Afghanistan Called First "Robotic War"

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Afghanistan Called First "Robotic War"

Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday April 5, 2011 @12:58AM from the salute-your-robot-overlords dept.

retroworks writes "Fareed Zakaria (Editor of Time, CNN GPS) writes that one in 50 USA combatants in Afghanistan is now a robot. There are more fighting robots than elevators in the country. Article has links to film of robots in action, allusions to Terminator films."

288 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 01:04 · Score: -1, Troll

...who does not think that the USA is an evil empire, and take consolation only in knowing that it is also a dying empire?
Get the hell out of the Middle East, USA. Stop killing people. Sort out your shit at home for your own sake.
1. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:10 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  ...who does not think that the USA is an evil empire, and take consolation only in knowing that it is also a dying empire?
  Get the hell out of the Middle East, USA. Stop killing people. Sort out your shit at home for your own sake.
  That's an interesting comment considering the Taliban in Afghanistan dictates half the population should be treated as property (women) and tramples on the rights of the Afghanis to the greatest degree of any society on the planet.
  I would say to you - who doesn't think the Taliban is an evil empire and take consolation only in knowing it is also a dying political movement? Get the hell out of the lives of your citizens, stop sending terrorists across the globe to kill innocents, stop killing your own citizens for minor infractions of your "laws". Go read your Koran in peace.
2. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:14 · Score: 1
  
  ...who does not think that the USA is an evil empire, and take consolation only in knowing that it is also a dying empire?
  I might taken consolation in knowing the US empire is dying, but worry that the upcoming new Chinese or Russian empire will be far far worse.
3. Re:is there anybody here... by NoSleepDemon · 2011-04-05 01:16 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I moved from the UK to Canada a few years ago, and yeah I agree. Being in proximity to them is irritating, but having to watch their stupid antics and culture spill onto TV is just downright offensive. Each time I watch another Chevrolet ad with the stupid moving 3D text proclaiming that their car has won x consumer award (apparently they all have) a part of me dies. My wife has regular contact with Americans almost every day and the ones that come across the border have an air of arrogance around them which is undeniable. A recurring favourite is "why did you give me Canadian change? I'm American, I want American money!". Thankfully the culture of NOW NOW NOW ME ME ME isn't quite so prevalent in the more civilized North. Having said that, "Hey I'm British too! My grandparents came over in the 1920s, do you know my friend Bob? He lives in London" is beginning to wear a little thin. Good snowboarding though.
4. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 01:18 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  What does any of this have to do with the US thinking it has the right to act as world policeman?
  The US is not in Afghanistan to liberate the people any more than the Soviets were there to liberate it from Western Capitalist Imperialists[tm]. And the US didn't support religious fundamentalism after (and before) that to liberate Afghanistan from Godless Communist Interantionalists[tm]. Such wars are about one superpower or another fighting for control of resources and strategic locations, as well as securing funding for the corporations of which politicians and their donors are shareholders. You know it; I know it.
  Be a soldier on the offensive if you want, but don't be such a damn coward about your reasons. I'd hoped hypocrisy died with the setting of the sun on the British empire, but it seems much of the US are no better.
5. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:22 · Score: -1
  
  That's ok. We here in the states think that people from the UK are arrogant snobs, too. So take solace in the fact that the feeling is mutual.
6. Re:is there anybody here... by DigiShaman · 2011-04-05 01:22 · Score: 0
  
  Queue the song "We Didn't Start the Fire" by Billy Joel.
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
7. Re:is there anybody here... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2011-04-05 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  Get the hell out of the Middle East, USA. Stop killing people. Sort out your shit at home for your own sake.
  And, you know, if you have to do it, try not to use soulless extermination droids. Your PR is bad enough as it is.
  
  --
  May the Maths Be with you!
8. Re:is there anybody here... by Mushdot · 2011-04-05 01:26 · Score: 1
  
  Fair point, but history has repeatedly shown that you cannot wade into another culture and change it within a short amount of time, no matter how wrong you think it is.
  The US and other countries (mine, the UK included) think that they can, which is why we have so many terrorists running around.
9. Re:is there anybody here... by antifoidulus · 2011-04-05 01:29 · Score: 1
  
  lemme guess, you are from Europe, the progenitors of the biggest genocides in human history(who have yet to apologize for any of them btw), who is also rich largely due to it's massive colonial empire. While I don't agree with the invasion of Iraq, I find Europeans getting self-righteous about it to be incredibly hilarious.
  
  --
  Monstar L
10. Re:is there anybody here... by shadowrat · 2011-04-05 01:30 · Score: 0
  
  There are also plenty of americans that hate chevrolet ads. They drive fords.
11. Re:is there anybody here... by MonsterTrimble · 2011-04-05 01:32 · Score: 1
  
  If somebody does that again, slap them. Tell them Monstertrimble from Winnipeg said it was OK.
  
  --
  I call it 'The Aristocrats'
12. Re:is there anybody here... by PopeRatzo · 2011-04-05 01:33 · Score: 1
  
  and take consolation only in knowing that it is also a dying empire?
  That's no consolation. Dying empires are the most dangerous kind.
  
  --
  You are welcome on my lawn.
13. Re:is there anybody here... by TheRaven64 · 2011-04-05 01:36 · Score: 1
  
  International PR doesn't matter to elected politicians anything like as much as PR with their voters. American body bags coming home is a lot worse than expensive toy being destroyed, in terms of PR for the next election.
  
  --
  I am TheRaven on Soylent News
14. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 01:38 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  the progenitors of the biggest genocides in human history(who have yet to apologize for any of them btw),
  I'm sorry for every time I have contributed to this country which still does some awful things to its own people and to foreigners. I very much try to be productive while minimising the support I give to my government and businesses which act on its behalf. I'm too young to have been involved in some of the popular[tm] genocides you're probably thinking of ("biggest" is an ill-defined and unhelpful term), so I am not sure it has any meaning for me to apologise for them.
  Just to clear things up: it's wrong when the British/French/Spanish/Dutch/etc. empire did it, and it's wrong now the American Empire's doing it.
  The difference is that Europe has learnt some (not enough - and always dangerously close to forgetting it) humility while the US is still playing catchup. This is as you'd expect: Europe's had quite a few centuries' head start and two recent world wars to shake us up.
15. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:38 · Score: 0
  
  A couple teensy points:
  1. If you don't like the Chevy ads, please ask the Ontario provincial government to change them, as they're one of the major shareholders.
  2. There are stupid people everywhere, unfortunately the U.S. lets them travel. (I'll skip on making a Newfie joke here.)
16. Re:is there anybody here... by jgtg32a · 2011-04-05 01:38 · Score: 1
  
  I thought that the Chinese Cultural Revolution was the biggest in history?
17. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:39 · Score: 1
  
  What is wrong with the fact that in order to help make the world a better place, some people prefer to go after the greater of two evils first?
  Human suffering due to poverty is terrible, but when misery is brought about by people who are actively oppressing other people because they are regarded as subhuman, that is abominable.
18. Re:is there anybody here... by Stenchwarrior · 2011-04-05 01:40 · Score: 1
  
  I agree. Have you seen the pictures of the women disfigured because someone accused them of cheating or stealing? Or heard stories of the families now left without a husband because the Taliban either killed or forcefully recruited him?
  And why is the U.S. the largest force on the ground over there when these atrocities are being committed? Why is the U.S. not being condemned for helping out the AIDS and Malaria riddled villages in Africa? Or helping fight hunger in any needy part of the world? I'm in no way saying that corruption and ill-will doesn't exist...we are in no way a perfect government or country. No country is.
  We definitely have our own issues over here, granted, but where would those others who need help be if their largest supporters just up and left to fix shit at home? Perhaps if the rest of the world who looks down at us for helping would pitch in then we could get the job done and head back home.
  Flame me, go ahead. It just pisses me off when people blindly talk bad about the U.S. because we help. I'm sure the little kid in Africa who no longer has AIDS or Malaria doesn't mind us being there.
  
  --
  Loading...
19. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  Thank goodness for the Seldon plan
20. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:40 · Score: 0
  
  I went to Canada last year for the Falls and everything was much nicer. Soda was made with sugar, people were friendly, and things were clean! This was a huge step up from even what I'd considered somewhat nice cities full of assholes who destroy everything because they can by doing strange things like shitting in urinals.
  If the rest of the country is even half as nice as the Falls were, immigration would be a serious prospect.
21. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  It is the cold comfort that nothing has changed; that the cycle of civilisation remains in force.
  In other words, it is better than finding that technology has enabled one empire to become unconquerable. With change comes turmoil, but turmoil preserves freedom.
22. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 01:42 · Score: 2
  
  Are you arguing that the US is in Afghanistan out of love for oppressed Afghan women or something?
23. Re:is there anybody here... by NoSleepDemon · 2011-04-05 01:43 · Score: 1
  
  The Chevy ads were a worst case example, but were mainly there to illustrate the point that there seems to be this rampant culture of competition prevalent in North American culture. For instance, every car ad says their car won such and such an award, and was voted consumer choice of 20xx, and it's just plain ol' better than brand y. There are pharmaceutical ads that run for 2 minutes just so they can list all of the adverse side effects the medicine will cause (yet you should still ask your doctor if obesotol is for you), and never ending lawfirm informercials that encourage you to sue the shit out of everyone and everything because hey, you're entitled to your compensation. Then you step into walmart and you can buy giant cases of anything for a fiver sometimes less, and outside there are blokes complaining about the cost of fuel leaning fully upright on their latest 4 wheeled monstrosity. It truly is a culture of excess and frankly the cost to other people in order to sustain it makes it undeserved.
24. Re:is there anybody here... by Stenchwarrior · 2011-04-05 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is that Europe has learnt some (not enough - and always dangerously close to forgetting it) humility while the US is still playing catchup. This is as you'd expect: Europe's had quite a few centuries' head start and two recent world wars to shake us up.
  I'm confused by this. Wasn't the U.S. settled and created by aforementioned and experienced Europeans?
  
  --
  Loading...
25. Re:is there anybody here... by antifoidulus · 2011-04-05 01:47 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is that Europe has learnt some (not enough - and always dangerously close to forgetting it) humility while the US is still playing catchup. This is as you'd expect: Europe's had quite a few centuries' head start and two recent world wars to shake us up.
  
  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, that is the most ADORABLE thing I've ever read on slashdot. Do you HONESTLY believe the Europeans gave up their colonies willingly because they all of a sudden became humble and realized how "bad" it was? Do you honestly believe that they had some great awakening and apologized to the people they raped, murdered, and stole from for hundreds of years? Fuck, the French are still trying to control their former colonies(see Ivory Coast). Guess what, they didn't. The only reason they don't have colonies anymore is because the colonists rose up and threw the bums out. You complain about Iraq and Afghanistan, and yet those are absolutely nothing to the war the French started in Vietnam. And yet the French get all bent out of shape about Iraq.
  
  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, sorry, it's just too easy to laugh at such Europeans, ignorant of their own history who criticize others for being so ignorant. If Europeans were truly sorry they would give back all their ill-gotten riches. But I don't forsee that happening.
  
  oh yeah,HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
  
  --
  Monstar L
26. Re:is there anybody here... by khallow · 2011-04-05 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  What does any of this have to do with the US thinking it has the right to act as world policeman?
  Let me just point out that countries have powers and constraints not rights. The US has the power to be the "world policeman" and no constraint preventing it from doing so (though there are various constraints on what the US does with that power).
  
  Be a soldier on the offensive if you want, but don't be such a damn coward about your reasons. I'd hoped hypocrisy died with the setting of the sun on the British empire, but it seems much of the US are no better.
  What makes you think the previous poster was being a hypocrite or coward? Because he disagreed with you? In addition, hypocrisy is the natural state of government everywhere. I wonder why you thought it would go away with the British empire when there were perhaps a hundred or so other countries practicing it at the time.
  
  I find it a wee bit hypocritical to wring one's hands over the US's role as "world policeman," while ignoring that there is some need for a world policeman and the absence of anyone better to fill the role.
27. Re:is there anybody here... by NoSleepDemon · 2011-04-05 01:49 · Score: 1
  
  Well when it's safer to stick a Canadian flag onto your back pack rather than your own as a means to explain your dialect you know you're in trouble.
28. Re:is there anybody here... by sosume · 2011-04-05 01:49 · Score: 2
  
  Are you arguing that the US is in Afghanistan for oil?
29. Re:is there anybody here... by Grygus · 2011-04-05 01:50 · Score: 2
  
  Not sure what history you're talking about, but the history of mankind has repeatedly shown that you can indeed wade into another culture and change it in a (historically speaking) short amount of time; controlling the change is difficult, but instigating change is fairly straightforward - you need only kill the right people. The US has directly or indirectly installed several of the world's governments. Are you under the impression that this did not change those cultures? If you trace the US's behavior back to the old European empires, whose behavior was not entirely dissimilar (though more overt in both practice and purpose,) then most of the world has experienced a cultural shift due to invasion, either military or economic, just in the past few hundred years. This doesn't even scratch the surface; the European empires themselves were following the example of Rome, which could itself look to Macedonia, which had an example in Persia... it's been happening at least since recorded history began, and the fact that most of those cultures no longer exist should be proof enough of the possibility. Even if you restrict this to very fast cultural shifts (say, within a single lifetime,) examples abound and should be easy to find should you care to look.
30. Re:is there anybody here... by Wiarumas · 2011-04-05 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't there a theory that if there is a power void, that it will be filled by another civilization? You can say whatever you want about America, but when its America's time to take the backseat to another leading world power, the same exact things will be said about them. Its human nature and there is no stopping it.
  
  --
  I will bend like a reed in the wind.
31. Re:is there anybody here... by clang_jangle · 2011-04-05 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  :%s/USA/BigBusiness/g
  
  In the future, please try to avoid confusing evil actors with their conquests, 'k?
  
  --
  Caveat Utilitor
32. Re:is there anybody here... by NoSleepDemon · 2011-04-05 01:53 · Score: 1
  
  Personally I think a better part of British culture to attack would be football hooliganism and youth crime, which seems to have risen as a counter culture to the snobbery. The one thing I don't see much of in Canada is 16 year olds running about with screw drivers spitting on people and punching the elderly. In Scotland the problem's so bad that the term 'NED' (Non-educated Delinquent) is actually used in newspaper headlines.
33. Re:is there anybody here... by ElectricTurtle · 2011-04-05 01:54 · Score: 1
  
  The conquistadors would like to have a word with you about what history shows, as would, ironically, the moors. Might we also have a word about the history of Anatolia? Hellenism and its effects on the Seleucid Kingdom(s)? Etc. etc.
  
  I don't think you know half as much as you pretend to know about history or what it 'repeatedly shows'.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
34. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 01:54 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I agree. Have you seen the pictures of the women disfigured because someone accused them of cheating or stealing? Or heard stories of the families now left without a husband because the Taliban either killed or forcefully recruited him?
  Try absorbing less knowledge via propaganda and walk around your country a bit. Firstly, spousal abuse happens everywhere, including on your street right now. Next, put less emphasis on the tourist spots and more on the poverty spots. Gang violence, while always more prevalent when there is a perceived oppressor to fight, produces life expectancies even in the US which you may have already exceeded. "But it's a choice in the US to join!" I hear you cry - just as the cry of America has always been that failure is a choice, and everyone has the freedom to succeed if only they try and dream just a little more. What bullshit. Yes, every genius and every atlas has the choice to defeat someone who dares to try to oppress him. But not everyone is either genius or atlas - you and I rely on good fortune.
  
  I'm sure the little kid in Africa who no longer has AIDS or Malaria doesn't mind us being there.
  Educating people to prepare malaria vaccines or HIV medication (essentially: not imposing the artificial construction that is intellectual property law) is so far removed from a military invasion that I can only assume you yourself know how difficult it is to justify US military behaviour and are clutching at straws out of some sense of guilt.
  Dude, it's OK. You're not being blamed personally. Use what freedom you have to speak out against your government where it does wrong.
35. Re:is there anybody here... by tophermeyer · 2011-04-05 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  American body bags coming home is a lot worse than expensive toy being destroyed, in terms of PR for the next election.
  I think it also means quite a bit for the family of the American body not in the bag.
  Whether or not we should be over there fighting is a separate question, but once we do start fighting why not send drones? It saves American lives, and discourages insurgents from actively fighting (less motivated to fight a bot than an infidel).
36. Re:is there anybody here... by 2names · 2011-04-05 01:57 · Score: 1
  
  Well, hello there, Mr. (or Mrs.) "I believe every stereotype about those fat, lazy Americans." Nice to see you.
  
  Seriously, though, have you spent any significant amount of time in the U.S.? I'm not talking about a week in NYC or a vacation at Disney[complex], but real, significant time in an average city such as Davenport, Iowa? I know it is hard to believe since the media portrays the "arrogant, self-important, fat, lazy American" as the norm, but most people here are not any different from people all over the globe. We just want to live with a few comforts, not have to worry about where our next meal is coming from, and raise our kids to be productive people.
  
  --
  "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
37. Re:is there anybody here... by dwillden · 2011-04-05 01:58 · Score: 1
  
  It has? See the ongoing Libyan intervention in behalf of Oil for Europe.
  
  --
  I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
38. Re:is there anybody here... by khallow · 2011-04-05 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  The difference is that Europe has learnt some (not enough - and always dangerously close to forgetting it) humility while the US is still playing catchup. This is as you'd expect: Europe's had quite a few centuries' head start and two recent world wars to shake us up.
  It's worth noting that the US government is older than all but a few governments in Europe and as a continuously operating democracy, there isn't anything older in Europe (the UK started being one in 1832). Europe collectively doesn't have that much experience with democracies and what it does often comes from countries that still haven't settled on a long term government form (such as France and the PIGS). But that doesn't stop people from those countries lecturing the US, does it?
  
  Now collectively they pursue the hubris of the European Union. It's one thing to create a common European market and currency, it's another to create a government with its own ability to add a huge layer of unnecessary bureaucracy to Europe. Now all those failures who couldn't get what they want at the nation-level due to the interference of democratic processes can fail again at the super-national level.
  
  I have trouble seeing the humility.
39. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 02:01 · Score: 2
  
  Yet me just point out that countries have powers and constraints not rights
  Quite. Yet the US acts as if it considers itself to have some right.
  
  What makes you think the previous poster was being a hypocrite or coward?
  
  Because, in traditional apologetic fallacy, he responds to a criticism of an oppressor with a criticism about a subset of the targets of oppression.
  
  I wonder why you thought it would go away with the British empire when there were perhaps a hundred or so other countries practicing it at the time.
  The setting of the British empire coincided with the start of an information age and a generally highly educated population (by contrast with earlier centuries). I was dreaming that this would have made it harder to use a lie to justify one's behaviour - so America would just say "we're doing this for profit" or whatever.
  
  I find it a wee bit hypocritical to wring one's hands over the US's role as "world policeman," while ignoring that there is some need for a world policeman and the absence of anyone better to fill the role.
  You may need to check the definition of "hypocrisy". Even if I thought there was a need for a world policeman - which I don't - it wouldn't make me hypocritical to state that the US shouldn't be claiming that it's in Afghanistan for humanitarian reasons.
40. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:04 · Score: 0
  
  "Get the hell out of the Middle East, USA"
  Afghanistan is not in the Middle East, it is in Asia.
41. Re:is there anybody here... by tixxit · 2011-04-05 02:06 · Score: 1
  
  I lived in a border city for years (I literally lived < 1km from the U.S.). I worked in an office that was 50% American. All of the Americans I worked with were fantastic people. Sure, we'd exchange jabs, but always in a friendly way.
  I think the only time I ever saw an American at my work get really defensive was when one of the Canadians called Americans a bunch of commies (this was about the time they were bailing banks out and giving people crap loads of money for junking old cars).
  As far as money; "why did you give me Canadian change? I'm American, I want American money!"... please! Just about the only thing I saw in this regard was the first time our dollar went over parity, and an American was short on change at a Tim Horton's (the "exchange rate" at most stores were "at par" for the last several months). He just laughed, made a joke at America's expense, and the clerk let him off and gave him the coffee.
  Of course, most of the people, both Canadians and Americans, around where I lived understood the relationship between US and Canada is hugely beneficial for all parties involved, knew that we were more similar than different, and respected each other.
  Personally, I think your attitude towards Americans is far worse than the attitude of any American that I've met.
42. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 02:09 · Score: 1
  
  That's not how culture works. You can't just take a few men and women from one country, have them reproduce to form a new society in a new country, and expect the culture of the old place to be reflected in the new. It wouldn't even work if early US immigrants were representative of their former nations, which they certainly weren't: you're lacking everything from climate to system of government to city layout to system of education to, well, everything except a bit of genetics and some ideas.
  This doesn't mean the US is inherently bad, just that it's young.
43. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:10 · Score: 0
  
  You think the US is in Afghanistan for profit? Do you have any idea how much that costs America?
44. Re:is there anybody here... by Vectormatic · 2011-04-05 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  yes, the US was founded by europeans who thought that europe wasnt strict, religious and uptight enough
  Which sort of explains the need to have a holy war on anything and everything, and the freakin out when someone shows digital rendered boobies in a 16+ game
  
  --
  People, what a bunch of bastards
45. Re:is there anybody here... by supercrisp · 2011-04-05 02:10 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymous Coward may want to look into the U.S. role in supporting the Taliban. I was reading about U.S. support of them back in the mid-90s, when they were just one, though a major, group of "freedom fighters" harassing the Soviets in Afghanistan.
46. Re:is there anybody here... by mangu · 2011-04-05 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  The Soviet Union went into Afghanistan because they wanted Pakistan, in order to get a naval base that had access to open ocean all year round.
  The USA, on the other hand, didn't want *any* resource from Afghanistan whatsoever. Different from the Soviet Union, it's not a strategic location for the USA. It has no mineral resources. No industry. No economic assets worth fighting for.
  There was one and only one reason why the USA invaded Afghanistan: to fight the state-sponsored religious-motivated terrorism of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Other than that, Afghanistan is worth as much to the USA as any other piss-poor nation in Asia.
  You don't see talks of intervention in Nepal or Tajikistan, do you?
47. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 02:12 · Score: 1
  
  No, the argument is that the loss of colonies and two recent world wars have made Europe more humble.
  Failure -> experience -> humility.
  It will happen to the US too. It's just a standard sequence in any human development and you're not immune to it.
  tl;dr Europe didn't choose to lose their colonies as a result of becoming humble, strawman /b/tard.
48. Re:is there anybody here... by countertrolling · 2011-04-05 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  The US is in Afghanistan for the plunder.. be it oil, pipes, women, whatever. It's no different than one gang of chimpanzees attacking another. The flowery language and 'morality' is pure BS
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
49. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  (1) Details on the system of appointment to government do not determine the length of life of a country and its culture, and the fact that you think it does says quite a lot about the scope of your understanding of culture;
  (2) If the Reform Act of 1832 determines when the UK government came into existence (what is wrong with you?), then the US did not exist in any meaningful sense before the civil rights movement of the 1960s ended apartheid in the South.
50. Re:is there anybody here... by DriedClexler · 2011-04-05 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't that charming Scottish accent make up for it though? I wouldn't mind being mugged half as much if the mugger had one of those pleasant, educated-sounding UK accents.
  
  --
  Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
51. Re:is there anybody here... by gilleain · 2011-04-05 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think you know half as much as you pretend to know about history or what it 'repeatedly shows'.
  Clearly the poster meant "The bits of history that I remember because they support my point of view repeatedly shows....". Obviously. Duhhh. :)
52. Re:is there anybody here... by ToadProphet · 2011-04-05 02:16 · Score: 2
  
  You think the US is in Afghanistan for profit? Do you have any idea how much that costs America?
  In public funds, a lot. But private industry is making a killing. Literally and figuratively.
  
  --
  It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
53. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  It might cost you, the average American taxpayer. But the war isn't being fought on your behalf. What did you expect?
54. Re:is there anybody here... by jon3k · 2011-04-05 02:17 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  That's some of the most disconnected babbling I've ever seen. We arrest people here for spousal abuse. In the middle east crowds of people will stone a woman to death for adultery. If you cannot see the distinction you are completel disconnected from reality.
  
  And to speak to your other completely unrelated point, everyone in the US has the CHANCE to succeed, nothing is guaranteed, and the privileged and wealthy sure have a better shot at it than the poor.
55. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:17 · Score: 0
  
  If the rest of the country is even half as nice as the Falls were, immigration would be a serious prospect.
  Please keep it to yourself though, we try to keep it quiet ;) If anyone asks what you thought of Canada, tell them it's full of syrup-sucking pseudo-European socialists and it was too cold. Thanks.
56. Re:is there anybody here... by FatAlb3rt · 2011-04-05 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  Good to see you have it all figured out - I had no idea my country sucked so bad.
  
  The glass is half empty because THE USA FUCKIN STOLE IT!!
57. Re:is there anybody here... by dwillden · 2011-04-05 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  I do not. The US is the Global power. We have and continue to make many mistakes in regards to foreign policy. But it is not out of evil designs or intent. And we kill and have killed far fewer people than any of the major nations of Europe. Our armed forces bend over backwards to avoid needless deaths. But war is war and deaths still occur.
  
  Get off your high horse. Would you rather the Soviets have won the cold war?
  
  --
  I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
58. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  I moved from the UK to Canada a few years ago, and yeah I agree. Being in proximity to them is irritating, but having to watch their stupid antics and culture spill onto TV is just downright offensive. Each time I watch another Chevrolet ad with the stupid moving 3D text proclaiming that their car has won x consumer award (apparently they all have) a part of me dies. My wife has regular contact with Americans almost every day and the ones that come across the border have an air of arrogance around them which is undeniable. A recurring favourite is "why did you give me Canadian change? I'm American, I want American money!". Thankfully the culture of NOW NOW NOW ME ME ME isn't quite so prevalent in the more civilized North. Having said that, "Hey I'm British too! My grandparents came over in the 1920s, do you know my friend Bob? He lives in London" is beginning to wear a little thin. Good snowboarding though.
  So stop watching American TV and have your wife quit dealing with us, otherwise quit bitching.
59. Re:is there anybody here... by jon3k · 2011-04-05 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Are you sure you know what genocide means? Because I can assure you the US isn't committing genocide.
60. Re:is there anybody here... by GooberToo · 2011-04-05 02:19 · Score: 0
  
  What does any of this have to do with the US thinking it has the right to act as world policeman?
  Says the person who has a home, as he curls up with a full stomach, a book, a fire place, and his dog at his feet.
  Contrary to ignorance such as your own, and contrary to the massive bullshit spewed left and right, the majority of the population in both Iraq and Afghanistan both want the US there. Yes, the US is viewed as a necessary evil. But believing no one wants us there except oil companies is to be an idiot. People seem to be in a hurry to ignore reality so as to substitute their own.
  The simple fact is, the world is likely to be a far, better, safer place for everyone exactly because of more recent middle eastern involvement by the US. And while idiots hate to admit it, much of the middle east owes a thank you to GWB. I think the only real surprise here is it happened everywhere else but Iran.
61. Re:is there anybody here... by NoSleepDemon · 2011-04-05 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  As long as Walmart and plus sized coffins still exist, we're going to have to agree to disagree.
62. Re:is there anybody here... by gilleain · 2011-04-05 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  In Scotland the problem's so bad that the term 'NED' (Non-educated Delinquent) is actually used in newspaper headlines.
  It's even become a film title : http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1560970/. Might have a watch of it sometime, actually.
63. Re:is there anybody here... by supercrisp · 2011-04-05 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  I'm rankled by the stereotyping too. I'm skinny, over-educated, drive an economical car, bike to work when I can, etc. BUT there's a reason for the stereotype. As an aggregate, we are more obese, own more stupid crap, are more consumerist. We start more wars, etc.. That said, it's a bit ironic that such criticism comes from a British person, as that nation relinquished its own hegemonic, imperial role very reluctantly. U.S. atrocities like slavery and Native American "removal" can be set alongside attempts to exterminate the Irish, the mass transportations to Australia, the machine-gunning of Indians, etc.. Yes, but, yes but. I dunno. Certainly I think the U.S. suffers from exceptionalism, isolation, consumerism. So, yeah. That doesn't mean we're all that way, nor that some of us don't struggle against it. Myself, I get fed up with the obnoxious Britons I meet abroad who tax me with every "American" failing, demanding that I account for George H.W. Bush's policies, or Clinton's, or the general offensive "American" this that or the other. It seems to me that this in part is a paradoxically chauvinist presumption stemming from the fiction of a "special relationship" (what I like to think of as the "Blair on his knees puckering" policy). That is, the Brits like this (not all of them by any stretch) seem to presume that the U.S. is a sort of first cousin with a family obligation to account for its dark sheep behavior.
64. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Your point is well made, and is the "not enough" I was talking about. It's true that we're becoming more like a little America.
  (And France hates to have departed this status, which explains partly why it shakes its fist across the Atlantic in hypocritical defiance so often.)
65. Re:is there anybody here... by khallow · 2011-04-05 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  (1) Details on the system of appointment to government do not determine the length of life of a country and its culture, and the fact that you think it does says quite a lot about the scope of your understanding of culture;
  They do indicate how much experience the culture has with democratic governments, which was my point. The US culture is younger, but it has well over two centuries of experience with democratic government, having continuously operated one from 1790 and one from 1780 (the Commonwealth of Massachusetts).
  
  If the Reform Act of 1832 determines when the UK government came into existence (what is wrong with you?), then the US did not exist in any meaningful sense before the civil rights movement of the 1960s ended apartheid in the South.
  1832 is when the UK government entered its democratic phase. I didn't claim otherwise.
66. Re:is there anybody here... by MaltoMario · 2011-04-05 02:24 · Score: 1
  
  The Chevy ads were a worst case example, but were mainly there to illustrate the point that there seems to be this rampant culture of competition prevalent in North American culture. For instance, every car ad says their car won such and such an award, and was voted consumer choice of 20xx, and it's just plain ol' better than brand y. There are pharmaceutical ads that run for 2 minutes just so they can list all of the adverse side effects the medicine will cause (yet you should still ask your doctor if obesotol is for you), and never ending lawfirm informercials that encourage you to sue the shit out of everyone and everything because hey, you're entitled to your compensation. Then you step into walmart and you can buy giant cases of anything for a fiver sometimes less, and outside there are blokes complaining about the cost of fuel leaning fully upright on their latest 4 wheeled monstrosity. It truly is a culture of excess and frankly the cost to other people in order to sustain it makes it undeserved.
  Please understand that while what you mentioned is very true (especially the law / drug ads if you watch CNN news during lunch hour) not every American should be lumped into the same greedy/wasteful category. I abhor TV and personally believe it dumbs down the masses and promotes a culture of laziness and complacency. My vehicle is almost 10yrs old and has been paid for long time ago. My wife and I are professionals (accounting and engineering), yet we live in a small home that we can easily afford. Yes, even though our friends with barely a high school diploma have much bigger houses, new cars (which most of them lease by the way). Many are already on their 2nd (!!!) house despite not having any equity in their first ones (thanks to interest only loans). I do all my own home improvements/repairs/yardwork and we eat breakfast and dinner at home, leftovers for lunch. 3-4 times per month we go out for coffee on Saturday morning as our only "luxury" that we allow ourselves as a family. Hey it's boring to eat in every day! My wife saves coupons and sews buttons back on clothing. We don't have a nanny. We don't have a housecleaner. We recycle. We only buy healthy fresh fruits/veggies/meats, nothing preprocessed. We don't have ipad this, ipod that. My PC at home is a 8yr old machine I built from newegg parts. We put as much as we can away into our retirement funds, and have already been contributing to our child's educational fund. We have not been on vacation in over 3 years. My vacation time has been spent painting or drywalling my basement. As for purchases, my general motto is "I'd rather go without than spend money on something of low quality." So over the years I've collected a variety of, say, nice tools which will last me a lifetime instead of heading to Walmart and buying up their disposable "tools" made of mystery pot metal. My point is this: even though we have the income to live more lavishly / wasteful, we make a conscious effort *not* to. This makes my wife and I statistical anomalies in our age group (25-34yrs). Don't paint all americans with the same brush.
67. Re:is there anybody here... by ToadProphet · 2011-04-05 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  The Soviet Union went into Afghanistan because they wanted Pakistan
  And the US wants to encircle Iran.
  
  It has no mineral resources.
  The US 'found' more than a trillion in resources after they went in, and wrestling over the contracts has just begun. And let's not forget that Afghanistan is one of the best routes for oil and gas to the southeast.
  Afghanistan is of massive strategic importance for a large number of reasons, and it has been since colonial times. See The Great Game and The New Great Game
  
  --
  It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
68. Re:is there anybody here... by NoSleepDemon · 2011-04-05 02:26 · Score: 1
  
  You know what I think it is - it's the sheer SIZE of the country, I suppose a little patriotism is to be expected when one owns a continent. But then again, places like Hollywood and Las Vegas are just utter cesspools of human excess and misery. There's definitely something wrong with a culture that churns out such quality programming as 'Last Bride Standing'.
69. Re:is there anybody here... by nharmon · 2011-04-05 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  The United States has not been an empire, if you could ever call us an empire, for quite some time. Our imperialism was fairly limited to establishing a nation that stretched from "sea to shining sea". In doing so we did a lot of damage to native civilizations and culture. If you want to criticize our history there, be my guest. I might even join in.
  However, since our war with Spain have we invaded any place with the intention of making it part of our nation? I can not think of any. We have invaded places, but always with the idea of reforming that nation and giving it back to its people. Nation building is not imperialism. And again, if you want to criticize us for thinking we can nation build, be my guest. I might even join in.
  Finally, unless you are a citizen of the United States or a middle eastern nation, you will excuse us while give your opinion on our affairs there the attention it deserves: none. As long as nations in the middle east keep asking for our help, and our people stay willing to give it to them, we will continue to be involved in these senseless conflicts. The opinions of some anti-American European slashdotter will not change that.
70. Re:is there anybody here... by GameboyRMH · 2011-04-05 02:27 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah most Americans are nice people. Of those I know, I'd say only around 10% are the stereotypical "America, FUCK YEAH!" type. The problem is they are the loudest, most noticeable ones.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
71. Re:is there anybody here... by arkenian · 2011-04-05 02:27 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  The US is in Afghanistan for the plunder.. be it oil, pipes, women, whatever. It's no different than one gang of chimpanzees attacking another. The flowery language and 'morality' is pure BS
  If there was anything to plunder in Afghanistan, this might actually be a valid argument.... but there's not, and pretty much never has been, which is why most invaders eventually give up.
72. Re:is there anybody here... by NoSleepDemon · 2011-04-05 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Glasgow Survival always cracks me up. What a toilet.
73. Re:is there anybody here... by gilleain · 2011-04-05 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Doesn't that charming Scottish accent make up for it though? I wouldn't mind being mugged half as much if the mugger had one of those pleasant, educated-sounding UK accents.
  You've never lived in Glasgow, have you? Perhaps you are thinking of highland accents, or the Irish?
74. Re:is there anybody here... by Xaositecte · 2011-04-05 02:30 · Score: 2
  
  Have you ever been to Afghanistan?
  The only thing people there are plundering is American Tax dollars. Afghanis are collateral damage.
75. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:30 · Score: 0
  
  If Europeans were truly sorry they would give back all their ill-gotten riches. But I don't forsee that happening.
  Kettle meet Pot
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery
76. Re:is there anybody here... by NoSleepDemon · 2011-04-05 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  I can taste the venom dripping from that post. Touche sir. I had the honour of being punched in the face by a Scottish 16 year old and I must agree with you, the accent made it a far more pleasant affair than it would have been otherwise. For instance getting punched in the face by a Welshman would have made me livid!
77. Re:is there anybody here... by gilleain · 2011-04-05 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  The US is in Afghanistan for the plunder.. be it oil, pipes, women, whatever. It's no different than one gang of chimpanzees attacking another. The flowery language and 'morality' is pure BS
  Women? Seriously? The USA has RUN OUT of women, so it's invaded Afghanistan to get some more?
  It does have some oil, though.
78. Re:is there anybody here... by 2names · 2011-04-05 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  Ok, then. You may now go back to watching hockey, drinking beer, eating back bacon, speaking French to English speakers even though you are quite capable of speaking English, going to strip clubs, saying "abooooot", wearing your tuk, and injecting "eh" at the end of every phrase.
  
  --
  "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
79. Re:is there anybody here... by ToadProphet · 2011-04-05 02:35 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If there was anything to plunder in Afghanistan, this might actually be a valid argument
  There's a trillion in resources, apparently 'found' after the invasion.
  But more importantly, Afghanistan is the key strategic jewel in the New Great Game shaped around oil politics.
  
  --
  It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
80. Re:is there anybody here... by Illicon · 2011-04-05 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Um... poppies. Just sayin'.
81. Re:is there anybody here... by NoSleepDemon · 2011-04-05 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  You know what's terrifying to me is that I wasn't taught half the awful twisted stuff the Brits pulled on the world until I met an Indian bloke at University who promptly showed me a documentary about Ghandi. At school I took History and we learnt lots of interesting things about WWII, Mussolini, the Arab Israeli conflict and Tsarist Russia, but nothing about why exactly the word 'Great' is sometimes prepended to 'Britain'. Seriously, we didn't learn anything about Ghandi in school. That's worrying.
82. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  The definition's changed over the years. In support of my usage:
  (i) The British traditionally considered it part of the Middle East as distinct from the Near East and the Far East;
  (ii) the US first used the term with eastern limit up to and not including Pakistan (Eisenhower Doctrine); and
  (iii) current US geopolitical dabbling refers to a "Greater Middle East" which includes Afghanistan (not having an official definition for "Middle East" on its own).
  
  it is in Asia
  But everything in that region is either in Europe, in Africa or in Asia. Sigh, I must never get into a geography argument with an American AC.
83. Re:is there anybody here... by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-04-05 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  The US is in Afghanistan for the plunder.. be it oil, pipes, women, whatever. It's no different than one gang of chimpanzees attacking another. The flowery language and 'morality' is pure BS
  Bull shit! I'm guessing you were also spouting that the US went to Iraq for the oil. In some ways, this is true. However historically when an army invades a country and is victorious they typically take what ever they want from the defeated country. I've yet to see the US take any "free" oil out of Iraq. The US spent (to date) almost $1.5 trillion and thousands of lives for that war and has "plundered" the ability to purchase oil from Iraq.
  Exactly how much oil has been plundered from Afghanistan? Please tell me how many women have been abducted from Afghanistan by US soldiers? Out of those, how many were sanctioned by the US government or people?
  The inflammatory language and feigned outrage is pure BS. Nor is it living up to your user name, "countertrolling".
84. Re:is there anybody here... by blackbeak · 2011-04-05 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Must be nice to be able to selectively hear stories so as to remain comfortable while remotely bombing folks (many, if not most, innocent civilians and their children, btw) in a selected country tens of thousands of miles away. Did you ever hear similar stories in countries we wouldn't dream of invading, thanks to the cozy relationships those regimes maintain with our international corporations? Of course not, because those inflammatory stories are only trotted out when they are convenient to the goals of warhawks. I've seen pictures of some of "those women" with additional disfigurement caused by robotic drones! How did that help them?
  Why not keep a lid on that indignation of yours until the U.S. decides to topple every regime that's hurts families for the benefit of the few oligarchs and their friends at the top? Oh, and shouldn't we start with the most egregious? (I'm sure Libya isn't even in the top ten.)
  I'm not an expert on the subject, but I'd bet an argument could be made that that "little kid in Africa" might well be far better off in many ways if western colonialists had never set foot in Africa, stripping it of much of its wealth.
  
  --
  Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
85. Re:is there anybody here... by ElectricTurtle · 2011-04-05 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  People on Slashdot who say anything preceded by a form of '...history shows...' without substantial justification are practically holding out a red cloth and yelling 'Toro! Toro!'
  
  Quite frankly I have a feeling that several are smart enough to be consciously trolling.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
86. Re:is there anybody here... by NoSleepDemon · 2011-04-05 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  That's rather impressive, I hope you've lived the long and fulfilling life you appear to deserve before the inevitable implosion of the Great American dream. In the meantime I have some banner ads to create to fuel everything we stand against.
87. Re:is there anybody here... by NoSleepDemon · 2011-04-05 02:46 · Score: 1
  
  But Survivor is so enjoyable! I'm glad they voted Russel off quickly that uncouth cunt. Couldn't you just tone down the ads instead?
88. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  We arrest people here for spousal abuse.
  Sometimes. And sometimes you even charge and convict. As do all the countries you're so obviously prejudiced against. Sometimes.
  
  In the middle east crowds of people will stone a woman to death for adultery.
  And that's bad. And I'm glad it's more rare in the US than in, say, Saudi Arabia. But it's also a straw man. The discussion was about people being abused, not the death penalty - a penalty every civilised nation has already done away with.
  
  And to speak to your other completely unrelated point, everyone in the US has the CHANCE to succeed
  Everyone everywhere has a chance to succeed. It's just that the hurdles to success are different everywhere. One day, maybe citizens of the US will look back and understand that there's othing new or special about their idea.
89. Re:is there anybody here... by NoSleepDemon · 2011-04-05 02:51 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly your immigration system is such a nightmare of paperwork, fees and more paperwork, I don't think you have much to worry about! I hear America's is around the same level of insanity (unless you happen to be exactly what they want at the time). When my wife and I watched the Proposal at the theatre we probably laughed the loudest, especially at the questions at the end - "what's his favourite colour outdoors" is my favourite.
90. Re:is there anybody here... by Stenchwarrior · 2011-04-05 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  The discussion was about people being abused, not the death penalty - a penalty every civilised nation has already done away with.
  Actually, it was about women being disfigured...not abused, therefore not straw man.
  
  --
  Loading...
91. Re:is there anybody here... by zach_the_lizard · 2011-04-05 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  I haven't been there, but apparently some geologists (or whoever does this work) have: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html
  "The United States has discovered nearly $1 trillion in untapped mineral deposits in Afghanistan, far beyond any previously known reserves and enough to fundamentally alter the Afghan economy and perhaps the Afghan war itself, according to senior American government officials."
  It was even covered on /.: http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/06/14/0652217/1-Trillion-In-Minerals-Found-In-Afghanistan?from=rss
  
  --
  SSC
92. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, you seem to be lost in the 1800's or so.The 'plunder' is no longer relevant in the way that you think it is. Plunder is now profit, and war is profitable both in the long term and the short term. Not to mention profits were being threatened by the actions of Saddam (contracts with the East, move to the Euro, etc, etc) in addition to the broader threat to US hegemony.
  You're the reason we keep getting suckered into this crap - someone can point and say 'look, we gave them democracy and didn't take all their oil... we're the good guys!' and you gobble it up because you don't have a clue about global politics or neoliberal capitalism.
93. Re:is there anybody here... by Stenchwarrior · 2011-04-05 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  I'm fairly certain the Europeans, specifically the Dutch, has had their feet in African soil since well before the U.S. was even a country, and causing far more damage than out Doctors Without Borders ever could. The diamond industry would agree with me.
  
  --
  Loading...
94. Re:is there anybody here... by NoSleepDemon · 2011-04-05 02:59 · Score: 1
  
  I do that quite frequently actually, and it drives my wife up the wall. My coworkers assure me that my accent's getting better by the day, but my biggest problem is that I rely on 'eh' as too much of a crutch to get the impression right. Regarding hockey, you're just angry because you lost at the Olympics.
95. Re:is there anybody here... by ladoga · 2011-04-05 03:00 · Score: 2
  
  And while idiots hate to admit it, much of the middle east owes a thank you to GWB. I think the only real surprise here is it happened everywhere else but Iran.
  Thanks for all the dead relatives, violence and instability? If people really want to get rid of a dictator they will do it themselves, thank you very much. (See Egypt and Tunisia) All that international community needs to do is to end dealing with these dictators and give revolting population some moral support. Democracy comes from the people, not from the barrel of a gun. Military invasion and occupation is the worst you can do.
  Almost any dictator is better than hundreds of thousands of dead people (mostly civilians) and chaos continuing to this day that resulted from the US invasion.
96. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Is this one of those discussions which hinges on a true Scotsman^Wdemocracy fallacy? In what way does pre-1832 Britain have "no" experience with democracy, and in what way does Massachusetts have "continuously operated" democracy from 1780? Who must be in the electorate and what gets to be voted for before your simplistic binary transition from "no democracy" to "true democracy"?
  (To cut this short, you can imagine listing the features you don't like about pre-1832 British democracy, and imagine my listing what makes 1780 Massachusetts democracy somehow not count. I thought you'd like to know that I shall in particular be focusing on women, the poll tax, and the interactions between the two.)
97. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 03:05 · Score: 1
  
  Democracy comes from the people, not from the barrel of a gun.
  The current US relationship with China couldn't have come without a bit of crudely adopted Maoism.
98. Re:is there anybody here... by adamdoyle · 2011-04-05 03:07 · Score: 1
  
  What does any of this have to do with the US thinking it has the right to act as world policeman?
  Says the person who has a home, as he curls up with a full stomach, a book, a fire place, and his dog at his feet.
  Contrary to ignorance such as your own, and contrary to the massive bullshit spewed left and right, the majority of the population in both Iraq and Afghanistan both want the US there. Yes, the US is viewed as a necessary evil. But believing no one wants us there except oil companies is to be an idiot. People seem to be in a hurry to ignore reality so as to substitute their own.
  The simple fact is, the world is likely to be a far, better, safer place for everyone exactly because of more recent middle eastern involvement by the US. And while idiots hate to admit it, much of the middle east owes a thank you to GWB. I think the only real surprise here is it happened everywhere else but Iran.
  I agree - the reason for initiating the war was certainly not altruism but that doesn't make it bad for us or even bad for them (Afghanistan / Iraq). Reasons don't matter - results do.
99. Re:is there anybody here... by zach_the_lizard · 2011-04-05 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about now, but at least in 2007 60% of Iraqis thought that attacks on US forces were justified. A vast majority of Sunnis and Shiites also oppose the American military presence; only the Kurds support American troops being there. Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2007-03-19-iraq-poll-day2_N.htm
  Afghanistan is more favorable to the US, though not all roses.
  
  --
  SSC
100. Re:is there anybody here... by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-04-05 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Must be nice to be able to selectively hear stories so as to remain comfortable while remotely bombing folks in a selected country tens of thousands of miles away.
  Yes here in America we all can control Predator drones from our couch via a video game console using the internet. It helps to pass the time between reality shows. I hear next year there will be a premium service that lest you fly strafing runs in an F-22.
  
  (many, if not most, innocent civilians and their children, btw)
  Yes, sometimes we make a mistake and accidentally hit an armed combatant, it's collateral damage really. It's much more cost effective to launch a $600K cruise missile at towns that have nothing but widows and orphans in them. [/sarcasm]
101. Re:is there anybody here... by GooberToo · 2011-04-05 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Almost any dictator is better than hundreds of thousands of dead people
  Yet more propaganda but the idiots of the world. The reality is, you have no fucking clue what the death rates were before the US invaded Iraq. Here's a hint, the death toll is LOWER now than it was before the US invaded.
  Fucking idiots.
102. Re:is there anybody here... by adamdoyle · 2011-04-05 03:15 · Score: 1
  
  The Chevy ads were a worst case example, but were mainly there to illustrate the point that there seems to be this rampant culture of competition prevalent in North American culture. For instance, every car ad says their car won such and such an award, and was voted consumer choice of 20xx, and it's just plain ol' better than brand y. There are pharmaceutical ads that run for 2 minutes just so they can list all of the adverse side effects the medicine will cause (yet you should still ask your doctor if obesotol is for you), and never ending lawfirm informercials that encourage you to sue the shit out of everyone and everything because hey, you're entitled to your compensation. Then you step into walmart and you can buy giant cases of anything for a fiver sometimes less, and outside there are blokes complaining about the cost of fuel leaning fully upright on their latest 4 wheeled monstrosity. It truly is a culture of excess and frankly the cost to other people in order to sustain it makes it undeserved.
  Please understand that while what you mentioned is very true (especially the law / drug ads if you watch CNN news during lunch hour) not every American should be lumped into the same greedy/wasteful category.
  I abhor TV and personally believe it dumbs down the masses and promotes a culture of laziness and complacency.
  My vehicle is almost 10yrs old and has been paid for long time ago.
  My wife and I are professionals (accounting and engineering), yet we live in a small home that we can easily afford. Yes, even though our friends with barely a high school diploma have much bigger houses, new cars (which most of them lease by the way). Many are already on their 2nd (!!!) house despite not having any equity in their first ones (thanks to interest only loans).
  I do all my own home improvements/repairs/yardwork and we eat breakfast and dinner at home, leftovers for lunch. 3-4 times per month we go out for coffee on Saturday morning as our only "luxury" that we allow ourselves as a family. Hey it's boring to eat in every day! My wife saves coupons and sews buttons back on clothing. We don't have a nanny. We don't have a housecleaner. We recycle. We only buy healthy fresh fruits/veggies/meats, nothing preprocessed. We don't have ipad this, ipod that. My PC at home is a 8yr old machine I built from newegg parts. We put as much as we can away into our retirement funds, and have already been contributing to our child's educational fund. We have not been on vacation in over 3 years. My vacation time has been spent painting or drywalling my basement.
  As for purchases, my general motto is "I'd rather go without than spend money on something of low quality." So over the years I've collected a variety of, say, nice tools which will last me a lifetime instead of heading to Walmart and buying up their disposable "tools" made of mystery pot metal.
  My point is this: even though we have the income to live more lavishly / wasteful, we make a conscious effort *not* to. This makes my wife and I statistical anomalies in our age group (25-34yrs).
  Don't paint all americans with the same brush.
  I, too, am an American and I know many people who fit this description. It's not nearly as uncommon as the stereotypes would have people believe.
103. Re:is there anybody here... by wisty · 2011-04-05 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  So if they are there to stop radical Islam, why don't they go to the source - Wahhabism? That's Islam's answer to the crazier Southern Baptist schools of thought. They spend about a billon dollars every year, encouraging radical Islam.
  Oh wait, stopping them would piss off the Saudis.
104. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 03:18 · Score: 1
  
  But I guess someone with an oddly emotional slant to their argument might look at a picture of a person who has been executed for X in a way that damages their face and not mention that they were killed for X, merely that they were disfigured - something which on its own happens to many people for various things in every country, often with a legal system set up to make it effectively permissible. Were you being intellectually dishonest or just emotional?
  Either way, unless you're discussing accidental disfigurement, we're certainly talking about abuse.
105. Re:is there anybody here... by GooberToo · 2011-04-05 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know about now, but at least in 2007 60% of Iraqis thought that attacks on US forces were justified
  That has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Such conflation is one of the biggest reasons why so many idiots have an opinion, which completely ignores its a baseless, ignorant opinion.
  As I very clearly said, they view the US as a necessary evil. Please take the time to actually understand what that means. That does not in any way mean they don't ultimately want the US to leave or that they believe the US to be their best buddy.
  Furthermore, unless the study very clearly breaks down the regions and religious affiliation in which the study was conducted, its literally a biases and useless study.
106. Re:is there anybody here... by fussy_radical · 2011-04-05 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  So we have a source:
  July 13 2010
  U.S. Identifies Vast Mineral Riches in Afghanistan
  "The previously unknown deposits — including huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and critical industrial metals like lithium — are so big and include so many minerals that are essential to modern industry that Afghanistan could eventually be transformed into one of the most important mining centers in the world, the United States officials believe. "
  http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html
  My guess is that we knew about these before we went in but just now 'discovered' them.
107. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 03:22 · Score: 0
  
