Bush Orders Guidelines for Cyber-Warfare

Jeremiah writes "The pending Iraqi war promises to deliver quite the display of modern, smart technology well beyond what we saw in '91. President Bush recently ordered the development of rules for cyber engagement by the military. Beyond the numerous special forces on the ground like in Afganistan, the US will use soldiers in office chairs to disrupt Iraqi infrastructure."

Comments

An addition to the Geneva connection...

[Da Fokka]

...you have to stop the DDOS when you get the 'destination unreachable'

Re:An addition to the Geneva connection...

[tekunokurato]

Well, it's probably not goint to be distributed, but it'd be great if there were international sanctions placed on cyber-warfare methods. Somehow, though, I doubt our government will be that effective, and that Iraq will have enough connected systems to really do any good.

Re:An addition to the Geneva connection...

[0x0d0a]

...the Geneva convention...

Seems to me that attacks aimed primarily at a civilian population, like depriving the Iraqi people of their porn fix, would be explicitly banned by the Geneva convention.

Re:An addition to the Geneva connection...

[Kirijini]

On the Contrary, Iraq has "largest and most efficient food-distribution system of its kind in the world... employing a massive network of trucks, computers, warehouses and neighborhood distributors to provide basic sustenance for every Iraqi." This is from the Washington Post.

If Iraq uses a huge, intricate computer system to distribute food, you don't think they'd also use it for military purposes? I think, rather, that a computerized attack would be very effective.

Especially if they use Windows.

Re:An addition to the Geneva connection...

[Corvaith]

This is the first I've heard of this, and it does raise some troubling questions. The Iraqi leadership has always been painted as fundamentally uncaring about their people--and yet, they've taken the time to develop a system specifically to make sure that everyone is fed, something we can't even do here?

At the very least, it explains why the people support Saddam Hussein--if we come in and take over, I somehow doubt we're going to be nearly as concerned with making sure that people have food and other basic necessities.

I Like How the Article Begins...

[Poeir]

"President Bush has signed a secret directive ordering the government to develop..."

Not so secret any more, is it?

Re:I Like How the Article Begins...

[rutledjw]

This is possibly one of the dumbest things I have ever read, I don't blame you for posting as an AC. Even your beloved Democrats have done NOTHING to stem the flow of H1B. Understand? NOTHING.

The issue is that as much as people bitch and complain, the US is turning out fewer and fewer college grads with engineering degrees every year. This was true even during the .com bubble when any clown who could correctly spell Java was given multiple offers.

Further, I was unemployed and I DO support him. I may not agree with everything he does, but he has taken decisive action to stop terrorism and attempt to get this economy going. Has he been successful? Yes and no, we haven't had any more attacks and tax cuts (for whomever) is becoming one of the ONLY ways we're going to get the economy going again. Greenspan can only drop the interest rates so low...

Re:I Like How the Article Begins...

[Grishnakh]

This comment wasn't insightful at all...
The previous poster complained about Bush. He said nothing to support the Democrats, yet you accuse him of this. Being anti-Bush does not automatically make someone a Democrat lover. I've heard of many people who are Republicans but are very unhappy with Bush; would you call them Democrat lovers too?

As for college grads with engineering degrees, there's a good reason for that. Kids have been growing up seeing what a crappy profession engineering is, with long, hard hours, pointy-haired bosses, mediocre pay, and worst of all a very short career span (and getting shorter), and realizing that contrary to all the big companies' efforts to brainwash them into taking this career path, it's not a smart move. So they're going into other fields. Why spend 5+ years, go $50k into debt, and not have any time at all to enjoy college when you're there, just to get out, work 80-hour weeks, and get laid off as soon as the economy turns sour or the company decides to open a development center in Bangalore?

As far as I'm concerned, American companies shouldn't be allowed to hire H1B's, and shouldn't be allowed to open development centers in 3rd world countries (or else they should be treated as foreign companies and heavily tariffed). If that means they go down the tubes, too bad; they made their beds, now they should sleep in them.

Tax cuts for the rich aren't going to get the economy going. Rich people don't spend their money, especially when the economy is poor.

Re:I Like How the Article Begins...

