K being spent on?

Re:June 30, eh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Three words:
Military Spec Componenets

Re:June 30, eh?

[Ryan Amos]

Yeah, I recall hearing recently that the US military expects to be in Iraq in significant numbers for at least another year. This thing ain't ending anytime soon.

Re:June 30, eh?

[superyooser]

"Mission Accomplished" was for the troops who were riding home on the carrier Bush was on when he said it. For them, their mission was accomplished.

Re:June 30, eh?

[Dun Malg]

The thinkgeek toy probably goes marginally slower (although I've seen some very fast R/C cars, so don't be too sure that it can't do 20mph) and is less rugged. Although if you are placing a really big order you can go tot he manufacturer and ask them to make the exact same thing out of a stronger plastic - add a few hundred per unit at most. I mentioned the microphone and the sensors, those can easily be bought, and would not cost more than a thousand or so (your home security system has them). "unified hand-held controller/view screen (with force-feedback cues to indicate direction of detected motion!)" Like a portable color tv? somehting like the PS controler has? I didn't realize that either of those cost that much - try ebay if you really want to save money maybe :) Range can be jacked up by giving more power to the transmitters - the 100ft range is probably more to do with not being so powerful as to come under a different set of FCC regulations, rather then the transmitter (even then, how expensive do you think a transmitter is?). To put the cost of this toy into perspective, 40 to 50 percent of $45K is still more than what you can buy a car for - they are getting ripped of. So the question still stands, what are the extra 40K being spent on?

All of those "cheaper" methods you outline are inadequate. "Stronger plastic" alone won't make the toy survive a 3 story drop. The microphone and sensors are not the same as the ones your home security system uses, not by a long shot. The controller isn't just an LCD color monitor attached to a vibrating playstation controller. While range CAN be extended by boosting power, you lose battery life. Neither of those thinkgeek toys can climb a 3 foot pile of concrete rubble. None of this stuff comes cheap.

But a fax machine is just a waffle iron with a phone attached, right?

Re:June 30, eh?

[GooberToo]

We will be there a long time as a police and military force. The current Iraqi military is more or less untrained and only numbers something like 1200. Their police is dire need of real training too. Leaving early would probably mean civil war and maybe someone as bad, if not worse than Saddam taking power. And by worse, I mean someone that openly hates anything West, whereby, they are some of the world's worst zealots.

Realistically, we'll easily need to be there another year or two, maybe more Which is, more or less EXACTLY (open ended, long term commitment) what the President stated to the public when he stated the ball rolling. In fact, some degree of involvement was specualted to be as long as 5 - 10 years. That's not saying that we'll have troops there for that entire duration. Just the same, it's always been an open ended commitment, with the phrase, "long term", being used.

Special feature:

[eyeye]

Comes with a hooding device for remote hooding.

*torture electrodes are an optional extra

Re:Special feature:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, this post is very 'informative'. Who are these mods?

Minority Report

[ninejaguar]

In a few years, it'll have spider legs, climb on your face, and poke you in the eye.

= 9J =

Re:Minority Report

[Anonymous Coward]

In 20 years, it'll climb on your keyboard and write your slashdot postings.

like a blackbox...

[slashrogue]

"We've thrown it out of second- and third-story windows," said Capt. Dave Moreau, project officer for Dragon Runner at the Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory in Quantico, Va. "We've thrown it off the back of a moving vehicle at 45 miles an hour."

If they can make the robot out of this stuff, why not make the whole Marine out of it?

Re:like a blackbox...

[ninejaguar]

Hey, yeah... then he could eventually run for Governor. Doh!

= 9J =

Re:like a blackbox...

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Not dumb enough. Robot will question the unreasonable and inhumane.

Definetly an improvement

[Dozix007]

The Dragon Runner is a definete improvement to the impractical (at least in it's current state) Dragon Eye. It will be much easier for a person to operate a small vehicle that is a bit more "stealthy" that a small plane. With the Dragon Eye, there were far too many variables for any combat troop to use with any real practicality.

Re:Definetly an improvement

[Anonymous Coward]

My son had one of these years ago.
It's a remote control vehicle, large balloon tires, wedge shaped body, made by Tyco.
No matter how it landed it was right side up and nearly impossible to destroy. The balloon tires eventually went flat and would no longer hold air which rendered it useless. It's the only toy I can recall that my son never broke.
You could climb a wall to flip it over and it would still be right side up.
All the Army did was add some spy equipment to it.

Re:Definetly an improvement

[Old Uncle Bill]

Seriously. I've seen the toys you speak of. They are cheap as dirt and tough as nails. Would it really cost $45960 to add a couple of cameras and sensors?

Re:Definetly an improvement

[randyest]

Probably not, but to make them be able to go 20mph for sustained period of time might.

Good batteries and efficient motors can be very expensive.

And if it's captured?

[KoriaDesevis]

This is definitely a neat little gizmo, that will help gather information that would otherwise be hard to collect.

If the Iraqi hostiles capture one of them, though, I would be willing to lay down cash that they will sell it to a US-hostile entity - I would guess Al Qaeda or possibly Red China.

Hope it's rigged to destroy itself via remote control...

Re:And if it's captured?

[Anonymous Coward]

The technology isn't that amazing. I'm sure China could build one themselves without looking at ours ... and what would al Qaeda do with it, even taking into account their questionable ability to reverse-engineer and manufacture them in any significant quantity?

Re:And if it's captured?

[Toadpipe]

This is definitely a neat little gizmo, that will help gather information that would otherwise be hard to collect.

You are absolutely correct, after all, surveillance satellites have a very difficult time seeing over fences.

Just another stupid toy that helps kill people, it'll probably make some defense contractor rich. Isn't that what this war is about.

As far as your "Red China" notion goes (it's spelt "China" by the way) all you have done is made yourself sound like a racist. They (the Chinese) make your clothes, your household products, most of your steel, and nearly all the parts that make up your computer. So, you trust them with nearly every aspect of your life (after all, what would happen if all the things they supply you suddenly started to fail?) why do you imply we can't trust "them" with our technology, because when you actually look at it, we already do.

Re:And if it's captured?

[randyest]

Assuming they just capture the robot and not the operator, what would they do with it without the remote control with integrated video display and force-feedback to indicate the direction of detected motion (which I assume includes some kind of encryption)?

I guess they could hack it, or hope that BestBuy has a compatible universal remote :)

Re:And if it's captured?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if you were being sarcastic, but surveillance satellites are pretty much useless for realtime tactical purposes.

Re:And if it's captured?

[Elminst]

You are absolutely correct, after all, surveillance satellites have a very difficult time seeing over fences.

And they can see so well INSIDE/UNDER buildings/cars/trucks/anything else with a roof...

Re:And if it's captured?

[aled]

After all they were used to take those WMD photos that prove... er... never mind.

Re:And if it's captured?

[arevos]

You are absolutely correct, after all, surveillance satellites have a very difficult time seeing over fences.

Two problems with this:

1. As marvelous as satellites are, they cannot really see into buildings, or anything with a roof.

2. Soldiers on the ground won't have direct access to military spy satellites. There isn't nearly enough of them to be able to respond to every query by a lowly marine. You might as well say; "Why do we need soldiers? We have nukes!".

As far as your "Red China" notion goes (it's spelt "China" by the way) all you have done is made yourself sound like a racist.

Because China's not a brutal, faux-communist, corrupt dictatorship? Oh, silly me! And here I thought organisations like Amnesty International were campaigning for human rights; turns out they're all racists.

As an aside, although the term "Red China" is a bit irritating, it's a reference to ideology, not race. People overuse the word "racist".

They (the Chinese) make your clothes, your household products, most of your steel, and nearly all the parts that make up your computer. So, you trust them with nearly every aspect of your life (after all, what would happen if all the things they supply you suddenly started to fail?) why do you imply we can't trust "them" with our technology, because when you actually look at it, we already do.

So, let me see if I understand you right; China makes many useful household products. Therefore, the US should have no worries about handing over all of its weapons technology over to them.

There may be a slight difference here. Technology isn't a linear scale. Just because a CD-ROM drive may be built in China, does not mean that the Chinese government automatically has access to, say, the US drone planes. Just because China manufactures US-designed trainers, doesn't magically grant the Chinese military US missile control tecnology.

Re:And if it's captured?

[Anonymous Coward]

"all you have done is made yourself sound like a racist."

Since when did communism become a race?

What does it have to do with self-rule?

[Anonymous Coward]

We're still in Germany nearly 60 years after World War 2.

Re:What does it have to do with self-rule?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush sticks to June 30 deadline for handover. The real reason they're sending these over is to reduce the number of bodybags coming home in an election year. A noble idea driven by the wrong reasons.

Re:What does it have to do with self-rule?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because americans are wildly disliked in Iraq? Isn't it strange what cheap oil does to people? You are willing to stay in Iraq like a wart in the butt of the population even though polls are showing that more than ½ of Iraqi population want you out of the country. Lets see how Bush will spin that one.

Re:What does it have to do with self-rule?

[Anonymous Coward]

I still don't see what these robots have to do with the turnover of power. We'll still be there after that date.

One problem...

[MosesJones]

So far the US approach has been to bomb the crap out of building with helicopters and planes from miles away, and then go an look at the bodies.

If the marines are never close enough to people when they are alive to identify that it is a wedding party not a group of fighters then this is hardly going to help. Unless of course it can be deployed from 20 miles away.

Re:One problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

They should accidentally have some Monsanto frankengrain "blow into" iraq.

Then unleash Monsanto on them.

Re:One problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummmmm, who proved it was a wedding party? I do not instantly assume it wasn't, but how can you be so sure it was? I personally like to know the facts before I speak out in public, apparently you do not.

Re:One problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

What wedding party?

You mean the one where there were no wedding decorations, no wedding gifts, but there were foreign passports, military equipment, narcotics, terrorist training manuals, and a military-style dorm for 300 people?



http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/200 40522/pl_afp/iraq_us_strike_040522171930

Re:One problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

If the marines are never close enough to people

The trouble is, when they do get close enough, it's usually too late. We're talking about marines that can't drive past a parked car without worrying that it might be packed with explosives.

Re:One problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble is, when they do get close enough, it's usually too late. We're talking about marines that can't drive past a parked car without worrying that it might be packed with explosives.

And this says volumes about how many Iraqis feel about us being there to "liberate" them...

Re:One problem...

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, early on, the assessment of USAF getting to have all of the fun may have been correct, but...

I'm on the ground right now w/ the US Army, and we have a tendency to kick in doors and do room-to-room searches rather than wait for USAF. Come to think of it, right now our support from the fine men and women of the Air Force consists mainly of a forward controller and air support when we receive a certain size mortar or rpg strike.

Concerning the comments about the MP abuses at Abu Ghraib, in all fairness to everybody over here, the overwhelming majority of us are trying to do the morally and legally right things, but it seems that the most heavily reported incidents tend to be the most embarrassing and least representative of the goings on here.

Frankly, when I call home, nobody hears anything about anything except the failures and mistakes. The ICDC's are not all unwilling to fight other Iraqis or take risks. In fact, I know a few personally that are every bit as good of soldiers as any I have met anywhere, and as an added bonus, most have seen threats to them or their families for volunteering. There are people here that risk their lives in order to inform on neighbors or student groups that plan attacks on soldiers and civilians. When does this get CNN coverage?

Truth be told, the vast majority of Iraqis I've met are generally good people. 99.99% don't want any problems, but there's still .01% to screw things up for everybody.

just my $.02 . By the way, what do you call it when you see people driving (or standing) around, chanting, banging drums, and firing AK-47's into the air? Here we call it 'Thursday'

Re:One problem...

[johnjay]

Stay safe. A lot of us are behind you all the way. The news agencies in the US are losing credibility by the day. The only way they'll change is if they get sued for libel (possible, but I don't know enough about the laws), or the start losing so much market share to Fox and bloggers that they have to change. Sure the news from AP, Reuters, and the NYTimes is bad. Those of us who are actually following the war know that's not whole picture.

A problem with this forum is that it tends to be rabidly anti-US on issues like the War on Terror and what's going on in Iraq. I, personally, don't have the interest to disputing every bastard who regurgitates lies like this wedding party crap. They are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. They will grow up eventually and realize that they live in peace because people like you understood it had to be fought for.

"A cool feature"?

[spacefight]

No, this "toy" certainly does not have any cool features. The fact alone that it exists resp. that it's getting developped is enough crap. When will you stop, U.S.A?

Re:"A cool feature"?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, this "toy" certainly does not have any cool features

Like ogg suport?

Re:"A cool feature"?

[drinkypoo]

The USA will stop developing new military technology when the globe is safe from violence.

In other words, you can have my military technology when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Re:"A cool feature"?

[dunkelfalke]

you have no chance to survive make your time

Re:"A cool feature"?

[mousse-man]

If it avoids the US getting back more coffins, it can't hurt. The problem is the US bombed Saddam out of his palaces and captured him, and now they need to replace him with something as diabolical as him in order to avoid having to clean up the other countries when they get islamistic governments hell-bent on blowing up Americans and Israelis.

Re:"A cool feature"?

[killjoe]

I don't care if people want to blow up israelis. Why do you?

BTW. I don't care if people want to blow up hindus, pakistanis, saudis, palestenians or anybody else either. To me they are all of equal value which is to say not much. Why are israelis so important to you? What do they do for you? How do they help you?

Re:"A cool feature"?

[iminplaya]

Hmmm...Maybe if they didn't create so much of that violence.

Re:"A cool feature"?

[aled]

Nobody wants to take your toys away, what the rest of the world wants is to you stop using them on innocent people. Or you are so paranoid to think that the rest of the world is against you?

Re:"A cool feature"?

[drinkypoo]

While this is an entirely valid point, we're not necessarily really creating violence. We may just be moving it around in time and space.

Re:"A cool feature"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sharia will be the law of land in Germany and German women will be wearing Burkas before US falls down.

Europe are being overrun by isalmoids who are more than willing to wipe out your way of life and you don't even realize that.

