Slashdot Mirror


Saddam's Inbox Hacked

MotorMachineMercenar writes "Wired News is reporting that Saddam Hussein's email account (press@uruklink.net) has been hacked into. The account had a five-letter login with the same password. Messages in his inbox sent from all over the world included everything from death threats to business propositions to offers to sell him WMDs. A choice quote from the article: 'One AOL user sent Saddam a one-word message: 'Imminent.' Attached to the Aug. 6 e-mail was a photograph of an atomic mushroom cloud.' I wonder what the login was." You'd think it was "press," password "press," but if it were that obvious I think someone would have said so.

595 comments

  1. what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    you really think he personally reads that account? asshole probably can't even use a computer at all without wanting to shoot or gas it.

    1. Re:what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of computers does he have? Wasn't Iraq not allowed to import playstations, because they could make weapons tracking systems with them..?

      (Obviously he can probably get any physical item he wants, but who's going to send HIM e-mail (other than enemies from out of state)?).

    2. Re:what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > asshole probably can't even use a computer at all without wanting to shoot or gas it

      Clearly the UN deliberations are missing such acute and poigant insight .. I think if the UN was privvy to this juicy factoid, the US 'd have a tough resolution for Iraq in no time.

    3. Re:what by tx_mgm · · Score: 1

      actually, i think that whole thing was a marketing ploy by ....(pause for drama)... sony.
      sort of like what acclaim is doing with bmx xxx right now.
      ANY press is good press for a product.

      --
      Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
      -Dr. Weird
    4. Re:what by mary_will_grow · · Score: 1

      Why, do email accounts cut you out of world trade? Do email accounts use their economic strength to manipulate the region where you live?
      If they do, then yeah, he'd probably want to bomb or gas them. :-D

      --
      Why stick up for big business?
    5. Re:what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if he's using windows, who could blame him?

    6. Re:what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got it the wrong way round. He is cut off from the world trade and manipulated because he is a very bad boy and he bombs and gasses everything he can.

      Stop trying to rationalize his behaviour based on effects which he himself brought about.

      It would be like a small child being punished for eating a cookie from the cookie jar and then throwing a tantrum as a result of the punishment. Then some fucker like you says he is throwing a tantrum because he is being mistreated. He's not, he's being punished for a previous wrongdoing.

      Now go back to wanking it like the rest of us.

    7. Re:what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In that case, maybe saddam should follow Dr. Evil's lead??

    8. Re:what by spickus · · Score: 1

      Moderation Totals: Flamebait=1, Troll=1, Redundant=1, Insightful=1, Interesting=1, Funny=4, Overrated=1, Total=10.

      Overmoderated=1

      --
      Indecision is the key to flexibility.
    9. Re:what by adamjaskie · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I once got Funny+3 (already at 2 due to posting bonus) then Overrated-1, Underrated+1, and another Overrated-1, for a total of 4.

      --
      /usr/games/fortune
    10. Re:what by isorox · · Score: 3, Funny

      asshole probably can't even use a computer at all without wanting to shoot or gas it.

      But to be fair, we all feel like that on a monday morning

    11. Re:what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      from the site: "This site is best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer at 800x600." computers must suck so bad in iraq

    12. Re:what by Mupp252 · · Score: 1

      What you're crazy! It's prolly not one of the fastest machines but I know for a fact he's using windows on it. I mean com'on that would drive anyone crazy enough to light oil wells!!

  2. Other good news for Saddam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Mr. Jambunju of Nigeria needs his help getting his family's money out of the country, and if Saddam helps, he will get half of it.

    Plus, thanks to the miracle of herbal viagra, he'll soon be able to sustain an erection all night, and please many women in bed!

    1. Re:Other good news for Saddam by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 1

      Herbal viagra? His mistress says he gets 'da real shit. =)

  3. Fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How could this be real? He's the most hated man in America, several years running. For that to happen... I can't beleive it. It's just a little "out there."

    1. Re:Fake? by tx_mgm · · Score: 3, Funny

      most hated man in america for several years running? i think not.
      about a year ago, the most hated man in america was, without a doubt, another mid-eastern man.
      and he probably still should be, too.
      but hey, since we can't find him, lets listen to dubya and go finish daddy's business so we can get that pesky economy off of our minds!
      *end sarcasm*

      --
      Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
      -Dr. Weird
    2. Re:Fake? by Da'Rante · · Score: 1

      Finish Daddy's business my ass. Bush 41 did exactly what the UN resolutions said. Got Sadam out of Kuwait. Bush 43 is simply trying to enforce the agreements Sudam made after losing.

    3. Re:Fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just cause liberal-ass Clinton was a pussy, doesn't mean you need to take it out on GW..;)

    4. Re:Fake? by tx_mgm · · Score: 1

      ok, but why now all of the sudden? its like he just decided one day about 4 or 5 months ago that its time to invade and its been crammed down our throats every day since then that this is what needs to happen. why hasn't this been priority 1 since the weapon inspector thing happened awhile back? clinton? if its always been such a big deal, wouldnt ANY president decided it was time to go in and kick some ass?
      and how come i dont hear anything about preparations to invade n. korea as well? not to play devil's advocate, but arent they in the same situation as iraq is right now? questionable leadership, confirmed weapons of mass destruction (not just a desire to build them like iraq).
      maybe im just confused here (and i wouldnt be suprised if that was the case, since i freely admid that im nowhere near fit to rule a nation), but it just seems to me like actual motivations and the motivations we hear about are two completely seperate entities.

      --
      Gentlemen...BEHOLD!
      -Dr. Weird
    5. Re:Fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dig your sig! And your comment too.

    6. Re:Fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and how come i dont hear anything about preparations to invade n. korea as well? not to play devil's advocate, but arent they in the same situation as iraq is right now?"

      No, as far as I have heard they still haven't found much oil in Korea.

    7. Re:Fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it has nothing to do with oil really... korea is in cahoots with china..... if we go after them, we've got korea and chinas army against us... WW3 baby, end of human life as we know it.. we'll never mess with korea

    8. Re:Fake? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The most hated man _in_ America right now is probably Dubya himself. The man most hated _by_ Americans is probably... well actually I don't know. It all depends on how many people believe the White House's propaganda.

      Of course this is just pedantic nitpicking, but hey, I'm a pedantic nitpicker.

    9. Re:Fake? by Da'Rante · · Score: 1

      North Korea still has the potential to be dealt with economically.

  4. Haha! by plazman30 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Do we need say anything more?

    1. Re:Haha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Need you have said that?

    2. Re:Haha! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should be more like: Ha-Haaaaa!

  5. hmmm by pizza_milkshake · · Score: 5, Funny

    hmmm Saddam wasn't using AOL? he may be more dangerous than we thought.

    1. Re:hmmm by Telastyn · · Score: 1

      America OnLine? Saddam would never use such a heathen service!

    2. Re:hmmm by hebertpa · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yes but even AOL users can choose better passwords

      --
      madness takes its toll please have exact change
    3. Re:hmmm by cdrudge · · Score: 2, Funny

      Arabic OnLine maybe?

    4. Re:hmmm by C0LDFusion · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course not. Haven't you heard? Iraq OnLine is the 137,000,000th hottest internet service provider, serving all of 2 people (Saddam and the hacker)for the past decade! And it's growing fast! With new Dictator Controls, it's easier for Saddam to choose what access you have. And e-mail is a snap. Just ask the guy who hacked his inbox!

      --
      Only in slashdot are posts of solidarity modded at -1 Redundant, while posts of antagonism are modded as -1 Flamebait.
    5. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      not by the average intelligence study done on AOL users

    6. Re:hmmm by ncc74656 · · Score: 4, Funny
      hmmm Saddam wasn't using AOL? he may be more dangerous than we thought.

      Has anyone checked to see if the password is 12345?

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    7. Re:hmmm by Oliver+Wendell+Jones · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Has anyone checked to see if the password is 12345? 12345? That's the combination on my luggage!

      --
      A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing -- Emo Phillips
    8. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      must...resist...willpower...failing

      So easy to use, no wonder it's number one--with a bullet!

    9. Re:hmmm by sean23007 · · Score: 3, Funny

      That sounds like the kind of password an idiot would have on his email.

      Note to self: 12345 no longer an acceptable password for this account...

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    10. Re:hmmm by superyooser · · Score: 5, Funny
      The real proof that Saddam is evil (from a web developer's perspective):
      <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage5.0">
      Also, they're using Microsoft-authored Java classes using the deprecated applet element.
      <applet code="fphover.class"
      and they're obviously anti-/. too. ;-)
      codebase="./"
      Worst of all, there's no DOCTYPE declaration, without which, a validator does not know which HTML version to expect. This means that Iraq has no intention of complying with international web standards.

      I'm waiting for the U.N. to send in Web Inspectors.

    11. Re:hmmm by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

      That's AMAZING! That's the combination to my luggage...

      --
      If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    12. Re:hmmm by CelticLo · · Score: 1

      Nevermind the fact that someone is illegally running Microsoft software as the Export license forbids it's use in Iraq!

    13. Re:hmmm by danro · · Score: 1

      What!
      Copyright infringement!

      Tell BSA to lobby for the immediate use of nukes.
      Being a evil dictator was bad, but this is intolerable.
      ;-)

      --

      "First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
  6. Hoax? by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I can't help but think this is bogus. What exactly is _Saddam_'s Inbox? Does _he_ read that mail, or do his subordinates? Anyway...interesting, no matter if it's true or not.

    --
    Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    1. Re:Hoax? by Unknown+Bovine+Group · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree. A hoax or an intentional plant on Hussein's part. I immediately thought of the "orgy of evidence" line from Minority Report.

      On the other hand, if it's true, whomever "hacked" the account and told the press probably only duplicated a hack already done by the NSA, and caused Saddam to close the hole. Good job, bonehead!

      --
      m00.
    2. Re:Hoax? by HerringFlavoredFowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I vote Red Herring ...

      --
      TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken
    3. Re:Hoax? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, like the article says, the address is the Iraqi equivalent of "president@whitehouse.gov". (As opposed to "president@whitehouse.com", which is something quite different. ;) So what it means, no doubt, is that a bunch of low-level employees do a first pass through it, filter out all the spam and death threats, then pass it onto their slightly less low-level superiors, who filter out most of the rest of it and write up summaries, then pass it on ... [repeat n times] ... until Saddam gets a one-page summary on his desk and maybe a couple of really interesting letters, like the one from an American to which he (supposedly) wrote a personal reply.

      Iraq's government is very, very different from ours in a lot of ways (duh) but it's still a government, and thus a bureaucracy, and all bureaucracies have certain aspects in common. The people who read the e-mail addressed to "press@uruklink.net" and those who read the e-mail addressed to "president@whitehouse.gov" would probably be able to fit quite nicely into each other's jobs.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Hoax? by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 3, Funny

      Duh! Saddam doesn't read his email, one of the "Saddam Lookalikes" reads the email, and occasionally responds... so I guess you could call them "Saddam Typealikes".

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    5. Re:Hoax? by dattaway · · Score: 3, Funny

      Its a hoax until I see links to mirrors of his inbox. It would be for historical purposes of course...

    6. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Maybe it was hacked by Junti in Afghanistan, using an old commodore 64 and a Baywatch DiVX. Then again maybe Junti is Saddam. Maybe we can get a comment from Mr. Katz about it?

    7. Re:Hoax? by Genjurosan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For some reason, I just don't see Saddam reading e-mail. What exactly would he expect? An outlook invite to the lunch and learn session on advanced tourture methods in the atomic conference room? Or perhaps he gives out his card at political functions so that people can e-mail him new ideas about how to fund terrorist operations without the world knowing about it.

      --
      Saddam Hussein
      President, god, and super nice guy (because I said so).
      Iraq, country of milk and honey
      (964)(1) 718-9267 (phone)
      (964)(1) 885-2286 (fax)

      "This issue is not inspectors, the issue is disarmament."

      - GWB

    8. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      Iraq's government is very, very different from ours in a lot of ways
      Yeah --- the guy they voted for got to be President.
    9. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's off topic, but that's fuckin funny.

    10. Re:Hoax? by bhsx · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's not over yet! The 0.1% of those who voted for "Not Saddam" are calling for a recount of the Floridastan votes.

      --
      put the what in the where?
    11. Re:Hoax? by blitziod · · Score: 1, Funny

      they are called saddam's little helpers!

      --
      The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
    12. Re:Hoax? by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're missing the point. The joke is not on Saddam, but on all those well-wishers, detractors, and would-be business partners who sent him mail. I found the excerpts very entertaining.

    13. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's funny, we voted for Bush and got him. Don't know what kinda crack you're smoking.

    14. Re:Hoax? by GargoyleMT · · Score: 1

      You mean we the people voted for George W.? Funny, I always thought that it was the electoral college that determined who won the presidency.

    15. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Don't you hear - the vote was unanimous.

    16. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's a pet name that Satan came up with. It's the place he receives the incoming "male".

      For those that don't watch "South Park", it's funny... REALLY!!!

    17. Re:Hoax? by rekhodiah · · Score: 0

      You try voting for the other guy when your family is threatened with Anthrax and loyalists with AK's are watching you vote...

    18. Re:Hoax? by Casualposter · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Precisely why I find the people who are upset still about the faulty popular vote in Florida to be inanely ignorant about how their government works.

      The people don't VOTE for president. They vote to send an opinion to the electorial college. The electors are not required to vote according to the popular vote. This works nicely to legitimize a government when the elections are screwed up.

      --
      Creative Spelling Copyright (2002). May use without Persimmons
    19. Re:Hoax? by yoha · · Score: 1

      so in other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.

    20. Re:Hoax? by mr_z_beeblebrox · · Score: 1

      I can't help but think this is bogus. What exactly is _Saddam_'s Inbox? Does _he_ read that mail, or do his subordinates? Anyway...interesting, no matter if it's true or not.

      Basically, it sounds like saddams inbox is a tool for misinformation (as are all other Iraqi communication tools). Where he can politely console some misguided american regarding 9/11 or tell about how GWB is picking on me. Yes, his subordinates read it as did (prior to this getting out I am betting) the NSA, CIA, Whitehouse bridge club the good folk in Parliament and of course the NRA.

    21. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it certainly is not.

    22. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't sure whether it was a hoax or not, until I got to this (referring to a supposed message from a California wireless company):


      In a press release dated Sept. 13, the company said it has developed "4G" wireless technology capable of being used "as a weapon to ignite large sections of the atmosphere and incinerate all living creatures within its pre-selected coordinates." The press release also called for the resignation of President Bush.


      'nuff said.

      Daniel

    23. Re:Hoax? by jonnythan · · Score: 2

      Not only unanimous, but every single registered voter in the country turned out and voted for Saddam.

      100% voter turnout is pretty impressive.

    24. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep.. that "Vote Saddam or Get Shot" campaign really works...

    25. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I'm sure they're really concerned about security on that account, since the software wasn't even being kept up to date anyway, as has been mentioned.

    26. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "we" you mean you and the other 8 supreme court justices. I understand why you have to post as an AC, Justice Scalia.

    27. Re:Hoax? by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 1

      Even more impressive than that, every single one of the paper ballots was counted in 6 hours, when they announced the results. They apparently had a lot fewer "hanging chads" than Florida did.

      -B

    28. Re:Hoax? by Daniel+Quinlan · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Yeah --- the guy they voted for got to be President.

      Yes, this is "funny" here in the United States and people can crack jokes about the U.S. needing a "regime change" and such, but the truth is this:

      • We change our regime every 4 years.
      • If you didn't vote and vote for Saddam, you may be tortured or killed. Why else would the man get 100% of the vote. As an extreme example, I really doubt the Kurds in Iraq wanted to vote for the guy who used chemical weapons on them.
      • We can complain about our government without being killed or tortured. I'd like to see the people who protested against the Bush administration (in Washington D.C. with the free press watching over police and protesters alike) go to Iraq and do the same thing about Saddam. And if you're an Iraqi and the CNN cameras are away (they will be, since the media's movements are controlled in Iraq), good luck with your protest!
      Anyway, joke ha ha. Try laughing about Iraqi election rights if you live in Iraq. Democracy means that you can vote for someone who is not guaranteed to win. Yes, that means that Al Gore didn't get picked and that the guy you didn't like did win. Enjoy it.
    29. Re:Hoax? by i0chondriac · · Score: 1

      This country is great! I emailed president@whitehouse.com and I get free pr0n in my inbox everyday!

      I bet the Iraqis don't send porn to their citizens!

    30. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding, the guy was almost over thrown 6 times (by the Shias and the Kurds) in the past decade. Pretty amazing that he could still get 100 percent of the vote

    31. Re:Hoax? by Brainboy · · Score: 1

      Yeah I voted for Saddaim becuase I don't like getting stoned to death.

      Last election, my neighbor didn't vote for Saddaim. Before he bled to death he said, "Stoning Hurts, Vote Saddaim." and that's why I voted for Saddaim.

      You have to be insane not to vote for Hussein

      --
      Just a guy with an opinion
    32. Re:Hoax? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      "I really doubt the Kurds in Iraq wanted to vote for the guy who used chemical weapons on them. "

      The kurds actually did not count. So the argument falls flat. Of course 100% turnout with 100% yes votes (last time only 99.96% voted yes)is an obvious fabrication.

      Really Sudam is throwing a big FU to us Americans by saying, I will rig the Godamn election if I please. And I will do it unabashedly.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    33. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe CIA was interrested in the people who sent mail to that account.

    34. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, you certainly is good for your name.

      Brainboy.

      lol

    35. Re:Hoax? by cryptor3 · · Score: 1

      It's probably very easy to count all the ballots; all you have to do is stack up a couple thousand ballots and shine a light through hole next to "Saddam." If it goes through, that's a few thousand votes for Saddam right there...

    36. Re:Hoax? by shogun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We change our regime every 4 years

      I'm not an American but I'd like to point out that occasionally swapping between Democrats and Republicans is NOT a regime change.

    37. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rofl .........yeah and we say that they oppress their people? ....

    38. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats the great thing about america, a thing called electoral votes...people in masses are generally idiots...
      Oh by the way, Clinton lost popular vote against first george bush, so...

    39. Re:Hoax? by RallyNick · · Score: 1

      the truth you speak :thumbup:

    40. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, all the Chads were hanged before the election because they weren't voting for Saddam.

    41. Re:Hoax? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you and 26% of the US voters.

  7. All Saddam's email are belong to us! by leviramsey · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hack inbox for great justice

    Seriously, when are people going to learn that short usernames with the username as the password are a bad idea? Maybe the US should bomb everybody whose email is stupidly secured like that?

    1. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Branc0 · · Score: 0
      That would be a great way to reduce bandwidhth costs...

      --

      rm -rf /home/leia

    2. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 5, Funny

      Maybe the US should bomb everybody whose email is stupidly secured like that?

      I think you mean the US should set him up the bomb.

    3. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by evocate · · Score: 2

      You know what YOU doing!

    4. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you mean the US should set him up the bomb.

      Your grammar is atrocious! For future reference:
      "I think you mean the US should set up him the bomb."

    5. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wow, you're right. All this time I thought it was 'set us up the bomb', but after checking the bible you're right, it is is 'set up us the bomb'.

      Someone should go back and moderate my previous post -1 Idiot.

    6. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by iocat · · Score: 5, Insightful
      It's offtopic, but I had to respond:

      An objective analysis of both W's record and Saddam's record reaveals that Saddam has a much worse record on human rights. It's funny and popular to say otherwise on Campus, maybe, but last time I checked, the US government doesn't maintain a specially horrific prision for the children of dissidents, doesn't gas its own citizens, doesn't execute military officers by the hundreds, doesn't explicitly repress free speech, etc. Which the Iraqi government, controlled by Hussein, does.

      Regardless of whether or not attacking Iraq is a good idea, saying what you said kind of makes you seem like a moron, because it's absolutely factually incorrect, and it lessens the impact of any argument you try to make.

      The worst Republican, on his worst, conspiracy-laden, evil, money-grubbing day is better than Saddam Hussein on his best, most charitable, not-killing-people day.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    7. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by dpille · · Score: 3, Informative

      on his best, most charitable, not-killing-people day

      If you set parameters like that, I have to disagree. Rumsfeld says he's letting people go from Guantanamo, meaning that all those people who said wait, you can't just imprison people who may be innocent were almost on the money. They only missed the part where they used may be instead of are. If you pick a day where Saddam isn't actually killing people, he's obviously doing no worse than this.

      I wouldn't have taken the poster literally- and with stuff like the above going on, his figurative point is easy to make.

    8. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't feel too bad. That's the most common AYB mistake, and it's made all the time. The second most common is forgetting whether it's "someone" or "somebody" who set up us the bomb.

    9. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by blitziod · · Score: 1

      i am glad i got his email. I want to ask him for some mustache grooming tips. I can never get mine to look like that ..all shiny, healthy and full.

      --
      The only way to bust a doper--is when you yourself become a smoker!
    10. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 4, Informative
      I can't stand Bush, but Bush is no Saddam. Saddam is a murderous thug, a gangster whose gang controls a country. It's as if Tony Soprano ran a country, but with fewer moral qualms. I don't think the US should be rattling its sabres and I don't think another war is warranted, but Saddam is still an asshole of the widest caliber.

      That said, Iraq is probably the only Arab country where women can wear whatever they want, fully participate in political life (well, to the same limited, oppressed amount the men can, anyway) and have full legal equality in both professional and personal domains. It's better to be a woman in Iraq than to be one in Saudi Arabia, or Kuwait, or even Egypt. To some extent, that's due to the nature of the Baath party's platform, and also to the fact that Saddam is a very secular thug.

    11. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Om242 · · Score: 1



      What you say?

    12. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Skjellifetti · · Score: 3, Informative

      That said, Iraq is probably the only Arab country where women can wear whatever they want, fully participate in political life (well, to the same limited, oppressed amount the men can, anyway) and have full legal equality in both professional and personal domains.

      Bahrain held an election this week in which women could both vote and run for office.

    13. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Hard_Code · · Score: 5, Informative
      Not to argue with your conclusion, but:

      doesn't gas its own citizens


      Oh really?

      US germ war tests on civilians

      Tuskegee syphilis experiment
      more

      US eugenics program
      more

      Intentional radiation of civilians during nuclear testing
      more

      Gulf War Syndrome, which was at first completely ignored and lied about, and finally recently acknowledged (although we still don't know what it is, nor do we know whether the government really knows or not - there have been accusations of experiments on our own soldiers).

      not to mention:

      Genocide of indigenous peoples as official policy
      by the way, this shit was [is?] still going on in uncomfortably recent history still going on:
      Article II of the Genocide Convention also expressly prohibits
      involuntary sterilization as means of "preventing births among" a
      targeted population. Yet, in 1976, it was conceded by the
      U.S. government that its ÒIndian Health ServiceÓ (IHS), then a
      subpart of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), was even then
      conducting a secret program of involuntary sterilization which had
      affected approximately forty percent of all Indian women of
      childbearing age. The program was allegedly discontinued, and the IHS
      was transferred to the Public Health Service, but no one was
      punished. Hence, business as usual has continued in the ÒhealthÓ
      sphere: 1990, for example, it came out that the IHS was inoculating
      Inuit children in Alaska with Hepatitis-B vaccine. The vaccine had
      already been banned by the World Health Organization as having a
      demonstrated correlation with the HIV-virus which is itself correlated
      to AIDS. As this is being written, a Òfield testÓ of Hepatitis-A
      vaccine, also HIV-correlated, is being conducted on Indian
      reservations in the northern Plains region.


      Supposedly, Himmler kept a framed photograph of a Native American, as a reminder of the splendid example the United States provided.

      The list goes on and on. Sure, Saddam may be a war criminal. But our own history is not so rosy...in fact it is pretty fucking disgusting and we need to wake up to that fact. We don't have the moral highground we profess to have. In fact Iraq's entire history pales in comparison to the atrocities that have been committed in the names of US citizens. This doesn't make either right. It makes both wrong.
      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    14. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by trolleri · · Score: 1

      and they sertainly didn't drop _the bomb_ (that goes for the second bomb aswell).

    15. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Dirtside · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah... whenever you're trying to remember which of two forms an AYB quote takes, just think about which one has more grammatical errors, and that's your quote. :)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    16. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe you haven't heard the latest, but the american government does gas it's own people... in multiple states... without their knowledge or concent... in areas populated by civilians... with only minimul precautions...

      I just love the moral duality of mindless America! I guess what's good for the goose isn't always good for the gander (unless it suites the president at the time).

      don't forget to drink the Cool-Ade!

    17. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another post on this topic listed some of the things you may have never believed that the US did, but I have one more to add.
      With everyone complaining that he gasses his own people, I ask, where was the US Government? This happened durring a Republican administration, and was only very briefly on the news.
      What did we do, then? The US Government threatened the United Nations if they drew up a resolution against Iraq for doing the gassing. That is right, the heinous crime that was committed was _approved_ by the US Government. Anyone remember Iran? How we gave weapons to Iraq to fight the evil Iranians? He was our friend then. Now, conveniently, he is "evil".

      Will the Republicans reading this please choose a reaction to the gassing and stick with it?

    18. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by etymxris · · Score: 5, Insightful
      I really don't think it's fair to compare the Iraq of today with the US of 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago. As for the more recent "atrocities" you mention:

      • We don't know what caused Gulf War Syndrome, or if the US government is responsible. The only evidence of a coverup is the evidence that the symptoms are so vague that no one even thought to look at it as a separate illness until sometime after the war.
      • Doing bad things with nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons before we knew the dire consequences of using them is one thing. But it is another thing to use such weapons on civilians when you know exactly what the effects will be.
      • That the US government was giving Hep B vaccines to Inuit children in a covert attempt to increase incidence of AIDS among that racial group during the 1990's is just ludicrous. It may very well be that there are bad side effects to the Hep B vaccine, and it may be that the US government was negligent in exploring the effects of such vaccines, but to say that the use of the Hep B vaccine was done intentionally and solely for the purpose of giving Inuit people AIDS is just ludicrous, and I'll regard it as such until you can come up with better evidence.
    19. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by blueroo · · Score: 1

      Of course, nobody mentions that the UN estimates over 250,000 children (thats just children) have died in, or because of, US bombings and Sanctions against Iraq.

      Yeah! We Rock! We Rule! Go US! Those children had it coming!

    20. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by hazem · · Score: 1

      I disagree with you about Kuwait. Women are more free there than you might expect - and more free than they are in Saudi Arabia.

      In 2000, I went to Kuwait and met several women who worked in various professions such as Bank Manager, Doctors, etc. They dressed just as the same professional would here in the US.

      Women do not have political equality yet, but it's coming. Kuwait's only been an independent country for half a century. How long was the US a country before it allowed its women to vote? There are a lot of "conservative" past-looking men who don't want to see change. It will take time. The Amir of Kuwait clearly supports political equality for women. He just has to work with a legislature that has political infighting much like our own.

      As for women's dress in Kuwait, it's more dictated by the families they come from than the government. I was puzzled when, during my first day in Kuwait we went to the very modern mall, Suq Sharq and saw a group of young women walking together. Two were completely covered in traditional dress, two were wearing what Americans would consider conservative - long sleeved dresses, and one was wearing a mini-skirt.

    21. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by GargoyleMT · · Score: 1

      Heh?!?!

      Of course he's doing worse than your example of our detention of "enemy combatants" in Cuba. Even if Saddam is not killing people, he can still be rounding up political dissidents for imprisonment (and torture), controlling media reports, etc. Admittedly, I'm not up on enough Iraq to shove a fistful of examples into this comment, but I really don't see that you have a legitimate point. The few examples I have mentioned are widely publicised complaints about the Iraqi regime (but are not exclusive to it, of course).