[rutledjw]

Are you kidding? Computer Eng degree, 4 years of college, little debt, I played rugby and was in a fraternity. I've had long work-weeks, but mostly about 40 hours and my pay is certianly higher than most of the people I went to school with. Crappy bosses are ubiquitous, as are layoffs. Career path? Yeah, I'm looking to get into mgmt or something new. Not because I HAVE to, because I'm looking for something new.

Democrat comment? Fine, whatever. NOBODY has tried to curtail H1Bs. For the very reason I stated.

Tax cuts for the rich aren't going to get the economy going. Rich people don't spend their money, especially when the economy is poor

The rich pay the VAST majority of taxes. Increasing disposable income will help stimulate the economy. This is econ 101 stuff, you have nothing to back your statements about "rich people don't spend their money". That is totally absurd. How do they buy those oversized houses and expensive cars? Magic?

Re:I Like How the Article Begins...

[UncleGizmo]

It's only page 1 of econ 101 stuff. I'm sure in your statistics classes, you learned about how to look at numbers in different ways. On a pure dollar basis, the rich pay the majority of taxes. But as a percentage of money they earn, it's much more even across income levels [IIRC, the NYT had an article on this recently, although I'm too lazy to look it up].

But even if you want to complain that you pay too much to live in the greatest country in the world, the 'rich' only make up 1% [or 5%, depending on your definition] of the population. So, let's go back to econ 101: We live in a service economy. To stimulate it, you don't give breaks to a small percentage of people [the ones who already have a level of disposable income, btw], you give it to a large percentage - those who don't have as much disposable income - so they can go to the movies, and go out to eat once in awhile, etc. Our economy thrives on large numbers of small consumer transactions, not the other way around.

You're making the wrong argument anyway. Tax cuts do not stimulate our economy...JOB SECURITY does. When people know their job is going to be there tomorrow, they are less concerned about putting something on the ol' credit card. That's why during the bubble [when everyone had tons of money, and infinite upside, remember?], the amount of personal debt was also higher than ever. Even those of us who weren't making the big bucks 'knew' we could pay off our debt tomorrow, because jobs were plentiful - a source of income was virtually guaranteed.

My question...

[mmol_6453]

Are these going to apply to United States citizens?

Are these going to apply to people operating in the US?

Are the info-soldiers within the US?

Are these going to be subject to constitutional limitations?

Re:My question...

[Rick.C]

Are the info-soldiers within the US?

Mom: Son, why are you sitting at your computer dressed in camo?

Son: Because I'm hacking into Al-Iraqui-Pr0n and the Geneva Convention states that soldiers who aren't in uniform can be shot as spys."

Re:My question...

[TheCaptain]

Nah...we outsourced it to India.

Re:My question...

[cgenman]

Are these going to apply to United States citizens?

Are these going to apply to people operating in the US?

Are the info-soldiers within the US?

Are these going to be subject to constitutional limitations?

Are they taking resumes?

Human rights

[gmuslera]

Please, don't give iraquis mail addresses to all spammers around the world, that will hurt them badly, but will be very cruel.

Something Awful Wasnt Far Off!!

[LordYUK]

From todays SomethingAwful.com post... I take no credit, other than shameless cut and paste!

Operation: Winnuke

Operational Plan: One of the most vulnerable areas of Iraq is its weak technological infrastructure. Still largely in a state of disorder from the constant US and British bombing campaign against Iraqi communications centers, the Iraqi computer network is vulnerable to attack. One US plan calls for a multi-phase operation conducted largely within the framework of the recently unveiled International Community Messenger. This computer system allows world leaders to communicate one-on-one over the Internet. Phase one of the operation will involve a coordinated effort by George W. Bush to get all of the world leaders supporting a war against Iraq online at the same time. He will tell them all to start innocuous conversations with Iraq and that when they see the warning level of Iraq rising on their contact list they are to begin warning Iraq until the nation is logged out of the Messenger service. If executed properly phase one will prevent Iraq from rallying sympathetic nations to its cause after phase two has struck.

Phase two will begin with the United States beginning a conversation with Iraq over trivial things. At some point during the conversation the US will send Iraq a seemingly harmless video file that actually contains an annoying virus script that will deadlock the Iraqi computer system, making it both difficult and embarrassing to use. As mentioned, before Iraq can retaliate or request aid allies of the United States will warn Iraq until it is temporarily banned from the service. To help you better understand how this operation will go down we have modeled it using advanced computer technology called "Microsoft Notepad".

US_of_A[NATO] Hey d00d, what's up?
_+Iraq[AoE]+_ not 2 much fag
_+Iraq[AoE]+_ u got the UN resolution u want me to sign lol
US_of_A[NATO] yeah man, check this out 1st, it's a krad video of this crazy Koreen kids dancing
US_of_A[NATO] wants to send you the file Dance_Routine(Funny!).wmv.vbs.
_+Iraq[AoE]+_ ok its downloadin
US_of_A[NATO] cool when its done run it
_+Iraq[AoE]+_ ok
_+Iraq[AoE]+_ WTF its opening gay pron popups
US_of_A[NATO] pwned
You have warned the user US_of_A[NATO]
You have been warned by the user US_of_A[NATO] Warning Level is 10%
You have been warned by the user UK[NATO] Warning Level is 25%
You have been warned by the user Spizzain[NATO] Warning Level is 50%
You have been warned by the user iTaLy[NATO] Warning Level is 75%
You have been warned by the user Canada[420TreesHitter][NATO] Warning Level is 100%
***You are being temporarily logged out of International Community Messenger***

After this Iraq's computer and communication infrastructure will be isolated from the world community and Iraq will be vulnerable to further offensive operations.

Possible Threats: North Korea is constantly online and attempting to send the United States viruses through ICM. Technical specialists are usually able to persuade to the president not to open "Sexyjapaneselass_Vs_Playboy.scr". However, President Bush has already infected some 400 government computers with various e-mail and ICM viruses, and if alone may do so again. In the right North Korean hands this could compromise the security of the entire operation.

Estimated Casualties: Pretty much everyone in Iraq's tech-sector is expected to be summarily executed by Saddam if this plan works. Other than that no casualties are expected.

Re:Something Awful Wasnt Far Off!!

[Rojo^]

It bothers me that you think the U.S. is going to war for oil. Ernie at Ernie's House of Whoopass sums it up best.

I speak now to the clueless imbeciles who say, "Iraw doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction -- that's why the US can't produce any proof that they do!" Listen closely now, because I'm only going to say this one time. Ya ready?

You stupid fuck.

Yeah produce proof for the world to see, that's what we need to do. That'd kind of shortsighted thinking has gotten our asses into hot water before, and if we make the same mistake here, we'll just be setting ourselves up for more devastating terrorist attacks in the future. Hey, wanna know the last time the US was forced into revealing secret evidence just to win the world opinion? After the bombing of the American and Israeli embassies in Manila back in 1994, we had to reveal taped phone conversations to support the indictment of the bombers. So classified recordings of conversations between Osama and his dipshit followers saying things like, "Hell yeah we did it", along with the knowledge that the US had these advanced eavesdropping capabilities, were laid bare for the scrutinizing eyes of the world, both friend and foe alike.

You see Osama was using encrypted satellite phones which were supposedly 100% secure and impervous to electronic eavesdropping -- probably the only reason he felt comfortable enough to openly admit this connections to the planning and execution of the bombings. And until the tapes were released he didn't know that US surveillance could tap into his secure phones, so he thought he was safe and discussed his business without reservation. So guess what? Ever since then we haven't been able to eavesdrop on any of his phone conversations, because there haven't been any. Knowing his phones were compromised, he abandoned them in favor of "word to ear" communications and in doing so took away one of our best abilities to defend against future terror attacks.

If the secure phone tapping advantage wasn't given up, would we have had enough of a warning to prevent Sept 11th? Well, it's kind of a stretch, but I suppose it's certainly conceivable. We didn't have any warning about the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania back in 1998. Or the USS Cole bombings that killed 17 sailors just three years ago. Both of which were the handiwork of Osama and his Al Queda brethren.

So now we are forced to publicly show evidence on Iraq, and potentially lose another advantage in the war of information, all to appease the peaceniks who say there's no reason to invade Iraq. Kids, I'm here to tell ya the proof is there. We ain't getting all dressed up for this because some balloonheads think G.W. has a score to settle for his pappy, we're getting dressed up because there's a reason. I just hope we don't have to sell our souls to the devil again, just so the fucking French and the rest of the Europeans don't have to sneer when they say "Bah, American cowboys."

For the record, we aren't going to war. We haven't been in a war since WW2. This is a police action, enforcing maybe not international law, but justice nonetheless. Saddam has lied about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, been consistently evasive and obstinate in his compliance with U.N. inspectors, and even gone so far as to threaten to use his non-existant weapons on the U.S.

I've rambled enough about this. Someone else take over. Time for a smoke break.

I hope for the sake of your boys ...

[torpor]

... they're prepared to engage in one mother of an immoral battle, and have said their prayers, kissed their girls, and balanced their books. War in Iraq is *not* going to be pretty for you guys.

The US is now what Germany was in the 30's... off to fight its merry war with 'justifiable cause'.

Don't you Americans realize that the UN was *made* to prevent countries like yours from abusing their power?

That this war is now being trivialized into some sort of 'happy meme' worthy of idle discussion by tech nerds in the context of some sci-fi-turned-reality 'cyberwar' is really disturbing.

If globalization, McDonalds, Britney and all the other wonderful machinations of The American Way didn't turn me off your crappy country, then the robotic nature of its citizens kowtowing to the propaganda machine being operated by King George Bush II definitely is ...

I don't care if there are guidelines for 'cyberwar against Iraq' being published... This war is NONSENSE!!

Re:I hope for the sake of your boys ...

[cgenman]

What can you do? We fought. We screamed. We protested. But we're still being lead by a person utterly unable to understand even the most obvious results of his actions. Don't equate the desires of the American people with the decisions of its leaders. We're trapped in this little box, and we're being taken for a ride. We trivialize because the weight of the situation is too great and the inability to actualize so apparent that it is our only emotional defense. But we don't parrot the propaganda machine... I have yet to speak to anyone on the streets who has more than a passing agreement with the idea that going to war is a good idea.

If you believe the American people are ready to go to war again and die in Iraq you have been listening to too much of our government's propaganda. They're doing it, by and large, without our support.

If you can convince the U.N. to stop us, then please, for the good of the American people, stop our leaders. They are so in tuned with the reality of warfare that they think this can be ended by cutting off the enemy's shell access. Hundreds of thousands of people are going to die, and they haven't the slightest clue.

I don't know what else we can do besides a 100,000 person march and widespread civil disobedience. All that I can think of is if the UN passed a resolution requiring all memberstates to get an explicit UN backing for all non-defensive military maneuvering, then backed that up with a real coalition army. Unless there is some sort of enforcement on the UN's side, I can't see how they can enforce order.

Re:One question:

[autocracy]

Actually, I'd like to clarify this a bit: letters of marque and reprisal are noted in the Constitution saying the government may issue them. This article references them and explains things decently enough. Unknown to the author's article, the Declaration of Paris was signed by the United States, and in short nullifies our ability to issues letters of marque and reprisal. However, this was all in reference to maritime war law... nothing was noted that could be construed to offer protection, except perhaps against civilian networks.

paah

[zozzi]

Just get Kevin and give him a prison phone. He'll do everything from it. His mouth will even function like a modem traslating all those ones and zeros....

Preparing to fight which war, exactly?

[Doctor Hu]

Is it just me, or is what used to be called the military-industrial complex's lobbeying for funds to persue 'cool' research areas undermining the country's ability to make appropriate military responses to novel threats? Here we are, less than 18 months after the carefully low-tech attacks of 9/11, busy working on all sorts of neat cyberwar and domestic datamining tools that aren't going to matter a toss to a bunch of fanatics holed up in a cave somewhere, or even to an economy like Iraq's that's already been largely put back to early 20th-century levels.

Not trolling, just worried.

Re:I hope for the sake of our boys

[dvdeug]

how is Taco going to feel when he reads about a Chinook full of young Americans that got shot down from a SAM battery that could not be hacked and disabled because Achmed reads Slashdot,

Right. The Iraq government can afford to run a net connection to every SAM battery, and is stupid enough to leave it open to the Internet. Even societies that can afford to network their military, don't connect the Internet to internal systems - it's just stupid. The most secure connection is none at all, and everyone knows that.

I'm sure it's an unpopular view amongst the freedom of IP at all costs crowd that's common here, but maybe for the duration of the Iraqi conflict, we can stop posting exploit and bug notifications, at least until the US has installed a nascent capitalist, western ideologued democracy in Iraq.

I didn't realize we were planning on slaughtering all the Iraqs and colonizing the country. That, of course, is about the only way we're going to get a "western ideologued" society in Iraq. What do you think the odds are that we can even get some sort of stable democracy going - historically, "our son of a bitch" governments have been common - and it's questionable whether you can just stick a democracy in a country that has no concept of one and have it thrive.

Re:Curious

[mmol_6453]

One of the tools a cracker uses is social engineering. And unless he can speak fluent, unaccented Arabic, he won't be able to directly use that tool.

Of course, there could be a separate team for that. But I suspect a strict government like Iraq has paperwork for everything. And inquisitions for those who forget their paperwork.

Re:I hope for the sake of our boys

[GMontag]

In the last Gulf War the air defenses were networked, including key elements of their radar network.

That was, reportedly, reduced by allowing a contraban printer to "slip through" blockades on goods to Iraq. The printer had a virus that spread through the air defense network.

IIRC this happened in the last days before the bombing campaign began.

It was widely reported after the war, on Nightline and I think Bob Woodward mentioned it in hos book "The Commaders" too. I have not heard if it has been verified beyond that since.

Re:I hope for the sake of our boys

[iiioxx]

I'm sure it's an unpopular view amongst the freedom of IP at all costs crowd that's common here, but maybe for the duration of the Iraqi conflict, we can stop posting exploit and bug notifications, at least until the US has installed a nascent capitalist, western ideologued democracy in Iraq.

Flip the issue around and see if your suggestion makes any sense:

For the duration of the war, let's refrain from posting notices of vulnerabilities and exploits so that sysadmins in places other than Iraq can't keep their systems properly defended from cyber-terrorists who are sympathetic to the Iraqi cause (or are simply anti-American).

Makes no sense, right? Withholding vulnerability information is far more likely to adversely affect civilian and public service networks in the US and supporting nations than the Iraqi military/industrial complex.

Overheard in the Oval Office

[pubjames]

Overheard in the Oval Office:

Bush: Hey, I've just had a great idea! Why don't we attack Iraq over the Inter-net!

Advisor: I'm not sure what you mean, Mr President.

Bush: Well, couldn't we infect Saddam with one of those Inter-net viruses, for example? We could use our prowess in genetical engineering and nanu-technology to genetically infect Saddam with a deadly Inter-net virus! Whaddya think?

Advisor: Erm... I'm speechless, Sir.

Bush: Write some guidelines around those ideas, will ya?

Advisor: Very well sir. Do you mind if I make some minor modifications, sir?

Bush: Do whatever you think is necessary. We make a great team don't we?

Bush: Erm, yes sir. Isn't it about time for your nap now Mr President?

The first step to war.

[cgenman]

So... the first step in our war is to send the Geek Corps to Iraq to teach everyone how to use computers. Then we sick SUN on them to convince them to upgrade to mission-critical workstations and servers. While we do that, we use old equipment to get individuals and businesses stuck on the .doc format. Finally, we convince Saddam to consolidate his technological resources under XP, .NET, and Office.

At which point, why do we have to invade at all? Microsoft can just run their government like they do ours.

Inevitable - and not the only issue

[Badgerman]

Something like this is inevitable, really. I'm sort of surprised it didn't come up a few years ago.

However, there are other questions this brings up:

• What are the cyber-warfare plans of OTHER countries? Is America in the lead on getting organized on this?
  
• What will the reaction be to this plan?
  
• Computer technology involves at such an insane rate, how much planning can you do?
  
• Will this plan involve current computer companies?
  
• Where will Open Source fit into this? (I'm serious here, OS's growing prominence makes it important)
  

Food for thought.

Get Your Mercenaries Here!

[4of12]

I can just see the latest edition of "Soldier of Fortune" with advertisements in the back for "733t h4Xor5" to DDOS the 8 servers that comprise the Iraqi Ministry of Disinformation.

They'll probably have a lurid cover photo showing "actual damage done" to such a server.

"Eeewww - look at the smoking wires just hanging out of the CD drive bay!"

My, You ARE parochial, aren't you.