Re:"A cool feature"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeaaaah ..

We werren't that evil 60 years ago and our toys were much more friendly back then weren't they ?

You have your fucking freedom thanks to US - enjoy it motherfucker beacuse next time around, sure like hell,you will not see Americans trying to fix your own fucking house for you.

Re:"A cool feature"?

[Keith McClary]

Why are israelis so important to you? What do they do for you? How do they help you?

I dunno, but here's an easier question:

Why are saudis so important to you? What do they do for you? How do they help you?

Re:"A cool feature"?

[killjoe]

"Why are saudis so important to you?"

First of all they are not important to me. They are just another country with which it may be beneficial to have cordial relations. I certainly would not risk one american to protect them from their enemies.

"What do they do for you? How do they help you?"

They supply us with oil a substance we sorely need.
They have invested billions of dollars in the US economy.
If the Saudis decided that they no longer will accept dollars for oil the value of the dollar would fall like a rock.
They let us set up military bases on their land.
They control the holiest site in the world for muslims (there are more muslims in the US then jews).

There I just gave you few of many reasons why we might want to be nice to the saudis.

Ok now it's your turn. Why are israelis so important to you? What have they done for you lately?

Re:"A cool feature"?

[Keith McClary]

Ok now it's your turn. Why are israelis so important to you? What have they done for you lately?


Or ever? I was agreeing with you - that's a much harder question. I can't think of anything.

They have invested billions of dollars in the US economy.

The Saudi rulers have salted away the oil wealth in the US rather than investing it in their own country where it is sorely needed to create jobs. I guess that's good for the US as long as the Saudi royalty clings to power.

Re:"A cool feature"?

[spacefight]

Idiot. The globe is not safe when people like the U.S. gov are producing massive amounts of wars in order to "free the world". think about it.

Re:"A cool feature"?

[iminplaya]

We may just be moving it around in time and space.

Heh...That thought reminded me of this from the movie "Network""...And you will not take me off the air for now or for any other spaceless time!"

I know the Americans aren't the only ones creating violence. They certainly have no monopoly on that. At the beginning of the 20th Century they finally moved it "off shore". I'm really just trying to point out that we're all the same here. I'm hitting on the Americans(goes for Europe also) a little harder than the rest because they constantly preach about how "peacecful" they are and how they are thr great providers of "freedom and democracy", when their actions show otherwise.

Very good....

[Digitus1337]

against that cranky old next door neighbor

Re:Very good....

[yoder]

Exactly right. They are trying it out against the Iraqis to work out all the bugs so it can be used against us domestically. Same as what happened with the Remotely Piloted Recon Plane. They tested it against "terrorists" first, now it's being used to spy on us.

Yea team.

Minority Report

[(eternal_software)]

Shouldn't be too long now until we have spiders like in Minority Report.

Toss 'em in the building and let them tell you whats in every room.

Re:I'm proud of CMU

[grub]

That's what George W. Bush should have done, rather than going AWOL like a coward.

Pigs have used these before

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the local cops have similar robots, though they lack the feature of being able to move when they are turned over.

They are usually just track vehicles with camera's mounted on them, they break easily, and dogs are really more effective.

Someone got pissed when the pigs sent towards him in a stand-off situation- (shotguns kill robots).

Heh

[Anonymous Coward]

My father used to fund research into robots like this at DARPA, and he showed me a video of some of them being tested... I think the Dragon Runner may have been one of them (although I don't think they're funded by DARPA)... there was another wedge-shaped thing with treads, too. I remember one of them (not sure which one) got stuck on a roof and had to be rescued by their competitors' robot. Must've been embarrassing to be that research group. It was also funny watching engineers failing to fling their robots onto the roof of a 1-story building for testing purposes.

Looks to me...

[manavendra]

..the american military genius is upto it's experimentation again..

Re:Looks to me...

[Anonymous Coward]

You made a mistake: you can't use military and genius in the same phrase.

Homestar...er...Dragon Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

Please draw a dragon runner? I would like to see your skills of an artist!

He was a runner...no...a dragon runner....no a dragon!

Trogdor the Dragon Runner, burninating the Iraqis...

Re:Homestar...er...Dragon Runner

[Anonymous Coward]

you stupid fag

Capt. Dave _Moreau_, project officer

[tcopeland]

If only the Dragon Runner were being sent to an island.

Urban warfare

[mkro]

That is all fine, but this is the robot they should be sending to Iraq =)

This Will Save Lives

[Pave Low]

This not only to help protect the lives of US and coalition forces, this robot has the potential to save the lives of innocent civilians.

A big problem with entering buildings, and around corners is that nobody knows whats behind it. If a coalition soldier sees that there are no insurgent force, or confirm that there is one, then it will greatly enhance their fighting capabilities and situational awareness.

This is exactly why continuing research of defense technologies is needed. It's not to better kill, it's to better save lives.

Re:This Will Save Lives

[iminplaya]

Maybe they should just flood the country and use mini subs. You won't have to worry about the stairs.

Re:This Will Save Lives

[rtv]

Nonsense. Weapons like this only make it more likely for people to be injured and killed. This kind of 'assymetric warfare' tool (i.e. we have 'em, the other guys don't) just makes it more likely that we will start and continue wars.

Robots are particularly nasty weapons, because it reduces the risk of injury to one side so much. A commander is more likely to attack a building and kill everyone inside if she is less likely to have any nasty injuries on her team. Can you tell the difference between an Iraqi that means you harm and an innocent civilian on a shakey, wireless TV picture, when one mistake means death for them and/or you? I'd guess no.

Seriously, I believe developing robots for combat purposes is immoral as it is deliberately removing the moral agent from the pointy end of things, even more than the already-illegal poison gas and neutron bombs.

Taking the long view, and supposing that robots become very smart and capable - and my colleagues in robot research are trying very hard to make it so - do we want them armed to the teeth and designed to kill people? I think not. Some will protest that this robot is for reconnaisance and is not armed, and they are right so far. But adding a gun or bomb is a technically trivial next step. It's alreay happened with the Predator drone.

I have 'No Evil Robots' web page that makes this point, and reminds me to keep my robots peaceful.

Besides, a toughened remote-control buggy is not a very interesting robot anyway. There are a hundred cool robots at CMU, and MIT, USC, NASA, that are not designed to spot Iraqis so we can kill them, and have more interesting technology. And that's just in the US - there are many CRAZY things going on in Japan. Check them out.

Re:This Will Save Lives

[pipingguy]

What happens if the robots go on strike?

Re:This Will Save Lives

[Anonymous Coward]

Nonsense. Weapons like this only make it more likely for people to be injured and killed.

Nonsense yourself. You want to know the old way of clearing a room? Make a hole in the wall (perferably away from the door) and throw a grenade in.

Robots are tools. They are not evil or good. Suppose some distraught person has taken hostages, the police could send one inside the building. Developing this robot is not immoral.

Re:I'm proud of CMU

[Anonymous Coward]

While I'm fairly sure you were being ironic, I don't think there is any irony in your statements... there's no shame in military research, and robots like this will help save the lives of our soldiers. Whether you like it or not, they're over there, and it's a good thing to keep as many of them as possible from being killed.

Tyco?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't Tyco make a toy similar to this a few years back? Granted, it didn't have l33t spy packages and whatnot, but it could definately move at any orientation. $46,000 for sensors and damage resistances vs a $100 toy?

Re:Tyco?

[JawzX]

Actualy the Tyco product was only about $49.95, and although I wouldn't count on it to survive a two storey drop, I drove a friend's *down* the stairs quite a few times...

Lets see, strap an X-10 camera on it, add a few IR LED's for ilumination, beef up the cheap plastic body with aluminum... I'd say I could build one of these for about $800-1000 USD, typical 150% "toy" mark up, sell 'em at $1600-2200.

my little price estimate reflects a fancy-dancy LiON battery, a little LCD panel for the controller, and a basic stamp for some minor autonomus stuff. Mini motion detectors might be pretty expensive (no knoledge of the subject) but I think this rates as a classic "ten thousand dollar hammer".

Way to spend our tax money, GO USA!

Reminds me of Battlebots

[Shivantrill]

I wonder if any of our battlebot engineers helped work on this?
If not, they really should tap into this pool of knowledge. How soon do you think it will be before we see the marines having their own battlebot style fights in the future with these?
Hmmm, next pentagon scandal??

On another note, I wonder what the range is? And they "throw it over the wall"... Doesn't seem that stealthy if you have to be close enough to toss it. I think it is all just a red herring so we don't focus on the failures in our govenment's intel, like bombing a wedding party because... they might have been terrorists.

Re:Reminds me of Battlebots

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is all just a red herring so we don't focus on the failures in our govenment's intel, like bombing a wedding party because... they might have been terrorists.

Oh for god's sake, this research has been in development long before Iraq. And do you really think that deploying a little robot is going to distract anybody from anything political? Sheesh. You make me want to grumble about paranoid liberal fantasies -- and I'm a liberal.

Incidentally, I don't have full information on the wedding party situation. But in partial defense, I might say that, wedding tradition or not, it's not a good idea to have a large gathering of people firing guns right next to a invading army beseiged by terrorist attacks.

Re:Reminds me of Battlebots

[Shivantrill]

Agreed:
Oh for god's sake, this research has been in development long before Iraq

This and more have been under development ... but they (the govt) conveniently tell us about certain things that display our (the US) superiority during times of their choosing.

On another more serious note. Did you see the size of theat thing? Who seriously thinks that no one will notice it rolling around?

Pan to a group of questionable characters plotting their next bombing. This bot rolls in. "By Allah, what big Rats you have in this place! You should really spray sometime dude! OK, so where were we? Oh yeah, our next ambush should be on ... Why is that rat looking at me? And what is that microphone for? Spy rats now? Those americans!" Scene ends with them reverse engineering the "spy rat" and using the technology for a suicide bombing without using a person.

Re:Reminds me of Battlebots

[Anonymous Coward]

The only problem of the wedding party is that this happened at Iraq, and US goverment claimed they were trying to win the heart of the iraqis.

Re:Reminds me of Battlebots

[TheAntiCrust]

Yeah, lets hope they dont get the idea to start attaching expolsives to some sort of launch vehicle like a rocket or something... the horror!

Just ask Uncle Enzo about this new fangled crap

[Bronster]

While the Marines are all there staring at their TV sets, the bad guys will sneak out the back door, walk around the house and blow the crap out of the distracted Marines.

Go the glass knife every time.

Re:Just ask Uncle Enzo about this new fangled crap

[drinkypoo]

Not only is this comment dumb as certainly there will be someone watching the back, and this is about improving surveillance and not reducing it, but it is also lame because uncle enzo had the straight razor ("I prefer steel, myself") and it was raven with the glass knives, destroyed by the RadiKS narrow cone shock projector.

SpinyBot

[Anonymous Coward]

I want a Draper SpinyBot, just 'cause they look cool.

Nicer bot

[KjetilK]

What happened to the Afghan eXplorer, a vehicle designed to work as in independent war reporter in insecure zones?

Re:Nicer bot

[Pvt_Waldo]

I love robots, but sheesh - that is the cheeziest thing in the world. That little talking head on top is just the icing on the cake.

You can bet the thing would be parted out in about 30 minutes of being out in "the field". That or if embedded with troops, it would get dumped the first time some grad student was talking in the mic saying, "WAIT WAIT! JUST REBOOT IT! I BET WE CAN FIX THIS! WAAAAIIITTT!!!! MY THEEESSSIIIISSSS!!!!!"

Re:Nicer bot

[drinkypoo]

Looks like something that I'd want to sneak up on from behind and cannibalize. A little LCD screen and a nice big solar panel? I'm so there. Bet it's got some nice batteries also.

Will it be the first charged?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the robot took pictures of Iraqui citizens held without charges being abused raped and tortured by US millitary, would it also be the first one to be prosecuted in an attempt to divert the responsibility from Rumsfeldt?

Re:Will it be the first charged?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if it could figure out how to spell Rumsfeld

But...

[88NoSoup4U88]

Can it fetch me a beer from the fridge ? Ifso, where can i order them ?!

Re:But...

[biddlej]

Actually...

Koolio - the robot refrigerator

Re:I'm proud of CMU

[Anonymous Coward]

Your soldiers are braindead murderers. Every bodybag deserves a Darwin award of its own.

Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I've never supported the Iraq war myself, but I was hoping that Slashdot would be the one place that you could see an article like this discussed on its technical and practical merits, without degenerating immediately into the usual political attacks. How wrong I was.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, you're wrong and hopefully it'll stay that way. Where else but on /. can I air my true opinion and anonymously? If you've noticed, most news sites do not come with a /. type discussion forum and the few that do moderate postings heavily and do not accept anonymous postings. Actually, they are the ones that are the cowards. I posted a message to the BBC news sites arguing that the state of Israel should never have been created but that the Jews should just have gone home after their 2000 years abroad but without putting up borders as before. Maybe wrong. But my post was never posted. And why not? Because the journalists of this world in general are more in pocket of their news sources than the readers. If they were to include say criticism of the Bush cabinet or the US military then maybe no more news for them. That's why sites like the Guardian are important - to keep things in perspective and from degenerating.

Re:Ugh

[Anonymous Coward]

Where else but on /. can I air my true opinion and anonymously?

Pretty much anywhere. You don't have to give out your real name, you know.

You also don't have to pollute Slashdot with off-topic political whinging. Where else but on /. can I read about "news for nerds" without it getting sucked down into the irrelevant muck you find on all the other sites? Nowhere, thanks to people like you.

way cool; next step, robowars

[randyest]

This thing is amazing: Dragon Runner today is a 9-pound electric vehicle about 15 inches long, a little less than a foot wide and just five inches in height. Moreau said Dragon Runner can operate in three modes:

Drive mode. The machine has a top speed of 20 mph and also can be operated slowly and deliberately. The video camera transmits color imagery to the operator, who controls it using a hand-held controller/view screen.

Sentry mode. It can operate as a stationary listening post, with a directional microphone and sensors that can detect motion up to 30 feet away. If it detects something, it can alert the operator by vibrating the hand control or sending a verbal "motion left" or "motion right" alert through an earphone.

