Slashdot Mirror

Senate Scraps Low-Yield Nuke Weapons Ban

please make it stop

It is your global duty to make sure Bush and his cronies do NOT get re-elected, an arms race + 1984 doesnt sound like a world i want to live in.

i will be glad when i die, but my children im not so sure.

I was shocked when a number of people walked out in the middle of the Zion "dance" scene. I'm totally flummoxed by this, as I thought it was one of the coolest scenes in the film.

Something from a an inteview with one of the actresses in Calendar Girls...

Like the calendar itself, the £1.5m film is perfectly demure. Celia Imrie, whose bosoms are in one scene shielded by a pair of iced cherry tarts, said: "The Americans are very prudish, so you don't see that much, thank God. Even so, we had to be naked on set at various times, which was a bit scary."

Writing an introduction to the centenary edition of Orwell's 1984, Thomas Pynchon describes The Internet as "a development that promises social control on a scale those quaint old 20th-century tyrants with their goofy moustaches could only dream about".

Anyone actually read it? It's pretty good:

The road to 1984

George Orwell's final novel was seen as an anticommunist tract and many have claimed its grim vision of state control proved prophetic. But, argues Thomas Pynchon, Orwell - whose centenary is marked this year - had other targets in his sights and drew an unexpectedly optimistic conclusion

George Orwell's last book, 1984 , has in a way been a victim of the success of Animal Farm , which most people were content to read as a straightforward allegory about the melancholy fate of the Russian revolution. From the minute Big Brother's moustache makes its appearance in the second paragraph of 1984 , many readers, thinking right away of Stalin, have tended to carry over the habit of point-for-point analogy from the earlier work. Although Big Brother's face certainly is Stalin's, just as the despised party heretic Emmanuel Goldstein's face is Trotsky's, the two do not quite line up with their models as neatly as Napoleon and Snowball did in Animal Farm . This did not keep the book from being marketed in the US as a sort of anticommunist tract. Published in 1949, it arrived in the McCarthy era, when "Communism" was damned officially as a monolithic, worldwide menace, and there was no point in even distinguishing between Stalin and Trotsky, any more than for shepherds to be instructing sheep in the nuances of wolf recognition.

The Korean conflict (1950-53) would also soon highlight the alleged Communist practice of ideological enforcement through "brainwashing", a set of techniques said to be based on the work of I P Pavlov, who had once trained dogs to salivate on cue. That something very much like brainwashing happens in 1984 , in lengthy and terrifying detail, to its hero, Winston Smith, did not surprise those readers determined to take the novel as a simple condemnation of Stalinist atrocity.

This was not exactly Orwell's intention. Though 1984 has brought aid and comfort to generations of anticommunist ideologues with Pavlovian-response issues of their own, Orwell's politics were not only of the left, but to the left of left. He had gone to Spain in 1937 to fight against Franco and his Nazi-supported fascists, and there had quickly learned the difference between real and phony antifascism. "The Spanish war and other events in 1936-7," he wrote 10 years later, "turned the scale and thereafter I knew where I stood. Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I know it."

Orwell thought of himself as a member of the "dissident left," as distinguished from the "official left," meaning basically the British Labour party, most of which he had come, well before the second world war, to regard as potentially, if not already, fascist. More or less consciously, he found an analogy between British Labour and the Communist Party under Stalin - both, he felt, were movements professing to fight for the working classes against capitalism, but in reality concerned only with establishing and perpetuating their own power. The masses were only there to be used for their idealism, their class resentments, their willingness to work cheap and to be sold out, again and again.

Now, those of fascistic disposition - or merely those among us who remain all too ready to justify any government action, whether right or wrong - will immediately point out that this is prewar

Quoting:

Governments across Latin America have launched investigations after revelations that a US company is obtaining extensive personal data about millions of citizens in the region and selling it to the Bush administration. Documents seen by the Guardian show that the company, ChoicePoint, received at least $11m (£6.86m) last year in return for its data, which includes Mexico's entire list of voters, including dates of birth and passport numbers, as well as Colombia's citizen identification database.

I would worry about Choicepoint if I were you.

Actually, they are working on doing just that:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,12576,9561 60,00.html

I believe you're thinking of Lord Falconer? Anyway, the Millennium Dome was fine so far as it went. The problem was that we paid a billion pounds for it, then the government gave it away. And we all know which grinning idiot we can thank for that.

This is why many Americans turned to the BBC during the war to get better coverage.

Meanwhile, HMS Ark Royal shut off the Beeb as a result of the pro-Iraq bias in its coverage.

Closer to home, Fox News trounced CNN and MSNBC in the ratings. People are going to get their news from sources they trust, and people's faith in CNN to provide (dare I say it) fair and balanced coverage of the news is fading.

In fact Rupert Murdock is a friend of GWB and will not let his news network report negatively on the Bush admin.

I'd swear I've heard Bill O'Reilly (to name just one commentator) take the Bush administration to the woodshed on more than one occasion. Alan Colmes (to name another) has even less use for Bush. Rupert Murdoch also made a fairly hefty donation to Algore's 2000 campaign and to the DNC (including, IIRC, a hell of a deal on the Democrats' use of Staples Center for their convention that year).

i'm not quite sure what you are asking but this article in the guardian explains the situation.

First, read this story - about a Belgian court trying to prosecute General Franks for his role in the Iraq war. Then bear in mind, with the proposed warrant system, any British soldier could simply be arrested, in Britain, by Belgian police, to face similar charges. For that matter, Blair himself could be arrested that way - and the UK would be powerless to stop it legally.

Then look recent prosecutions - Yahoo!, for example - by French courts. Freedom of speech is giving much less weight there. Then remember French law is very different from British and American law: the burden of proof is reversed - guilty until proven innocent!

Chilling enough, I think. Finally, I would point out the US itself doesn't have such a system! Instead, an extradition request is made, allowing your arrest in that state by that state's officials, followed by a court appearance in that state. (Article IV of the Constitution.) This grants EU member states a power over each others' citizens which is denied even to the States within the US - even without the grotesque parody of justice practiced in parts of Europe, I find this alarming...

Oh well, good news for the international circulation department at The Guardian,, I suppose.

Yeah, well this is Piers Morgan we're talking about. The Mirror is not widely revered in the UK.

Ok I'll apply capitalism,
on one side put the countries who have nukes,
and on the other side, put the amount of money they spend on research.

then ring any countries that are planning to develope new nukes (against the NPT)

Yea as if all of the pot in the US comes from canada and not MEXICO

With pot and porn outstripping corn, America's black economy is flying high ... As a cash crop, marijuana is believed to have outstripped maize

The jury found the latter to be the case.

We of course cannot know exactly why juries make particular decisions -- but, in this case, ballistic evidence suggested the third and final shot was taken after the burglars fled. Which does not speak of self defence.

For more on the case, see The Guardian

Soon, there will be a Quidditch game released by EA.

Later somebody will novelize the game just like another game we know.

This is bound to happen since there is a ton of money in Harry Potter. After all, the Harry Potter author is richer than the Queen!

Still, I will be buying "Order of The Phoenix" as soon as it comes out (June 21st). Anybody else with me?

Adi Gadwale.

Richard Dawkins describes some cheaper and more battle-proven guidance systems in this article.

someone is seriously confused. The cameras we're talking about do not broadcast images to the public.

Yes, you're confused. These are not the Congestion Charge cameras.

As for the May Day thing, it's perfectly possible that the cameras being used to monitor the demonstration. However it's not clear that's legal -- it might be considered an "improper use" of the system, since that wasn't why it was built.

The cameras they use to monitor the demo are the moveable (pan and tilt) units on very high posts, which are used for all sorts of police/traffic activity. The webcams on the bbc website are just a low-res feed, essentially a gimmick; this coverage from May Day 2001 gives some idea of how the traffic cameras fit into the police operation.

The article's small and content free because it's designed to be not much more than a sidebar: the Guardian (Britain's major left-liberal daily) publishes one of these micro-interviews every week, with the same sort of blah questions ("Most useful site?" "Google", invariably). It makes more sense in the print version of its tech supplement, where it acts as normal space-filling journalism, and usually a plug for book, album, site, whatever.
Also, The Guardian is absolutely obsessed with blogs. Every week, the supplement will feature one of the following articles: "Are Blogs the new Journalism?", "Wi-Fi Blogging - Is this the Future for Reporting?", "Blogging - Journalism for Everyone?", etc., ad nauseam.
The last decent one I remember is Dave Green being cynical.

And like a strong military deters foreign aggression, just having large quantities of military grade arms in private hands tends to deter governments such that the odds of actually needing a revolution is lowered.

Or it contributes to a massive festering war

Here's The Guardian's story from back then. Not sure what happened since.

...look who they're putting in charge of agriculture:

You missed : former senior executive of the largest US grain exporter, Dan Amstutz, to be in charge of agricultural "reconstruction" in Iraq.

Oh, hang on, that actually is true. And in all seriousness, it's way more important; I doubt many Iraqis will be worrying about "intellectual property" while they don't have anything to eat.

I "knew" Betamax was superior -- that was the received wisdom, even at the time - and maybe it was, in a lab. But I wasn't buying a lab test rig. In terms of "the whole product", VHS was clearly superior, so that's the way I went. Along with everybody else.
...
VHS won because "the whole product" did what people wanted at a price they were willing to pay. And when people use the VHS v Beta analogy, they are not indicating a market failure but their own ignorance.

Well, if it can work for the British government, it can work for Microsoft.

Boca Raton, FL.

According to Steve Linford in this report there are out of the 150 spammers who are doing 90% of spamming, about 40 live there.

Not surprising that the recent suet against Steve Linford and other anti-spammers by the "lawyer" claming to represent anonymous coward "E-Mail Marketers" operates in Boca Raton.

Simply because the Tomb Raider franchise was so successful in theatres doesn't mean that the film and game industries should start making babies.

There are many, many things specific to Tomb Raider that helped build its success as a movie. Primarily, there is a popular need for additional female-driven action movies.

Jinx, played by Halle Berry, from the James Bond series is a good example of things to come. She's also looking at Catwoman. Ashley Judd in upcoming The Blackout Murders and, of course, there's always Charlie's Angels.

Anyway, it isn't affirmative action for the sake of affirmative action... It's a need...

Good luck to these movies, though.

justen

There is a BBC news article about Welsh Police impounding cars because the owners used cooking oil as fuel without paying fuel

That impounding was actually illegal, as using cooking oil in cars is allowed as long as tax is paid. (~26p/litre) That tax doesn't have to be paid until the tax return form is filled in after the fuel is used. Did the police offer the car owners the chance to pay the tax? No. So why hasn't anyone appealed against the impounding in court?

See this usefult article at the Guardian.

Steve.

about using grease in cars in the uk Fry and Drive

Don't confuse things. It was bad enough getting *cough* the wrong answer *cough*

(For non-UK readers, I'm referring to people trying to cheat on WHo Wants to be a Millionaire)

Actually, they were specifically not doing their job, as it was explained to them last month by the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, which was set up to supervise post-war Iraq. The memo specifically identified the museum as a top priority for military protection, second only to the bank.

Elvis probably would have sided with the RIAA once Hilary and Jack convinced him (in a barbituate-induced mental stupor) that by fighting mp3s he was fighting communism. But for him to be invoked as a fighter against "piracy" is ludicrous, since he built his career on the open theft of black music. His work is a perfect case study in how copyright law benefits the real pirates over the real artists. I won't say Elvis wasn't great - he was an incredible performer and artistically he made many of the songs his own - but his greatness was built on the kind of theft and piracy that copyright law should be designed to prevent, yet instead was used to encourage.

"there has been no show-stopping problems which have been discovered during the investigation."

Well no, other than the strong suspicion that a chunk of the craft can fall off during lift-off and fatally damage the vehicle...

That and the rather conspicuous lack of (1) shuttle. Are they planning to build another, or just spread out launches for the reduced rotation?

Maybe Richard Branson can dig one up...

The herbicides were indeed chemical weapons, because their horrible effects on humans were well known. There were demands in Congress during the Vietnam war to cease what was rightly called at the time "chemical warfare", but they went unheeded.

The victims go right on suffering today. Not a penny of compensation has ever been paid.

The same thing will happen with Depleted Uranium shells and cluster bombs. Are these meant to kill innocent civilians, and deform unborn children? No, but since the effect is known, the moral culpability still applies. The use of indiscriminate weapons is a war crime.

Here.
Here.
Here.
Here.

The US has been giving weapons to certain regimes to fight other regimes for decades now. Two instances which even the American public know about are the weapons we gave to the Contras in Iran, and the weapons we gave to the Muhajideen (who would go on to become the Taliban) in Afganistan. So these reports from the "tinfoil-hat" people are much more grounded in reality than most people would like to believe.

OT, and yes, this sounds suspciously like the old Stephen King troll, but there are reports that the guy committed suicide. Not that he's necessarily a good guy like his son says, because he apparently threatened to slash a Jordanian journo's hands off if he reported the truth.

Sorry, this has no business to be in a thread talking about MS, or (the lack of) Tablet PC's. Just thought I'd point this out before we continue to make al Sahaf jokes.

What's more interesting is that not everyone who was there agrees it really was the United States that was responsible. The BBC defense correspondent Andrew Gilligan said "Secondly the angle that the tank would have to have reached to hit that roof, it would more or less have had to have shot just round the corner and I don't think even the Americans have got those kinds of weapons." If the United States really wished to target journalists, I doubt there'd be many left alive.

So you're saying it's OK to blast Beijing for saying "economic prosperity first, civil liberties a distant second," but it's not OK to say anything bad about the Chinese people (both within and without the PRC) for blithely going along with it? That sounds like hypocrisy.

One question -- have you ever blasted the US Government for a dumb policy? Have you always done something to oppose it instead of "blithely going along with it"? If you say yes, you're either an activist or a liar. But I'll assume the answer is no and you're like the rest of us, who are sheep for most issues. So what bad things shall we say about you? Yes, for that matter, what bad things shall we say about all of us? -- but I would say that the hypocrisy you speak of is common enough that you don't say anything at all. Especially if you are going to target only one group -- and by ethnicity even! -- because that selective judgment creates the perception of racism.

Also, I don't understand why you would lump together Chinese people inside and outside of the PRC. What power do the people outside of China have to influence Chinese policy? Nevermind the people inside China have so little power to change things as well.

Another example: McCarthyism was the Cultural Revolution of the United States. Why weren't there many protestors? Because they were being silenced by the government.

You seem to have a problem with China, and its citizens. Most people are just trying to get by. You know what that's like right? Or are you the third cousin of Gates, and have no worries? If you think the citizens are complicit in every government policy/action, then you should take a real careful look at what your government's involved in. I'll guarantee it's not pretty. What? You think your government doesn't engage in anything unfair or unjust? Hey, I think you have more in common with a Chinese person than you thought.

I suggest you read http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,5673 ,921411,00.html as someone else points out.

Yes, of course. You can no more give a man a dozen years of his life back than you can give him the rest of his life back. Given that prison is an utterly vile place, it may very well be that it is better to die after a year of it than after forty years of it.

I can't actually believe you can think that. Obviously you can't give someone years of their life back but the step of giving them years of freedom somewhat makes ammends. Even so, taking away someone's life is barely comparable to imprisoning them.

That's why our system has so many safeguards built into it: the presumption of innocence; the rules of evidence; the right to appeal; trial by jury &c.

I feel you're contradicting yourself by saying your system lets a fraction through but you would prefer dozens of guilty to go free. How can you even be willing to accept this tiny fraction? Until there is a foolproof system (which, I suggest will never be the case), it is grossly unfair to accept even the smallest fraction of innocent men being executed.

Why should the innocent child suffer the death penalty for a crime it did not commit?

Why should the child be forced to live a life of cruelty, poverty and misery? I'm not saying children shouldn't be put up for adoption or that abortion should be some common-place thing when mothers can't perfectly support their children. I just don't believe there should be a blanket one rule for all. What is the baby will be born with a permanent, possibly terminal, disability? Is it euthenasia then?

There are a lot of things I believe are or may be immoral: polygamy; drug use; extramarital sex. I also firmly believe that they should be legal. Who decides what is or is not moral? The law is a powerful weapon, and should only be used when one man harms another: it should punish rape, theft, murder, fraud and not a whole lot else. I don't want you telling me that I cannot live according to the precepts of my religion; nor do I want to tell you that you cannot live according to the precepts of your philosophy.

I take your point that laws should not be determined by morals.

Of course not--I never said I would be, or that anyone should be. But I would also be quite annoyed if I lost twenty years of my life, or if I died an innocent in prison. In any case, I would fight for my innocence as strongly as possible, even after every avenue was exhausted. But a guilty man would do the same, and society can hardly be expected to exempt from punishment everyone who might be innocent--because every guilty man might be innocent.

I expect, if it were possible to decide, you would be less annoyed at being imprisoned before being exonerated and cleared and set free than at being killed and later found to be innocent and cleared. Society can be expected to give everyone an indefinite chance to be exonerated, which execution prevents.

I'm afraid that you have an erroneous idea of what a stem cell is. A stem cell is taken from an embryo (every embryo is fertilised: were it not, it be a seperate egg and sperm), which is a human being with a genetic makeup independent of either parent (well, except for clones...). Experimenting with and killing sperm or eggs must not be illegal (it may be immoral or not, but that is irrelevant); experimenting with or killing human beings must be.

Actually, there are devised techniques to create stemm and somatic cells from unfertilized embryos. But, even if this were not the case, this comes down to our different views on abortion, so we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Manta

And this is why Clear Channel and all the rest of them are kissing up to the current government. Michael Powell, Colin Powell's son head up the FCC. Now with this big bill coming up, and nepotism at it's extreme throughout the current government, everyone has to kiss ass.

I have no doubt what-so-ever that they will loosen the restrictions, and eventually the radio stations will come down to two different conglomerates owning 95% of all stations.

If you're thinking they're gonna realise this and do anything about it, remember that this is the administration that basically gave microsoft a slap on the wrist.

"5. I am not aware of a United States chemical or biological weapons program. Perhaps you could post more information."

I've been reading books about U.S. government activities since I was serving in the U.S. Air Force during the Vietnam war. At that time, the government was lying to U.S. citizens about what we were doing at the base at which I was stationed in Thailand. I was shocked that the U.S. government would so easily lie, and I began to be interested in knowing more.

I've put together two articles that collect links about mostly hidden violent U.S. government activities. I've been amazed at one of the responses I've gotten: Most people have very little knowledge of U.S. government violence, even though the U.S. government has killed more than 3,000,000 since the Second World War.

The U.S. government is a world leader in biological weapons, although you don't hear about that much any more. Try visiting the U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command. The site says, "The operational capabilities of the command include the safe, secure, storage of chemical weapons at the eight United States stockpile sites at Anniston Ala., Blue Grass, Ky., Edgewood, Md., Newport, Ind., Pine Bluff, Ark., Pueblo, Colo., Tooele, Utah and Umatillla, Ore." Most of the site is not accessible to people like you and me who pay taxes to support this. The site is written to show only the mostly defensive activities.

However, the U.S. government is heavily involved in EVERY kind of weapons manufacture. For example, see the October 29, 2002 article in The Guardian US weapons secrets exposed.

The U.S. government has a long history of encouraging and perpetrating violence. For example, see US sent biological weapons to Iraq in 1980s.

I've pulled together some links in two articles: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories and What should be the Response to Violence?

The response to violence should be to study why it occurs to make sure that you are not contributing it, and to fix the underlying problems, rather than engage in more violence. Peace cannot happen overnight. If there have been years of trouble-making, it will take years to correct. Since the present violence in Iraq began more than 50 years ago, it may be necessary to have 50 years of attempts at peace to correct it.

Second Superpower?

imo Orlowski's gripe is unwarranted and Moore's proposition is interesting. Blogs are the big media story of the aggression in Iraq. Even the old, broadcast media (e.g. bbc) are scrambling to get in on it. The key aspect of current media usage is that tv viewing is down, and internet searches are up. People are skeptical and are seeking out alternative sources of information. Blogs are getting crazy traffic. And on search engines "al jazeera" is more sought after than "sex." Story here. This ain't simply armchair resistance; it's a widespread and determined rejection of official viewpoints, and that's way political. The phenomenon suggests that the internet is to some degree realizing its potential for making information free and allowing people to be better informed citizens of the world.

WWI cemetary desecration: "Dig up your rubbish, it is contaminating our soil" - referring to 11,000 British buried in Etaples, France

Given that the technology already exists for coverting diesel engines to run on veggie oil,

You don't even need to convert the engine. Used cooking oil (animal or vegetable) treated with a little glycerine works cleanly in an unmodified diesel car.

News item here

It's hard to blame them. Iraqi units have forced civilians to run in front of their advancing allied units in attacks against allied troops. They have faked surrenders and then ambushed troops who came to accept the surrender. Hospitals and schools are being used to store military equipment. Iraqi soldiers have abandoned their uniforms and are fighting in civilian clothing. American and British soldiers are risking their own lives to protect Iraqi civilians despite the best efforts of Iraqi soldiers and militia fighters (and anti-America media) to pin civilian deaths as the fault of coalition forces.

Iraqi Combatants Dressed as Civilians

"We were engaged from the city by

people dressed up in civilian clothes with AK-47s ... that's when I was shot in the hand," the 21-year-old corporal explained.

Menard pointed out that local Iraqi civilians had at first seemed happy to see the Marines. That changed, he noted, when the civilians "turned on us and started firing on us."

And, some of the enemy's fire came from a nearby hospital, the Marine remarked.
...
The Army sergeant pointed out that neither he nor his fellow troops want to kill civilians or innocent people in Iraq. However, Horgan noted, the circumstance of Iraqi fighters dressing up as civilians is "going to make it really difficult for us to discern who is 'good' or 'bad.' That's a shame."

Iraqi Civilians Blow up U.S. Troops in Suicide Attacks

Four U.S. soldiers were blown up by a suicide bomber posing as a taxi driver Saturday.

...
Iraqi soldiers have disguised themselves as civilians. They have faked surrendering to get the jump on coalition troops. They have used civilians as human shields.

And now they are sending out suicide bombers. An Iraqi official warned Saturday that suicide attacks would be "routine military policy."

In spite of the enemies' treacherous tactics...

Two U.S. Soldiers Survive Week in Desert... and nearly starve after giving away most of their food to needy Iraqis.

The soldiers said they were stranded when their truck's clutch failed on the way to tow an officer's Humvee that had broken down as the division was traveling toward Baghdad. They said a staff sergeant had ordered them to wait, and said they would be picked up.

No one did. So the two dug trenches to defend their position, and took turns on watch.

They gave most of their food to hungry Iraqi civilians, and watched nervously as white vehicles - a trademark of Saddam Hussein's paramilitary Fedayeen - passed by. Koppi had become a father 10 days before he was deployed, and he wrote poems to his wife.

"It has been weeks since we have spoken, I know her heart is close to broken," went one couplet.

You know the famous picture of a U.S. Army medic carrying an Iraqi boy?

The child in his photo was hit in the leg by shrapnel after

he and his family were used as a human shields by Iraqi irregulars.
...
Mr. Zinn said the story began early on Tuesday morning, after the Third Squadron of the Seventh Cavalry spent a night of non-stop ambushes as it worked its way north along the Euphrates River towards Baghdad.

"We'd spent about 24 hours being ambushed left and right.... I was sleeping in the back of

You have some real warped sense of 'self defense.' Or maybe you can provide some evidence of when and where the US was attacked.

The UN has authority in this situation, not the bush administration.

The bush administration has lied about aluminum tubes supposedly acquired for enriching uranium, "the war will take weeks, not months", Iraq was actively trying to acquire uranium, the "coallition of convenience" is made up of nations who support the bush administration's invasion, 35 countries are providing "critical support" in the coallition of convenience, the "coallition of convenience" is larger than the 1991 gulf war, 8000 soldiers of the 51st division surrendered, Umm Qasr was taken on Sunday, er... no, Monday... no, make that Tuesday.9 times Umm Qasr was "taken."
I could go on and on and on, but I know I'm probably just wasting my time.

Since this thread started, you've consistently said, "show me proof" while making outlandish claims about bombs strapped to buildings and misfiring SAM launcers. Since this thread began, you haven't provided a whit of evidence to support your position. Since this thread began, I've consistently provided links. So unless you want to start posting evidence to support your claims, don't bother asking for it anymore.

What, you mean like how Umm Qasr was captured, and then Umm Qasr was captured, and then Umm Qasr was captured, no really this time!?

When are facts facts?

And everybody knows it was an accident. But okay, let's have it your way. Oh no, blood and gore! Let's end the war! Would ending the war end the suffering? Saddam would like us to pack up and go home so he could resume power and get back to the tyrant's regular business of inflicting suffering of a brutal and excruciating nature on his subjects; this kind of suffering as opposed to the comparatively few, inadvertent casualties due to the war.

Having no war in Iraq allows persecution. Having this just war is causing suffering for a time, but will end most of the suffering in the long run.

Horrible suffering like what you mentioned is imposed affliction du jour in Saddam's regime. Its torture methods include:

• Medical experimentation
• Beatings
• Crucifixion
• Hammering nails into the fingers and hands
• Amputating the penis or breasts with an electric carving knife
• Spraying insecticides into a victim's eyes
• Branding with a hot iron
• Committing rape while the victim's spouse is forced to watch
• Pouring boiling water into a rectum
• Nailing the tongue to a wooden board
• Extracting teeth with pliers
• Using bees and scorpions to sting naked children in front of their parents

Report on the fact that the people of Iraq don't want to be "liberated."

Nine in 10 Iraqis welcome US invasion

With a smug smile they say, "We will liberate you from your God, your money, and your dignity."

"You just arrived. You're late. What took you so long? God help you become victorious. I want to say hello to Bush, to shake his hand. We came out of the grave." - liberated Iraqi

Listen to the experience of a former human shield in Iraq:

The human shields appealed to my anti-war stance, but by the time I had left Baghdad five weeks later my views had changed drastically.
...
I was shocked when I first met a pro-war Iraqi in Baghdad - a taxi driver taking me back to my hotel late at night. I explained that I was American and said, as we shields always did, "Bush bad, war bad, Iraq good". He looked at me with an expression of incredulity.

As he realised I was serious, he slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam's regime. ... It scared the hell out of me.

You seem to be forgetting the only reason the weapons inspectors were back in the country at all was because of the US.

UN weapon inspections:

In December 1998, Unscom pulled out of Iraq amid complaints of obstruction by Iraq. Meanwhile, Baghdad claimed that the body was little more than a front for US spies (with some justification; the presence of CIA agents was later confirmed by the US, UN and former inspectors). It left ahead of Operation Desert Fox, 70 hours of US-British airstrikes designed to punish Iraq for failing to cooperate with the inspectors.

It's certainly been very overlooked over in the US of A.

Afghan massacre haunts Pentagon

No, it couldn't be? American servicemen and intelligence officers, brutally killing defenseless prisoners? They would never..

You can buy it online, here.

The reporting of this war has verged on pornography, with too many reporters getting excited about bombs and tanks and too little attention being paid to the human cost.

There's an article on this very subject in yesterday's Guardian. Draws some very interesting parallels between porn and war footage: "This... is the kind of spectacular vision you get in porn - where the point is to see the sex act from every angle. It's narcissistic." (Linda Williams, professor of film studies and rhetoric at UC Berkley)