[wiredog]

Most countries have electronic switching systems and microwave links for the phone service. Those were targets that NATO hit in Serbia several years ago, and in Iraq in 1991. Even Afghanistan had some. Russia uses microwave links. China also. Actually, it's probably only countries like Somalia, which have almost no communications infrastructure, that wouldn't be vulnerable.

Now remember who's writing this...

[IPFreely]

With Bush and co writing it, it will probably work a lot like this:

1. We (the Bush administration) can do anything we want to anyone else.
2. Noone can not do anything at all to us (the Bush administration).
3. Americans, including American companies, can do anything they want to any foreign country, company or person.
4. No foreign country, company or person can do anything to any american person or company.

There, that sounds about right.

Re:Now remember who's writing this...

[Anonymous Coward]

YUO AER TEH FUKEN BOMB.

man i loev reeding palitical nanalysus liek thsi,., YA D000D! BSuH si scarey becase he take all our sival LBIERTY's away. i cnat evan critasiez teh govarmant anymoare....

Re:Now remember who's writing this...

[J0ey4]

I don't know what is more disheartening, the fact that this was the best excuse for political debate you could come up with that or the fact that people are actually modding it up as "Insightful".

Saddam is _not_ going to disarm peacefully. All the UN circus acts and smoke shows are not going to change that fact. We (US and the coalition of 20+ countries that support us) _are_ going to war. Irregardless of whether or not you and I agree over that course of action, you have to agree that _any_ nonviolent attacks (CYBER) that will shut down radar installtions and missile batteries, or otherwise protect our soldiers lives has merit.

President Bush is being responsible in the fact that he recognizes that if we are to engage in a new form of warfare, we should first draw up the rules of engagement.

I never cease to be amazed at the overwhelmingly liberal bias on this website. Especially considering all the great things for technology like the DMCA that President Clinton did for us.

I welcome intelligent, thought-out political debate, the freedom of speech to do that that is what make America great. People posting nonsensical, sophmorish rubbish like this and getting modded up as "Insightful" is what makes Slashdot so sad.

sigh....now I will probably get modded as a troll or flamebait....guess that's life

Re:... preemptively shut down the US ...

[Red Rocket]

Here's how Powell should have produced his evidence:

"We're absolutely sure Saddam has weapons of mass destruction because WE SOLD THEM TO HIM! And I have the receipts RIGHT HERE!" (Powell holds up receipts)

That would remove all doubt, wouldn't it. But I guess we'll never see that.

Posting as AC since I'm in this line of work...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you attend US military conferences, you know that they're quite proud of their CND (computer network defence) ability, but refuse to comment on their CNA (computer network attack) capability. That's partly because they had no RoE.

In fact, some other industrialized nations are pushing for CNA to be considered a weapon of mass destruction, since the effects of most viruses and DDoSes can't be predicted until they're launched (your attack on a power plant takes out a hospital...and another...and another).

As for Iraq's dependence on the 'net, don't think about SAM batteries with IP addresses. Think about Info Ops. Think Wag the Dog. Think about pro-Iraqi websites suddenly "reporting" US victories. Or US sites suddenly being "attacked", giving the FBI justification to round up those Iraqi-Americans on its watch list.

Far-fetched? Right about the time that the latest Osama video was being "authenticated", a senior US officer was bragging to me about how advanced their video morphing technology was getting.

Are You out of your mind?

[no-body]

Do I see right?

The pending Iraqi war promises to deliver...quite a display

It seem to have escaped you that there are humans getting killed by this "firework". They have family, brothers, sisters, friends. Ever wondered, how one becomes a terrorist?

"It's really not a number I'm terribly interested in." --General Colin Powell [When asked about the number of Iraqi people who were slaughtered by Americans in the 1991 "Desert Storm" terror campaign (200,000 people!)]

Good for opensource

[Tyreth]

For other countries who fear a US attack, this could be a great reason for them to pursue open source software. There is more chance of them identifying flaws so long as they keep their machines up to date.

They can fix problems quickly. They will not rely on the software of the country attacking them.

How do the certs map to elite forces?

[ubiquitin]

HTML "programmers": enlisted privates
RedHat certified: USArmy officer
ten years Unix sysadmin: noncommissioned sargeant
open source project leads: USArmy captain through colonel
Linux kernel maintainers: USArmy four star general
Cisco cert: USMC
FreeBSD sysadmins: Delta Force
OpenBSD sysadmins: Airborne Rangers
Oracle DBA's: Navy captains
MCSE: cannon fodder
MCSE who didn't patch SQLServer: dishonorable discharge

Hell, if I get to spend time on the firing range with some MCSE's, sign me up. See real USArmy rank hierarchy here.

Can we trust our own government?

[Hypharse]

I am not a big fan of the republican government we have. Everyone knows about that "Home Security Bill" they passed that contained privacy intrusions that would never have passed on their own. How are we to know that this is not just another excuse to give the government power to invade our privacy even more?

Bush seems to have an "at all costs" attitude which even includes freedom.

I'll bite.

[IPFreely]

I wasn't talking about war, the democrats, the DMCA, Iraq or any of that other stuff. But since YOU brought it up....

Saddam is _not_ going to disarm peacefully.

Agreed. That's not my question. My question is: So what? Why is this a reason to start a war?
Some claim that if an "appropriate authority" have made a "solid legal demand" for information and action, and that demand is ignored or rebuffed, then it is an appropriate excuse to "immediately remove by force" the person who failed to obey orders (with "UN", "Disarm Iraq" and "War" being the three example fillers). I happen to believe that there should be some more levels of negotiation in between failure to comply and ALL OUT WAR. However, if you like that attitude, how about if we reword that with "appropriate authority" being "US Congress" and "solid legal demand" being a request for VP DC to turn over information about his energy policy meetings, and HE OUTRIGHT REFUSED! Is that a sufficient reason to "immediately remove by force" Mr. DC? Apparently not. Hypocracy is so ugly.

Bush talks like Iraq is ready to jump out and take over the world unless we stop him. Go look at what really happened. Iraq attacked in 1990. UN responded. Iraq Defeated. Iraq withdraws. Iraq hasn't peeped outside their borders since 1991. CIA rates Iraq as non-threat unless attacked first. So what does Bush do? He makes a lot of noise. He claims Iraq is about to attack everyone. He says he's going to attack them first. He CREATES the threat situation where there was none before. Sure, Iraq wasn't disarming, but they weren't trying to start a war either. Of all the tin-pot dictators in the world, Saddam knows from personal experience exactly what will happen to him if he does. He may be a mad man, but he isn't stupid. He wants weapons to maintain power inside Iraq, not outside.

Now because of Bush's "Heroic, No non-since, Take control, Total domination threats", we have North Korea, a REAL international threat, breathing down our necks. What is "our hero" George doing about them? NOTHING! I guess he wanted an easy target for his "Pet Project" war, not a "real enemy" that he might actually have to negotiate with. You can't look all powerfull and right if you have to negotiate. Bad for the "Hero" image.

I can't say what the appropriate action is from now forward. Maybe war is the only out. Bush is claiming he can't back down now. It would look weak. But I think it was REALLY BAD to intentionally put us into this situation in the first place. WAR KILLS PEOPLE. The best way to save American lives is NOT TO GO TO WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE. Why was Bush so desperate to start one where it wasn't necessary? Obviously not to save lives. Probably it was to distract us from all the bad economic news, or maybe to avenge Daddy's image. Great idea. Economy in a slump, severe deficit. So lets make it worse by inventing an expensive war, runnin up the deficit even more and strangling the economy to death.

Forking Stupid Arrogant Idiot.

Re:I'll bite.

[MillionthMonkey]

Oh, "supporting terrorism." On that question the U.S. is lying. They have shown no evidence.

What they have shown is that he has some chemical or biological agents (although far less than he had in 1991-1998). That is not the same thing as "supporting terrorism", which is rhetorical nonsense.

We, on the other hand, have so many chemical and biological agents ourselves that we can't even keep them from getting into the mail.

Re:Curious

[stanmann]

You know, we have a president, who is smart enough to know that he doesn't know everything, and therefore has surrounded himself with specialists he trusts to not lie to him, and to give him advice on subjects of importance. So, it would be logical to guess that those drafting (vs those signing/championing) the guidelines would know the tech.

Yeah Cyber Warfare will work well in Iraq

[inteller]

We'll be able to shut down their 2 ATMs and reboot all of those illegally imported PS2s....that should crush them.

United states amped out wardance.

[iLEZ]

Not my intention to be troll here, but i quote:

"the Pentagon has stepped up development of cyber-weapons, envisioning a day when electrons might substitute for bombs and allow for more rapid and less bloody attacks on enemy targets."

Hacking to shut down radars and power from thousands of miles away can have no other cause than to support an aerial assault, and aerial assaults are never bloodless. They just want to cripple people so they cannot strike back. Maybe we should redefine the terms "blood" and "human beings" to fit the United States wardance more correctly. Schools and hospitals without power can only turn people more against US.
Fighting for peace is like fuxxing for virginity.

Grim future of our existance...

[burbilog]

Saddam is _not_ going to disarm peacefully. All the UN circus acts and smoke shows are not going to change that fact. We (US and the coalition of 20+ countries that support us) _are_ going to war. Irregardless of whether or not you and I agree over that course of action, you have to agree that _any_ nonviolent attacks (CYBER) that will shut down radar installtions and missile batteries, or otherwise protect our soldiers lives has merit.

I never cease to be amazed at how people in US firmly believe in the propaganda from official media outlets. They don't have immunity for it and they will learn it in the hard way as we did. Anyway.

Forget human rights crap. US never cared about them when it was against their interests.

Proven amounts of oil are shrinking everywhere in the world except Iraq and Saudi and these countries will account for 50% of world oil reserves during nearest decades. It's well-known fact, but you ignore obvious facts.

• First, US worked hard to lure Iraq into attacking Kuwait. Note that everything started when Kuwait started draining neighbor Iraq fields and US signalled that Iraq can handle that situation (they were loosing serious money) with military force. The rest is known, but note that previously independed Kuwait is now US colony after war. If you want to force them to do something, you can order US troops who can swiftly deal with stubborn official and his loyal forces. Today we ignore that fact that US occupied Kuwait, turned it into the colony that can't have its own will and now Kuwait is under almost direct US rule. If things get tough Kuwaits oil will go directly to US at no cost except troops upkeep.
• But at that time it was impossible to invade Iraq because UN won't allow it. Now they are used to US driving its forces arond the globe, kurds are prepared for rebellion and US can split Iraq, taking oil fields and leave everything else to afghan-like chaos.
• Then comes Saudi. Remember that most terrorists at 9/11 were Saudis? It will take some heavy propaganda, but their country will be invaded by US soon -- may be 10 or 20 years.
• Then... as oil production becomes too energy consuming to be profitable humanity will have to find alternative energy source. The only one alternative viable power source is nuclear and US can't allow other countries rely on it because once it becomes common energy source you won't be able to control ALL reactors and other countries will start getting nuclear arms and thus immune to things that are going in Iraq (some lousy rockets without much brains but with simple nuclear charges will wipe all your carriers and bases and no sane neighbor country will allow you to build bases anymore on their territory and let carriers visit their waters). Thus whole world crisis is needed where other countries will suffer enough to be unable to build nuclear plants. Remaining plants could be bombed as Israeli did with Iraq plant, that's why such huge money are dumped into stealth bombers.
• When oil supply start going down humanity will have "methane pause", there are a lot of methane available (but not much), and currently about 93% of methane fields are in Russia. That's why I will go and vote even for communists or facists if they support upkeeping serious amounts of nuclear weapons able to wipe US. It's the only way to keep US at the bay, because as soon as they feel able to shoot down most our missiles and withstand nuclear blasts from these who come through new missle shield they WILL attack. Eh? You start saying something about human rights? Well, when Khasavurt accord established slavery regime in Chechnya with US help HALF OF MILLION russians were expelled, many thousands were killed. This fact got ZERO attention in US. Compare that with chechen refugees who got featured everywhere. Compare that with expelled Albanians (most of whom were in Kosovo because they sneaked there some decades before) -- they were useful. That's why I will support government that cares about MY nation and not abstract "human rights" which get bent at US will.

We as human race have to assemble and disarm US before they bring down civilisation.

Well, I exaggregated a little. But this is where real interests lie. Governments may be different, be it "democracy", dictatorship, republic or something else, but geopolitical interests remains the same, no matter who acts as face of the country. It even doesn't matter what he says. Look who gets the profit.