Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Are Pentagon Nerds Developing Packs of Man-Hunting Killer Robots?

By Scott Thill, AlterNet. Posted November 20, 2008.


A dystopian sci-fi fantasy may soon be coming to fruition on a battlefield near you.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The Pentagon's Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program recently sent out a call for contractors to design a pack of robots whose main purpose would be to track down what the SBIR ominously referred to as "noncooperative human subject[s]."

How does the robot pack decide which human is cooperative and which is not? Welcome to the wonderful, dystopian world of defense pork. 

The call immediately raised red flags, as well as philosophical and moral chills, from one end of humankind to the other. Not surprisingly, it was quickly removed from the public Web site before its cyborg spark evolved into a full-fledged paranoia over machine armies and murderous artificial intelligence, the likes of which were previously known only in seminal science-fiction exercises as old-school as Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 and Philip K. Dick's stories, "Minority Report" and "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and as new-school as the Star Wars, Terminator and Matrix franchises.  

According to the SBIR offer, the "Multi-Robot Pursuit System" would need "a software and sensor package to enable a team of robots to search for and detect human presence in an indoor environment." The robots would be led by a human commander using "semiautonomous map-based control." For good measure, the offer added that there "has also been significant research in the game-theory community involving pursuit/evasion scenarios." According to the offer, the robots should weight a little over 200 pounds apiece, and there should be three to five of them assigned to their human overlord. 

The superficial logic at work in this curious merge of machine and flesh dictates that this speculative pack of robots would greatly reduce the human danger inherent in hunting down armed or violent persons hiding indoors. After all, robots are used today to detect and detonate incendiary devices; in fact, those very robots were evolved, armed and deployed to Baghdad, where they are currently awaiting orders to fire. The Pentagon's future robot pack is just the next inevitable step in that machine evolution: An armed machine given game-theory programming in predation and differentiation. The reduction is slightly convincing: If a robot is smart enough to detect bombs, it's smart enough to hunt down enemies. Give it a gun and count the saved lives on reality TV. 

But slightly convincing is also akin to slightly terrifying, in this case, and not because of what it means for machines. Rather, it's terrifying because of what it says about their masters. 

I, Dehumanizer 

"It's not technology we have to worry about, it's the humans," argue Arthur and Marilouise Kroker, editors of the academic technology and culture journal CTheory, which also counts as contributers famed theorists Bruce Sterling, Jean Baudrillard, Paul Virilio and DJ Spooky. "Why blame technology? It generally does what it is coded to do. It's the human sentient understanding of how to take cruel advantage of human weakness that's the problem. If the image of lethally armed robots can give rise to futurist dystopian visions, it's probably because that future has already happened with a military command that specializes in dehumanization." 

It's not just the military: From entertainment spectacles like Heroes to the New York Police Department and all the way down to the torture porn of Rube Goldberg films like Saw and games like Manhunter, American culture is blitzkrieged by mechanized violence.  

One of our currently mediated weapons of choice is the Taser, which has been seen on several Heroes episodes in the hands of mortal secret agents looking to hunt and take down renegade and innocent superbeings. In late September, a mentally disturbed Brooklyn man named Iman Morales was Tasered by an NYPD officer, against departmental rules and protocol, and fell immobilized to his death. Michael Pigott, the lieutenant who ordered the illegal Tasering of Morales, was found a couple of weeks later with a bullet in his head and a suicide note at his side.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: robots

Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm.com. His writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired and others.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Oy!
Posted by: maestra on Nov 20, 2008 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What next?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: How's this? Posted by: Cybershaman
This isn't new...
Posted by: spacestevie on Nov 20, 2008 3:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For years the Preadator Drone aircraft have been doing the same thing essentially. This would represent a next level in the technology which is still a terrifying concept. The fact that they are seeing something that would function semi-autonomously is something to be concerned about. We know that our Preadator drones under human remote control have struck questionable targets. What happens when we let a swarm of robots loose on a village that is suspected of harboring "Terrorists?"

The civilian law-enforcement applications are terrifying as well. Put the robots in a house with a hostage situation and well you open the whole thing to a whole host of problems. A robot is supposed to be expected to have human judgement and identification abilities when in many situations human judgement can fail.

It all comes down to human judgement. We have to judge whether we can control our electronic children. We are, after all, the creators and should control our progeny.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» If you were to ask me... Posted by: ~Fiona~
» RE: If you were to ask me... Posted by: bloominblacksheep
Shades of "Isaac Asimov"
Posted by: ~Fiona~ on Nov 20, 2008 3:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if they will adhere to the "Three Laws Of Robotics"???

I have to admit I'm a little concerned by what they mean when they define the differences between "cooperative" and "Non-cooperative...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Shades of "Isaac Asimov" Posted by: Artkansas
» RE: Shades of "Isaac Asimov" Posted by: Artkansas
» **grins** Posted by: ~Fiona~
Like
Posted by: like on Nov 20, 2008 3:58 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that the nerds are already robots. Have you ever saw a nerd from the neck down? They consist of heads only. They think and we respond.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nerd Power Posted by: Artkansas
» Good nerds and bad nerds Posted by: PaulK
Can they clean a septic system?
Posted by: PJAW on Nov 20, 2008 4:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or maybe do some of the other tasks seen on "Dirty Jobs"? That's where they ought to be working, not on some paramilitary venture, scaring the crap out of normal citizens.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Oh, they're around the corner. Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: Are you nuts? Posted by: LazyEight
Collateral Damage
Posted by: Artkansas on Nov 20, 2008 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When we get robots on both sides of the battlefield, the only casualties will be innocent civilians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» It's all in the programming. Posted by: maxpayne
Uh, people enjoyed watching those cartoons and movies so
Posted by: maxpayne on Nov 20, 2008 5:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
they voted for these kinds of pols who bought in this kind of a lunacy. What does this have to do with the Pentagon? Well, they get to make or break the departments in Washington so they put in the looney birds who turned the Pentagon into a mad scientist's laboratory at large. You know, maybe you could pay more attention to your local and state level elections and in time bring in better pols who in turn will reform Pentagon for the better. Obama might moderate it just like Bill Clinton but you folks out there better nail your Congress people just like you did on the bailouts for Wall $treet if we're gonna curtail that madhouse.

P.S.: And before I hear another rightwing motherfucker complain blaming Clinton for 9/11 or the Sudan mess just because he moderated Pentagon spending, let me tell you this. Like everything else, spending alone doesn't work. The money spent has to be done wisely and so far it all went down the black hole to bad management in the defense contracting companies and FYI, there are more military contractors than actual U.S. soldiers in Iraq or at least nearly as many which isn't any better. Despite all the wasteful military spending of the last 8 years, Al Quaida is still stronger than it ever was. Sure, you rightwing lunatics out there can make up bullshit such as "Well, they're not here because we're fighting them there" but Al Quaida didn't even have to bother showing up here because you supported wrecking the economy, compromising national security, and dragging us all into your mess faster and deadly than Al Quaida could ever dream of wrecking this country so they're laughing hard while we're all sinking ! If that's what you rightwingers out there are proud of, you are NOT American or even human but worse than the worst animal I know of !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Can Haz Cancer Cure?
Posted by: nen on Nov 20, 2008 5:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey! We didn't ask for you to build some terror-mongering robot force. How about you pay a bit more attention to health care and preserving the welfare of humanity before, you know, killing them?

Why is it that we have perfectly brilliant minds working towards the destruction of human lives be they non-cooperative or otherwise? This is an appalling waste of effort and money.

How the hell can we hope to heal our society with crap like this? The economy is in the crapper, our children are getting the shaft in every way possible, half of society is dictating what's best for the other half even while being screamed at to mind their own damn business and what do we do? We make new friggin' weapons! Great! Just what we needed right now.

Please excuse my ranting. I'm a little upset.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I Can Haz Cancer Cure? Posted by: maxpayne
» RE: I Can Haz Cancer Cure? Posted by: RedWalt67
» RE: I Can Haz Cancer Cure? Posted by: benzene
» RE: I Can Haz Cancer Cure? Posted by: donl51
» RE: FYI Posted by: Cybershaman
The laws of warfare
Posted by: PaulK on Nov 20, 2008 5:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. If you build it, your enemy will either build it or more likely steal it.

2. Once the rich nations build it, some poor dictatorship will try it too.

We're going to find that miniaturized robots don't fight other robots that well because, like leaf mines, they're almost undetectable. They work best against soft targets like flesh.

3. Your country can't make robots after a pre-emptive strike. Your country can only stockpile them by the billions for mutual assured destruction.

4. A poker hand is no good unless you lay the cards down sometimes. That's why mutual assured destruction is so scary. Will your enemy launch a last vengeful hand from the grave, even though it was a false alarm on their part?

5. These weapons of mass destruction can be easily hidden. Treaties won't be quite as useful.

The problem with killer robots is that they are landmines. They work against combatants early on in the war, but then later all morals inevitably go out the window and the robots are indiscriminate.

Long after humanity is dead these robots will roam the earth looking for more humans to eradicate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» The laws of Nature Posted by: Cathyc
» I don't ... Posted by: Bbear41
WARNING
Posted by: Last Chance on Nov 20, 2008 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They won't have time to perfect such a robot. Bush is still President until Jan. 20, so he has opened military flight passages to holiday commercial jet traffic, and last month he increased the number of nations from which travelers can come to the USA without a visa. That invites another terrorist attack, after which Bush can instantly declare marshal law, nullify the election, rule as dictator and launch World War Three. have you noticed he is walking around with a big smirk on his face?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WARNING Posted by: Shehova
» RE: WARNING ! Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: WARNING,WARNING!! Posted by: donl51
» "Terminator" comes true Posted by: Last Chance
» RE: WARNING Posted by: Mel H.
Anybody Ever Seen "Screamers?"
Posted by: ProfessorW on Nov 20, 2008 8:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another Philip K. Dick story, in which two large corporations fight a proxy war on a distant mining planet. They've introduced the Mobile Autonomous Sword or "screamer" to kill anything that lives. So the soldiers of the corporation that released the creature wear bracelets to "flatline" themselves--to mimic death.

But the screamers have begun to modify themselves in their underground caves. Humanity has lost control. How long before this happens while we're mimicking the (brain) dead?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Anybody Ever Seen "Screamers?" Posted by: monkeywrench
Robotics
Posted by: donl51 on Nov 20, 2008 9:05 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wouldn't concern myself about battlefield robots other than remote controlled aerial drones or tanks etc any time soon....too date the best robot builders are the Japanese,and they're worlds away from anything ,like terminator or the Empire strikes back battlefield AI type robot...loved the article though!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Where is this going?
Posted by: Ignatz deFyre on Nov 20, 2008 9:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For an interesting answer, intellectually curious readers may want to pick up a copy of "The Invincible" by Stanislaw Lem.

http://www.amazon.com/
invincible-science-fiction-Stanislaw-Lem/dp/
0283979623/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=
books&qid=1227200978&sr=1-19

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is nothing new,
Posted by: sirios on Nov 20, 2008 9:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
we have been under the influence of killer robots for the last eight years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

elephantperson
Posted by: jwc1480 on Nov 20, 2008 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's been fourty-odd years since I read F451, but I don't remember any robots in the story. It was essentially about cencership and the elimination of ideas that one opposed. Not unlike a group shouting down a speaker so that her opinions cannot be debated and decided on.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gentlewoman
Posted by: lokicat on Nov 20, 2008 12:32 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like "Dr. Who" the British sci-fi who came up against the Daleks, those robots who blow people away screeching 'Exterminate! Exterminate!' Mindlessness. Mindless killing, senseless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War Beyond the Conventional, Beyond the Nuclear...
Posted by: BrianOfNairobi on Nov 20, 2008 3:20 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is not exactly a revelation that the US, and its allies, have been pushing ahead with this technology. The Middle East, especially Iraq and the Palestinian territories, has been a hot-bed of "scientific initiative" for many years... drones murdering innocents, etc,.

Untold, and accounted, billions and trillions of US Dollars have been spent pursuing exotic projects... SDI being the red herring of course. There is no Star Wars shield... the stolen billions and trillions were spent elsewhere.

And it was not in defence... that's for sure. It was in offence. An offensive measure that targetted the rest of the world, friend and foe alike.

The money went into projects like HAARP. HAARP is only the tip of the iceberg. All these satelites, which we were told were to measure and study the weather, were not only to study the weather but to control it... and target nations, such as China, that do not toe the line of the financial oligarchs of the west.

The ex-Finance Minister of Japan, Takenake, admitted this is why Japanese banking institutions succumbed to the interests of the western money-changers... the threat of being earthquaked. The Niiagita earthquake of 16-7-07 was epicentred on the biggest nuclear reactor in the world... at a depth of 6.21 miles (10 km). A little warning.

Bam, Iran, 26-12-03, earthquake killed 30,000 innocent human beings... depth 6.21 miles (10 km).

Kashmir, Pakistan, 8-10-05, earthquake killed over 80,000 innocent human beings.... depth 6.21 miles (10 km).

May 2008, China, was riddled with earthquakes with a depth of 6.21 miles before and after the major one that killed 90,000 innocent human beings, which was epicentred on China's nuclear arsenal in Sichwaun.

Therefore, murderous robots on the prowl... no surprise at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No surprise at all Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: get a grip. Posted by: Cathyc
» RE: get a grip. Posted by: BrianOfNairobi
Pigs In Space
Posted by: Direct Democracy on Nov 20, 2008 4:39 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And killer robots on the ground, coming to YOUR house, looking for YOU!


FREE AMERICA

REVOLUTIONARY (DIRECT) DEMOCRACY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why does the world hate America?
Posted by: deang on Nov 20, 2008 5:09 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Countries like Cuba spend their money on health care systems for their entire population and on sending doctors throughout the world to help the needy. The US (and Americans) spend their money endlessly on coming up with new ways to slaughter people and bring people pain. Until Americans prove to the world that they're against this shit by rising up and stopping it, the world will continue hating you. Just electing Obama isn't enough.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dystopian present and future
Posted by: Dboy on Nov 20, 2008 5:25 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At some point in our near future, any form of non-compliance will be considered terrorism.

dboy

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What noncooperative human subject[s]?
Posted by: AZiffelle on Nov 20, 2008 5:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The design of my army of fembots ensures that all human subjects are cooperative.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Shades of Terminator
Posted by: DCBeltway on Nov 20, 2008 7:31 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Damn that movie was good! Scary how accurate it predicted the future. The whole Terminator Series is also anti-war.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Would you rather keep the draft board and put yourself or your son in the robot's job?
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Nov 20, 2008 9:14 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That is the real choice. Until now, people have had to do the
robots' job. Either robots or conscription [selective slavery].
Robots on the battlefield mean that the selective slavery system is
obsolete. There is a net gain for human rights in the United
States. Conscription is the last remnant of slavery in the US, and
robotization of the battlefield is the way to end it.

Robots also reduce the killing of enemy soldiers and civilians.
The truth is: once the human American is removed from the kill
zone, the American soldier, being a robot, doesn't have to shoot at
anything that moves. Since robots don't have a self preservation
instinct or fear or terror or horror or pain, you can take the time
required to determine what it is that is moving. Robotization of
the battlefield will reduce enemy casualties. If the enemy shoots
at a robot, who cares? He is wasting his ammunition. The same
is true in domestic police situations. With a robot, the criminal
can be arrested and kept alive. The incidence of police killings
should be reduced to almost zero. The robot is a lot more
difficult to destroy or even injure than a soldier wearing all of that
armor. A robot is also much more powerful, faster, quicker, more
accurate and so on. If you want to make the robot destroy the
weapon, not the man, you can do so. Then you can take the
enemy man prisoner, a much better tactic than killing him because
taking POWs wins a war faster than killing. Imagine a war
without blood and gore. It can only happen with robots.

That having been said, I would never in this century give a robot
the authority to use lethal force without human permission.
There must always be a human in the loop. I strongly advocate a
law mandating a human in the loop because soldiers have asked
the engineers to make a completely autonomous mobile armed
robot. While I was working for the Army weapons lab, I was
able to dissuade them. Now that I am retired, we need a law.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!!
Posted by: FreeAmerica on Nov 20, 2008 11:36 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Having armies of warrior drones would obviously soon turn into a bad thing.

Then there is the issue of the inevitable, turning the drones lose on the populace. Cities would buy them up as revenue generating machines. The cities would be flush with drone cops, and people would get busted for every little minor offense as a revenue source.

Soon this would morph into eliminating dissenting opinion. As soon as someone protests, a mother ship of thousands of warrior drones will descend from the sky and start busting heads.

No thanks.

I would be all for a car that drives me home from the bar tho. It would have the benefit eliminating drunk driving completely, saving thousands of tragedies each year.

As with so many things in life, some is good, more is not better. Auto car, yes. Head-busting government compliance warrior drones and soldiers, no.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

For Peace NOT War
Posted by: pana on Nov 21, 2008 10:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Robots that kill. What a waste of money. Eisenhower warned us about this kind of lunacy. What is with people in this country anyway? This kind of senseless spending needs to stop.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: For Peace NOT War Posted by: Dboy
They got it wrong
Posted by: tarnishedreality on Nov 22, 2008 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not going to justify whether or not this is right or wrong. It seems like something that's just going to happen out of need. Ever former military friend I know is pointing at China as a huge threat in the future. We only have them by technology, but they have numbers that more than even the score if they decided to act and since we've been so brilliantly sending our work overseas to them we're giving them our technology to boot. Frankly, we were fighting China when we were in Vietnam and we lost. My thought is the military is thinking of how to even the odds up a bit, while Corporate America is supplying China with the gun to shoot us with. What happens when we can't pay China back?

Is this dangerous and going to lead to a Frank Herbert and George Orwell predicted future, yep! These guys knew the score and it's part of human societies nature I guess, because the same patterns keep repeating with only a difference in technology and faces.

Now to discuss why they are taking the wrong strategy. I'm always amazed at how wrong the military can get something. There's no need to create self thinking robots here. The machines should be driven completely by humans. There are millions of American adults and kids who play "First person shooter games". For example, Gears of War, Halo, Quake, and Doom 3. Yes, I'm an avid player, but don't play every single day much less week. You put these game players behind the wheel of a robotic soldier and you have one hell of an army considering that if the robot is lost, another one can be fired up and the virtual soldier is back in action with the soldier remembering where they were ambushed. They're would be no radio transmissions for the enemy to listen in to either. You would also have an army that doesn't have to leave they're day jobs to fight your wars and when they are downed they don't pay with their life, so you don't loose they're valuable experience.

For the military the perfect army is a battalion of robots manned by a battalion of online gamers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

THEY'VE HAD 'EM FOR YEARS!
Posted by: rideyourbike11 on Nov 23, 2008 8:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're called Republicans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I Hope So!
Posted by: ds1st on Nov 24, 2008 8:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope the United States can deploy techniques that don't put our troops at risk.

Let the enemy troops die for their facist-socialist country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement