American Science: Addicted to Pentagon Cash? 637
An anonymous submitter writes: "In totalitarian states the military can compel scientists to perform research for weapons systems. That's not true in the United States, yet American scientists who refuse military work are exceedingly rare today. This may be in part because scientists, like most other citizens, agree that the U.S. is facing dangerous foes. But some dissidents argue the cause is more likely that Pentagon cash has become an addiction that scientists rationalize by working on 'dual use' technologies -- radar that maps planets and guides missiles; robots that peer through smoke in apartment fires to rescue victims, and through battlefield smoke to find human targets."
It doesn't matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
But... (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm Pentagon cash (Score:2, Insightful)
Those guys are all shameful murdering hypocrites too, lest we forget!
Well, so? (Score:5, Insightful)
Advancing (Score:3, Insightful)
Dual use (Score:5, Insightful)
Bottom line, if you don't want to be funded by any agency, no one is breaking your arm to do it, or requiring you to stay where you are. That's your right. It's also someone elses right to be funded that way if they choose to be.
Our foes are ourselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why didn't airplanes have impermeable doors before 9-11?
Because it wasn't cost effective. Common sense and basic security took a back seat to the bottom line.
Until we are ruled by those who don't whore themselves out for the easy money of lobbyists and corporations, until the dollar takes a back seat to common sense, until we get off of our collective lard-asses, we have only ourselves to blame.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch reruns of Dukes of Hazzard.
I don't understand the problem? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is money that is spent on causes that are worthwhile. The government wastes lots of money on things that are just junk. However, defending our country from people who hate us and wish nothing less then taking away our liberties and even our lives is not one of those things.
-Brent
Rationalization or Compromise? (Score:4, Insightful)
Isn't it more likely that they're saying something more like "Yes, this technology will be used to increase the effectiveness of our military to kill other soldiers, but if i do a good job and it's useful, maybe it'll save more people than it helps kill."
I'd like to think at least some of them feel that way, and i wouldn't hold it against someone for taking the funding they can get to work on a technology with broad non-military use, in addition to the specific ideas the DoD has in mind. As the article says, there are vast areas of gray, in fact, it's mostly gray, so it comes down to people making ethical decisions on the specific details at hand. Sometimes that'll lead you to not develop a technology, if you sway towards non-militarism, and so, great, one less way to kill, but sometimes you'll develop something that kills sometimes, but saves in other contexts, or pushes our comprehension of basic science, the universe, etc.
Grow up (Score:5, Insightful)
It's amazing how people so clever in one field can exhibit appalingly naive and childish thought in other areas. I would rather scientists like Potter grow up and face the realities of the world outside their labs than have their silly views pandered to by an indulgent press.
"Surprise, surprise, it is different," he says. "Not different enough for me. Just think about the sheer magnitude of what hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on military efforts could do if spent on, for example, building schools in countries that need them, or creating diplomacy centers like the Carter Center, or informative research and practical solutions like those of the Union of Concerned Scientists."
Surprise, surprise, we do spend loads of money on countries that need schools and agricultural help and so on, but as anyone who has looked at the sad history of development aid in, say, Africa, knows, it is no use to build schools and whatnot if endemic violence destroys those schools and kills the people who would attend them. But like so many naive bien pensants, it's all 6 degrees of Dubya to him, and every evil that is is traceable back to the Pentagon.
Re:What's the big deal? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:So...what so bad about it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Change out war with sex and I think it'd work just as well for the same reasons.
Re:Military Ca$h (Score:5, Insightful)
I, for one, don't condemn anyone for their anti-war/anti-defense principles, but in de Raadt's case, he took the position that he was scamming the government (very nice); in the VV article, the scientist seems to think that if he only thinks pure thoughts, his wonderous research will only be used for the True Good of the People. The former indicates that de Raadt is perhaps not as principled as he claims; the latter shows that the scientist is rather naive.
Re:So...what so bad about it? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah, there is a market for war machines, and the liberal marketeers out there will say the market gets filled, but think about it--we're that market! Our defense budget (paid for by our tax $$) is larger than the rest of the world's combined. We could migrate spending to other industries that can develop technologies without the expensive, inefficient step of producing $450 M planes.
Just a thought.
Knives kill (Score:3, Insightful)
I never have, and never will, work on weapons systems, nor will I ever overtly teach others to how to do so.
However, if the tracking systems I'm working on now for sporting events, or the electronic controls I'm working on for civilian marine use ever get turned to military purposes, or someone I've tutored in calculus uses that knowledge for ends I wouldn't myself, what do you expect me to do?
Cruch onions with a rock?
Well guess what Sparky, that's a military technology too.
There's no such thing as a strictly peacetime tool so long as people themselves aren't peacable.
KFG
Re:Our foes are ourselves. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why didn't airplanes have impermeable doors before 9-11?
Why weren't you out there advocating it?
Because no one ever though a bunch of terrorists were going to take over a plane with razor blades and crash it into the world trade center.
Common sense and basic security? Give me a break.
Science in War SAVES LIVES (Score:2, Insightful)
Technology such as this would save lives, not destroy them. Im a cruz missile with a perfect radar is fired, there is 0% chance of it hitting a neighboring hospital. If a cruz missile with an ok radar is fired, there is a 30% chance of it hitting a neighboring hospital. I know people like to get all "Ooh, war = bad. weapons = bad." But, believe it or not, we already have enough power to destroy the world. Most of the technology nowadays is based around NOT DESTROYING sorrounding targets: e.g., making a missile to destroy only a certain area and not the residential areas around it.
Re:I dare say... (Score:5, Insightful)
Secondly, since when is it unethical for a scientist to aid the military? The world is not a nice place, and if we accept that a military is necessary, then why not have the best damn military in the world?
Thirdly, guess what, posting messages to Slashdot is using technology developed with military grants -- a hell of a lot of communication research is done with military money. Shock, horror.
Signed, a telecommunication scientist who once served in the military.
Re:It does matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you pay taxes?
40 Years Ago (Score:3, Insightful)
President Eisenhower warned us [yale.edu] of the problems with the military industrial complex that had been created in response to the Cold War.
The "War on Terrorism" has simply become the new justification for spending.
Not that there aren't genuine security needs for the U.S. government. It's just that an accurate picture of those needs is clouded by misinformation from those who stand to gain.
Re:Science in War SAVES LIVES (Score:2, Insightful)
Nowadays the media goes into a frenzy when a handful of civilians get killed. Realize the "old way" was to carpet bomb the whole area.
Now the hot-ticket item is non-lethal systems. For home use (cops) as well. That's great. I'd much rather be hit by a stray beanbag than a cyanide-tipped armor piercing machine gun round.
War's a bitch but a fact of life. I think scientists who endeavor to make conflict as bloodless as possible deserve respect, and they're on high moral ground.
Re:So...what so bad about it? (Score:5, Insightful)
Government funding for research is inarguably the #1 reason why the United States is the technological world leader. Unfortunately, this is way too much of a fuzzy concept for the average American to understand.
Americans see technology soming from "Sony," or "HP," or "Dell." These companies do, at best, very little science research (I'm not counting product development as research). They don't understand that the technological concepts are developed far from the private sector in government-fundded research labs and universities.
Americans are constantly barraged with the notion that all money spent by the government is "wasted." Thus, our politicians are pressured to cut everything they can. The degree to which a project is 'safe' from cutting depends only on the strength of the lobby defending it.
For politicians, cutting pure science is a no-brainer. There is no lobby to defend pure science research. There is no apparent downside to cutting the research since practical application is in the distant future (i.e. longer than one term of office). I think NASA is a perfect example. For 20 years, NASA's budget has gotten smaller. It is an easy target.
So, how do you justify science expense to the masses? Call it "military research," and fund it though semi-military organizations like DARPA. It's bulletproof, because Americans will support any military expense (if you doubt me, I refer you to Bush's $87 billion request this week).
As a scientist, I have absolutely no problem with this arrangement.
CV
But we get returns from defense spending (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, on top of that, DoE already spends a *SHEDLOAD* of money on pure theoretical science. I believe the particle accelerator in Batavia, IL run by FNAL costs in aggregate some $6,000.00 odd dollars a minute to operate.
Those $450 million planes, by the way, have lead to great strides forward in material science, and may one day lead to the proper materials to build a space elevator.
This, as opposed to bottom-up economics, which would have this nation buried in cigarette butts and McDonalds hamburger wrappers.
Re:Rationalization or Compromise? (Score:5, Insightful)
A glance at the casualty and collateral damage figures (tonnage of munitions dropped per target, civilian casualties per square mile per day, basically any metric you want) from wars fought in the 1940s, 1960s, 1990s, and 2003, leads me to conclude there's no "maybe" about it.
More efficient and effective ways of killing people has reduced the amount of killing that needs to be done.
Urgh. This is not the problem. (Score:3, Insightful)
But, that is history. The problems now are manifold, but there are some specific ones that bug me. First of all, much of the Federal money that goes into science is earmarked for pet programs or facilities of important members of congress or senators. These tend to be boondoggles in the sense of being inefficient, and are often not subjected to the same rigorous peer review that an independently-originated proposal may have. You can include anything that can be classified as "Star Wars" research and just about anything named after a senator in this category.
Second, the highest levels of the agencies and the Congress and the administration are pushing science in directions that are not wanted either by the public or by scientists themselves. Same sort of boondoggle. Ask someone on the street what they think scientists should be doing in the national interest (you might be surprised at the thoughtfulness of their answers btw). Then look at where Federal science money actually goes. Yep. Not there. Ask scientists what important research they think should be done. Same deal. I'd provide specifics but this post is long enough.
In a real sense the Federal government is out of control with regard to the use of the public's money for scientific research. Which is a shame, because the possibilities are tremendous. Despite the problems, the US still has a fantastic system set up for doing science. But it's underfunded and underappreciated.
Re:I dare say... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't think that everyone accepts that to the same degree (or necessarily at all). Some people want a smaller military, some people want a larger one, some want none at all. Other people may have other ideas about how the military should be used.
If your convictions include not supporting a particular thing, then not doing it is hou you keep from being a hypocrite. I'll be accused of pandering to the moderators for this next part, but it's just how I feel. I wouldn't take a job at Microsoft because I don't want to support them. I don't like many of their business practices. I don't like most of their software. I wouldn't do work on a grant that would help them further degrade the computer industry. However, if there was an MS funded grant for studying the use of computers to fight viruses (human viruses, not computer ones), then I might want to work on that. It's all about adhering your principles.
Are weapons fundamentaly wrong to have and develop (Score:4, Insightful)
Think about this for a moment. If we eliminated weapons research could we expect other countries to do the same, and if not, for them to leave us alone? I don't think so.
If we greatly reduced weapons research such that it was only performed in time of war, could we assume this would be adequate protection against those we are fighting? I don't think so.
I'm sure there are a million reasons why scientists work on weapons systems, but I don't think many of them have this crisis of conscience as presented.
If we had been slower in development of nuclear weapons, or long range bombers, or other such instruments during and shortly after the great wars, would we (USA/EU) still be here to contemplate the evil of military technology? Who is to say some facist regime without scruples would not have walked all over democracies far and wide two decades ago?
I detest weapons and instruments of death, but I also accept the fact that the world is a harsh mistress; far too often people and nations find themselves in a kill or be killed situation.
I'm not going to work on weapons systems, but I am glad that some very smart people are working on them, and employing the technology to protect my country.
Re:So, what's your point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly, here's an example. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It does matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux could be used by the Department of Defense. It could even be used by al Qaeda. So should we abandon Linux?
The whole concept that people should refuse to do work for the DoD just because some 60's-era peaceniks think their point of view is somehow morally superior to everyone elses and that the only reason scientists would do DoD work is because they have a selfish addiction to money is absurd. "Give peace a chance" and "greedy capitalists" all in a single concept, priceless!
NEWS FLASH: We all hate war. But war is going to happen. We should be ready when it does happen and that doesn't mean that we start preparing when we see an immediate threat. If I can help my country build a more effective defense such that an attack on our country is less probable or, if there is a need for war, that fewer of my fellow citizens (our soliders) are killed in combat, AND I can make a buck doing it, that sounds like a sweet deal to me. I'll do it in a heartbeat. And I'll do it whether Bush or Clinton is president because, in the end, I'll be helping to save the lives of soldiers regardless of who sends them into combat.
If you're going to accept this whole "addicted to defense dollars" then we might as well accept the theory that many scientists that profess global warming is real are doing so to assure a continuing stream of federal research dollars.
People, the 60's are over. Even Clinton is history. Move on and stop being rebels without a cause, it gets old.
Re:I dare say... (Score:2, Insightful)
There is no other use for a Stealth bomber, but the Stealth bomber isn't itself "technology" any more than a Compaq computer is "technology." It's made up of lots and lots of internal technology, and that's what's dual use. I'll bet you anything that quite a bit of technology used in and to build the Stealth bomber also has civilian applications.
Re:I dare say... (Score:3, Insightful)
I for one would like to not have a military, but then we're left with the problem of gaining a reliable ally that has a very strong one.
Re:It does matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
wait, i forgot how to make a sarcasm tag. anyway, the point is that many things useful in civilian life can be useful to the military. nanotechnology that keeps your jeans dry can also keep fatigues dry, for example.
depending on what you're developing, just because you're doing it (partly) for the military may not make it blood money to everyone. the nanotech i just mentioned doesn't directly kill anyone, and the missile tracking system the article post mentions, arguably, saves people.
Re:So...what so bad about it? (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, I am working indirectly for the Missle Defense project. The average person might say, "Great, now we can be protected from all of the rogue long range nuclear missles out there."
The problem here is that we had to break the ABM treaty [armscontrol.ru] to even begin development on it. How probable would it be for a terrorist to get ahold of a long range ICBM? You can't just launch these out of your back yard. Missle defense would essentially nullify the whole idea of mutual destruction. I believe that this system could lead to a break-down in international relations, and tip the ballance of world power even more to the US.
This is wonderful if you believe in the absolute goodness of the US. You can say god blesses us all you want, but the proof is in the pudding. Look at all the wars in the last century, and who benefited from them. We benefited by being able to drive our SUV's around longer, but the people we "liberated," or saved from communism (if still alive) didn't benefit much. The rich became richer, and so on.
How about switching to a subsidized economy based on helping people, instead of defending ourselves before the evil doers can strike? How about stopping terrorists by not giving them reasons to fight? Don't buy the idea that the terrorist motivation is from being envious of our SUVs and McDonalds on every street corner.
Weapons and Military Research are Necessary (Score:3, Insightful)
In blunt terms, the anonymous submitter who began this discussion is dreadfully wrong when he implies that the United States of America (USA) is equivalent to totalitarian states like China (which includes Taiwan [geocities.com] and Hong Kong) that emphasize military spending. Military spending in the USA is geared towards protecting lives. For example, in the Serbian military conflict (in which the Chinese supported the Serbians committing gross human-rights atrocities against the Kosovars in Kosovo), the Americans went out of their way to use precision military technology to destroy only military targets and to avoid hitting civilian targets like hospitals and schools .
We all can agree that merely needing weapons suggests the dreadful state of human affairs. Weapons are a necessary evil. Someone must develop them. That "someone" might as well be Westerners because we need them to safeguard the finest civilization known to human history.
Even the Japanese have awoken to this reality. Unlike the militaristic Chinese (which includes Taiwanese and Hong Kongers), the Japanese are extreme pacifists and have a constitution that forbids the use of force to settle overseas conflicts. However, after (1) the recent launching of nuclear-capable missiles by the North Koreans and (2) the recent confirmation of North Koreans kidnapping Japanese, Japanese policy makers are realizing the importance of developing state-of-the-art weapons systems. For the first time in recent memory, the Japanese are initiating discussions with the Americans on researching and building an impenetrable missile shield as soon as possible.
Re:So...what so bad about it? (Score:1, Insightful)
When was the last time someone threw the poll disclaimer around as a derisive when Bush enjoyed 80% approval ratings?
Re:I dare say... (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess that depends on your interpretation of nice. Some would say that the world is not a nice place because we are not a nice country. The military defends our economic interests - if you believe those economic interests are always righteous and moral, then working for the military is moral. If you believe that the use of the military is mostly moral with the occasional screw up, then it would still probably be OK to work for the military.
But if you believe that history shows a greedy human race with the blood of innocents on our hands, that in spite of the politicians' cries of "Its a Shiny New Post-WWII, Post-Cold War World and we all really want World Peace," we continue to be greedy and war-mongering and that modern use of the military continues to be used in exactly the same way it has been used for the last several millenia, then the morality of working for the military is, at best, ambiguous.
Oh, It's The Village Voice...Never Mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Where is the reporting to back the claim that U.S. scientists that don't take Pentagon money are "extremely rare"?
What we have here is a few anecdotal reports about a few people who apparently think that all weapons are evil and have chosen to preserve their unsullied souls by opting out of the Pentagon money pump. Well, good for them. Let's hope that they occasionally recall that they're able to act in this selfish fashion because other people are willing to use weapons (and give their lives) to defend their right to make their own choices.
Since the Voice makes its money by catering to the prejudices of country-loathing snobby wanna-be leftists. I'm not surprised to see them carry this little piece of phony muckraking.
Re:But we get returns from defense spending (Score:2, Insightful)
I think the point is that if we assume hypothetically that research is prioritized before the military, then congress would not cut the budget of the researchers, but might instead cut the budget for the military (as the do for example in Sweden heh)...
So instead of wasting many billions of dollars on building a bunch of airplanes, and eventually knowledge from use of those airplanes is gained over many decades, you could direcly research material stability or whatever and work directly on building that space elevator, instead of hoping that someday those military planes will show the kind of materials that will be needed.
The problem is that there is an assumption that if a new cool tech is to be developed the military is the only one to do it, and in our world this is unfortunately true because scientists get alot less cash then the military and many bright scientists also get recruited into the military.
The human race is too focused on war, greed and conquest to actually be able to shift focus onto research. Perhaps in time, if the world's military powers don't nuke us all to exctincion, we might see an end to war. But that's a really naive thought eh?
Re:It's not immaturity, it's idealism. (Score:5, Insightful)
The future should be a place where there are no militaries. The future should be a place where human beings are civilized enough to not brandish weapons at one another. Until then, we are not much better than animals.
Well, that's exactly what we are, including you. That humans are equally as capable of, and prone to, evil as good is a well documented fact and thumbing your nose at the military will not make that go away. That you can hold these beliefs and publically proclaim them without fear of being imprisoned or murdered you owe, ironically, to the very military you despise. As Orwell said, "pacifism is possible only in countries that possess strong navies."
The adult thing to do, faced with this, at a minimum is to realize that to have a society where people can live in relative peace and with some measure of dignity, militaries are necessary, and to at least show some appreciation for this, given the alternatives. To wish anyway for an abolishment of the military because violence offends you is the mark of a petulant child, not to mention a selfish indulgence considering the ramifications for the 270 or so million other people who would be without protection.
You and he refuse to face up to the world as it is and instead you advocate policies with no hope of changing things for the better. The only criterion you have it seems is what makes you feel good, not what is realistically best. That is not idealism, that is immaturity.
Are you kidding me? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It does matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
The linking of patriotism with "having the most advanced weapons" says a lot.
Article from an alternate reality (Score:2, Insightful)
Err, which United States was this written from? Certainly not the North American superpower of the 20th & 21st centuries.
I mean, we're talking about the country where government subsidized research has produced or contributed to the production of nuclear weapons, intercontinental ballistic missiles, all manner of aircraft, the digital computer, electronic communications, and a host of others -- all of which have direct military applications, and might or might not have non-military uses.
They don't call it the military-industrial complex [google.com] for nothing.
The current norm, where the ultimate source of funding behind a significant portion of public, private, and academic research is the US federal government (and particularly, the defence department), goes back at least as far as World War II. That was sixty years ago now, yet the patterns you see today are substantially in lines with ones that ran through the Cold War and back to the Manhattan Project and other WW2 efforts.
To suggest that this all on "21st century counter-terrorism efforts" is to ignore that the trends being observed have been in place for many decades.
Do yourself a favor and go read some of Noam Chomsky's [zmag.org] writings & talks. Among his political arguments is the idea that these structural arrangements have been around for a long, long time, and much of both the strengths & the weaknesses of America can be traced to these activities -- e.g. the collusion between military & industry directly leads both to America's economic dominance and to the fact that the USA is the world's biggest target.
A lot of people disagree with Chomsky's arguments, but it seems to me that anyone trying to have a serious conversation about such matters has to at least be aware of these views, or they're basically arguing from ignorance.
But who benefits? (Score:3, Insightful)
The american government is pouring billions upon billions of dollars into the hands of private industry for research and production. That's taxpayer money that goes directly into the hands of private corporations and is never seen again.
Yeah, the US gets some more weapons out of it; but really... the US is already beyond the military capacity of virtually all the developed countries put together. And yet billions are still spent on constant renewal of military equipment. But new high tech missiles and sattelites aren't going to stop a guy with a box cutter determined to take out an airplane.
The massive misappropriation of funding has been going on for centuries really (well 200 years I suppose). There has always been massive government support for private industry at the expense of common citizens.
Re:Weapons and Military Research are Necessary (Score:1, Insightful)
Demonizing the enemy is a lot harder to do now than 100 years ago. The `Americans' learned in Vietnam, Nicaraga, and other conflicts since then that, if the leadership of a democratic country wants to win a modern war, it must be done
(Makes one wonder what they were thinking with the Wars on Drugs and Terrorism, eh?) Thus the U.S.A military developed those weapons because it was the only way they could start a war and have a chance to win it rather than be forced into a continuously defensive posture and be perceived as weak.
Yeah, sure. Never mind that the constitutional restriction against maintaining an offensive military capability was imposed on them by the U.S.A after the end of WWII.
While the younger Japanese generations may be fascinated with Western culture, less xenophobic, and more pacifist than the Japanese of the 1940's, there is still a substantial portion of the population with a strong cultural bias against foreigners (be they Caucasian, Chinese, Korean, Phillipino, etc.), even if it's heavily watered down from the racist heydays of the Second World War.
The Japanese used to think that it was good not to have to spend a large chunk of their GDP on defense spending and instead concentrate on using the GDP on industrial research and expansion. (Canadians think the first part is a pretty good plan too though we spend the extra money on social services instead
Re:Weapons and Military Research are Necessary (Score:2, Insightful)
And you think this is only because the USA is Just and Good and Right or something?
That's only part of it. Another reason military spending in the USA is geared towards protecting lives is to make it easier to sell the public on military campaigns of conquest, e.g. Iraq, and other uses of the military that would otherwise be unpalatable. It would be a lot tougher to convince the American public that the campaign in Iraq was a good thing if it meant the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process.
Yet another reason is that by more accurately targeting your fire, you destroy less infrastructure that's likely to be useful to you once your forces occupy the area.
Don't make the mistake of believing that the USA is all about what's Just, Good, and Right. It's not. It just claims to be.
Re:It does matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
Your country isn't so great if you'll end up fighting war after war because the rest of the planet hates you.
Re:Military Ca$h (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a logical fallacy. Government doesn't generate it's own revenue; it simply takes it from the people who do. This means that government does not experience loss as private business does. When government sustains a "loss", they in fact profit. Those in power still get paid. Government as a whole gets bigger, no matter what the cash is spent on. A huge percentage of government expense is wasted on administration. (Of course, those in power would never call it a "waste" for obvious reasons.)
When Theo accepts the grant, (1) it does not take money away from other government programs, because it does not affect government's ability to generate more revenue, and (2) it increases the overall scope of government, as any use of taxpayer money does, by simply giving them something to spend money on.
Why do we have so many ridiculous laws in the US today, some of which are downright laughable? Because they all gave government something to spend money on, and they all helped to make government bigger and more expensive. That is the definition of profit for those in power.
Re:It does matter... (Score:3, Insightful)
If he's part of the problem so are you. He never said it was acceptable, he said it's going to happen. Burying your head in the sand and blaming politics or the world for it won't slow it down, but you're sure as hell willing to try. "Let's all get along!" you'll say... what a load. Millions die every year all over Africa alone from wars 'we' (you know, the country that everybody hates) have nothing to do with (and ain't it funny how they hate us for that too). Iran and Iraq made war for some 20 years with very little prodding from us [very little mind you, not 'no prodding']. The Balkans region has been warring for _centuries_... before we were even a country to hate.
War happens. Sometimes it's politics, sometimes it's social injustice, sometimes it's a big f'ing misunderstanding, but it happens. A lot. And if you've even seen pictures of it, you'll know that you can't ignore it, and you'd better damn well be prepared for it or you'll be on the side that gets buried, burned or blown to hell.
So let me wrap up in this little temper tantrum of mine by saying - you're a fool. While it would be nice if everyone would settle down and talk about it, not every does. More often than not they will, but sometimes they'd rather just kill you. And your family. and your neighbors, friends or just the folks standing next to you for being there. It's easier that way, and sometimes just more FUN. Just ask Milosevic... I'll bet that guy hates us too.
Welcome to an imperfect world.