backtop


Print 111 comment(s) - last by bfellow.. on Mar 5 at 10:46 AM


Autonomous and semi-autonomous robots like this stealthy Boeing X-45C may face new legal repercussions  (Source: Boeing)

IRobot's war-robot is one of the autonomous robotic soldiers that may eventually appear on the battlefield, legality pending. Could such a machine commit atrocities?  (Source: iRobot)

Another deadly autonomous bot is the Foster-Miller MAARS (Modular Advanced Armed Robotic System). The MAARS implements advanced technology to eliminate friendly fire problems.  (Source: The Wired Danger Room)
Researchers debate where the fault divides between the operator and the machine

The U.S. military is working very hard to develop autonomous robotic warriors.  The U.S. is not alone -- the technology is the wave of the future in warfare, and is being pursued by dozens of countries worldwide.  While expensive, weapons-toting robots can provide deadly accuracy and protect a nation's human soldiers.

Already, the U.S. has extensively utilized unmanned aerial vehicles in the war in Iraq, for both surveillance and offensive strikes, with drones such as the Hunter UAV shooting deadly missile strikes into enemy hideouts.  The SWORD robots, designed by the army and armed with machine guns, patrol the streets in Iraq.  Meanwhile a semi-autonomous Bradley Fighting Vehicle, named the Black Knight, is being developed in the U.S.  Not to be left out, the Air Force states that it wants to have unmanned heavy bombers by 2020.

The key feature among all these robotic killers that have been deployed or are under development is that they need a human to pull the trigger.  However, there is growing sentiment among military circles that eventually robots should be developed to be fully autonomous -- fighting and killing enemies, all without human intervention.  Exactly when and how such robots should be legal and troubling moral issues raised were topics of discussion at Royal United Service Institute's conference, "The Ethics of Autonomous Military Systems", a summit of international scientists and military officials held on February 27 in London.

The question "Can a robot commit a war crime?" was raised during the conference.  Such a concern -- that robots might malfunction and target civilians or friendly soldiers -- remains a frightening thought to many military men.

English Barrister and Engineer Chris Elliot explained carefully his thoughts on the legality of autonomous robotic weapons systems in terms of international criminal and civil laws.  He points out that at a certain point the robot's engineers can no longer be held reasonably culpable, and the blame for errors resulting in catastrophic loss of life may come to rest on the shoulders of the robot who committed the assault.  He states, "We're getting very close to the where the law may have to recognize that we can't always identify an individual - perhaps an artificial system can be to blame."

The idea of a robot being charged with murder raises provocative questions about punishment and the fairness of such measures.  Elliot did not back down from taking other hard stances on issues.  He made it clear that currently there was a clear legal burden for humans choosing to deploy systems lacking in sufficient judgment.  He stated, "Weapons intrinsically incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets are illegal."

Elliot stated that robots should only be allowed to autonomously wage war when they pass a "Military Turing Test."  He explains, "That means an autonomous system should be no worse than a human at taking decisions [about valid targets]."

The original Turing test, developed by computer pioneer Alan Turing, states that if a human is unable to tell in a conversation with a robot and a real human, which is the man and which is the machine, then the robot conversing with the human has achieved intelligence.

Elliot could not say when or how such a test could or would be administered, stating simply, "Unless we reach that point, we are unable to [legally] deploy autonomous systems. Legality is a major barrier."

Bill Boothby, of the UK Ministry of Defense, argued a slightly differing perspective that if the situation was carefully controlled, an autonomous fighting machine would not need to be quite as intelligent as Elliot's test would require.  Boothby hopes that by lowering the requirements, robots could assist on the battlefield sooner as opposed to later.  He describes this stance, stating, "There is no technology today that can make that kind of qualitative decision about legitimate targets ... [but] it may be possible to take precautions in the sortie-planning phase that enable it to be used within the law."

Boothby argued that in a way, human operators might be no better as they might simply "rubber stamp" the robot's targeting decisions.   Boothby's comments were found more appealing to many military commanders who wished for sooner deployment of such robots as the new SWORD autonomous fighters or Foster-Miller's MAARS combat robot, which implements advanced technology to reduce friendly-fire incidents.

The difference in opinions expressed between Elliot and Boothby are reflective of the mixed feelings society holds about deploying independently operating killing machines to warzones.  There remain many fears in the mind of  the public, both realistic ones, based on practical assessment of the current limitation, and fantastic ones, fueled by popular culture such as the Terminator movies, which depict a future in which cold-blood lethal robots have turned upon mankind.  The issue is sure to only become more contentious with time and technological advances.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: saving lives?
By Screwuhippie on 2/29/2008 3:16:15 PM , Rating: 5
The day you can talk NK, China, Russia and ... any other rogue nation into NOT being a threat will be the day your comment even makes an iota of sense.

The world sucks ... people will always try and kill you. A strong deterrent is the only way.

We sleep safe in our beds at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who would do us harm.


RE: saving lives?
By SeeManRun on 2/29/2008 4:22:09 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder where New Zealand's military is waging wars! Not all countries go to war with all perceived threats, and the reality is, they are much safer than the US.


RE: saving lives?
By CU on 2/29/2008 5:07:57 PM , Rating: 2
Does New Zealand have a large enough military or enough money to go after all perceived threats? Very few countries do.

There are many reasons for someone to attack the US, we attack perceived threats, we stand up for other countries, we fight terrorists, we promote freedom, others are jealous of our power, others want to knock us down a notch, just to see if they can get away with attacking a super power, etc. The list goes on and on. So, even if we didn't attack perceived threats I don't think we would be that much safer.


RE: saving lives?
By roadhog74 on 3/3/2008 3:54:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does New Zealand have a large enough military or enough money to go after all perceived threats? Very few countries do.


Actually no countries do.

At least one of our political parties is a bit more sensible.
Our only real threats are trade related, not military.
So while we sometimes dont like china it is more about apples.
Currently we don't like the US too much because of lamb.
It used to be steel as well but becasue china and india
are big markets now we dont rarely care about selling
steel to the US.

As far as military threats we could percieve australia
as a threat they are big next to us. Bus brisbane new
Zealands 4th largest city anyway and travel between the
two countries is unrestricted.

Indonesia could be a threat, or not as it is 10000km
away and disintegrating.
China a threat?
Well a whole lot of chinese could just immigrate,
and probably will eventually.


RE: saving lives?
By Kenenniah on 2/29/2008 5:39:48 PM , Rating: 3
The question is how much of the safety of smaller countries is a result of the militaries of the US, UK, and other larger nations. It's impossible to know the exact extent, but I'd wager heavily that much of the security of many nations is due to the knowledge that the US and others would would come to its defense.

You may not agree with everything the US does, and nor do I. But while criticizing the US, do try to think about where Europe would be if it wasn't for the US....or Kuwait. Yes we have made mistakes, but we also pay a large price and carry a large burden that benefits other nations greatly. How safe do you think the world be for small nations with little military power without that deterrent?


RE: saving lives?
By Spuke on 2/29/2008 5:53:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes we have made mistakes, but we also pay a large price and carry a large burden that benefits other nations greatly.
I can guarantee over the next 20 years that US will be reducing this burden on itself as a consequence of Iraq. This will eventually be a thing of the past for us. Fine by me as far as I'm concerned.


RE: saving lives?
By jimbojimbo on 3/3/2008 11:46:41 AM , Rating: 2
I'd wager heavily that much of the security of many nations is due to the knowledge that the US and others would would come to its defense

And if the US didn't come to a country's aid we would be vilified for not helping. Somehow it's come to the point that people will hate us for getting involved yet will hate us if we don't get involved. Honestly I say we don't since either way they'll hate us and we can save some money.


RE: saving lives?
By Spuke on 2/29/2008 5:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder where New Zealand's military is waging wars!
There are countries that depend on other one's for defense like Mexico depends on the US for defense. That way they don't need a full standing military.


RE: saving lives?
By Orpheus333 on 2/29/2008 7:58:58 PM , Rating: 3
I accidentally voted you up...

What country would be the first to New Zealand's aid when war is brought to them? They don't need to go to war with REAL (not perceived) threats because we are there- fighting for all free nations, even those people in denial about the actual threats, and even the French.

Defending the defenseless is a noble cause- would you not agree?

oh, and FYI: New Zealand has fought in the Second Boer War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Malayan Emergency (and committed troops, fighters and bombers to the subsequent confrontation with Indonesia), the Vietnam War, the Gulf War and the Afghanistan War; it has also sent a unit of army engineers to help rebuild Iraqi infrastructure for one year during the Iraq War. As of 2007, New Zealand forces are still active in Afghanistan. New Zealand has contributed forces to recent regional and global peacekeeping missions, including those in Cyprus, Somalia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Sinai, Angola, Cambodia, the Iran/Iraq border, Bougainville, East Timor, and the Solomon Islands.


RE: saving lives?
By rebturtle on 3/2/2008 5:23:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I wonder where New Zealand's military is waging wars! Not all countries go to war with all perceived threats, and the reality is, they are much safer than the US.


If New Zealand were not an ally of the US, Australia, and other larger world powers, don't you think it would be part of China or some other nation by now? The US surely takes the brunt of all criticism, but it also carries the largest burden of enforcing foreign policy and protecting friendly nations under it's "umbrella." This does not mean that all of their decisions are right, but if you're not being saved by us, the threat is probably being deterred by us to start with. To paraphrase Theodore Roosevelt, we may no longer speak quite as softly, but we still carry a huge stick!


RE: saving lives?
By roadhog74 on 3/3/2008 2:45:42 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
If New Zealand were not an ally of the US, Australia


Hmm Australia is not really a world power.
Except in cricket.

quote:
part of China or some other nation


Now that is just a daft statement.
There is a reason rich people go and live in
switzerland and buy holiday homes in new zealnd,
which they never use.

It is because we are in the middle of nowhere.

Whenever we are asked to help we evaluate the request,
and look at the merits of helping.

Which is why we help in the solomans(with support
from the US kudos). A big mess they needed it.

Which is why we help in afganistan. They were
causing trouble, afganistan is a mess, needed it.

Which is why we did not help in iraq.
Dubious intel, dubious legality, dubious reasons for
going there, other better ways of dealing with the
problem.

And then there is capability.
If hong kong declared independence and china
occupied forcefully there is nothing that would be done.
If taiwan declared independence and china
occupied forcefully there is nothing that would be done.
Simply because no one can really argue with china in
their own back yard.
just as if oregon declared independance and the US
decided to occupy there is nothing that would be done.

Except maybe some grumpy emails sent backwards and
forwards.


RE: saving lives?
By SeeManRun on 2/29/2008 4:23:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The day you can talk NK, China, Russia and ... any other rogue nation into NOT being a threat will be the day your comment even makes an iota of sense.


I think you meant to say:

The day you can talk NK, China, Russia and ... any other sovereign nation into NOT being a threat will be the day your comment even makes an iota of sense.


RE: saving lives?
By roadhog74 on 3/3/2008 2:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
China, Russia and NK really aren't a threat.

generally it's poor form to declare war on your biggest
trading partners.

And NK just wants to extort a bit of money.
They are propped up by the chinese who would not
be pleased if they caused problems with chinas
main trading partner.

While they maybe 'hostile' it's more for economic
advantage than anything else.

It used to be the way to be come powerful and rich was to
conquor and subjugate territory. That is currently not
the case just about anywhere except africa.

It's all about the benjamins my friend.


RE: saving lives?
By sfi786 on 2/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: saving lives?
By Duwelon on 2/29/2008 7:12:10 PM , Rating: 3
Your worldview is so messed up it's not even funny.

Why don't you test your faith in your theories and go into a New York ghetto at night, unarmed, wearing nothing but your smile and a cute little outfit that says "I'm unarmed" on the front and back.

This is a world (unfortunately) ruled by the violent use of force and absolute dumbest thing you can do is assume that if you go into a den of vipers with "fuzzy thoughts" then you won't get bitten.

Sorry if i come off as a jerk but this kind of rhetoric gets me so angry...


RE: saving lives?
By sfi786 on 2/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: saving lives?
By Duwelon on 2/29/2008 10:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
As misguided as that all is(and i'm itching to reply to it), what's that got to do with the price of tea in china?


RE: saving lives?
By sfi786 on 2/29/08, Rating: -1
RE: saving lives?
By LatinMessiah on 3/4/2008 1:41:29 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
a...hum...a......i.....a....


double you tea eph?!


RE: saving lives?
By kyleb2112 on 2/29/2008 8:10:40 PM , Rating: 3
"No harm will come to you if thou stop harming others..."

Ever read a history book? Ever?


RE: saving lives?
By sfi786 on 2/29/2008 8:57:56 PM , Rating: 1
Actually I have!

Lets see you have two sons. Now one son is always fighting and causing trouble and always making his parents go after him. While the other son is very responsible and peace loving and less of a trouble maker. Now there is a problem in town. Some safety issue. You decide to buy a gun for your sons so they can protect each other. Now who do you think should hold this gun ? First son or the second. I would give it the second one because it not just about your safety it is also about safety of the society. First son will start shooting carelessly while the second one will only use it when needed. To the first son i will only give advice.So you got an advice. Even though first son have more enemies but i would not give him this gun because he will create more. So topic is not world history because other nations have learned their lessons but we seem to be the only who like to repeat history every 15 years. We need to step forward and offer peace. And stop telling people somebody is our enemy while borrowing money from the same enemy to feed our people. perception is; kill before you get killed in actuality situation is kill and kill more and kill all of them before any of them come and kill you and if they do come to kill you go kill more ...so the circle goes.


RE: saving lives?
By Duwelon on 2/29/2008 10:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
What happens when someone comes after the "good" son who is holding a loaded colt 45 in his hand. This person is hellbent on robbing him and raping his girlfriend. He is in a drug induced haze and barely knows what he's doing and can't be reasoned with.

What then? Should the good son shoot? Should he let his girlfriend get raped and his money stolen?


RE: saving lives?
By sfi786 on 2/29/08, Rating: 0
RE: saving lives?
By Duwelon on 2/29/2008 11:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
You may have read some history books, but it definately wasn't about World History(as in the real life planet Earth). Death and suffering didnt' begin when the USA was born. The USA has held back the floodgates for over 100 years and helped close them when they opened.


RE: saving lives?
By sfi786 on 2/29/2008 11:48:24 PM , Rating: 1
As much i would like to believe as an American what you believe what you describe is not history it is called white washed history. Most of the time we slap ourselves to make us the victim so we either jump into other conflicts or just to start a fight. My directions is to approach history with a intention to not to repeat it. We do not need another cold war. We do not need hatred of long lost red china we need a new direction where we may be start looking at ourselves before judging somebody else. Sometime getting slapped is not a bad thing if it could wake you up from a bad dream.


RE: saving lives?
By roadhog74 on 3/3/2008 3:43:44 AM , Rating: 2
Ahh the mythical drug induced rape scenario.

Honestly you could make up any scenario you want to
excuse any situation you want.

If you live in south africa (at least a few years ago)
a weapon was highly recommended. better to not live
there though.

But as for me I learned akido I don't need a weapon.
Being in a situation that requires a weapons is always
bad odds.

And while we are on it why can't the girl have a weapon?
Why should she need big manly man to protect her?


RE: saving lives?
By puckalicious on 3/1/2008 7:32:37 AM , Rating: 3
Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

How many people/countries wanted to kill us BEFORE we began to meddle with soveriegn nations during peace-time? (before the end of WWII)

Now compare that to how many enemies we created post WWII with our military industrial complex? Communism existed long before WWII, all of a sudden some very rich people discovered they could get even more filthy rich by creating the new "enemy".

Yes people are always trying to kill us... because we began the cycle of violence by killing others long ago. Self fulfilling prophecy?

No, we sleep at night constantly in fear and at risk of another terrorist attack (if you believe all news channels) because those "rough men" you are in love with have waged unnecesary war on others in the name of money.


RE: saving lives?
By Duwelon on 3/1/2008 10:35:09 AM , Rating: 2
Psssssssst. Your liberal elite leaders don't want you to know: Communism leads to economic hell, loss of opportunity and the oppression of the people in every single instance where it has been tried. Ever heard of Stalin? Ever heard how many people died in the name of "communism"?

(man people in this thread make me angry). More people died in Soviet Russia in the name of communism than in Hitler's gas chambers. YOU FOOL.

You cannot remove people's ability to provide themselves a better life (ie, the business owners) and expect things to stay the same or get better. Socialism leads to misery for all in every case it's been tried. Once again, you're a FOOL.


RE: saving lives?
By RogueLegend on 3/1/2008 12:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Communism leads to economic hell, loss of opportunity and the oppression of the people


Capitalism leads/promotes everything you just said.
Economic Hell: See Native Americans, Iraq, Panama, and any other people the "free world" has attacted
Loss of opportunity: look at that, we have Native Americans, Iraq, Panama, pretty much all the same examples
Oppression of the people: Third time is apparrently the charm, because Capitalism has done this everyone a war machine has asserted its dominance.

"More people died in Soviet Russia in the name of communism than in Hitler's gas chambers."

You're a fool for thinking that somehow the quantification of lost life means anything in this debate. What difference does it make? Life has been lost in the name of communism AND capitalism. And both numbers have been rather large. You're comparing Stalin against Hitler. How 'bout comparing life lost due to ALL of communism vs ALL of capitalism.

The point I'm making is that the quantity of life lost does not necessarily mean on system is more evil than another. I would actually argue that Capitalism over time would probably lead to a larger loss of life due to the promotion of greed. Does that mean it's the more evil system?

"You cannot remove people's ability to provide themselves a better life and expect things to stay the same or get better."

What a dim statement that is. That smells of American selfish propaganda.

The problem is self interest to begin with. Majority of the problems with both Capitalism and Communism start with one issue: self interest. It's a prominent feature of capitalism, where as communism doesn't hold it as a feature at all. Communism's goal is the promotion of the public good and a classless society with common ownership. You seriously think that this is what caused Stalin to kill over 8 million people? Explain to me how that works, because that makes no sense to me at all.

The reason why people died under Hitler and Stalin were the same: self interest. They both wanted unopposed power and got the people to believe in them by blaming a "minority" group in their society for the economic troubles. That kind of self interest tends to lead to a lot of death, more so than the guarantee of public welfare.

The biggest reason why communism failed had to do with bad leadership and lack of directly controllable, harvestable resources within the sovereign territory. If Russia had slightly better leaders, and the kind of internal resources that the continental United States had, you'd better believe the Cold War would have turned out differently.

By the way, much of America's capitalism does feature some very basic forms of communism, for both people AND businesses. Wrap your head around that one for a while, and get back to me.


RE: saving lives?
By Duwelon on 3/1/2008 12:57:12 PM , Rating: 2
Slightly better leaders? Wow...

...

Your attempts to argue like "self interest" is evil isn't going to work here. It is self interest, in a society where Justice is valued and upheld, that allows a nation to become successful and it's people more free.

It's the self interest of Bill Gates for example that created thousands of Jobs. The money he earned isn't sitting off in a giant Vault either, never to see the light of day. It's taken and invested back into some markets so that even more money and opportunity can be made.


RE: saving lives?
By unclesharkey on 3/1/2008 1:48:02 PM , Rating: 1
I think this is a good thing. At least this would be a deterrent if another country knew that we could send in robots to kick their asses and not loose any of our people. Nukes are stupid because basically they will destroy the earth. But this is different. Imagine you could send these things into third world countries and destroy all those terrorist groups. The world is already over populated. War, disease, etc. are all part of natures way to balance things out. It is part of the natural order of things. So I say send in the robots! It is just like any other killing machine that man has created.


RE: saving lives?
By RogueLegend on 3/2/2008 5:18:13 AM , Rating: 2
While I'm all in favor of protecting life- I'm not sure these robots would be a good thing.

First of all, using human soldiers promotes something very important- accountability. Even if human soldiers are prone to bad decisions, each human is responsible for his own decisions, and each has a conscience to deal with. If soldiers do something bad in war, it's more likely that at least one persons conscience will expose it.

However, many robots which can be controlled by one person have far less accountability.

And who says this wouldn't help terrorists? Terrorists found a way to take over our own airplanes and used them against us. Whats to say they won't find a way to turn these creations against us as well? And how many in infantry will be put out of a job because of this? Is the government really going to pay for a single soldier to control a single robot? With how much these robots will cost, I'm sure the military will look to cutting personell costs.


RE: saving lives?
By jimbojimbo on 3/3/2008 12:16:18 PM , Rating: 2
You mean like how John Connor reprogrammed Arnold?


RE: saving lives?
By RogueLegend on 3/2/2008 5:10:02 AM , Rating: 2
It's interesting how you take one case (in this case Bill Gates) and show how self interest can be good. It shows you had no ability to respond to all the other arguments I made about what capitalism's self interest has done to people. You can't deny it, so you simply ignore it. That, and you minimize my argument to "slightly better leaders." How 'bout you pay attention to the part where I mention resources? Resources are why most of the conflicts I mentioned were fought in the first place. Oh, that's right, you can't respond to it. It's easier to just ignore it and hope the two paragraphs of thought you're capable of will make you look right.

And I never argued it can't be good- you just assumed that. Self interest has its good aspects But lets not pretend Bill Gates and Microsoft can only do good. There are reasons why Microsoft has been investigated over and over again, and fined by both the United States government and the European Union. Self interest drives corporations to break laws and decieve customers. So let's not pretend Bill Gates hiring people was necessarily *just* a good thing. He did it out of necessity, so he could make more money. And after he hired these people, he went on to break antitrust laws and intentionally decieve customers, and a whole host of other things in order to make an almighty buck. There are some good things about Microsoft, but at the same time that it helped to define an industry, many feel that Microsoft time and time again has held the industry back with its dependence on it, stifled true growth and used its market power in unfair ways, stealing products protected by other licenses to promote its own growth while at the same time complaining about pirates.

And a great many who work for Microsoft aren't necessarily happy there- they have some very unorthodox ways of managing the costs of employees which make employment there very unattractive (I peresonally know people who programmed integral portions of Vista who recieved no benefits). Microsoft is lucky it has a strong industry name, an OS that everyone is entrenched in, and all that money to throw at middle management. Few other companies could survive like they have the way they do business. If they ever have a programmers strike demanding residuals on their code like the Writers Guild did... wow- let's just say the entire industry is lucky there are a lot of desparate programmers out there.

Oh yeah, and when you do have the ability to respond to anything else I said about capitalism, let me know- I'd be curious to see what your response to the slaughter of Native Americans, the slave trade, or any other campaign the U.S. has taken in the name of expanding democracy would look like.


RE: saving lives?
By Duwelon on 3/2/2008 9:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
You started firing off sentences on the premise that self interest is bad. I'm not going to respond to all your points because it would be a waste of time when I know the very premise that underlies your argument is false.

Again, if you think Stalin just needed to be slightly better then you haven't actually read what he's done. Even the History channel makes him look worse than Hitler.

Microsoft... employee's with no benefits means absolutly nothing. I've worked full time with no benefits at a huge bank in the US. It all depends on the conditions. I was a contractor and the conditions of my pay were based purely on pay. There's nothing wrong with that. I agreed to take the Job with the benefits they gave. It's called a free market. Also, I didn't actually work *for* the bank, I worked for a temp agency that worked for the bank. I suspect that's what happened because I know for a fact Microsoft pays quite well.

The native americans.. dont' make me laugh. Go read up on Stalin or Hitler or Castro and tell me what you think would have happened to the beloved Native Americans under their reign. They wouldn't have their own land at this point in time, i can gaurantee you that.

Whatever country your from has done a good Job of telling you the US is evil, but obviously their world history ended there.


RE: saving lives?
By kiwik on 3/2/2008 10:16:48 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for sharing your conservative view on the History channel, though I must say that your opinion (that you're trying to show as fact) is a little bit one sided.

We all know that Stalinism was bad, but it shouldn't be considered communism because it wasn't. It was just another totalitarian regime that lasted for the better part of a century with hegemonic ambitions.

The only difference with the USA is that all these totalitarian regimes had no mechanism of checks and balances.

All in all, thanks for this nice debate, but just like any political debate, the corrupting liberals and the evil conservatives will not understand each other and at the end of the day, nothing will be accomplished.

And before you call me a liberal + [whatever insult you can find], I just want to tell you I have no political affiliation and do not live in the USA.

Your shitstorm can continue, have a good day sir.


RE: saving lives?
By seraphim1982 on 3/3/2008 10:45:45 AM , Rating: 2
You (Duwelon)are a NOOB, your responses to RogueLegends & punkalicious comments are just plain stupid and ignorant. You take facts totally out of their context and try to apply them to your stupid idea of History. Read more before you make stupid comments.

His arguement on self-interest is an excellent point as it shows us that Communism and Capitalism both have their downside of of one controlling power, with self-interest in mind. Hilter did it for the Nazis, Stalin did it for Himself, and Bush does it for the $$$. To each their own. Hilter did for his society he was trying to create, Stalin just didn't want anyone taking his place, and Bush does it for the money, including Bush's Grandfather who tried to take do a cout de tat in the early 20's-30's (Don't believe me there is a recent report on it). YOUR quote "It is self interest, in a society where Justice is valued and upheld, that allows a nation to become successful and it's people more free." There are numerous injustices that happen EVERY SINGLE MINUTE in your "just" country, so don't give me that. Successful???, how many people in America are in poverty? More free? Who are you comparing yourself too? Americans have lost about half their rights so called guaranteed by the Constitution in the last 4 years.

"It's the self interest of Bill Gates for example that created thousands of Jobs. The money he earned isn't sitting off in a giant Vault either, never to see the light of day. It's taken and invested back into some markets so that even more money and opportunity can be made."

Comparing Bill Gates to Stalin, Mao, and Hitler, I just find funny.....your comparing totally different people from different periods, and different positions. Say if Bill Gates did wanna take over the world, he is still not a national leader, in charge of armies and national policy. Your arguement has no validity to it.

"Psssssssst. Your liberal elite leaders don't want you to know: Communism leads to economic hell, loss of opportunity and the oppression of the people in every single instance where it has been tried. Ever heard of Stalin? Ever heard how many people died in the name of "communism"?"

Stalinism and Communism in theory are quite different. One person controlling all power vs. the general public/ community. Communism is an ideal that never came to full fruition. You are saying Communism and Stalinism are the same? DUDE read a history textbooks, some history journals, some GOOD documentaries, before you blurt crap outta you ass. Also, calling people FOOLS in a one paragraph response is just rude.

Punkalicious response is straight the to point and logical, unlike your incoherent bullcrap. Everything, is tied together creating an enemy, war, economy, money, power, profits from war. If you had more knowledge of the world and its history, it might make sense to you, but unfortunately the world is filled with noobs like you.


RE: saving lives?
By roadhog74 on 3/3/2008 3:04:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The biggest reason why communism failed had to do with bad leadership and lack of directly controllable, harvestable resources within the sovereign territory. If Russia had slightly better leaders, and the kind of internal resources that the continental United States had, you'd better believe the Cold War would have turned out differently.


Russia has massive resources.

Command economies generally dont work.
Communism was supposed to be a three stage thing.
revolution - get rid of the ruling class.

devolution of resources - take resources controlled by
rich and give them to the people.
This only partially happened.

devolution of politcal power - each local community
takes care of itself and has a loose federation with all
other communities.

There are resons to believe this could work.
Freedom of movement and trade would allow areas
to naturally grow and shrink depending on their
ability to exploit resources.

But there are more compelling reasons to believe that
is could not possibly work. General self interest
would allow demagoge to grab resources, we know this
will happen because it has always happened.

Captialism actually suffers from the same problem
too many resources ending up in too few hands.
Which can atrophy into a form of feudalism.


RE: saving lives?
By puckalicious on 3/2/08, Rating: 0
RE: saving lives?
By Kyanzes on 3/2/2008 1:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
"The day you can talk NK, China, Russia and ... any other rogue nation into NOT being a threat will be the day your comment even makes an iota of sense."

"rogue nations" :D

This blessed army of yours failed to find any nuclear weapons in Iraq. As a matter of fact these people failed to find a single freaking WMD :D OMG, we were mistaken... Truly sorry. But you know what? Since we're already there, we also steal the oil under the soil. Ofc that's what we came for in the first place but we couldn't just say that out straight. How does an imperialist democrat call such a move? A preemptive invasion? Preemptive plunder? Who the heck is the rogue here? :D

Ofc, it's not unprecedented in history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleiwitz_incident

I could cite other examples too, but I don't wish to get flamed...


RE: saving lives?
By onereddog on 3/3/2008 6:33:43 AM , Rating: 2
You're putting Russia and China next to North Korea and calling them rogue nations... do you live in an 80's action movie?


"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer














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