    22. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Quazion · · Score: 2

      And then to think the US goverment put that person called Saddam on his throne. You would figure they would have screened him first.

      I dont know the whole deal, but still its not saddams fault he has been given the power todo the same thing nearly every country has done in the past or still doing now or maybe will do in the near future. Its evolution :) wake up and smell the coffee, or not ?

    23. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Informative
      Women are freer in Kuwait than in Saudi Arabia (talk about lowering the bar!), but still less than they are in Iraq, or even Iran (where women can and do vote and participate in the political sphere and hold office, even if they still have a very conservative dress code.)

      Kuwait's biggest political problem is its failure to provide basic civil and political rights for the majority of its residents, of course - the majority of residents are non-Kuwaiti "guest workers".

    24. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let's also not forget who was in office at the time of the kurdish gassing, and how that administration reacted (hint: reagan/nothing). but it's awfully convenient to be pissed off about it now!

    25. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Hard_Code · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Point 1: Granted. Gulf War Syndrome is still vague and relatively little is known about it. But the government DID now that lots of soldiers were complaining about it. They first ignored them, then told them there was no such thing, and now, whatever the heck it is, the government is finally admitting there may be something to the claims (whether or not the military did something intentionally, or the soldiers were exposed to enemy chemical agents, etc.). The point is, the government was willfully disinterested in GWS.

      Point 2: Forgive me if I reserve a healthy skepticism of the naivete and innocence of those who perpetrated "accidental" civilian casualties and ailments during the course of experimentation. Vague enemies on the other side of the planet are eternally convenient, yet, inexcusable, reasons for such behavior.

      Point 3: I never made the claim, and neither does the article, that the US was trying to infect any group with AIDS. The point is, the US has been in violation of the Genocide Convention (I was not aware of this particular convention), perpetrating involuntary sterilizations as recently as 1976! With similar callousness, according to this article, the US apparently used sub-par or experimental vaccines on Native Americans.

      I didn't make this stuff up. Just because they don't teach it to you in namby pamby middle school US history doesn't mean it is not real. Search Google yourself. Better yet search your library. This stuff is historical fact, not speculation. We just refuse to acknowledge the dirty portions of our past...which I think does ourselves a disservice - especially when we expect to use our moral highground to sidestep international law and treaties to "do the right thing".

      As far as our history with dealing with Native Americans, I suggest:

      Rethinking Columbus: The Next 500 Years

      The sooner we dislodge the fantastic myth, and somberly acknowledge and admit to our real past, the sooner we become a better people.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    26. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Leto2 · · Score: 2
      doesn't explicitly repress free speech

      Then why is the US so poorly ranked on the worldwide press freedom index ?

      Greetings from the Netherlands (proudly #1 on the worldwide press freedom index!)

      --
      <grub> Reading /. at -1 is like driving through Cracktown in a convertible that is stuck in 1st
    27. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Cheer!

    28. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Luyseyal · · Score: 2
      Nah, the official position of the Reagan/early Bush Sr. administrations were:
      • officially condemn Iraq for using chemical weapons
      • but also take Iraq off the list of terrorist-supporting states so US can sell them "dual-use technologies"
      • give Iraq intelligence data for use against Iran (and maybe the Kurds (who, incidently, were supporting an Iranian takeover of Iraq at the time))

      So, while officially we condemned Iraq, we did aid them against Iran in an attempt to prevent further Soviet influence on our cheap oil and preserve our precious bodily fluids.

      You might want to watch out about calling the Kurds "[Saddam's] own people". Iraqis and Kurds, while sharing the same religion, have very different cultures and speak different languages. In an area of the world where monoculture rules the day, this is a huge source of conflict. Turkey also systematically oppresses and kills Kurds and their children, but you don't see Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, or Bush, Jr. taking a stand because Turkey is a NATO ally.

      Anyway, I'm not arguing a side, just adding some n.b.'s.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    29. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wow, lots of links.. it must be true!

      How can you take anyone seriously that quotes Ralph Nader?

    30. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Melantha_Bacchae · · Score: 1

      iocat wrote:

      > but last time I checked, the US government doesn't
      > maintain a specially horrific prision for the
      > children of dissidents,

      No, but the US did toss Japanese-Americans into concentration camps during WWII.

      > doesn't gas its own citizens,

      Wrong. Deadly nerve gasses were at one time released for testing purposes in several states. What's worse, above ground nuclear testing irradiated numerous states (and most of the planet) at its height. Godzilla is not the only child of nuclear testing, just the only one of us that became a god because of it. Genetic disorders and cancers are *not* fun. I know, I have the former, and I watched my mother die of the latter.

      > doesn't execute military officers by the
      > hundreds,

      Nope (except for the above nerve gas and nuclear testing). The Native Americans did get massacred a lot, though.

      > doesn't explicitly repress free speech, etc.

      The DMCA has not been kind to free speech. CNN's government correspondents (government PR people more like) have lately been acting like first amendment advocates are some kind of wacked loonies, though. They've said Congress doesn't believe in it anymore. The USA Patriot Act did a real number on most of the other amendments.

      > Which the Iraqi government, controlled by
      > Hussein, does.

      Yes, it does (or so we are told, having never been there myself).

      The US has done some pretty nasty things in its history. But they pale in comparison to the doings of madmen like Hitler or Stalin. The US has ideals to aspire to. It isn't always successful at following them, but they make it possible for one to love one's country, despite its warts and its checkered history (and despite what some of that history has done to one's body).

      However bad it looks now, we are actually handling things better this time around. Our government has been careful to make a distinction between Bin Laden's goons and followers of Islam, the religion (whose rights to their faith are protected by the First Amendment). We haven't nuked anybody (despite all the postings on Slashdot on 9/11/01 calling for it). We can, and should, do better though.

      I don't like or approve of President Bush. I have serious questions about the way he came into his office. His economic and environmental policies are a disaster. He is a warmonger like his father. His stupid pet project at Yucca Mountain is likely to draw the wrath of the gods on our nation and get us all killed (same stupidity as the Tokai criticality accident, and the same angry god).

      That being said, I highly doubt that most of what I don't like him doing is the result of malice. I can only pray he either gets a boatload of wisdom, or gets some wiser advisors.

      "Our people.. stricken with disease.
      You.. you played with the fires of the gods.
      And you dare to come here and ask us for help!
      You betrayed us! You expect us to trust you after what you have done?"
      Infant Island Chief, "Godzilla vs. Mothra" (US Version), 1964

    31. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by OblvnDrgn · · Score: 2

      Since the other people are tackling your Gulf War Syndrome statements, let me handle your blurb. I cite Cecil Adams (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/020322.html)

      The gist is that Dr. Pinkerman, a Los Angeles doctor/lawyer/Native American activist, conducted a study that said IHS physicians sterilized 25% of American Indian women between the ages of fifteen and fourty-four, and claimed that 40 percent WOULD be by 1975. Not only was that a claim based on the future, but her numbers aren't exactly supported either. She also misunderestimated the number of Native American women in the country by about a fourth of the actual.

      Furthermore, about 41 percent of US Women of child bearing age, or their partners, had been sterilized as of 1995, that's ALL races. Not to mention the Native American population has increased more than the US average, so they're hardly declining.

      Now, I'm not saying US history is perfect. Far from it.. we (as a country) have done a lot of bad things. But not QUITE as many as we're accused of.

    32. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Hard_Code · · Score: 2

      Would you like me to go home and get you references to books, or are those not good enough for you either? Get off your ass and do your own fucking research and when you have a real opinion come back.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    33. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by hazem · · Score: 1

      I agree - using Saudi Arabia as the bar for women's rights is pretty low. But things are not as bad in Kuwait (for citizens) as the original poster suggested.

      The whole Bidoun (people without citizenship - not to be confused with Beduin, the nomadic people) is strange and sad, and needs to be dealt with. In fact while I was in Kuwait, we visited the legislature and they were debating this very issue. Unfortunately, the same conservative elements that are against equality of women are against rights for the Bidoun. There is more opposition, though, because opening up the rules for citizenship and incorporating the Bidoun will dilute the political power of those currently in power, while also stretching social-service dinars (dollars).

      It is likewise sad to see what has happened in Iraq. For it is true that women there, before anywhere else in the modern Middle East, enjoyed a great amount of freedom in their personal lives. Iraq had the potential to be a very open and democratic society. It will be interesting to see how the country might recover from the fear and paranoia that are omnipresent, thanks to Saddam and his regime.

    34. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you forgot death penalty..

      oh yeah but the justice system of usa doesn't make mistakes, and it's not like there had been several people found not-guilty that were waiting in line to get the shaft..

    35. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Arjuna+Theban · · Score: 1

      Turkey also systematically oppresses and kills Kurds and their children, but you don't see Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, or Bush, Jr. taking a stand because Turkey is a NATO ally.

      Please keep your false propaganda/bullshit to yourself. 25-30% of Turkey is Kurdish, and they have held and still hold important roles in Turkey, including the head of the parliament during the last term. The "oppression" you speak of is against the PKK (the so-called Kurdistan Workers Party, which is a heavily armed terrorist force responsible for the deaths of around 30,000 people on both sides since 1984) and its Kurdish rebels.

      Call it oppression, genocide, whatever you will, if someone takes arms against my country and tries to take a bite out of it, I call it spring cleaning.

    36. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Frank+of+Earth · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      do your own fucking research and when you have a real opinion come back.

      Hrm.. I went to your homepage and I'm back. My opinion is that your an asshole. No offense ;-)

    37. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The U.S. is so poorly ranked because, frankly, our press doesn't care about breaking laws. We may have free speech, but we don't give out "get out of jail free" cards to the press. They break laws, not all of them anyway, but they do, and if they're caught they are punished. Is there something wrong with that? No, it's what we do to all citizens. Now, when they want to they go complain, and people feel sorry for them, not realizing what they actually did. Now you may be saying, "Well, if that's the case, why doesn't this happen as often in every other country?" Well, while the press acts similarly in every country, the U.S. has a pretty large amount of reporters, and since we have so many different media corps. trying to get the latest greatest headlines, they run out of legit ones, and start digging around a little more. It isn't the greatest reason, but it happens to be one, and anyway, the only country you can really complain about is your own. If you haven't lived in a country, how do you know what it's like? Stereotypes, and outright lies can cloud our thinking. What if I was to say everyone from the Netherlands was an outright A*****(I'm not, it's just an example)? Would you think it's true, would it be true anyway? No.
      Well, anyway CYA, I just get pissed off by people insulting America without thinking. If you think about, and are at least respectful when you complain, that's better. Just one last question(not to someone outside of the U.S.), what country is giving you the freedom to insult it? Please, you're obviously not thinking when you say that.

      OK, cya

    38. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by TheOnlyCoolTim · · Score: 2

      It's interesting how in that report African countries with ratings of 31st and 47th have "have genuine press freedom too," but the U.S. is a bunch of Nazis and has a "poor rating" for being 17th.

      There's also no sources or statistics, although there are numerical "notes" references next to each country. I couldn't find the "notes" anywhere, but apparently the U.S.A. is ranked low because of imprisoning journalists. Again, no references, and I wonder if they are referring to "journalists" like Mumia...

      Tim

      --
      Omnia vestra castrorum habetur nobis.
    39. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Nailer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Your grammar is atrocious!

      you're grammar, friend. ;)

    40. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Alranor · · Score: 2

      So in a way what you're saying is "it didn't work, so please ignore the fact that we really shouldn't be doing it" ??

    41. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by commodoresloat · · Score: 2
      All of the above may be true but the very idea that one would compare Saddam to W in a serious manner is ridiculous. Torture and brutality are the norm for Saddam's regime. You disappear if you cause too much trouble. Political liberties are unheard of. Politics is an exercise in hubris, not in civil society.

      Of course, all that said, any easy good/evil binarism here is ridiculous too. We have to keep in mind that the US, with the extensive help of W's dad throughout the 80s, helped make Saddam as powerful and brutal as he is. And the upcoming war is just an excuse for a blatant resource grab in the middle east. I would much prefer to see W and Saddam duke it out with pistols than make their citizens suffer and die for them.

    42. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by pretygrrl · · Score: 1

      Stop it! Not True! My government wouldnt gas me!
      Lies, all lies! .... i want my mommy........

      --
      Contemplate the marvel that is existence, and rejoice that you are able to do so.
    43. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Mojojojo+Monkey+Inc. · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh no, the day has come when modding up an AYB reference is Informative instead of Funny! The end is definately upon us.

    44. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Luyseyal · · Score: 2

      It's nice how convenient it is to call them rebels. Post-WW1 when the Middle East was being carved up the Kurds were promised space for a Kurdish state under The Treaty of SÃvres. The subsequent Treaty of Lausanne mentioned nothing of a Kurdish state and atrocities ensued on both sides for most of the 20th century. So, you expect all of them to be satisfied with assimilation into Turkey?

      My main complaint of Turkish policy is its support of a Palestinian state from Israel, but not one for Kurds. Why should they expect Kurds to assimilate into Turkish culture and but not expect Palestinians to assimilate into Israeli culture?

      Anyway, I agree to retract "and kills" from my original statement as I had in mind extermination policies that are no longer in place.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    45. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by theblacksun · · Score: 1

      I mean, after all the U.S. government does let us in on all of its secret military operations. If crimes against humanity did happen odds are is all we'd get about it would be rumors. That's a very scarey thought considering some of the rumors I've heard.

      And another thing: Years ago I saw a 60 minutes interview with a pentagon offical about Gulf War syndrome. The guy was so nervous you could see the sweat glinting on his uppper lip. He had something to hide, that's for sure.

      --
      Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.
    46. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > Gulf War Syndrome, which was at first completely
      > ignored and lied about, and finally recently
      > acknowledged (although we still don't know what it
      > is, nor do we know whether the government really
      > knows or not - there have been accusations of
      > experiments on our own soldiers).

      According to William H. Dufy (author of Sugar Blues)
      the Gulf War Syndrome was caused by diet coke left
      under the sun at 40/50 degrees C. What happens
      is this: Diet Coke contains Asparthame. Asparthame
      normally is bad for your health (just as plain
      white sugar), but under the sun, and with the other
      chemical crap diluted in Coke, it turns out to become
      methanol, which is the major cause of intoxications.

      Not only it was noticed after the Gulf War (and
      never brought to the media, since Coke sponsored
      the war providing soft drinks for the poor military
      personnel),
      but also in several occasions by the FAA (Federal
      Aviation Authority) on their reports.

      I suggest everyone to read that book.

    47. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by NewtonsLaw · · Score: 2

      Now I'm going to play devil's advocate here so the statements are not necessarily representitive of my own feelings but:

      [the US government] doesn't explicitly repress free speech

      Errr... have you read the DMCA????

      the US government doesn't maintain a specially horrific prision for the children of dissidents

      No, but it does hold "combatants", including US citizens, supposedly protected by The Constitution, without the right to consult a lawyer, without the right to a phone call, under conditionditions that appear to have raised the heckles of even Amnesty International. The basic tenet of presuming innocence until guilt is proven seems to be missing in both cases eh?

      doesn't execute military officers by the hundreds

      No, but there are plenty of states in the USA that do execute people -- and on occasion it's been shown that those people were not guilty of the crimes with which they were accused. It could be argued therefore that both Saddam and George W are responsible for the executions of innocent people.

      No, Bush is not as bad as Saddam -- but it's not an absolute black and white distinction, it's only a matter of degree.

      There endeth my role as devil's advocate ;-)

    48. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Arjuna+Theban · · Score: 1

      It's nice how convenient it is to call them rebels. Post-WW1 when the Middle East was being carved up the Kurds were promised space for a Kurdish state under The Treaty of SÃvres. The subsequent Treaty of Lausanne mentioned nothing of a Kurdish state and atrocities ensued on both sides for most of the 20th century.

      Considering Sevres was a treaty the Ottoman Empire was strong-armed into signing, and Lausanne was signed after - the new nation - Turkey won its independence from the invading armies, the two cannot be compared.

      My main complaint of Turkish policy is its support of a Palestinian state from Israel, but not one for Kurds. Why should they expect Kurds to assimilate into Turkish culture and but not expect Palestinians to assimilate into Israeli culture?

      Again, a comparison between the Kurds and the Palestinians does not make any sense, since their nation was later invaded by (or more like given to) the Israelis. But more importantly, the Israelis oppress the Palestinians, in the true meaning of the word oppress.

      Anyway, I agree to retract "and kills" from my original statement as I had in mind extermination policies that are no longer in place.

      What extermination policies would those be?

    49. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Karrots · · Score: 0, Troll

      I am a little confused but is this Hepatitis B vacine the same one that I just got a booster for about 4 years ago I didn't know it was banned and then why is it still being used every where?

    50. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Fjord · · Score: 1

      Do you have a link with U.S. involvement in Saddam's rise to presidency? The link in my sig talks about their involvement with him as a result of the Iran Iraq war and the Iranian Revolution, but I haven't read anything on how Saddam got where he is.

      --
      -no broken link
    51. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by snake_dad · · Score: 2

      The world would be really boring without american conspiracy theories. Yes, I'm to lazy to look up the spelling of conspiracy. Sue me.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    52. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Fjord · · Score: 2
      Uh, that's true for the other countries too. the reason why Iraqi reporters get thrown in jail is because they break laws. Freedom comes from not having those laws in place. Lets look at the scant infomarion from the link:

      Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings.


      The first part is definitely an abridgement of freedom of the press. Whether you agree or not that a government should be able to force a journalist to reveal their sources, it still means that there is less freedom of the press.

      The second one is a little shakey, but noting the wording ("several" vs. "often") it seems like this isn't a common case, it just happened several times. One can still argue that it is an abridgement of freedom of the press, though. Yes, we need some secure areas, but it may be that not all areas this happened at need to be secure. It's hard to know from the tiny blurb here.

      Maybe the metrics were stacked to make the U.S. looked bad. Maybe it is brazen reporters crossing lines that got the U.S. bumped from 16 to 17, but the first issue is one of concern. It's like saying "look at those brazen reporters, exposing faults of big business or our government and not telling our government who blew the whistle."

      Or maybe this country isn't as free as it says it is.
      --
      -no broken link
    53. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's the problem. You should never believe "widely publicised" points until TANGIBLE and irrefutable evidence is actually SHOWN DIRECTLY to you. Why is that? Because if it IS widely publicized, that's probably because it is in someone's interest *cough*Republicans*cough* to have it publicized.

      And can we really trust someone who really have an interest to lie? I don't think so. Bureaucracy protects them from that kind of scandal (blame the subordinates; they'll manage it, they pass it to THEIR subordinates or they fall).

      In fact; a small, obscure point that almost no one heard about is probably more credible than the stuff on CNN. Why? Because that's not what someone wanted you to believe; you actually had to look for it.

      Ohhh; I feel the inspiration for a great quote!

      "Truth doesn't always shout with the loudest voice."

    54. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by loply · · Score: 1, Troll

      You're = "You are"
      You are grammar is attrocrious? ;)

    55. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by sbillard · · Score: 0

      The United States is the ONLY nation that has used nuclear weapons against an enemy. I think I remmeber hearing something about civillian casualties as a result.

    56. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Binome · · Score: 1

      But if we can't mod up ridiculous in-jokes as informative, then the terrorists have already won!

      --
      In Soviet Russia, Beowulf cluster imagines you!
    57. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Luyseyal · · Score: 2

      Considering Sevres was a treaty the Ottoman Empire was strong-armed into signing, and Lausanne was signed after - the new nation - Turkey won its independence from the invading armies, the two cannot be compared.

      They don't have to be compared except insofar as a people who were promised something, got nothing.

      Again, a comparison between the Kurds and the Palestinians does not make any sense, since their nation was later invaded by (or more like given to) the Israelis.

      Since the Kurds have resided in the area from ancient times, they were and are every bit as deserving as Palestinians of self-determination. The same argument against Israel could be made against Turkey and Iraq: that they have unjustly occupied the Kurdish homeland since WW1.

      If the Palestinians all wanted to be Arab Citizens of Israel, there wouldn't be a problem. But they don't. Are you suggesting that all Kurds want to be citizens of Turkey/Iraq? Are you suggesting that the break-up of the Ottoman Empire is not sufficient justification for giving all of its constituent peoples self-determination?

      But more importantly, the Israelis oppress the Palestinians, in the true meaning of the word oppress.

      You see a vast difference between Turkey's policy on the PKK and Israel's policy on the PLO? In both instances, regular people are oppressed due to "guilt by association" whether or not they actually performed any terrorist acts. This is the crux of the issue. In both countries, the political moderates in the minority are silenced by the terrorists on the one hand and the overzealous counter-terrorists on the other.

      What extermination policies would those be?

      In the last 20 years? Bombing, burning, and otherwise destroying thousands of Kurdish villages, in some cases killing the inhabitants directly, but in most cases, allowing death to happen of its own accord (as happens among the homeless).

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    58. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      your an asshole

      Technically, "you're an asshole."

      Grammar police, ahoy!

    59. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by yusing · · Score: 1

      Great list of articles, man. Thanks, and thanks for getting that history out there.

      I always thought one of the great nuclear atrocities against ordinary American citizens was the H-bomb testing post WW2 where sailors were sent to scrub decks on test ships after the explosion... many wearing no protection whatever.

      Anyone who says "we" didn't know about the danger only has to read the history of physics - and of the Manhattan project - particularly Los Alamos - to find out differently.

      There's way too much history for anyone to deny that we -- the first and only country to drop a nuke on a city -- serve as a model for bad shit around the world. Our shit stinks.

      --

      "You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson

    60. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by chriskenrick · · Score: 0, Troll

      You're = "You are"
      You are grammar is attrocrious ;)

      Maybe, but your spelling is even more atrocious

    61. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knew a Vietnam veteran, they had a white powder dropped on them during the war - they were told it was mosquito repellant.. but funny thing was they still got covered in mosquitoes.

      They have since realised it was agent orange, and they were guinea pigs.

      Oh what wonderful, enlightened times we live in.

    62. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Fjord · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One thing to consider is that a lot of these atrocities don't come out in the open until many years later. 50 years from now, there may be someone else in another forum saying "I really don't think it's fair to compare the X of today with the US of 100 years ago, or even 50 years ago"

      Plus, a lot of these were less than 50 years ago. The Sarin, Soman, Tabun and VX civilian tests were from 1962-1973 and the Native eugenics was in 1976. That was only 12 years before Saddam used Sarin on the Kurds.

      The original poster is certainly wrong when they said GW is worse than Saddam, but GW's only been in power for 2 years, Saddam's been there for 23. I think if you add up all the atrocities the U.S. government has done in the last 23 years (known and unknown, to it's own people and to foreigners) it would outpace what Saddam has done in that time, but then again, the U.S. has a lot more influence over the world.

      --
      -no broken link
    63. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by ffatTony · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Torture and brutality are the norm for Saddam's regime. You disappear if you cause too much trouble. Political liberties are unheard of. Politics is an exercise in hubris, not in civil society.

      And exactly how much time have you spent under Saddam's Iron fist? Oh that's right you're a sensational American douche-bag easily swayed by media and your own self importance.

      All of the above may be true but the very idea that one would compare Saddam to W in a serious manner is ridiculous.

      I heartily disagree. I completely agree that the Bush family had a great deal of responsibility for making Saddam who he is today.

      Regardless of what this war is about, one thing is for sure, Halliburton will be there to clean up the mess, certainly with Cheney somewhere in tow. God bless, greed, graft, and Corruption. And if you have time God, maybe the rest of America.

    64. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      It's nice how convenient it is to call them rebels.


      And it's nice how convenient it is to call others terrorists.

    65. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL

    66. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by cei · · Score: 2

      You're right. The US doesn't gas its own citizens. But it supports Russia, who just did...

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
    67. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Doing bad things with nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons before we knew the dire consequences of using them is one thing. But it is another thing to use such weapons on civilians when you know exactly what the effects will be."

      As far as I know, USA is the only nation that has used nuclear weapons on civilians. Twice, if I recall correctly. Very well knowing what the "effects" would be.

    68. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by zapfie · · Score: 0, Troll

      Maybe, but your spelling is even more atrocious

      And your lack of end punctuation tops it off nicely.

      (quick, someone reply and berate me for starting a sentence with a conjunction!)

      --
      slashdot!=valid HTML
    69. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by stapedium · · Score: 1
      Hence, business as usual has continued in the ÒhealthÓ sphere: 1990, for example, it came out that the IHS was inoculating Inuit children in Alaska with Hepatitis-B vaccine. The vaccine had already been banned by the World Health Organization as having a demonstrated correlation with the HIV-virus which is itself correlated to AIDS. As this is being written, a field test of Hepatitis-A vaccine, also HIV-correlated, is being conducted on Indian reservations in the northern Plains region.

      Um...maybe you should actually look up some of the most common health problem among Native American's. One of the leading causes of death is liver failure. Nearly all of that liver failure is wither due viral hepatitis (A, B, C, etc...) and/or alcoholic cirrhosis. From a public health perspective it would be almost unthinkable not to vaccinate a population at high risk for liver failure against the two most common forms of hepatitis. You might also want to check your facts about the WHO's recommendation regarding the Hepatitis B vaccine .

      The implicationin the article is that since Hep A and B infection is correlated with HIV infection which is correlated with AIDS that vaccinations against Hep A and B must be related to AIDS. The big problem with thie is that CORRELATION IS NOT CAUSALITY! Hepatitis b infection is higly correlated with HIV infection, but that is because both are transmitted by transfer of bodily fluids. Hepatitis A is transmitted primarily by a fecal-oral route which understandably places individuals who participate in anal sex at increase risk (just like HIV). It also places people with poor water treatment and little opportunity to wash their hands after using the restroom at increased risk.

      Quite the opposite form the implication in the article, vaccination against Hepatitis A and B would be of great benefit to individuals who drink margninally treated water are likely more succeptible to alcoholic cirrhosis.

    70. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We also have to remember a few things about the latest string of presidents, beginning around the time of Vietnam

      1. American Air is caught smuggling drugs into the United States. The operation is controlled by the CIA, of whom the director is George Sr.
      2. The Iran Contra Affair involved the sale of Cocaine in Arkansas, of all places, where the governor at the time closed all investigation. Governor: Bill Clinton. Man in charge of Iran Contra: George Sr. Man who took the blame: Ollie North
      3. The episode in Waco. George Sr. was the president at this time. There were coroner's reports that agents from the Secret Service were sacrificed as "collateral damage" by having their brains blown out at close range by .22 bullets. The evidence was stored in the ATF headquarter's in Oklahoma.
      4. A massive explosion rocks the federal building in Oklahoma. Laws of physics state that it is physically impossible for that amount of damage to be inflicted by such a small fertilizer-bomb. Photographs of the support pillars of the building after the blast suggest that the pillars were cut and filled with C-4. Man in the White House: Bill Clinton. All evidence of wrongdoing at Waco is destroyed.

      Yes, it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but we all know that there are many truths in the statements above. George W, Sr, and Billy C are all in cahoots, and have caused considerable damage to our "liberties."

      Saddam may be too stupid to employ political intrigue, or he just doesn't care. Regardless, our leaders are just as dirty. How is all of this possible? Most normal Americans are freakin idiots.

      Posted anonymously to avoid unwanted ... attention. :-P

    71. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Luyseyal · · Score: 2

      Indeed.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    72. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by composer777 · · Score: 1

      http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/sam/sam-2-07.html

      That's part of an online book by Noam Chomsky. It's not incredibly well referenced, unlike his written works, but it has adequate references. Right now I'm reading one of his 70+ published books, "Manufacturing Consent", which is 400 pages long, with 333 pages of text and 60 pages of references. Anyway, the guy is a professor at MIT, a well known genius in the field of linguistics and computer science, but chances are you won't ever hear his opinion on the news or TV. The section that I referred you to in the online book is about the Gulf War. One question he asks is why we didn't remove him in 1990? There was an Iraqi Democratic opposition that we could have supported, so why didn't we? He answers by stating that this is what we wanted. The majority of Saddam's crimes have been done with our support. Why support him? He gives us good prices on oil, that's why. It's the same reason that we support military regimes in South America over democratic uprisings(and there have been many). We can't get shoes made for workers getting paid one cent a day if these countries form democracies and their people fight for their rights. I could look up a better answer to your question, but I would strongly suggest that you turn off your tv, avoid US media, and start looking at every dissident opinion that you can find. Among all the garbage, you will find some real scholarship (i.e. Chomsky's work), and your eyes will be opened. Use the internet, keep an open mind, be willing to do your own homework, and prepare to be surprised.

      Here are a couple more links to get started:
      http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/I raqCrisis. htm
      http://www.betterworldlinks.org/book73e.htm
      Actually that last link has quite a few references to the question you asked, I just found it, I'd suggest you look at it first. Especially this one...
      http://www.muslimedia.com/archives/feature s98/sadd am.htm

    73. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by doug363 · · Score: 2
      And guess what? Saddam simply has to let weapon inspectors into Iraq and prove that he has no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, and it all stops! Now, if you were a leader of a country such as Iraq and you genuinely wanted the best for your citizens, which would you prefer? Letting in some weapons inspectors and following UN guidelines or seeing thousands of your citizens die?

      Not only that, but sanctions against Iraq do not stop food and medical supplies. If people in Iraq aren't getting adequete food, then that is the fault of the Iraqi government, not of the US and the UN. In fact, there are UN programs in place deliberately aimed at getting food into the country (e.g. the oil for food program). The US and the UN are attempting to punish the Iraqi government without harming it's civilians. What alternative do you suggest? That everyone capitulates to mighty Saddam's will and apologizes immediately? Maybe you should stop trying to put blame on the US for something which is clearly Saddam's fault.

    74. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is probably a little late, but what the heck.

      Apparently the USA has executed more children than any other country in the world, well so says Amnesty International.

      http://web.amnesty.org/rmp/dplibrary.nsf/ff6dd72 8f 6268d0480256aab003d14a8/46e4de9db9087e358025688100 50f05f!OpenDocument

    75. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But whyever would you're post wanting us for do that if...?

    76. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by zapfie · · Score: 1

      *laughs* Nice one.

      --
      slashdot!=valid HTML
    77. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Fjord · · Score: 1

      Thanks :)

      --
      -no broken link
    78. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by GargoyleMT · · Score: 1

      So you're standing by your original point, with the additional claim that the "negative reporting" about Iraq is a lie?

      I'm not going back to basic principles just for this. I have a trust in the media (and a healthy skepticism and a drive to do my own research on the internet), and different media outlets that seem to draw from disparate sources normally all have pretty much the same thing to say about Iraq, so I give credence to it.

    79. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by blueroo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you missed the part...

      with the BOMBS. We have just as much blood on our hands as Saddam does, and we are NOT rightous.

      The day our citizens forget or deny that is the day our country becomes nothing but another imperialistic blight on the face of this planet.

    80. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Arjuna+Theban · · Score: 1

      They don't have to be compared except insofar as a people who were promised something, got nothing.

      They were promised something by people who did not have it to give. The invading armies promised them the land, and soon after that they were thrown out, hence whatever they promised is null and void.

      Since the Kurds have resided in the area from ancient times, they were and are every bit as deserving as Palestinians of self-determination. The same argument against Israel could be made against Turkey and Iraq: that they have unjustly occupied the Kurdish homeland since WW1.

      So have Turks. Turks entered Anatolia and the middle east starting in the year 1071, and have controlled at least the area currently occupied by Turkey for centuries. The fact that Kurds also live there does not matter one bit.

      If the Palestinians all wanted to be Arab Citizens of Israel, there wouldn't be a problem. But they don't. Are you suggesting that all Kurds want to be citizens of Turkey/Iraq? Are you suggesting that the break-up of the Ottoman Empire is not sufficient justification for giving all of its constituent peoples self-determination?

      Ottoman Empire didn't break up to please everyone by giving them land. Ottoman Empire was torn apart by war. And you cannot expect a single nation in the world to give up land because people ask for it. Are you siding with ETA in Spain?

      You see a vast difference between Turkey's policy on the PKK and Israel's policy on the PLO? In both instances, regular people are oppressed due to "guilt by association" whether or not they actually performed any terrorist acts. This is the crux of the issue. In both countries, the political moderates in the minority are silenced by the terrorists on the one hand and the overzealous counter-terrorists on the other.

      I am Turkish, so you are free to believe that my opinion is biased (even though I do not live in Turkey or agree with many political issues that are going on there) but I have seen a lot over the many years I've been watching the situation. While the policies against PLO and PKK might be similar (PLO has a lot more of a political movement behind it) the treatment of innocent Palestinians and innocent Kurds have nothing in common. Israel moves its tanks in and kills women and kids. While I believe you in the guilty by association issue and I agree that there were civilian casualties in the war against PKK, a systematic eradication of Kurds never took place, and even if this was Turkey's intention, this could not have taken place, given the immense amount of Kurds that live in Turkey. Such a violent and unjustified movement by Turkey would immediately bring the country to civil war.

      In the last 20 years? Bombing, burning, and otherwise destroying thousands of Kurdish villages, in some cases killing the inhabitants directly, but in most cases, allowing death to happen of its own accord (as happens among the homeless).

      Do you have any justification to your claims, or are you telling me what you have heard in the past years from the western press (whose governments actually used to supply the PKK with weapons and military training)?

    81. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by composer777 · · Score: 1

      You're welcome. I'm sorry if I sounded condescending when I recommend that you turn off your tv and do some research. It wasn't until I went to the link in your sig that I realized that I was at least in part preaching to the choir. I hope the links were helpful.

    82. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by Fjord · · Score: 1

      S'all good, I didn't take it personally since I agreed with most of the advice :). The links will be helpful in my next rant (only looked at the first, I'm at work). It took a while to find the info for the one linked to in my sig, and while I don't mind doing the research, it's always nicer to have some starting points.

      --
      -no broken link
    83. Re:All Saddam's email are belong to us! by composer777 · · Score: 1

      Well, it sounds like you're interested. I'd highly recommend that you check out the 'contents' section of that first link. It's quite a long read, in fact, it's a small book, but very informative. If you think what we've done in the Middle East is bad, you might be interested in some of the shit that we've done in South America. In fact, I think that South America is very much a "terrorist" threat, and sadly enough, we'll have it coming.

      Here's a choice quote:
      The methods are not very pretty. What the US-run contra forces did in Nicaragua, or what our terrorist proxies do in El Salvador or Guatemala, isn't only ordinary killing. A major element is brutal, sadistic torture -- beating infants against rocks, hanging women by their feet with their breasts cut off and the skin of their face peeled back so that they'll bleed to death, chopping people's heads off and putting them on stakes. The point is to crush independent nationalism and popular forces that might bring about meaningful democracy.

      End of Quote.

      I actually have a friend that taught school down in Columbia for 2 years, and told me about the US funded mercenary armies and the brutality they inflicted on the people of Columbia. Of course, here in the news, when we manage to overthrow a democracy, we never mention the fact that we were involved. No, instead we call it a military coup. Where do you think they got the weapons from? The last time I checked these places weren't exactly industrialized. Why overthrow their government? We overthrow governments when they don't give the kind of "free" trade agreements that we want. We give them an offer that they can't refuse, literally..

      Anyway, you can check out Chomsky's book on 9-11, titled, of course "9-11". Another guy I suggest reading is Michael Moore, who is more satirical. He recently wrote the book "Stupid White Men", and also check out "The Best Democracy Money
      Can Buy" by investigative journalist Greg Palast. Michael Moore's website is at http://www.michaelmoore.com. I don't agree with Moore's stances on gun control, I think the violence in our country is due to a long standing campaign of fear that has been perpetrated on us by our government, and is also due to vast differences in income, as well as repression. But, I do agree with the rest of Moore's political idealogy.

  8. Password? in english? by Jonny+Balls · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't you think his password wouldn't be in ENGLISH?

    --
    --JonnyBlog
    1. Re:Password? in english? by dr_dank · · Score: 4, Funny

      C'mon, don't let facts get in the way of a good story.

      Remember our friend from last year?

      Now if you'll excuse me, I'm gonna play some Doom 3.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    2. Re:Password? in english? by vee-dub.net · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmmmmm.....

      [me@myhost me]$ telnet mail.uruklink.net 110
      Trying 62.32.60.16...
      Connected to mail.uruklink.net.
      Escape character is '^]'.
      +OK X1 NT-POP3 Server mail.uruklink.net (IMail 7.07 39961-78)
      user press
      +OK send your password
      pass press
      -ERR Invalid userid/password
      quit
      +OK POP3 Server saying Good-Bye
      Connection closed by foreign host.
      [me@myhost me]$

      Bummer.

    3. Re:Password? in english? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, quite possibly it would be in english, or at least english characters. Anybody know whether "Iraqi" is a supported language set (keyboard+OS)?

    4. Re:Password? in english? by babbage · · Score: 4, Insightful
      What, so "press" is the Arabic word for a journalistic contact address now? What a cognate!!

      You make a valid point, but English does seem to be the lingua franca of the interweb, even (apparently) among contries at the "axes of evil". The site seems to largely be in English, so the people running it presumably are English speakers as well. I can say, just from some of the foreign-born students I've known, that people that learn a technical subject in a particular language will tend to think in that language when practicing the craft, even if otherwise they speak something else. (For example, a Russian friend who studied aeronautical engineering as his father did, but couldn't discuss the subject with his dad because he only knew the English terms for everything & didn't know how to express the same concepts in his native language.)

      So, like I say, I think your point is insightful, but at the same time I don't think it's unreasonable that the un/pw would have been English terms if the rest of the site was also English (as, from the little I poked around, it seems to be).

    5. Re:Password? in english? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Try this instead http://mail.uruklink.net:8383/login.cgi I haven't figured out the login/password yet. The ones I've tried so far are
      • press
      • allah
      • email
      • imail
      • admin
      • fresh
      • iraqi
      • 12345
      • 54321
    6. Re:Password? in english? by Atryn · · Score: 1

      I assumed "press" was short for "Pres. S." As in "President Saddam"... hehe.

      --
      Come play Moral Decay!
    7. Re:Password? in english? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      even (apparently) among contries at the "axes of evil".

      You must be referring to the foul witches Abscissa and Mantissa.

    8. Re:Password? in english? by sfe_software · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, I kinda assumed that the press@ address is, most likely, an alias that points to a similar Arabic-worded address. I could see that easily. If you have visitors from English-speaking countries, you'd have an English contact address (just like how they have an English version of the site).

      If the site weren't slashdotted I'd try to find the corresponding "Contact" link on the Arabic version, to verify this...

      The article didn't say that the username/password was a 5-letter *English* word -- just that it was 5 letters. That "press" happens to also be 5 letters is probably just coincidence, as if it were press/press I'm sure it would have been hacked a long, long time ago...

      --
      NGWave - Fast Sound Editor for Windows
    9. Re:Password? in english? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      not the following either...
      • cocks
      • sucks
    10. Re:Password? in english? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do Not Click that link!!!!

      It is much worse then any goatse.cx link.

      It leads to a Katz story.

      Mod down, for humanities sake.

    11. Re:Password? in english? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Reset his server with this? rset Reset the POP3 Server from http://www.thedumbterminal.co.uk/information/pop3_ commands.html

      Tried it with telnet, it replied OK, so what would resetting it do?

  9. WMD by po8 · · Score: 3, Informative

    WMD = Weapon of Mass Destruction. Not obvious, IMHO.

    1. Re:WMD by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 2

      Thanks. In all seriousness I thought it was some type of spam and I was trying to figure it out. The best I could come up with was Wonderous Money Deal.

    2. Re:WMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IMHO = In My Honest/Humble Opinion.

      For those of you who are still behind on your TLAs and such.

    3. Re:WMD by Rainier+Wolfecastle · · Score: 1

      Actually, after hearing the phrase "Weapons of Mass Destruction" over and over and over again over the past couple months, I think that it should be immediately obvious by now.

    4. Re:WMD by Pike65 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh OK.

      . . . . How exactly do you send someone an e-mail trying to sell them a weapon of mass distruction?

      Sadam,
      You have been approved.
      You can receive a thermo-nuclear warhead!
      Did You Know?
      -There are No special requirements to obtain these weapons.
      -These are weapons that you NEVER have to repay!

      Sadam,You Qualify!
      Click Here
      Limited Time Offer!

      --
      "If being a geek means being passionate about something, then I pity those who aren't geeks." - Pike65
    5. Re:WMD by CodeJudge · · Score: 2, Funny

      Heh, or as political satirist Mark Russell said last week:

      "The notion of inspection looking for WMDs is ludicrous. The United States knows *exactly* what WMDs Iraq has: we still have the receipts!"

      bah-dum bum

    6. Re:WMD by Capt.+DrunkenBum · · Score: 1

      I say if Saddam wants WMB as much as CNN says he does, then maybe someone should send him some.. I am sure there are lots of countrys that could spair 1 or 2, for such a worthy cause.

      --

      Not everyone deserves a 320i

    7. Re:WMD by bout_time · · Score: 1

      Phew! For a minute I thought someone had compiled ffmpeg's free Windows Media Decoder and was trying to make a quick buck.

      http://cvs.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/f fm peg/ffmpeg/libavcodec/wmadec.c

    8. Re:WMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, but what does TLA stand for? (I can guess the A is acronym...)

    9. Re:WMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saddam uses Windows Media Destroyer? Infidel.

    10. Re:WMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as soon as that check clears. We're taking it all back.

  10. I wonder.... by JoeLinux · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmm...this would make for a good fark contest: Make a email that might be in Saddam's inbox.

    To: Madmn@aol.com
    From: GWBush@whitehouse.gov

    Subject: Hahahahaha

    Prepare your Camels, 'cause we're about to get medeviel on your scud-launching ass. And if you use Bio weapons, you won't stop glowing for a LONG time. And don't think you can bankrupt us. We use weapons on you, we order more, our side gets more jobs. So let us in, or we'll come down on you like the hand of god.

    Party on,

    GWB

    1. Re:I wonder.... by Malcontent · · Score: 5, Funny

      If it mentioned oil I could have sworn dubya himself wrote that email. Grammer mistakes and all.

      --

      War is necrophilia.

    2. Re:I wonder.... by JoeLinux · · Score: 3, Funny

      To: Madmn@aol.com
      From: GWBush@whitehouse.gov

      Subject: Re: Hahahahaha

      Forgot to add: If you are going to send the big bad Republican Guard after us, please be sure to equip them with white flags and THEIR own hand restraints. It was quite annoying last time to have to resort to plastic ties.

      Oh, oh, and please pass out white flags. We'd hate to accidently kill one of the many thousands trying to surrender.

      And once again, use bio weapons on us, and we'll do something truly evil back: Feed your people. Including the Kurds.

      We have food
      Are you afraid?
      Down with Iraq
      Down with Iraq

      GWB.

    3. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      G-R-A-M-M-A-R. I'd bet "dubya" could spell it correctly.

    4. Re:I wonder.... by sql*kitten · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Party on

      You know, I can't help but thinking that in another time and another place, Saddam and Dubya would have been good buddies, probably frat brothers. They both have an insatiable appetite for the good life, they both make all their money from oil, they both affect a religious piety when it suits them, they both love to be a "man of the people". This isn't as unlikely as it sounds, George Bush junior once owned a company (Arbusto Energy) jointly with one of Osama bin Laden's many brothers.

      What the world really needs is for one of Dubya's daughters (not Jenna, the other one) and one of Saddam's sons to fall in love. Then, after many Baz Luhrmann-esque antics their fathers can be reconciled, and live happily ever after on a ranch in the sovereign state of Texraq.

    5. Re:I wonder.... by _ph1ux_ · · Score: 2

      kinda like how austin powers and doctor evil went to school together?

    6. Re:I wonder.... by babbage · · Score: 3, Funny

      An obvious forgery, there aren't nearly enough typos, grammatical errors, garbled logic, etc. It is well known that the real GWB write at a 2nd grade level, but this is solid 5th grade stuff. Nice try... :-)

    7. Re:I wonder.... by babbage · · Score: 2, Funny
      It is well known that the real GWB write at a 2nd grade level, but this is solid

      Err, "writes".

      And it's also well known that people against the Bush regime have their own well documented problems with getting straight A's in grammar too :-)

    8. Re:I wonder.... by dew · · Score: 2

      I think you forget that Bush's parents and Osama's parents sat on the same board at the Carlyle Group. Interconnections may be tighter than you think.

      --

      David E. Weekly
      Code / Think / Teach / Learn
      h4x0r for

    9. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be because it makes fun of our idiot president. Apparently, you're about the only person on the planet stupider than he is.

    10. Re:I wonder.... by Happy+go+Lucky · · Score: 1
      I guess this is where we insert lines about the Statue of Liberty shaking her fist and it'll feel like the whole world coming down on him courtesy of the Red, White, and Blue?

      Oh, wait, that song is mean and insensitive. How could Toby Keith dare write something so offensive to the oh-so-compassionate Eurotrash? Next I suppose Hank Junior and Chad Brock will collaborate on something! (Oh, wait, they already did. )

    11. Re:I wonder.... by mikerich · · Score: 5, Funny
      kinda like how austin powers and doctor evil went to school together?

      With Tony Blair co-starring as Mini Me?

      My god it's all starting to make sense!

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    12. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently, you're about the only person on the planet stupider than he is.

      "Stupider" is not a word. You should have used "more stupid" instead.

    13. Re:I wonder.... by spakka · · Score: 1
      That would be because it makes fun of our idiot president.

      I thought so for a moment. But he follows up his own post with more gleeful posturing.

      Apparently, you're about the only person on the planet stupider than he is.

      That, too, is a possibility.

    14. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That, too, is a possibility.
      Oh, I'd say it's more than a possibility. Read your comment list, which includes gems such as this.

      No question, you're a buffoon, alright!

    15. Re:I wonder.... by spakka · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      OK. So you're a ginger, American anonymous coward, who thinks that 'stupider' and 'alright' are words. You certainly are a force to be reckoned with.

    16. Re:I wonder.... by grammar+fascist · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I think you both forget that Osama's entire family has disowned him.

      Gotta love guilt by association.

      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    17. Re:I wonder.... by alcmena · · Score: 2

      With Tony Blair co-starring as Mini Me?

      It makes more sense with Tony Blair co-starring as Number 2 seeing as how he's GW's lap dog.

    18. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      G-R-A-M-M-A-R. I'd bet "dubya" could spell it correctly.

      Uhh... I'd take that bet

    19. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would George Bush want to e-mail himself?

    20. Re:I wonder.... by Zigg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      George Bush junior once owned a company (Arbusto Energy) jointly with one of Osama bin Laden's many brothers.

      As damning as this may sound, it should be remembered that Osama is the black sheep of the family.

    21. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mentions spellings mistake.

    22. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is the original AC who pointed out what a fucking idiot you are. The other post was a different AC who also managed to figure out that you're a mentally incompetent twat. Of course, the only way you could make your idiocy more obvious is with a ten-story neon sign.

      Remember, chlorinating the gene pool is everyone's responsibility. Kill yourself today.

    23. Re:I wonder.... by spakka · · Score: 1, Redundant
      Actually, this is the original AC who pointed out what a fucking idiot you are. The other post was a different AC

      Of course it was.

      Remember, chlorinating the gene pool is everyone's responsibility. Kill yourself today.

      Funny and original. That took you two hours?

      Bored now. Keep crying about your towers, ginger. I'm moving on. Feel free to respond with your lame last word. You or 'the other AC'.

    24. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That cant be a real GWB email - it contains a four-syllable word (even if spelt wrongly).

    25. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about another AC.

      You're a stupid head.

      WTF are we trolling about?

    26. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tony Blair was Bill Clinton's butt buddy.

      It's clear that he's anybody's whore.

    27. Re:I wonder.... by Wolfier · · Score: 2

      Weren't it for the Dubya connection, do you honestly think they would even read that aloud "osama is the black sheep"?

    28. Re:I wonder.... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

      "George Bush junior once owned a company (Arbusto Energy) jointly with one of Osama bin Laden's many brothers."

      Is Kevin Bacon also involved?

    29. Re:I wonder.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Set the From line as..

      From: GWBush@whitehouse.com

      and see what the reaction is!! ;)

    30. Re:I wonder.... by santeri · · Score: 1
      I think you both forget that Osama's entire family has disowned him.

      That still doesn't erase the fact that the Republican governments of Reagan & Bush senior effectively made him what he is today. Just like they did in their infinitive wisdom with Hussein and Pinochet.

      Kinda ironic.

      --
      ______________
      OTTERS RULE.
    31. Re:I wonder.... by Zigg · · Score: 2

      Put down the tinfoil hat, eh?

  11. CONFIDENTIAL PURPOSE by limekiller4 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yes, but did he get any business propositions from Nigeria.

    That's what I want to know.

    --
    My .02,
    Limekiller
  12. Scary by andyring · · Score: 0, Troll
    If this is indeed legit, it's scary. Granted, I know there is a lot of pro-Iraq/anti-American sentiment in the world today, particularly in Europe (why, I'll never understand, thank God I'm an American an damn proud of it), but this genuinely looks like aiding and abeting the enemy with some of the messages people have sent him. If I hadn't been medically discharged from the Navy a few years back, I would be proud to help in military action, should it be necessary.

    The thing that the world can't seem to get through it's thich ignorant skull is that, contrary to popular belief, President Bush IS NOT itching at the trigger to go in, in fact the administration has made it abundantly clear that not only is military action a last result, the prime goal is to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, not to simply go in and blow things up for fun. My heart goes out to the Iraqi people for the near-genocide they endure on a daily basis.

    Agree or disagree politically with my views, don't mod me down for a difference of opinion.

    1. Re:Scary by Iamthefallen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Contrary to popular american beliefs, Europe is NOT pro-Iraq, we're just not as keen on resorting to force nowadays since we saw the result of it at home.
      The US hasn't in modern times seen widespread destruction on home turf, we still remember it vividly.

      If the US could prove to European leaders (and European population) that Iraq is indeed the threat the US makes it out to be, then I'm sure European nations would also support military action and possibly be a part of it, as most have stated, they want a UN mandate first. But, the "He dun tried to kill mah paw" argument isn't that convincing on the European side of the pond.

      --
      Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    2. Re:Scary by pubjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Contrary to popular american beliefs, Europe is NOT pro-Iraq, we're just not as keen on resorting to force nowadays since we saw the result of it at home.

      Hey guys, just to make the argument clearer could you please make a distinction between Saddam and his cronies and the people/country of Iraq. I'm sure many Europeans (and hopefully Americans) would consider themselves pro-Iraq if we are talking about the country and people, but anti-Iraq if we are talking about Saddam and his cronies.

    3. Re:Scary by Iamthefallen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Ah good point, but IF military action is taken, it's not enough to simply remove saddam, the entire government employed staff needs to be looked at, every cache of arms that could pose a threat be destroyed, a new system of government needs to be made, new police, new army etc etc etc. Basically, little will remain of the old Iraq except for the people and the borders. Therefore it will be a war on the nation, not against a person.

      IF action is taken, it must be such that no one will have to go back and redo it again 10 years from now.

      --
      Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    4. Re:Scary by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      We are however anti-american, or is that just about everyone except Americans? anyone from canada care to comment?

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    5. Re:Scary by TheCaptain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Contrary to popular american beliefs, Europe is NOT pro-Iraq, we're just not as keen on resorting to force nowadays since we saw the result of it at home.


      I would have hoped you also saw the result of NOT using force when it should have been...like keeping Hitler from rearming after WWI.

      I am not trying to be a troll or leave the wrong impression, but Saddam and his crew are not the types you want to have that kinda stuff. The U.N. knows it and made resolutions to prevent it...unfortunately, none of them are being enforced.

      There were agreements made to stop the last war...like weapons inspectors that wouldn't be interferred with etc. Saddam isn't abiding by his side of the deal, so the other side isn't bound to the ceasefire either. This has very little to do with GWB wanting to kill him because of his father...and that is a really really lame accusation, IMHO.

    6. Re:Scary by oliverthered · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The UK had concentrations camps long before Hitler did.

      Hitler wiped out most gypsies and a few Jews along the way. What do you normally hear about?

      Come-one Eugenics was praticed in Europe Years after the fall of Hitler.

      I'm not saing Hitler was that nice, I'm just saying you shouldn't be so anal when Bush has his finger on the button.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    7. Re:Scary by AftanGustur · · Score: 2


      Hey guys, just to make the argument clearer could you please make a distinction between Saddam and his cronies and the people/country of Iraq.

      Good point, but the problem is also (as the first poster pointed out), that there is little or no evidence against Saddam. Heck, there is more evidence of use of illegal chemicals, against the Russians now after the hostage-massacre last weekend. And Will mr Bush go against the Russians ?

      It's also suspicious that the US has prevented the weapons inspectors from going to Iraq, and is shouting for a new UN mandate that allows it to attack Iraq.

      What is also strange is that on the time that has passed since the weapons inspectors were ready to go to Iraq (and the Iraqis ready to accept them). They could have gone to Iraq, be obstructed (if what the US says is true) and we would have a UN resolution calling for a attack of Iraq.

      It's clear that there is some second motive for the US to attack Iraq.

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    8. Re:Scary by psyclepath · · Score: 1

      You might want to check this out if you need evidence... Human Rights Alliance

    9. Re:Scary by LtOcelot · · Score: 1

      I would have hoped you also saw the result of NOT using force when it should have been...like keeping Hitler from rearming after WWI.

      Hitler, of course, was not in power immediately after WWI, and might not have had the platform to get there if the Treaty of Versailles hadn't been dedicated to getting revenge against his country.

      Should force have been used when he did come to power? Probably -- but if that hypothetical war had resolved itself like the previous one, it would've just set up the same scenario all over again. When followed up by bad policy in handling the defeated nation, war ends up being worse than useless.

      (The applicability of this to current events is left as an exercise for the reader.)

    10. Re:Scary by mikeee · · Score: 2

      So, if a foreign leader order the assassination of US citizens (never mind that it was an ex-President), we should laugh it off as No Biggie?

      Frankly, that's Causus Belli on its own, if you ask me.

    11. Re:Scary by dehex · · Score: 1

      > anyone from canada care to comment?

      Yes, I will.

      I'm very tired of George W. and his determination to finish off what his father couldn't accomplish. Sure, Saddam should be shot, but let the people of Iraq do it, not a foreign government. If US decides to go to war and go after Saddam, who really suffers?

      It will be the common person of Iraq!!! Not Saddam. Saddam will gain more power and it will create more anti-american opinions in that part of the world. And therefore, more funding for terrorism.

      WTC should be awake up call!!!

      US needs to take a step back from world politics and let the UN do what it is designed to do. There are many nations with thousands of years more history than the US and the US should listen to them before speaking.

      Peace!!!

      --
      Opensource=Openmind=Freedom
    12. Re:Scary by phorm · · Score: 2

      It's clear that there is some second motive for the US to attack Iraq.

      Whilst government is at war, people may then focus on the war instead of the problems within their own country. War also tends to stimulate production and to a certain extent employment in particular areas of the economy.

    13. Re:Scary by mark-t · · Score: 2



      It's clear that there is some second motive for the US to attack Iraq.



      No, DUH!


      One word sums it up: OIL

    14. Re:Scary by blueroo · · Score: 1

      Poor Europe. No wonder they think we're nuts.

      First the US gives Iraq $8 billion and shiny new Weapons. Then Iraq uses them to wage war. Then the US decides it has to wage war against Iraq.

    15. Re:Scary by uberbrownout · · Score: 1

      I'd also like everyone to make a distinction between GWB and his cronies and the people/country of the USA. I'm sure a lot of the yahoos that voted for them in the first place are all in favor of any excuse to blow stuff up, but there are plenty of Americans who don't want to start poking at beehives any more than the rest of the world.

    16. Re:Scary by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 2

      Saddam isn't abiding by his side of the deal, so the other side isn't bound to the ceasefire either.

      It seems to me that all that GWB needs to do is say simply "Iraq hasn't lived up to the conditions of the ceasefile; therefore, the ceasefire is hereby dissolved and the hot war is back on." Poof.

    17. Re:Scary by Ptolemarch · · Score: 1
      Hitler, of course, was not in power immediately after WWI, and might not have had the platform to get there if the Treaty of Versailles hadn't been dedicated to getting revenge against his country.

      I think you're probably right. But you forget at whose insistence the punitive treaty came: The French and the British. Who, by the way, partitioned the middle east between them, setting the stage for all sorts of fun stuff to come.

      Sorry, no moral high ground there.

    18. Re:Scary by bill_guts · · Score: 1

      There were agreements made to stop the last war...like weapons inspectors that wouldn't be interferred with etc. Saddam isn't abiding by his side of the deal

      the US interferred with the inspections and pulled the inspectors out (so that they could resume bombing), not Iraq. US & UK are currently bombing Iraq in no-fly zones which are not part of any UN agreement...btw how did Iraq get all those WMDs? from the US. so why aren't americans holding politicians accountable, some of them are currently in office (i.e. Cheney, Rumsfield (sp?))...

      --


    19. Re:Scary by Theodore+Logan · · Score: 2

      Don't be ridiculous. This war has nothing to do with WMDs or UN resolutions and everything to do with oil. Case in point: Israel has been ignoring UN resolutions for thirty years and have had WMDs for as long. And what does the US do? It supports them. Also, please note that the UN is against an attack on Iraq. How do you reconcile that fact with your "the UN knows this"-rhetoric? Bringing up Hitler and WWII is also really quite disingenious, as it's not like the reasons the US joined the war at all was as noble as you seem to think. Must... not... bite...

      I could go on and on, but what's the point? Anyone who hasn't already understood what this war will be fought for will never.

      --

      "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok

    20. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would have hoped you also saw the result of NOT using force when it should have been...like keeping Hitler from rearming after WWI.

      No, we did learn the lesson from Hitler, not before.
      Hitler's rearming was a good thing for many countries because they were the only force capable of kicking some russian butt (but I assume that you don't have the historical background to understand what happens in here)

    21. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So, if a foreign leader order the assassination of US citizens (never mind that it was an ex-President), we should laugh it off as No Biggie?


      Yeah, that logic worked so well in 1914, didn't it?

    22. Re:Scary by Anonamused+Cow-herd · · Score: 1

      "There were agreements made to stop the last war...like weapons inspectors that wouldn't be interferred with etc. Saddam isn't abiding by his side of the deal, so the other side isn't bound to the ceasefire either. "

      Be that as it may, this does not mean that there is any necessity to attack Iraq. The question in Iraq is not "why are we going to attack Iraq?" Instead, it is "Why are we going to attack NOW?" We have known for decades that Saddam was a problem, and we helped create his regime by providing him with weapons (during the war with Iran).

      The problem is one of motivation. I think the common rationale is that "he has weapons of mass destruction and they could be used to kill Americans." This is ridiculous -- there are countless other nations that also have weapons of mass destruction that are probably building animosities towards the United States BECAUSE of action against Iraq, and this threat is probably much more substantial than Iraq itself. If we are going to attack Iraq, then why would we not attack a country like India?

      India developed nuclear weapons (I'm pretty sure those are weapons of mass destruction =P) despite various UN non-proliferation agreements. This, as you point out, 'entitles' us to attack India. However, we did not, because India was not perceived as a threat to the United States. When Pakistan subsequently developed nuclear capability (again outside of UN regulations), no action was taken. By any line of logic, I would say that a nuclear war between mortal enemies Pakistan and India would draw the United States' military attention, and I would venture a guess that such a mobilization would be far more dangerous to Americans than an attack on Iraq, which has no nuclear capability, nor any proven weapons of mass destruction.

      So why would we go to war with Iraq? Is it because of Weapons of Mass Destruction? Nope -- or else India/Pakistan would be glazed radiation fields. Is it pre-emptive strikes against an obviously aggressive nation (which have been, historically, disastrous by the by)? No way -- or else we would have stepped into tons of other conflicts. What, then, remains? You said:

      This has very little to do with GWB wanting to kill him because of his father...and that is a really really lame accusation, IMHO.

      It is good to have your opinion, but it is just that: opinion. Evidence seems to lend itself to the contrary. In an address given at a Houston GOP fundraiser, Bush said of Saddam: "Remember, this is the guy that tried to kill my dad." Now, we know that this isn't from the pens of his speechwriters. They aren't that phenomenally dumb. It is Bush's core, his instinct, his true motivation. Other motivations could be political, p-oil-itical, chest-thumping-gorilla-dominance-rituals, or a continuation of the Domino Theory applied in reverse: once a country like the US starts spreading democracy, it won't stop eliminating dissenters until the entire world is under democratic thrall. But I still think that the personal "he tried to kill muh daddy" claim is Bush's main motivation, though not the primary motivation of his political cohorts.

      In sum, you have your humble opinion, and I hope you see the logic of my NSHBQ (not so humble but qualified) opinion.

      Cheers,

      --
      -----[0_o]-----
      We are not amused.
    23. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We are however anti-american, or is that just about everyone except Americans?
      Im American, and I agree with alot of the "anti-american" posts here. So if thats what you consider anti-american, then I guess I am as well.
    24. Re:Scary by superyooser · · Score: 2
      the problem is also, that there is little or no evidence against Saddam.

      Little evidence??? I've never seen such willful blindness. I don't know if it's worth my time to counter this. How have you missed all of Bush's speeches, Blair's dossier of declassified intelligence, the numerous denunciations of Saddam by the U.N., and lots of other information coming out from nations around the world? When evidence against Saddam is presented to you guys, it's like putting an eye chart in front of a pack of moles.

      Look, Saddam murders his own family members to prove his ruthlessness to potential dissendents. A close advisor once joked to Saddam that he step down from the "presidency." No smiles from Saddam. That guy's gone. And his family.

      Saddam's goal is to be worshipped by his subjects. (Yes, subjects, not citizens.) The latest election is proof of this. Some voters pricked their fingers to mark their selection with blood. (In Old Testament-based religion, the shedding of blood signifies the making of a covenant.) He commands an awful lot of power. Saddam even manipulates the U.S. media. Btw, can anybody provide a link to a transcript or summary of any of the Iraqi election debates? I somehow missed them.

      There's been lots of news that Saddam is linked to bin Laden and Palestinian terrorists. These guys are a threat to everybody. It is their explicitly stated goal to destroy the United States. As far as they're concerned, a country either converts to their religion or is targeted for destruction. They call us the Great Satan. They want to kill us. There's absolutely no question about it. What part of "We will kill you!" don't you understand?

      Maybe pictures will convince you.

      Or a video:
      Broadband
      56K
      28K

    25. Re:Scary by seriousness · · Score: 0

      I would have hoped you also saw the result of NOT using force when it should have been...like keeping Hitler from rearming after WWI.

      i'm not sure if you realise, but Hitler didn't rearm - he was just a simple soilder in WWI. WWII began because of the overly repressive treaties forced upon Germany - the weak governmental system required destroyed any sense of unity, and this allowed hitler to gain power. it's not a case of using force or not using force - in fact, this is an example of using [diplomatic] force far too much.

      Saddam isn't abiding by his side of the deal

      oh really? (well, to be sure, he probably isn't, but declaring war on someone when they agree to your demands dosen't display any kind of will to prevent war...)

      This has very little to do with GWB wanting to kill him because of his father...and that is a really really lame accusation, IMHO.

      have you seen the footage from the interview where bush actually says (as good as my memory serves) "this is the guy who tried to get my dad" (or something to that effect.) if that's not clear enough, i don't know what is. really really lame? riiiiiight.

    26. Re:Scary by Effexor · · Score: 1

      Not sure I would count an organization which calls itself the Human Rights Alliance which apparently is only concerned with Human rights abuses in Iraq by Iraq, as 'evidence'. That is the only country in the world which the site mentions. Which is not to say that all the details listed may not be accurate. I just have a disliking for organizations which are clearly sponsering a political viewpoint giving themselves names which imply that they are more than a single issue organ. And hell they forgot to mention the incubator babies. What about those poor babies?

      --

      As the air to a bird or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible -W.B.

    27. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's American and then there's AMERICAN. I think you fall into the first group.

    28. Re:Scary by GlassHeart · · Score: 2
      So, if a foreign leader order the assassination of US citizens (never mind that it was an ex-President), we should laugh it off as No Biggie?

      The CIA used to do this regularly, until it was banned by President Ford in 1976. After September 11, President Bush signed an intelligence "finding" instructing the CIA to engage in "lethal covert operations" to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization.

      Let me separate the two very carefully. I think that assassination is murder. It deprives an accused person of the human right to due process. However, relative to starting a war - which can kill tens of thousands - yes, it's closer to "no biggie" than it is to "casus belli".

    29. Re:Scary by roboneal · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, through world diplomatic pressure we +halted+ the Persian Gulf War on a litany of conditions which Iraq agreed to in writing.

      Only a fool could argue that ANY of the conditions have been met. Thus, this is not a new war, but simply a re-instatement of the first.

      Oh by the way, it is about OIL. Always has been and always will. Less to do about Iraqi oil and more about Iraqi threats, conventional and unconvential, against the entire Middle Eastern oil supply.

      Tree hugging philosophy aside, it is in America's vital national interest to insure the free flow of oil out of the Middle East.

      It would be hard to drive your Land Rover to the peace protest when gas hits $10.00 gallon because Saddam decided to detonate a dirty bomb over Kuwati oil fields.

    30. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      huh?

    31. Re:Scary by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

      I would have hoped you also saw the result of NOT using force when it should have been...like keeping Hitler from rearming after WWI.

      Of course, Hitler didn't do it alone. He had help. Lots of help.

      Hindsight may be 20/20, but this is a lesson the American aristocracy can't seem to learn - realpolitik is a great way to create trouble down the road.* I fear Dubya and his grand viziers are going down this road again to take care of problems left by previous administrations, although one current Administration member was directly involved in creating the current problem.

      It is hypocrises such as this that cast great doubt upon the current intentions of the US government, and why so many people distrust the rhetoric coming out of Washington these days.

      * More frightening is that a few powerful American industrialists and entrepeneurs sympathized with Hitler - Hearst and Ford among them. That goes beyond realpolitik, which I don't think had been coined at that point; powerful people made money off Hitler's aggression and slaughter of Jews, Romani, communists, homosexuals, etc., and still benefit from it today.

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    32. Re:Scary by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

      There's been lots of news that Saddam is linked to bin Laden and Palestinian terrorists.

      We know envoys from Saddam have given money to the families of dead Palestinians, with more money going to suicide bombers. However, the bin Laden connection is very tenuous; the Czech government disputes claims of a meeting between Mohammed Atta and an Iraqi agent, and from what I understand, any al Qaeda camps in Iraq are in the northern region... under Kurdish control.

      Bizarrely, the one potential smoking gun connecting Iraqis to attacks against US citizens isn't being hauled out. Strange, that.

      --

      Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
    33. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly do pictures of lynchings in Palestine have to do with Iraq? You *DO* realize that the middle east isn't just one big country, right? If not, what exactly is the point of such pictures? I don't have bandwidth for the videos, but are they of something in a country which isn't Iraq as well?

      Moving up the list, My uncle has three toes. No he doesn't, but even if he did, my anecdote alone wouldn't be evidence of that. With all due respect, I'm going to need a source a little more reliable than you(and you are orders of magnitude more trustworthy than GWB or Blair, GWBs single supporter) before I believe that he murdered his family, or some unnamed advisor(and his family).
      The US often threatens to go to war with Iraq, and it's obvious that citizens are often making death threats to saddam or his people(or was that just a special "only dictators named saddam" nuke?). You call them part of an "axis of evil". Propoganda is ev erywhere, and the US and Iraq are both having a lot of fun tossing mud at each other.

      That's not to say I haven't seen evidence. I have. I just don't know what to make of the evidence I've seen from Iraq yet.

    34. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lynchings in Palestine have to to with Iraq and Iran in the same way that Israel has to do with Brooklyn and Russia; they all have large populations of people who have the same religion, thus they must be all one monolithic entity and blanket generalizations are perfectly appropriate, according to the person you replied to.

      Muslims are all raving fanatics who hate Americans and Jews without question, according to the person you replied to. By that logic, Jews are all Arab-hating expansionists who will do anything for Israel.

      What? That's wrong?

      Then it's wrong to make similar generalizations about Arabs and Muslims.

    35. Re:Scary by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      I am not trying to be a troll or leave the wrong impression, but Saddam and his crew are not the types you want to have that kinda stuff.

      Yes, nukes should only be in the hands of responsible types like China, Russia, and the US.

      I'm sure you already have a bad enough opinion of China and Russia, thanks to US media, but let's take a brief look at the US: only country ever to actually nuke another. Did said nuking *not* at a linchpin point in the war *or* in a tactical manner, but against an entire city to "reduce US casualties" after the war was essentially won. You can draw your own conclusions as to whether the US just wanted to flex those new muscles we'd spent huge sums of money developing...

      US...leading developer of chemical (and up until two decades ago) a leading developer of bioweapons. Largest single source of arms floating around the world. I *think* (although this is pulled out of my ass) that the US has been in conflicts with more countries than any other single country over the last century.

      Now, that doesn't mean I think Saddam should get nukes. I can't imagine very many organizations that I'd remotely trust with them -- perhaps the United Nations as a whole. But is the US likely to use them "responsibly" either? The most responsible thing you can do with nukes is *not use them*, and we've already failed that test...

    36. Re:Scary by AftanGustur · · Score: 2


      I think you're joking, realy !!

      But since I see no smileys in your comment, I'l reply (and hope you're not a troll).

      How have you missed all of Bush's speeches, Blair's dossier of declassified intelligence, the numerous denunciations of Saddam by the U.N., and lots of other information coming out from nations around the world?

      First of all, the Blair UK report was a joke (Yes, I read it). It presented no evidence at all, only specualtions that "Sadam might be trying to increase the range of the "Hussein" missiles further than he is allowed to. (Yes the guy is allowed to have weapons and even short-range missiles).
      It also speculated, get this, that "Iraq could make a nuclear bomb within a few years if they got the nessecary materials (plutonium etc ..)

      Look, Saddam murders his own family members to prove his ruthlessness to potential dissendents.

      His "family members" had fled the country and committed treason, stolen classified state secrets and worked with the enemy. The USA has also killed it's own citisens for the same reasons. So it's not exactly a proof of anything.

      The rest of your comment is just plain propaganda.. For example you don't have a "proof of his intentions" because some people put blood on the election ballots ?

      I'l stop here, there realy is no logic in the rest of your comment and people might start to think I'm a Saddam supporter.

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    37. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The babies were a story made up by PR firm Hill and Knowlton. The "nurse" who told the story to a committee, which it turns out wasn't an official congressional committee, was in fact the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the US.

    38. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be hard to drive your Land Rover to the peace protest when gas hits $10.00 gallon because Saddam decided to detonate a dirty bomb over Kuwati oil fields.

      Gee, maybe we'll do what most protesters already do then - ride bikes, walk, or use public transit.

    39. Re:Scary by Effexor · · Score: 1

      Sorry, forgot to indicate the *sarcasm*

      --

      As the air to a bird or the sea to a fish, so is contempt to the contemptible -W.B.

    40. Re:Scary by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

      I'm sure you already have a bad enough opinion of China and Russia, thanks to US media

      Ok...that right there is nothing more than putting words in my mouth to make it easier for you to lump me into a group that you can just casually dismiss. No offense, but fuck you. You don't know me any more than I know you.

      US: only country ever to actually nuke another.

      Are you aware that they airdropped leaflets urging people to flee the city way in advance before doing it, telling them exactly what was going to happen? Actually, by most people's calculations, it did save lives on both sides. Stretching on a conventional war for longer would have been a very ugly proposition for both sides. Hell, some Japenese (soldiers in particular) actually killed their own families because their government propaganda was telling them that the Americans were coming to enslave them all and rape their women...they thought they were saving them from a worse fate. (The kinda fate, ironically, that Japenese soldiers were known for inflicting...) You can think of me what you like, but from everything I have read, the U.S. was FAR more ethical the most countries with reguards to WWII. Yes...we have/had muscle...yes, we used it.

      US has been in conflicts with more countries than any other single country over the last century

      The U.S. gets dragged into alot of other people's messes because they can't deal with them properly. Blair had to get Clinton to get involved in Bosnia and Kosovo, because Europe's conventional military is a bit on weak side these days. (Gotta prop up those social programs from somewhere...high taxes aren't the only cost...) Doesn't matter...we still get the blame for being involved militarily. And as for WWII, your welcome over there, ya frickin' ungrateful whiners. :) Prior to that point in history, the U.S. didn't do much on the world state...we got dragged into it because Europe couldn't clean up their own back yard.

      US...leading developer of chemical (and up until two decades ago) a leading developer of bioweapons.

      Not a good thing - granted, but I honestly don't care who has more of it. We aren't the only country to have a great deal of it...and even a relatively small amount is all it takes. It's like the cold war prick waving contest between the USSR and the USA...both had enough nukes to end the world x number of times. Kinda pointless really, bragging rights aside. For that matter, Saddam is the one actually using the stuff these days...on Kurds in his own country.

      The most responsible thing you can do with nukes is *not use them*, and we've already failed that test.

      No...there is nothing magical about a nuke that makes it good or evil. It's a tool like any other. If using it saves lives, such as in WWII, then yes...use it. It's horrible to say, and it's a hard call, but take a look at what a WWII style ground war looked like. Those were some damn tough soldiers and they've got my gratitude and respect.

    41. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm...whatever. Actually, if the U.S. goes to war it will pinch the oil supply quite alot. I don't think they WANT that.

      Even so, Saddam sells oil as it is...the cartels control the price pretty nicely. The U.S. isn't interested in making it the 51st fucking state...exactly how would this benefit their oil interest?

    42. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the scenerio you portrayed, the historical lesson is to keep enough of a military to kick ass for yourself. Don't count on the rearming of a paranoid psychotic to do it for you...that is kinda bad.

    43. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iraq has the second largest oil reserve in the world. You seriously mean to say you don't see how overthrowing the currently very US-hostile ruler and installing a puppet government could benefit the US's oil interest?

      Please.

      -Theo (posting as an AC because even having this discussion is embarrassing)

    44. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is that it isn't going to affect oil prices very much...those are controlled by a cartel of oil producing countries. Small though they may be, I don't think Kuwait is giving out bargain oil in gratitude...they are in business just like the rest.

      How would warring with Iraq change this?

    45. Re:Scary by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      There's DMCA, RIAA, The Death Peanality, WIPO, Microsoft, NIKE, McDonalds, Monsanto, Supremisum and The Corporation Rules etc.
      'AMERICAN'

      And then there's the people that live in Ameria.

      unfortunatly both are American, I'm anti-AMERICAN not racist.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    46. Re:Scary by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      Ok...that right there is nothing more than putting words in my mouth to make it easier for you to lump me into a group that you can just casually dismiss. No offense, but fuck you. You don't know me any more than I know you.

      My point is that I have no reason to spend time talking about all the reasons it could be bad for Russia or China to have weapons of mass destruction, since most Americans will happily agree. The reason they *will* agree is primarily because of all they've been fed by the general US media, which is, for most citizens, the only way they find out what is going on. I don't believe I put words into your mouth.

      Are you aware that they airdropped leaflets urging people to flee the city way in advance before doing it, telling them exactly what was going to happen? Actually, by most people's calculations, it did save lives on both sides.

      Actually, while they did in some conventional cases, they specifically did *not* do so before Hiroshima. It was completely unanounced. There *were* leaflets dropped afterwards to citizens urging them to help convince the Japanese leadership to surrender.

      I recommend the following link, which discusses in depth the diplomatic non-necessity of Hiroshima.

      You can think of me what you like, but from everything I have read, the U.S. was FAR more ethical the most countries with reguards to WWII. Yes...we have/had muscle...yes, we used it.

      Yes, because you're reading US sources. No one has particularly clean hands in the World Wars, though the darkest crimes of the losers were made much of.

      The U.S. gets dragged into alot of other people's messes because they can't deal with them properly.

      Oh, bullshit. There is absolutely no way we get "dragged" into bombing the crap out of a country. We may have incentives, like better oil prices, but the US hasn't looked at an invasion for two hundred years now.

      Prior to that point in history [WWII], the U.S. didn't do much on the world state...we got dragged into it because Europe couldn't clean up their own back yard.

      What was World War I? A backyard picnic?

      It's like the cold war prick waving contest between the USSR and the USA...both had enough nukes to end the world x number of times. Kinda pointless really, bragging rights aside.

      No, it's because of expected attrition -- assume some don't work, assume some are destroyed before launch, assume anti-ICBM defenses are developed and able to take out N missiles. It's why China is a lot more upset over ABM than Russia -- it'd be a bitch to stop all of the ICBMs from Russia, but China's arsenal could be neutralized.

      For that matter, Saddam is the one actually using the stuff these days...on Kurds in his own country.

      It would be more justifiable to use it on another country? We had CIA folks stirring up *revolution* over there! If Hussein had secret agents come over and get a bunch of militias here to bomb the White House, and the government here *killed* everyone in the militias, would you call that unjustified? Granted, we'd probably use conventional weaponry, but what matters here is mostly who's foot the shoe is on, not the shoe itself.

      No...there is nothing magical about a nuke that makes it good or evil.

      I didn't say there was. I'm just dubious about how realistic one can be about it being a good idea to actually set off a nuke. Almost all of their effectiveness comes from their threat, not from their use.

    47. Re:Scary by superyooser · · Score: 2
      Oh great strategy. Let's wait until our opponents test some A-bombs on India or Israel before we decide to go to war. You act as if our objective is to fight an even fight. We want every advantage we can get. If Saddam doesn't have nuclear weapons (uh oh) and we know that he is trying to obtain them, then the time is ripe to invade! We have a short window of time in which to act. The time to act is now! Unfortunately, we know Saddam already does have biological weapons. That's according to weapons inspectors, but what do they know?

      It's time to move in before the situation gets worse. We can opt for x casualties now or possibly x^y casualties later in a nuclear war. It is not in our power to say "Yes war" or "No war." War is here. The question before us is: Will we defend ourselves or be conquered?

      This is not wild propaganda. We are fighting against the Anybody But America (& allies) coalition. (Like Microsoft is opposed by the Anything But Microsoft coalition: Oracle, Netscape, Sun, IBM, AOL.) They are different, but they have a common opponent. This unites them. They do have solidarity in this respect. Muslims have declared their intent to turn Great Britain into an Islamic country. In recent days, they've declared their intent to terrorize Australia. They want to destroy America and Israel. They're not even satisfied with "moderate" Muslim countries like Indonesia. No non-Islamic/Wahabi country is safe. They're out for world domination.

      The enemy's definition of peace is our destruction. Therefore, we have no choice but to make our definition of peace their destruction. To them, terrorism is worship, and jihad is the highest sanctification of life. (See the "Jihad for Kids" video I linked to in my previous post.)

      Read the Daily Alert. Very informative. I signed up for the e-mail newsletter.

    48. Re:Scary by TheCaptain · · Score: 1

      I don't believe I put words into your mouth

      Well...you wrote: "I'm sure you already have a bad enough opinion of China and Russia, thanks to US media" - perhaps not words in my mouth, but thoughts in my head at the least. Any opinions I have of Russia and China I've formed on my own...actually somewhat through people who lived in both (people I knew in college, and worked with)...and through other sources. Why I am explaining that I have no idea.

      Actually, while they did in some conventional cases, they specifically did *not* do so before Hiroshima. It was completely unanounced. There *were* leaflets dropped afterwards to citizens urging them to help convince the Japanese leadership to surrender.

      Actually, you got me on that one. You are correct about the timing of the leaflets...had to double check that one. I do still stick by the other part of it though - it likely did save lives. The estimates by how much seem to vary pretty wildly, but it's pretty widely accepted. Sure...some will disagree. Unfortunately, we don't have a magic crystal ball to tell us how it would have turned out. In addition to likely saving lives, it sent a rather strong signal to Russia that they'd best behave in Europe.

      Oh, bullshit. There is absolutely no way we get "dragged" into bombing the crap out of a country. We may have incentives, like better oil prices, but the US hasn't looked at an invasion for two hundred years now.

      Hey...look at Bosnia and Kosovo. American muscle was needed in there. Look at the previous Iraq conflict. Believe it or not, Saudi Arabia actually requested U.S. forces come there to defend against a possible attack. The U.N. declared Iraq's annexation of Kuwait void long before a bomb was ever dropped there. The U.K. and France were putting troops in the gulf before congress even authorized Bush to go to war. Saddam rejected the U.N. resolutions and didn't get out by the deadline. The U.S. provided most of the firepower to fix it, but there sure was alot more than just the U.S. involved there. Or how about the Falklands...a little U.S. logistic support there was kinda needed. In Afghanistan there really weren't many things in the incentives department...that was a bad situation that had to be dealt with, and was dealt with - with U.N. approval.

      Europe and a number of countries have alot of trouble handling military matters on their own...so America ends up involved.

      No, it's because of expected attrition -- assume some don't work, assume some are destroyed before launch, assume anti-ICBM defenses are developed and able to take out N missiles. It's why China is a lot more upset over ABM than Russia -- it'd be a bitch to stop all of the ICBMs from Russia, but China's arsenal could be neutralized

      Well...I am inclined to assume that the quantity we are disarming to is quite sufficient...if memory serves it was around 2000 warheads. Even if half were unable to be used, that is a helluva lot of firepower. As for China's opinion...from the point of view of their leadership - not liking anti ballistic missile tech is understandable. To alot of people in the world, being occasionally uneasy about China is kinda understandable too. I wish Taiwan the best on that.

      It would be more justifiable to use it on another country?

      I never said that nor implied it. My point is that he'd just as soon have a little genocide party on the Kurds right under the world's nose with those weapons. No...using it on someone else does not make it better...and I have no idea where the heck that is coming from. The point is that he's got a history of being bad news with that stuff.

    49. Re:Scary by AftanGustur · · Score: 2


      This is not wild propaganda. We are fighting against the Anybody But America (& allies) coalition. ..... The enemy's definition of peace is our destruction. Therefore, we have no choice but to make our definition of peace their destruction.

      That's it, you're joking ..

      Thanks for the (short) discussion, you realy should learn to troll better ..

      --
      echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
    50. Re:Scary by superyooser · · Score: 2
      I am in NO WAY joking. What I am saying is factual. The coalition of enemies is real.

      WTC terrorist Moussaoui said, "I pray to Allah" for "the destruction of the United States of America." Let me clue you in: this is not a unique thought. There are many millions like him.

      The things I have said are widely-known facts. Militant Muslims don't even try to hide their intentions within their own countries. They proclaim peace when speaking in English to Western audiences, but they advocate genocide and hatred in their native language.

      They openly proclaim in large gatherings their eternal hatred for America, and they scream passionate vows to destroy America with guns firing in the air and a flaming Uncle Sam on a skewer.

      • They preach it in the mosques.
      • They teach it in the schools.
      • They celebrate it at anti-American/Israeli/Western/ Christian/Jewish/Hindu/Buddhist/infidel rallies.
      • They broadcast it over the state-run TV and radio stations.
      • They print it in the newspapers.
      Widespread militant anti-Americanism exists in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Egypt, and many other countries in Asia and Africa.
      It's not a secret!

      It's not merely a suspicion or conspiracy theory. It's just plain fact, and it's out there in the open for everybody to see.

      War is not the choice; victory is. There is a real and present danger. If we act now, we get to fight on our terms rather than on theirs (as on 9/11). Either way, there is war.

    51. Re:Scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't Hitler that artist who couldn't find a job after WWI, got angry at everybody, and became the most powerful person in Germany?

  13. Better not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...cause that woyuld apply to half the western world as well..

    CptnH.

  14. Re:Moderators still don't know what redundant mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps if they changed the option to "Repeat" or "Already seen it" then it'd work better?

  15. unless . . . by EEgopher · · Score: 1, Funny

    What if he were unix-proficient?

    "Orders, my Oily Commander?"

    "Yes, kill -9 -1 those yankees."

    We should feed our American troops copious amounts of WhoopAss. Thinkgeek will make a fortune!

    --
    hi, I like pancakes -.-- -.-- --..
  16. All you base are belong to us... by EvilTwinSkippy · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Did I mention Cats is his press Secretary?

    --
    "Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
    --Dr.W.Edwards Deming
    1. Re:All you base are belong to us... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cats? The musical or the furry animals? Or did you mean Katz as in John Katz?

  17. Dear Saddam: by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2
    I urge you to reconsider my competitors offer of "4G" wireless technology. Our "5G" technology is better and will allow you 'set it and forget it' just like my rotisserie. We promise this will be the best "Wireless Weapon of Mass Destruction" you have ever used, or your money back! We have over 20 years of experience providing housewives with labor saving 'Weapons of Mass Destruction'.

    Thank you for your kind and world dominating consideration,
    Ron Popeil

    Ronco.com (secure connections available!) CALL US!
    In the USA, toll free,
    (800) 486-1806

    Outside the U.S.(of course), call our business office
    (818) 775-4602
    Monday-Friday
    8am to 5pm Pacific Time.

    1. Re:Dear Saddam: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL!!

    2. Re:Dear Saddam: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Allow inspectors and prove that you have no nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons and the United Nations sanctions imposed after the "Gulf War" will be removed and the U.S. and U.K. will no longer enforce "quasi"-legal "no-fly" zones. Missiles by themselves are not a form of a weapon of mass destruction.

      P.S. Don't kill people.

      P.P.S. If Kuwait steals your oil again, making you mad, go to the world press first, and be sure and preserve your evidence.

      P.P.P.S Stay out of the southwest desert, there is a bunch of depleted uranium floating around.

      P.P.P.P.S. Be nice.

      P.P.P.P.P.S. As you have already allowed inspectors, make more clear to the world opinion that you are not interested in nuclear weapons, that you got your biological weapons from the U.S.A., and, chart a new, open, liberally democratic course for the people you serve.

  18. you got to be kidding me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is +5?

    Shee-sus! I knew Slashdotters were apolitical beforehand, but come on... really...

  19. examples of leaders' bad passwords... by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · · Score: 5, Funny

    King of the Druids: "One... Two... Three... Four... Five."

    Dark Helmet: "That sounds like the combination an idiot would have on his luggage!"


    <snip>

    President Scrooge: "One two three four five? I can't believe it! I have the same combination on my luggage!"

    --

    IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
    And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
    1. Re:examples of leaders' bad passwords... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's Pres. Scroob (which is, nearly, Brooks backward).

    2. Re:examples of leaders' bad passwords... by TWX_the_Linux_Zealot · · Score: 1

      It's Pres. Scroob (which is, nearly, Brooks backward).

      for taking no time to look it up, I think I did all right...

      --

      IBM had PL/1, with syntax worse than JOSS,
      And everywhere the language went, it was a total loss...
    3. Re:examples of leaders' bad passwords... by BlackCatRob · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think the spelling is SKROOB, which is an anagram of Brooks. Just FYI.

  20. Uruklink webmail by dk.r*nger · · Score: 1

    http://mail.uruklink.net:8383/ (google cache) looks like they are using iMail, which is a POP3 server. Thus, if mail in there is still there, it is not read, because then it would be gone.

    1. Re:Uruklink webmail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sure about that?

      user
      pass
      list
      retr 1
      retr 2
      quit

      Unless you use dele 1 dele 2 you can read those messages again and again on most stock pop servers.

      But, of course, you knew that.

  21. Doesn't matter if the address is real... by EarwigTC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Whether or not Saddam or his regime read it isn't really the point. The interesting thing is what people sent, and why. It's also a unique privacy issue; these people who thought they could quietly support Iraq are exposed in such a way that they can't really claim to have been violated.

    --
    Promote civility: mod down any post starting with 'ummm'.
    1. Re:Doesn't matter if the address is real... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And why not?

  22. Letter from Saddam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    in 2001 Saddam Hussein wrote a letter to an american.
    http://www.uruklink.net/iraq/e2001/elet ter.htm
    Just to nitpick:
    "Your successive administrations have killed one billion and a half Iraqis in eleven years."
    WOW, no wonder they have problems with all those people living underground :D

  23. I thought it was Weapons of Media Distraction by Theodore+Logan · · Score: 2

    Or was it only that I thought it should be?

    --

    "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok

  24. Link to the raw stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to see a raw mails - not Wired's summary.
    Anyone have a link?

  25. I second that!.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (n/t).. or should it be spelled XP nowadays?...

  26. Y2K-Not OK! by phawley · · Score: 5, Funny

    from article:

    The version of webmail software used by the Iraqi ISP is known to have several security holes -- but the patches available for them do not appear to have been applied.


    from uruklink.net website:

    October28 ,102

    like Y2K? ;)

    1. Re:Y2K-Not OK! by c3w · · Score: 1

      If U.S. companies are not allowed to do business w/ Iraq, how can IPswitch (imail) and domaininfo.com (registrar for uruklink.net) sell to baghdad?

      p.s. to post above- imail is imap/pop3/web not just pop3;

      p.p.s. the upgrade from 7.07 (see google cache above) to 7.1 is listed at $2k for a large ISP; or probably $650 upgrade; so its not a free patch;

      --c3w

    2. Re:Y2K-Not OK! by thrig · · Score: 2

      The 102 is likely a failure to have read the documentation for localtime() or gmtime(), which in perl (and probably other languages) returns the number of years since 1900.

      perl -le 'print ((localtime)[5])'

    3. Re:Y2K-Not OK! by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      from uruklink.net website:
      October28 ,102


      What's the problem? 102 A.D. is the year that Saddam Hussein and his republic lives in.

    4. Re:Y2K-Not OK! by PowerBook2k · · Score: 1

      Well, I did hear people say that they wanted Iraq bombed back to the stone age...

    5. Re:Y2K-Not OK! by jeavis · · Score: 1

      It's JavaScript embedded in the page:

      var year=time.getYear();
      if (year<100) year="19" + time.getYear();
      else year=time.getYear();
  27. Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by paranoid.android · · Score: 2

    Contrary to popular american beliefs, Europe is NOT pro-Iraq, we're just not as keen on resorting to force nowadays since we saw the result of it at home.

    The US hasn't in modern times seen widespread destruction on home turf, we still remember it vividly.


    Hmm, let's see here:

    1) Pearl Harbor
    2) WTC

    I think those qualify as "modern times," "widespread destruction" and "home turf."

    1. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, 1 does not because Pearl Harbor was in the territory of Hawaii, before it became a state. Territories are not our "Home Turf," any more than Guantanamo Bay, Cuba is our "Home Turf."

      No, 2 is not widespread. It is in fact very localized. The death toll was high, but it's not as if huge portions of downtown manhattan were bombed into the ground. If you think the WTC disaster compares in any way to the widespread destruction he is talking about, as in wholesale reduction of industrial cities to rubble, you're sadly mistaken.

    2. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by scrutty · · Score: 1
      Hmm, let's see here:

      1) Pearl Harbor
      2) WTC
      those are truly terrible events for sure, but they don't really qualify as "widespread" , shocking though they may be.
      --
      -- Oh Well
    3. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      ETA
      IRA
      BASK french peoples(can't remember there name)
      Greece V Turkey
      Bosnia
      etc.......
      America hasn't got enough 'history' and so can't understand these things.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    4. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both terrible events, yes.

      But nothing compared to what European countries experienced during the last two world wars. We're not really talking "widespread destruction" when referring to WTC/Perl Harbour are we?

      Compared to vast tracts of your homelands being left a pile of scorched rubble, I mean.

    5. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Iamthefallen · · Score: 2

      Widespread? Hardly. In Europe entire cities were reduced to rubble, millions and millions again killed, by nazis, by allies, by starvation, by disease. Imagine the WTC and Pearl Harbor a thousand times over and you'll start to get close.

      I'm not trolling or reducing WTC or Pearl Harbor to events wihtout meaning, but, Europes past is filled of bloody wars every couple of years, and yet it took the insane slaughter of WW2 to get us to realize that it really wasn't getting us anywhere.

      --
      Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
    6. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Pearl Harbor
      2) WTC
      I think those qualify as "modern times," "widespread destruction" and "home turf."


      Not really. Compare those with the european theater in World Wars 1 and 2 and those look like flea bites. This is what he was trying to say. The US has homeland has never been in any real danger at least not compared to europe during the world wars. What France experienced during the second war was orders of magnitude more grave than either Pearl Harbor or WTC yet you do not see the french self indulgently licking there wounds nearly as much.

    7. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by FunkSoulBrother · · Score: 1

      wow, I'm american and thats the dumbest post I've read on Slashdot in a long time. Go tour Germany if you want to see what real widespread destruction is.

    8. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Samrobb · · Score: 5, Insightful
      America hasn't got enough 'history' and so can't understand these things.

      No - we have more than enough history... your history, as a matter of fact. We understand these things very well, thank you, which is why we go to great lengths to keep our homeland from experiencing the sort of things that have happened elsewhere in the world.

      So - what next? Are you going to claim that only someone who dies from lung cancer is smart enough to know that smoking is dangerous?

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    9. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Stonehand · · Score: 2

      Er, what do you think ended the Second World War, if it wasn't overwhelming force? I'd say that it's a cardinal example of how force /did/ solve a problem far more effectively than the pre-war diplomacy did.

      --
      Only the dead have seen the end of war.
    10. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by BLAG-blast · · Score: 1
      You've just woken up. Most other countries have been living with terrorists on there home soil for decateds. Britain, France, Spain, Russia, China, Japan, etc.....

      Now, you want to bomb Iraq because the Japanese bombed perl habour, and also because a rich Saudi was upset enough at the America for installing an anti-democratic government in his country that he blew up a couple of big buildings.

      I'm more scared by the fact the country with the biggest military buget in the world wants to start invading countries that have not done anything that warrent an attack.

      Policing is only easy in a police state. And the USA wants to turn the world into a police state.

      Do you play with war toys? I did, I learnt two things, if you are attacked you attack back, the first person to attack is the bad guy....

      --
      M0571y H@rml355.
    11. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "America hasn't got enough 'history' and so can't understand these things. ", see you just proved the point.

      America is full of those who run-away, or just went round killing everyone [the Native Americans] off.

      America, Land of the brave[murders] home the free[so long as you pay me for it] or is it the other way around? I don't really care that much.

    12. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Lawbeefaroni · · Score: 1

      Hmm, Dresden, London, Stalingrad, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, just to name a few. Bad as they were, Pearl Harbor and WTC aren't quite the same. Oddly, they incite people to war rather than put them off it.

      --
      "When it rains, it pours." --Morton's Salt
    13. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by perlyking · · Score: 2, Troll

      We understand these things very well, thank you, which is why we go to great lengths to keep our homeland from experiencing the sort of things that have happened elsewhere in the world.

      You don't seem to be doing terribly well at it, perhaps the world would be a safer place if you stopped :-)
      --
      no sig.
    14. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 2

      No, they don't. They were localized attacks and Pearl Harbour was a valid military target. Both are NOTHING compared to, for example:

    15. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Look up history on, for example, carpet bombing of Dresden towards the end of WWII. Or about the Varsovia ghetto story to balance the other side. Or, a bit earlier, some of the most famous battles of Spanish civil war, Alicante I believe. Or the battle of Stalingrad. All of these with number of civilian casualties which dwarf 9/11.

      There are other that I don't just remember right now, let us stop at the number of victims of Hitler and Stalin. I believe Stalin wins at the count of victims, but he was on the side who won the war, so he could hide some numbers as victims of the war against Germany. Don't get me wrong, things would have globally been much worse if the result of the war had been different, but it sucked to be under Stalin's rule.

      Oh, yes and Pearl harbor was a military target to start with, with very few civilian casualties. Compared with the sacking of Nankin by the Japanese, or many other atrocities committed by the Japanese, Pearl Harbor is more important because it triggered the entry of the US into the war than by the number of, mostly military, victims.

      We Europeans, don't like to go at war just for the sake of going at it, as Bush seems to be too trigger happy. In this case I'm happy to see that he has watered-down.

      Using menaces to force Saddam to complain with UN resolution is ok (let us keep aside the fact that a country has plainly said that they will just continue to blatantly ignore UN resolution refering to a recent Tony Blair's speech).

      I hope, especially for Iraq's civilian population, that using weapons will not be necessary, but I would approve it, reluctantly but as clearly the lesser evil, as soon as Iraq puts the slightest obstacle to the UN inspectors mission. Let us see if they hold first to their promise of giving inspectors access to everything.

      I couldn't care less about Saddam's fate, he certainly deserves to die.

    16. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, how'd that policy of appeasement go with Hitler?

    17. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "So - what next? Are you going to claim that only someone who dies from lung cancer is smart enough to know that smoking is dangerous?"

      No, but only someone who has suffered lung cancer feels/knows the first-hand effects/symptoms of lung cancer. This person is also practically dead-resistant to smoking again as opposed to someone who 'knows' about lung cancer. A lot of people still choose to smoke while knowing the risks. That doesn't necessarily mean they're dumb. Just that the reality hasn't hit them hard since they haven't been exposed to it.

      "No - we have more than enough history... your history, as a matter of fact. We understand these things very well, thank you..."

      umm, What major ethnic/territorial disputes have you been involved in ? (The 60s Blacks equality didn't involve any territorial integrity)

    18. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Samrobb · · Score: 1
      umm, What major ethnic/territorial disputes have you been involved in ? (The 60s Blacks equality didn't involve any territorial integrity)

      Myself? None. I'd wager that you haven't, either. Do I need to be shot in order to understand that taking a bullet is something that I don't want to do? Do we, as a country, need to experience near-constant civil war in order to remind ourselves that killing each other because of religion, or skin color, or ethnic background is a Bad Thing (tm)? That seems to be your assertion - that because some other groups of people in the world have decided to be bloody stupid gits and wage genocidal war against one another, and the US hasn't, we lack some basic "understanding" of how horrible that situation is.

      The truth of the matter is we did fight a civil war over a century ago, and came out of it determined not to ever go through that sort of thing again. We're taking a look at Sadam and the Middle East and going "Uh oh... this looks like another world war in the making; let's do something about it before the Middle East gets turned into a killing field." I guess it's just a whole lot easier to bash us for "not understanding" because "we haven't lived though it" then to admit that we are one of the few countries that actually managed to learn something from our experiences.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    19. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what pray tell have we learned? We also went to vietnam and had our butts kicked. The truth is, americans are fine with a war against Iraq so long as they are not materially affected. Once american casulties start to accrue or the economy tanks because of the war, you'll see an entirely different set of attitudes.

      Truth is americans are fat and dumb. We'll let Bush do whatever he feels like until it starts to affect us. When that happens the shit will hit the fan and everyone will be calling for heads. Just watch.

    20. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI during WWII the Russians lost more people than
      died in the WTC every day. That's every day, people.

    21. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by bill_guts · · Score: 1

      We understand these things very well, thank you, which is why we go to great lengths to keep our homeland from experiencing the sort of things that have happened elsewhere in the world.

      ya, the US gov't outsources all it's evil.

      --


    22. Re:Pearl Harbor ring a bell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Pearl Harbor

      Yeah, I read about that one in history class in high school.

      2) WTC

      Hmm... I think I saw that on TV.

      *looks around* Nope, no widespread destruction around here, just a lab full of shiny new G4's. Sorry, dude, an attack on a military installation 60 years ago and a couple of buildings knocked down a year ago does not qualify as "widespread destruction."

  28. Who hacked it? by TheViewFromTheGround · · Score: 1

    The article is unclear about who exactly broke into the system. Anybody know more?

    Also, could this not be a case of security being intentionally lax in one area to serve as a distraction, if not to more or less astute intelligence agencies then to the public and press, which skip the real intelligence to focus on emails to who-knows-who in the Iraqi government from who-knows-who anywhere else.

    --
    Online citizen journalism from the inner city: The View From The Ground
  29. In related news by Theodore+Logan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Saddam's personal homepage is right now being subjected to what appears to be a large scale DDOS attack. After Saddam has butchered his sysadmin and the hackers, he's coming for you Jamie...

    --

    "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok

    1. Re:In related news by snake_dad · · Score: 1

      You aren't thinking that the CIA is using Jamie as a sacrificial goat, are you? Sh*t, I just mentioned a goat on slashdot..

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
  30. Microsoft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "The message, sent from an MSN Hotmail account on a computer in China, recommended the use of methyl bromide, an agricultural pesticide, as an effective chemical weapon against the U.S. Army."

    Gee, thanks Bill.

  31. So who exactly did the hacking? by Dan+Crash · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Did Brian McWilliams, author of the article, do the actual hacking? Or was he just informed of it by some skript kiddie? The article is mysteriously vague about who did the deed.

    Assuming they did do the hacking, this is ethical... how? Does this mean they figure it's all right to hack into anyone's e-mail and publicize the results? What if it were your e-mail?

    It may have been a nifty trick that someone happened to guess the right password, but as journalism, this is beyond the pale. I'd like to see someone from WIRED News comment a little more specifically on who the hacker was, why his or her name wasn't disclosed, and how WIRED justifies reporting on the hacked contents of an e-mail account, and where they draw the lines.

    --
    He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
    1. Re:So who exactly did the hacking? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not exactly hard do the guessing once the MTA bounces messages back to the original senders. These bounces probably included the real account and not the press@uruklink.net Or then somebody actually got an email from Saddam once, and found the real user account or UID from the headers. -Right

    2. Re:So who exactly did the hacking? by MacAndrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Great point. The elusiveness of the article bothers me -- someone should own up, even if it's the dreaded "reliable source."

      I doubt American law protects Hussein's email account or even the Americans who wrote to him; anyway the U.S. wouldn't prosecute, though it should follow up on the messages from its citizens offering material support. Constitutionally, the 4th Amendment does not apply to private actors. Now, Iraqi law must protect his account (after all, Saddam Hussein IS the law) but Wired may be beyond his grasp.

      As for ethics, journalists are frequently presented with discovering or handling sensitive or confidential information. It's tough to decide and depends on the gravity of the problem. If they act prevent an imminent crime of significance by violating privacy, I think they should or are morally obligated to. They face the same sort of difficult decision any of us would in the same situation. A good example would be Ellsberg leaking the Pentagon Papers revealing gov't deception concerning the Vietnam War.

      One code of journalist ethics proposes:

      Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.

    3. Re:So who exactly did the hacking? by BMcWilliams · · Score: 1

      I'm the author of the article at Wired.com. I'll try to answer belately some of the questions raised by the story.

      Not least of which being, yes, there were Nigerian spam scams galore in the inbox.

      I was the person who correctly guessed -- on the first try -- the password to the Press account at UrukLink.net.

      FWIW, when I signed in, the account had apparently been abandoned for several months. (It was over quota and rejecting new messages since Aug. 17). What caught by eye first was the message from an ATT.net account offering wireless technology to Iraq, as reported in the article.

      Besides contemplating the potential illegality of my unauthorized access, I have also thought hard about the ethics of publishing the material I obtained.

      Password cracking is not a generally accepted journalistic practice, as a reporter for another news organization pointed out to me today. I was also notified that the material contained in Saddam's public inbox is not exactly the Pentagon Papers. Nor is my report on the e-mails anywhere near the caliber of the Chiquita expose'.

      Nonetheless, I believe, and Wired News's editors backed me on this, that the contents of the inbox were of significant public interest considering the current conflict between the USA and Iraq.

      Some readers have dismissed the messages as unimportant because so many came from ordinary Internet users and small businesses (and not from heads of state or major corporations). But I think that's what makes the inbox such an interesting, if unscientific, survey of public opinion.

      To minimize the harm cause by the report, we removed the names of individuals and companies who wrote to Saddam -- even those of people from whom we had obtained comments.

      Brian

    4. Re:So who exactly did the hacking? by Captain+Gingersnaps · · Score: 1

      The problem here is that the story is entirely about and a result of your illegal mischief.

      It might be one thing if you had information to suggest that something very important was going on -- say, that American companies are providing technologies illegally to Iraq -- and could corroborate other sources only this way. But I don't think any facts in the story justify the committing of a crime to uncover them.

      You first step was illegally entering someone else's mail box, then you wrote a story based on some interesting tidbits you found there.

      You being a reporter, I would bet there are e-mails in your inbox at this moment, i.e. messages relating to stories you are working on, that contain information with "significant public interest." Is it OK if I hack into your account to get them?

      This story, and particularly the omission of the fact that it was the reporter who cracked the account, is yet another reason I cannot respect Wired News. They are first and foremost a pro-Internet-culture organization. Their generally-unskeptical approach to the technology and culture they cover, though agreeable to many of us, is not impartial and is not good journalism.

    5. Re:So who exactly did the hacking? by BMcWilliams · · Score: 1
      You being a reporter, I would bet there are e-mails in your inbox at this moment, i.e. messages relating to stories you are working on, that contain information with "significant public interest."

      Actually, I was recently told by some retaliatory hax0rs that my mail spool is incredibly boring.

      Is it OK if I hack into your account to get them?

      No, it is not. Anyway, you're better off waiting for me to mill them into articles.

      Brian

  32. All involved US corporate leaders arrested! by erroneus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Some of these commercial offers might even be considered high treason.

    I hope that all U.S. corporate leaders involved are immediately arrested and charged with treason or some other appropriate offense. This is wrong on so many levels it churns my stomach. The arrogance of these people astound me to no end.

    I sincerely hope this is a hoax but somehow I can see that it's possible.

    If there is truth to U.S. business attempting to solicit business with Saddam Hussein, then I expect to see reports of arrests and investigations in the news. But I can already hear the paper shreading machines in operations and the degausing machines humming...

    1. Re:All involved US corporate leaders arrested! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      It is an excellent example of two things:

      One - Corporate bastards would drain the blood from their mother, if it meant they got a stock option, or key to the executive washroom.

      Two - Corporate bastards obviously have no fscking clue about what goes on or what is even made at their own companies, and will promise anything to make a sale (see #1).

      "4G Wireless Technology? Yes, that could ignite the atmospere. Oh, you need controllable ignition? Yes! We are pioneers in that technology!"

      I'd love to know the name of that company, so I could ensure that I never do business with them.

    2. Re:All involved US corporate leaders arrested! by R.Caley · · Score: 2
      If there is truth to U.S. business attempting to solicit business with Saddam Hussein, then I expect to see reports of arrests

      After all, deals with dictators are the US government's job.

      --
      _O_
      .|<
      The named which can be named is not the true named
    3. Re:All involved US corporate leaders arrested! by Cheap+Imitation · · Score: 1
      There's a much easier solution. Let the "free market" deal with them. A little "warning label" could be required on all their advertising.

      Proud sponsor of the 2002 Iraqi Regime.

      or...

      Official supporter of Saddam Hussein in the 2002 Iraqi-American Military Games!

      Celebrity endorsements work!

    4. Re:All involved US corporate leaders arrested! by repvik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Criminal or not, I do believe that the evidence is insufficient and that it wasn't exactly recovered in a legal way.
      If anyone got arrested over this (Other than the hacker), I'd be extremely surprised and disappointed.

      Although it would be very nice if they could use the evidence, they can't.

    5. Re:All involved US corporate leaders arrested! by adb · · Score: 2

      They can't use it in court, but there's no reason a third party couldn't use it to give them an anonymous tip.

    6. Re:All involved US corporate leaders arrested! by adb · · Score: 2

      Google for Gaiacomm. The guy's a loon in the usual fashion of overenthusiastic Tesla fans.

    7. Re:All involved US corporate leaders arrested! by NevarMore · · Score: 1

      I thought the base economic system in America was capitalism and that 'our' governments economic arms (FTC, FDIC, Treasury, etc.) existed to ensure that American buinesses could buy and sell as freely as possible, while still maintaining economic stability.

      Iraq is an impoverished oil produciing nation, every American will bitch about the price of gasoline. It seems to me that a much more viable and peacable alternative to war would be for Bush and Hussein to pull thier heads out of thier asses and let the buisnessmen of thier nations work together and improve the lives of the people on both sides.

      I applaud the buisnessmen who are defying the trade sanctions with Iraq. They are the people who truly stand for freedom and open-ness.

    8. Re:All involved US corporate leaders arrested! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least wait until we actually start the war before rounding up all dissidents this time, Mr. McCarthy.

    9. Re:All involved US corporate leaders arrested! by composer777 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, you have misunderstood the concept of free trade to mean free trade, when in fact it means the opposite of that. The goal of our free trade program is extortion and control. In this context, it's in the US's best interest to keep Iraq poor and to keep around pretexts that will allow us to invade on a whim. If Iraq were to become a Democratic nation we could no longer count on being able to control their oil and use this oil supply as a means of dictating "free" trade agreements with other countries such as Japan and the UK which desperately depend on this oil supply to keep their economies running. An accurate slogan for the war on terrorism is, "The Empire Strikes Back", but I suppose Lucas already used this one. If you really think that you work harder than someone in a 3rd country, and that this is the reason for our success, then might I suggest we open the borders to people from these countries. What most Americans fail to realize is that much of our unprecedented wealth comes from old-fasioned imperialism and extortionate agreements with 3rd world countries. This gives us cheap labor, natural resources, and a dumping ground for waste. Why don't we just invade these take over these countries and make them states of the US? That's not in our interests, after all, you have to dump waste somewhere, and someone needs to be our slaves... US policy has very little to do with freedom and democracy, and quite a bit to do with economics. The sooner Americans wake up to this fact, the sooner we can keep our betters from creating our own little 3rd world at home and the sooner we can start repairing the damage that we have done abroad.

  33. A play on his name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    ... password and login are the same... hence Saddam Insein!

    1. Re:A play on his name... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's an Insein?

  34. Uruks from Iraq? by merriam · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm confused. Is Saddam breeding orcs now?

    1. Re:Uruks from Iraq? by user+flynn · · Score: 5, Funny


      Send this message to Saddam:

      Uruk Hi!

      Somebody set us up the bomb.
      We get signal.
      What happen?
      Main Screen, turn on.
      It's you!
      How are you? All your base are belong to us!
      You are on the way to destruction.
      What you say?!?
      You have no chance of survive! Make your time! muhahah muhahahaha!
      You know what you doing!!!
      Move oil for great justice!

      Sincerely,
      George W. Bush

      Sounds like something from a GW press conference :).

      --
      In the distance you hear an ominous moo.
    2. Re:Uruks from Iraq? by kldavis4 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uruk is a city in Iraq.

    3. Re:Uruks from Iraq? by JonnyElvis42 · · Score: 1

      Sounds like something from a GW press conference

      Oh, did he finally finish that sixth grade speech class then?

    4. Re:Uruks from Iraq? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone should really remake the "Zero wing" flash with Bush and Saddam. And your lyrics. It would rock.

    5. Re:Uruks from Iraq? by TedCheshireAcad · · Score: 5, Funny

      All your joke are old to us.

    6. Re:Uruks from Iraq? by Nept · · Score: 3, Funny

      Frodo: But he was destroyed. Saddam was destroyed.
      Gandalf: No, Frodo. The spirit of Saddam endured. His life force is bound to his weapons and the oil survived. Saddam has returned. His Orcs have multiplied. His fortress of Baghdad-dur is rebuilt in the land of Mordor. Saddam needs only these weapons to cover all the lands with a second darkness. He is seeking it, seeking it, all his thought is bent on it.

      --
      "Teachers leave us kids alone ..." - Roger Waters, Pink Floyd
    7. Re:Uruks from Iraq? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe that should be "BushJr" and "BushSr"?

  35. Credit where credit is due, slightly OT by Theodore+Logan · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just in case that is actually modded up and someone finds it funny, I didn't come up with it myself. I read it in a Plastic discussion a while ago. I can't remember which, however, and I can't remember who said it, so I guess this isn't much help tracing down the original source. I just didn't want credit for such a brilliant acronym unless I came up with it myself.

    --

    "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok

  36. uruklink.net? by Ivan+Raikov · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else think of the Uruk-Hai, Tolkien's great soldier-Orcs? Hmm...

    1. Re:uruklink.net? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey,

      You're not going to let a filthy GOBLIN push you around, you are URUK-HAI!!

  37. Still vulnerable? by m0i · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It looks like uruklink.net is still vulnerable:
    -port 110 is opened
    -it reveals they're running Ipswitch IMail 7.07
    -this software has a known overflow and exploit on the web client side
    -http://mail.uruklink.net:8383/ is opened.

    What are their sysadmin waiting to shut down 110/8383? Wake up!

    Side note, it's funny to see that they are running an american OS and mail software..

    --
    have you been defaced today?
    1. Re:Still vulnerable? by daeley · · Score: 3, Funny

      What are their sysadmin waiting to shut down 110/8383? Wake up!

      Somehow, I doubt they're sleeping, nor their families, except in the morbid, metaphorical sense of 'to sleep' that Hamlet uses in his soliloquy. :)

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    2. Re:Still vulnerable? by tswinzig · · Score: 3, Funny

      Side note, it's funny to see that they are running an american OS and mail software..

      Yes, astoundingly they didn't feel like using anything from the huge Iraqi software market!

      --

      "And like that ... he's gone."
    3. Re:Still vulnerable? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They seem to have closed it now (check the time on this posting).

    4. Re:Still vulnerable? by Jouster · · Score: 2

      Nope, they just changed the DNS entry to a NAT'd entry.

      But the server's still accessible by IP address. See my other post later on in this story for instructions.

      Jouster

  38. Any subscriptions? by Deal-a-Neil · · Score: 1

    Curious to see which pr0n passwords could be squandered from his inbox.

  39. Contratulations, you won my auction! Item #343223 by sjonke · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dear sadam33. Contratulations! You won my ebay auction for a genuine nuclear missile including certificate of authenticity. Item #343223. Send your money order and your address and I'll ship it out to you pronto. You asked about my feedback - it's true that I have no feedback yet, but this is simply because I had to make a new account: last week I tried to auction off my copy of Microsoft Office XP and ebay killed it and my account.

    Ollie

    --
    --- What?
  40. Spammers Nightmare by gmuslera · · Score: 1

    Now they will know what happens when they send spam to the wrong mailbox.

  41. Dear Saddam, by michajoe · · Score: 1

    I send you this bomb in order to have your opinion.

  42. heh... by dogas · · Score: 1

    I bet his luggage combination is 1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. 5.

    --
    'When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.' -HST
  43. LOL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oops.

    All your emails are belong to us

    It'd be even better if the password was changed.

    IF It was talk about major blackmail. :)

  44. The internet as a weapon of mass destruction... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Slashdot nerds from around the world Slashdot the sole Iraqi internet ISP off the face of the earth by visiting Saddam Hussein's homepage so many times!

  45. Consider, for example.. by _KhlER3L · · Score: 2
    Consider, for example, a flurry of messages apparently sent to Saddam byan employee of a Saudi Arabian oil company in July and August. The e-mailscontained cryptic reports in broken English about the location of U.S. oilpipelines, as well as warnings about the movement of submarines, aircraftand other military equipment and personnel in the Middle East.

    Why would a Saudi Arabian oil employee use broken english when there is a 100% chance he speaks arabic? If he's not speaking English well, then what is he speaking in an Arab country? Chinese?

    Maybe I'm out to lunch, but I think arabic speaking people send each other emails in arabic.

    This Wired article stinks of something...

    khl

    1. Re:Consider, for example.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I hav enever been to Sausi, I was in Abu Dhabi and Dubai for most of last year. The vast majority of the keyboards in use are not arabic, they are your standard, garden variety english keyboards. I saw only a handfull of arabic keyboards, and they were all at Internet cafes, not busineses. Most correspondance is in English over there.

    2. Re:Consider, for example.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      In many parts of the world where people use a
      non-latin script, people often send emails in
      english, to avoid troubles with fonts, keyboards,
      and applications.

  46. Does anyone see the humour in: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    At the bottom of the homepage of the Iraqi national ISP there is the familiar message:

    "This site is best viewed with Microsoft Internet Explorer at 800x600."

    Damn, even despotic Middle Eastern regimes use Internet Explorer!

  47. If it was not for the UN sanctions by diatonic · · Score: 2, Funny

    perhaps Saddam could aquire the technology to keep his servers from succumbing to the slashdot effect.

  48. let's get rid of all the spam companies by kipple · · Score: 2

    from the article:

    "Saddam's inbox also contained several solicitations from American companies hoping to do business with Iraq -- despite U.S. prohibitions and United Nations trade sanctions."

    now I really hope that spam companies will send spam mail to accounts in 'forbidden' countries, thus marking themselves as illegal. It would be fun :)

    --
    -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
    1. Re:let's get rid of all the spam companies by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1
      now I really hope that spam companies will send spam mail to accounts in 'forbidden' countries, thus marking themselves as illegal. It would be fun :)
      I should start signing up illegal addresses with spam lists, just to see this happen.
  49. weird.... by carpe_noctem · · Score: 2

    [laptop][reimannj][~]$ whois uruklink.net
    [Owner of domain name]
    osama khalid
    27 april street
    baghdad, 0000
    IQ

    Email: ama_72@yahoo.com
    Phone: +964 1 5372494
    Fax: +964 1 5434731

    [laptop][reimannj][~]$ host uruklink.net
    [laptop][reimannj][~]$ traceroute uruklink.net
    traceroute: unknown host uruklink.net

    Anyone else noticing anything weird about this?

    --
    "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    1. Re:weird.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than the fact that they don't have an A record for urulink.net. in their DNS? Nope.

    2. Re:weird.... by LudditeMind · · Score: 1

      Not really, they just don't have an A recored set up for uruklink.net. The mx is as follows

      dig mx uruklink.net
      ; > DiG 9.1.3 > mx uruklink.net
      ;; global options: printcmd
      ;; Got answer:
      ;; ->>HEADER ;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 2

      ;; ANSWER SECTION:
      uruklink.net. 35931 IN MX 1 mail.uruklink.net.

      ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
      mail.uruklink.net. 35931 IN A 62.32.60.16

      So it just goes to mail.uruklink.net, you can traceroute to that.

  50. Journalistically speaking, by Jerf · · Score: 5, Interesting

    To play Devil's advocate, from a journalistic point of view, Wired's primary responsibility is to validate the source of the info. Once that is done, you can make a very good case that this is, at least potentially, the sort of thing that People Must Know, which overrides most other considerations.

    The contents were probably awfully mundane, perhaps too much so to qualify for The People Must Know, but one could imagine at least in theory that they might have found something interesting in there.

    There is precedent for this: For a big example, consider the Watergate scandal. The New York Times wasn't "supposed" to be in possession of that material, and they certainly weren't "supposed" to publish it, but The People Must Know overrode their reservations, and most of us would consider that the right decision based on the info they had at the time.

    On the other hand, hacking into my email and telling the world about it would be unethical; there is no need for anybody to know what's in there, so they'd just be rumormongering.

    What, you say this "The People Need To Know" is an awfully fuzzy criterion to be using? Damn straight! These ethical things are hard.

    (Remember, I'm playing devil's advocate here; I don't believe it's black and white, but I do think there is a strong kernel of truth here.)

    1. Re:Journalistically speaking, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/New York Times/Washington Post/g

  51. All your inbox are belong to us... by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    heh...

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  52. Silver lining in the war on Iraq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bust all spammers for high treason, or at least violating the UN sanctions.

  53. Some people just have no sense... by coupland · · Score: 5, Funny

    The part I thought most comical was the people writing to warn him that the CIA would be after him and to exercise caution, or with ideas on how to win a war. Yes, I'm sure Saddam fired off a hardcopy of that e-mail, brought it to his War Ministry and they all read it in awe.

    "By the grace of Almighty Allah, skater601@aol.com has shown us the road to salvation!"

    Jeez, people can be so dumb...

  54. It must be bogus.. by grub · · Score: 2


    Personally I just think it's a matter of PR Whiz Valerie G. Mallinson's employer having a new client..

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  55. /. is a weapon of mass destruction.... by Ashurbanipal · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...that we have now loosed on Iraq's feeble Internet connection.

  56. You need to look at war photos/footage by xyloplax · · Score: 1

    Stalingrad, Hiroshima, Dresden are no comparison. I am from New York, and I can say that a few square blocks is awful, but nothing close to an entire city. I was recently in Italy. We passed through Terni on the way to Spoleto. Almost all of the towns we passed were old Medieval towns. Terni had almost no old buildings. Most looked like they were built in the 50s. Then I read that during WW2 it was reduced to rubble. That is true widespread destruction.

    --
    -- "You can lead a yak to water, but you can't teach an old dog to make a silk purse out of a pig in a poke" - Opus
  57. Free weather service by craw · · Score: 2, Funny

    Congratulations! You have been selected to receive our new weather forecast service(*) for absolutely NO COST! This is a valuable limited time offer from the US Government that you do not want to pass up!

    Here is our next week's customized forecast for your area.

    Sunday: Hazy and humid
    Monday: Hazy and humid.
    Tuesday: Hazy and humid.
    Wednesday: One million degrees, blinding sunlight, and one whomping big ass cloud in the sky.
    Thurday: Hazy and humid.

    So sign up NOW for this limited time offer.

    (*)Terms and conditions of this service may be subject to change without prior written notice.

    1. Re:Free weather service by BoneFlower · · Score: 3, Funny

      Reminds me of a joke about Afghanistan:

      Q: Whats the 7 day forecast for Afghanistan?

      A: Three days.

  58. my favorite part by cannes · · Score: 1



    iraq

    wonder what his EULA looks like?

    --
    AK
    1. Re:my favorite part by cannes · · Score: 1

      sorry!

      head
      meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
      content="text/html; charset=windows-1256"
      meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 5.0"
      titleiraq /title /head

      wonder what his EULA looks like?

      --
      AK
  59. Netcraft by cigarky · · Score: 2

    The site www.uruklink.net is running Sun_WebServer/2.0 on Solaris.

    --
    You shank my Jengaship!
  60. Can't bomb 'em yet, hack and slash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just an attempt by the Bush administration to attack the Iraqi regime. Since we can't bomb them yet, they found this and release it to all us geeks for us to hack and slash(.) them.

  61. Time for a parody by dcavanaugh · · Score: 2

    How about a ghost-written testimonial about a Middle East dictator who switches from Mac to XP? At least the photo could be real this time.

  62. People want blood by mary_will_grow · · Score: 1

    A man who identified himself as a former U.S. paratrooper and Persian Gulf War veteran e-mailed on June 25 that he regretted that "a political solution decision was made before my friends and I had a chance to completely wipe your cartoon character of a leader off the face of this earth."

    That is pretty frightening. "I wish we didnt resolve this dispute before we got to waste each other."
    Why are military personnel so hell-bent on killing people? Are they trained to be like that, or does it just happen naturally through desensitization, given the violence-oriented environment in which they live?

    --
    Why stick up for big business?
    1. Re:People want blood by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paratroopers are trained for killing. That is the solution they are used for. When you have had to make the horrible decsion to use violence, you want the people inacting it to do so, quickly and effectivly.

  63. President Skroob by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's incredible! I have that same combination on my luggage!

    --
    You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
  64. Official Body Count! by EggplantMan · · Score: 3, Funny

    Deaths directly linked to the (mis)use of:
    IIs : 1
    Apache : 0

    Is using IIs really worth the risk? Please, think before you deploy IIs.

    --

    ?-|||-----x<*))))><
  65. 4G technology to Ignite the Atmosphere by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I did a google search on this line from the wired article.

    "as a weapon to ignite large sections of the atmosphere and incinerate all living creatures within its pre-selected coordinates."

    And found this refrence:
    This article

  66. Imminent? Gabba Gabba Hey! by flyneye · · Score: 1

    So is it imminent we get bombed or imminent he gets mushroom clouded? I hate vague people! Better to send something less vague. Perhaps the Ramones insignia. Shield and eagle with eagle holding arrows in one claw,baseball bat in the other and the words "Look Out Below" on a ribbon beneath.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  67. Correction by forii · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "I'm more scared by the fact the country with the biggest military buget in the world wants to start invading countries that have not done anything that warrent an attack."


    You probably mean "...countries that have not done anything, except aggressively invade their neighboring countries, refuse to disarm, and use poison gas on their own inhabitants that warrent[sic] an attack."

    1. Re:Correction by foistboinder · · Score: 2

      ... and use poison gas on their own inhabitants

      But Saddam Hussein was one of the good guys when he used poison gas. In fact he was one of the good guys almost up to the day he invaded Kuwait.

    2. Re:Correction by Glytch · · Score: 2

      You probably mean "...countries that have not done anything, except aggressively invade their neighboring countries, refuse to disarm, and use poison gas on their own inhabitants that warrent[sic] an attack."

      Well, damn. I'm glad to see that only Iraq ever does those things.

    3. Re:Correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when are you invading Russia then?

    4. Re:Correction by Theom · · Score: 1

      You mean Russia? Invasion, check. Refuse to disarm, check. Use poison gas on their own inhabitants, umm... let me see, yes, check

      --

      mp3: l33t term for empty.
    5. Re:Correction by forii · · Score: 1

      While it's nice of you to provide links, it would also help if they illustrated a point.

    6. Re:Correction by forii · · Score: 1

      Who ordered Russia to disarm? And why?

    7. Re:Correction by Theom · · Score: 1

      Who can order a country to do anything? The USA can't order Iraq because they lost in war, because they never DECLARED war.
      Russia has agreements with the USA on disarming, is there anyone checking either side or is it just to settle the people?

      --

      mp3: l33t term for empty.
    8. Re:Correction by forii · · Score: 1

      Iraq agreed to a cease fire that requires it to, among other things, destroy all chemical/biological weapons, destroy all ballistic missiles (range >150km), agree to submit to on-site inspections, return all property stolen from Kuwait, agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons (and agree to inspections to verify this), and pay reparations for losses caused by the invasion of Kuwait.

      Read (PDFs, sorry) United Nations Resolution 687 , which spells out Iraq's obligations, and Resolution 707, which "demands" that Iraq implement Resolution 687, as it had agreed to.

      It should be mentioned that as of this date Iraq has still not implemented any of these conditions.

    9. Re:Correction by BLAG-blast · · Score: 1
      You probably mean "...countries that have not done anything, except aggressively invade their neighboring countries, refuse to disarm, and use poison gas on their own inhabitants that warrent[sic] an attack."

      Isn't this exactly what we armed them for in the first place? We (and some others) supplied the poison gas to use on it own people, we told Iraq to invade it's neighbor (Iran) and we would give it lots of war toys to use, we told Iraq it was ok to use gas against people in Iraq who supported Iran.

      Of course, as soon as they start thinking on there own we don't like it any more. We've already attacked Iraq for invade Kuwait and your saying that we should attack them again just to make sure?

      If we start killing Iraqi's on Iraqi soil without provocation, then the world will have no sympathy if Iraq's where to start killing Americains on Americain soil.

      --
      M0571y H@rml355.
  68. Ominous date by f97tosc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Attached to the Aug. 6 e-mail was a photograph of an atomic mushroom cloud.' It is probably not a coincidence that Aug 6 was the 1945 date that the nuke was dropped on Hiroshima.

    Tor

  69. The password is... by jabber01 · · Score: 3, Funny

    1.. 2.. 3.. 4.. 5..

    Same as the code on G.W. Bush's luggage.

    --

    The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
    What you do today will cost you a day of your life

  70. And we care... why? by n9hmg · · Score: 1

    Yeah, an unimportant mailbox was insecure, and somebody guessed the pass.
    It would be funny, perhaps, if the account had then been used to send out something along the lines of "All your base are belong to us!", but that's about the extent of its utility. It's a small-time hack, just like the ones that generated that famous phrase. Now, if somebody were to hack his systems in such a way as to set detonate one of his sarin bombs while he's present, THAT would be a big deal, though I'd prefer that he be the ONLY one present. I have nothing against his soldiers, and it will make me sad when we kill them. Let's hope they bring us his head to and just surrender. Good country, good people, evil overlord.

  71. Not in the context by MichaelPenne · · Score: 1

    of the blitzkrieg, siege of Stalingrad, Dresden, Battle of Britain, etc., Pearl & WTC, terrible as they were, were far outscored on the death and destruction scale by dozens of WWII battles in Europe.

    Heck even the Civil War was mostly soldiers killing soldiers in small towns or empty fields, you'd have to go back to Fredericksburg or Atlanta to find the kind of total devastation of entire cities (& most of the cities of a nation) that a European means when saying "widepsread destruction".

  72. Mod parent up by Adam+J.+Richter · · Score: 2

    Agreed. It wastes a lot of people's time when editors or story authors (in the absense of competent editors) try to show how "with it" they are by not expanding acronyms, especially when they have not recently been used in a slashot headline.

  73. Dear Stupid Ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hitler had quite a formidable military, which was built up from the remains of WWI and assembled against the orders of the Versailles Treaty.

    Hussain has no such bad assness.

    Your argument is weak, and ridiculous.

  74. His password: by FCAdcock · · Score: 1

    His passwors was 5 letters?

    Um, just a stab in the dark here, but maybe "NUKES"?

    --
    --Forest C. Adcock--
  75. has anyone figured out the user/password yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've tried
    username: press
    password: press, Press, PRESS, PreSS, pRess, PresS, pRESS, pRESs

    username allah
    password allah, Allah, ALLAH, allaH, aLLAH

    username 12345
    password 12345

    any then I got tired.
    anyone had any luck?

  76. in other news by antonsthlm · · Score: 1
    RIAA today admitted that they were actually the ones doing the sniping in Washington recently as an ongoing effort to target and terminate the world-wide piracy of shit. The U.S. Senate was unified in their agreement of the rightfulness of the action under the United Kitchen Compliance Usdurping Fad (UKCUF) law.


    Also in todays news, William Safire of the NYTimes (blah blah) underlined recent beliefs that McDonalds and KFC are a secret operation under the wings of Al'Qaeda by noting the extreme fat asses of its buyers, an all-telling sign of terrorist activities, according to safire. Several international experts in both nutrition, ergonomics and terrorism denied Safire's allegations, but they were in term named as hoaxes and brainwashed commie europerv saladeaters.


    Britney Spears announced today that she, in-fact is not even a virgin but THE Virgin and far more so than Natalie Portman ever was. In retort, George Lucas denied any action taken whatsoever on his part in losing Ms Portmans abilities in that direction.


    To end on a good note Our God, George w. Bush learned to walk today, as well as announcing that he with a little technical assistance from the senior staff had cracked the secret codes to the sadamn harem. We at Wierd have learned that the password was, in fact, Jorge.


    Tomorrow's forecast for the markets point to a 68% increase in difficulties and with absolute certainty there will be showers of jumpers. So Watch everyone out there tomorrow, and don't forget your gun.

  77. Saddam, Bill Gates, Lucifer, et al-dont read Inbox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah right, anyone with any political or corporate status DOES NOT read their own email directly from their inbox --- someone obviously filters through their email as well as snail-mail or they would be deleting mails all day long saying "Hey, you suck!"

  78. No more hacking Saddam's inbox? by Jouster · · Score: 4, Informative
    So, rather than actually shutting down the ports in question, they just turn off DNS resolution for webmail.uruklink.net. Of course, their NS entries still exist, and a quick subnet scan on port 8383 (nice of them to choose an odd port number, wasn't it?) reveals that adding
    62.32.60.16 webmail.uruklink.net
    to your /etc/hosts (or C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\hosts for us Windows users) quite nicely lets us into the webmail system.

    Alas, the user/pass is not "press"/"press", nor a mispelled "sadam"/"sadam". Ah, well.

    Jouster
    1. Re:No more hacking Saddam's inbox? by Jouster · · Score: 4, Informative
      And for those who care...
      # nmap -vv -P0 -O -p 25,110,8383,8389 62.32.60.16 #webmail.uruklink.net

      Starting nmap V. 2.54BETA31 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
      No tcp,udp, or ICMP scantype specified, assuming vanilla tcp connect() scan. Use -sP if you really don't want to portscan (and just want to see what hosts are up).
      Host (62.32.60.16) appears to be up ... good.
      Initiating Connect() Scan against (62.32.60.16)
      Adding open port 25/tcp
      Adding open port 8383/tcp
      Adding open port 110/tcp
      The Connect() Scan took 12 seconds to scan 4 ports.
      Warning: OS detection will be MUCH less reliable because we did not find at least 1 open and 1 closed TCP port
      For OSScan assuming that port 25 is open and port 33201 is closed and neither are firewalled
      For OSScan assuming that port 25 is open and port 39570 is closed and neither are firewalled
      For OSScan assuming that port 25 is open and port 39827 is closed and neither are firewalled
      Interesting ports on (62.32.60.16):
      Port State Service
      25/tcp open smtp
      110/tcp open pop-3
      8383/tcp open unknown
      8389/tcp filtered unknown

      No OS matches for host (test conditions non-ideal).
      TCP/IP fingerprint:
      SInfo(V=2.54BETA31%P=i386-redhat-lin ux-gnu%D=10/28 %Time=3DBD8674%O=25%C=-1)
      TSeq(Class=TR%TS=0)
      T1 (Resp=Y%DF=Y%W=564%ACK=S++%Flags=AS%Ops=MNNT)
      T2( Resp=N)
      T3(Resp=N)
      T4(Resp=N)
      T5(Resp=N)
      T6(Re sp=N)
      T7(Resp=N)
      PU(Resp=N)

      TCP Sequence Prediction: Class=truly random
      Difficulty=9999999 (Good luck!)
      TCP ISN Seq. Numbers: 5E47AE5C A0B64F86 4F9BF508 BFC8A529 A3713D10 9EA869AA
      IPID Sequence Generation: Busy server or unknown class

      Nmap run completed -- 1 IP address (1 host up) scanned in 94 seconds

      Jouster
    2. Re:No more hacking Saddam's inbox? by Jouster · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I love it!

      The changes are propogating across DNS now... "webmail.uruklink.net" is now a private address in the 10.0.0.0/8 class A!
      Non-authoritative answer:
      Name: mailserv.uruklink.net
      Address: 10.0.0.16
      Aliases: webmail.uruklink.net

      Jouster
    3. Re:No more hacking Saddam's inbox? by smyle · · Score: 1
      "webmail.uruklink.net" is now a private address in the 10.0.0.0/8 class A

      I was wondering why his homepage looked identical to mine.

      --

      Sleep is just a poor substitute for caffeine, anyway. -Bob Lehmann

    4. Re:No more hacking Saddam's inbox? by dafozzee · · Score: 0

      Hey! What's Saddam's mail server doing on MY network!?

  79. 5 letters? i'm laying odds on JIHAD by honold · · Score: 1

    subject says it all

  80. A nation of fanatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The right of keeping your mail private only matters to people in your side of the border, right?
    Why do you think someone can hack inboxes of Sadam Husseim, Fidel Castro, or any other 'persona non grata' for the united states when this would cause a lot of trouble if done to american citzens? If a right can't be expanded to a universal law then it's likely to be immoral. It's obvious the upcoming war against Iraq only matters Bush's interests on oil businesses. However, most people in the US disregard the fact that Sadam was actually a direct product of the pathetic US intervention in the Iran x Iraq war in the 80's and keep attacking him as he was the devil himself (as in South Park). The main focus should be on fixing the US international policies, which has shown to be a complete disaster (look at this stupid inbox hacking), and not to fight against ex-allies as Sadam. Until there, the term 'nation of fanatics' fits more to the US than to any other country in the world.

    1. Re:A nation of fanatics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said. It's no coincidence that there are so many anti-war supporters here in the U.S.
      That large population has logic and a voice.
      It's pretty embarrassing to see that Osoma Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are U.S. products and longtime allies. We hire thugs all the time, and rally our clown-chimp president to go "smoke'em out". Well shit, why can't you find me OBL's corpse?? or the Anthrax mailer??? now you wanna send troops to secure the oil fields of Iraq? I say fuck you, go to hell. And take your crooked smile with you. I didn't think presidency could sink lower than Clinton, but it has. Clinton is an archangel demiGod in comparison to this inbred illiterate redneck.

  81. Hacker Beware. by freaksta · · Score: 1

    If this is not a hoax, I would think the FBI/CIA/NSA whatever would be all over his internet activities (carnivore) especially if his email address is so commonly known. I would not want to be the hacker that walked into that death trap.

    --


    Hrrm... I usually just sign my name.
  82. Re: SUCH BULLSHIT by (v)Jargon(v) · · Score: 1

    Like this could be for real...

  83. prescription by cygnusx197 · · Score: 1

    I need to get my eyes checked. I thought I read "Saddam Hacks Xbox" Guess everybody's taking a shot at those babies.

  84. Here is the WHOIS note contact ama_72@yahoo.com by Brigadier · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Kinda wierd to think the most clear and present danger to the free world uses a yahoo address for there administrators.

    Registrar:domaininfo.com
    Domain Name: URUKLINK.NET

    [Owner of domain name]
    osama khalid
    27 april street
    baghdad, 0000
    IQ

    [Administrative contact]
    khalid, osama
    27 april street
    0000 baghdad
    IQ

    Email: ama_72@yahoo.com
    Phone: +964 1 5372494
    Fax: +964 1 5434731

    [Technical contact]
    khalid, osama
    27 april street
    0000 baghdad
    IQ

    Email: ama_72@yahoo.com
    Phone: +964 1 5372494
    Fax: +964 1 5434731

    [Zone contact]
    khalid, osama
    27 april street
    0000 baghdad
    IQ

    Email: ama_72@yahoo.com
    Phone: +964 1 5372494
    Fax: +964 1 5434731

    Record created: 29 May 2000
    Record last changed: 22 Nov 2001
    Record expires: 29 May 2005

    Nameserver: nic1.warkaa.com (62.32.60.1)
    Nameserver: nic2.warkaa.com (62.32.60.2)

    1. Re:Here is the WHOIS note contact ama_72@yahoo.com by danimrich · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They even use Frontpage!
      <meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage5 .0">

      Does this mean that M$ is bad or that Saddam's web "designers" are stupid?

      --
      where's all that Karma?
    2. Re:Here is the WHOIS note contact ama_72@yahoo.com by zephc · · Score: 5, Funny

      it means that MS supports terrorists! Or... something... :-D

      --
      "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
    3. Re:Here is the WHOIS note contact ama_72@yahoo.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd just like to point out that if anyone here believes any of the Domain Registration details are inaccurate, then the domain is in breach of the Domain Registration Agreement and should be reported using this form

      Evil dictator or not, this is the Internet, and no one gives a rats ass if you're a dog.

    4. Re:Here is the WHOIS note contact ama_72@yahoo.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. According to NetCraft,

      The site www.uruklink.net is running Sun_WebServer/2.0 on Solaris

    5. Re:Here is the WHOIS note contact ama_72@yahoo.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you can't store webpages made in frontpage on a Sun_Webserver?

  85. In other related news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Arabic language newspaper Al Jezeera is reporting today that uruklink.net suffered a massive distributed denial of service attack today originating from the United States. While originally believed to be the prelude to a new offensive campaign by the United States against Iraq, it was later determined that this attack was the work of a group of renegade, technology-savvy intellectuals from the Slashdot.org website.

  86. an aside by Luyseyal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A friend of mine was in the Gulf War -- US Army infantry. He said he and all his buds were "encouraged" (i.e., berated by the sargeant until they did it) to sign a waiver and receive an injection of non-FDA-approved anthrax vaccine. I've wondered if this had a possibile relation to Gulf War Syndrome. Any idea?

    -l

    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    1. Re:an aside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "anthrax" vaccine has been reported to do a LOT of bad things. I know when I was in the National Guard they were considering making it manditory for soldiers to take it, and there were a lot of people who were planning on telling the NG to go fuck themselves if they did (myself included).

      I'm sure that the vaccine had something to do with it, but I'm thinking that the desert itself might have also. We just don't know what sort of crazy stuff (biological/chemical) Saddam threw into various parts of the desert against the U.S. and that might have simply been laying around from previous conflicts.

    2. Re:an aside by Luyseyal · · Score: 2

      In my friend's unit, they weren't allowed to take off their rubber uniform at all for several weeks. Many of them accumulated blisters and other things from not being able to bathe the sweat, piss, and shit off their skin. I don't know if anyone in his unit developed GWS (he didn't), but I bet you're right about the variety of possibilities.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    3. Re:an aside by Alsee · · Score: 2

      A friend of mine was in the Gulf War -- US Army Military Police. He said that sand and grit got into EVERYTHING. I've wondered if this had a possibile relation to Gulf War Syndrome. Any idea?

      Doesn't anyone else think it's odd that we never went back to the moon? I've wondered if this had a possibile relation to Gulf War Syndrome. Any idea?

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    4. Re:an aside by Luyseyal · · Score: 2

      We just don't know.

      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  87. Just one question. by PyroX_Pro · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Since when is guessing a password considered hacking?

  88. Re:MOD IT TO + INFINITY & WE'LL WORSHIP IT AS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As your what?

  89. The Reality by telstar · · Score: 2

    While Saddam shuffles from palace to palace, gasses his own people, and forces a 100% election ... this is what his country's children look forward to:

    picture

    It's time for a change.
    Hack his email.
    Crush his forces.
    Get him out of power.
    Do something for the people that couldn't leave if they wanted to...

    1. Re:The Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's bullshit.

      Let me add another strongpoint to your list:

      *secure his oil

      It's really the only one that matters. It's funny how morons like you are suddenly compassionate about the sufferage in Iraq. Those poor kids! Well dipshit, it's not the gasing or soccer team beatings that starve kids. It's the fucking routine US/British bombing and banning of international aid.
      I know some Iraqi's here in the U.S., and they tell a different picture of Iraq. One that Dubya, and CNN doesn't like to describe.
      With that, i'd like to jizz on your post.

    2. Re:The Reality by kindbud · · Score: 2

      "Sorry. This page requires javascript. "

      Oh, the horror!

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    3. Re:The Reality by telstar · · Score: 2

      I suppose his 100% victory in the recent election is due to the entire country agreeing? That's quite an achievement...

      Face it ... you'd disagree with whatever agenda the Bush administration supported. You probably supported our anti-Iraq actions taken and maintained during the Clinton administration, didn't you?

  90. A large, knotty creature, shouting... by Anonymous+Custard · · Score: 1

    I just tried hacking into their email server, but ran in to some new protection program...they now have a large, twisted, knotty creature, who appears on your screen and forwards your intrusion attempts away while shouting...

    "We are the fighting Uruklink-Hai! We bombed the great satan. We took the hostages. We are the servants of Saddam the Wise, The Gassy Ass: The Ass that gives us American-flesh to eat. We operate out of Baghdad, and forwarded you here, and we shall lead you back by the protocol we choose. /whois me = Ugluk. I have spoken."

    (apologies to JRR)

  91. not such a good idea by theroterts · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that maybe it isn't a great idea to hack into an email account that is (arguably) owned by a person who really really likes weapons of mass distruction.

    --
    ?SYNTAX ERROR IN SIG

    READY.
  92. near-constant civil war by oliverthered · · Score: 2

    I live in England, we've been in a near-constant civil war for years and still are.
    What this teaches you is to be tollerent of others, not to kill the fuckers.

    Maybe, just maybe there are a lot of countries/people that hate the dictatorship that America is trying to impose on the rest of the world . Should they kill Bush for being evil?

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re: near-constant civil war by Samrobb · · Score: 1
      Maybe, just maybe there are a lot of countries/people that hate the dictatorship that America is trying to impose on the rest of the world. Should they kill Bush for being evil?

      -1 for trying to change the topic via innane segue.

      I'd be happy to debate this, but the topic of conversation is whether or not the US has some understanding of the history of violent conflict. I claim that we do, and in fact, we have a better understanding than, say, countries that have lived in a state of "near-constant civil war for years"...

      What this teaches you is to be tollerent of others, not to kill the fuckers.

      No, it doesn't. If it taught you that, then you wouldn't be in the middle of a friggin' civil war, now, would you?

      Here in the US, we have somehow managed to live together for over a century without experiencing large-scale internal violence. Because we have prospered from this, we are reviled by the international community, who needs to come up with increasingly bizzare reasons why the US isn't really any good. I do have to admit that claiming "We're been beat up more often than you have!" is a fairly original one, though.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    2. Re: near-constant civil war by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Umm.. I don't have the figures,
      what % of the US polulation is killed each year by it's own government? I'm sure it's a lot higer than in the UK, and we are as you say in a near civil war.

      IRA bombs rairly kill people.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re: near-constant civil war by Samrobb · · Score: 1
      Umm.. I don't have the figures, what % of the US polulation is killed each year by it's own government? I'm sure it's a lot higer than in the UK, and we are as you say in a near civil war.

      According to Amnesty International, "In 2001... Sixty-six people were executed in the USA." Also from Anesty International, "A recent research study... found that sectarian hatred had reached unprecedented levels in north Belfast... At least 19 people reportedly died during 2001 as a result of sectarian or paramilitary activity."

      Sorry, couldn't find information on the UK as a whole. But given that this is the mortality rate reported for one city, I suspect that overall, the civil war in the UK has a higher toll (in percentage population and raw numbers) than executions carried out by the US government.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    4. Re: near-constant civil war by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      How many people were shot or killed by the police?

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    5. Re: near-constant civil war by Samrobb · · Score: 1
      How many people were shot or killed by the police?

      Sigh. What am I, a personal reference librarian?

      I'm having trouble finding any consolidated statistics... if I can find them after work, I'll follow up. Meanwhile, why don't you talk to me about the difference in police assault (not police shootings) between the US and UK? In looking for info on US police shootings, I've come across a couple of studies that seem to indicate that overall, you're less likely to be shot in the UK... but far, far more likely to be beaten with a baton, tear gassed, or otherwise physically assaulted by the police or military.

      --
      "Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
    6. Re: near-constant civil war by Mirus+Nex · · Score: 1

      How many people were shot or killed by the police? That, being the stupidest comment ever, warranted a reply. What, exactly, does that have to do with anything? The people intentionally shot by police are criminals. Does the rest of the World view the United States as being controlled by political vigilantes hell-bent on killing anyone in sight? The number of people executed every year is also illrelevent since these people were judged by a jury of peers of a crime so heinous as to warrant the death penalty. Only 2 people come to mind in recent history that were "wrongfully" put to death and were later proven innocent. One of the greatest things about being an American is that we are granted the RIGHT to bear arms. This right was given to us by our forefathers to PROTECT the citizens of the U.S. from an overly oppressive government. There is no "revolution" looming in the near future. The fact that you, "living in England", are "in constant civil-war" is because the government took your arms away. You now have no way of defending yourselves from your government or your own people... Good Luck!

    7. Re: near-constant civil war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the mortality rate in your government run medical facilities?

    8. Re: near-constant civil war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Here in the US, we have somehow managed to live together for over a century without experiencing large-scale internal violence."

      Until recently, you haven't had a huge proportion of "non-Whites". The minorities that were sizable have had to rebel - the Blacks.

      The reason you don't have large scale internal violence is because the US is predominantly composed of people who had to run away from their original lands for fear of persecution or rather came to the US for economic prosperity. These people, by nature, don't want to fight. They ran away to avoid fighting the ethnic/social/economic shackles back home. These circumstances have led to a lack of violence rather than the US as a collective implementing any thoughful barricades.

      The US populace is also more economically-oriented. What matters is money and prosperity.
      The WASP doesn't care if his customer is an Arabic or Black as long as they can shell out the money. Thus issues unless they involve personal freedom or condition don't incite a lot of support in society. (Each looks after his own.)
      Nothing becomes big enough to create a spark.
      Also, here different states have specific and diverse laws. If there's some discrimination in 1 state (gay marriage/abortion), simply move over to the next one.

      As time has passed, the US has developed a more complete individual identity as a separate nation composed of its peoples rather than the past identity of a nation offering refuge or a new beginning.

      This new US hasn't experienced widespread destruction, massive social/civil rebellions or territorial disputes. They don't seem to have a great understanding of violent military or civil conflict.

    9. Re: near-constant civil war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, yes, Americans are all for dictatorships. Of course GWB is a big fan of them, which is unfortunate, but saying America is forcing people into dictatorships? Sure, whatever you say, wait, do you live in America? No. So shutup. Oh, and I don't think a war between IRA and England is exactly a civil war. Although they are somewhat similar.

  93. Gaiacomm by KlomDark · · Score: 2

    Their web site is so badly done it's hilarious. None of it seems to make any sense. They go on about some super-technological wireless radio system that even works in a submarine, and also some way these radios can be re-tuned into a long-distance incineration weapon.

    Check it out, it's pretty funny.

    And great sound effects - sounds like a whale giving birth to a chimp, not sure what it's supposed to be, or why on earth a corporate site would want such strange noises to prelude into a really wacked presentation on their super-vague "4G" lethal boomboxes...

  94. Easy password to guess. by BoneFlower · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Everyone knows what evil dictators use.

    12345.

    Bet he has it on his luggage too.

  95. Ooo, timing... by flippet · · Score: 1
    From the article...

    "For weapon use, have function: no color, no smell, will let person dead in a few second,"

    ...right next to a big advert for "Great Gift Ideas for the Holidays".

    I had to smile...

    Phil, just me

    --
    "Cattle Prods solve most of life's little problems."
  96. Republicans? by weetabix · · Score: 1

    The worst Republican, on his worst, conspiracy-laden, evil, money-grubbing day is better than Saddam Hussein on his best, most charitable, not-killing-people day.

    I take it your a Democrat? ;)

    --

    -- "It's tough to run with both feet stuck in your mouth" - Zoe's evil side

  97. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there are any non-american-fanatics in the moderation poll

  98. My Bet -- Username: sadam Pass: sadam by Opiuman · · Score: 1

    Any has $0.02 to say otherwise? :)

  99. And ran_999@yahoo.com for WARkaa.com by vannevar · · Score: 1

    And don't forget ran_999@yahoo.com for WARkaa.com What are the odds of that? URUKlink is apparently hosted by WARkaa.

    WOOHOO! You may be able to buy this domain name (see end of message for exciting details).

    Domain Name: WARKAA.COM
    Registrar: REGISTER.COM, INC.
    Whois Server: whois.register.com
    Referral URL: http://www.register.com
    Name Server: NIC1.WARKAA.COM
    Name Server: NIC2.WARKAA.COM
    Updated Date: 04-feb-2002

    Organization:
    nic sadeem majeed
    DUBIA dubia, 00 11126
    AE Phone: 971 4 2224482
    Fax: 971 4 2224482
    Email: ran_999@yahoo.com

    Registrar Name: Register.com
    Registrar Whois: whois.register.com
    Registrar Homepage: http://www.register.com

    Domain Name: WARKAA.COM

    Created on: Sat, Nov 10, 2001
    Expires on: Wed, Nov 10, 2004
    Record last updated on: Wed, Jun 12, 2002

    Administrative Contact:
    nic sadeem majeed
    DUBIA dubia, 00 11126
    AE Phone: 971 4 2224482
    Fax..: 971 4 2224482
    Email: ran_999@yahoo.com

    Technical Contact:
    nic sadeem majeed
    DUBIA dubia, 00 11126
    AE Phone: 971 4 2224482
    Fax..: 971 4 2224482
    Email: ran_999@yahoo.com

    Zone Contact:
    nic sadeem majeed
    DUBIA dubia, 00 11126
    AE Phone: 971 4 2224482
    Fax: 971 4 2224482
    Email: ran_999@yahoo.com

    Domain servers in listed order:

    NIC1.WARKAA.COM 62.32.60.1
    NIC2.WARKAA.COM 62.32.60.2

    You may be able to buy this domain name through http://www.afternic.com/offer

  100. WACO by oliverthered · · Score: 2

    Use Gas, what like waco

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:WACO by forii · · Score: 1

      Nerve Gas and Tear Gas are different things.

    2. Re:WACO by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      Hmm... One kills, the other Kills. I see your point.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    3. Re:WACO by forii · · Score: 1

      So does H20, CO2, and Sucrose, if delivered in the correct manner. What's your point?

    4. Re:WACO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you try to drown people then ......

      My point is that most governments are 'EVIL' some are just more evil than others.

  101. Mod parent down (was: Re:Mod parent up) by Theodore+Logan · · Score: 3

    Agreed. It wastes a lot of people's time when editors or story authors (in the absense of competent editors) try to show how "with it" they are by not expanding acronyms, especially when they have not recently been used in a slashot headline.

    You could not possibly be serious. If you have read any single issue of any newspaper during the last year you must have seen that acronym. And the latter part of your comment is just hilarious. It hasn't featured in a Slashdot headline, so you couldn't know about it? Want them to clarify who Saddam is too? He doesn't frequent Slashdot headlines all to often either.

    Sorry for flamebating/trolling/whatever, but really, try to get out of your cubicle just a little more often, willya?

    --

    "If you think education is expensive, try ignorance" - Derek Bok

  102. New way to combat spammers.. by James_G · · Score: 3, Funny
    Saddam's inbox also contained several solicitations from American companies hoping to do business with Iraq -- despite U.S. prohibitions and United Nations trade sanctions.

    To: Saddam, Subject: MAKE MONEY FAST!!!
    To: Saddam, Subject: Generic Viagra! $2.50 each!
    To: Saddam, Subject: Increase your penis size!

    Wouldn't it be so nice to close down spammers because they're breaching UN trade sanctions? Maybe you could even get them charged with treason.. Muahahaha

  103. Gaiacomm Technical Docs by KlomDark · · Score: 3, Informative

    I found their "technical" documentation - it was a wildly entertaining read, the ultimate in nonsense techno-babble. What in the hell is a "tetra-gigahertz"?

    Great phrases like:

    "Mathematical expressions have been eliminated to allow the reader to interpret the words and draw pictures in his mind to see what I, and so many others in the past have discovered but were afraid to write about or do until now."

    "The frequency dependence of attenuation in the earth ionosphere wave-guide channel is known but will not be disclosed in this paper."

    "If after reviewing all the this data including the above written data, if the reader still does not have a clear understanding then it is clear that the reader does not have the ability to think outside the circle (remember, my condition at the outset?)"

    Definitions of acronyms like ATM and CDMA at the end, although none of those terms are discussed in the document.

    Read it, laugh your head off! :)

  104. nukes are funny? by shca1 · · Score: 1
    A choice quote from the article: 'One AOL user sent Saddam a one-word message: 'Imminent.' Attached to the Aug. 6 e-mail was a photograph of an atomic mushroom cloud.'

    Of course, an atomic mushroom cloud would only affect Saddam Hussein. Can we expect to hear the phrase 'surgical nuke' used in the future?

  105. No wonder he hasn't replied. by C60 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I've been trying to get ahold of him for weeks now.

    --
    Karma: 0 (But I wield a mean +10 Vorpal Apathy)
    1. Re:No wonder he hasn't replied. by exspecto · · Score: 0

      you filthy terrorist! im sending George DubYah right over.

  106. BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The us did not give Iraq $8 billion and we were not their weapons supplier. Their weapons came from France and the USSR. We did give them some intelligence during the Iran Iraq war.

  107. Junis, not junti by Find+love+Online · · Score: 1

    That guys' name was 'Junis' not 'Junti'.

  108. Gulf War Syndrome by CainX · · Score: 1
    We don't know what caused Gulf War Syndrome, or if the US government is responsible. The only evidence of a coverup is the evidence that the symptoms are so vague that no one even thought to look at it as a separate illness until sometime after the war.

    Food for thought
  109. Guest? by Lexic0n · · Score: 1

    anyone tried "guest"/"guest"?

  110. It's perfectly ethical by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    Saddam Hussein is a bloodthirsty, hitler-esque megalomaniac. He butchers his own people. So far as I'm concerned, this places him beyond the pale of the protections civilized people afford each other. If someone shot Saddam tomorrow, it wouldn't trouble me at all - heck, if Ari Fleischer threw a party I'd probably go. As was said of Eichman - and I know I'm butchering this quote - "He didn't want to share the world with Jews, so we should not be expected to share the world with him".

    If we accept (and I wholeheartedly do) that killing Saddam would be at worst a not-bad thing and more likely a Good Thing, then hacking his mail pales in comparison. Anything that serves to humiliate or demean Saddam or those who would work with him is fine by me. Any "leader" as monstrous as Saddam deserves no rights whatsoever so far as I am concerned.

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
  111. Yeah, whatever. by Find+love+Online · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Doing bad things with nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons before we knew the dire consequences of using them is one thing. But it is another thing to use such weapons on civilians when you know exactly what the effects will be.

    So you're saying it's somehow more morally acceptable to experiment on unwitting people who have done nothing to you then it is use tested and proven poisons on people who are in the middle of an uprising? It's not like Saddam was out gassing people for fun, "His own people" were trying to overthrow him.

    We used biological, chemical, and radiological substances we thought would hurt people on innocent people to make sure it worked. Saddam used weapons on people trying to overthrow him. One of them is worse then the other, and it isn't Saddam

    1. Re:Yeah, whatever. by statusbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not only that, the Kurds that Saddam gassed were fundamentalist muslims that are now in full support of Osama Bin Laden!!! We dropped bombs on supporters of Bin Laden in Afghanistan. What's the difference?

      --jeff++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
  112. I hope not by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    Uh...high treason is a serious, serious charge. A death penalty charge, in some cases. I should hope the gov't would require more corroboration than an email (when we all know spammers are perfectly capable of forging addresses and headers) before sending someone to jail. Admittedly, those executives who admitted in the article that some sort of "joke" had been played, or that they had been misquoted but had sent emails, should at least be investigated. But no charges. Not based on something like this.

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
  113. Mod up (was:Mod parent down (was:Mod parent up)) by Mr.+Sketch · · Score: 1

    If you have read any single issue of any newspaper during the last year you must have seen that acronym

    Some of us have not read a newspaper in the past year and for some of us Slashdot is our major news source. I don't think it's an unreasonable request to expand lesser known acronyms.

  114. Israel by ColGraff · · Score: 2

    The Israeli tech sector is really booming, and they turn out a lot of good stuff. If the Iraqi site were using Israeli software, that would be hilarious.

    --
    I'm the stranger...posting to /.
    1. Re:Israel by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

      In fact, I would not be surprised at all if the guy that hacked the account is Israeli. Iraq and Israel have never gotten along well, and those Scuds during Desert Storm did not improve matters at all.

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    2. Re:Israel by snake_dad · · Score: 2

      Would you happen to know Saddam's ICQ UIN? :)

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
  115. dosent saddam have a public key? by gimpboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    really though, i'm surprised he doesnt give out his public key so people can encrypt the messages they send to him. this would at least create a pain in the ass for the cia.

    --
    -- john
  116. The human side of it by dstone · · Score: 2

    One sad possibility of this hacking is that a certain amount of national (or regime) shame may have come as a result of this hack being publicized so widely. This really is an embarassing blunder. So if we are to believe that Saddam is a ruler who beats/imprisons/executes his own people when he is unsatisfied with their devotion, some IT people in Iraq may very well be betting beaten or imprisoned or worse because of this.

    In a free world, exposing hacks results in incompetent people being retrained or fired and the problem gets fixed. In an unfree regime, well, ...

    1. Re:The human side of it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a free world, exposing hacks results in incompetent people being retrained or fired and the problem gets fixed.

      Then America isn't free by this statement! When was the last time an IT person was accountable for their mistakes!?!

  117. Hello? Nuking cities? Full of civilians? by myowntrueself · · Score: 2, Insightful

    For what?
    To save the lives of soldiers?
    Nuking hospitals & kindergartens?

    If thats not a crime against humanity *nothing* is.
    Its a paradigm example of a crime against humanity.

    --
    In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
  118. GWB more evil than SH - Pix! by davesag · · Score: 1, Informative
    you say US government doesn't maintain a specially horrific prision for the children of dissidents, doesn't gas its own citizens, doesn't execute military officers by the hundreds, doesn't explicitly repress free speech, etc.
    • some history for you.
    • the US govt imprisons more of its own citizens per capita than any other country in the world, and the number of children in us prisons is on the rise. Many of these prisons would rate as "horrific", especially for kids.
    • There are many documented instances of the US gassing their own people. here's just one and didn't the russians just gas their own people too? and for the record those kurds supposedly gassed by Iraq were actually gassed by Iran with US and british supplied weapons.
    • actually the US does execute miltary officers by the hundreds. in fact the US executed thousands of retreating iraqi soldiers in 1991. Not onlty that but the US is guilty of political assasination, car bombing, torture, and general mayhem associated with their ongoing war of terror. I mean Nixon and Kissinger and Rumsfeld actually extended the vietnam war (95% civillian casualties) by years just to get Nixon elected.
    • and finally to say the US doesn't repress free speech is too much of a joke. even google is staffed by NSA spooks. self censorship is at an all time high - wake up and smell what your are shovelling. If the press in the US were really free you'd probably know a bit more about your own evil soaked government and their clients.
    george w bush and his oil coup cronies are far more evil than saddam could ever hope to be.

    - Demand regime change in the USA now.

    --
    I used to have a better sig than this, but I got tired of it
    1. Re:GWB more evil than SH - Pix! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, you're either a troll, or a conspiracy theorist. Really, you're an idiot, but I'll leave that for another day, so some girl or guy can tell you that to your face when you frantically try to go out on a date with them. I do agree about Bush though, to some degree. Also, I wouldn't say Bush is the head of a regime.

      Cya, and have fun when you try to get a date.

    2. Re:GWB more evil than SH - Pix! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the biggest issues with all these posts is that it is so anti-Bush when the fact is that none of these things mentioned had anything to do with the CURRENT president of the U.S.

      Whether these things mentioned or not are conspiracy theories generated by some guy living in his parents' basement or not is not really important, HOWEVER I will say that any links to angelfile.org or other sites with 2-3 popup banners are hardly believable.

    3. Re:GWB more evil than SH - Pix! by composer777 · · Score: 1

      If you lived in an oppressive country, how would you know it? Would the oppression greet you every day? Or would you sleepily ignore it and think that whoever was oppressed had it coming? Do people in China know they are oppressed? How about stories of 'heroic' children in pre cold war USSR happily reporting their parents to the government? Did they know they were oppressed? How about here, where we have 25% of the world's prison population? Do we know it? If our system of media is backed by huge corporate conglomerates, and our media's main system of revenue is through advertising dollars, how can we trust them to report against big business? If media corporations depend on a subsidy consisting of a steady stream of news that comes from PR branches of both government and large private institutions, how can we trust them to report against the institutions that provide them with 'official' news, which is their life blood? These are just some things to think about...

  119. Re:MOD IT TO + INFINITY & WE'LL WORSHIP IT AS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    penis

  120. No such thing as the Gulf War Syndrome by spineboy · · Score: 2

    There have been many scientific and medical papers on this suposed syndrome. Basically the list of complaints that people suffered from were far to numerous and of different types to be produced from any substance or biologic. I've worked with a few people who have researched it, and one MD who was over there , who said that USUALLYmost of the complaints are general whole body pain, aches, etc usualy attributable to unhappy people (e.g somatatization: non specific body pains attributable to general unhappiness, usually from people who are unhappy with their predicament in life and wish to avoid it - kinda like the school kid who "feels" sick when they don't want to go to school)

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  121. rationality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What makes you think he is any less rational in his decisionmaking than your beloved mr Bush?

    1. Re:rationality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Saddam fought his way to power in one of the toughest political climates that exist in this world. Bush jr got voted to power (or did he?)because a) Daddy, b) easily influenced americans, c) Daddys money.

      Now we are only speaking of IQ. Not empathic ability. And, sadly, I am not sure if Bush jr would win even that contest.

      Maybe something like a "celebrity deathmatch"?

      Put GWB and Saddam pit and and let them sort this out themselves.

      - "You tried to kill my Daddy!"
      - "Your Daddy tried to kill me!"

      (Insert Batman (50's) sounds and labels here. Think "SMACK!", "BIFF", etc.)

      There can be only one!

    2. Re:rationality by flarn · · Score: 1

      did you know that one of the co-VP's of iraq proposed that saddam and bush have a dual? with each picking the weapon of their choice.

      --
      Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
    3. Re:rationality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bush with a Tomahawk(tm) and Saddam with a Scud(tm)? Doesn't sound fair to me.

  122. Don't forget other countries by Aexia · · Score: 2

    Like all those democratically elected governments we overthrew and replaced with murderous military regimes. Guatemala anyone?

    But they weren't our own citizens so I guess they don't count.

  123. Re:Contratulations, you won my auction! Item #3432 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeez, dude, there's nobody here but you and me who know who Ollie is. These guys are mostly clueless. It would be better signed, "Doctor Evil".

    By the way, FUNNY.

    Bitterman

  124. if I were the hax0r.. by Suppafly · · Score: 3, Funny

    If I were the one that hacked his inbox, I think I would have sent emails to all of his followers telling them to kill themselves.. or maybe I just would have taunted the rest of the world with email riddles and chain letters.

  125. Cool new pre-emptive framing technology. by bareman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sweet! Now we can email [plant] "evidence" to people to prove that they are guilty.

    This is so much easier than going on TV to call them bad names. "Axis of Evil".

    Man, if they receive bad emails they must be bad.

    This just in... We've just received word that email evidence proves that the president is having an affair with a barely 18 year old girl named Tiffany.

  126. Re:WMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    vs. Microsoft's Weapons of Mass Annoyance?

  127. Bomb his ass! by mustangdavis · · Score: 2
    I think you mean the US should set him up the bomb.

    Your grammar is atrocious! For future reference: "I think you mean the US should set up him the bomb."


    No, this is what we should do:

    # tar -zcvf email_bomb.tgz windowsXP.iso

    # elm -s "You've got bombed!" press@uruklink.net
    repeat step 2 as many times as you can before your ISP shuts you down

  128. Wouldn't it be ironic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...if the credentials for the account were login: 'islam' password: 'islam' ...

  129. oliverthered should define civil war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police shootings are somehow connected to civil war...

    Do not comment on police matters if you don't have any experience with the matter. That's what your original point was.

    Now you are just commenting on all injuries/fatalies in America. Yes Europeans have less paper cuts per year than Americans, this meanas... uh wait I know this one... x equals infinity!

    1. Re:oliverthered should define civil war by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      I was defining being more tolarant of other people.
      So as a goverment in a country with no cival war how tolarant are 'you' to other people.

      How many people does the UK government (who are getting more like the US) kill each year for being 'freeks' [criminals, 'terrorists' etc...]
      and how many people does the US government kill.

      The UK goverment is letting 'terrorists' out of prison, while in the US it appears everything is being done to kill some killers.

      %people kill by the goverment whilst inforcing 'justice' is a rough cut measure of tollarance.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    2. Re:oliverthered should define civil war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Frankly, you obviously aren't very tolerant of the U.S. Now, I could extrapolate from that, that every single person in the UK hates America, but I'm not, am I? Yes, there are people who aren't tolerant in the US, and there are people who aren't tolerant in the UK, you being one of them. We may have more of them, but we also have a larger population. Go away.

    3. Re:oliverthered should define civil war by oliverthered · · Score: 1

      I am tolerant, you just can't accept constructive criticism.
      I may screem that you are a fool from the top of the roof, but at the end of the day I'll still have to accept the fact that you may never be anything else, which is a shame that you may die a fool.

      --
      thank God the internet isn't a human right.
  130. Correct? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I agree: Saddam is a pain in the arse. But is it still ethically correct to publish information about someone's inbox's contents? I think not. I thought that the majority of Slashdot users were pretty concerned about privacy. If it's OK to read Saddam's mail, is it OK for them to read your mail?

  131. Re:Mod up (was:Mod parent down (was:Mod parent up) by syrinx · · Score: 1

    Some of us have not read a newspaper in the past year and for some of us Slashdot is our major news source.

    If true, that is *really* sad.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
  132. Saddam as a unix user? by Choachy · · Score: 3, Funny

    SunOS 5.6

    login: joshua
    password: joshua
    Last login: Mon Dec 25 2000 00:29:33

    You are logged onto sandbox.uruklink.net.
    Unauthorized access to this system will result in shooting, stoning, or hanging.

    Mon Oct 28 16:36:42 EST 2002 /export/home3/iraq/saddam
    sandbox% ls
    mail public_html games

    sandbox% cd games /export/home3/iraq/saddam/games

    sandbox% global_thermonuclear_war
    global_thermonuclear_war : Command not found

    sandbox% global_thermonuclear_war
    global_thermonuclear_war : Command not found

    sandbox% global_thermonuclear_war
    global_thermonuclear_war : Command not found

    sandbox% @#$*&(@^#
    @#$*&(@^#: Command not found

    sandbox% exit

    Connection to host lost.

  133. Trading With the Enemy Act? by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 1

    Does the Trading With the Enemy Act still apply? That could be used on them - you know, like it was against Dubya's grandpa Prescott in 1942 to stop him from helping fund the Nazis.

    (And the axe of Godwin falls upon the thread...)

    --

    Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
  134. Absolute secrecy by Target+Practice · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "Please consider this letter as secret ... I ensure you absolute secrecy," the e-mail stated.

    "Oh, all right... The combination is:
    One"
    "One"
    "Two"
    "Two"
    "Three"
    "Three"
    "Four"
    "Four"
    "Five"
    "Five"
    "One two three four five... that sounds like the combination some idiot would use on his luggage!"
    *later*
    "Amazing! That's the same combination I use on my luggage!"

    All hail President Screw...
    I guess the absolute secrecy part has a clause that a certain individual selects a good password.

    --
    There's a 68.71% chance you're right.
  135. Idea by mpost4 · · Score: 1

    Now that we have his email address, (I half doubt that this is it but if it is) we can go around signing him up for all those "nice offers" (spam) just enter that if a site says you need to give them your e-mail address.

  136. JUNIS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FYI, I adopted Junis and keep him as my pet to change the channel and answer the door.

  137. Tremble before our might by Porag_Spliffing · · Score: 2, Funny

    And suffer this righteous slashdotting. What a weapon of mas destruction we wield.

    Damn, what is the net coming to when I can't even login to saddams email.

    BTW, chem & bio can not be weapons of mass destruction, mass is conserved in both, only nuke is mass destruction.

    --
    Maybe you live in interesting times
  138. "Imminent" by moosesocks · · Score: 2

    Of course, you know the picture of the bomb represents his mail server after being slashdotted :-)

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  139. hmm by mr.+sleepy · · Score: 3, Funny

    I first read this as, "Saddam's X-Box Hacked", and I can't stop laughing.

  140. Off-topic!??... obviously a group of biased mods. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm all for voting off-topic comments down (which the post complaining of the U.S. Presidential election OBVIOUSLY should have been), but of course when you precious liberal whiners get the hint of opposition you mod him down.

    Sounds fair to me...
    I hope I get to meta-moderate you losers.

  141. Great.... by I+kan+Spl · · Score: 1

    Now we have a link to Saddom's e-mail on the front page of slashdot.... His server is crashing and dying.... I wonder if the only ones able to read his e-mail are the hackers.... I wonder what he has in his e-mail now....

    --
    My UID is prime and so is this number: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0.
  142. Now if we can just get into bush's inbox by NZlinux · · Score: 2, Funny

    Then we could find out who is the most stupid.

    1. Re:Now if we can just get into bush's inbox by shaldannon · · Score: 2

      don't think that's necessary...isn't it obvious considering he goes by the name 'Duh-bya'?

      --


      What is your Slash Rating?
    2. Re:Now if we can just get into bush's inbox by Qender · · Score: 1

      Ah, bush has already answered that by declaring that he won't use e-mail early in his administration.

  143. Re:5 letters? i'm laying odds on JIHAD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    nope.

    Wanna try?

    telnet 62.32.60.16 110
    +OK X1 NT-POP3 Server mail.uruklink.net (IMail 7.07 61832-17)
    user jihad
    +OK send your password
    pass jihad
    -ERR Invalid userid/password

    Try your own combinanations for fun!

  144. Hmm... I wonder if he gets the same offers I do... by antiher0 · · Score: 1

    like...

    Maybe he can get a U N I V E R S I T Y D I P L O M A for his life experience :)

  145. You gotta be kidding by chrisbord · · Score: 0

    What an astounding bit of moral equivalency.

    Let's see, Saddam is a brutal dictator who gasses innocents in the name of political terror and genocide, the US is a democracy defending itself and freedom by selectively attacking only those who attacked it first, and in the process bringing freedom to millions.

    Yeah, no difference whatsoever. Fucking asshole.

    1. Re:You gotta be kidding by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      Let's see, Saddam is a brutal dictator who gasses innocents in the name of political terror and genocide,

      Not *quite*. He was worried about a revolution. If you look at the Civil War and Sherman, you'd notice that the US government wasn't exactly nice to the people opposing it, either. Granted, not genocide...

      the US is a democracy defending itself and freedom by selectively attacking only those who attacked it first, and in the process bringing freedom to millions.

      And this is why Bush is trying to attack...uh...Iraq? When exactly did Iraq attack the United States of America again?

    2. Re:You gotta be kidding by chrisbord · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? Anybody can switch the names around, but that doesn't make them fit.

    3. Re:You gotta be kidding by chrisbord · · Score: 0

      Not *quite*. He was worried about a revolution. If you look at the Civil War and Sherman, you'd notice that the US government wasn't exactly nice to the people opposing it, either. Granted, not genocide...

      Of course that was 150 years ago, and generally regarded as wrong, but that won't stop a moral relativist from using that to judge today's leaders.

      And this is why Bush is trying to attack...uh...Iraq? When exactly did Iraq attack the United States of America again?

      Christ, dude, don't you get it? The whole 9/11 thing? We can wait for the mushroom cloud to appear over New York, or we can take Saddam out now before he hands the nuke to terrorists, or is overthrown by them, or some other unforseen event or alliance. There are a thousand other possibilities, but pretending that you can predict them in this age of unpredictable terrorists, in a backward country like Iraq, with a demonstrably *unwise* dictator like Saddam, is the utmost in arrogant denial.

      The only alternative is to keep that situation from ever occurring, and waiting for a smoking gun (or mushroom cloud) is just not possible.

    4. Re:You gotta be kidding by Find+love+Online · · Score: 1

      Christ, dude, don't you get it? The whole 9/11 thing?

      Hrm, I don't remember iraq having anything to do with that.

      Anyway, if we do go to war with iraq, it will be the first unprovoked attack by the United States in its history.

      If we're so woried about nuclear terrorism, why don't we go after North Korea, who's leader is actualy insane, and actualy working on nukes.

    5. Re:You gotta be kidding by chrisbord · · Score: 0

      Hrm, I don't remember iraq having anything to do with that.

      Just goes to show you how little the left has learned, and how narrow their view of 9/11 has become. The lesson of 9/11 was not about just one nation, or one group, it is about the danger of ignoring clear and gathering dangers in this age of uber-fanatics waging asymmetrical warfare. It was about soberly looking at situations and heading them off before they happen, rather than hoping against hope that we'll get really lucky and intercept that nuke before they happen.

      Anyway, if we do go to war with iraq, it will be the first unprovoked attack by the United States in its history.

      Oh, cry for me. Preemptive attacks are an extremely common occurance throughout history. Are you saying we should wait until a nuke levels New York, then take the attacker out? Of course that is assuming we can the find clear and convincing evidence of exactly which group did it, exactly which state(s) sponsored them, etc. that our French, Russians, Chinese, and American Left always demand before taking action (unless the President is Bill Clinton, then there are no questions asked).

      If we're so woried about nuclear terrorism, why don't we go after North Korea, who's leader is actualy insane, and actualy working on nukes.

      Hold your horses, dude, Kim Jong Il (sp?) is simply NOT insane, I don't know where you got that. As for your point, he may be a brutal dictator, but he's never (to our knowledge) used chemical weapons on his own people, he doesn't assassinate foreign leaders, he doesn't invade his neighbors every chance he gets, and he doesn't fund Palestinian terrorist or have regular pow-wows with top Al Qaeda and other terrorist functionaries. Also, he at least acts on correct information, unlike Saddam who tends to make terrible strategic mistakes (such as invading Kuwait) purely because his underlings are afraid to give him accurate negative information. Finally, Kim Jong Il does not hate the West on the level Saddams, nor wish it's extinction as a goal, and so lacks the dangerous comminality of purpose with international terrorists.

      This situation may change, but for now taking on N. Korea is not in the cards because 1) for the reasons listed above he is not demonstrably unstable or agressive like Saddam, and 2) we are already busy with Saddam. It would be unwise to start even talking about regime change in N. Korea when all our diplomatic energies are already being spent on convincing our 'allies' to go along on Iraq.

      As for your implication that only N. Korea and not Iraq is developing nukes, get real, surely you don't believe Saddam kicked out the inspectors so that he could stop his nuclear program. Or DO YOU?

      ARE you one of the 'useful idiots?'

  146. You need to stop being brainwashed. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1.) by your own acknowledgement the government is recognizing that claims to GWS may exist and beginning to act upon them. Give me examples of Dictatorships that act this way.

    2.) This makes little sense. I suggest that in your use of the thesaurus/dictionary you look up the defintion of war.

    3.) This is just very funny why don't you even bother to check your sources. The article you link is funded by Greenpeace, you really don't think they would have a bias? Why not read both sides and make a decision because its rather obvious that answers usually lie between two extremes in this case your argument and the previous writers.

    Your last point is valid about Native Americans but I would like you to point out who argued against this. As well many of the atrocities that occured to these groups were done before the founding of the United States.

    The sooner we think for ourselfs, and question the motives behind every source of information, the sooner we will become better people. Much better imho.

  147. Honeypots by sharph · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I consider myself pretty good with computer security. I even have a honeypot installed on my computer. To lure the crackers in, you must make it very easy to get into the honeypot. This all seems too easy...

    I don't think its a good idea for anybody to be jumping to conclusions about what his e-mail gets. That webmail account may have been created for the purpose of luring in crackers working for the US government. They may just forward all the junk and non-secret mail there.

  148. president@whitehouse.com by GunFodder · · Score: 2

    You mean president@whitehouse.com is not Bush's email address? From the replies I got I thought we finally had a president I could relate with. He had nothing but optimism for the economy and seemed supportive of personal rights. Although I never understood why the President needed my credit card number...

  149. They use Frontpage too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you go to the Iraq homepage and view source, it that the generator was Frontpage 5.0

  150. No, not innocents... by Find+love+Online · · Score: 1

    Damn dude, he gassed "His own people" not "his own innocent people". They were in the process of trying to overthrow him.

    Not that he's a nice guy or anything. But attacking people after your head is hardly the zenith of immorality.

  151. There goes my last shred of respect... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    "The account had a five-letter login"

    You'd think someone who has held on to power with a white-knuckled grip for so long would have the foresight to use a slightly longer password...

  152. 3 or 4 blocks is not nearly the same thing by Find+love+Online · · Score: 1

    As what happened in Europe. Were talking about the destruction of entire cities, the loss of tens of millions of people, both civilian and soldier.

    It doesn't help that those two incidents are the only incidents in the past hundred years or so.

  153. And the password is ... by bigsteve@dstc · · Score: 1

    Hmm ... 5 letters, easy to remember ... hmmmm ...

    Got it! "sadam". :-)

  154. What have you done for us lately? by Find+love+Online · · Score: 1

    except aggressively invade their neighboring countries, refuse to disarm, and use poison gas on their own inhabitants

    Did you forget that we supported Saddam during all of that and even gave him 'permission' before invading Kuwait? SD hasn't done anything like that since the end of the gulf war over 10 years ago.

    Hell, why don't we just invade Japan again for Perl harbor. Sure it was a while ago, but hey.

    1. Re:What have you done for us lately? by forii · · Score: 1
      Hell, why don't we just invade Japan again for Perl harbor.


      Just because they were using Python...

  155. Re:sig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll stick to Simpsons, Beavis and Butthead and Futurama, thank you very much.

  156. Intentional on USA's part by cryptor3 · · Score: 1

    I think it's a US government attempt to DoS Iraq with a nice slashdotting. I guess Saddam's infrastructure stands up to the test.

  157. Re:And ran_999@yahoo.com for WARkaa.com by irfco · · Score: 1

    >nic sadeem majeed
    >DUBIA dubia, 00 11126
    >AE Phone: 971 4 2224482

    uh ... DUBYA dubya ?

  158. You gotta be kidding by zenyu · · Score: 2

    What an astounding bit of moral equivalency. Let's see, Bush is a brutal dictator who bombs innocents in the name of political terror, the Iraq is a republic defending itself and it's freedom by selectively attacking only those who attacked it first, and in the process bringing freedom to millions. Yeah, no difference whatsoever. Fucking asshole.

  159. Hey now by BiterAtmonk · · Score: 1

    Hey now. ANyone else here noice that uruk is the word for Orc in Elven (tolkien series)? Just thought i'd point that out... little bastid saddam

  160. Re:Mod up (was:Mod parent down (was:Mod parent up) by Fjord · · Score: 1

    Then maybe we should expand CIA and FBI and other non techie acronyms. Seriously, using WMD isn't a /. only thing, it's on CNN and yahoo at least. I don't think it is unreasonable for them to have used it and it's too stupid of an actual phrase to bother typing out.

    --
    -no broken link
  161. fun with uruklink.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    solaris w/ java webserver 2.0

    pathnames on server
    http://www.uruklink.net/page/WS_FTP.LOG

    also part of iraq2000.com (haha olympics in iraq)

  162. Not the only hole in this system by setzman · · Score: 1

    Browsing directories on this server (uruklink.net) is permitted. Wonder what kind of files are loaded on this system? Some poor soul in Iraq is gonna suffer when Saddam finds out American geeks have been hacking his site.

    --
    C:\>
  163. tee hee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    excellent ;)

  164. Saddam Slashdotted! by Erik+K.+Veland · · Score: 1

    Iraq surrenders.

    --
    "I tend to think of OS X as Linux with QA and Taste", James Gosling, creator of Java
  165. Weird by marvy666 · · Score: 1

    I was just trying to get to Project Gutenberg because i felt like doing some reading and typed in www.projectgutenberg.net and it takes you to the Permanent Mission of Iraq to the United Nations, New York web site.

  166. Dear Sadam - you can add inches to your PENIS !! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My all time fav is that I can "..save money by investing in free sales generating reports, while adding years to my life by relaxing more and deleting millions of spam's, I can add inches to my penis ( if I was a guy ), could increase my sex life, could get half of the money left behind by what appears to be a well travelled Affrican, European, Asian from South America, and all this while working from home! - phew! now all I nead is time travel..

    ++dez;

    http://WebSearch.COM.AU
    http://WebSearch.CO.NZ

  167. Re:Hoax? -stan means nation sugarbitch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    -abad would be better. Floridabad. Means city. -stan means nation. You dumb mother fucker. I hate Islamic fuckface towel heads, but you have to knwo basic things about your enemy.

  168. Let's start with Reagan and Bush snr, then by santeri · · Score: 1
    Hey, c'mon, letäs be serious for a moment! These people aided Hussein in war with Iran, against Kurdis in the 80's, and basicly funded all his chemical warfare research. If armament shipments don't qualify as commercial relations, then what?

    Or do you mean that now when Iraq is a part of the "Axis of Enron^M^M^M^Mvil", you can forget the past dealings just like that? Just like you did with bin Laden, Pinochet, et. al.

    In effect, you harvest what you plant.

    --
    ______________
    OTTERS RULE.
  169. I dont know... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe you should ask saddam personally. good luck ,dipshit.

  170. right.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In youre case to find youre truth you have to look at left wing sites. get real.

  171. Re: guessing "Saddam's" password by akindofmagick · · Score: 1

    > I wonder what the login was." You'd think it was "press," password "press," but if it were that obvious I think someone would have said so. Allah or Islam or Quran/Koran would be my first three guesses.

  172. Can you imagine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The options they had:
    1. Saddam Hussein
    2. Current incumbent
    3. A horribly slow and painfull death at the hands of the large man standing behind you.

  173. Re:Moderators still don't know what redundant mean by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I only mod flamebait if the post is a an attempt at trolling that entirely fails to hide the fact that it's trying cause angry responses.

  174. So the password is.... by StringBlade · · Score: 1
    1, 2, 3, 4, 5?

    Guard: That's the kind of a password an idiot has on his luggage!

    Saddam: Remind me to change the password on my luggage.

    --
    ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
  175. Login by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Login: abomb
    pass: abomb

  176. why not Jenna? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just wondered.

  177. Re: guessing "Saddam's" password by xcellz · · Score: 1

    I wonder what it would be too, but what if he is using arabic words instead of english. Maybe it is bomb or kill in Arabic. By the way I wonder if there are any scripts that would hit popular Arabic words first.

  178. Are these emails posted anywhere? by wessman · · Score: 1

    Now, the people who hacked the Iraqi dictator's inbox must have a website somewhere with all these e-mails for the Slashdot community to enjoy, right? Any clues?

  179. You are not a very smart person, I take it. by Find+love+Online · · Score: 1

    Just goes to show you how little the left has learned, and how narrow their view of 9/11 has become. The lesson of 9/11 was not about just one nation, or one group, it is about the danger of ignoring clear and gathering dangers in this age of uber-fanatics waging asymmetrical warfare. It was about soberly looking at situations and heading them off before they happen, rather than hoping against hope that we'll get really lucky and intercept that nuke before they happen.

    So I take it you favor castrating all men because some of them rape?

    Ah, rather then actually try link Saddam to 9/11 you merely say that it doesn't matter if he was involved or not, it was 'bad' and Saddam is also 'bad' therefore Saddam must go. Well, excuse me if I don't fall for such moronic logic. There is no relation between Saddam and 9/11, so whatever happened on 9/11 is not a reasonable argument for discussing Saddam. Would your argument work if there had never been a 9/11? If not, then it shouldn't work now.

    Oh, cry for me. Preemptive attacks are an extremely common occurance throughout history.

    Preemptive strikes by the US are not a common occurrence. In fact they have never happened. This will be the first time ever.

    Hold your horses, dude, Kim Jong Il (sp?) is simply NOT insane, I don't know where you got that.

    It isn't obvious

    As for your point, he may be a brutal dictator, but he's never (to our knowledge) used chemical weapons on his own people

    Would you rather be gassed to death or die of starvation? "conservatives" love bash Mao for killing tens of millions of people even though the vast majority died due to poor planning then to any malicious act. The thing is, South Korea has more then enough material wealth to go around, and could easily provide for everyone. Yet he belligerently holds power, and rebuffs opportunities to open his country. While at the same time letting people starve to death. He's killed far more of "his own" then Saddam ever will.

    he doesn't assassinate foreign leaders,

    Yes he does.

    he doesn't invade his neighbors every chance he gets,

    Well, how do you define chance? I don't think he's ever had the 'chance', as S.K and the US would crush him at the first opportunity. Similarly, Iraq has not invaded a single country in the last 10 years.


    and he doesn't fund Palestinian terrorist

    But they do sell advanced weapons technology to countries like Iran.

    or have regular pow-wows with top Al Qaeda and other terrorist functionaries.

    There is no evidence that Saddam does this either.

    In any event, none of this has said has any baring on wether or not KJI is insane only wether or not he is more bad then Saddam. You can in fact be very nice, and still very insane.

    Why do I think KJI is insane? Well, would a sane person kidnap Japanese film makers and force them to do remakes of Godzilla? Would a sane person run their country into the ground causing mass starvation while at the same time building some of the most advanced missile technology on earth (and almost nothing else) Would a sane man ban pregnant women from the capital city? Would a sane man allow said Japanese kidnap victims to return home with his face pinned to their clothing while keeping their family members back home? Would a sane man give out medals to peaces of machinery? Would a sane man preside over one of the most orwelian places on earth? Seriously, how can you call KJI sane with a straight face?

    It seems like you're more ignorant that anything else.

    1. Re:You are not a very smart person, I take it. by chrisbord · · Score: 0

      Well, I just wrote a huge reply to your post, then I opened a freaking shortcut on my desktop and it changed THIS browser instance to that page. So when I hit the back button, the whole fscking response had been wiped. Sonofabitch.

      Let me just say I think your point of view on 9/11 is very narrow. 9/11 should have taught us 3 things:

      1. Terrorism is an incredibly slippery thing, that once set in motion, there is little we can do to prevent the eventual strike. Instead, we must crush those who foment terrorism before they can hatch their plans.
      2. State sponsorship of terrorism multiplies it's strength tenfold. Al Qaeda could never have grown into the large, effective organization it did w/o a host country to leave it in peace to train and plan. The same goes for the original formation of a terrorist, in these Saudi 'Madrases.' There is terrorism all over the world, but only in the Middle East do states actively support it.
      2. Finding evidence of terrorist collusion on a specific attack is difficult, MUCH more so when done inside a closed, totalitarian state such as Iraq. 'Connecting the dots' likely won't happen until the final picture is already assembled for us.
      3. We cannot predict the behavior of invredibly hateful, irrational men. And remember, the hijackers were NOT insance, they were simply hateful, irrational bastards.

      The truth is, America will go in there, with the help of Britian and several other nations, free the Iraqis, and THE CITIZENS themselves with thank us for their freedom. All the peaceniks and doom-and-gloom blame-America-firsters will will be proven wrong yet AGAIN.

      As for N. Korea, I believe KJI is an unstable man and you make a good case that he is probably insane, but so far he hasn't tried to invade S. Korea and we haven't found any evidence (that I've seen) of him actually aligning himself with terrorists.

      Regardless, I personally think KJI SHOULD be removed and democracy imposed on that country, and I'm convinced Bush agrees with me. The problem right now is our cowardly European 'allies' would rather have their illegal oil shipments and unholy economic alliances than true security and freedom for the people of Iraq. Add their current policies of appeasement and act-never-ism with the FAR more difficult military task of invading N. Korea ( which is likely already nuclear armed), and it would simply be impossible to get the U.N. on board. But of course U.N. consent is only an absolute requirement when a Conservative Republican is in the White House. When Clinton took on Milosevic, that somehow wasn't 'agression,' and an 'exit strategy' was no biggy!

      Bush really only has one option now: to kiss European butt on N. Korea long enought to take out Saddam, while trying to build the bast case against N. Korea as he can. And that is what he is doing. It is contradictory, but practical given the cowardice of the left in the Western World.

    2. Re:You are not a very smart person, I take it. by chrisbord · · Score: 0

      So I take it you favor castrating all men because some of them rape?

      Well, if a convicted serial rapist and known liar suddenly gained the power to rape millions of women in one fell swoop, then yes, I would castrate that man if he refused to give up that power.

      And if he didn't yet have that power but really wanted it and was actively pursing it, and after 8 years of him promising to stop and breaking those promises repeatedly, I would most certainly castrate him.

      And if part of his original sentence was to not pursue that ability and he broke that condition many times, I would most certainly carry out his deferred sentence!

  180. A King? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is Australia still a colony? ;-)

    5 points for your main point, from a Yank.

  181. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    One of the questions that comes up all the time is: How enthusiastic
    is our support for UNIX?
    Unix was written on our machines and for our machines many years ago.
    Today, much of UNIX being done is done on our machines. Ten percent of our
    VAXs are going for UNIX use. UNIX is a simple language, easy to understand,
    easy to get started with. It's great for students, great for somewhat casual
    users, and it's great for interchanging programs between different machines.
    And so, because of its popularity in these markets, we support it. We have
    good UNIX on VAX and good UNIX on PDP-11s.
    It is our belief, however, that serious professional users will run
    out of things they can do with UNIX. They'll want a real system and will end
    up doing VMS when they get to be serious about programming.
    With UNIX, if you're looking for something, you can easily and quickly
    check that small manual and find out that it's not there. With VMS, no matter
    what you look for -- it's literally a five-foot shelf of documentation -- if
    you look long enough it's there. That's the difference -- the beauty of UNIX
    is it's simple; and the beauty of VMS is that it's all there.
    -- Ken Olsen, president of DEC, DECWORLD Vol. 8 No. 5, 1984
    [It's been argued that the beauty of UNIX is the same as the beauty of Ken
    Olsen's brain. Ed.]

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...