if you liked Starship Troopers, you'll love this...
April 18, 2003 12:17 PM Subscribe
''It's possible,'' Lt. Col. David Branham of the Air Force says, ''that in our lifetime we will be able to run a conflict without ever leaving the United States.'' On the end of the most remote-controlled war yet, this article in the NYtimes discusses a not-too-distant future in which missile-toting unmanned helicopters and hummingbird-sized surveillance planes can swarm upon any target at the control of war planners deep beneath Tampa, Florida.
Interesting take on war-by-remote:
an E-Sheep comic
posted by CrunchyFrog at 12:58 PM on April 18, 2003
an E-Sheep comic
posted by CrunchyFrog at 12:58 PM on April 18, 2003
What the fuck does the statement "war IS terrorism" have anything to do with this thread, which is about remote controlled wars that reduce American casualties?
posted by VeGiTo at 1:02 PM on April 18, 2003
posted by VeGiTo at 1:02 PM on April 18, 2003
You can have all the pushbutton warfare you want, Colonel, but don't forget that when it comes to taking and holding ground, you'll still need to rely on that nineteen-year-old E-2 with a rifle.
posted by alumshubby at 1:11 PM on April 18, 2003
posted by alumshubby at 1:11 PM on April 18, 2003
Who says this will reduce American casualties, VeGito? What percentage of Anglo/American casualties were from friendly fire in this war? How much will that percentage rise when people on the other side of the planet are pushing the buttons?
On the other hand, this will allow us to kill people without having to learn anything at all about them, except their GPS coordinates. That's good... right?
And I'm sure this technology will be less expensive than the ones we're using now... right?
posted by zekinskia at 1:15 PM on April 18, 2003
On the other hand, this will allow us to kill people without having to learn anything at all about them, except their GPS coordinates. That's good... right?
And I'm sure this technology will be less expensive than the ones we're using now... right?
posted by zekinskia at 1:15 PM on April 18, 2003
zekinskia, did you read the article?
How can you have friendly fire when "the UCAV program succeeds, it could lead us to a distant point on the horizon where no Americans in uniform will ever again fight on the battlefield"
and
"One significant advantage of UCAV's is that they do not require the same level of redundancies and fail-safe requirements as manned fighters because there is no human pilot at risk. That makes them a lot cheaper to produce."
Try reading before posting, it helps.
posted by VeGiTo at 1:21 PM on April 18, 2003
How can you have friendly fire when "the UCAV program succeeds, it could lead us to a distant point on the horizon where no Americans in uniform will ever again fight on the battlefield"
and
"One significant advantage of UCAV's is that they do not require the same level of redundancies and fail-safe requirements as manned fighters because there is no human pilot at risk. That makes them a lot cheaper to produce."
Try reading before posting, it helps.
posted by VeGiTo at 1:21 PM on April 18, 2003
VeGito, I actually did read the post.
accidental bombings demonstrated, among other things, the imprecision of man's relationship to machines
and maybe this will force the spoon out of your mouth...
''People are making all these promises, and they really haven't a clue if they can deliver,'' says Chuck Spinney, who has worked at the Pentagon for 26 years.
or how about:
''a tall man'' was presumed by a remote operator to be bin Laden. He was in fact a civilian out foraging for scrap metal, and he and two companions were killed.
maybe this?:
UCAV's will eat up a tremendous amount of that bandwidth, and tax already overburdened satellites, leading to the possibility of malfunctions on an unprecedented scale. Malfunctions like... death of friendly forces on the ground?
Try reading others' comments, like alumshubby's, before ranting, it helps. And try reading the whole article, not just the first half, which is the "puff piece" side of the argument.
posted by zekinskia at 1:53 PM on April 18, 2003
accidental bombings demonstrated, among other things, the imprecision of man's relationship to machines
and maybe this will force the spoon out of your mouth...
''People are making all these promises, and they really haven't a clue if they can deliver,'' says Chuck Spinney, who has worked at the Pentagon for 26 years.
or how about:
''a tall man'' was presumed by a remote operator to be bin Laden. He was in fact a civilian out foraging for scrap metal, and he and two companions were killed.
maybe this?:
UCAV's will eat up a tremendous amount of that bandwidth, and tax already overburdened satellites, leading to the possibility of malfunctions on an unprecedented scale. Malfunctions like... death of friendly forces on the ground?
Try reading others' comments, like alumshubby's, before ranting, it helps. And try reading the whole article, not just the first half, which is the "puff piece" side of the argument.
posted by zekinskia at 1:53 PM on April 18, 2003
I agree that it's better to use these than lose lives. But I worry that by developing this technology, the machines will do what they're supposed to do, and war will be easier. I hope we are as concerned with making beautiful art and bold progress in medicine, etc., as we are with developing better, stronger, and faster technologies for killing one another.
posted by onlyconnect at 1:54 PM on April 18, 2003
posted by onlyconnect at 1:54 PM on April 18, 2003
zekinskia, I read the entire article, my position is unchanged, and the quotes in your comment make not sense and does nothing to reinforce your arguments of higher cost and higher friendly-fire
Oh and to answer your question about friendly-fire deaths, there have been 35 of such deaths in the first Gulf War, but fewer than a dozen in the most recent one. Just because you see images and reporting of friendly-fire incidents in the media doesn't mean they happen often. Accidents are bound to happen in a simultaneously coordination of a 300000+ men operation. But given that, the number of incidents is still low by historic standards.
May be it's time for you to wake up from your "WAR=BAAAAD" blanket ideology, and start thinking critically.
posted by VeGiTo at 2:03 PM on April 18, 2003
Oh and to answer your question about friendly-fire deaths, there have been 35 of such deaths in the first Gulf War, but fewer than a dozen in the most recent one. Just because you see images and reporting of friendly-fire incidents in the media doesn't mean they happen often. Accidents are bound to happen in a simultaneously coordination of a 300000+ men operation. But given that, the number of incidents is still low by historic standards.
May be it's time for you to wake up from your "WAR=BAAAAD" blanket ideology, and start thinking critically.
posted by VeGiTo at 2:03 PM on April 18, 2003
The eXile magazine [warning: addictive reading] had a nice column on exactly this development a few months back.
posted by Bletch at 2:05 PM on April 18, 2003
posted by Bletch at 2:05 PM on April 18, 2003
zekinskia: "UCAV's will eat up a tremendous amount of that bandwidth, and tax already overburdened satellites, leading to the possibility of malfunctions on an unprecedented scale. Malfunctions like... death of friendly forces on the ground?"
This serves as a motivation to improve on the technology to reduce the possibility of malfunction in the system, not a reason to abandon it all.
posted by VeGiTo at 2:09 PM on April 18, 2003
This serves as a motivation to improve on the technology to reduce the possibility of malfunction in the system, not a reason to abandon it all.
posted by VeGiTo at 2:09 PM on April 18, 2003
"One significant advantage of UCAV's is that they do not require the same level of redundancies and fail-safe requirements as manned fighters because there is no human pilot at risk. That makes them a lot cheaper to produce."
Yea. Cheaper to produce. I'll believe that when it actually occurs.
posted by jmauro at 2:20 PM on April 18, 2003
Yea. Cheaper to produce. I'll believe that when it actually occurs.
posted by jmauro at 2:20 PM on April 18, 2003
Phft... and I remember when Missile Command had a tract-ball and only cost a quarter...
posted by wfrgms at 2:28 PM on April 18, 2003
posted by wfrgms at 2:28 PM on April 18, 2003
Wasn't there a star trek episode about this? As I recall, there was a major conflict between two societies, each of which developed completely automated weapons. By the time Picard and crew arrived, only the weapons were left. The people had all been killed long ago. on preview: i guess it's different if only one side has the weapons. then you get traditional rather than mutual genocide.
posted by alms at 2:39 PM on April 18, 2003
posted by alms at 2:39 PM on April 18, 2003
Yah, we really need high-tech precision-guided remote controlled weapons to genocide civilizations. Because nuclear warheads can't do that.
posted by VeGiTo at 2:51 PM on April 18, 2003
posted by VeGiTo at 2:51 PM on April 18, 2003
fold_and_mutilate:
war IS terrorism.
War is peace.
Didn't you get the memo?
posted by spazzm at 4:00 PM on April 18, 2003
war IS terrorism.
War is peace.
Didn't you get the memo?
posted by spazzm at 4:00 PM on April 18, 2003
Oh and to answer your question about friendly-fire deaths, there have been 35 of such deaths in the first Gulf War, but fewer than a dozen in the most recent one.
Oh, really...
At least 18 people died and 45 were wounded Sunday in northern Iraq when a U.S. warplane mistakenly struck a convoy of Kurdish fighters and U.S. special forces in what appeared to be the deadliest friendly fire attack of the war.
And that's just one incident. Or do Kurds not count?
At least 13 American and five British troops have been killed by their own side in Iraq so far, plus about 20 Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq on Sunday, and the ITN journalist Terry Lloyd. Other incidents, including one killing nine US marines near Nassiriya, are under investigation. The number of Iraqi non-combatants killed will never be counted.
The figure may thus have already surpassed that of the 1991 Gulf war, when 35 of the 148 US deaths were attributed to what many soldiers prefer to call "blue-on-blue" incidents.
Let's see... 13 + 5 + 20 + 9 under investigation = less than a dozen. Remind me not to shop where you're the cashier.
Not to mention that your riposte to a description of a, cough, Star Trek episode in which the weapons were nuclear warheads as well as automated is incorrect as well as beside the point. Did somebody mention critical thinking?
Of course, those high tech weapons almost always work like a charm. I'm looking forward to your next novel, Mr. Clancy.
posted by y2karl at 4:11 PM on April 18, 2003
Oh, really...
At least 18 people died and 45 were wounded Sunday in northern Iraq when a U.S. warplane mistakenly struck a convoy of Kurdish fighters and U.S. special forces in what appeared to be the deadliest friendly fire attack of the war.
And that's just one incident. Or do Kurds not count?
At least 13 American and five British troops have been killed by their own side in Iraq so far, plus about 20 Kurdish fighters in northern Iraq on Sunday, and the ITN journalist Terry Lloyd. Other incidents, including one killing nine US marines near Nassiriya, are under investigation. The number of Iraqi non-combatants killed will never be counted.
The figure may thus have already surpassed that of the 1991 Gulf war, when 35 of the 148 US deaths were attributed to what many soldiers prefer to call "blue-on-blue" incidents.
Let's see... 13 + 5 + 20 + 9 under investigation = less than a dozen. Remind me not to shop where you're the cashier.
Not to mention that your riposte to a description of a, cough, Star Trek episode in which the weapons were nuclear warheads as well as automated is incorrect as well as beside the point. Did somebody mention critical thinking?
Of course, those high tech weapons almost always work like a charm. I'm looking forward to your next novel, Mr. Clancy.
posted by y2karl at 4:11 PM on April 18, 2003
May be it's time for you to wake up from your "WAR=BAAAAD" blanket ideology
Anyone else here ever despair of humanity when they read stuff like this? Makes me wanna throw up my hands, give up on the lot, and go move into the woods. Fuck civilization: four thousand years of effort seems to have gotten us nowhere.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:43 PM on April 18, 2003
Anyone else here ever despair of humanity when they read stuff like this? Makes me wanna throw up my hands, give up on the lot, and go move into the woods. Fuck civilization: four thousand years of effort seems to have gotten us nowhere.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:43 PM on April 18, 2003
y2karl: his question was about anglo-american deaths. And by friendly-fire, I mean soldiers getting shot by other soliders in their own side. Accidents such as driving your own humvee over a cliff don't count.
So-called friendly fire deaths -- when troops accidentally fire on allies or their own units -- are counted among combat deaths. Thirty-five happened in 1991 and fewer than a dozen in this war.
Please response in the context of the discussion when you attempt to be a smart-ass.
posted by VeGiTo at 5:55 PM on April 18, 2003
So-called friendly fire deaths -- when troops accidentally fire on allies or their own units -- are counted among combat deaths. Thirty-five happened in 1991 and fewer than a dozen in this war.
Please response in the context of the discussion when you attempt to be a smart-ass.
posted by VeGiTo at 5:55 PM on April 18, 2003
May be it's time for you to wake up from your "WAR=BAAAAD" blanket ideology, and start thinking critically.
WARR=GOOOOOOD?
WAR=OKAYYY?
Where are you going with that?
WAR=SOMETIMESSSSS NECESSARRYYYY? I could agree with that if my borders are being invaded, but I am not sure robot planes would be more effective than the infantry in that situation.
posted by thirteen at 6:03 PM on April 18, 2003
WAR=BAAAAD, but it is necessary sometimes because the alternatives are worse.
posted by VeGiTo at 6:17 PM on April 18, 2003
posted by VeGiTo at 6:17 PM on April 18, 2003
And by friendly-fire, I mean soldiers getting shot by other soliders in their own side.
Well, The Guardian cites 13 American and 5 British dead due to friendly fire, plus there are those 9 deaths described as being under investigation. 13+5=18. 18+9=27. Both figures are well over a dozen. They are explicitly described as deaths due to friendly fire. Terry Lloyd's death is explicitly laid to coming under friendly fire. Your humvee accident canard has no place in this context--accidental deaths were not the topic of the Guardian article. Please respond in the context of the discussion when you attempt to be less than honest.
zekinskia's question may have been about Anglo-American deaths but if we fire upon and kill troops fighting on our side, whether they happen to be Kurds, Poles or Bulgarians, their deaths count as deaths due to friendly fire.
You link a CNN story like it somehow trumps the Guardian--what we have there is two separate accounts. Your claim conflicts with another report, which makes it provisional at best until proven otherwise. And you still got the Star Trek episode wrong. So there.
posted by y2karl at 6:43 PM on April 18, 2003
Well, The Guardian cites 13 American and 5 British dead due to friendly fire, plus there are those 9 deaths described as being under investigation. 13+5=18. 18+9=27. Both figures are well over a dozen. They are explicitly described as deaths due to friendly fire. Terry Lloyd's death is explicitly laid to coming under friendly fire. Your humvee accident canard has no place in this context--accidental deaths were not the topic of the Guardian article. Please respond in the context of the discussion when you attempt to be less than honest.
zekinskia's question may have been about Anglo-American deaths but if we fire upon and kill troops fighting on our side, whether they happen to be Kurds, Poles or Bulgarians, their deaths count as deaths due to friendly fire.
You link a CNN story like it somehow trumps the Guardian--what we have there is two separate accounts. Your claim conflicts with another report, which makes it provisional at best until proven otherwise. And you still got the Star Trek episode wrong. So there.
posted by y2karl at 6:43 PM on April 18, 2003
Business Week Online: Friendly Fire: Still a Deadly Foe
Friendly-fire casualties, however, remained a problem for even the most wired military in history, with aerial and artillery attacks the most serious. So far, 18 of the 149 fatalities suffered by U.S. and British soldiers were the result of errant strikes by coalition forces. U.S. Patriot missiles shot down a British Tornado fighter plane and may have brought down an F-18/Hornet. A number of mistaken air raids struck U.S. soldiers, their allies, and Iraqi civilians. In the worst episode of friendly fire yet in this Iraqi war, a U.S. plane bombed a column of U.S. Special Forces troops and Kurdish fighters, killing 19 Kurds and an embedded journalist, and injuring an unspecified number of U.S. solidiers.
STILL TOO HIGH. At initial glance, these tragic numbers appear to be an improvement over Gulf War I, which recorded 35 deaths from friendly fire -- 24% of all combat fatalities, vs. 12% in Gulf War II. But the U.S. and its allies deployed twice as many troops in the first Gulf conflict. And as the Pentagon gathers the final data from the war, the number of friendly-fire deaths could go up.
Estimates of these rates in past conflicts depend on who's doing the estimating -- the numbers are lower according to the Pentagon and higher according to veterans' groups. But regardless of whose numbers one goes by, friendly fire is still a big enough problem to warrant serious attention, which is why the Pentagon is working on several programs to reduce the number of friendly-fire incidents.
That's two accounts now of 18 Anglo-American deaths due to friendly fire. And as the article notes, the number of friendly fire incidents could go up as final data is gathered.
posted by y2karl at 6:57 PM on April 18, 2003
Friendly-fire casualties, however, remained a problem for even the most wired military in history, with aerial and artillery attacks the most serious. So far, 18 of the 149 fatalities suffered by U.S. and British soldiers were the result of errant strikes by coalition forces. U.S. Patriot missiles shot down a British Tornado fighter plane and may have brought down an F-18/Hornet. A number of mistaken air raids struck U.S. soldiers, their allies, and Iraqi civilians. In the worst episode of friendly fire yet in this Iraqi war, a U.S. plane bombed a column of U.S. Special Forces troops and Kurdish fighters, killing 19 Kurds and an embedded journalist, and injuring an unspecified number of U.S. solidiers.
STILL TOO HIGH. At initial glance, these tragic numbers appear to be an improvement over Gulf War I, which recorded 35 deaths from friendly fire -- 24% of all combat fatalities, vs. 12% in Gulf War II. But the U.S. and its allies deployed twice as many troops in the first Gulf conflict. And as the Pentagon gathers the final data from the war, the number of friendly-fire deaths could go up.
Estimates of these rates in past conflicts depend on who's doing the estimating -- the numbers are lower according to the Pentagon and higher according to veterans' groups. But regardless of whose numbers one goes by, friendly fire is still a big enough problem to warrant serious attention, which is why the Pentagon is working on several programs to reduce the number of friendly-fire incidents.
That's two accounts now of 18 Anglo-American deaths due to friendly fire. And as the article notes, the number of friendly fire incidents could go up as final data is gathered.
posted by y2karl at 6:57 PM on April 18, 2003
Will there one day be fields of cyborg-soldiers, eliminating the need for humans to enter the ground war?
Say hello to the Terminators.
posted by bwg at 7:43 PM on April 18, 2003
Say hello to the Terminators.
posted by bwg at 7:43 PM on April 18, 2003
You can have all the pushbutton warfare you want, Colonel, but don't forget that when it comes to taking and holding ground, you'll still need to rely on that nineteen-year-old E-2 with a rifle.
Or a small helo-drone with twin .50's slung under it.
Or one of any number of possible ground-based telepresence drones. Viz, Ken MacLeod and teletroopers.
Or GIANT FREAKIN' ROBOTS!!!!!!
Or military-grade nano.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:57 PM on April 18, 2003
Or a small helo-drone with twin .50's slung under it.
Or one of any number of possible ground-based telepresence drones. Viz, Ken MacLeod and teletroopers.
Or GIANT FREAKIN' ROBOTS!!!!!!
Or military-grade nano.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:57 PM on April 18, 2003
Fuck civilization: four thousand years of effort seems to have gotten us nowhere.
We have cameras.
posted by kindall at 7:59 PM on April 18, 2003
We have cameras.
posted by kindall at 7:59 PM on April 18, 2003
y2karl, may be the CNN article is inaccurate, then. So it's 18, not 12. What's the big deal? The issue here is whether or not we should continue developing technology that reduce the need to place human beings on the battle fields. Should we base our decision on the extra 6 friendly-fire deaths?
posted by VeGiTo at 8:55 PM on April 18, 2003
posted by VeGiTo at 8:55 PM on April 18, 2003
You made the assertion the number of incidents is still low by historic standards. That is as yet a dubious proposition.
posted by y2karl at 9:33 PM on April 18, 2003
posted by y2karl at 9:33 PM on April 18, 2003
Of course, this is all beside the real problem... If we can cheaply press a few buttons and turn Iraq (or whoever the sworn enemy of 2156 is) into a crater without ever bothering with any consequences, then we may be in for a very, very ugly future. It's like that ring of invisibility from the Republic... Sure, no truly good person would take advantage of it, but really, who have you ever known to be THAT good? certainly not this government...
posted by kaibutsu at 11:10 PM on April 18, 2003
posted by kaibutsu at 11:10 PM on April 18, 2003
VeGiTo, I am willing to bet good money you've never served under arms.
posted by adamgreenfield at 12:32 AM on April 19, 2003
posted by adamgreenfield at 12:32 AM on April 19, 2003
Like the military in Distress.
Destroy enough of their expensive robot canon-fodder and they'll leave you alone through economic imperative.
What a complete waste of time, effort and energy.
Any vhance of a lift to the woods, fff?
posted by asok at 4:03 AM on April 19, 2003
Destroy enough of their expensive robot canon-fodder and they'll leave you alone through economic imperative.
What a complete waste of time, effort and energy.
Any vhance of a lift to the woods, fff?
posted by asok at 4:03 AM on April 19, 2003
ROU_Xeno:
I dunno about MILSPEC nano. Working nano is still somewhere between total pie-in-the-sky and its first halting steps.
That drone can and will be spoofed, shot down, or grounded due to weather. It can't loiter on station indefinitely, although a fleet of them might (some inbound, some outbound, at least one on station).
Telepresence can and will be jammed.
Computers can't think, only compute.
posted by alumshubby at 6:35 AM on April 19, 2003
I dunno about MILSPEC nano. Working nano is still somewhere between total pie-in-the-sky and its first halting steps.
That drone can and will be spoofed, shot down, or grounded due to weather. It can't loiter on station indefinitely, although a fleet of them might (some inbound, some outbound, at least one on station).
Telepresence can and will be jammed.
Computers can't think, only compute.
posted by alumshubby at 6:35 AM on April 19, 2003
OBTW:
The reason you don't see "GIANT FREAKIN' ROBOTS!!!!!!" this side of a MechWarrior game is that they're also giant freakin' targets.
posted by alumshubby at 6:37 AM on April 19, 2003
The reason you don't see "GIANT FREAKIN' ROBOTS!!!!!!" this side of a MechWarrior game is that they're also giant freakin' targets.
posted by alumshubby at 6:37 AM on April 19, 2003
Computers can't think, only compute.
What if we postulate, for the sake of argument, that all processes taking place in the human brain are bound by the laws of physics, which are well known and thus possible to simulate in a sufficiently complex computer.
Does that mean humans can't think?
Or does it mean that humans can think and computers can't because we're infinitely more complex than them?
If so, will humans cease to be able to think once computers reaches our level of complexity?
Or are there something in humans that is not bound by the laws of physics?
If so, who's to say that computers cannot be endowed with the same nonphysical properties?
For once, I'd love to hear an explanation of this that doesn't involve religion.
On the whole, I think an army of gigantic killer robots is a swell idea. I'm working on mine as we speak.
posted by spazzm at 8:40 AM on April 19, 2003
What if we postulate, for the sake of argument, that all processes taking place in the human brain are bound by the laws of physics, which are well known and thus possible to simulate in a sufficiently complex computer.
Does that mean humans can't think?
Or does it mean that humans can think and computers can't because we're infinitely more complex than them?
If so, will humans cease to be able to think once computers reaches our level of complexity?
Or are there something in humans that is not bound by the laws of physics?
If so, who's to say that computers cannot be endowed with the same nonphysical properties?
For once, I'd love to hear an explanation of this that doesn't involve religion.
On the whole, I think an army of gigantic killer robots is a swell idea. I'm working on mine as we speak.
posted by spazzm at 8:40 AM on April 19, 2003
Ahem. Obligitory Simpsons reference:
"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. Thank you."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:35 AM on April 19, 2003
"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. Thank you."
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 9:35 AM on April 19, 2003
Will there one day be fields of cyborg-soldiers, eliminating the need for humans to enter the ground war?
Will there one day be a leader who's got the balls to duke it out mano-a-mano with his opponent, winner-take-all?
Let all those 'tards with hard-ons for war go fight each other in some damn deathmatch arena, and leave everyone else out of it.
ok, not really: wouldn't be practical. but, geezus, we gotta be able to make a better effort to come up with solutions than slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians and conscripted teenagers.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:46 AM on April 19, 2003
Will there one day be a leader who's got the balls to duke it out mano-a-mano with his opponent, winner-take-all?
Let all those 'tards with hard-ons for war go fight each other in some damn deathmatch arena, and leave everyone else out of it.
ok, not really: wouldn't be practical. but, geezus, we gotta be able to make a better effort to come up with solutions than slaughtering tens of thousands of civilians and conscripted teenagers.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:46 AM on April 19, 2003
« Older Shiseido Women | A brand new tobacco company Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
One wonders if new medals will be commissioned for Our Soldiers gallantly pushing buttons with that well-known American elan....
Make no mistake...war IS terrorism.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:40 PM on April 18, 2003