It took me a while to figure out how to answer this. Probably, "I don't care and won't object to you using that particular pronoun, and I generally don't see how my gender is anybody else's business."

I agree with this analysis to some extent. I'm not sure I'm willing to grant that the primary purpose of universities is a way to sort workers, but that is a major thing they're used for, and I tend to argue at length that they should get out of that business. I argue as much as possible against student evaluation, grading, and granting degrees. One of the first arguments that pops up tends to be, "But how will people know who to hire / let into grad school?"

But I don't think it's the University's job to answer that question.

I stated a very well-known fact.

That's why. Folks will disagree that's something that the US does, and pointing to things the US might have done decades ago won't convince them. There's no way to even debate this point without going down a potentially mind-killing rabbit hole, and I find it hard to believe you weren't aware of this when you posted it.

In case you weren't aware of it: I live in the US, and I've talked to a number of ordinary folks and a number of scholarly folks about it, and I don't tend to encounter people who would grant that the US starts aggressive wars. You should be able to see why someone who thinks that would be angry and vocal about the accusation.

I think most of those things could be expected regardless of whether America has any such putative hegemonic status. Most Americans don't have passports because they can't afford to travel to another continent, and the number is rising now that passports are required to visit other countries in North America. Getting a passport in the US is a fairly annoying, expensive process, so I'm not surprised most people haven't bothered. Ditto with the foreign languages - most Americans don't meet or talk to people who don't speak American.

I haven't been able to find a source online - do most Chinese people speak foreign languages and have passports? Are they required?

Yes, that's one of the good arguments against robot soliders I mentioned above. We're more likely to not care about the fate of our robot soliders, and so would be less hesitant to send them into battle. Though it's still an open question whether that effect would trump any increased monetary cost per soldier (if any) and whether the other benefits outweigh such concerns.

Human soldiers perform horribly in terms of following the rules of war, and above that do absolutely horrible things sometimes.

In my opinion you should just try to solve each problem in the most natural manner, and maintainability will happen automatically.

I wasn't with you on the importance of maintainability until you said this. Yes, programming well and naturally is automatically maintainable.

America Starts Aggressive Wars

Also, this is definitely not the place to debate this, and you have to know a lot of people won't agree with you, so stop with the flamebait.

everyone America calls "enemy combatants"

America will be killing those people with or without robots. We already have ways of wiping all of the enemy combatants off the map if we want to (for example nukes). Military technology is primarily about finding ways to 1) kill fewer of our own soldiers and 2) kill fewer people who aren't enemy combatants.

Well there's a bit of bracketing at work here. Distinguishing between an enemy soldier and a noncombatant isn't an ethical problem. He does note that determining when a soldier is surrendering is difficult, and points out the places where there really is an ethical difficulty (for example, someone who surrenders and then seems to be aggressive).

I've seen several articles already of American cities ready to purchase military drones for law enforcement purposes

Oddly I don't seem to have a reference handy, but several US cities already use robots in law enforcement. iRobot and Foster-Miller really took off after the success of their robot volunteers at the WTC.