backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by tng.. on Aug 2 at 10:17 PM

UAV technology includes smaller, quieter, and more dangerous unmanned vehicles able to engage enemies from a distance

Unmanned aircraft are racking up even more flying time in missions across Iraq and Afghanistan, with UAV technology hardware and software development increasing at a rapid pace.

The Pentagon is under more pressure to wrangle out-of-control military spending after years of costly wars -- and that has led to new innovations aimed at lower-cost UAV technology that is still fully capable.  Private contractors are scurrying to manufacture these smaller, cheaper, yet still reliable unmanned aircraft as quickly as possible -- billions of U.S. federal dollars are at stake in 2011 and the coming years.  

Some new projects include smaller and cheaper UAVs and munitions that are quieter and able to engage targets at a more rapid pace.  The new generation of military technologies range from a 13-lb. smartbomb to a ground-fired mini-cruise missile able to scout out targets to engage.  Handheld UAVs also have been effective, even as single-use 

Defense contractors and U.S. military leaders continue to share information -- and resources -- to ensure the U.S. remains at the top in UAV development.

UAV operators are skilled pilots that expertly maneuver the unmanned aircraft to monitor and attack suspected targets.  It's a skill that the pilots focus on to help assist ground troops looking to conduct missions after airstrikes take out specific targets.  UAVs also frequent the mountainous region between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where U.S. military officials believe insurgents are able to sneak in fighters and supplies.  This area is extremely difficult to patrol on foot, so UAV flight time greatly assists future missions.  

The U.S. Air Force has an interactive website focused on UAVs, including a brief video demo, and then visitors are given the chance to play a virtual UAV game.

Initially used for reconnaissance and as a quieter means to track the enemy from above, UAVs quickly evolved with live munitions and GPS-guided laser bombs able to hit specific targets.  The flight times, munitions carried, flight capabilities, and other major adjustments are being made to future generations of UAVs.  

The popularity of UAVs has led to a number of countries ordering and sharing technologies with one another.  The French Defense Ministry and Germany are interested in sharing technology with the United States and Israel -- the No. 2 manufacturer of UAVs following the U.S. -- as money and future weapon exchanges are agreed upon.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

No Brainer
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 7/27/2011 6:58:44 PM , Rating: 5
When you remove people from the battlespace and can run a campaign without loss of life, the public is okay with it. Nobody cares what we do in Iraq and Afghanistan as long as American lives are not at risk. When wars can be faught and won with the push of buttons and no risk to lives you will see it far more likely that conflicts will arise. As much as that is a problem on some level, it can also be quite beneficial to organizations/countries that need a good swift kick in the pants but we don't want to risk the lives to do it.




RE: No Brainer
By Mithan on 7/27/11, Rating: -1
RE: No Brainer
By AssBall on 7/27/2011 9:00:46 PM , Rating: 3
Wasting money on fights elsewhere...

Let us look at the last hundred years, shall we.

WWI: US instrumental in supplying French and British forces with logistics.

WWII: US helps Great Britain get back on it's feet and with the help of Russia saves Europe from Fascism. In the pacific, the US pushes back when Japan attacks and save the indies and China from imperialism.

Korea: US defines a strict line and saves South Korea from a corrupt and financially unsound communist regime.

Veitnam: Okay we didn't have much business there, but at least it is a richer more successful country today instead of a backwater screw up with a continuing civil war.

Iraq: Sorry brah, you can't invade Kuwait just because you want their oil.

Afganistan: We never learned the lesson that Russia did there, which was just let it alone to remain the least desirable place on earth for anyone to travel to.

http://www.historyguy.com/major_wars_20th_century....

I'd say the US has a comparatively damned good history when it comes to modern conflicts. I also scoff at your absurd claim that the country will not be relevant in 20 years.


RE: No Brainer
By thisisaname on 7/27/2011 9:41:15 PM , Rating: 2
In the pacific, the US pushes back when Japan attacks and save the indies and China from imperialism.

Only to have China later saved by communism.


RE: No Brainer
By amanojaku on 7/27/2011 11:52:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only to have China later "saved" by communism.
You forgot the quotes. Because China never adopted true communism. You still have economic and social classes (lower, middle and upper), and a ruling state (the CPC).

And China is still f*cked up, so I don't see where the country was ever saved. All of today's stories that discuss the Great Economy of China (high-speed rail, Apple stores, etc...) gloss over the fact that most of the population is dirt poor and the government is totalitarian (which is in conflict with communist principles).


RE: No Brainer
By rodrigu3 on 7/27/2011 10:26:44 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't really call WWI "modern."


RE: No Brainer
By wordsworm on 7/28/2011 12:46:58 AM , Rating: 1
You're getting Canada mixed up with the US. Canada did those things from the beginning of those world wars to the end. So, replace 'US' with 'Canada' for all but what it did in Japan, and you've got it right.

Kuwait was the capital of Iraq before western powers came in and stole Kuwait from it. So, it would be like America attacking Washington to get DC back.

The US didn't draw a line. It tried to invade N. Korea after N. Korea tried to unify the peninsula. After the UN got involved, China got involved. Only after it became apparent that we were getting no where and dying in droves doing it did a line get agreed to.


RE: No Brainer
By AssBall on 7/28/2011 1:18:15 AM , Rating: 2
You have a messed up set of history books.


RE: No Brainer
By wordsworm on 7/28/2011 6:49:44 AM , Rating: 1
I know American textbooks pretend the war started later than it did. After all, it wasn't until the Japanese invited the US to the party. So who do you think it was that supplied the Brits? Who do you think it was that fought the U-Boats in Corvettes? It wasn't the US, I can tell you that much. Australia was also a part of that party years before the US got involved.

Canada had a much bigger impact in Europe than the US in both world wars. Most non-Americans know this.


RE: No Brainer
By AssBall on 7/28/2011 7:28:10 AM , Rating: 1
My parents are both Canadian (I was born there) and you are simply entirely incorrect.


RE: No Brainer
By wordsworm on 7/28/2011 8:49:12 AM , Rating: 2
Canada joined the first ww in 1914. US, 1917.
Canada joined the second ww in 1939. US, 1941.

Check your books again. In terms of military strength, in both wars, Canada had a strong navy, army, and air force, and put herself entirely in the war effort. Unfortunately, being born in Canada and having Canadian parents have failed to educate you on Canadian military history. In terms of Canada's current military, pre wwi, interim wwi and wwii, and post wwii, her military has been rather miniscule. But during the wws, she was a significant contributor and had a significant military presence.


RE: No Brainer
By AssBall on 7/28/2011 9:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
Significant, fine, but calling it a more deciding factor than the US financial and military involvement is where your facts are jaded.


RE: No Brainer
By AssBall on 7/28/2011 9:22:37 AM , Rating: 2
Canadian casualties: 45k
US Casualties: 415K

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualti...

And don't pretend Canada wasn't involved in the Pacific. They totally helped out, as did Australia and Britain.

I'd say losing 10 times the men would satisfy as a reasonable argument in the US's favor on the "who helped out more in WW2" argument. Except it isn't because by that logical fallacy you could say the Jews helped out more in WW2 than the US.... but the difference here is that our (US and Canada) casualties were almost entirely combatants.


RE: No Brainer
By wordsworm on 7/28/2011 11:13:30 AM , Rating: 2
Well then, I guess French were more important than Canada and the US combined, since there were more French casualties.

Canada was not significant in the Pacific. For the most part, the US took on Japan single-handed. Unless of course you're referring to the concentration camps that Canada erected for Asian-Canadians. But I don't think putting unarmed citizens in concentration camps and confiscating all their property really counts.


RE: No Brainer
By Flunk on 7/28/2011 9:08:22 AM , Rating: 2
So, you're saying that the US was involved in WW2 before Pearl Harbor? It doesn't matter if you're Canadian, American or Chinese. You're still wrong.


RE: No Brainer
By AssBall on 7/28/2011 9:12:56 AM , Rating: 2
Do you have a hard time reading? First I never said anything like that. Second, U.S. was giving millions in aid and supplies to Europe for years before pearl Harbor. What part of this is the part you can't understand?


RE: No Brainer
By Strunf on 7/28/2011 7:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
Funny you claim the US saved Europe from fascism yet you seem to ignore the fact the US was buddy with fascists and actually helped many to get in power. Heck even Saddam enjoyed from the US support...


RE: No Brainer
By AssBall on 7/28/2011 8:10:08 AM , Rating: 2
You seem to ignore the "fact" that Saddam had nothing to do with WW2.


RE: No Brainer
By Flunk on 7/28/2011 9:09:44 AM , Rating: 2
Those are two separate statements, I think you need to learn how to parse sentences correctly.


RE: No Brainer
By AssBall on 7/28/2011 9:24:03 AM , Rating: 2
Learn how to stay on topic.


RE: No Brainer
By Paj on 7/28/2011 8:10:52 AM , Rating: 2
The lesson you didnt learn was that you shouldnt arm or train people you plan on fighting later, such as:

Saddam Hussein
Osama Bin Laden
Manuel Noriega

No to mention the complete bungling of Vietnam, the current disaster that is Iraq, continually vetoing any UN condemnation of the atrocities committed by Israel... ignoring most actual cases of genuine intervention required in the process - the only exception to this would be Serbia and Somalia in the 90s.

To suggest that the US military record is excellent would be hilarious, if only the subject matter wasn't so grim and shameful.


RE: No Brainer
By AssBall on 7/28/2011 9:47:59 AM , Rating: 2
I did not suggest it was Excellent, I merely suggested that it has a hell of a better track record than most countries.


RE: No Brainer
By Paj on 7/28/2011 12:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I would say its about as bad, if not worse. Much of Europe and the UK were terrible in the early 20th century and before - the colonialism of Africa and the Americas for example. Much of the problems in the Middle East stem from the disastrous redrawing of the map after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in WW1, with Britain and France doing pretty much whatever the hell they wanted.

However, the US is now making the mistakes that Britain and Europe made decades ago - and they arent learning from them. France insisted that invading Iraq was a terrible idea, you responded by renaming French Fries, and doing it anyway, (along with the UK), setting things back decades.


RE: No Brainer
By tng on 7/28/2011 12:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Europe and the UK were terrible in the early 20th century and before - the colonialism of Africa
Given the track record of most of sub-Sahara African countries since the UK and Europe left, calling colonialism terrible could be laughable.

South Africa is just a decade or so under new leadership and murder rates have went through the roof, agriculture output has dropped by at least half.

The mass killings of refugees in the 90's proves that there are worse things than colonialism. All done under the watchful eye of the UN.

I think that it would have been better if the Europeans had stayed in Africa.


RE: No Brainer
By Paj on 7/28/2011 3:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
Your viewpoint shows how little you grasp the subject. European colonialism was disastrous for the indigenous populations of Africa, the Middle East, South America, India, South East Asia, you name it.

European empire building in Africa forced many ethnic groups together into arbitrary countries without any respect for traditional groupings. They just carved up the map as they conquered new territory, without respecting the existing boundaries or divisions. It'd be like putting Christians and Muslims together in one country and thinking theyd get along fine. Or putting Jews and Muslims together... oh, wait.


RE: No Brainer
By tng on 7/28/2011 9:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or putting Jews and Muslims together... oh, wait.
LOL

My viewpoint does not need to understand the subject of how the Europeans carved up Africa. While there were some conflicts while France, UK, Belgium, were there the continent was largely peaceful.

Really you can compare that to estimates of 900K Rwandans that were killed in the mid 90's in the warfare in central Africa? The warfare and killing that has gone on for years in Western Africa, Blood Diamonds anyone?


RE: No Brainer
By Paj on 7/29/2011 7:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My viewpoint does not need to understand the subject of how the Europeans carved up Africa. While there were some conflicts while France, UK, Belgium, were there the continent was largely peaceful.


Yes it does, because it is the cause of much of the conflict! The same thing was done in the Middle East - forcing two or more distinct ethnic groups to compete over the same area of land without respecting their differences, religions, culture. The difference between the Tutsis and Hutus in Rwanda were reinforced by Belgium's rule, as it made it easier to subjugate them. Rwanda was far more stable before the Belgians arrived, as was much of Africa.

Between them, UK, France, Italy and Belgium controlled most of Africa, and the borders of the current countries are a reflection of that empire building.

Youre saying that Africa was terrible before colonialism, and after - it was only the influence of Europeans that kept it stable. This implies that Africans are naturally stupid, which in itself is a colonialist attitude.

Im saying that Africa was fine before colonialism, it has become much worse since. The legacy of colonialism and the slave trade is the problem. You can trace much current conflict back to this - its not because theyre just stupid people who cant get a long no matter what. Do suggest so is pretty goddamn racist actually.


RE: No Brainer
By tng on 7/29/2011 7:50:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Im saying that Africa was fine before colonialism, it has become much worse since. The legacy of colonialism and the slave trade is the problem. You can trace much current conflict back to this - its not because theyre just stupid people who cant get a long no matter what. Do suggest so is pretty goddamn racist actually.
So you are saying that the Europeans have been out of Africa for over 40 years and all of the issues they have now are from colonialism? The people on the continent bear no responsibility after all that time? They kill each other by the tens of thousands and somehow you can blame that on Europeans? Wow, now that is actually racist....


RE: No Brainer
By Paj on 8/1/2011 8:42:08 AM , Rating: 2
Stop putting words in my mouth.

In the example of Africa, a lot of its problems are caused by Western colonialism. This is a well established area of study with many detailed resources online should you wish to explore it further. Theres even a term for it - post-colonialism.

Of course, people have responsibility for their individual actions. No one who kills another should be excused based on things that happened decades earlier - a crime is a crime. But to say that this person committed the crime based on RACE - that they are inherently stupid, murderous thugs, as you and others were doing - is racist.

I'm saying Europeans must bear responsibility for the actions committed in colonial times, and the effects these actions have had on the current problems in postcolonial societies. Nowhere did I say that all Europeans are violent megalomaniacs that are only concerned with riches and power - because that would be incorrect. SOME Europeans definitely were in the past though, hence the cause of many problems today.


RE: No Brainer
By tng on 8/2/2011 10:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But to say that this person committed the crime based on RACE - that they are inherently stupid, murderous thugs, as you and others were doing - is racist.
You are a moron. Did you read the one post that where I speculated that with a view to the recent past that the attack was probably fueled by Islam? You are the one that brought up racism.

I am wrong to speculate that the latest terrorist attack could have been committed by the same people who have committed the last 5 major terrorist attacks?

It is people like yourself that in my opinion continue to fuel racism. Always looking for the opportunity to call someone a racist, over the smallest thing. Stiring up old hatreds and racism over and over again, instead of just letting it die the death that it deserves.

Welocome to the human race, maybe you get out of blaming everybody in history for problems that they have had decades to solve and learn about your fellow man.

Now you can answer the question. If everybody here had been blaming a Christian Fundamental group, that would not have bothered you at all would it? Are you one of those "Only White People Are Racist" types, really, are you? You sound like it.

quote:
I'm saying Europeans must bear responsibility for the actions committed in colonial times, and the effects these actions have had on the current problems in postcolonial societies.
Sorry but millions dead and decades of war can't be blamed on Europe. Europe left relatively stable countries when they withdrew, it is all on the citizens of Africa for what it has become. Yes the Europeans did introduce them to more modern warfare and they have taken to it very well, demonstrating great talent for killing their neighbors over differences hundreds of years old. The same differences that were there before colonialism and the same ones that were there after.


RE: No Brainer
By KoS on 7/28/2011 1:26:10 PM , Rating: 2
The French and a few other countries didn't want teh US going into Iraq, because they were still selling Iraq weapons and other materials. Which was against the sanctions in place at the time. They just didn't want to get caught with their hand in the cookie jar.


RE: No Brainer
By Paj on 7/28/2011 4:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
lol @ 'a few countries'

54 countries formally complained about the invasion. A Gallup poll conducted at the time concluded that support for the invasion did not rise above 11% in any European country.

http://www.countercurrents.org/chomsky011103.htm

David Kelly, a UK weapons inspector, committed suicide 2 days before he was due to give testimony about the Iraq WMD dossier.

France wanted the sanctions lifted because Iraq couldnt repay its debts. Besides, everyone was selling weapons to the Middle East - the biggest suppliers were the US and Russia. US sells more arms than any country in the world.


RE: No Brainer
By KoS on 7/28/2011 4:55:38 PM , Rating: 2
ummm....I was talking about France and the others countries who were not abiding by the sanctions placed on Iraq. They were caught! Just like the UN and their Oil-for-Food program. Caught!

Which was the real reason why they didn't want the US to invade Iraq. They can spout whatever public line they like...the truth is the truth.