Watch mode. Again, the vehicle would remain motionless, but would use its cameras to relay information.

You can also strap a bomb or weapon to it. This thing would definitely win the top spot in BattleBots.

Which makes me wonder how long until the only "combatants" that have to be sent into a war zone are the guys who throw these robots all over the place (or drop them from planes?) then hide in a secure place and view/control/eradicate problem. No casualties (on the side with the bots, that is), and no PR problems from increases in breadth and pervasiveness of combat coverage by the media.

Unless the media gets ahold of the video stream somehow. Better encrypt that well :)

Re:way cool; next step, robowars

[therealmoose]

Which makes me wonder how long until the only "combatants" that have to be sent into a war zone are the guys who throw these robots all over the place (or drop them from planes?) then hide in a secure place and view/control/eradicate problem. No casualties (on the side with the bots, that is), and no PR problems from increases in breadth and pervasiveness of combat coverage by the media.

Safe place? Didn't you mean primary target of the other side's robots?

Re:way cool; next step, robowars

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, way cool! Slaughtering brown trash is so cool!

Re:way cool; next step, robowars

[Wes Janson]

I wish desperately that I remembered the name of the author and the story, but a few years back a guy wrote a science fiction short story on basically exactly that. It was set ~25-50 years into the future, facing a renewed Russian threat. The government drafted a few hundred or thousand reservists and subjected them to a computer simulation of a Russian invasion of the East Coast. Urban combat was carried out by remote-controlled tanks, planes, artillery, and foot soldiers. The controllers hid inside nearby buildings and tried to be as stealthy as possible to avoid being detected and shot. The situation quickly devolved into guerilla warfare in urban Boston. However, the equipment they used was a direct descendent of this sort of thing...joystick-controlled eyecam gliders, and similar fighting units. Perhaps that isn't as far-fetched as it might seem.

Re:way cool; next step, robowars

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh yes but terrorists without even any stinkin demands are way cooler.

Re:way cool; next step, robowars

[killjoe]

It's the wave of the future. We will very soon be able to kill as many people as we want without risking anything. Since the military has proven itself very adept at controlling the media too Americans will soon be able to turn on the TV and watch a nice reality show without all the blood, gore and suffering. Just pictures of tunbling statutes and happy smiling occupied people.

The thing I find facinating is how we as a country have refined what bravery and sacrifice is. It used to be (and still is in most countries) bravery meant you faced your enemy and fought them mano-a-mano and defeated them in the field of honor/battle. We have now defined bravery as flying an ariplane and dropping a bomb on people or remote controlling a drone that shoots missiles into a crowded city.

proof please

[ArchieBunker]

Any proof of your AWOL statement? They released his dental records for chrissakes. Unless his teeth somehow were seperated from his mouth... But then again I don't hear any arguments about Clinton escaping to england during vietnam.

http://www.urbin.net/EWW/polyticks/bc-rotc.html

Re:proof please

[aled]

And that would prove... that he has gone to dentist?
Could you (or he) explain because NO ONE could be found that say that saw GWB in service?

Re:I'm proud of CMU

[Anonymous Coward]

Just one thing, will this kind of research make CMU a legit target in the war of (anything you can insert here)?

Re:I'm proud of CMU

[Shihar]

Getting out of going to a war while there is a draft is not cowardly, it is smart. If the government can't get people to sign up for a war then they have no bussiness forcing people to go to it. People kick around draft dodging like it is a bad thing. Screw that. No government has the right to tell me that it is my time to die. You can bet your ass I would dodge any draft myself if I didn't believe in the cause.

Power?

[modifried]

The article made no mention of what these things are powered by, or how long they last. I mean, the last thing one would need is for it to go dead in the middle of surveilling an area. And if they aren't rechargeable/provide for easy replacement of the battery, your only choices would be either to leave it ($45,000 a prototype, 40-50% less in production), or carry around an additional 9lbs of dead weight.

Re:Power?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eh how much does a tomahawk cost? A million dollars. Why would a military that spents millions to blow up a bunch of mud brick buildings in alfghanistan care about a 45k robot being lost?

Re:Power?

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet if THEY had to pay for it they would.

NREC Employee

[simdude585]

Hey Guys, i work in the educational department for the NREC (www.rec.ri.cmu.edu/education) and i've seen this running around and its pretty cool, it gets controlled by a gameboy looking device with like a 4 inch screen in the middle. They're really quiet too, you can never hear them running around. Very cool to see this up on slashdot and also the fact that its going over to support our troops is even cooler.

Hmmmmm......

[Anubis350]

If Dragon Runner performs well, the Pentagon conceivably would be interested in buying hundreds of the robots. ...he thinks applications in civilian law enforcement and firefighting might eventually outnumber those in the military.

Minority report anybody? I have the mental image of hundreds of these things crawling around my apartment building looking for criminals and interrupting ppl in the midst of.... ah.... personal business.... Oh god, what have they done..... :-P

Re:I'm proud of CMU

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya but Bush has been playing himself as the Great American War Hero and Fighter Pilot. He's neither, he's a coward who says "Bring 'em on!" when other people's lives are at risk.

AWOL, coward, liar, corporate shill, war criminal.

Wahahahahahahhaa!

[Anonymous Coward]

Good one!

Re:I'm proud of CMU

[Anonymous Coward]

They volunteered to be murders, they deserve nothing but contempt.

ATTN:OVERRATED BEING ABUSED AGAIN

[Anonymous Coward]

ths parent comment is making a direct, ontopic reply to a comment that itself has been modded up. This is an obvious case of vindictive, abusive moderation. I hope this gets brought to the attention of the editors.

We've seen this before...

[dilweed]

In fact, Tamiya has been making remote-control vehicles since 1960. So now they've strapped a camera on and make it our of titanium?

BFD.

TechTv has video of this

[FredThompson]

An episode of Future Fighting Machines on TechTV has video of this and other small robots. They called this one PackBot.

That particular episode is on tonight, May 22nd at 8PM EST.

The episode description is at http://www.techtv.com/futurefightingmachines/story /0,24330,3426117,00.html

PackBot The Tactical Mobile Robot nicknamed PackBot is a little aluminum robot warrior that scouts enemies for you. It can be dropped onto concrete from a height of over 9 feet and is waterproof to a depth of nearly 10 feet. PackBot was first designed to help mobile strike forces in urban terrain.

Re:I'm proud of CMU

[Anonymous Coward]

pity they cant save 16 yr old boys from getting their asses raped....

Neat little robot that's similar (COTS built)

[Pvt_Waldo]

Check out this article

Here's the original post from robots.net...

A recent National Science Foundation press release includes photos and video clips of the latest Scout emergency response robots. Scout is a small (100mm x 35mm) two wheeled, tube-shaped robot containing a video camera, IR range sensors, light sensors, pyroelectric sensors, and two-way radio links that support frequency hopping and encryption. MegaScout is a larger version that will eventually carry manipulator arms, grappling hooks, and may act as a mothership for the smaller scouts. The robots are designed to survive a six story fall or being thrown up to 100 feet into a disaster area. The Scouts are built entirely from off-the-shelf parts. The robots are being deveoped by Nikos Papanikolopoulos
and other researchers from the University of Minnesota Distributed Robotics Lab, the University of Pennsylvania GRASP Lab, and the Caltech Robotics Group. More video of the robots performing amazing feats is available on the UMN website.

Throwing it all over the place.

[ILL Robinson]

If it's small and light enough for a Marine to throw one over a wall, then what's stopping someone from throwing it back?

Re:Throwing it all over the place.

[Anonymous Coward]

Or picking it up and running away with it?

Re:Throwing it all over the place.

[EvilBit]

In that case, the next thing the Marine is going to throw over the wall is a nade.

Re:Throwing it all over the place.

[Wes Janson]

Or flipping it on its side against a wall. Or picking it up and running off with it. Or just simply thunking it with a rock (Griggnak! Griggnak!). All it takes is one guy with an AK to spot it, and there goes your robot worth as much as a brand new SUV.

Re:Throwing it all over the place.

[OldManAndTheC]

All it takes is one guy with an AK to spot it, and there goes your robot worth as much as a brand new SUV.

True, but it's better than the alternative of sending a soldier out into the line of fire. Especially if the soldier becomes a casualty. No one will be dashing out into a combat zone to pull a robot back to safety.

And if you are worried about the cost, it has to be less than the cost of training, deploying, and supplying a soldier in the field.

Re:Throwing it all over the place.

[Strange Ranger]

I'm sure no one at Carnegie Mellon University or the United States Marine Corp has thought of that.

Re:Throwing it all over the place.

[Anonymous Coward]

Again why would a military that spents millions blowing up mud brick buildings cares about 45k lost but saving them body bags?

Re:Throwing it all over the place.

[Wes Janson]

And I'm sure they would be the absolute first to point out and tout the enormous flaws in their idea. Ignoring its massive limitations means continued funding. If they're smart enough to build it, they're smart enough to realize that ignoring the AK problem is a good idea.

Re:Throwing it all over the place.

[Kenardy]

Actually 'the AK problem' is not a problem. If the thing gets trashed by being shot, the Marine knows to come around the corner firing. Right after the grenade goes off.

See ... no problem.

Re: "Wedding Parties"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah right...

All those kids and women were terrorists.

Re:I'm proud of CMU

[Shihar]

I don't like Bush, but pointing out that he tried to avoid getting sent to a war with a DRAFT and suggesting that that somehow makes him unable to lead a war is foolish. The Vietnam war was a war with a DRAFT. That means that the government could forcibly send you to go fight and die. The Iraq war, while certainly with its faults, is a war being fought by people who signed up knowing the consequences of signing up. Everyone who is there is there because they chose to join an armed service.

If you join an armed service, you have to expect that you might very well go to a war. That includes reservist, national guards, and people who thought there was no chance the shit would hit the fan while they were in. If you want to be a professional soldier, don't act surprised when someone tells you to go fight.

As for Bush being a 'coward' for not wanting to get dragged into the blood bath that was Vietnam, he wasn't the only one. Many sane and rational people decide dying for a war they never volunteered to fight was a shitty idea. Some got doctors to give them bull shit excuses to not fight. Some joined an armed service where they figured they would avoid having to fight. Some people just booked it out of the country. None of the above was bad things. The government should never have the authority to demand its citizens die, and if it does, the citizens should rightfully resist any way they can.

Bush is a shit head, but comparing penises as to who dodged the most bullets is thoroughly unimpressive. I don't give a shit who was stupider and felt more immortal when they were 18 years old. I want the best leader, not the one who had the biggest penis when he was 18.

Marines only last month defused a standoff

[Anonymous Coward]

at the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.

I'm sorry they did what?

Over here in europe it sound more like your marines where the major cause of the volence esclating the way it did.

That's neat but...

[DarthVeda]

It's no ED209

Maybe it has a car alarm?

[DarthVeda]

"Insurgents stand back! This car is protected by Viper! If you do not stand back the alarm will sound!" Bleep! Bleep! Bleep!

$46,000???

[Gldm]

How about one of these for $20 and an x10 cam strapped to the front? I'll sell em to the marines for 1/10th what CMU wants for theirs.

We Have This Already

[Wes Janson]

...is small and light enough to be carried in a soldier's backpack and rugged enough to be tossed over fences and up or down stairwells.
Several payloads are being developed and tested, Moreau said. Most of these are non-lethal sensor packages, he noted, though he acknowledged it would be possible to strap on an explosive device to turn it into a weapon.

Suprisingly, we have this already. It's called a "grenade". It costs about $5. And guess what? Pound-for-pound, your average soldier can probably carry a half dozen of these newfangled "grenades" for the same weight penalty as one of those robots. You can even throw them much further, too! What will they think of next?!

Re:We Have This Already

[Jott42]

One would think that we would learn from history, but we dont.

Civilian deaths and disregard of the Geneva convention is what has plased the US in trouble a lot of times! (politically, that is)
This device is intended to minimize the civilian deaths, without getting more dead american soldiers (which gets you into trouble in the US)

Re:We Have This Already

[drinkypoo]

These do numerous things that grenades do not. First, let me know if you can find a surveillance grenade, and further, get back to me when grenades can drive around corners and hide under a bed, or a car.

Pics

[EvilMidnightBomber]

Some very cool Pics of it from the Project's Homepage.

Re:Pics

[LiquidCoooled]

Hey - that page you linked to has movies embedded incorrectly - heres the links:

Dirt hill

Nightlight

3 floor drop

This thing looks coooooooool - its just a strong version of the RC car I had when I was a kid.

Re: "Wedding Parties"

[Anonymous Coward]

Women can't be terrorists? Terrorists have special sensitivities about using innocents and not-so-innocents as cover for terror activities? Really?

Re: "Wedding Parties"

[MoneyT]

There were six that they've identified so far, and if you don't think women and children can be used as combatants, you were obviously asleep during your Vietnam courses.

Hey! That's cheating!

[blair1q]

Nothing like a couple of years playing Medal of Honor: Allied Assault to make you hate cheaters.

Re: "Wedding Parties"

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just hope it ends like Vietnam.

Re: "Wedding Parties"

[Anonymous Coward]

> All those kids and women were terrorists.

1. There weren't any children, and _very_ few women in this case
2. The OP said "Terrorists and their families", not "terrorists and their gay lovers", so children and women would be expected.

Playing with Toys

[yintercept]

One could argue that sending toys late in May is simply a matter of wanting to get the toys on the field before the end of the game. In other words, it is impossible to conclude anything from people playing with toys other than boys love toys.

They will bid their time.

[aepervius]

Look at how long Russia occupied Afghanistan. As soon as the russian left, the warlord took over. The same will happen in Irak, or MORE LIKELY, some fanatic religious governement will take over, OR, the old guard will come back, as soon as the USA forces leave. If you think otherwise, well , history teach us otherwise.

As soon as the cat is away, the mouse dances...

Re:They will bid their time.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. However, as an US tax payer, tell me why I should care? I'm tired of wasting money on that country.

Re:They will bid their time.

[Anonymous Coward]

It does not matter whether you care or not( I assume you are not W, the V. P., Rummy, etc.).

Re:They will bid their time.

[iminplaya]

Does anyone remember a time when outsiders weren't meddling in the Middle East?? You may have to go back a couple of thousands years or so. In more recent times, any moral high ground we could have possibly had disappeared in 1967.

Re:They will bid their time.

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying an foreing ocupation country that doesn't care or even hear the people who live in there, people that could be picked up by soldiers and tortured without a reason, is better to stay because they can't be freed anyway and wouldn't know what with freedom if they saw it?
Oh, I'm not talking about URSS...

Right Side Up!

[yintercept]

This robot has no 'right side up,' so no matter which way it lands, its ready to go.

Personally, I don't know if sending more things that don't know "right side up" to Iraq is a good decision at this point.

Re:I'm proud of CMU

[Anonymous Coward]

Go stand outside the Software Engineering Institute, handing out flyers to passersby who don't give a shit about you. Your political grandstanding is not welcome here.

Re: "Wedding Parties"

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, there _were_ children.

Re: "Wedding Parties"

[Anonymous Coward]

Defending your country does not make you a "Terrorist". 800 of the real terrorists bit the dust and good riddance.

Re: "Wedding Parties"

[Anonymous Coward]

There were little kid bodies on the news man. If you didn't see the little charred two old bodies then you're blind. This was a wedding accept it. Mistakes happen in war. No one but the most militant idiot thinks that the troops said "Hey guys look a bunch of ragheads having a wedding let's fucking nuke 'em!". It's pretty obvious they thought they were shooting at them.

Re:I'm proud of CMU

[0x0d0a]

My operating systems professor held up our "evacuation plan" for the case of a terrorist attack. The university administration felt the need to produce one after 9/11.

It was really pretty funny.

First of all, you have to understand that CMU borders Squirrel Hill, which is a sizeable and extremely heavily Jewish community.

So a lot of "community centers" like churches volunteer for such things in the case of emergencies -- to be gathering points to identify people that need medical care and do head counts and all that.

So there's a long list of these, including a nearby Jewish temple listed as gathering points.

Naturally, the temple (and *only* the temple) has a asterisk next to it and a note at the bottom saying "in the event that this location is unavailable, children in the day care center will be taken to an undisclosed location", yadda yadda yadda.

Some suit clearly thought "Well, when those Arabs come over here, you can be *darn* sure that in addition to nailing a research institution, they're also going to be sure to waste any temples in the area." Sigh.

(That said, the fact that kids in day care would be taken to an "undisclosed location" would seem to do more to panic parents than anything else, but what do I know. :-) )

Research institutions are pretty boring targets. Many universities do work that end up in military stuff eventually, but there is a significant lag between a university doing work and practical stuff showing up in US military hardware.

Because of some quirks (like encryption and nuclear weapon simulation, some of the early computer uses) fell under the purview of the military, a good amount of computer science funding comes from DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) rather than the NSF (National Science Foundation) as one would expect. Technically, CMU doesn't do classified research on campus, but it does do a *lot* of military-funded work. The SEI doesn't like to talk about exactly what it does, even though technically most of their research is supposed to be non-classified. Also, sometimes researchers get sold things as being somewhat different from their actual use. I've twice now spoken to people that got grants and worked on "non-combat" systems that were rather misleadingly labeled. One person was working what was billed to him as a "search and rescue" vehicle that could autnomously track people, map areas, and the like. He was rather appalled when he got the final vehicle chassis and there was a rather large weapon mount and fire control system on the controls system -- hardly the innocent "search and rescue" application that he had been told about.

CMU claims that it generally doesn't work directly on "combat systems". I get the vague impression that what this tends to come down to is that DARPA and friends have CMU (and some similar institutions) do the hard work (map-building, pathfinding, missile guidance, and the like), and then hire defense contractors to do the actual integration of such systems. The academics can, as long as they choose to do a bit of eye-averting, maintain a clean conscience and truthfully claim in PR releases "we don't make weapons here".

Unfortunately, as long as so much CS funding comes from DARPA, there isn't a whole lot that can be done about the situation -- if people want to be able to do research, they need to get funding from somewhere, and that is very frequently DARPA. The only fix would be to move more government budget from the DoD to the NSF, which doesn't seem very likely to happen.

It's a lot easier for Bush to demand billions for "homeland security" (of which much eventually winds up in the pockets of research institutions and defense contractors) from scared people than it is for someone to make a convincing request for "money for research in the sciences for the betterment of mankind" when so many people are getting old and are watching the Social Security funding that they were counting on rapidly slip away.

Clinton's error too

[Anonymous Coward]

President Clinton ordered heavy bombing of Iraq in 1998 because he said that it had WMD.

He must have used 'smart bombs' because the WMD seems to have been destroyed without leaving any trace at all behind!

Re: "Wedding Parties"

[Anonymous Coward]

Mistakes like that don't happen to professional soldiers. Unfortunately the US-army is full of idiots and cowards who join the army to escape their miserable situation.

Re: "Wedding Parties"

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean with hundreds of thousands of innocent people being killed by psychotic warlords?

Poll Troll Toll

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is better..

Snooping
Sex with a snooping robot
Sex with a mare

Nick Berg

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe now they will find his head.

Draft? What draft? You mean THIS draft?

[parcel]

The Vietnam war was a war with a DRAFT. That means that the government could forcibly send you to go fight and die. The Iraq war, while certainly with its faults, is a war being fought by people who signed up knowing the consequences of signing up. Everyone who is there is there because they chose to join an armed service.

Just wait a little while. Guess what's currently sitting in the committee on armed services:

Senate bill S89: A bill to provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes.

House bill HR163: (same)

Wedding?

[James Lewis]

I don't think it is conclusive at all that a wedding party was hit. Although I wouldn't think it impossible that the US military would try to cover something like that up, I think it very likely that the insurgents are getting better at propaganda, and this is exactly the kind of thing they want circulating in US news. Anyone who has studied Vietnam will realize that there was a strong possibility that North Vietnam would have sought a truce had the US been united in its support of the war. I think it is becomming obvious that the best weapon any country has against the US is propaganda, and that the outcome of a war with the US can be changed simply with good propaganda. If you can convince enough americans that what they are doing is morally unjust, and/or that winning isn't worth the losses they'll take, you've won the war. Of course, that takes time, so a short war with the US is almost certainly going to be won by the US.

So, we may have won the war against Saddam, but we could easily lose the war against fanaticism in Iraq if we are forced to pull out before a legitimate Iraqi government can control that country. Everyone hates the tactics that Saddam used, but the reality is that that was what he found necessary to control that country. Hopefully, a legitimate government won't be facing the kind of resentment Saddam's rule did, and so require less force, but there are still many other factions to deal with and that will require proportionally more effort in order to use more acceptable means than Saddam did.

Re:Wedding?

[killjoe]

It's pretty easy to use propaganda against us when we went into the war unjustly in the first place.

We are occupiers of millions of people. We have ahndpicked their govt and will hand over the reigns to our puppets who will have "limited sovereignty" which means we still control their military and oil.

There are now pictures of tortured prisoners and dozens of prisoners that died under our control.

There are now mass graves outside of falujia where hundreds of iraqis are buried.

To this day nobody can make a positive argument as to why we went there, why this was the only solution, or why we had to do it now.

The latest story is that we did it to get rid of saddam. What nobody has bothered to explain is why the iraqis deserved to be freed more then the palestenians, chechnians, taiwanese, chinese, tibetians, east timorese, north koreans or any other long suffering opressed people of the world.

Re:Wedding?

[aled]

Oil. "A sea of oil".

Re:Wedding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Repeat: "Iraqis don't want US in their country anymore. Iraqis don't want US in their country anymore. Iraqis don't want US in their country anymore..."

See is not that difficult?
Don't you get that Bush can't afford a legitimate government in Iraq? They don't want you there.

Re:Wedding?

[John Jorsett]

To this day nobody can make a positive argument as to why we went there, why this was the only solution, or why we had to do it now.

Sure they can. What you mean is that you don't accept those arguments.

What nobody has bothered to explain is why the iraqis deserved to be freed more then the palestenians, chechnians, taiwanese, chinese, tibetians, east timorese, north koreans or any other long suffering opressed people of the world.

You have to start somewhere. If we'd attacked North Korea, people would be asking why not Iraq. That question is just a stand-in for saying that you don't want to go to war anywhere, anytime, for anything, against anyone. It's a valid point of view, so why don't you just come right out and say it?

Re:Wedding?

[killjoe]

"Sure they can. What you mean is that you don't accept those arguments."

The arguments don't make any sense. How can any rational person accept that. Is it allowable to say "cos god told me to"?

"You have to start somewhere. "

You do? Why? If you start someplace then where is your plan? Who is next? Where does it end? Why hasn't the president made this argument? Why hasn't he said that the US will take out every opressive govt in the world and occupy their land and replace them with handpicked puppets. If he did that I might even vote for him!. I would love it if the US would free the chechnians, tibetians, palestenians, east timorese, taiwanese, north koreans and most of africa. The president should grow the balls to make a list of countries he will invade and in what order and why. He won't though because he doesn't give a shit about the opressed people of the world unless they have something he wants.

More importantly you have to make a cogent argument as to why this was the place. Why the Iraqis deserved freedom more then any other people on the planet.

"That question is just a stand-in for saying that you don't want to go to war anywhere, anytime, for anything, against anyone. It's a valid point of view, so why don't you just come right out and say it?"

I guess it's easier to argue the things I never said then the things I did say huh? It's a fun game I admit it. Make up something I didn't say, pretend I said it, and then argue it as if I said it.

Re:Wedding?

[Schemat1c]

The latest story is that we did it to get rid of saddam. What nobody has bothered to explain is why the iraqis deserved to be freed more then the palestenians, chechnians, taiwanese, chinese, tibetians, east timorese, north koreans or any other long suffering opressed people of the world.

So, I guess you are saying that you would support a war if we fought all these nations at once.

Re:Wedding?

[James Lewis]

"Iraqis don't want US in their country anymore."

I'm not surprised. We've certainly made some unforgivable mistakes over there. That said, I still believe that a US presence in Iraq is preferable to seeing the country plunged into civil war for who knows how long, after which to be ruled by yet another dictator or fanatical religious group. Ironically, the longer people in Iraq fight us, the longer our government will have an "excuse" to stay there.

"Don't you get that Bush can't afford a legitimate government in Iraq?"

Nice try. Make a statement implying the "obviousness" of something without providing any supporting arguements. Why would Bush be hurt by a legitimate government in Iraq? The American people want to see an Iraq with a truely democratic government strong enough to keep hold if its country without American military support. Most people in America remember or have read about the consequences of trying to support an unpopular puppet government (South Vietnam). No one wants to see that happen again.

Re:Wedding?

[killjoe]

No. I would have supported the war if GW had said that he was going to fight opression all over the world. If he made an honest and sincere effort to end the suffering of millions of people who suffer horribly I would have supported this war 100%. Mind you I am a lifelong democrat. I will support any president who pledges to use the wealth and the power of this country to help free tibetians, palestenians, chechens, north korans, taiwanese, liberians, sudanese and everybody else who suffers mercilessly at the hands of evil governments.

Bush suddenly found love for the iraqi people after his main justifications for war were found to be lies. Of course he also gave about 10 other reasons depending on when he was giving the speech so it's hard to take him seriously about any excuse he gives now.

Right now he seems to be content to say. "It sucks, it's going to keep sucking, it's not going to get better so shut up and sitdown bitch. Oh yea you better vote for me or the terrorists win".

Re:Wedding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Smoke and mirrors my friend.

You don't give a fuck about suffering - you are trying to score some political points.
This is the same kind of tactics republicans used on Clinton when he sent our forces to Bosnia - only this time the stakes are much higher.

We lost Vietnam thanks to people like you.
40 thousands lives for nothing.
Just like that.

Re:Wedding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those 40 thousand people would still be alive if it wasn't for war pigs like you. People who get hard ons from vicarious murder are the sickest people on the planet.

There was no reason to go to vietnam in the first place. Just like iraq.

Re:Wedding?

[Keith McClary]

Why would Bush be hurt by a legitimate government in Iraq?


Suppose the Arab oil producing countries get their act together and start using their economic clout in the same way that the US does.

Bush won't like it.

Re:Wedding?

[GooberToo]

To be fair, when this whole thing started, a long list of items were given by the Preseident. The press latched onto WMD and that's what the ran with. The President, being a media savy guy, decided that sticking with that story would get him the most air time and support since that's what the press was going out of their way to push. Now, no WMD have been found. The President is now forced to go back to his original list to talk with the press.

War always means higher ratings.

Sadly, the press and the public have a very short memory unless it's about bad news. Supporting the President really isn't considered bad news, so the press isn't in a hurry to remind the populas that they were involved in shaping the hearts and minds about WMD too. Rather, they'd prefer to focus on the bad and hope no one remembers that with the press reporting WMD, increasedthe odds of public support for war and that media wanted high ratings.

War always means higher ratings.

Now, people are pissed off that things are going slightly worse than predicted. And yes, I do mean, *slightly worse*. That's not to say that things are good. Rather, they knew darn well, this was not going to be a cake walk. Furthermore, they offered, up front, that this was a long term entrance into Iraq. That was stated many, many, many, many, many times. Now, the population seems to be in a hurry to act surprised that this is a long term activity.

Re:Wedding?

[GooberToo]

Mind you, no one would support GW if he made such a statement, whereby that was our only reason. In stead, he has to use a current events to get involved. Since our troops are taxed in two countries right now, what else would you ask of them? Seems like we have to finish what we have started before we go elsewhere to, "fight opression all over the world."

Bush suddenly found love for the iraqi people after his main justifications for war were found to be lies.