  Actually, I thought the US went to Afghanistan in order to get Osama bin Ladin. Once there the US got distracted and went to Iraq.
  Personally I hoped we would have gone to Afghanistan this way:
  Send notice to Afghanistan that we want OBL.
  Give them 2-5 days to hand him over.
  Surround the country.
  If OBL is not handed over go in and totally disarm the country while searching for OBL.
  Once OBL is found, leave. On the way out drop all the seized weapons off at the border.
  This is totally against every international law. Then again OBL and other terrorist groups are using international law as a shield to get away with their actions. There is no country to fight against. It is a group that hides within countries. I know that the terrorist groups have more power then the countries leaders. The terrorists are really calling the shots.
  I am guessing people will respond that the US turn over Bush II for the same reason.
108. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  First time I've heard that, but it could be true. Could you please provide your various sources - i.e. multiple independent impartial observers - making sure that categories match up and are not explained by other geopolitical factors (e.g. reduction in infant mortality would not count as due to regime change unless we have an argument for ignoring easing of US sanctions against Iraq). Thanks.
109. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 03:29 · Score: 1
  
  Who are "they"? How was the information on what "they" think collected? How does "they" saying "please invade us" mean it's OK to do that, regardless of the opinion of others within the invading and the invaded country? Do you understand how a constitutional republic works?
110. Re:is there anybody here... by hairyfeet · 2011-04-05 03:30 · Score: 2
  
  Look up "Afghanistan pipeline" and you'll see what we're doing there. We are securing the route for a pair of pipelines, one oil the other natural gas, so the corps will have a way to route it through to India and the sea. pipelines are a hell of a lot cheaper for the corps, and less likely to get jacked, so what if some Americans die for it right?
  Anyone who thinks we're there to fight some "war on terror" might want to read or watch something besides the MSM once in a while. As in every single fight since the end of WWII we are in there for "strategic" (read corporate) interests, nothing more.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
111. Re:is there anybody here... by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-05 03:32 · Score: 1
  
  Because the Saudis might have nukes (50 CSS-2 intermediate-range ballistic missiles which had nuclear capability when the Chinese sold them) and it's the farking historical birthplace of Islam.
  "Pissing off the Saudis" by attacking Saudi Arabia would you know, actually cause a full blown holy war against the West.
112. Re:is there anybody here... by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-05 03:34 · Score: 2
  
  My taxes have not gone up during the war, so it's not costing me anything extra.
  Even with the deficit, the way the American Congress operates, without the war expenditures they would have found something else to sink money into that'd cause the deficit.
113. Re:is there anybody here... by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-05 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  But none of those resources are being developed, and with regional instability they way it is, they might not ever develop it.
  If the US was really interested in mineral wealth, the Federal government would push for development of Pebble Mine here in Alaska (at least 500 billion to 750 billion in Copper and Gold), but it's not being developed and it might be decades before it is.
  Much closer, much safer to develop and cheaper to operate.
114. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 03:48 · Score: 0
  
  'Ello Govnah. Fancy a strike to the noggin?
115. Re:is there anybody here... by kevinNCSU · 2011-04-05 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  Look up "Afghanistan pipeline" and you'll see what we're doing there. We are securing the route for a pair of pipelines, one oil the other natural gas, so the corps will have a way to route it through to India and the sea. pipelines are a hell of a lot cheaper for the corps, and less likely to get jacked, so what if some Americans die for it right?
  >
  
  Seems like a bit of a catch-22. Any sort of industry or build-up of Afghanistan is going to immediately be attributed to the US going to war there for "corporate interests" and the other option is leveling the place and leaving them to suffer without infrastructure or economy which doesn't exactly make us look or smell like roses either. I think pointing to pipelines and resources discovered later whose rights the Afghan government sold to non American firms is a sad attempt to post-justify the war with your preconceived notions of corporations running everything. The fact of the matter is the American people were pissed off after 9/11, and ready to fuck anyone up that seemed like they were a part of it. I know I was, and the near unanimous approval of our congress and high public approval ratings for the war would seem to agree.
  How exactly do you see it going down in your mind? The corporations collaborated to plan 9/11? Or while the country was getting hit with jetliners Bush decided to meet with some evil conglomerate of corporations that used the opportunity to pick a target for war based on a ten-year plan to start building a pipeline so their oil trucks don't get jacked but is instead running in a giant vulnerable pipe in a country full of militants with RPGs? Sounds like a plan.
116. Re:is there anybody here... by ToadProphet · 2011-04-05 03:54 · Score: 1
  
  But none of those resources are being developed, and with regional instability they way it is, they might not ever develop it.
  Sure, but it isn't necessary to develop resources to create profit. Rights are already being sold in Afghanistan. Obviously there's more to be gained with stability but it isn't necessary. And don't forget that there's been plenty of oil extracted over the years in the midst of a whole lot of instability.
  Regardless, I don't believe that's the primary reason for being in Afghanistan, just one of many on the list. Freedom, democracy and women's rights likely aren't even on that list - they're merely tools to market the war.
  
  --
  It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
117. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  I'd like to think that is some part of it. A pure cynic would label instituting an egalitarian Afghan society as self-interest and sugarcoating ulterior motives for PR reasons, but I tend to try to balance out my cynicism and optimism. It's normal people that build schools and protect voting stations, not puppet masters.
118. Re:is there anybody here... by dkleinsc · 2011-04-05 03:57 · Score: 1
  
  The best part is that these European countries (and the Germans in particular, which is probably what GP is thinking of) are probably not the progenitors of the biggest genocides in human history. It's one of the two giant blind spots in what typically passes for US history, but what would you call it if a group of people had their population go from over 20 million to 2 million due to a sustained deliberate national policy?
  
  --
  I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
119. Re:is there anybody here... by Wyatt+Earp · 2011-04-05 04:01 · Score: 1
  
  The leases are being sold, that money is going to the Afghani government, which it should because it's their country.
  But little development is taking place, so in the current time frame the only one making a profit is Afghanistan, and whom ever in the government pockets the money.
120. Re:is there anybody here... by Alex+Belits · 2011-04-05 04:01 · Score: 2
  
  And what made you think that everyone else is as disgusting as your government? Your government's own propaganda?
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
121. Re:is there anybody here... by Xaositecte · 2011-04-05 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  This is indeed news to me!
  Good to know.
122. Re:is there anybody here... by Alex+Belits · 2011-04-05 04:05 · Score: 1
  
  ...and Americans also think they "won" the cold war.
  Idiots.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
123. Re:is there anybody here... by 2names · 2011-04-05 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  "Regarding hockey, you're just angry because you lost at the Olympics."
  
  Now that's hitting below the belt. You know, sometimes words can hurt.
  
  I used to catch hell about my accent (a bit of a southern drawl or hillbilly-ish) but my wife tells me it is getting better and really only comes out after a few beers.
  
  --
  "I'm just here to regulate funkiness."
124. Re:is there anybody here... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  Afganistan/Pakistan export terror, and US is forced to pay price for that, whether there is any direct benefit or not.
125. Re:is there anybody here... by ToadProphet · 2011-04-05 04:24 · Score: 1
  
  But little development is taking place, so in the current time frame the only one making a profit is Afghanistan, and whom ever in the government pockets the money.
  Not necessarily. We've seen this pattern before so I think it's safe to assume that companies from the countries that are engaged will pocket a whole lot, just as they've done in Iraq.
  Afghanistan was given bribes 'aid' in exchange for selling of those resources, in the form of development rights, very early on (funny enough the fire sale happened around the time of the announcement of those resources). Of course companies from NATO countries were given the best and juiciest and that was all done above board. Those rights will be sold and traded several times over since the real speculating is whether or not there will be enough stability to develop them. And you can bet that those companies that actually want to develop those resources will be lobbying hard for stability by any means necessary.
  The Afghan government sold of their resources for a pittance in exchange for almost nothing. Sure, there might have been a measly profit, but it was at the expense of mortgaging the future of Afghanis.
  
  --
  It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
126. Re:is there anybody here... by khallow · 2011-04-05 04:28 · Score: 1
  
  I notice your focus on England. Few other European countries have such a rich history of democratic leanings. It's worth noting that the nascent US borrowed wholesale English common law. England does have democratic aspects that sometimes go back half a century or more with the origin of democracy in a document, the Magna Carta which is almost 800 years old. But as a government where the voters have the political power, that's a much more recent change. The 1832 reform did two very significant things for which I consider it the start of a UK democracy. FIrst, it defanged the House of Lords. And it greatly enlarged who was considered a voter.
  
  Finally, let's compare Massachusetts and the US to the UK. Within a few years of the creation of the Commonwealth, slavery ended in Massachusetts (because it was inconsistent with the Massachusetts constitution). Slavery in the British Empire was ended in 1834. Slavery in the US was ended in 1868 with the 14th Amendment. While the UK allowed some women to vote in 1918, the US (and as a consequence, Massachusetts) allowed all women to vote in 1920 beating the UK by eight years (1928).
  
  Who could vote in the UK in 1832 after the reform was roughly comparable to who could vote in Massachusetts and the US from the very beginning of these democracies.
127. Re:is there anybody here... by GooberToo · 2011-04-05 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  More conflation and bullshit.
  When all you have is conflated bullshit, isn't that a good clue that even if you don't want to take my word for it, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. Seriously, don't want to believe me, GREAT! But get off your stupid, lazy ass and bother to learn something, anything, so as to hold a legitimate opinion rather than barf up the same, factually wrong, bullshit, which is constantly pushed by morons in the public and media alike.
  The main point is, most people on slashdot have three views. Two of which, which is sadly the majority, are factually wrong. That doesn't mean others, such as myself have it all figured out, but at least I've gotten off my lazy ass and made an attempt to educate myself on what's really going on rather than towing the party line of bullshit and lies and attacking others simply because you want to believe the bullshit and ignore reality.
  Seriously, if you spend much time actually investigating for yourself, regardless of what you currently believe, you'll quickly find almost everything you believe today is full shit. You may not ultimately draw the same conclusions I have, but you will at least understand your current views are factually invalid.
  So stop pretending you know what you fuck you're talking about, pull your head from your ass and understand, its extremely difficult to actually understand the REAL facts about these things unless you're willing to do a lot of digging for yourself and crosscheck with both the right and left. I do that! Do you? Since we're having this exchange, very clearly you are not.
128. Re:is there anybody here... by GooberToo · 2011-04-05 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, you're both completely fucking stupid and lazy and you are unreasonably demanding I do your homework so you can then ignoring it yet again proving you're both an idiot and a troll. Haha, jokes on me. Seriously, how stupid are you?
  Seriously, get off your stupid, pathetic, lazy ass, and go research for yourself. I'll be here when you want to apologize.
  Fucking idiots.
129. Re:is there anybody here... by Hazel+Bergeron · 2011-04-05 05:39 · Score: 1
  
  It would have been sufficient to type, "I don't have any credible sources. I was making it up, sorry."
130. Re:is there anybody here... by The+Gaytriot · 2011-04-05 06:07 · Score: 1
  
  Dave Ramsey would be so proud.
  
  --
  Srsly u guys. U guys, srsly.
131. Re:is there anybody here... by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-04-05 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, you seem to be lost in the 1800's or so.
  Wow, you seem to have your head stuck up you ass.
  
  The 'plunder' is no longer relevant in the way that you think it is.Plunder is now profit
  Not in any dictionary I'm familiar with. Only in your screwed up little head. Well, you and those that seem to think that being successful is the same as being evil. I'm sure that any honest business that is successful is also pillaging and evil too. Oh wait, there's probably no such thing as an honest business in your world. What do you do to make the world a better place? How much of your time an money do you donate to charitable causes? Or is whining on Slashdot about as much as you can handle?
  
  and war is profitable both in the long term and the short term.
  So the US has spent $1.4 trillion on Iraq, what's the ROI on that been to date for the US treasury? From what I understand we had to borrow money for this war and don't seem to be paying that back too fast.
  
  Not to mention profits were being threatened by the actions of Saddam (contracts with the East, move to the Euro, etc, etc) in addition to the broader threat to US hegemony.
  So it was also to help "the East" and "the Euro" too? Wow what a bunch of selfish bastards those Americans are. Invading Iraq, deposing that swell guy, Sadam, not taking any money back or reparations for lives lost, and helping out other countries. Those fucking EVIL Americans.
  
  You're the reason we keep getting suckered into this crap - someone can point and say 'look, we gave them democracy and didn't take all their oil... we're the good guys!' and you gobble it up because you don't have a clue about global politics or neoliberal capitalism.
  You know, I wish that we would have never invaded Iraq, but unfortunately, we did. Unless you can build a time machine or change the past in some other way, why don't you shut the fuck up until YOU get a clue or have something useful to say.
132. Re:is there anybody here... by countertrolling · 2011-04-05 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  You''re only defending piracy, the real kind. Obviously you have something to gain, or indeed you are the one that's trolling. Judging by the tone of your 'voice', I'm going with the latter.
  Keep up the good work. Not too long ago Hillary was just mentioning how sucky our propaganda machine is. Maybe you'll find an opportunity to help her out a bit.
  The reason we are there is not even human.
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
133. Re:is there anybody here... by hairyfeet · 2011-04-05 08:50 · Score: 0
  
  No I'm saying it wouldn't have mattered if Osama would have been in Italy we were gonna hit Afghanistan and Iraq, period. You might want to look up "Aaron Russo on 9/11" where the guy calls BOTH wars nearly 3 years before they happen, hell he died before Iraq got underway, and he wasn't psychic he was told by the bankers which countries would be targeted because it was part of their new layout to include the oil and natural gas pipelines which...gasp! need Iraq and Afghanistan and neither Saddam nor the Taliban wanted to play ball. Shame on them!
  Those that now rule at the very top, known as the 1%, already have more money than God, so where can their greed go? The answer is simple my friend, power and the consolidation thereof. It is no accident why their profits are all private and their failures are all paid by the public, it is no accident why when the need a pipeline or shipping route it suddenly becomes a "strategic interest" it is because they have been consolidating power for years and they have NO problem with wielding it. Hell if they point their speculation computers at the oil markets your gas would be $10 tomorrow, so play nice!
  So don't buy the bullshit, the neocons hand in hand with the bankers have been planning their Mideast strategy since the 80s. look up Wolfowitz (sorry if I spelled his name wrong) who was Bush's foreign adviser and see what he was saying way back in the 80s with regards to the Mideast. Hell the man even outlined using false flag tactics like "Running a couple of planes into buildings" to get the public behind the administration! If you think causing the deaths of a few thousand Americans for the "greater good" would cause them to lose a moment's sleep I have a bridge to sell you.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
134. Re:is there anybody here... by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-04-05 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'm doing neither. But it seems you are guilty of the later. You claim that the US is stealing property and people. But when asked how much/many you simply reply with accusations.
135. Re:is there anybody here... by countertrolling · 2011-04-05 09:50 · Score: 1
  
  ...But when asked how much/many...
  Dumb question... They want all of it. Even if they only wanted one acre, they went in, uninvited to take it. You're too high on the kool aid to waste any more time. Have a good one...
  
  --
  For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
136. Re:is there anybody here... by Paul+Fernhout · 2011-04-05 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  "We have invaded places, but always with the idea of reforming that nation and giving it back to its RICH people."
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_United_States
  FTFY. :-)
  You can possess markets and extraction areas without saying you are going to move your people in there...
  See also:
  http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/zinncomrev24.html
  "How skillful to tax the middle class to pay for the relief of the poor, building resentment on top of humiliation! How adroit to bus poor black youngsters into poor white neighborhoods, in a violent exchange of impoverished schools, while the schools of the rich remain untouched and the wealth of the nation, doled out carefully where children need free milk, is drained for billion-dollar aircraft carriers. How ingenious to meet the demands of blacks and women for equality by giving them small special benefits, and setting them in competition with everyone else for jobs made scarce by an irrational, wasteful system. How wise to turn the fear and anger of the majority toward a class of criminals bred-by economic inequity-faster than they can be put away, deflecting attention from the huge thefts of national resources carried out within the law by men in executive offices. "
  And:
  http://archive.uua.org/ga/ga99/238thandeka.html
  "First, 80 percent of the wealth in this country is owned by 20 percent of the population. The top 1 percent owns 47% of this wealth. These facts describe an American oligarchy that rules not as a right of race but as a right of class. "
  And:
  http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/
  
  --
  A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
137. Re:is there anybody here... by Xaositecte · 2011-04-05 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Honestly, I feel there's a certain standard that Americans have set for ourselves that I must maintain while travelling. If a foreigner meets an American who is not loud, obnoxious, or insulting in some way, then they have been robbed of the true American experience.
138. Re:is there anybody here... by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-04-05 15:44 · Score: 1
  
  ...But when asked how much/many...
  Dumb question...
  It's only a dumb question in that you cannot answer it. You have no answer, so again you make accusatory remarks instead of offering anything to back up your ridiculous claim that the US is stealing "oil, pipes, women" from Afghanistan.
  
  They want all of it.
  I want all kinds of things too, so I work for them. But that is not the same as actually stealing them. See the difference?
  
  Even if they only wanted one acre, they went in, uninvited to take it.
  
  Which acre was claimed as permanent sovereign US soil?
  
  You're too high on the kool aid to waste any more time. Have a good one...
  If you wish to see one who is drunk on Kool-aid, I suggest you look in a mirror. Regardless, I wish you well.
139. Re:is there anybody here... by Risen888 · 2011-04-08 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  (Not the OP)
  I would argue that the US is in Afghanistan because of "global strategery." It happens to be a most convenient place for us to simultaneously keep an eye on Pakistan, Iran, Russia, and China. Look at a map.
  Repeat after me, "The United States military is not a moral agent."
  