Are you trying to say the US wasn't following the sanctions on Iraq? We were selling them weapons and other materials while the sanctions were in place?

You seem to imply so. Nowhere in my reponse was it mentioned the Middle East as whole. We are talking about Iraq, one country in the region.

I hope that wasn't too hard to understand and follow this time.


RE: No Brainer
By Paj on 7/28/2011 5:18:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which was the real reason why they didn't want the US to invade Iraq. They can spout whatever public line they like...the truth is the truth.


The oil for food program was a joke. Its possible that it played a role in much of the reluctance to invade Iraq on the part of many European politicians, I'll grant you that. But to suggest it was the sole reason simply isnt true. Public opposition to the war was pretty much universal - tantamount to political suicide for any government that supported it.

This was borne out in the UK eventually - judicial enquiries on Tony Blair's role and the suicide of David Kelly continue to this day.

Much of the West sold arms to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Rumsfeld himself shook hands with Hussein at the time - they wanted to contain Soviet influence. How things change, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shakinghands_hig...


RE: No Brainer
By KoS on 7/28/2011 6:09:08 PM , Rating: 2
sigh...what happened during the Iran/Iraq war has no bearing on weapons and materials sold to Iraq while sanctions were in place due to the first Gulf War and the following years of BS.

Again, did the US sell weapons and materials to Iraq while sanctions were in place? No they didn't! France and others did! Has the US sold weapons and materials to Iraq? Yes we have, prior to those sanctions. And now we do, after those sanctions were dropped when Saddam was disposed.

Easy enough to understand. There is no need to misdirect to a different topic which has no relation.

We will have to agree to disagree on the "real" reasons why some countries didn't support the last war in Iraq. I've been around the block enough times to know the real reasons are not spoken publicly. In partiucular, when it comes to politicians and governments.

I doubt the Russian government really cares about the public opinion of their people unless it fullfills some purpose. And to a certain point, France as well. Heck can throw the US in there as well on some subjects.


RE: No Brainer
By Paj on 7/29/2011 7:33:45 AM , Rating: 1
So you dont see a problem with arming the leader of a country against a random enemy, then invading later when he gets too powerful, ignoring the effect this has on the civilian population and infrastructure, global stability, regional politics, the role of insurgency, the cost to the domestic economy, loss of life and the capacity for creating 'terrorism' or whatever the fuck theyre calling it now?

And not just once, but again and again?

I'll put it simply - what good has the invasion of Iraq achieved?


RE: No Brainer
By KoS on 7/29/2011 2:29:15 PM , Rating: 2
I don't deal with moving goalposts. Nor wrong assertions.

But in closing...it was better to tackle the issue/problem head-on. Versus, tip-toeing around the issue/problem; i.e. sanctions and no-fly zones.


RE: No Brainer
By semicolon on 7/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: No Brainer
By rcc on 7/28/2011 11:25:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"Need is not a virtue." - Ayn Rand


"Even less so is want" - Me


RE: No Brainer
By tigz1218 on 7/28/2011 12:04:19 AM , Rating: 2
UAVs scare the crap out of me, I feel it is the biggest threat of our right to overthrow our government if need be. Think about it.

If our military is comprised of uav "soldiers" and someone evil comes into power and threatens our liberty, they have an army that will not question them. It would have been Hitler's dream army. If that was to happen now, I would hope that the majority of soldiers would not obey the orders and fire on people exercising this right. I also find it alarming that as we pour money into this, we are now starting to highlight "domestic terrorists".

Who is John Galt?


RE: No Brainer
By semicolon on 7/28/2011 8:32:19 AM , Rating: 2
As of now, I believe that all weaponized UAV's are remotely controlled by a soldier in a base somewhere. But your point is still valid because it takes fewer soldiers to affect great power. UAV's are just like any other weapon... they are a lever, amplifying the killing power of fewer individuals.

I'll start preparing the hidden compound in the mountains.


RE: No Brainer
By tigz1218 on 7/28/2011 9:41:16 AM , Rating: 2
As of now you are correct. I do remember a few months ago DT published an article about a new uav plane that can control up to 6 uav drones on its own. It's only a matter of time before a select few people have the power of an army at their fingertips behind their TV.

I will join you in build a fortress in the mountains.