So tired of re-reading this wholey incorrect statement by so many people. From day one, humanitarian reasons have been stated. Blame the press that they only gave you half the story. The press conferences made clear, that there we many reasons to go to war. The press jumped on WMD and the President was more than happy to play it up. He's now getting bitch-slapped for making that mistake. Just the same, it doesn't change that his long list for being in Iraq has long existed. It's just that whomever you get you news from was happy to manipulate you and only give you the high rating media-blitz bullshit. Dig deeper, and I think you'll find there's more to it than what you've been told.

Re:Wedding?

[James Lewis]

The Arab oil producting countries don't have the same economic or military clout the US has. Considering how much those countries hate the US, if using that "clout" against us were in their best interests they would never have sold us oil in the first place. Most of the Arab countries are controlled by rulers who maintain their power through the wealth their country's oil brings. The US is a major consumer of that oil, and not selling to us is essentially shooting themselves in the foot. Furthermore, any oil producing country who has an eye for the future is going to realize they need to use their current position of power while it lasts, because in the not very far future oil will be a far less important energy source than it is now. That means developing technology, and right now the US is one of the best places to get that from. Forcing an oil crisis in this day and age will only accelerate the US's switch to other energy sources.

At any rate, I think your suggestion that the US is hanging on to Iraq for its oil is ridiculous. Our expendetures far outweigh any oil we might have or will gain from the country, especially considering how often the pipelines are being blown up. Considering we are now on the brink of switching over from oil, why would we now start invading other countries for oil when we could have done it 14 years ago, and with a better reason? (It's hard for invaders to garner much sympathy) I wish people would stop going after these simple black and white explanations. The political pressures and reasons for going into Iraq were very complicated, as is the current situation, and will most likely not be properly understood for another 10 years. Reducing it all to "the US is just greedy for oil" is as simple minded as you can get.

Re:Wedding?

[killjoe]

"So tired of re-reading this wholey incorrect statement by so many people. From day one, humanitarian reasons have been stated."

No they were not. Simply saying so does not make it the truth. The run up to the war was all about 9/11 and the threat of mushroom clouds.

"He's now getting bitch-slapped for making that mistake."

He is a dunce. He got pwoned by the fucking iranians. He got duped about the WMDs. He is an idiot who believes things people tell him as long as what they tell him agrees with what god tells him.

Re:Wedding?

[GooberToo]

You should actually check the early press conferences. That reason was clearly given many, many, many, many times. Simple fact is, people didn't want to do it because of humanitarian reasons but they would jump for WMD. So, that's the platform that ran with. That's the platform they could get the press to run with. That's the facts. Just because you didn't read it, doesn't mean that's not the facts.

Simple fact is, what I stated is 100% true.

I'm sure if you dig, you can find information confirming what I stated. I watched the friggen press conferences as well as the UN meetings. Humanitarian needs were clearly stated many, many, many, many, many, many times. Those that want to ignore that fact, do so at their own ignorance.

Re:Wedding?

[killjoe]

I guess you should break out the links then. Before the war it was all about fighting terrorism, convincing the american people that saddam helped al quada, and how saddam was going to nuke the US. All of those were lies.

If they really cared about the iraqis they would have lifted the sanctions.

Re:Wedding?

[bluGill]

Have you forgotten that we have troops in Afghanistan, and Korea? The former as a direct result of a vow Bush made to go after oppression. Okay, terrorism, but really it is oppression of a different form. The US does not have the abilities to end all the oppression in the world. Maybe Iraq wasn't the best next place to go, but there were plenty of choices, and no good way to decide. Iraq however was not in compliance with UN regulations, brought about after they lost a previous war (you haven't forgotten all of that, have you?) in essence a proven bad guy willing to harm those outside his country, compared to some of the other oppressive countries that better appear to stick to themselves.

Oh, and while you are freeing the Palestinians, tell me what to do with all the Jewish people who are living in the area? The Palestinians don't want them in that area, so we will have to move them elsewhere. where? how can you get them to agree without calling it oppression? How about the people living in the area we move them to?

There are no easy answers to the worlds problems. If there were I would have solved them on my own already. (Not true, because they would have been solved before I was born) The US made Iraq in the cold war, and they turned on us. Perhaps the signs were there, but back then there were bigger enemies. Hindsite is not 20/20, it seems that way because you can see all the results, but you don't see the results of other courses of actions.

Re:Wedding?

[GooberToo]

Why would I have links to stuff that was clearly spoken in many Whitehouse press conferences, which were televised? Why would I have links to the many statements presented by various officials on TV, some of which were spoken at the UN?

Like I said, feel free to dig. Simple fact, these reasons were spelled out for anyone that actually cared to know it. Just because it's colorized one way by your favorite news outlet, doesn't mean they actually accurately represent everything that's been stated.

Re:Wedding?

[killjoe]

I did some digging. He did mention once or twice in a wink-wink nudge-nudge way that he was doing it for humanitarian reasons. Nobody took him seriously though and for good reason because he didn't really believe it himself.

If he really wanted freedom for the Iraqis why did he wait till after 9/11? He said over and over again that there were ties between osama and saddam, that saddam had WMDs, that saddam was close to having nuclear weapons. All those were lies.

Re:Wedding?

[GooberToo]

Well, I think the more you dig, the more references you'll find and the father back you'll find them.

It's you that are characterizing it as "wink-wink nudge-nudge". The really sad thing is, while he seemed to be serious, it's the press that took it as "wink-wink nudge-nudge" (to use your words) and for the most part ignored reporting it. Being nice doesn't make for good news. That a simple fact. If you're upset, you need to go slap around the news media outlets that you use because they are clearly not doing their job properly.

Considering it's impossible to prove a negative, you seriously can't say there are no WMD there. No one can. And, if there really are no WMD, that makes Saddam to be one of the biggest idiots of all time. He made them, he possed them, and decided to play games with UN inspectors. Then, when he "destroyed them", he ensured that UN inspectors could not validate that fact. What a fool.

He said over and over again that there were ties between osama and saddam

Hmmm. I don't seem to recall that even though I did see it widely reported. This seems more like media BS than fact. Simple fact is, they offered that there were some "loose associations" (or something to that effect) because of some meetings between people which took place. That does qualify as ties and the meetings were confirmed to have taken place. Just the same, we all know the loose associations were not based on terrorist goals and activities.

It sounds like you're having a hard time figuring out what information you have is based on crappy news reporting, factual accounts, and personal bias. You seem to be greatly confused between bad CIA Intelligence and what the definition of a lie is. If you've been making an effort to watch recent news, this should be crystal clear.

Re:Wedding?

[killjoe]

Not at all. I am fully aware at how skilfully the media is played by this administration. Of course the administration sought to cover it's ass by using weasel words whenever possible. Of course the president's speech writers suggested and implied that osama and saddam were bosom buddies without actually saying so. This is how politicians make their living.

When bush repeatedly mentions 9/11 and iraq in the same sentence he is making a connection between the two even though no connection exists. He did it again tonight!. When he says "we don't want to wake up one day to find a mushroom cloud on our soil" during a speech about iraq he is implying that iraq has nuclear weapons without actually saying so.

The president was so successful with his lying techniques that at one time 69% of americans believed that saddam hussein was behind 9/11.

This man (or his handlers) is professional and skilled liar and media manipulator. Wink-wink nude-nudge, smear, inuendo, weasel words.

So don't go on pretending that because in 1% of his sentences he paid lip service the the suffering of iraqis the other 99% of his sentences don't count. If he really cared about the iraqis he would have lifted the sanctions as soon as he got into office. Hell he would have declared war as soon as he got into office.

Re:Wedding?

[GooberToo]

Well, it was proved that there is an Iraq/terrorism link, just not a link tied to 9/11. That's the tie he's working with. Remember, the President declared war on terrorism first and foremost. There is a clearly documented paper trail from Saddam and suicide bombers, restitution to their families and funds helping to purchase bomb materials and train these "soldiers".

The president was so successful with his lying techniques that at one time 69% of americans believed that saddam hussein was behind 9/11.

That just happens to prove that 69% of Americans don't pay attention to news at all, and are happy to get their incorrect and invalid news from other people, via lip-service, who also don't pay attention to news at all. You can look at many such suveys and studies. There is a long history of studies proving that the masses of Americans don't pay attention to current events and almost always get it completely wrong. This does not prove someone lied. It proves that the average American is an idiot.

When he says "we don't want to wake up one day to find a mushroom cloud on our soil" during a speech about iraq he is implying that iraq has nuclear weapons without actually saying so.

Well, simple fact is, we really didn't know how far their nuclear program had advanced. That was clearly stated, however, it was offered that the *potential* was that they were even further than worst estimates. All of which was true. Remember, this is when another country suddenly declared they had nuclear weapons and had developed them right under the UN inspector's noses. Ring a bell? Iraq had been caught several times attempting to get materials to advance their program and French and Russia had already been caught several times providin weapons and materials to them. Therefore, it's not unreasonable to talk of the possibilities. Worse had already happened in another rogue country. If you read more into it, it sounds like you're the one that either didn't pay attention to the facts or actually did your own-wink-wink job on your self. Simple fact is, we had tons of bad intelligence. You seem to have a hard time figuring out the difference between bad intelligence and a lie. Simple fact is, if Iraq had more more successful at getting the materials into the country, required for their nuclear program, it would had been much more advanced. It's just the that US and its allies did a better job than initially realized at preventing these types of materials from entering into the country.

The only thing you've managed to convince me is that 69% of Americans are either idiots or simply pay no attention to the news as repeated. The next step is to figure out what side of the percentage you're on.

check my bio card please...

[slimordium]

I think these things should be programmed to wander around cities/suburban areas and check an encountered persons biometric ID cards (coming soon?). Of course everyone but the "terrorists" would have these cards so catching them in action should be trivial. Perhaps have it explode on request or upon finding a "target". Armies of these things could re-enforce each other.

Re:check my bio card please...

[aled]

This is the most extremely stupid comment I have read so far on this story.
Do you really want those things running amok where you live? Have you ever used a computer? This is the same as the ed209 robot in Robotcop that kill the executive because it doesn't get he's not armed.
What you are talking would lead exactly to The Second Variety, a short story by Philip K. Dick the same writer the original short story of Minority Report on which the movie is based. You better read it before dooming all.

Aha someones hiding inside ....

[proudlyindian]

This robot has no 'right side up,' so no matter which way it lands, its ready to go

Seems like its Bush who is hiding inside the robot.

Striving to be common...

The Americans should design a robot...

[Anonymous Coward]

...that can torture and humiliate prisoners. Then it can all be blamed on the robot instead of white trash from Appalachia (or heaven forbid, someone up the chain of command).

OT: Your sig

[TheRaven64]

I think you mean:

drink /dev/toilet

Re: "Wedding Parties"

[Anonymous Coward]

No, with the WMD (does napalm ring a bell?) using terrorists pissing off.

throwable robots.

[pedicabo]

Is there anything to stop someone else from heaving it back?

Because ultimately you are responsible.

[aepervius]

You started the war, and all consequence stemming from it, from now on, will be put on YOUR responsability. So if there is an "army" of liberation fighting the regime you put in Irak, you can bet you will be lumped with the "foe" they are fighting, and thus increased risk an Iraki suicide bomber or terrorist coming to your country (and before you get me started on that subject, NO there wasn't that much iraki terrorist before the invasion).

To paraphrase "You recolt what you seed". And as the one seeding... You should care.

Re:Because ultimately you are responsible.

[Anonymous Coward]

To paraphrase "You recolt what you seed"

Maybe should have used Monsanto's "terminator" seed.

Re:Draft? What draft? You mean THIS draft?

[luckyguesser]

Oh, you must mean the bill that was introduced to Senate on 1/7/2003 and NEVER TOUCHED AGAIN. Do you know how many bills are completely ignored every year?

This is not as simple as you would like it.

[khasim]

First off, "WMD's" do not grow themselves. Someone has to make them.

That means there has to be someplace where they are made. This recalls the "mobile factories" that Powell was claiming before the UN. Which are now discredited. :)

You see, moving the production facilities is a LOT MORE COMPLICATED than moving the finished product. Since Bush and Co claimed they had EXACT KNOWLEDGE of these activities, it should have been very simple for them to locate and control those production facilities during the first week of the war.

They did not.

They still have not been able to turn up a single production facility.

So, when the cache of "WMD's" is found, it will be difficult to "prove" they were made by Saddam.

Which brings up the point that the "WMD's" have STILL NOT BEEN FOUND. Again, Bush and Co claimed to have EXACT KNOWLEDGE of these. Again, they should have been able to take those caches within the first week of the war. They didn't.

Then Bush and Co resorted to all kinds of weird stories for WHY they hadn't been able to turn up anything.

The simple facts are:
#1. Bush and Co picked the "information" they wanted to believe.

#2. Bush and Co NEVER verified that "information".

#3. Bush and Co lied about this "information" to the US public and the UN.

#4. Bush and Co then rushed into an optional war without anything more than a fantasy about dealing with Iraq AFTER the invasion.

What "conundrum" is that?

Bush and Co need to find a "WMD" production facility (less than 10 years old) AND a cache of "WMD's" (less than 5 years old) to "prove" their "information" was "correct".

That is what Bush and Co claimed to have knowledge of. That is what Bush and Co have to find.

$46,000!?!

[NitsujTPU]

Wow, that robot costs $46,000... but when they cost $23,000, they'll be more willing to blow it up.

I love DoD projects.

Re:$46,000!?!

[space77pup]

Considering the average cost of a laser guided bomb is ~$30K and even the "cheap" JDAM precision munition kit is ~$18K. Is $23,000 such a high price ? And how many of these robots can you buy for the cost of one Tomahawk missile? (BTW, they're ~1M USD apiece)

How do you tell an insurgent from a civilian?

[khasim]

They both wear the same clothes.

They both speak the same language.

Look at the Palestinians. Women and children become suicide bombers.

The ONLY way to tell an insurgent from a civilian is whether s/he is attacking you or not. This robot will not do anything in that case.

Re:How do you tell an insurgent from a civilian?

[Anonymous Coward]

easy, the one who is carrying a rifle or RPG. pop em and stop em.

Re:How do you tell an insurgent from a civilian?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Iraq practically everybody has a rifle.

That doesn't look like the robot in the article.

[khasim]

In the article, it states that the robot has no "up" side. In those pictures, it does.

It neither spins nor flips

[gearmonger]

How will it ever defeat Ziggo?

Re: "Wedding Parties"

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hope all of those innocents are Americans.

It sure would be a refreshing change of pace to have americans civillians killed by the millions. Maybe then maybe they would not all get hard ons at the thought of killing a few million brown people.

A clarification.

[killjoe]

It seems like you were duped by this administration too.

The iraqis will have "limited sovereignty". Basically that means that they will have no say over over the US military and the laws of iraq will not apply to the US military. It will also mean that they will not be able to control their oil fields any way they want (i.e they will not be able to privatise them). Finally they will under no circumstances be allowed to join OPEC.

In actuality they will not be able to make any decision with wich the US would disagree. Of course nobody is suggesting that a set of hand picked puppets is going to look out for the interest of iraqis over the interest of americans but they could'nt even if they wanted to.

Runaway with Tom Selleck

[wattersa]

Already been done, although those mainly blew up under cars or poked you in the hands ;-)

about that sarin

[commodoresloat]

word is this sarin bomb had 2 chambers -- meaning it's a binary weapon, and most likely of US origin. And about 15-20 years old. Which means it's not only likely that Kimmitt's right that whoever had the weapon in Iraq didn't know what it was, but also that US-Iraqi cooperation during the Iran-Iraq War (when Saddam was notoriously gassing Kurds) was more involved than many thought. Which also explains why Bush & Co. have not been jumping up and down claiming this is the evidence of the missing WMDs, since Bush is not fond of calling attention to things that embarrass his father and President Reagan.

Tactile feedback

[Anonymous Coward]

So it can detect movement by tactile feedback.

Does that mean it knows when somebody's kicking it?

Re:Go fuck yourself, hippy

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, "Boomgopher" let's see you publish your name and home address.

Then we can find out who is a chickenshit.

Limited sovereignty == no sovereignty

[khasim]

If I may add to your post.

US forces will NOT be bound by the Iraqi legal process. The US forces will NOT be required to get a search warrant before searching anyone or busting into any building/home.

Iraqi nationals "captured" by US forces will NOT be allowed one phone call to their attourney.

If an Iraqi national is killed by US forces, there will NOT be an investigation (unless pictures get leaked to the US media).

So, the US forces can go anywhere, anytime to arrest or kill anyone without any Iraqi court oversight.

And people wonder why the Iraqi people think we're occupying their country instead of "liberating" it.

Re:Limited sovereignty == no sovereignty

[killjoe]

For all that are following this thread I urge you to read the some of the Iraqi bloggers. You are not getting a real picture of what is going on there if your only news source is American so called news outlets.

Incorrect.

[khasim]

#1. Bush believed that Saddam had "WMD's".

#2. Bush believed this even when evidence contradicting it was shown (the UN inspectors, in Iraq, at those sites).

#3. Bush then LIED about "information" he had that "proved" Saddam had "WMD's".

I believe that Bush lied because he did believe that "WMD's" would be found. When they were found, then his lies would have been "truth".

The problem is, he was wrong. Saddam was not making "WMD's". Saddam had not been making them since the first Gulf War.

Iraq was not a threat to the US.

Bush lied to justify an optional war against a country that was no threat to the US. He might have believed that Saddam had "WMD's", but he lied about the "proof" he had.

Re:Incorrect.

[NanoGator]

"The problem is, he was wrong. Saddam was not making "WMD's". Saddam had not been making them since the first Gulf War."

Sorry to be all technical here, but it cannot be proven that he didn't have them, only that we didn't find them. They built facilities that our satellites couldn't see. With that in mind, it's possible they'll never be found. (On the other hand, it is pretty damning that the weapons weren't used against our army. Frankly, that overrides my previous statement.)

"Iraq was not a threat to the US."

This is bullshit. Though I am pretty much convinced that they weren't armed in such a way that we were in danger, I do feel pretty strongly that they would have been safe haven for Al Qeada (sp?) or similar groups. I also feel that Saddam would, if so inclined, pay them to do 9-11 part 2. (Note: I did NOT say they had anything to do with 9-11.) For that reason, I'm pretty comfortable with Saddam being out of the picture. If it does turn out that the US didn't have strong enough WMD reason to go in, that does miff me. (In case it's difficult to tell, I'm not pro-Bush here, I'm sitting on the fence not really sure which side to lean on.)

"Bush lied to justify an optional war against a country that was no threat to the US. He might have believed that Saddam had "WMD's", but he lied about the "proof" he had."

I'm not convinced Bush in particular lied about anything, but I do have concerns that his staff either lied or obtained really bad info. Remember that Clinton's staff was up in arms over Iraq as well.

Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't. All this rationale that people have proposed describing how evil Bush is is riddled with holes. Both Saddam and Bush Sr are still alive right now, so vengence doesn't seem like a likely motive. US soldiers are not building a pipeline funneling oil into Bush's house to sell, so I'm not convinced it's about oil. I doubt a politician would bet his re-election on an invasion of a country that isn't directly threatening us. Everybody thinks Bush is an idiot, you'd think they'd rule out the whole "big Romulan'esque plot" theories, yet they don't. Etc.

I could keep going but the longer this gets, the more stupid flaming messages will come. I really hope people just read, comprehend, make their own opinion, and move on. I'll listen to polite/tactful rebuttals, though. As I said before, my mind isn't made up.

Re:Incorrect.

[thynk]

There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't.

What? This is /. my friend, you must be new here. No place for admiting ignornace or even rational thought. Everyone here knows more than the most powerful infomation gathering groups in the world. Anything said here by anyone who disagrees with you should be read as absolute fact.

As I said before, my mind isn't made up.

What is this? Thinking before making a choice? Heavens, what is the world coming to? The times when people spew forth opinons as fact, on subjects they know next to nothing about may be coming to an end. *reads comments to your post* - okay, maybe not. :-)

Re:Incorrect.

[FrostByte12]

REMEMBER: Iraqi Sanctions. If you don't know what they were and what they did I suggest you read up on it.

Re:Incorrect.

[NanoGator]

Hehe. :)

BTW, you mentioned in your site that you're finally getting hints, I imagine having it on Slashdot is helping.

some more interesting pictures..

[unknown_host]

Here are some more pictures of the robot in action and surviving a 3 floor fall.

Read that again.

[khasim]

"Sorry to be all technical here, but it cannot be proven that he didn't have them, only that we didn't find them."

Nice try. Bush and Co claimed that they had exact knowledge of what was where and why it was a threat to the US.

We invade. We don't find the what at the where. We don't find the what anywhere.

Conclusion: Bush and Co did NOT have exact knowledge.

"This is bullshit. Though I am pretty much convinced that they weren't armed in such a way that we were in danger, I do feel pretty strongly that they would have been safe haven for Al Qeada (sp?) or similar groups."

Yes, the nefarious "similar groups".

By "similar groups" do you mean "groups that have attacked US citizens in the US"? If so, then you are WRONG!

The closest thing anyone has ever been able to tie Iraq with is Saddam's attempt to have Bush Sr. assassinated. That's all.

Iraq was NOT a threat.

"I also feel that Saddam would, if so inclined, pay them to do 9-11 part 2. (Note: I did NOT say they had anything to do with 9-11.) For that reason, I'm pretty comfortable with Saddam being out of the picture. If it does turn out that the US didn't have strong enough WMD reason to go in, that does miff me. (In case it's difficult to tell, I'm not pro-Bush here, I'm sitting on the fence not really sure which side to lean on.)"

Well, I'm sure you believe it is good to be so in touch with your feelings. Don't let those pesky facts get in the way.

Yes, you are "pro-Bush". That is the EXACT same "logic" that he followed. All belief and no facts.

"I'm not convinced Bush in particular lied about anything, but I do have concerns that his staff either lied or obtained really bad info. Remember that Clinton's staff was up in arms over Iraq as well."

Again, I cannot convince anyone as "pro-Bush" as you are that he lied. He went on national TV and talked about the "yellow cake" incident AFTER it was discredited.

Ah, but that wasn't HIM telling a lie. It was his STAFF that gave him incorrect information.

Your defense of the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is that he didn't lie, he's a dupe.

"Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't."

That is a side. You've sided with the "government knows more so they're right" position. Even when their public claims have been proven to be FALSE.

So, if I say 1+1=5, then you'd believe me because I know things you don't know.

"Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't."

"evil"? There is no "evil". There are just different agendas and values. As I've pointed out, Bush lied when he said he had exact information about "WMD's". Now, if there had been "WMD's" in Iraq, then Bush's lie would never have been exposed.

"Both Saddam and Bush Sr are still alive right now, so vengence doesn't seem like a likely motive."

Ummm, Saddam is in US custody. Bush Sr is not.

"US soldiers are not building a pipeline funneling oil into Bush's house to sell, so I'm not convinced it's about oil."

Then you need to look at how the US government is handling Iraq's oil wells.

"I doubt a politician would bet his re-election on an invasion of a country that isn't directly threatening us."

Why not? He gets to take out a "bad man" (his words) and show the world how tough the US is AND the US gets a US friendly government with lots of cheap oil. That sounds like an assured re-election to me.

"Everybody thinks Bush is an idiot, you'd think they'd rule out the whole "big Romulan'esque plot" theories, yet they don't. Etc."

Okaaaaaaaaay. Well, it's been nice chatting with you. I'll let you get back to Dr. Spock and Kirk now. Don't hurt yourself.

Re:Read that again.

[NanoGator]

"Yes, you are "pro-Bush". That is the EXACT same "logic" that he followed. All belief and no facts."

I take it you don't get into much polite discussion about politics, do ya? Here's a hint: Listen instead of telling people what they believe.

Re:Read that again.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"We invade. We don't find the what at the where. We don't find the what anywhere... Conclusion: Bush and Co did NOT have exact knowledge."

Iraq had plenty of advance notice we were coming. Argument rejected.

"Well, I'm sure you believe it is good to be so in touch with your feelings. Don't let those pesky facts get in the way.... Yes, you are "pro-Bush". That is the EXACT same "logic" that he followed. All belief and no facts... Now, if there had been "WMD's" in Iraq, then Bush's lie would never have been exposed...."

You are not operating on facts either. It is not a fact that the WMDs are or are not in Iraq. It is not a fact that Bush did or did not lie. It is not a fact that the US government did or did not have legitimate info on the WMDs. Despite all this, you hold on tightly to your beliefs. You're trying to nail NG for this? At least he said he was up for civilized discussion about it.

"That is a side. You've sided with the "government knows more so they're right" position. Even when their public claims have been proven to be FALSE."

I've talked with him about this before. He's saying he can't come to judgement yet, not that he has sided with the government. He has a point, if the US tells us how they got information on things such as WMD, then the rest of the world knows how to prevent us from finding out about future BS such as this. Usually, proven false means somebody came up with a good reason to continue to believe what we believe anyway. Proof isn't typically the appropriate term. It's sort of like how Apple proved that their machines were twice as fast as Intel machines. You are not operating with facts here.

"So, if I say 1+1=5, then you'd believe me because I know things you don't know."

This is one of the dumbest responses I have ever read. The amusing thing is that mathematicians have proven that 1 + 1 = other numbers before. That is not why this argument is dumb, though. It's the simple self-servingness of it.

"Ummm, Saddam is in US custody. Bush Sr is not."

Ummm, his point was that if it were about revenge, Saddam would not be alive in US custody. Argument rejected.

"Then you need to look at how the US government is handling Iraq's oil wells."

I think you do too.

"Okaaaaaaaaay. Well, it's been nice chatting with you. I'll let you get back to Dr. Spock and Kirk now. Don't hurt yourself. "

Spock was not a doctor. Doctor Spock wrote books on the care of children, or something like that. Also, he was accusing the anti Bush people of making things out to be too much like Star Trek. You should have put a little more time into that little goodbye kiss.

Re:Read that again.

[khasim]

"Iraq had plenty of advance notice we were coming. Argument rejected."

Incorrect. Bush and Co could have told the UN inspectors WHO WERE IN COUNTRY about those sites. But they did not.

"You are not operating on facts either. It is not a fact that the WMDs are or are not in Iraq."

By that same "logic", it is not a fact that the tooth fairy does not exist.

We have no evidence that Saddam had started making them again.

We have no production facilities.

We have no "WMD's".

But that will never be enough for any of the "pro-Bush" fanatics.

"I've talked with him about this before. He's saying he can't come to judgement yet, not that he has sided with the government."

But he has sided with the "government knows more so they're right" position. That is in his previous post.

"He has a point, if the US tells us how they got information on things such as WMD, then the rest of the world knows how to prevent us from finding out about future BS such as this."

So, the US has to protect the methods by which they get demonstratably FALSE information so other people won't be able to prevent the US government from obtaining demonstratably FALSE information?

Riiiiiggggghhhhhhtttttt........

"This is one of the dumbest responses I have ever read. The amusing thing is that mathematicians have proven that 1 + 1 = other numbers before."

Which proves I know more than you do.

"Ummm, his point was that if it were about revenge, Saddam would not be alive in US custody. Argument rejected."

Revenge == Death?
Only in your simplistic world view.

"I think you do too."

So you admit that the US is trying to capitalize on Iraq's oil? That's a start.

"Also, he was accusing the anti Bush people of making things out to be too much like Star Trek."

Excuse me, but HE was the one that started with the Star Trek analogy. And once someone starts with those, there's really no point in discussing the subject any more. That person has already proven himself to be unable to differentiate between a TV show written by fiction writers and reality.

Re:Read that again.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Incorrect. Bush and Co could have told the UN inspectors WHO WERE IN COUNTRY about those sites. But they did not."

Gee, I seem to recall that the inspectors had a very difficult time getting to those places. Iraq didn't exactly have the open door policy that it should have.

"By that same "logic", it is not a fact that the tooth fairy does not exist."

Lame rebuttal.

"We have no evidence that Saddam had started making them again."

I agree with that.

"But that will never be enough for any of the "pro-Bush" fanatics..."

You are right, fanatics won't believe it. I beleive that's an unwritten rule of fanatacism. There are still a lot of people out there who need more than that. At the same time, as you yourself have pointed out, the anti Bush fanatics will not apologize for their accusations that he had lied.

"But he has sided with the "government knows more so they're right" position. That is in his previous post."

That, in and of itself, does not mean he believes that the government is right or wrong. I've had a lot of lengthy chats with him on this matter, he is sincere when he says he's not on either side.

"So, the US has to protect the methods by which they get demonstratably FALSE information ...."

Demonstratably false != FALSE. Demonstrations, by nature, are not about facts, but about presentation. I can demonstrate that computer chips run on smoke because if I let the smoke out, they stop working. Before you nitpick my comment here, consider your own agruments Mr. Tooth Fairy exists because we cannot prove he/she doesn't.

"Which proves I know more than you do."

Another lame rebuttal.

"Only in your simplistic world view."

Yet another lame rebuttal.

"So you admit that the US is trying to capitalize on Iraq's oil? That's a start."

Yet another lame rebuttal. Heh. It's funny how you believe you are right, therefore you are ignoring the true meaning of what I said. That would seem to be a reocurring theme in your posts.

"That person has already proven himself to be unable to differentiate between a TV show written by fiction writers and reality."

Again with the reoccuring themes here. He started with a brief metaphor to explain the silliness of the anti Bush zealots out there, and now it's being spun as a doesn't understand the difference between fiction and reality. Honestly man, it is your own fault for trying to turn that as an insult. It is truely amazing how some people get by in this world by drawing such harsh conclusions without facts to back them up. I imagine you would have been a riot a few hundred years ago. The sun revolves around the Earth!! Burn anybody who disagrees!!

This is the part I like. :)

[khasim]

"Gee, I seem to recall that the inspectors had a very difficult time getting to those places. Iraq didn't exactly have the open door policy that it should have."

It seems you recall wrong. Initially, Saddam refused access to the various presidential palaces. Later, he allowed inspections anywhere. Given all of our technology, we could have monitored the palaces for any traffic in or out of.

"Lame rebuttal."

Do you label EVERYTHING you can't refute as "lame"? That is a very valid extension of your and NanoGator's "logic" in this matter.

"I agree with that."

So, since you agree that we have no evidence that he started making them again, why do you have a problem with the concept that they don't exist? They don't just spontaniously appear. They have to be manufactured.

"At the same time, as you yourself have pointed out, the anti Bush fanatics will not apologize for their accusations that he had lied."

Why should they? The evidence seems to indicate that he did. Either that or he's an idiot dupe. After all, he did say that he had exact knowledge of those "WMD's".

"That, in and of itself, does not mean he believes that the government is right or wrong."

Here is his ORIGINAL statement on that matter:
"I'm not convinced Bush in particular lied about anything, but I do have concerns that his staff either lied or obtained really bad info. Remember that Clinton's staff was up in arms over Iraq as well.

Frankly, I don't see myself picking any particular side on this any time soon. There's plenty of info that the US Gov't has that I don't."

Again, if Bush did not lie, then he was a dupe for his staff (who did lie).

Now, if Bush's staff LIED, then why hasn't Bush cleaned out those liars?

Hmmmmmm.......?

"Demonstratably false != FALSE."

Yes it does.

"Before you nitpick my comment here, consider your own agruments Mr. Tooth Fairy exists because we cannot prove he/she doesn't."

That isn't my argument. That is the extension of your and NanoGator's position.

"Another lame rebuttal."
Again, "lame" means that you cannot refute it.

"Yet another lame rebuttal."
Again, "lame" means that you cannot refute it.

"Yet another lame rebuttal."
Again, "lame" means that you cannot refute it.

"Again with the reoccuring themes here. He started with a brief metaphor to explain the silliness of the anti Bush zealots out there, and now it's being spun as a doesn't understand the difference between fiction and reality."

So, he is attempting to draw an analogy about something that didn't happen to someone that didn't exist that was meant as entertainment?

"It is truely amazing how some people get by in this world by drawing such harsh conclusions without facts to back them up. I imagine you would have been a riot a few hundred years ago. The sun revolves around the Earth!! Burn anybody who disagrees!!"

A fanatic is someone who will NOT be swayed no matter what is presented.

Non-fanatics can be swayed.

I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if the UN inspectors had found some before the invasion.

I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if we found them during the invasion. After all, wouldn't those be the first sites we secured?

I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if we found the production facilities within a few weeks of the invasion. After all, Bush claimed to have exact information about them.

It's been months and months and months now. The FIRST US appointed inspector have given up saying he didn't think any would ever be found. The SECOND US appointed inspector still hasn't found anything.

Now, what will have to be shown to YOU and NanoGator before you accept that the "WMD's" do not and did not exist?

Which is why both of you are fanatics and I am not.

Re:This is the part I like. :)

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Again, "lame" means that you cannot refute it."

Wrong. Lame means that it's so pointlessly stupid it's not worth refuting.

"Now, what will have to be shown to YOU and NanoGator before you accept that the "WMD's" do not and did not exist?"

I'd settle for proof that they were disposed of. If you got it, I'm all ears.

"Which is why both of you are fanatics and I am not."

I don't mind being called a fanatic, NG isn't though. You, however, are most definitely one. You can prove it by at least trying to understand where my point of view comes from. So far, you've done nothing but reject it and back it up with retarded analogies. Surely, an objective educated person can be a little more intelligent than you're being right now.

Re:This is the part I like. :)

[Anonvmous Coward]

"You can prove it by at least trying to understand..."

My apologies, I've phrased that wrong. It was meant to be "prove you're not..."... I'm not having a wonderful night.

Re:This is the part I like. :)

[Anonymous Coward]

excuse me but....

lets all sit around arguing this political bs, whilst pro-war factions like the current US, UK and Aus gov's turn a country of people into 'terrorists' nd 'insurgents' (their words)

yes you can get all spinny and tell me that saddam was such a bad man etc but what makes the USA so angelic? democracy? hah!

we all seem to be forgetting in this that war is a disgusting and horrible evil that is only there for SELF DEFENSE and EMERGENCY situations - ie in order to maintain peace.

anyone with the time and inclination (or at least half a brain) will easily find the relevant U.S. government policies on the 'importance of energy resources in the middle east'. war in iraq was a result of energy policy - anyone can see that - it was determined well before 9/11

read the policies - they are there on various us.gov websites - now go looking for pictures of the war dead and wounded - and come back to this thread and tell me honestly that it was worth it. i mean, i just couldn't live without fuel in my car and plastic bags etc now could i???

War Reporters?

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't allow those... unless they have a fox logo.

Re: "Wedding Parties"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not their country. It's ours.

People should know when they're conquered.

Re:I'm proud of CMU

[Anonymous Coward]

If the government can't get people to sign up for a war then they have no bussiness forcing people to go to it.

So you're proposing the government do a better propoganda job?

Re:I guess I shouldn't get my hopes up

[kanenas]

Oh Oh i know. Let's talk about the technology of the kitchen knife being presented behind Beck.

Seriously what is the difference?

You are at war and you proudly present your weapons.
Imagine a list somewhere discussing about what is the most perfect knife in order to cut heads.
Imagine someone proudly presenting his weapons before he uses them.

USA is the other side of the coin being presented in the Beck video.

Enough with me...

Continue masturbating with your knifes.

I'm sure they'll "cut" a lot of heads in their productive life.

God bless america (because nobody else will).

This is also the part I like. :)

[khasim]

So, I've shown that what you recall is not what actually happened. So you drop to the "it's not worth refuting".

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!

"I'd settle for proof that they were disposed of. If you got it, I'm all ears."

So you admit that they weren't produced, but you want proof that the stuff that wasn't produced was disposed of.

Hahahahahahahhaha!

"I don't mind being called a fanatic, NG isn't though. You, however, are most definitely one."

Like I said before, a fanatic will NEVER accept ANY evidence that contradicts his beliefs (like you and NanoGator).

Whereas I would have accepted evidence on three different occasions (before, during and immediately after the invasion). But that evidence was NEVER PRODUCED.

So you think I'm a fanatic because:
#1. No "WMD's" were found PRIOR to the invasion.

#2. No "WMD's" or production facilities were found DURING the invasion.

#3. No production facilities were found IMMEDIATELY AFTER the invasion.

Again, by you "logic", anyone who does not believe in the Tooth Fairy is a "fanatic". You have no evidence that they existed yet you demand proof that they were destroyed.

There is no proof that they were destroyed because they did not exist.

"You can prove it by at least trying to understand where my point of view comes from."

Your point of view is that of a fanatic. Before you start talking about proof they were destroyed, you have to show they existed.

"Surely, an objective educated person can be a little more intelligent than you're being right now."

I am the only one introducing any FACTS into this discussion. All you two are doing is claiming that those FACTS are not sufficiently established for you.

You should read some Creation Science sometime. That is EXACTLY the pattern those fanatics follow. That is EXACTLY the pattern EVERY fanatic follows.

Once again, Saddam INITIALLY let the inspectors go ANYWHERE except the presidential palaces. We have the technology to monitor those. Bush claimed EXACT knowledge of where the "WMD's" were manufactured and stored.

He couldn't prove that PRIOR to the invasion.

He couldn't prove that DURING the invasion.

He couldn't prove that AFTER the invasion.

Have fun my little fanatic. :)
I'll leave you to your little Creation Science games now.

Re:This is also the part I like. :)

[Anonvmous Coward]

"So you admit that they weren't produced, but you want proof that the stuff that wasn't produced was disposed of.

Hahahahahahahhaha!"

Ah, again with the spinning. Funny, I didn't say they weren't produced. That's a really strange sentence there. In any case, your 'hahhahahaha' proves that I've really riled you up here. You're trying soooooo hard to convince me that you're laughing, but really you're banging your fist in anger. Heh. Lighten up man, it's just a discussion.

"Like I said before, a fanatic will NEVER accept ANY evidence that contradicts his beliefs (like you and NanoGator)."

Heh. Yes, you are right, nothing will change your mind.

"So you think I'm a fanatic because:
#1. No "WMD's" were found PRIOR to the invasion.

#2. No "WMD's" or production facilities were found DURING the invasion.

#3. No production facilities were found IMMEDIATELY AFTER the invasion."

You are a fanatic because you assume Bush and the Gov't were lying about it. Though he very well could have been, you don't know jack shit. You have based your opinions on assumptions you call 'facts'.

"Again, by you "logic", anyone who does not believe in the Tooth Fairy is a "fanatic". You have no evidence that they existed yet you demand proof that they were destroyed."

Um, you do realize that Saddam had a lot of WMDs several years ago, right? He didn't declare a lot of them destroyed.

"There is no proof that they were destroyed because they did not exist."

Ah, you didn't know about those. Ass, you don't even know what you're talking so heatedly about. "HAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA"

"I am the only one introducing any FACTS into this discussion."

Wrong. Already gone around this block.

Seriously man, you have built some rather harsh opinions based on faulty logic. If you turn out to be 'right' about any of them, it's because you got lucky.

"Have fun my little fanatic. :)"

Heh. It's so painfully obvious that you're mad at me. You've tried to make me think you're laughing at me. You've tried to spin a post of mine in order to grab a concession. Now you're trying to behave like I am inferior to you. "I'm workin with facts!" Riiiight. You're working with anger. It's fun to watch. Keep'em coming!

My little Creation Scientist is at it again. :)

[khasim]

If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled.

That's all. That should be easy.

Here is MY list, again:

I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if the UN inspectors had found some before the invasion.

I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if we found them during the invasion. After all, wouldn't those be the first sites we secured?

I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if we found the production facilities within a few weeks of the invasion. After all, Bush claimed to have exact information about them.

Until you can supply that information, I will remain convinced that you are a fanatic. And, like I said, nothing will every convince a fanatic that he is wrong.

I'm sure the God put those nasty "WMD's" there. Hee hee hee.

Re:My little Creation Scientist is at it again. :)

[Anonvmous Coward]

"If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled."

I have already stated this, but I will state it again. I would back down if it is proven that Saddam destroyed everything he had in 91. Good luck proving that, though, as niether the UN nor the US could do that.

"I would believe Iraq had "WMD's" if the UN inspectors had found some before the invasion."

I'd file that under D for duh. If they had found them this discussion would not even be taking place. Here's the problem: Saddam had some nasty nasty weapons back in the first Gulf war. This is indisputable. He was supposed to have destroyed them but no proof (or even documentation) was ever provided of that. Worse, he kicked the inspectors out. If he did keep those weapons, then it is not unreasonable to suspect that he wanted more. In order for him to have been able to develop those weapons, he would have to find a way to hide them from us. Let me ask you something, if they did build mobile labs, how could we possibly find them? Iraq is not a small place. Worse, they have found a building that was designed to remain undetected by our satellites. If they have those labs parked in a facility like that, how would we find them? In short, the only way he could keep them is if he could hide them well. Because of that, not finding them is not the same as saying they don't exist. This isn't like the Tooth Fairy here, it's more like Amelia Earhart.

I've already mentioned this, but I feel I must reiterate, the one fact that is really damning against my previous argument here is that these weapons were not used against us when we invaded. This has me wondering. It's not enough for me to say "Oops, he didn't have them", but it is enough for me to say "I have doubts as to the reliability of the information that was acted on." The problem is, I just don't know enough facts to come to a solid decision.

"Until you can supply that information, I will remain convinced that you are a fanatic."

Fine. Prove to me that you're not. Ask me a question that casts a least a little doubt with you on your beliefs, like my question about why no WMDs were used against us when we invaded. (I apologize if my assumption that you are American is incorrect.) IMHO, it's hard to call somebody a fanatic if they ask questions like this. At least it demonstrates an open mind. Ask me a really good question here and I'll take back the fanatic comment.

I'll put that down as your first evasion.

[khasim]

"I have already stated this, but I will state it again. I would back down if it is proven that Saddam destroyed everything he had in 91. Good luck proving that, though, as niether the UN nor the US could do that."

In case you hadn't noticed, this is NOT about the weapons Saddam had back in 1991.

This is about Bush's claims that Saddam had RE-STARTED his "WMD" programs and was CURRENTLY making and stockpiling "WMD's".

I'll ask the question AGAIN:
"If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled."

I figure that after THREE failures to answer this very simple question I can write you off as another right-wing wacko fanatic.

You have TWO chances remaining.

Re:I'll put that down as your first evasion.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"In case you hadn't noticed, this is NOT about the weapons Saddam had back in 1991."

It is very much about the weapons he had in 91. It only wouldn't be if we knew for certain they were destroyed. This is not something you can be dismissive of. You are accusing me of 'evasion' here when it is plainly obvious you are doing so yourself. If he had kept the weapons, it meant that he was intent on having them, and more worrying, having more.

"If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled."

My answer is still the same. Either listen and agree to disagree, or admit that you're just trying to 'win' this debate.

"I figure that after THREE failures to answer this very simple question..."

The failure is on your end, my friend.

"You have TWO chances remaining."

Funny, you have evaded my challenge. Your chances are up.

Re:I'll put that down as your first evasion.

[Anonvmous Coward]

Your weapon was not useful against me, so you are trying to use it against NG? Tsk tsk.

That is your second evasion.

[khasim]

"If he had kept the weapons, it meant that he was intent on having them, and more worrying, having more."

No, you have not established that he was producing more. That is the question. What would it take to convince you that he wasn't producing more?

Again:
"If you are not a fanatic, then clearly state what evidence would have to be shown to convince you that there weren't any "WMD's" being produced and stockpiled."

Re:That is your second evasion.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"No, you have not established that he was producing more. "

I do not need to. He's not supposed to have them, period. Couple that with illegal missiles he had and the automated planes that fly farther then they're allowed, and you have a nasty situation. The only reason you're specifying the "produced and stockpiled" is so you can win.

I will provide for you the same damn answer: If you prove to me that he destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's, then you will have given me enough reason to believe that he hasn't produced more. Why does this reasoning work? Because if he was so hell-bent on having these weapons, he wouldn't get rid of his original stash.

Spare me the 'if you are not a fanatic' bit because the only reason you keep asking that is because you know I have a point.

That was your third evasion.

[khasim]

Since you cannot state what evidence that you would accept that Saddam was not manufacturing and stockpiling "WMD's", that, by definition, makes you a fanatic.

"If you prove to me that he destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's, then you will have given me enough reason to believe that he hasn't produced more."

Yes, the "logic" of the fanatic. You'll find that a lot amongst the Islamic fundamentalists, also.

If someone committed a murder back in 1991.... ...that means that you will not accept any evidence that he did not kill someone in 2001.

When the "evidence" that you will accept is divorced from the action under discussion, that is more proof that you are a fanatic.

Let me save you some time in the future. Simply say that YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM WAS NOT BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES.

No way.
No how.

Evidence, it's not something YOU need.

Have a nice day, you right wing wacko fanatic, you.

Re:That was your third evasion.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Since you cannot state what evidence that you would accept that Saddam was not manufacturing and stockpiling "WMD's", that, by definition, makes you a fanatic."

Actually I did state it. Not only that, but it's a reasonable question too. Your unwillingness to even think about what I've said makes you a fanatic.

"If someone committed a murder back in 1991.... ...that means that you will not accept any evidence that he did not kill someone in 2001."

Lame rebuttal. Actually it's more like what's happening with Michael Jackson right now.

"When the "evidence" that you will accept is divorced from the action under discussion..."

Not only is it not divorced from the situation, but it is also the key ingredient to what started this whole mess to begin with. When you refuse to accept cause and effect, you are a fanatic.

"Simply say that YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM WAS NOT BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES."

I refuse to lie. Sorry. Frankly, you have shot yourself in the foot here. I have provided an attainable reason. By making such an issue of it and isolating what you really want so strictly, you have proven that you are, indeed, the one who isn't open to reason. Worse, you are only arguing now at this point to try to 'win'. Grow up man, seriously.

"Have a nice day, you right wing wacko fanatic, you."

Oh yeah because you're soOOoo not going to try to get the last word. Heh.

Re:That was your third evasion.

[NanoGator]

AnonV: "If you prove to me that he destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's, then you will have given me enough reason to believe that he hasn't produced more."

khasim: "Let me save you some time in the future. Simply say that YOU WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE THAT SADDAM WAS NOT BUILDING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO ATTACK THE UNITED STATES."

Yikes. Do you realize what a raving moron you're coming across as?

Re:That was your third evasion.

[NanoGator]

I knew you didn't have the grapes. Heh.

Only to you fanatics.

[khasim]

Like I said, he wasn't able to state what evidence he would accept that would convince him that Saddam was not producing and stockpiling NEW weapons.

Oh, wait, he did. Let me see what that was.

"If you prove to me that he destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's, then you will have given me enough reason to believe that he hasn't produced more."

There, that's it.

Now, since an old round was recently found, that means that NOTHING will EVER convince him that Saddam was not making NEW weapons.

Have I lost you?

Because Saddam could not account for all of his OLD weapons (case in point, an old round was recently found)
-then-
He will NOT believe that Saddam was not producing NEW weapons.

Let me shorten that for you:
If any OLD rounds turn up, that proves to him that NEW rounds were being manufactured.

An OLD round did turn up, that means that he believes NEW rounds were being manufactured.

Or, as I had stated, he will not accept any evidence that Saddam wasn't making new ones.

By definition, a fanatic.

Just like you.

No wonder you two get along so well.

Re:Only to you fanatics.

[NanoGator]

"Now, since an old round was recently found, that means that NOTHING will EVER convince him that Saddam was not making NEW weapons."

Go tell him that. Funny that he hasn't brought that up, niether have I. Seems like something a fanatic would latch on to, no? Ouch.

Anyway, that has nothing to do with what I said about you coming across as a raving moron. What you say can and will be used against you, and all that jazz.

Re:Only to you fanatics.

[Anonvmous Coward]

"Now, since an old round was recently found, that means that NOTHING will EVER convince him that Saddam was not making NEW weapons."

Fair point, almost. I don't know why you think I do not have a sense of proportion. I mean, if one round was enough for me to say "he had them! he had them!!" would I not be saying that they found WMDs and that Bush didn't lie? I'm talking about thousands of gallons of Anthrax that were not accounted for, not a shell here and there.

I find this rebuttal to be a bit hypocritical. You are trying to say that I have chosen an argument that can never ever make me change my mind, but you have done exactly the same thing by making the rules so specific they cannot realistically be met. (definition of fanatic? Heh.)

I take it that you failed "logic" in school?

[khasim]

"Go tell him that. Funny that he hasn't brought that up, niether have I. Seems like something a fanatic would latch on to, no? Ouch."

Hmmmm, maybe you missed the part where you quoted him in your previous post? Here, I'll help you out (you sound as if you need it).

"AnonV: "If you prove to me that he destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's, then you will have given me enough reason to believe that he hasn't produced more.""

There, does that ring any bells? :D

Now, since a shell from that time just showed up, then, by definition, Saddam had not (quote)"destroyed his cache of weapons from the 90's"(unquote).

Since that was the sole requirement he stated, and it can NEVER be fulfilled, he is, by definition, a fanatic.

Just like you.

Or is it news to you that a binary round was recently found in Iraq? :D

Re:I take it that you failed "logic" in school?

[NanoGator]

"There, does that ring any bells? :D"

It doesn't negate what I said, no.

Nice try. :)

what does the subject heading do?

[NanoGator]

Oh, I've been meaning to ask, when are you going to answer AnonV's challenge? You dodged that one like a flaming arrow.

Actually, it does.

[khasim]

You said: "Go tell him that. Funny that he hasn't brought that up, niether have I. Seems like something a fanatic would latch on to, no? Ouch."

So I filled in the facts that you seem to be unaware.

Since the facts will not change, his position is that he will never accept that Saddam was not producing new "WMD's".

Which is what I stated many, many posts ago.

Here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=108503&thresho ld=1&commentsort=0&tid=216&mode=thread&pid=9227828 #9227979

Again, the only way he would accept that Saddam was not producing NEW "WMD's" would be Saddam had accounted for all of his old "WMD's".

Since that has recently been established to be FALSE, then he will NEVER accept that Saddam was not producing NEW "WMD's".

The facts just keep getting in the way of you fanatics. :D

Now, suppose that Saddam actually was NOT producing new "WMD's".

Then Anonvmous Coward would never accept the FACTS. In some circles, this is refered to as "delusional". It is an attribute of many fanatics.

Haahahahahahahahahaha.

But why would I be arguing logic with a fanatic? You'll never accept the logic OR the facts. That is the definition of the fanatic.

Re:Actually, it does.

[NanoGator]

"Actually, it does."

No, it doesn't. :) You're still avoiding his challenge, btw.

Killer comeback, dude.

[khasim]

is
is not
is
is not
is
is not

At least I'm providing the facts and logic to support my statements. :)

What do you have? An endless repetition of "no it doesn't". :)

What was his challenge? I believe I just filled in his "evidence" in the two previous posts. You know the ones? The ones about the sarin round being found?

hahahahahahhahaha!

Re:Killer comeback, dude.

[NanoGator]

"At least I'm providing the facts and logic to support my statements. :)"

Not that I've seen. And no, it doesn't, and it's already been explained why.

"What was his challenge?"

Yeah, claiming ignorance won't get you out of that one.

"hahahahahahhahaha! "

mmm hmm. You're not really laughing. Heh.

I didn't dodge anything.

[khasim]

I gave him THREE chances to persuade me he wasn't a fanatic.

He failed each time. Why should I hold a discussion with a fanatic?

Now I will grant you the same three chances.

What evidence will you accept that will convince you that Saddam was NOT producing and stockpiling new "WMD's"?

I'll put that down as your first evasion.

[khasim]

You have two more chances.

Again:
"What evidence will you accept that will convince you that Saddam was NOT producing and stockpiling new "WMD's"?"

Concession accepted.

[NanoGator]

" Why should I hold a discussion with a fanatic?"

Ha! You dodged it again! You're so predictable. Heh, ass. You're all out of chances now.

That is your second evasion.

[khasim]

Again:
What evidence will you accept that will convince you that Saddam was NOT producing and stockpiling new "WMD's"?

You've already lost.

[NanoGator]

Nope, you first. Answer or don't expect another response. Twist it however you like, but in the end, you've still failed to pass your own test. Rather embarrasing. ;)

Re:You've already lost.

[Anonvmous Coward]

Nanogator Wins: FATALITY

That was your third evasion.

[khasim]

Nice chatting with you two fanatics.

I apologize

[Anonvmous Coward]

Hey man,

I had some 'not so proud' moments yesterday. Just wanted to say I'm sorry for being an asshole.

Examine your premises

[ianscot]

Obviously an old post and all, but you're too tangled up in your own limbs to allow through that "Exit" sign...

"We invade. We don't find the what at the where. We don't find the what anywhere... Conclusion: Bush and Co did NOT have exact knowledge."

"Iraq had plenty of advance notice we were coming. Argument rejected."

Um, was the rationale for this war supposed to be to prevent acts of terrorism against the US using WMDs? Seems to ring a bell, and seems to be the argument you're still wanting to make.

What you're now describing is a situation in which the war has moved the WMDs from a state where we know (supposedly) where they're being manufactured, where they're stored, and so on -- the terrible, dangerous, volatile pre-war starting point that we couldn't live with for a few more months according to our UN Security Council arguments -- to a state in which they've been hidden away in a "weak" nation that's crawling with fanatical insurgents who've shown just how willing they are to make reckless attacks on our troops -- who in their turn happen to have been made much more convenient targets. That's not mentioning whatever influence or presence Al Quaeda how has in the country; Ansar Al Islam, not having apparently been a focus of our rush-to-the-capital war strategy, seems to have easily fled, and now we have no reliable border security to keep anything in or out. Where might the hidden WMDs go under those circumstances? If the WMDs are across the border in Syria or something, so much the worse...

Hey, I have an alternative to this policy: we could have just shipped a bunch of suspected Al Quaeda operatives to abandoned biological weapons research areas in the former Soviet Union and left them there unsupervised. Problem solved! Except, of course, in the case of the former Soviet sites there's at least skeletal oversight, and we really do know where those sites are... Also there aren't US military bases nearby for them to take pot shots at with conventional weapons like RPGs, leaving alone biological or chemical agents. I guess that wouldn't be as reckless as this war -- according to *your* premises.

Take an introductory symbolic logic class sometime. Your first provisional assumption -- that we invaded to prevent attacks by WMDs -- falls apart whether or not I accept your second one involving the hidden weapons, doesn't it? Either way the policy is an abject, utter failure -- and you're basing your claims of an "open mind" about it on a classic "black swan" argument that's as "lame" as you think your debate partner's "tooth fairy" characterization of it is. (The next step is telling me the war has prevented Great White Shark attacks in my home state of Minnesota. We can fully expect political ads this fall in which Democrats' faces "morph" into those of leering sharks. Same logic.)

Even accepting your WMD arguments, this was pretty damned calamitous as a policy. And try putting yourself in the shoes of someone who, at this point, does not give Bush Deux and his junta that benefit of the doubt -- someone who's seen the yellow cake argument, the Wolfowitz admission that WMDs were just the argument that everyone could agree on, the "boutique intelligence" approach of the Department of Defence, and so on. It looks much *much* worse. The completely unacceptable (for any audience other than Bush's core of domestic support) "we liberated them" argument has been reduced to "We don't torture people as badly as Saddam did, though now the country's in a state of chaos and bleeding U.S. money by the billion." How good does this policy look? How justifiable?

This morning according to a poll of Iraqis, 70 percent think supporting the US occupation forces would mean their lives were in danger. That's including the Kurdish areas, which slant all such polls heavily in our favor. That's "liberation." The President of the United States is seriously trying to argue that a handful of 'depraved' National Guard soldiers spontaneously came