  --
  Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
140. Re:is there anybody here... by Risen888 · 2011-04-08 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  History.
  
  --
  Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
Marine Offensive, Move Out! by xMrFishx · 2011-04-05 01:04 · Score: 5, Funny

I know the marines aren't known for their intelligence, but calling them drones or robots, I think that's a little harsh...
1. Re:Marine Offensive, Move Out! by Ecuador · 2011-04-05 02:29 · Score: 2
  
  Drones would be much better than this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkpsNw3oM0Q
  
  --
  Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
2. Re:Marine Offensive, Move Out! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:39 · Score: 0
  
  Burn the Afghan flag
3. Re:Marine Offensive, Move Out! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 05:40 · Score: 0
  
  Any soldier could turn into a robot after a good, psychotic combination of sleeping pills and stimulants. Any soldier could turn into a drone if accidentally exposed to the politics of the Congress.
  The weather in Afghanistan is sometimes harsh with steel raining from the sky. Exposing drones to the weather is the only way to break them up so that a person can be found hidden inside.
Best practise of anti-robots law by deconvolution · 2011-04-05 01:07 · Score: 1, Interesting

Tons killing machines and none for Fukushima. Well done.
1. Re:Best practise of anti-robots law by N1ck0 · 2011-04-05 01:28 · Score: 1
  
  Tons killing machines and none for Fukushima. Well done.
  Thats twisted. You want to send killing machines to Fukushima!
  
  Or are you trying to make a Robot Civilization in SimEarth?
2. Re:Best practise of anti-robots law by tixxit · 2011-04-05 02:08 · Score: 1
  
  US Sending Robots to Fukushima - Radiation-hardened Robots to Assist at Stricken Plant
3. Re:Best practise of anti-robots law by nharmon · 2011-04-05 02:28 · Score: 1
  
  Did it strike anyone else as weird that the United States is sending robots to Japan? It seems the Japanese are famous for robotic technology.
4. Re:Best practise of anti-robots law by Synn · 2011-04-05 02:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, but all of Japan's robotic technology is focused on developing sex slaves.
5. Re:Best practise of anti-robots law by marcosdumay · 2011-04-05 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  "You want to send killing machines to Fukushima!"
  
  They seem to already have plenty of those on site.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
6. Re:Best practise of anti-robots law by kevinNCSU · 2011-04-05 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  Tons killing machines and none for Fukushima. Well done.
  First of all, I don't see why killing machines would help at Fukushima, but did you seriously miss both the Slashdot story about USAF drones taking hi-res pictures for the Japanese and the fact that we sent a ton of radiation hardened robots to assist? I mean, do you even think before you bash the US or do you just imagine whatever is the worse possible case and then just go with it absent of any real fact or understanding?
7. Re:Best practise of anti-robots law by Tetsujin · 2011-04-05 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  Did it strike anyone else as weird that the United States is sending robots to Japan? It seems the Japanese are famous for robotic technology.
  The Japanese do have robots ready to deal with their reactor troubles, certainly: the problem is deployment. They tried launching one of their robots to deal with the crisis, but the actuators that cause the "swimming pool" launch doors to open were damaged in the earthquake.
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
8. Re:Best practise of anti-robots law by amicusNYCL · 2011-04-05 04:18 · Score: 1
  
  Ahh, let me guess. The US has no right to be in Afghanistan fighting a war, but it is our responsibility to help Japan, and anywhere else in the world that needs help. Is that about right? Japan is one of the world leaders in civil robotics, so why have they failed to help themselves? Why is it our responsibility to do that also? Why are we giving them our radiation-hardened robots instead of them using their own? Are there any other failings in other countries that are our fault? How about Gbagbo in Ivory Coast, it's probably our fault that he's so far refused to give up power, isn't it?
  
  --
  "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
9. Re:Best practise of anti-robots law by davester666 · 2011-04-05 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, the idea is to have them fight each other, instead of both of them getting together to kill humans.
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
10. Re:Best practise of anti-robots law by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 05:25 · Score: 0
  
  On the contrary, both Qinetiq and iRobot have sent robots to Fukushima.
  http://www.sciencenewsline.com/technology/2011040505590000.html
  http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/industrial-robots/irobot-sending-packbots-and-warriors-to-fukushima
11. Re:Best practise of anti-robots law by qpqp · 2011-04-05 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  You're an idiot.
yeah, good to see no civilians killed by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:07 · Score: 0

We're winning because our robots are better than their robots? yay! it's battle-bots! it should be televised. "No humans were harmed in the making of this war"
too bad this isn't reality
1. Re:yeah, good to see no civilians killed by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:42 · Score: 0
  
  The US would have to pick an enemy who can afford robots in the first place. Bombing backward civilisations is so much more fun, though.
2. Re:yeah, good to see no civilians killed by Chrisq · 2011-04-05 01:45 · Score: 1
  
  The US would have to pick an enemy who can afford robots in the first place. Bombing backward civilisations is so much more fun, though.
  Of course the problem with this type of asymetric warfare is that terrorism is the only way they can fight back. They cannot realistically fight drones with AK47s. The choice is either give in or use terrorism to convince the other country not to send them.
3. Re:yeah, good to see no civilians killed by Shakrai · 2011-04-05 03:21 · Score: 2
  
  The choice is either give in or use terrorism to convince the other country not to send them.
  This isn't Iraq you know. It's Afghanistan. We wouldn't be there if they hadn't opted to support a terrorist group that attacked our country.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
4. Re:yeah, good to see no civilians killed by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-04-05 04:04 · Score: 2
  
  The US would have to pick an enemy who can afford robots in the first place. Bombing backward civilisations is so much more fun, though.
  Radically low-tech enemies are actually a huge mess to deal with. There is sort of a bell-shaped-curve if you consider the opponent's level of technological power to be the X axis, and the ease of dealing with them to be the Y:
  
  On the extreme right of the curve, you have technologically superior enemies. You can't win, you can only hope to make a nuisance of yourself and hope that their tolerance for casualties is several orders of magnitude lower than yours. On the extreme left of the curve, you have radically technologically inferior enemies. They can still inflict casualties, because booby traps and small arms absolutely saturate the world market, and will kill your fancy superior forces just fine; but they tend to have relatively few good targets. No big command and control structures or vital infrastructure facilities or seats of government that you can just raise a flag over and expect the existing governmental apparatus to fall into line behind(because there often isn't one, or it is a fragmented mess eve when you aren't there).
  
  The best ones are right in the middle: Developed enough to have centralized infrastructure, governmental and other organizational systems that can be decapitated and then reused, and wealthy enough that they've been trying to build up conventional armored forces and aircraft and the like, rather than irregular guerrillas. Poor enough, on the other hand, that all their armor and aircraft are substantially inferior to yours, and their regular troops are questionably trained conscripts with a very limited interest in getting slaughtered. Compared to the prospect of driving around in circles, eating IEDs, while looking for something worth capturing, blowing your way through a force of hopelessly inferior eastern-bloc rustboxes on your way to the capital is downright idyllic...
5. Re:yeah, good to see no civilians killed by badran · 2011-04-05 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  Afghanistan has huge mineral reserves and some oil.
6. Re:yeah, good to see no civilians killed by Shakrai · 2011-04-05 07:23 · Score: 1
  
  So does Canada but we haven't invaded them yet. That might have something to do with the fact that they don't support terrorist organizations that kill thousands of American citizens.
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
7. Re:yeah, good to see no civilians killed by Risen888 · 2011-04-08 03:09 · Score: 1
  
  Sure, buddy. 15 Saudis, led by a Saudi royal prince, hijack planes and attack our country and we invade Afghanistan.
  
  --
  Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
8. Re:yeah, good to see no civilians killed by Shakrai · 2011-04-08 03:21 · Score: 1
  
  Their citizenship is irrelevant. Saudi Arabia was not the country allowing them to use it's soil as a base of operations. The Saudi Government was not the one that refused to turn them over to face justice. Which Government was that I wonder?
  
  --
  I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
  We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
9. Re:yeah, good to see no civilians killed by Risen888 · 2011-04-09 04:07 · Score: 1
  
  1. Osama bin Laden is a Saudi crown prince. It's not Osama bin Random Dude Off The Street. You can't hand-wave that away.
  2. The Taliban at no time "refused to turn them over." They denied knowing their whereabouts and invited us to come in and verify that. We did so with cruise missiles.
  
  --
  Hey, I finally got my first freak! Took you long enough!
X-47B? by pease1 · 2011-04-05 01:08 · Score: 2

So what exactly does the X-47B have to do with Afghanistan? After all these years of conflict, CNN still does not understand the basics of the US Military.
1. Re:X-47B? by hey! · 2011-04-05 01:46 · Score: 1
  
  Err... The video piece described by the article starts off discussing the American Civil War. What does *that* have to do with Afghanistan?
  The answer is "nothing." It wasn't intended to say anything about Afghanistan, because Afghanistan is not what the article is about. The article is about how robotics is the next phase in the mechanization of warfare. The Civil War was the high water mark of pre-mechanized warfare, the last great ware fought with muscle and fodder. The reporter might have mentioned the Battle of Hampton Roads, which everyone knows was the first battle of *ironclads*, but perhaps more significantly it was a battle of steam driven warships, a naval tactics game changer well under way before the start of the war.
  Afghanistan is a significant milestone in the ongoing mechanization of warfare, so I think TFA gets that right. The X-47B is a step towards a robotic weapon capable of performing, not just a single task, but an entire mission autonomously. That *policy* requires a human to actually pull the trigger doesn't change the significance of that milestone. That the X-47B is only a mock-up doesn't change that either. It has a 2000 kg weapons bay, so it's clear where the designers are going with this. So I'd say TFA got that right too.
  While CNN may not understand the basics of the US military, this article is not evidence supporting that position.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
2. Re:X-47B? by Paul+Fernhout · 2011-04-05 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Your sig: "Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure."
  Rewritten for the topic: :-) "Robotic warfare may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea, elevated blood pressure, or massive casualties of all sorts."
  See also my essay:
  http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
  "Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead? "
  
  --
  A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Really? by Daetrin · 2011-04-05 01:09 · Score: 5, Funny

"There are more fighting robots than elevators in the country."

That's the metric we're using? So all i need to do to have my own robot war is build a single robot, and find a country with no elevators for it to attack?

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
1. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:14 · Score: 0
  
  As the Daleks have taught us, attacking a country with no elevators is a guaranteed way for your robots to lose the war.
2. Re:Really? by vawwyakr · 2011-04-05 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  This is clearly a flawed method of evaluation....the US robots of leveled all building tall enough to need an elevator...thereby artificially skewing the metric in their favor.
3. Re:Really? by stardaemon · 2011-04-05 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  As the Daleks have taught us, attacking a country with no elevators is a guaranteed way for your robots to lose the war.
  Not really.
  As we all know, they simply level the building.
  
  --
  The only way to stay sane in an insane world, is to be mad yourself...
4. Re:Really? by Inda · 2011-04-05 01:22 · Score: 1
  
  More robots than ice cream vans.
  More robots than a Honda factory.
  More robots than a robot factory?
  
  More robots than elevators? Um, yeah, sure.
  
  --
  This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
5. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:24 · Score: 1
  
  the US robots of leveled all building tall enough to need an elevator...thereby artificially skewing the metric in their favor.
  I thought that was the definition of winning the war...
6. Re:Really? by jollyreaper · 2011-04-05 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  "There are more fighting robots than elevators in the country."
  That's the metric we're using? So all i need to do to have my own robot war is build a single robot, and find a country with no elevators for it to attack?
  There's also more robots than working toilets. Thanks, crappy military construction outsourcing.
  
  --
  Kwisatz Haderach
  Sell the spice to CHOAM
  This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
7. Re:Really? by N1ck0 · 2011-04-05 01:41 · Score: 1
  
  Time for Jamie to bring Blendo out of retirement...bring that ratio back down.
  Mr. President, we can't afford to have a killer robot-elevator ratio gap.
8. Re:Really? by Wiarumas · 2011-04-05 01:51 · Score: 1
  
  My house also has more robots than elevators. I'm a bleeding edge innovator like that.
  
  --
  I will bend like a reed in the wind.
9. Re:Really? by Vectormatic · 2011-04-05 02:14 · Score: 1
  
  But are they fighting?
  (and no, rock-em sock-em robots dont count :P)
  
  --
  People, what a bunch of bastards
10. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  "Number of elevators"... is that an imperial measurement of some kind? What's the proper metric equivalent - "number of lifts"?
11. Re:Really? by Wiarumas · 2011-04-05 02:17 · Score: 1
  
  They are fighting the never ending war against dust by keeping my floors clean with the occasional ambush from a cat.
  
  --
  I will bend like a reed in the wind.
12. Re:Really? by EricX2 · 2011-04-05 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  There are more elevators in my office building than robots, does that mean if we had a war there it would be the elevator war?
13. Re:Really? by danbert8 · 2011-04-05 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  I propose a robot draft. If the war gets bad enough, we take the robots out of factories and replace them with inefficient meatbags.
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
14. Re:Really? by marcosdumay · 2011-04-05 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  You could explain that idea to the US Congress. It would save lots of lifes.
  
  --
  Rethinking email
15. Re:Really? by corbettw · 2011-04-05 03:13 · Score: 1
  
  I feel like there's a joke involving robots and stairs in there somewhere, but the coffee just isn't pushing its way into my brain quickly enough this morning. So imagine something funny and that I said it. You're welcome.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
16. Re:Really? by sznupi · 2011-04-05 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Elevators are robots. You need to build a fighting robot (but bonus points for a fighting elevator)
  
  --
  One that hath name thou can not otter
17. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  "There are more fighting robots than elevators in the country."
  That's the metric we're using? So all i need to do to have my own robot war is build a single robot, and find a country with no elevators for it to attack?
  Better design it to climb stairs...
18. Re:Really? by Tetsujin · 2011-04-05 03:45 · Score: 1
  
  As the Daleks have taught us, attacking a country with no elevators is a guaranteed way for your robots to lose the war.
  Not really.
  As we all know, they simply level the building.
  And they're not robots.
  And they can navigate stairs. They've done so (offscreen, at least) since the '60s.
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
19. Re:Really? by Tetsujin · 2011-04-05 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  More robots than ice cream vans.
  More robots than a Honda factory.
  More robots than a robot factory?
  More robots than elevators? Um, yeah, sure.
  They're simultaneously bragging about the number of robots, and slamming Afghanistan for its lack of handicap access!
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
20. Re:Really? by Tetsujin · 2011-04-05 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  "Number of elevators"... is that an imperial measurement of some kind? What's the proper metric equivalent - "number of lifts"?
  Yeah, but it's not a direct mapping.
  Where X is the set of elevators and L(x) is the number of levels accessible via an elevator, the number of "lifts" is given by the formula:
  (sum (x - X) ((L(x) - 1) / L(x)))
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
21. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 05:33 · Score: 0
  
  "There are more fighting robots than elevators in the country."
  That's the metric we're using? So all i need to do to have my own robot war is build a single robot, and find a country with no elevators for it to attack?
  Well, it won't be Japan.
22. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 07:09 · Score: 0
  
  are there more robots than iPods?
  more robots than iPads?
  more robots than camels?
23. Re:Really? by owlstead · 2011-04-05 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  They are in the business of producing handicaps, not consuming them.
24. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Why would you want your robot to attack an elevator?
25. Re:Really? by eriqk · 2011-04-07 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  Onscreen, even. "ELEVATE!"
at least the robots don't hate/fear us by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:12 · Score: 0

being chosen ones depopulators must feel so empty all the time, catering to the disastrous desires of our rulers?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDVt_hSo_EU&feature=player_embedded
Is *now* a robot? by T.E.D. · 2011-04-05 01:16 · Score: 0

Err...were they not robots when they started fighting in Afghaistan? If so, has anyone told them they are now robots, or are they running around thinking they are actually people, like in Blade Runner?
1. Re:Is *now* a robot? by xMrFishx · 2011-04-05 01:20 · Score: 0
  
  Dude don't say that, the robots will find out, 'cus computers have the internet and are made of metal and robots are made of metal, therefore robots have the internet! I just hope /. didn't give the robots any mod points today.
2. Re:Is *now* a robot? by Vectormatic · 2011-04-05 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  so i have internet on my swiss army knife? man those thing are versatile!
  
  --
  People, what a bunch of bastards
3. Re:Is *now* a robot? by Patch86 · 2011-04-05 10:28 · Score: 1
  
  You're not far off.
  http://www.swisstool.co.uk/st/home.php?cat=313
I Thought Google's Driverless Car Was Supposed To by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:20 · Score: 0

...save us all?
Who was it that was saying our logic regarding "safety" was silly?
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/11/04/02/1529237/Googles-Driverless-Car-and-the-Logic-of-Safety
I mean really, and that was just this past Saturday.
tools, not robots by circletimessquare · 2011-04-05 01:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

tools have always been used in war. when we have autonomous decision making mechanisms engaging enemies, then we can talk about robotic warfare. otherwise, the bar is being set too low for what constitutes robotic warfare

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
1. Re:tools, not robots by charon69 · 2011-04-05 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. I know that *technically* the units being using in Afghanistan are robots. A mechanical arm used to weld cars in a factory just following a pre-programmed series of movements is technically a robot.
  But if allusions to Terminators are going to be made, then we have to consider autonomy as the real metric for a "robotic war".
  IMHO, people worried about things like robotic wars are implying a problem with the robots running amok, at least primarily. True, there are other issues to consider. For instance, would a person controlling a robot from 1,000 miles away take more risks with that robot, or go in firing more freely without worrying about reprisals, as opposed to somebody inside a tank where the control is more "involved"?
  But it's not like modern aircraft are directly controlled by the people inside them either. There are tons of stabilizing modifications performed per second completely autonomously just to keep a modern combat aircraft from dropping out of the sky. It's all electronic signals. And a human is controlling that at a high level whether he's sitting in the cockpit or in California with a remote joystick.
  Call me when, "afterward, the Stealth Bombers flew with perfect operational records..."
2. Re:tools, not robots by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:37 · Score: 0
  
  Exactly. Land mines are closer to "robotic warfare" than the teleop hardware being flogged here.
3. Re:tools, not robots by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-04-05 01:56 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Where exactly one wants to draw the line between "tool" and "robot" is arguably somewhat arbitrary; but there are definite matters of degree and substantial complexities.
  
  For instance, a simple mine is actually 'autonomous'. It has very limited capabilities; but it exercises those entirely without human intervention, based on sensor data. In both land and naval use, the Chinese were putzing around with recognizable antecedents of those not long after they acquired gunpowder, and various European tinkerers not too long after. Does the use of mines count as "robotic warfare"? Some of the more sophisticated modern examples are just as autonomous and have greater capabilities: a CAPTOR mine has enough onboard computing power to distinguish between ships and submarines by sound, and launch its (homing) torpedo at the latter. All fully autonomous, and circa 1979...
  
  On the other hand, a lot of modern combat "robots" are basically very high performance RC vehicles, albeit often with some sophisticated software handling translation of abstract operator commands into robot actions(with Predators, say, you don't 'fly' them the way you fly an RC aircraft for most of their flight time, they handle a lot of the low-level detail to allow operators to focus on waypoints and target acquisition. With the more sophisticated robotic bomb-defusers and their ilk, their fairly complex manipulators handle all the fiddly little servos internally, in order to achieve manipulator commands provided by the operator).
  
  That's the definitionally tricky bit: there are extremely simple devices that are fully autonomous within the limited scope of their capabilities. There are also extremely sophisticated devices, with almost eerily organic levels of feedback-driven 'housekeeping' going on in order to allow the operator to give the device fairly high level commands; but which are specifically designed to do nothing of importance without the OK from a human.
  
  Then you have the ones that can be used either way: Phalanx CIWS can do fully automatic target engagement(because puny meat-objects simply don't have the reflexes for the job) or can be kept under human supervision(because nothing says "expensive accident" like a trigger-happy Gatling-gun robot operating in the vicinity of friendly aircraft...)
  
  As best I can tell, it seems like autonomy is less of a pure design challenge, and more a question of the practical and PR constraints that you have to abide by in terms of target discrimination... Humans are OK at that, which certainly places them above all but reasonably sophisticated automated systems; but they are hardly perfect. How much of the unwillingness to cut the robots loose is due to their inferiority to humans at this task, and how much is due to human distaste for the idea of automated hunter-killer robots is not entirely clear.(Nor is it entirely clear that they aren't being used: The CIA, for instance, loves drone strikes, and doesn't exactly issue press releases about the operator/drone ratio they are using...)
4. Re:tools, not robots by tophermeyer · 2011-04-05 02:04 · Score: 1
  
  Wired just ran an article talking about some of the research in anthropomorphic bots. Evidently there are significant differences between the humanoid bots and the non-humanoid bots.
  Operators driving human looking bots were more likely to identify the bot as a separate entity. In some simulations this led to more aggressive activities and the operators feeling less responsible for the outcomes. Operators driving the non-humanoid bots were more likely to view the unit as an extension of themselves (like any tool), and so were more likely to feel responsible for the bots actions and the outcomes.
  Certainly remote operators are going to perceive the environment differently from someone who is actually there. Not having to actually die when you are shot at really changes how soldiers could fight.
5. Re:tools, not robots by Vectormatic · 2011-04-05 02:18 · Score: 2
  
  And a human is controlling that at a high level whether he's sitting in the cockpit or in California with a remote joystick.
  The difference is wether or not the pilot dies/gets tortured for months as a hostage after being shot down after taking too much risk.
  Taking a drone on a suicide mission doesnt really matter, your boss might give you an earfull, but in the end you just go home and have dinner with your wife
  
  --
  People, what a bunch of bastards
6. Re:tools, not robots by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 03:28 · Score: 0
  
  This is just the natural next step in military "tools." The progression of war technology is all about removing the soldier from direct contact with the enemy.
  In prehistoric times, no doubt most fighting was done hand-to-hand. Then came weapons, which allowed the fighter to kill using something other than his hands. Then armor, which put a barrier between the fighter and the enemy's weapon.
  The introduction of archery was the first step in killing at a distance, thus removing the soldier even further from the action. And of course cavalry meant mobility; the soldier could rush in and out of combat as needed.
  Gunpowder meant better accuracy and range by increasing the speed of the projectile. At short range there's no need to take ballistics into account when firing at the enemy, and at long range, cannons operate essentially like bows, but with greater power and range. And of course, modern artillery means a soldier can fire on the enemy from a distance so great that he can't even see him. And if you put cavalry, ranged warfare, and armor together and take it to the extreme, you get a tank.
  The introduction of aircraft in WWI took the fighting to a whole new dimension; literally. Now the soldier could be positioned high above the battle instead of in the middle of it. Of course, then the enemy built their own air force and introduced dogfighting.
  On sea, submarines served the purpose of planes over land; they traveled where the typical fighting units; ships, couldn't. They also added one more element to separate the soldier from combat: stealth. Now you could fight from a position where the enemy didn't even know where you were.
  Artillery gave birth to the ultimate in ranged weapons: ICBM's. The shot can now come from halfway across the world. The next logical step in air battle is the drone, which takes the pilot out of the cockpit. And of course, that brings us to the modern "robots" of Afghanistan. They are the equivalent of archers with the soldier now removed two steps from the combat: first, the ranged weapons (in this case guns), and second, the operator's location not in the robot itself, but back at the command station simply operating the thing by remote control.
  What's next? More of the same, probably. Less human soldiers and more robots until most of the fighting is done by machines, on both sides. Cyber warfare will likely become extremely important; i.e. trying to take control of the enemy's robots in order to shut them down or fight on your side, or more covertly for espionage when they're taken back to the enemy's base after a day of fighting.
  The more interesting question is not about technology, but about psychology. How will the psychology of war change when most of the combat is machine vs. machine instead of human vs. human? What happens when war can be waged without a single human casualty?
7. Re:tools, not robots by wisty · 2011-04-05 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  It will probably make them a lot more cold-blooded, which is probably good. Especially as it makes them easier to supervise.
  For every psycho who attacks civillians out of malice, you can bet there's two guys who just shot because they were feeling scared.
8. Re:tools, not robots by plover · 2011-04-05 09:40 · Score: 1
  
  How much of the unwillingness to cut the robots loose is due to their inferiority to humans at this task, and how much is due to human distaste for the idea of automated hunter-killer robots is not entirely clear.
  I believe the only reason the Pentagon isn't deploying armies of fully autonomous hunter-killer robots is the unavailability of the same. Consider that they've deployed land mines which have no Identify Friend or Foe capabilities whatsoever. If they thought they could fight a no-risk-to-US-soldier-lives war, I think they'd simply drop a trillion dollars worth of hardware into the middle of the Conflict-of-the-Month without hesitation.
  The thing is that wars are fought with weapons, but the weapons by themselves do not "win" the wars. Look at Germany and Japan. Those wars were won by first conquering the lands with weapons, but then completely conquering the central governing authority, who still had enough authority to surrender. Afghanistan was lost by the Soviets even though they could invade the lands, but because they could not find a head to decapitate the opposition. Same thing is happening to the US in the various middle eastern conflicts, mostly because to "win" they'd have to first occupy the lands, then remove/kill thousands of leaders of a decentralized religion (theocracide?) instead of just a secular government or the head of a centralized religion. And even if the mullahs who disapprove of their jihadist brothers wouldn't be sad to see them head to Paradise ahead of schedule, they're certainly not going to sit quietly by while invading infidel forces decide which of their brothers should live.
  So they now understand traditional warfare doesn't work there. I think their strategy now is something like "keep them bombed into the stone age in order to minimize their retaliation capability" as if that's a winning long-term strategy.
  I think traditional warfare would work in North Korea, where the leader has set himself up as a surrogate deity. Take him down, wipe out his heirs, remove the military generals, and start trucking in tremendous amounts of food to accompany the modernization of their infrastructure. It might work in Libya; but only if they could quickly surgically remove the Ghadaffi loyalists, keeping the rest of the country intact, and get out quickly and completely before the jihadists have the chance to whip up their patented anti-American furor. That might go a long way toward showing the rest of the world that they're capable of leaving after resolving a conflict. It would probably mean leaving Libya's oil and other resources up to some crazy bad people, but as we've seen elsewhere that will happen regardless.
  
  --
  John
And how many elevators are there? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-04-05 01:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

Afghanistan seems like kind of a low bar for the "elevators to combat robots" metric, since it has been a mixture of tribal infighting and superpower proxy wars at least since the British showed up(and had a lousy time... and then the Russians showed up, and had a lousy time... and the Americans showed up...); but it is, nevertheless, something of a dramatic shift.

What I'm not looking forward to is what will happen when(if ever) the demand for military combat robots slackens a bit and the producers thereof start seriously targeting the home market. Through a combination of military contractors trying to avoid being vulnerable to having only a single customer and direct transfers of military hardware from the DoD(you may throw an SSL warning if your browser doesn't trust DoD certs) military hardware generally has a way of coming home. Even random sheriffs are burnishing their toys collection(it's a wayback machine link because, for reasons that are completely inexplicable, the broader response to the 'The Peacemaker' was perhaps less favorable than anticipated...) I know, from observing one of their training exercises, that the supply of m16s maintained by the police force in the unbelievably boring and low crime bedroom community where I work is much higher than I would have expected.

This suggests that it is only a matter of time before we can expect to see surplussed predators and such 'protecting and serving' here at home.
1. Re:And how many elevators are there? by radtea · 2011-04-05 02:43 · Score: 1
  
  This suggests that it is only a matter of time before we can expect to see surplussed predators and such 'protecting and serving' here at home.
  Yup, because using all that technology to actually create useful goods and services instead of applying to the deadweight loss sector of the economy would be stupid!
  People in government and people running corporations are willing to spend billions developing machines so people can kill each other, but if you ask them to put a dime into clean water tech or clean energy tech that's suddenly "socialism".
  In the meantime the murderous corporate fatcats and their governmental partners in crime get fat on taxpayer dollars, and useful idiots like the Tea Partiers actually support the process, voting eagerly for candiates in favour of larger government and more spending on corporate welfare to produce machines for killing.
  The terrible thing is that there are scientists and engineers out there who think it is a good idea to spend their precious lives doing nothing more productive than wasting their education in the deadweight loss sector helping to build unproductive machines for killing.
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
2. Re:And how many elevators are there? by corbettw · 2011-04-05 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  People in government and people running corporations are willing to spend billions developing machines so people can kill each other, but if you ask them to put a dime into clean water tech or clean energy tech that's suddenly "socialism".
  The US military has:
  * universal health care
  * a highly-structured class system
  * an almost-pure meritocracy
  * a very high focus on service to others before yourself
  In short, the US military is the most socialist organization on the planet. Ironic when you really think about it.
  
  --
  God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
3. Re:And how many elevators are there? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 03:36 · Score: 0
  
  This suggests that it is only a matter of time before we can expect to see surplussed predators and such 'protecting and serving' here at home.
  Yeah, well, I for one welcome our new robotic overlords.
4. Re:And how many elevators are there? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 04:05 · Score: 0
  
  I read that Peacemaker article and as someone not in the US I was a bit surprised to see a bible quote in that article...you'd never see something that out of place in Canada.
5. Re:And how many elevators are there? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2011-04-05 04:29 · Score: 2
  
  Just as computer scientists prefer to start lists at 0, we have a substantial crop of citizens who prefer to start constitutional amendments at 2.
  
  The surprise, in that case, is that they found somebody who thinks that Matthew 5:9 refers to SWAT teams in armored vehicles(and who manages to state, with a straight face, that a vehicle equipped to fire .50 BMG is even remotely compatible with public safety in one of South Carolina's more heavily populated counties... I'm pretty sure that each round comes straight from the factory with an "I don't brake for drywall, or cinderblock, or entire wood-frame houses" bumper sticker.)
6. Re:And how many elevators are there? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  Sheesh! Tough crowd. The elevator was just one reference in the article, it's a short summary.
beings active in fake weather/seismicity schemes by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:27 · Score: 0

they must fear/hate all of us, themselves at the top? self-worshiping is not as nirvanic or vatanic as it was advertised to be?
abused (poisoned (body, mind, spirit) etc...) get us coming, going, from behind), killed, censored & misinformed all at once, that's us? it must be ok, or we'd have something to say?
& present as totally unrepentant (now a major motion picture), phewww. monkeys treat each other much better.
Someone once said by Grapplebeam · 2011-04-05 01:29 · Score: 0

That the more machines you have in an army, the easier it becomes to go to war, as you don't have to worry about the loss of human life on your side.

--
There is no -1 Disagree.
1. Re:Someone once said by Bardwick · 2011-04-05 01:43 · Score: 2
  
  Bump. War needs to stay personal. My other favorite quote on war by Mr. Einstein "I don't know how man will fight World War III, but I do know how they will fight World War IV; with sticks and stones."
2. Re:Someone once said by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:52 · Score: 0
  
  With enough machines on both sides war will become team based battle bot tournaments to recoup the costs through advertisements!
3. Re:Someone once said by GameboyRMH · 2011-04-05 02:38 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly then we must use person-shaped giant robots, ideally piloted by angsty teenagers. Blowing up a space station full of people with one of those will feel much more personal.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
4. Re:Someone once said by JockTroll · 2011-04-05 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  Blowing up a space station is just a waste. Crashing it into Australia is another matter, however. But a space colony would make a nicer crater.
  
  --
  Geeks are so full of shit that "beating the crap out of them" takes a whole new meaning.
5. Re:Someone once said by Alex+Belits · 2011-04-05 04:31 · Score: 1
  
  Until it reached the civilians. Then all wars will be about ignoring the opposing military and going straight to civilian massacres -- whoever will get wiped out first, loses, everything else is irrelevant because robots are easy to replace.
  Something is seriously... undesirable with this picture.
  
  --
  Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
6. Re:Someone once said by RicktheBrick · 2011-04-05 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  I guess that is why the war in Afghanistan is so easy for our troops there. Even after 10 years of conflict there seems to be no end to it. The republicans are all up in arms because Obama is trying to put a limit of 2014 for the end of combat support. Who is giving the Taliban all of their weapons and training? I am also tired of hearing about our troops killing 6 children who were supposedly just gathering fire wood. There had better be significant progress before November of 2012 or I for one will not vote either republican or democratic.
"Wired for War" by Old+VMS+Junkie · 2011-04-05 01:40 · Score: 1

I highly recommend "Wired for War" by P. W. Singer. Outstanding read. He's also a pretty interesting speaker, if you get the chance to hear him.
Tax money well spent by airfoobar · 2011-04-05 01:48 · Score: 1

How about investing that money in green energy instead? Or would that make too much sense? No no, let's sacrifice thousands of human lives and spend trillions to build robot soldiers to conquer other countries for their oil. Fuck this shit.
1. Re:Tax money well spent by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  "investing that money in green energy"
  The best "investment" for the environment is often less investment.
  Green house emissions went down in the peek of the recession.
  If the entire US traded their car with a hybrid, the environmental impact of that excess manufacturing and production would not be good. Plus there would be many "hybrid" vehicles that use any extra efficiency to just allow for a bigger engine.
  If energy is cheaper or cars are more efficient, that will likely put more cars on the road, and lead to more roads, and less trees.
  The best environmental solutions require new thought on reduction (or at least equilibrium) of consumption. Of course this is in opposition with the apparent majority view that endless growth is healthy.
  Without a view of halting endless growth in consumption, "green"-ness at best would only slow the destruction of the environment.
2. Re:Tax money well spent by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:14 · Score: 0
  
  Afghanistan has no known oil reserves. Not every conflict is about oil. Libya is but Afghanistan is not.
3. Re:Tax money well spent by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:33 · Score: 1
  
  At least robot killing machines don't smell like hippies, which makes them infinitely superior. And robot killing machines gunning down hippies, well I would pay good money to watch that.
4. Re:Tax money well spent by Misagon · 2011-04-05 03:51 · Score: 1
  
  Afghanistan has no known oil reserves, so you can't say that it is for oil.
  There have been plans to lay pipelines for oil and gas through Afghanistan, but these projects are still in very early stages and are owned by Asian companies, not the US.
  
  --
  "We mustn't be caught by surprise by our own advancing technology" -- Aldous Huxley
5. Re:Tax money well spent by silas_moeckel · 2011-04-05 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Sure I'm all for it can I get a few hundred new fission power plants? Can I also buy legislation to require reprocessing?
  Oh you probably meant those useless solar/wind things. We need more baseline power not some peeking things, and we need things that pay for themselves.
  
  --
  No sir I dont like it.
6. Re:Tax money well spent by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 05:47 · Score: 0
  
  You're right. Oil is not only the reason why we're in Afghanistan, but also an invalid cause to go to war, with it being one of the most impacting resources necessitated by our society.
  Your illuminating post has made me realize we should immediately redirect all military efforts towards developing viable means of green energy.
7. Re:Tax money well spent by Korveck · 2011-04-05 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  No, you are not making much sense at all.
  
  a) Afghanistan is not known for oil exports. Oil was not the reason why we invaded the country. We were there because Taliban was providing a safe haven for al-Qaeda. It was not an avoidable war. It could have been handled better, but that's besides the point.
  
  b) One of the motivations of "spending trillion to build robot soldiers" is to avoid "sacrificing thousands of human lives". It is better to have robots defusing bombs.
  
  c) As a global superpower, you need to spend on military. It is unfortunate that a large portion of it is wasted, but developing robots is probably one of the better spent projects, since we are actively putting them to good use.
8. Re:Tax money well spent by Paul+Fernhout · 2011-04-05 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  I read somewhere, around the 1980s, probably by Amory Lovins, that if we spent a year or so of the cost of maintaining the US Persian Gulf deployment force on insulating US homes and other energy efficiency improvements, that we would not need any imported oil. Related:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittle_Power
  http://www.earth-policy.org/index.php?/books/pb3/pb3_table_of_contents
  http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-solar-grand-plan
  http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/09eb7f4c973349f2?hl=en
  All this robotic warfare is just ironic, as are, ultimately, all arms races that lead to the destruction of all parties (except maybe the robots). See also:
  http://memory-alpha.org/wiki/Minosian
  "The Minosians were a thriving, technologically-advanced humanoid civilization from the planet Minos. The Minosians gained notoriety as arms merchants during the Erselrope Wars, providing advanced weaponry such as the Echo Papa 607 which were sold under the banner "Peace through superior firepower." It was discovered in 2364 that the Minosians were subsequently eradicated by their own weapon system when it went out of control. One of the few Minosian artifacts surviving, the Echo Papa 607 system was responsible for the destruction of the USS Drake and attempted to destroy the USS Enterprise-D. (TNG: "The Arsenal of Freedom") "
  Thus:
  http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html
  
  --
  A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
9. Re:Tax money well spent by Jeremi · 2011-04-05 10:00 · Score: 1
  
  At least robot killing machines don't smell like hippies, which makes them infinitely superior. And robot killing machines gunning down hippies, well I would pay good money to watch that.
  Hahaha, it's so funny when people call for hippies to be murdered. But why stop there? Replace 'hippies' with 'Jews', or 'Gays', or 'Blacks', or any other minority group you don't like. Hilarious!
  
  --
  
  I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
10. Re:Tax money well spent by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 12:56 · Score: 0
  
  Yes but what Afghanistan has is opium and lots of it. Who consumes opiates? We do! Think about it, production in Afghanistan has gone up since the US occupation, while (street) prices remain the same. Someone's buying it, a lot of it.
Space by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 01:50 · Score: 0

I thought the first robot wars were supposed to be fought in space (or on top of really tall mountains).
[citation needed] by mangu · 2011-04-05 01:50 · Score: 1

history has repeatedly shown that you cannot wade into another culture and change it within a short amount of time
Oh, yeah? Explain this.
By hanging a few military leaders who invoked "spiritual" values in order to make warriors commit suicide in battle, a war-torn country became one of the strongest economies in the world in a few decades.
How's that for changing a culture.
1. Re:[citation needed] by danbert8 · 2011-04-05 02:16 · Score: 1
  
  Japan was different.. We defeated them. They surrendered. We weren't going in to liberate their people from their government. I'm sure if we dropped a few nukes on Afghanistan and Iraq, then told them what they were going to comply with things would be different than the current setup of "hey, we'd like to help advise you in setting up a new government of your choosing".
  
  --
  Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
2. Re:[citation needed] by bluefoxlucid · 2011-04-05 02:19 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Yes and we destroyed their entire society and their entire culture doing it. Japan was a more mature, but still errant culture: they understood things like honor and dignity, they took up arms as a mode of philosophy. Japanese warriors (samurai) spend their time meditating on life, which is why you see them wandering around tending their gardens and watching cherry blossoms bloom (how's that for manly?). Warriors are engaged in a struggle for life, and when they stop fighting they may as well lay down and die; they fight to protect themselves and those who cannot or who simply want to live their lives.
  Japan's cultural error was one of a disconnect between philosophy and behavior--a common problem seen in all cultures. They were vicious on the battlefield, and they didn't spare non-combatants as a rule. You were greatly fortunate to be occupied by Japanese forces, because as long as you behaved they would probably treat you with respect, although they would definitely assume dictatorial command. Unfortunately, often times Japanese forces simply entered a town and killed every man, woman, and child they encountered with no discrimination; this was a great cultural failing.
  If we ignore the actual implementation, the Japanese seem like they were rather perfect at the time: they had strong respect for life and a strong sense of honor, which is a fancy word for "accountability to yourself for your actions." They needed to unify this philosophy with their behavior. We instead took this philosophy away from them entirely, and made a horrific mess out of their society by forcing Western merchant culture into it. So much damage....
  Look at the rest of the world. Power-mad leaders, self-righteous pompous bastards in the streets. We want to loudly proclaim our strong sense of right and wrong, we want to trample over everyone around us and force them to bend to our system of beliefs, and we'll use any method necessary. Our leaders will manipulate the political sphere and let innocents suffer to further our goals; they'll hire terrorists while proclaiming their vehement stance against terrorism. Accountability is only to the public eye: they only care about saving their own political face, and have no guilt over their actions.
  And yet we claim we can somehow make the world a perfect place, force everyone to play nice, we have all these high ideals. We constantly talk about how "war should never exist," while starting tons of wars. There are countries where weapons and even basic self defense skills are banned--you cannot teach martial arts in some places, it is criminal, and these are "advanced" and "enlightened" countries like New Zealand or Australia (there are a few cities in Australia that ban the teaching of martial arts because they don't want to "encourage" violence). The children believe they can remove the teeth and claws from the rabbit and tell the wolf to play nice.
  And the people. Look at the people. No philosophy, no honor. A culture of consumerism everywhere, buy buy buy, show off your flashy new stuff for social status. The bystander effect is everywhere: people are honorless cowards who won't stand up for anyone else, they will walk away from fights and from rape because it's "not my problem" and "I don't want to get involved," and to hell with the victim. We want the government to tax us and pay poor people so we never have to take personal responsibility for helping any individual, so we can look at them beg in the street and say, "It's not my problem, I pay my taxes, the government should take care of them." And when we fall to their level, we believe the same thing: people pay taxes, we're entitled to the government just taking care of us.
  We took something that wasn't perfect and made it worse. The opposite of spirituality is materialism, a culture of buy-buy-buy everything you see and money is your god. Religion is spirituality turned outward (responsibility offloaded to some deity you must follow), vanity is materialism turned inward; philosophy is spirituality turned inward (responsibility loaded squarely onto yourself), consumerism is materialism turned outward.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
3. Re:[citation needed] by ElectricTurtle · 2011-04-05 02:39 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Oh FFS. I just accidentally deleted a very detailed essay in response, but I still want it said so here is the abridged version:
  
  The US did not change Japan insofar as introducing much that was extrinsic, they simply promoted the aspect of Japanese culture they preferred. Japan had been at war with itself culturally for centuries, and could be metaphorically represented by Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Sen no Rikyu. The former was a ruthless bloodthirsty tyrant willing to use bushido as the means to put the world under his feet. The latter was a serene, pacifistic and wise aesthete who wanted nothing more than enjoy the subtleties of life. On the eve of the Imjin War (almost three centuries before WW2) Toyotomi Hideyoshi ordered Sen no Rikyu to commit suicide for (what several historians believe was) his insolence in failing to support the imminent conflict. For the next several centuries, the warrior-oriented mode of Japanese culture and identity would be dominant through the end of the Second World War. (The internal cultural conflict even went so far as the outright persecution of Japanese Buddhists/pacifists.)
  
  Then, due to both the rapid demographic shift caused by so many bushido-bound warriors dieing in the war as well as the pressures exerted by the American occupation, the cultural pendulum swung the opposite direction. The Americans were smart enough not to try to change the Japanese into something non-Japanese, that would never have worked, instead they picked the most useful (to their purpose) aspect of Japanese culture and essentially channeled the Japanese into themselves. A very, very wise and effective strategy. The demographics are striking, the Soka Gakkai sect of Buddhism (which was the only sect in Japan to staunchly oppose militarism) saw an increase in membership of 2500% in less than a decade. A massive and rapid cultural shift indeed, but not inside out, rather one side to another internally.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
4. Re:[citation needed] by Posting=!Working · 2011-04-05 02:45 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  This entire post is a wonderful fantasy that is completely proven false by nearly all of the actual events of World War 2. The Rape of Nanking by itself destroys any notion that their culture had "accountability to yourself for your actions." If you weren't Japanese, you weren't
  
  Look at the rest of the world. Power-mad leaders, self-righteous pompous bastards in the streets. We want to loudly proclaim our strong sense of right and wrong, we want to trample over everyone around us and force them to bend to our system of beliefs, and we'll use any method necessary. Our leaders will manipulate the political sphere and let innocents suffer to further our goals; they'll hire terrorists while proclaiming their vehement stance against terrorism. Accountability is only to the public eye: they only care about saving their own political face, and have no guilt over their actions.
  
  This paragraph accurately portrays the Japanese at the start of WWII.
  Read some actual history. What you described isn't even close to an accurate portrayal of mid 20th century Japan.
  
  --
  This sentence no verb.
5. Re:[citation needed] by ElectricTurtle · 2011-04-05 02:49 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Holy hell are you ignorant of history. The US ran an occupational government in Japan for seven years. And basically helped them draft their constitution at gunpoint. Democracy in Japan was most assuredly not a natural occurrence.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
6. Re:[citation needed] by bluefoxlucid · 2011-04-05 02:52 · Score: 1
  
  History books are written by the winner.
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
7. Re:[citation needed] by ToadProphet · 2011-04-05 03:14 · Score: 1
  
  Democracy in Japan was most assuredly not a natural occurrence.
  Sure, but both Japan and Germany were very unique 'nation building' exercises - there was a strong state in place. The socio-political structures of both these countries were very similar to those we have in the west so it really wasn't terribly difficult to make it a western liberal democracy. The occupational government in Japan was focused on governance - not on creating a state and the necessary infrastructure and fighting an insurgency. Western liberal democracy may not have been a natural occurrence in Japan, but the state was there long before the US got there and changed very little.
  OTOH, most of the failed attempts at nation building post-WW2 have involved countries without strong states and often without the necessary infrastructure to sustain any such transition.
  
  --
  It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
8. Re:[citation needed] by ElectricTurtle · 2011-04-05 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  Posting=Working has already rightly criticized parts of your fantasy history, so I will work on another.
  
  We [...] made a horrific mess out of their society by forcing Western merchant culture into it.
  Now, let's pull back the curtain of white guilt and knee-jerk anticorporatism and introduce ourselves to reality. Do you know what the Zaibatsu are? The Zaibatsu are Japanese vertically integrated monopolies. Companies like Mitsubishi and Nissan; however, the oldest Zaibatsu like Mitsui and Sumitomo were founded in Japan's Edo period. These were wholly Japanese companies founded by Japanese men born in a feudal society and run in a thoroughly Japanese way. Rather than introduce "merchant culture" the US occupational administration actively tried to dismantle it because it was perceived to be a threat to US economic and military interests. So, sorry to break it to you, but *real* history is the exact opposite of your sentimental fantasy.
  
  The simple fact is that East Asia was never populated exclusively by Buddhist mendicant monks, and that "merchant culture" has been integral to the entire continent for millennia. No period in Japanese or its neighbors' history has been immune to the fundamental human desires for wealth and power and the attendant trappings thereof. Albeit Chinese, Tang dynasty Chang'an had the largest market in the history of the pre-modern world in a city several times larger than Rome at its high water mark. The Japanese were trying as fervently as any nation from Europe to colonize the rest of East Asia and if not for WW2 would have succeeded.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
9. Re:[citation needed] by ElectricTurtle · 2011-04-05 03:26 · Score: 1
  
  If you seriously are denying the day in and day out atrocities committed by the Japanese against the Chinese during every phase of their occupation and government you are delusional. If you think those atrocities are a fluke occurrence limited to just that generation of Japanese, you are fucking ignorant. I suspect it's both.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
10. Re:[citation needed] by ShavedOrangutan · 2011-04-05 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Insightful.
  
  The U.S. has forgotten how to win a war. The best way to end one is victory.
  
  --
  Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
11. Re:[citation needed] by wisty · 2011-04-05 03:34 · Score: 2
  
  This whole warrior-philosopher meme crops up a lot. Remember the Knights of the Round Table, and English Chivalry?
  Here's how it works.Peasants just have a hovel, a plough, and a mule if they are lucky. They work 9 to 9, then go to bed because they can't afford a candle to read by. Only the upper class can reasonably afford the lastest military hardware (be it a tank, plate mail, or a katana and lacquered armour). They can also afford books, gardens, and servant-girls to ... shall we say ... woo.
  Besides, only the upper class is allowed weapons. Anyone else is a bandit, or rebel.
  So all the philosophers and warriors come from the same social circle. The philosophers need to learn to duel, so that they can defend their honor if their philosophy causes some kind of offense. The warriors learn philosophy, to help them woo the maids (or butlers). Both of these arts are seen as "gentlemanly", because otherwise said culture would be a stagnent backwater unable to innovate, or have it's ass handed to it the next time its neighbour decided to test its boundaries.
  Lots of countries have culture. They all bitch and moan about how its been lost, but that's only because they just remember the good bits.
12. Re:[citation needed] by ElectricTurtle · 2011-04-05 03:55 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are dangerously equating "strong states" with "socio-political structures [...] similar to those we have in the west". Please tell me this isn't based on something as simplistic as empire = empire? I would very much like to know these 'Western' structures. Perhaps you think that the House of Peers was 'Western' because they wore suits and top hats and followed parliamentary procedure? I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
  
  The occupational government in Japan was focused on governance - not on creating a state and the necessary infrastructure and fighting an insurgency.
  This is the exact opposite of historical facts. The new Japanese constitution was drafted primarily by US Army lawyers Milo Rowell and Courtney Whitney. The Japanese constitution as passed during the occupation has never been amended.
  
  Further while there might not have been an insurgency analogous to that in Afghanistan or Iraq, if you think the transition was some simple void to be filled, I have to go so far as to say you must be stupid as well as ignorant. Many, many forces were at work against the interests of the US occupation, including but not limited to the zaibatsu, the military and police infrastructure (see The Police In Occupation Japan: Control, Corruption and Resistance to Reform by Christopher Aldous), the yakuza, the Soviets and Japanese communists, etc. Just because the insurgency wasn't blowing shit up did not mean there wasn't one.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
13. Re:[citation needed] by ToadProphet · 2011-04-05 04:06 · Score: 1
  
  Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are dangerously equating "strong states" with "socio-political structures [...] similar to those we have in the west". Please tell me this isn't based on something as simplistic as empire = empire?
  Pardon? I'm not sure you understand what 'state' means - it has nothing to do with 'empire' and is distinct from government or nation. The state is the entity supported by the infrastructure and governance amongst other things.
  Japan had a functioning state which resembled what we have in the west. Contrast that with Afghanistan, a very large part of which is based around tribal governance and infrastructure.
  Hopefully I've simplified that enough for you.
  
  --
  It's on America's tortured brow, That Mickey Mouse has grown up a cow
14. Re:[citation needed] by ElectricTurtle · 2011-04-05 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  Holy cultural chauvanism Batman! You do think that because the Japanese had a strong and stable state that made them similar to the West! You think that the 'opposite' of the 'Western' state is tribalism, completely discounting and ignoring the difference between Western and Eastern social paradigms as applied to politics and underlying cultural values and motivations. Such heinous folly I have not seen in months.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
15. Re:[citation needed] by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 04:43 · Score: 0
  
  Holy cultural chauvanism Batman!
  Errr... what does culture have to do with any of this?
  
  You think that the 'opposite' of the 'Western' state is tribalism
  No. Unless you have a nifty, new definition of opposite I'm unaware of. Different =/= opposite.
  
  completely discounting and ignoring the difference between Western and Eastern social paradigms as applied to politics and underlying cultural values and motivations
  Pardon? That's exactly what I was highlighting. Well, 'social paradigm' is a meaningless term, but aside from that there's a question of compatibility between Pashtunwali and western liberal democracy. Afghanistan isn't a 'state' in our sense of the word (nor is Pakistan but that's another matter). Japan was.
  Read carefully, as I'm not sure you are following.
16. Re:[citation needed] by ElectricTurtle · 2011-04-05 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  We're going to have to break this down into syllogism, as I don't think you're grasping your own chauvinism, you assert, so far as I can tell:
  
  Western states are strong and stable.
  The Japanese state was strong and stable.
  Therefore the Japanese state is similar to a Western state.
  
  Granted, it depends on your definition of 'similar', but if strength is the *only* similarity, what is the point of calling out Western-ness? Hence the chauvinism. It basically equates strength with Western-ness, so anything else that is strong must be 'Western' even it is nothing like it.
  
  It's hard to really address anything you say because you mostly make negative statements. I'm not quixotic enough to try to start arguing negatives. Since you're trying to use them to wriggle away, let's return to the statement that started this:
  
  The socio-political structures of both these countries were very similar to those we have in the west so it really wasn't terribly difficult to make it a western liberal democracy.
  I challenge you, again, to name the specific 'Western' socio-political structures here referenced. Just being 'a state' does not mean that state is automatically similar to the West because the West has 'states'. That remains ludicrous. Further there is nothing indicative in the entire span of recorded Japanese history that Japanese society would be conducive to liberal Western democracy except under the terms of duress imposed by the US occupation, and I would challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
17. Re:[citation needed] by bluefoxlucid · 2011-04-05 05:12 · Score: 1
  
  This whole warrior-philosopher meme crops up a lot. Remember the Knights of the Round Table, and English Chivalry?
  Yes and it's a shame we didn't propagate the concept of chivalry through the general population. All that shit died out ages and ages ago; chivalry is dead. That said, I've never heard of English knights sitting around pondering their own existence and the beauty of life; but then such stories are only glorifications for the modern idiot, so maybe Sir Lancelot spent several hours a day meditating on the meaning of his existence and trying to understand the justifications both for lifting his sword and leaving it lie (both actions have consequences offensive to life).
  
  --
  Support my political activism on Patreon.
18. Re:[citation needed] by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  You assert, so far as I can tell:
  Western states are strong and stable.
  The Japanese state was strong and stable.
  Therefore the Japanese state is similar to a Western state.
  Granted, it depends on your definition of 'similar', but if strength is the *only* similarity, what is the point of calling out Western-ness?
  I asserted none of those things. Again, you may want to read carefully. I believe the chauvinism is actually your own, and I suspect you are trying to engage in a discussion where you don't understand the underlying terms or context.
  A 'state', in the context of this discussion, can be defined as an entity with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force upon the inhabitants of a nation. In that sense the state of Japan was very much compatible with, and somewhat aligned with, a western liberal democracy. So was Germany. Afghanistan, where a large segment of the population is tribal and the real form of governance is Pashtunwali, is not.
  So back to your original point - 'Democracy' (by which you really mean western liberal democracy) may not have been a natural occurrence in Japan but it was my no means incompatible. The fact that there was some resistance is also somewhat irrelevant - even in established western liberal democracies there's a certain amount of resistance. OTOTH, I may be incorrect, and it does remain to be seen, but it's unlikely that our democracy is compatible with Afghanistan.
  Note that I'm not making any statement regarding the superiority of western liberal democracy or the inferiority of Pashtunwali, nor have I in any previous comment, so I'm not sure why you are on about chauvinism.
19. Re:[citation needed] by element-o.p. · 2011-04-05 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  To some extent, you are both right, but you are both somewhat mistaken as well.
  
  In my experience, the Japanese people respected honor (at all costs) and they respected aesthetics (the cherry blossoms and gardens bluefoxlucid mentions). In many ways, Japanese culture was indeed very beautiful. Respect for honor and beauty still exists in Japan, or at least it did when I moved back to the U.S. in 1983; I can't say how or if it has changed since then. I have never lived in a place that works with nature the way the Japanese people do. In the U.S., we bulldoze mountains to build highways through obstacles; in Japan, roads wind with natural lay of the land. Traditional Japanese architecture reflects the environment around it; Americans build ugly boxes that look starkly out-of-place in the landscape.
  
  However, for all of the aesthetic sense, traditional Japanese culture had its dark side, as well. I loved the Japanese people while I was there, so don't get me wrong here, but bluefoxlucid is seriously deluded to think that they have a "strong respect for life". To the Japanese, honor is everything and life meant nothing. If you were dishonored, you were nothing in Japan. I had a Japanese culture teacher while I lived there whose wife left him, and by doing so, she dishonored him. Because honor meant everything, and life meant nothing, the only honorable option he had was to regain his honor by committing suicide, so he hung himself. In another example, I knew an American family that wanted to adopt a Japanese child. They met a single Japanese woman who was pregnant (already a dishonor in such a strict, traditional society). The family already had a son, so they said they would be willing to adopt the woman's child if it was a girl. When the baby was born, it was a boy, so the family said no. The adoption agency they were working with told them, "You do realize that if you don't adopt this boy, the mother is going to put him in a plastic bag and suffocate him, because being an unwed mother is a huge dishonor to her and her family?" That's hardly a "strong respect for life." (The family adopted the boy, by the way, and later adopted a girl from someone else).
  
  And this is pretty much what happened in China during the Japanese occupation in WWII. If you were defeated in battle, you were dishonored in your defeat. Consequently, the (defeated) Chinese were sub-human in Japanese philosophy, and therefore did not deserve to live. If you were to die bravely on the field of battle, that was one thing -- you died with honor, and therefore deserved their respect -- but if you surrendered, then you were a disgraced coward, deserving only to die.
  
  So while bluefoxlucid gets a lot right in his (?) post, you are correct that it is a very whitewashed, utopian view of Japanese culture, pre-WWII. There was an awful lot to admire in that culture, but there was a lot that was very brutal and very ugly as well, and it didn't all go away after the war.
  
  --
  MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
20. Re:[citation needed] by ElectricTurtle · 2011-04-05 06:29 · Score: 1
  
  Many tribal organizations also have monopolies on the legitimate use of force, thus your distinction fails. That such a definition of a state were even valid, it does not equate to compatibility with democracy. There is nothing about that which logically follows.
  
  1. Monopoly on the legitimate use of force
  2. ???
  3. Democracy!
  
  Pathetic. You deny the things you've said, even when repeatedly quoted (and I'm not talking about where I paraphrase you to try to understand your carelessly written unsourced nonsense), and ignore direct challenges to your quoted assertions. I am done spinning in these circles. Any further post from you that does not address my repeated specific challenges to your quoted statements will be ignored.
  
  --
  I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
21. Re:[citation needed] by Paul+Fernhout · 2011-04-05 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  This reminds me of general issues with operant conditioning; you can't get a being to do something it won't normally do, but you can change the probabilities of different behaviors.
  However, people are more complex than most other animals; it's hard to say how interventions can change the social dynamics. Just losing a war may have led to social change in Japan and German through introspection, regardless of what the USA did as an occupying force? How could one tell which was the bigger psychological issue, losing or being occupied?
  I agree with the general idea in this thread that taking a strong state like in Germany or Japan and shifting its direction somewhat after a major military loss (towards making it less belligerent militarily) is different from forming a stronger cohesive system in the first place like in Afghanistan. Or, in the case of Iraq, there you had a long term civil conflict suppressed by an aparently strong state, and when destroying the state (as the USA did, although often things can be more hollow then they appear), then the civil conflict broke out (a religious minority dominating a majority leading to reprisals etc.).
  On finding good situation-specific balances between meshworks and hierarchies:
  http://www.t0.or.at/delanda/meshwork.htm
  "Indeed, one must resist the temptation to make hierarchies into villains and meshworks into heroes, not only because, as I said, they are constantly turning into one another, but because in real life we find only mixtures and hybrids, and the properties of these cannot be established through theory alone but demand concrete experimentation."
  By the way, this says Rikyu was seventy at the time:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sen_no_Riky%C5%AB
  If you look at the UK, that was the world's previous (before the USA) big undisputed empire, and look at what the people are like now. That is maybe the future of the USA?
  http://web.archive.org/web/20080119001830/http://www.adbusters.org/the_magazine/71/Generation_Fcked_How_Britain_is_Eating_Its_Young.html
  ""The reason our children's lives are the worst among economically advanced countries is because we [in the UK] are a poor version of the USA," he said. "So the USA comes second from bottom and we follow behind. The age of neo-liberalism, even with the human face that New Labour has given it, cannot stem the tide of the social recession capitalism creates.""
  And part of why:
  http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/articles/warisaracket.htm
  "WAR is a racket. It always has been.
  It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
  A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes."
  Thus the war on kids (through schools, originating in Prussia for military reasons) to turn them into soldiers and workers for a military-industrial complex, which is its own form of secular religion:
  http://www.thewaronkids.com/
  http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/7a.htm
  http://www.the-open-boat.com/Gatto.html
  
  --
  A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Evil? Yes. Empire? No. by denzacar · 2011-04-05 01:52 · Score: 1

who doesn't think the Taliban is an evil empire and take consolation only in knowing it is also a dying political movement? Get the hell out of the lives of your citizens, stop sending terrorists across the globe to kill innocents, stop killing your own citizens for minor infractions of your "laws".
Movement... MAYBE militia.
As for "dying"... sadly, I don't really see that. I mean... U.S. has been chasing Osama for what? Three presidents already?

--
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
SRW by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · 2011-04-05 01:58 · Score: 1

Call me back when the first Super Robot War happens. We're getting close to working power armor, at the very least.
No elevators because ... by PPH · 2011-04-05 02:01 · Score: 1

... the Daleks have leveled all the buildings.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Governator receives France's highest honor by La+Gris · 2011-04-05 02:19 · Score: 1

In a related news, Terminator was granted France's highest honor "La Légion d'Honneur"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/schwarzenegger_receives_frances_highest_honor/2011/04/05/AF0E1iiC_video.html?wprss=rss_homepage
Wait t'ill 2029 for more rise of the robots news.

--
Léa Gris
So differences = murder time? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:26 · Score: 0

That's an interesting comment considering the Taliban in Afghanistan dictates half the population should be treated as property (women) and tramples on the rights of the Afghanis to the greatest degree of any society on the planet.
Yeah, *they* think that, and we think a lot of things they don't believe too. So what's to say they should come over here and fuck up our shit or we should go over there and fuck up their shit? At best, we should be protecting our own borders, not invading them, and they should be doing the same. Yes, different countries disagree on things, but murdering others shouldn't be the way to change that.
Watching elevators move is boring by vlueboy · 2011-04-05 02:29 · Score: 1

What I really wanna get is footage of these purportedly *awesome* giant mech fights
Now! In! Camouflage ! 3D!
Thanks, Japan.
battlebots by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:32 · Score: 0

for the longest time I thought sending humans to war was a bit of an overkill so to speak. Why not just have battlebots do it? Or we could just send a representative boxer or mma guy to fight the other boxer or mma guy and winner takes all. I mean, we don't try that hard in war. We have the firepower to turn any country into a parking lot in minutes, but we milk the wars for all its worth.
tools, not people by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:35 · Score: 0

Are not the humans going to war simply implements themselves as well? Why the semantics lesson here?
1. Re:tools, not people by circletimessquare · 2011-04-05 02:40 · Score: 1
  
  humans are not implements, moron
  
  --
  intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
2. Re:tools, not people by Tetsujin · 2011-04-05 04:04 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  humans are not implements, moron
  I don't know, there are some real tools out there...
  
  --
  Bow-ties are cool.
Elevators? by DarthVain · 2011-04-05 02:39 · Score: 1

Yes, lets randomly compare robots to something they don't have. They probably have more robots than spaceships also. Not to even mention the amount of robots they have to banana trees or icebergs...
The future by sharkey · 2011-04-05 02:39 · Score: 1

The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots.

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Obligatory XKCD by supersloshy · 2011-04-05 02:41 · Score: 2

Obligatory 1
Obligatory 2
Oh, how appropriate your comics always are, Randall...

--
"Our country is not nearly so overrun with the bigoted as it is overrun with the broadminded." -Archbishop Fulton Sheen
We'll Teach Them To Pick Fruit (and Rocks)... by littlewink · 2011-04-05 02:42 · Score: 1

after peace is declared.
I hear the dates from Afghanistan are exquisite.
1. Re:We'll Teach Them To Pick Fruit (and Rocks)... by Ukab+the+Great · 2011-04-05 04:19 · Score: 1
  
  I hear the dates from Afghanistan are exquisite
  They're cheap enough but you need to check under the burqa first to make sure you're getting an exquisite one.
Soon a video game will be made called ... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 02:42 · Score: 0

1st Super Robot War !!!!
terminated? by Life2Death · 2011-04-05 04:22 · Score: 0

I'll be back.
Courageous fighters! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 04:27 · Score: 0

Wow, these are very courageous fighters!!!
These robots have been amazingly efficient at fighting badly equipped gangs since 10 years!
Thanks Obama for making us feel proud of our country! I am sure that deep down, all these robots believe in the US ideology and want to fight on our side.
Bunch of sensationalists bullshit by evildarkdeathclicheo · 2011-04-05 04:45 · Score: 1

So the only "fighting robot" actually mentioned is still an X or experimental prototype. Yeah this is great informative reporting right here. Do people really watch this crap? Are these same people actually allowed to vote? Democracy is doomed, rule by the stupid masses, what a fantastic idea. -W
Wrong Metric by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-04-05 04:59 · Score: 1

when we have autonomous decision making mechanisms engaging enemies, then we can talk about robotic warfare
This isn't the important metric. Remotely operated drones, when they're good enough to replace soldiers, is the real inflection point.
Either we give up war entirely before then (here's hoping) or the bar for going to war gets dramatically lowered. If we can send a robot ship to a foreign land and deploy robot troops onto the ground, then we can take over any country without risking 'our' boys' lives. When there are none of our lives at risk, the political blowback is much smaller (see also the wars fought from 15,000 feet).
Besides the political costs, the economic costs are also lowered significantly. The logistics get much easier - no housing, no food (just robotic refueling drones), no body armor, no hospitals. No raising a boy for 18 years in Iowa, putting him through school, leading him through Boy Scouts and the varsity basketball team, teaching him chemistry and Shakespeare, just to get a bullet in the head when he's 19. And then perhaps paying for his medical care for the next 60 years.
It's such a massive risk that I'd even be willing to advocate a complete halt to all DARPA research until we can stop running our Federal government like WWII was still being fought. And, yeah, I realize these same drones can go into burning buildings and earthquake collapses to pull out survivors.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
European tribalism by mangu · 2011-04-05 06:10 · Score: 1

Japan had a functioning state which resembled what we have in the west. Contrast that with Afghanistan, a very large part of which is based around tribal governance and infrastructure.
"Tribalism" is the normal status of any nation. Consider that the USA is a federation of states, each with its own legislation. Germany was, until Bismark united it, a loose confederation of sovereign principalities. Same as Italy before Garibaldi. Look at what became of the former Soviet Union.
The existence of a powerful central government is the exception rather than the rule. And it's not even such a good situation all in all. Better a loosely bound federation of states, such as Europe today.
However, none of this has to do with the main problem in Afghanistan today, which is religion fanaticism dominating the culture of the country. In 1970 it was a civilized country, where a mullah was no more powerful than a Christian bishop is in a western European country of today.
The Soviet invasion and the subsequent disastrous Reagan policy of using religion to counteract Communism changed all that. This cultural transformation happened very quickly and there's no reason to believe it cannot be undone just as quickly. The only thing needed is to put religion in its place.
Power Rangers! by kjblue · 2011-04-05 06:26 · Score: 1

You never know, in the next couple of years you might see a Megazord strolling across afganistan
Fareed Zakaria by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 07:49 · Score: 0

Talk about robots
Am I the only one finding Fareed's picture max-headroom's creepish ?
Within three days of taking office... by Paul+Fernhout · 2011-04-05 09:37 · Score: 1

"January 23, 2009 -- President Obama 'orders Pakistan drone attacks'"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5575883.ece
"Security officials said the strikes, which saw up to five missiles slam into houses in separate villages, killed seven "foreigners" - a term that usually means al-Qaeda - but locals also said that three children lost their lives. "
See also, my comments:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/recognizing-irony-is-a-key-to-transcending-militarism.html

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Re:Daleks? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 11:04 · Score: 0

Don't Daleks need elevators? Why would they attack a country with stairs? They'd be helpless.
HairyFeet's "GREATEST HITS" PART DEUX ("NOT!") by Anonymous Coward · 2011-04-05 14:40 · Score: 0

See subject-line above, & these "prime examples" below via links to the originals of WHY hairyfeet shouldn't have gone to "ITT Tech" (because he clearly doesn't even understand how HOSTS files benefit you for added security, speed, and even to a degree extra 'anonymity' online):
---
Static vs. Dynamic Adbanner addressing (lol, "according to hairyfeet"):
(Which even BestBuy Techs know!)
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35681060
---
DNS Client Cache turn off for HOSTS, a TECHNICAL Blunder by Hairyfeet:
(Which even BestBuy Techs know also (just like the one above!))
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35686054
---
Hairyfeet's single solutions SECURITY FAILURES? See inside:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690260
---
Your sources on "security" vs. mine (actual security people) (AND myself, a source on it):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690328
---
Lastly, as to your LIBEL of myself (w/ arstech):
http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2061048&cid=35668740
---
The defeat of hairyfeet by APK (video analogy - hilarious, BUT, apt):
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2064694&cid=35690536
---
They say it all, & usually vs. hairyfeet's own words quoted! I wouldn't pay him too much heed, especially after you read the above b.s., lies, changing figures, & even LIBEL of others that hairyfeet likes to do. After all - he's from "ITT Tech" (student).
APK
P.S.=> Personally though - because hairyfeet is only a "techie"? I suspect he doesn't want people to know about HOSTS files' added LAYERED SECURITY benefits to the end-user: Why?? Because if users stop getting so much "malware-in-general" which layered security (and HOSTS) give you added layered protection against, he's out money...apk
Are they really robots? by xclr8r · 2011-04-05 16:25 · Score: 1

I draw a distinction between remote operated vehicles and robots.

--
Beware of those who profit off the docile and persecute the unbelievers.