RE: No Brainer
By AssBall on 7/28/2011 9:50:24 AM , Rating: 1
Better dig it pretty deep!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SuniKsBxZ10

quote:
That's a big ass hole"


RE: No Brainer
By bigdawg1988 on 7/28/2011 12:38:41 PM , Rating: 2
I'll start preparing the hidden compound in the mountains.

Or, you could just infiltrate and share the power!! j/k


RE: No Brainer
By superstition on 7/28/2011 1:32:33 AM , Rating: 2
"When you remove people from the battlespace and can run a campaign without loss of life, the public is okay with it."

Oh, so there is no loss of life, eh? They're simply bombing infrastructure?

"Nobody cares what we do in Iraq and Afghanistan as long as American lives are not at risk."

Nobody, eh?

"When wars can be faught and won with the push of buttons and no risk to lives..."

Oh, again with the "no loss of life" idea. Infrastructure again, eh?

"As much as that is a problem on some level, it can also be quite beneficial to organizations/countries that need a good swift kick in the pants but we don't want to risk the lives to do it."

A swift kick in the pants for who exactly... nations that don't support "American interests"?


RE: No Brainer
By Solandri on 7/28/2011 4:57:29 AM , Rating: 3
This is actually an age-old question, one that I don't think has a definite answer: When two societies with vastly different social norms collide, do you treat others according to your standards? Or do you treat them according to their standards?

On the one hand, if you treat them according to your standards, you get situations like: We step on eggshells to reduce civilian casualties, avoid firing on mosques, etc. They set off car bombs in crowded markets, etc. It makes for horrendously asymmetric warfare which would be tilted wildly in their favor were it not for the copious amounts of money we pour into defense and ranged combat capability.

On the other hand, if you treat them according to their standards, you (rightfully) get accused of compromising your morality and lowering yourself to their level. You become no better than they.

Complicating this is the ends justifies the means factor. If the two sides truly can be divided into good and evil, it is counterproductive for good to pull its punches if it means evil will win. Holding the moral high ground is of little value if you and all those you fought to keep free end up either dead or enslaved.

Like I said, I don't think there are any clear answers as to which is right. If there were, we'd have come up with them long ago. Both arguments have their positives and their negatives. The only clear answer is that everyone should strive to avoid violent conflict except as a last resort. Which is of little use when some group unilaterally decides to engage in violent conflict.


RE: No Brainer
By Paj on 7/28/2011 8:16:29 AM , Rating: 2
The only collision occurring is that between rich, technologically advanced and belligerent invaders and oppressed, invaded society that has been known nothing but despair, corruption and strife since world war I, and conquest for hundreds of years before that.


RE: No Brainer
By MindParadox on 7/28/2011 9:42:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only collision occurring is that between rich, technologically advanced and belligerent invaders and oppressed, invaded society that has been known nothing but despair, corruption and strife since world war I, and conquest for hundreds of years before that.


yeah, cause tribal warfare among their own countrymen for at least a thousand years, not to mention civil wars in recent years is all the fault of the horrible invaders terrorizing the helpless innocents that live there

the corruption is their own damn fault, 90% of the strife is their own damn fault, and despair? hell, what do you think is gonna happen when you have rampant slavery, child abuses of all kinds, and women are treated worse than your favorite chair?


RE: No Brainer
By AssBall on 7/28/2011 9:46:14 AM , Rating: 2
The examples of oppressed invaded societies throughout history are also the best examples of societies that are too effing dumb to cooperate with instead of killing their neighbors. Central Africa, native america, and most of the middle east.

The examples of the most successful societies are ones who would rather trade and mutually benefit from their neighbors. EU, Japan, N&S America, and soon China/India.


RE: No Brainer
By Paj on 7/28/2011 11:58:14 AM , Rating: 2
Im sure youre aware that Islam led the world when it came to science 5 centuries ago? That they conducted revolutionary studies into optics, astronomy and mathematics while Europe was embroiled in petty religious wars?

Of course you are.

Sure, the West is more 'successful' now. But to suggest it was always the case is myopic.

And epic lols at Europe and USA being great examples of cooperation throughout history. Last time I checked, America had one of the bloodiest civil wars in history? And the Balkans were tearing themselves apart as little as 20 years ago. The Balkans are part of Europe in case you didnt know.


RE: No Brainer
By tng on 7/28/2011 1:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Im sure youre aware that Islam led the world when it came to science 5 centuries ago? That they conducted revolutionary studies into optics, astronomy and mathematics while Europe was embroiled in petty religious wars?
And now Islam is embroiled in petty religious wars and one faction of Islam wants to take the all of Islam back at least 5 centuries, then the rest of the world as well.


RE: No Brainer
By AssBall on 7/28/2011 3:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
US civil war casualties" 620,000, half~ish from disease related death. US civil war length ~5 years,
Balkan wars (Yugoslavia civil war): ~300,000

That < i>is a joke compared to the number of human deaths and suffering and length of time that Western Asia and northwest Africa's problems, so I understand your "epic LOLs".

It's just too bad that numbers and facts don't back up your warped view of historical conflict.

http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html


RE: No Brainer
By Paj on 7/28/2011 4:21:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh dear... it appears you are a moron.

quote:
1939-45: World War II (55 million)


Do I need to point out how big a role Africa played in the deadliest conflict in recorded history?


RE: No Brainer
By AssBall on 7/28/2011 6:11:24 PM , Rating: 2
You need to point out that africa and the middle east have been in the same drawn out useless conflicts for SEVERAL THOUSAND years and the total humanitarian cost dwarfs that of European and US conflicts. Or just ignore the point...


RE: No Brainer
By Paj on 7/29/2011 7:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
Please tell me which African conflict has been playing out for thousands of years?


RE: No Brainer
By tng on 7/29/2011 8:00:57 AM , Rating: 2
Oh there is no African conflict, just blame it all on the Europeans and colonialism. All of the deaths in Africa can be traced directly back to that.....

He is right, there have been tribal wars in Africa for thousands of years, just because Europe was there trying to straighten it out (which never works) now you blame it on them, instead of the people who are responsible, the people of Africa. It is not good, bad or racist, that is just the way it is.


RE: No Brainer
By Paj on 8/1/2011 8:50:14 AM , Rating: 2
Now you are truly demonstrating your ignorance.

Ethnic divisions were actually made worse by the Imperial powers as a means of dividing the population (ie Belgium). This is one of the factors that led the Rwandan genocide.

So perhaps you can give me some examples of these well-known, thousand year old conflicts that have been raging in Africa since the dawn of time?


RE: No Brainer
By tng on 8/2/2011 10:17:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ethnic divisions were actually made worse by the Imperial powers as a means of dividing the population (ie Belgium). This is one of the factors that led the Rwandan genocide.
Well you can't have it both ways, either there were pre-existing conflicts as you have said above, or like you said in another post "Everything was fine..."

So you are saying that Imperial powers used pre-existing tensions to divide and conquer? Is that any different than what the Catholic Church did in the first crusade, US government did with American Indians in the West? Funny, they seemed to eventually get over it, I think that the Africans will someday as well, or the whole continent will depopulate itself.

Also, just so you know, the wars of Africa have gotten to be tiresome to most, no one tries to intervene in them or broker peace deal. No one wants to get involved on one side or the other really (at least as far as I know). No one cares.


RE: No Brainer
By Strunf on 7/28/2011 7:46:10 AM , Rating: 2
Of course no one really cares about how many civilians or otherwise were killed on the enemy side, do you have any idea how many civilians were killed from the direct actions of the US on Iraq and elsewhere of course you don't, sure you could try to find it on the internet but chances are the data is questionable, on the other hand the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq is pretty easy to find...
If you think the life of an American soldier is as valuable as the life of a Iraqi then you're being delusional...


RE: No Brainer
By AssBall on 7/28/2011 10:08:53 AM , Rating: 2
You missed the point and just went on a completely unrelated rant. That's why you would normally make a new post and not reply to one that has nothing to do with what you have to froth about.


RE: No Brainer
By NellyFromMA on 7/28/2011 11:03:39 AM , Rating: 2
How over simplistic and naive to the facts of both the facts on the ground of current wars being faught as well as public opinion. How could this be voted up?


Unmanned Systems Network
By iMaximus on 7/28/2011 9:27:28 AM , Rating: 2
If you like this article, join the Unmanned Systems Network on LinkedIn.com for more information and discussion.

http://www.linkedin.com/groups?about=&gid=94718




"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki