Open Source Code And War

"Should Open Source developers help the U.S. prepare for war with Iraq?" Roblimo has a piece on NewsForge which addresses that question by showing a specific way that the U.S. military is using Free and Open Source software (in simulator-based training for Blackhawk helicopters), and letting one of the developers involved speak for himself. If software is Free, doesn't that already answer the question of who can use it?

Comments

muslims are all evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

do not trust them!

Re:muslims are all evil!

[gilesjuk]

...and you wonder why Islamic fundamentalists say the same of Americans.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[chunkwhite86]

and you wonder why Islamic fundamentalists say the same of Americans.

Actually, they say the same of Americans because they are highly intolerant of other cultures and religons.

I would know, I've been to Saudi Arabia and seen this intolerance first hand. Ever been to a shopping mall in SA? They typically have a government kiosk in the center which speaks of the US, Capitalism, and Christians in a most poisonous manner. Quite ironic considering their malls are populated with American brand stores (e.g. The Gap, Nike, etc.)

Re:muslims are all evil!

[gilesjuk]

Yes, but US opinion is largely in favour of attacking Iraq since some americans have the unfounded belief that every muslim is a terrorist. Not very tollerant is it?

I take your point about US goods, when they found alqueda's computers they were running Windows on Intel/AMD processors. Hmm maybe that's why they hate the US, for producing Windows? :)

Re:muslims are all evil!

[1000101]

"Yes, but US opinion is largely in favour of attacking Iraq since some americans have the unfounded belief that every muslim is a terrorist. Not very tollerant is it?"

I think you have it all wrong. It's not that Americans believe every muslim is a terroist, rather it's Americans believe that every terrorist is a muslim. HUGE difference there and I still can't figure out why I don't see muslim leaders around the world standing up against terrorism.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[st0rmcold]

In Canada we have the same sort of kiosk's to talk about the US.

It's called a hockey game

Re:muslims are all evil!

[ramzak2k]

yeah right, talk to people who havnt been there.
i lived there all through my childhood (8 years) and no i am neither a muslim nor is middle east my native. i have seen no such kiosk, ever in any mall.

Talk of a lack of freedom to speak, to assemble together peacefully , to practice ones own religion and Burkhas (Veils) for women -I would agree. Then again thats their culture, that is the way they have evolved. One cannot judge a culture qualitatively or through comparisons. More often than not , cultures are there in the first place because they serve the needs of the society in that area - the needs differ from place to place.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

happy to see that people with a balanced head exist ! Thanks.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's suppose that Americans are totally intollerant of muslims. That doesn't mean we're intolerant of all religions. Just Islam. But Islam is intolerant of ALL other religions.

At any rate, tollerance is just newspeak for saying that there is no black and white, everything is some shade of gray. People like to hide behind a flag of tollerance because they refuse to except that moral truths exist.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[chunkwhite86]

Talk of a lack of freedom to speak, to assemble together peacefully , to practice ones own religion and Burkhas (Veils) for women -I would agree. Then again thats their culture, that is the way they have evolved.

No - That's the way their manipulative rulers have caused it to evolve.

One cannot judge a culture qualitatively or through comparisons. More often than not , cultures are there in the first place because they serve the needs of the society in that area - the needs differ from place to place.

True, however do you not believe that humans everywhere should have certain fundamental rights? Such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble peacefully, or the freedom to elect their own leaders? I think they should.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Yes, but US opinion is largely in favour of attacking Iraq since some americans have the unfounded belief that every muslim is a terrorist.

Actually, US public opinion is just barely in favor of attacking Iraq. The latest poll, which came out about two weeks ago, indicated that about 60% of Americans support the administration's plan to invade Iraq with support of a coalition of allies and at least tacit UN approval.

War is not a popular thing. Never has been, never will be. Unfortunately, whether or not it's popular has no effect whatsoever on whether or not it's right.

Oh, and the bit about terrorism? Americans are well aware that our actions in Afghanistan were motivated by 9/11, but that our actions in Iraq basically are not. The Bush Doctrine says that the threat of international terrorism is so great that regimes that support, encourage, or tolerate terrorist groups post a direct threat to the United States, but that's just one more nail in the Baath government's coffin. For the rest of it, we're just trying to finally, after 12 long years, finish the Gulf War. It never ended, because Iraq never accepted the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement. It's gotten to the point where they either accept the terms-- which Mr. Hussein has indicated that he will not do-- or we bring down the Baath government and install a new regime that will accept the terms.

We Americans know exactly why we're doing this. I sometimes think that the rest of the world doesn't, though.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[ramzak2k]

True, however do you not believe that humans everywhere should have certain fundamental rights? Such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble peacefully, or the freedom to elect their own leaders? I think they should.

Agreed, seeing every city in the world with the same ideals that we honour in democratic nations would be nice. But we should also understand that Any change should come from within the country - not forced upon externally.
I would be the happiest to see American Culture as a whole being adopted throughout the world through its inherent power and influence (which is happening to a lots of places in the world btw) - not because of its military muscle.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[gilesjuk]

Why Iraq? they don't have a nuclear capability, North Korea does and they're pretty unstable.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[bcboy]

> Oh, and the bit about terrorism? Americans are well aware that our actions in Afghanistan were motivated by 9/11, but that our actions in Iraq basically are not.

What do you base this on? Polls on the subject have shown that Americans are dramatically misinformed on this subject, with huge numbers of them believing that there were Iraq citizens among the 9/11 criminals, and more believing in evidence tying Iraq to Bin Laden that, in fact, doesn't exist.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[workindev]

How can you be so sure that they do not have nuclear capability? All we know is that they are actively trying to get nuclear capability. In fact, when France sold Iraq a Nuclear generator to build a "power plant" (even though they live on top of the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world) in the 80's, many experts agreed that they would have had nuclear weapons by the time the first Gulf war rolled around. (Fortunately, this made Israel a bit to nervous, so they took the generator out with an air strike).

North Korea is very different because they have told us that they have nukes. The only reason you tell the world that you have nukes is to gain diplomatic leverage, which is something North Korea desperately needs now considering their economic situation. On the other hand, the only reason you would develop nukes and not tell the world is so that you can use them.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[cheeseSource]

Whether or not war is right or wrong is not the issue with Iraq. Saddam has very little to do with the "terrorists" that the US is attempting to fend off, if you buy their rhetoric. There is never a right and a wrong in war. Only those that dominate, and they that win write the history books. I happen to think it's wrong, but some other people think it's right. I live in the US and will do what I can show my disdain for the current Government as I think they are a bunch of damn money-grubbing bullies. But they get to write history with their actions. It's just a damn shame they won't think about what they are doing first. They are short-sighted imbeciles, just look at Bush and Cheany's Coorporate antics, which are exemplified by his current tax antics. They have a "make as much as you can and run" policy. Which will turn Iraq into something far worse than it is currently...

Re:muslims are all evil!

[GlassHeart]

do you not believe that humans everywhere should have certain fundamental rights? Such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble peacefully, or the freedom to elect their own leaders?

No.

The concept that any right is "fundamental" derives from belief. For example, when you believe a God, and that God says humans have the right to life, then you believe that a human has a "fundamental" right to life. (Feel free to substitute "God" for another source of fundamentalism, such as conscience. It doesn't matter.) When the source of the belief is different, then what is considered a fundamental right can also differ.

In fact, a resident alien (green card holder) in the US is granted the right to live and work, but not vote, even at the local level. The election of leaders that affect such alien's day-to-day life is apparently not fundamental. In fact, it constitutes taxation without representation.

Another example is the right to exploit our environment. The Christian Bible vaguely says something about lording over all of creation, but another culture may say something entirely different (such as taking only what you really need). Such a culture might, for example, ban drilling for oil in nature preserves.

How about right to life? Pulling the plug on a comatose patient deprives him of the right to life, because he dies. This sort of thing is governed by different laws in different lands, probably even with the US. Some nations think that the death penalty infringes on even the criminal's right to life. Abortion is another obvious issue where minds differ greatly.

Now, there are obviously many things that virtually all human cultures share as fundamental rights. However, there is no common authority from which those rights derive, which is why they're not really fundamental, and why anybody should be very careful telling other people what their fundamental rights should be.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Why Iraq?

Short answer: we're still trying to end the Gulf War. The long answer is going to have to start with a history lesson. I hope you'll take the time to read it, and to understand.

On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait. That same day, the United Nations Security Council (UNSEC) adopted resolution 660, demanding that Iraq withdraw its forces immediately and unconditionally to the positions they were in on August 1.

Between August 6 and November 28, UNSEC adopted 12 resolutions on the problem, finally adopting resolution 678 on November 29. Resolution 678 authorized UNSEC member states, in particular the US-led Allied Coalition, to use "all necessary means" to enforce the will of the Security Council if Iraq refused to comply by January 15.

Iraq didn't comply. There was a war. On February 27, 1991, the US-led Coalition announced a unilateral, temporary cease-fire to discuss with Iraq the terms of a permanent, formal cease-fire and an end to the war. On March 2, UNSEC adopted resolution 686, which recognized the temporary cease-fire and called on Iraq to accept the Coalition's terms. On March 3, Iraq agreed to the terms, and the formal cease-fire was signed on April 6. On April 8, UNSEC adopted resolution 687 which called on Iraq, as a condition of the cease-fire, to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons... [and] all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres." Resolution 687 also establised a United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and tasked them with verifying-- not enforcing, but verifying-- Iraq's compliance.

Almost immediately, Iraq began to defy the will of UNSEC and the Allied Coalition. On August 15, 1991, UNSEC adopted resolution 707 in which they "condemn[ed] Iraq's serious violation of a number of its obligations under section C of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq provide full, final and complete disclosure... of all aspects of its programmes," "allow the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection Teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access," "cease immediately any attempt to conceal, or any movement or destruction of any material or equipment," and so on. If these demands sound familiar, they should. We've been making them since 1991.

For the next five years, UNSCOM tried in vain to verify Iraq's compliance. On June 12, 1996, UNSEC adopted resolution 1060, which "deplore[d] the refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On June 21, 1997, UNSEC adopted resolution 1115, which "condemn[ed] the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On October 23 of the same year, they did it again with resolution 1134. Then again on November 12 with resolution 1137.

On August 5, 1998, Iraq announced that they intended to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM. A month later, on September 9, UNSEC adopted resolution 1194, in which they "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq," accused Iraq of "a totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind its above-mentioned decision and cooperate fully with the Special Commission."

On October 31, Iraq formally ceased cooperation with UNSCOM. On November 5, UNSEC adopted resoltuion 1205, which "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the Special Commission," accused Iraq once more of "a flagrant violation of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally the decision of 31 October 1998, as well as the decision of 5 August 1998."

On November 11, the UN withdrew its staff from Iraq. The US-led Allied Coalition began planning an operation to be called "Desert Fox." The mission of the operation would be to strike Iraqi targets from the air with the goal of reducing Iraq's ability to pursue weapons of mass destruction and to threaten its neighbors, and to demonstrate to Iraq the consequences of further defiance. On November 14, with B-52 bombers in the air and within 20 minutes of striking their targets, Saddam Hussein agreed to let inspectors back in. On December 8, UNSCOM executive director Richard Butler reported that Iraq was still not complying, and ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.

On December 16, 1998, the Allied Coalition launched Operation Desert Fox. For four days, Coalition aircraft struck Iraqi military targets and targets related to Iraqi WMD programs. The strikes continued for four days, ending on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. On the last day of the strikes, Iraq's resolve was unshaken, and they declared that UNSCOM would never be allowed back into their country.

The correct course of action at this point would have been to follow up the limited air strikes with an all-out air campaign, followed immediately by invasion from all fronts and the forced disbanding of the Baath party and government. Unfortunately, the United States and the rest of the Allied Coalition lacked the political will to carry out such a massive military campaign at that time. The events of 9/11, however, served to galvanize American and Allied political will.

In 1999, however, that was not the case. On December 17, 1999, UNSEC adopted resolution 1284 which created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to carry out UNSCOM's mandate, deciding that "UNMOVIC will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687."

Finally, on September 16, 2002, after a series of failed negotiations, Iraq agreed to allow UNMOVIC inspectors into their country. Their goal, as stated in a letter from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, was "to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction." On October 1, 2002, Iraq and UNMOVIC/IAEA agreed on the terms for the return of the inspectors.

On November 8, 2002, UNSEC adopted resolution 1441, which declared that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations," offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations," demanded that Iraq provide to UNMOVIC" a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes," declared that "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq... shall constitute a further material breach," and, finally, stated "that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." On November 13, 2002, Iraq agreed to accept the terms of resolution 1441, saying, "We hereby ask you to inform the Security Council that we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable." The letter of acceptance, from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri, was filled with paranoid ramblings of great length and creativity, accusing the United States of "the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq," and stridently declaring that claims that Iraq has produced chemical and biological weapons were "fabrications" and "baseless." It's a fascinating read, and it's available on line here.

On December 7, 2002, Iraq delivered a 12,000 page dossier on its weapons programs in which it declared that it has no weapons of masss destruction at all. On December 19, Dr. Hans Blix, head of UNMOVIC, reported that the declaration was incomplete, and left many questions unanswered. Since that time, it has been determined that the declaration was not merely incomplete, but inaccurate as well. On January 27, 2003, Dr. Blix said in his report to UNSEC, "Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq?s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues." He then went on to give some examples: Iraq has claimed that they only produced VX nerve agent on a pilot scale. UNMOVIC has information, including documents produced by Iraq, that contradicts this claim. Iraq declared that 19,500 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988. An Iraqi Air Force document uncovered by UNMOVIC indicates that the correct number is 13,000. Iraq has refused to reconcile this difference of 6,500 chemical weapons. The list goes on and on.

That brings us, more or less, up to the present date. For the past twelve years, Iraq has been repeatedly reminded that they are required, under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, to voluntarily and unilaterally disarm. They have refused to do so.

Acting under the mandate of resolution 678 of November 29, 1991, the US, as a member of UNSEC, has the legal authority to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. The Allied Coalition attempted to do so in 1998 with limited strikes on military targets, but to no avail. Iraq continues, even in the face of further military action, to defy the Coalition and the Security Council. We have reached the point where we can no longer hold onto the hope that sanctions, strongly worded resolutions, or limited military strikes might convince Iraq to comply. We have reached the point where the only realistic hope for an end to this conflict lies in the destruction of the Baath government and the establishment of a democratic regime.

I hope this answers your question.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading the summary of the past 20 years or so of Iraq, I see numerous times where the UN gives Iraq an ultimatum, and every time Iraq stalls or refuses to cooperate. Whats the hell is the UN even doing there when they aren't going to back up their ultimatums. If you are gonna do something about it, then DO IT, dont keep extending the deadline - it just gives Iraq more reason to repeat what they are doing. The UN is backed by all these countries yet they are unable to control the situation. And everytime Iraq continues cooperation with the UN, its after the US is on the verge of sending in airstrikes. They are just playing games with everyone, and tooling the UN, making the UN look like their little bitches.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Whats the hell is the UN even doing there when they aren't going to back up their ultimatums.

That's the million-dollar question, isn't it. The UN Security Council has failed-- not just in this case, but repeatedly-- to prevent war. What's the point of continuing to have the meetings, then?

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

What polls? Please provide links when you quote these polls.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

Some (me perhaps) think it is you that is the short-sighted imbecile. For the people that live in Iraq it is far worse than you are currently willing to believe. Look outside your little protected sphere and perhaps you will see that things aren't great for everyone living under tyranny.

Have you taken the time to read articles written by people who left Iraq? Have you listened to their interviews? I have not heard or read a single one that doens't support the US ousting Saddam. Does their view not matter? Are they as short-sighted as the current administration you hate so much?

How can you respect Saddam more than your own government? I know why, because you don't live in Iraq where you have no rights.

And BTW, the previous administration launched a completely unilateral attack on Iraq. I hope you think they were short-sighted imbeciles as well? I'm guessing you are a blindly loyal Democrat and just happen to think they can do no wrong.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[mikeg22]

For the rest of it, we're just trying to finally, after 12 long years, finish the Gulf War. It never ended, because Iraq never accepted the terms of the 1991 cease fire agreement. It's gotten to the point where they either accept the terms-- which Mr. Hussein has indicated that he will not do-- or we bring down the Baath government and install a new regime that will accept the terms. The gulf war was about removing Hussein's army from Kuwait. That was all that was authorized by the UN.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

The gulf war was about removing Hussein's army from Kuwait. That was all that was authorized by the UN.

Yes, and no. Iraq accepted the terms of the 1991 cease-fire, which included UNSCR 687. Because UNSCR 687 and the subsequent resolutions were enacted under chapter VII of the UN Charter, they are binding on UN members, and the members of UNSEC are authorized to take action to enforce those resolutions. It's an obscure but vitally important point of international law.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

oh, maybe it's that they support it.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[jmo_jon]

What's your source for this info? To me it seems like you're using CIA as source and that renders your 'facts' pretty worthless. CIA is working for it's survival and for a president who wants a war. Of course they'll claim Saddam is the great satan and that it's totaly worth killing 10s of thousands Iraqie citizens to kill him. Do you trust all marketing companies?

It's very important to remember that Bush sr, Clinton and Bush jr all have wanted war against Iraq, and they've all been against inspections. Amongst the things you 'forget' to mention is that CIA infiltrated UNSEC and used it to both collect info for the -98 desert fox attack and for trying to get an uprising -96. It's not like that has been helping UNSEC and later UNMOVIC. I'd suggest you read the book War Plan Iraq It takes up most of what you mention but from another point of view, a view that never gets through in normal media.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[nkv]

No - That's the way their manipulative rulers have caused it to evolve.

What makes you so sure? http://ccminc.faithweb.com/islam/05veil.html

Perhaps it was a decision made for a reason that you might not have fathomed? Perhaps it was made for a need that didn't arise in the part of the world you come from. I don't want to judge you or the custom but I do think your comment is in bad taste and VERY judgemental.

To take this even further, supposing one WANTS to give up his/her freedom of speech for something which that person thinks is more valuable, would people like you let them?

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Anonymous Coward]

Short answer: we're still trying to end the Gulf War

Then why the US goverment doesn't say it? You should be speaking instead of them, but then... would you be telling the REAL reason? I don't think so.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[lostgnu]

I don't think that is allowed in the US constitution. One cannot give up their fundamental rights even if they wish to.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[chunkwhite86]

I would be the happiest to see American Culture as a whole being adopted throughout the world

Speaking as an American, I do not want this to occur. Nations should maintain their own cultures. There is no one "best" culture in the world. What I would like to see is democracy, capitalism, and various personal freedoms (speech, religon, etc) effected to all the nations. These are ideals that people of all cultures deserve, and should have.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[chunkwhite86]

To take this even further, supposing one WANTS to give up his/her freedom of speech for something which that person thinks is more valuable, would people like you let them?

I certainly would let them. That is their choice to make. However in Iraq, Iran, SA, do you honestly believe that (in recent times) the citizens have been offered this choice?

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Evil Adrian]

Freedom of religion is absolutely ridiculous. Millions of people with hundreds of (sometimes drastically) different belief systems cannot co-exist peacefully for any length of time. Different beliefs, esp. those as deeply-rooted (read: irrational) as religious beliefs invariably get forced upon others, etc. etc.

Any religion that professes to know the truth is automatically wrong. The only correct religion with the knowledge we have is "agnostic". To follow anything else is irrational, illogical, and quite frankly unfair to everybody you interact with.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[chunkwhite86]

Freedom of religion is absolutely ridiculous. Millions of people with hundreds of (sometimes drastically) different belief systems cannot co-exist peacefully for any length of time. Different beliefs, esp. those as deeply-rooted (read: irrational) as religious beliefs invariably get forced upon others, etc. etc.

Your statement is contradictory. If people of a given nation have Freedom of Religon, (as we do in the US) then they are not subjected to other beliefs being forced upon them. That is the nature of "Freedom of Religon". Secondly, there is no reason why people of different religons cannot peacfully coexist. Have a look at the US. That is one of the premises on which the nation was founded. There are members of various Christian sects, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Mormons, and Atheists all peacefully coexisting. The only interruption to this religous peace is intollerant extremists (e.g. the KKK), and intollerant (read: evil) religons like some of the Islamic sects.

Any religion that professes to know the truth is automatically wrong. The only correct religion with the knowledge we have is "agnostic". To follow anything else is irrational, illogical, and quite frankly unfair to everybody you interact with.

This statement is in quite bad taste, and is just plain incorrect. Whatever religon you believe in is the correct one for you. If you choose not to believe in any religon, that is also your choice. But to say that anyone who has religous beliefs is irrational and illogical is just plain ignorant. Perhaps it is you who is simply uneducated in religons of the world, hence your abstination from beliefs.

Not sure where you pulled "quite frankly unfair to everybody you interact with" but it is this ignorance and buffoonery that causes religous tension. I suggest you spend some time in the religous section of a library simply for the puspose of educating yourself in a subject which you are obviously misinformed.

Food for thought: Assuming you are in the US, the money in your pocket right now says "In God we Trust".

I'm not even sure why I even responded to your obvious flamebait.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Evil Adrian]

This statement is in quite bad taste, and is just plain incorrect. Whatever religon you believe in is the correct one for you.

Actually, you are incorrect. The world is composed of two things -- FACT and FICTION. If you don't know the FACT, you could very well be believing FICTION. It is completely illogical to believe you know the answers to things that yield incomplete information -- especially religion -- and therefore make a "choice". It is illogical to choose. For the record, if we had complete information about the realm of religion, there would only be ONE CORRECT RELIGION. That means that EVERY OTHER RELIGION IS WRONG. So quite frankly, your view -- which millions of other people share -- is on shaky ground from the very start, and borders on insane.

If you choose not to believe in any religon, that is also your choice. But to say that anyone who has religous beliefs is irrational and illogical is just plain ignorant.

Actually, I just laid out a rational, logical argument that argues why religious belief is irrational and illogical. Go figure!

Perhaps it is you who is simply uneducated in religons of the world, hence your abstination from beliefs.

Perhaps I realize that I *don't* know the answer, and have realized that it is irresponsible, irrational, immoral, and illogical to blindly believe something based on very, very incomplete information.

Not sure where you pulled "quite frankly unfair to everybody you interact with" but it is this ignorance and buffoonery that causes religous tension.

How you interact with other people is based on your belief system. If your belief system is unsound, your interactions with other people -- even if they result in the correct action -- are still being done for the wrong reason. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is bad. Doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons is even worse. Therefore, acting irrationally on other people is unfair to them.

I suggest you spend some time in the religous section of a library simply for the puspose of educating yourself in a subject which you are obviously misinformed.

It is obvious I have put more thought into this than you ever have.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Evil Adrian]

Food for thought: Assuming you are in the US, the money in your pocket right now says "In God we Trust".

The US Gov't forces religion on its people. They do so with the money, with the pledge of allegiance... and who the hell knows what other crap Bush is going to pull with his faith-based initiatives.

I don't understand why you brought that up.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[chunkwhite86]

I don't understand why you brought that up.

It was brought up to illustrate the presence of religon. No one is telling you what to believe or not believe. What you are being told is to respect the beliefs of others, and respect the presence of said beliefs.

It's kind of like a questionable magazine. If you don't like it don't subscribe!. It's quite simple. but you are in the wrong if you prevent others from subscribing, or if you say that people are "wrong" for doing so.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Evil Adrian]

They are wrong for acting on irrational and illogical beliefs. It affects me. They affect me. Therefore it is perfectly within my rights to complain about it.

Religion is illogical and irrational. Sorry, that's the way it is. Faith is belief without evidence, and by its very definition is illogical! Yet, we continue to allow millions of people to act irrationally.

I don't have to respect beliefs. I respect truth.

Re:muslims are all evil!

[chunkwhite86]

Actually, you are incorrect. The world is composed of two things -- FACT and FICTION. If you don't know the FACT, you could very well be believing FICTION. It is completely illogical to believe you know the answers to things that yield incomplete information -- especially religion -- and therefore make a "choice". It is illogical to choose. For the record, if we had complete information about the realm of religion, there would only be ONE CORRECT RELIGION. That means that EVERY OTHER RELIGION IS WRONG. So quite frankly, your view -- which millions of other people share -- is on shaky ground from the very start, and borders on insane.

Sorry pal, wrong again. The world is not filled with "fact or fiction". For instance, I know that a flame is hot. I do not need to put my hand into it to learn of this first hand. I can learn through the teachings of others that this is so.

Actually, I just laid out a rational, logical argument that argues why religious belief is irrational and illogical. Go figure!

Wrong again bud. You laid out your personal opinion which happens to be not based on anything at all.

Perhaps I realize that I *don't* know the answer, and have realized that it is irresponsible, irrational, immoral, and illogical to blindly believe something based on very, very incomplete information.

You are mistaken, again. There is a big difference between faith and "blindly believing". In addition, religon is not based solely on faith. It's also based on historical documents and real historical people. Do documents and people not fall within the realm of fact?

How you interact with other people is based on your belief system. If your belief system is unsound, your interactions with other people -- even if they result in the correct action -- are still being done for the wrong reason. Doing the right thing for the wrong reason is bad. Doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons is even worse. Therefore, acting irrationally on other people is unfair to them.

This is an incorrect assumption. The way I interact with others may be influenced by my religous beliefs, but is certainly not because of them. You do not have a firm graps on the principles of cause and effect.

It is obvious I have put more thought into this than you ever have.

It is obvious that you have a deep rooted blind faith in atheism, therefore you are the one acting irrationally. My religous beliefs stem from facts while yours stem from "blind faith".

Now who's on shaky ground?

Re:muslims are all evil!

[Evil Adrian]

Sorry pal, wrong again. The world is not filled with "fact or fiction". For instance, I know that a flame is hot. I do not need to put my hand into it to learn of this first hand. I can learn through the teachings of others that this is so.

But you cannot learn "God exists" or "God wants you to do X". People simply do not know. The world is fact and fiction. It really is all 1's and 0's when you break everything down.

Wrong again bud. You laid out your personal opinion which happens to be not based on anything at all.

It's NOT A FUCKING OPINION. Are you reading ANYTHING I wrote? My thoughts happen to be based on this thing called "reality" which involves this thing called "evidence". Unlike whatever religion you or anyone else happens to practice.

You are mistaken, again. There is a big difference between faith and "blindly believing". In addition, religon is not based solely on faith. It's also based on historical documents and real historical people. Do documents and people not fall within the realm of fact?

Historical documents? Real historical people? I suppose you're going to tell me that the Bible is a historical document? And Jesus Christ was a real historical person? Or whatever book / prophet / messiah you like best. All of the "historical documents" that exist are analyses of various holy books... the holy books are no more provably correct than a Dr. Suess book.

Prove me wrong.

This is an incorrect assumption. The way I interact with others may be influenced by my religous beliefs, but is certainly not because of them. You do not have a firm graps on the principles of cause and effect.

Your actions are based on your entire belief system. Part of that system is religious belief. A very large part for some people. Therefore, religion influences behavior. So, what exactly am I missing?

It is obvious that you have a deep rooted blind faith in atheism, therefore you are the one acting irrationally. My religous beliefs stem from facts while yours stem from "blind faith".

My religious beliefs are the ones based in fact, ass.

It's really obvious you haven't been reading my posts. I said that AGNOSTIC is the only way to go, because nobody knows. You can't believe something just because it feels good -- that's not enough to constitute rationality. And, as a representative of every other blinded, religious, intelligence-affected person, you ignore what I say, and continue to insist that you're right.

Present facts, please, otherwise quit responding to my posts.

yah

[Anonymous Coward]

frist post

Re:yah

[invader_allan]

no fair i saw it first }8^)>

Re:yah

[Anonymous Coward]

So close, yet so far away. You lose.

Ender's game

[SnowDeath]

Now, if only they would distribute the software for the simulators or even run "Arcades" with networks of these thing setup, we could have 8 year old fighter veterans!

Re:Ender's game

[aka.Daniel'Z]

And face a giant Saddam?

That could be cool, depending on how you would have to kill him... if it don't get nethack-style frustrating.

(Some time since I read the book, but I do remember Ender getting stuck at that face-the-giant situation...)

Re:Ender's game

[B3ryllium]

On the other hand, does this mean that open-sourcing Windows could be considered an act of war?

Re:Ender's game

[derfel]

I believe this is actually what the military does, but replacing the 8 yr olds with 18+ year olds. Well, they don't release the software, but they network hundreds of these things together and train. The hardware and databases are very expensive, so releasing the software wouldn't be all that effective.

Re:Ender's game

[Anonymous Coward]

No need to Open Source, the Iraq political structure undoubtedly uses Microsoft OSs, productivity suites and messenging tools already. When the criterion is this broad most any code developer is guilty. This article is the worst type of low grade troll, Timothy's favourite.

Re:Ender's game

[gekkotron]

You have been recruited by the Star League to defend the Frontier against Zur and the Ko-Dan Armada...

Re:Ender's game

[grumpygrodyguy]

In all seriousness, I think we should refer the the Clerks maxim here. Do personal politics enter into this situation?

In the current climate it's entirely understandable to need to resort to projects which might otherwise be turned down, solely due to the neccesity of making a living. Those of us who have families to care for, or very large student loans that need repaying, have less luxury in determining the types of work which is suitable.

I would urge anyone considering these types of projects to think twice however. Deeply consider what it is you're contributing to. Every link in the chain of a particular technology is essential to its operation. Perhaps the new missle targetting system which seeks human body heat requires a particularly brilliant solution in software. Perhaps there are only 5 people in the country who are U.S. citizens with clearance, and posses the technical expertise to perform the programming work. These hypothetical 5 people could be anyone, as brilliance it seems isn't very descriminatory. I would hope however that those individuals would wiegh personal politics in considering whether or not to develop such a device.

Every new magical killing technology was built by an engineer. Polititians, generals, and the other segments of the working politicians are incapable of developing these technologies. Somehow, somewhere they need to persuade a talented engineer to make such a device.

Times are very difficult right now. And it's very naive to impose moral ideals in the face of such difficult economic circumstances. But please remember that these devices are cabable of killing with such impunity, and lack of regard, that they are almost perfect. Men with swords, or rifles, were still men. They had hearts, and compassion, and families who mourned there loss. Without the means of compassion, modern weapons are wholely removed from humanity. They only require a policy to be unleashed. A policy dictated by an individual that does not have to answer to the enemy's families.

These are real people who will be dying as a result of software that guides these weapons. They have sons, daughters, brothers, mothers, and community that they love. Please, please consider who you are giving the power to kill.

Re:Ender's game

[sandman935]

Software doesn't kill people. People kill people.

Re:Ender's game

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, blame Roblimo, he wrote it.

Re:Ender's game

[Sunnan]

With their bare hands.

Re:Ender's game

[kylecito]

Nah.... that should be called sabotage [to the ppl you give source to ;-)]

Re:Ender's game

[dublin]

These are real people who will be dying as a result of software that guides these weapons. They have sons, daughters, brothers, mothers, and community that they love. Please, please consider who you are giving the power to kill.

Agreed. And that's all the more reason why removing that power from the hands of a dictator like Saddam Hussein, even by force if necessary, is the correct way to ensure future peace.

Remember, tens of millions of people died in the twentieth century because of the peaceniks' insistence on appeasement in the name of preventing "war". No diplomatic tactic in history has been more thoroughly and repeatedly proven to fail, with more disastrous consequences.

If you have any doubts that World War II, for instance, could have been prevented by actions against Hitler quite similar to the ones we're now contemplating against Hussein, read "The Gathering Storm", volume I of Winston Churchill's history of WWII. Churchill was virtually alone in calling for dealing with Hitler by force at the time when doing so was easy and would cost a minimum of replaceable resources and irreplaceable lives.

The similarities to today's situation are eerie and justifiably frightening. Churchill sums up the theme of that volume this way, "How the English-speaking peoples through their unwisdom, carelessness, and good nature allowed the wicked to re-arm." Now there's a lesson we can apply to today's world...

Yup! Not good at all...

[Greger47]

Now the Iraqi pilots get get up to snuff in their large fleet of Blackhawk choppers using US simulators!

Re:Yup! Not good at all...

[knightinshiningarmor]

"Mr. Hussein! We're running out of quarters for our helicopters!"

Re:Yup! Not good at all...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the modern world...
Leaders settle their differences...
with words...
words like...

(cue metal music)

SCUD LAUNCHER!
TOMAHAWK MISSLE!
OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE!

Re:Yup! Not good at all...

[Anonymous Coward]

Generals sucks ass.

That is all.

Not with my source codes!

[cronostitan]

Fortunately even if a source code is free i can add to the free license that the code mustnt be used in any military projects or projects related to non-civil actions at all. And i will do that from this point in time!

Re:Not with my source codes!

[brejc8]

I was under the impression that GPL and a few other licences do not allow the imposition of other rules.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Xerithane]

Fortunately even if a source code is free i can add to the free license that the code mustnt be used in any military projects or projects related to non-civil actions at all. And i will do that from this point in time!


Now you taint the ability for Governments to switch to linux and escape the Microsoft licenses propogating less freedom in the world.

Congratulations on helping destroy the goal of Free software. I only hope no one uses your projects anyway. Open your eyes to the big picture.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

And the next guy who comes along doesn't like the military or governement, so restricts the usage from both of them.

Next guy doesn't like the military, the government, corporations or any incorporated businesses. So he restricts usage to all of them.

The next person doesn't like homosexuals or mexicans and restricts the usage from them.

Lets not start a vicious cycle, keep free software free for everyone. Period.

"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right"

Re:Not with my source codes!

[geeber]

That is all very well and good. You can probably add whatever clauses you want to a licence. But how well would that actually hold water once the lawyers got involved?

If you really want to retain that sort of control over the source, then you probably have to close the source.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[$$$$$exyGal]

Will you change your license if you happen to agree with a specific war? For example, what if a foreign country's military was actively killing your neighbors and/or family?

--sex

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope not. No one has enough traction to stay on that slope for long.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[jgerman]

Then you won't be distributing Open Source software, and it won't be GPL. If that's acceptable to you, fine write your own license. I'm (mostly) against war, however, restricting the use of the code instantly invalidates it as Open Source.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets not start a vicious cycle, keep free software free for everyone. Period.

Exactly. A license that restricts what can be done with software does no good for anyone. This is why the GPL is a useless license.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Cro Magnon]

You can do whatever you want with your code! But if it has such a restriction, it ain't GPL, and it fails many definitions of "open".

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the NSA a civil or military use?

You'll have to define your terms.

If you address one, you implicitly exclude
the other. E.g., "The U.S. Army can't use
this" can be read to say "... but the Navy can."

Also, can NASA use your software?

Their flights are actually classified as
military operations according to the FAA.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think that the military would want your crappy code? I've seen your code and it SUCKS!

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Kenja]

Yea, its worth it if my software helps kill people so long as it hurts Microsoft. You realy need to figure out whos side your on, its us VS Microsoft, everything else is just collateral damage.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't you just put "no terrorists can use this software" to your licence? (As if they'll follow your instructions.)

If your code is so important that the military would want to use it, chances are, militant terrorists would want to use it to. They'll use it reguardless of the license, and the only group to be put at a "disadvantage" is the military.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[charon_on_acheron]

Better watch out there. You are coming close to mentioning a certain time in history with a certain war started by a certain leader of a certain country that did certain things to certain people in certain parts of the world. And once you do that someone gets to say "You lose." I know it's a strange rule, but that's how everyone else plays.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

if you are enough brain damaged to agree with a war, your code probably sucks.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[ucblockhead]

Presumably you could grab the text of the GPL, rename it the "NOWAR-GPL" and throw in some text about not allowing military purposes. You'd probably need to be a lawyer to get it right, though.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Attention Military Personnel:

From now on, you are forbidden from using the crappy text editor that cronostitan wrote under a 'free' license.

Thanks

Re:Not with my source codes!

[carrox]

That was a really great idea!! Thanks! I will do the same from this point in time.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Pharmboy]

Now you taint the ability for Governments to switch to linux and escape the Microsoft licenses propogating less freedom in the world.

As I read it, the GPL is politically neutral. it doesn't matter if you are a liberal, conservative, dicatator or saint, you have the same rights, and you can't take away those rights from others that use your code.

Its about bonified equality of use. It doesn't presume use, good or evil. The goal, it would seem, is to allow everyone to freely use the software to achieve their goals.

To put these "no war" use limitations is not only silly and purely politically motivated (its not anti-war, its anti-Bush. Even Sheryl Crow was doing USO tours in Bosnia when Clinton was in office, and now wears anti-military shirts. Hypocrite). Then its a matter of interpretation. What if the Govt. wanted to use it in the Bosnian conflict. Was that a war, a police action, or a rescue of Muslims from Christians? Depends on who you ask.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Dr. Bent]

Do you really think countries like China or Iraq will abide by the terms of your license? You'd be preventing law-abiding countries from using the technology while freely giving it to ones that have no respect for international law.

You may be against the U.S. attacking Iraq, but I doubt that you'd like to support (for example) North Korea attacking South Korea.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Apro im]

I think his point is, if you ban non-military, non-civil use (or even just non-military use), you ban the pentagon from using linux servers or work stations. You ban the pentagon, what's to get anyboy in ght egovernment to do it? Even if they're not killing - essentially, licensing is a hairy issue where often the breadth or narrowness of limitations is often hard to measure.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[dondelelcaro]

Presumably you could grab the text of the GPL, rename it the "NOWAR-GPL" and throw in some text about not allowing military purposes.

No. That would specifically violate the copyright on the GPL, which specifically states that you can copy and distribute verbatim copies, but modifications are not allowed

GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Version 2, June 1991

Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
59 Temple Place - Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

Furthermore, software under such a license would cease to be Free Software, as it would restrict Freedom 0. Such a piece of software would also not be free under the DFSG either.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

You Lose.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[letxa2000]

Fortunately even if a source code is free i can add to the free license that the code mustnt be used in any military projects or projects related to non-civil actions at all. And i will do that from this point in time!

Hello, McFly? If you want to kill open-source, start adding weird and useless conditions until you have a EULA like Microsoft. "The military can't use it," "You can't use this software if the company produces carbon-based pollution," "You can't use this software if you are involved in cutting down rainforests," "You can't use this software if you used a car to get to work today," "You can't use this software if you |insert liberal activist agenda here|."

Free software is free software. If you're going to start putting conditions on who can and can't use it you might as well remove the word "free" and just call it "Discrimination-promoting software."

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice. So now we'll have the US military unable to use this software because undoubtedly some slimy attorney and software developer will sue them. Meanwhile, do you think the opponent in a war would care about the license? Nope. So now, the opponent benefits. Traitor!

Re:Not with my source codes!

[koh-der]

That is great and all, but a license does not stop anyone from using it. For instance if country XYZ (e.g. "terrorist" nations) decides to use your software for military purposes and do not care for your licenses, there is nothing stopping them. Hence you cannot regulate who uses it.

Hey if a "you have to pay for this software" clause in a license doesn't work, what would make "do not use it for military" work?

Software is a tool, period.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[the_real_tigga]

I would not.

If you include such a restriction in your license, that decision is already made. You don't want your product to be used to kill _anyones_ neighbors and/or family.

If you take that back, "your" sides' military will go out and kill those who killed your neighbors, killing someone elses' neighbours in the process.

The argument of killing someone to prevent other killings is flawed.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[modecx]

This is why the GPL is a useless license.

Except that GPL grants you freedoms, it does not take them away.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

That was the cleverest thing I've read all day.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[matastas]

I love the typical ultra-liberal Slashdot kneejerk. Consider (applying to US laws/military):

1. You owe all of the grand technology you wrote your comment on to the US military. All of the cool stuff we work on and use personally with regards to Internet communications was developed, in part, by the military. They make good stuff.

2. So what if the military uses the code? I'm not about to sling around the T-word (begins and ends with 'T', favorite word of Ashcroft), but c'mon. Might that be a little reactionary to prohibit the group that protects our freedoms from employing your work to protect more of our freedoms? It's the politicians, not the military, that suck.

3. Two words: emminent domain.

4. If you think for a split second that some silly clause in an open software license is going to stop the US mililtary, or that if you managed to prove it, you could sue them successfully, you need to stop huffing gasoline.

I don't mean this to come off as a troll (it's a passionate disagreement), but just 'cause it's military don't mean it's bad. Lighten up, folks.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[gruhnj]

You may want to be careful using a blanket clause for the military. Not only does the military wage war, our primary purpose, we also do peace keeping, disaster relief (natural and otherwise), research, medicine. Do you want to restrict it to just the combat arms jobs or does that mean that finannce, medical, personnel, supply, etc cant use open source either.

One might also have to define what one means by military. Do I voilate the clause by using your software while I go to college funded by my GI Bill benefits? If I work for a police station and martial law is declared, am I all of a sudden not allowed to use my software because the Army is in control? What if I develop a great software program that is then used as a weapon? Does that mean that the product is illegitmate because I used your source for a program that became a weapon somewhere down the line?

Using a military restriction seems more throuble than its worth. If your really against the military, there are other more productive things you can do.

PFC Gruhn
US Army, Fort Lewis
"Serve and Sustain"

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

LoL, How true!

Re:Not with my source codes!

[two_socks]

Good idea, Einstein. I'm sure people like Saddam and Uday Hussain, Ferdinand Marcos, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot will abide by that.

Unfortunately, the U.S. and other civilized nations would be the only ones that would suffer. Murderous regimes aren't noted for reading the GPL, let alone complying with it.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[n3k5]

You and which army?

Not all 'military projects' are bad. When I was in the army, I secured my country's borders (not primarily hunting illegal immigrants, but the facilitators that take all their money) and helped victims of natural catastrophes. Of course, there also are those 'military projects' that are about killing lots of humans. For good reasons, they are planned and conducted rather secretly and the people involved are making rather sure no one gets access to their computers. So, why do you think they would respect your little license terms?

And who decides which 'actions' are 'non-civil' and in which ways a software program could be 'related' to them? That whole idea is callow humbug.

I'd rather try making the world a little better and thus a less likely place to start wars by creating stuff like free software, not almost-free software.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[letxa2000]

Gotta love Slashdot. Dare to say anything straying from liberal and you are moderated as a troll. It wasn't a troll, idiot moderator, it was a very accurate statement of reality. Get a clue!

No problem, got Karma to burn... Feel free to moderate this down as well.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[MAJ Rantage]

Fortunately even if a source code is free i can add to the free license that the code mustnt be used in any military projects or projects related to non-civil actions at all. And i will do that from this point in time!

Well you are certainly within your right to do so (assuming that a parent license does not prohibit further restrictions), but is that the best thing to do?

As other posters have mentioned, not only does restricting Government/military use of Open Source software encourage them to seek out closed-source options but have you considered a scenario where your country's military might need something you have created in an operation you do support?

The "military" doesn't just mean the infantry, armor and artillery types...it also includes some sectors of homeland defense and disaster relief. Some aspects of military research can directly benefit the public (bioterrorism defense research, for instance). And where exactly would the Coast Guard fit in?

Software can be used for both good and bad purposes. If a tool can do more good than harm, why place restrictions on where it could possibly do good?

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Xerithane]

Yea, its worth it if my software helps kill people so long as it hurts Microsoft. You realy need to figure out whos side your on, its us VS Microsoft, everything else is just collateral damage.

I'm an open source contributor, and I'm not against Microsoft. I run Linux, support GNU and the FSF, and have been involved in a few open source projects.

There is no war to be fought with Microsoft, and zealots are just here to hurt the progression of Linux to the desktop. The goal is not to destroy Microsoft, the goal is to create a great desktop for everyone to enjoy, without any legal issues.

Please take your zealotry and stick it in a nice, tightly sealed jar. We do not need your kind to act as PR for the Open Source community.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Discrimination-promoting software."

Pledge of Allegiance: One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all...

Interesting combination. You want a nation 'Under God' without discrimination. Pick one.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[TheRaven64]

Lets not start a vicious cycle, keep free software free for everyone. Period.
I assume you favour a BSD license then? The GPL restricts the use of GPL code to GPL'ed projects, and so already restricts freedom.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Xerithane]

Good idea, Einstein. I'm sure people like Saddam and Uday Hussain, Ferdinand Marcos, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot will abide by that.

Uhm, what's your point? Whether there are restrictions or not, they still use the software. I believe I made the point against the possibility of restrictions hurting legitimate and peaceful government operations... glad to see you are quick to flame without reading.

Unfortunately, the U.S. and other civilized nations would be the only ones that would suffer. Murderous regimes aren't noted for reading the GPL, let alone complying with it.

Wonderful. You are redundant.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[danielobvt]

Good luck in learning that we used your code. Slap in in a Secret or TS system and you would never even get the right to know we used it.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

You, sir, are a big, smelly NAZI! You're worse than George Bush!

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you are no longer allowed to enjoy any of the freedoms won by, or technology developed by, war and the military.

Better log off the Internet (descendant of DARPANet) Have fun doing nothing for the rest of your life.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[TheRaven64]

4. If you think for a split second that some silly clause in an open software license is going to stop the US mililtary, or that if you managed to prove it, you could sue them successfully, you need to stop huffing gasoline.
I think, having worked on a defense research project, that a clause in a license would prevent the military in any democratic country from using your software. I don't think for a moment that it would stop Sadam's military from using your software. If you place such a restriction in license then you are basically saying 'My government can't use this software, but my government's enemies can'. I would describe myself as anti-war, but Saddam has to be stopped somehow. If the only way that this can be done is through war then I would hope that we would use the latest technologies availible to ensure a quick victory with the minimum of civilian casualties. Arming Saddam at the expense of our own forces does not do this, and, while software written now is unlikely to be used in this war, if you place such restrictions in your code then in the next war you are likely to be responsible for civilian deaths, or the deaths of members of your country or the UN's armed forces. There is no absolution option, the choice is simply whose death you would rather be (partially) responsible for.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[two_socks]

I did read what you wrote, I just whiffed on the fact that you were quoting someone. My dumb error. I apologize.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Gordonjcp]

Murderous regimes like Dubya's evil empire, perhaps?

Re:Not with my source codes!

[jocknerd]

Even Sheryl Crow was doing USO tours in Bosnia when Clinton was in office, and now wears anti-military shirts. Hypocrite).

Supporting your troops and protesting a war are not mutually exclusive. Plus maybe she felt we had more reason to be in Bosnia than Iraq.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Xerithane]

I did read what you wrote, I just whiffed on the fact that you were quoting someone. My dumb error. I apologize.

*gasp* Oh holy hell, I did not just see this. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart. You have just taken a great step to proving the people on here were not all assholes. Again, thanks.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[two_socks]

Hey, I screwed up. That makes me human. I would be a fucktard, though, if I didn't apologize.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[MojoMonkey]

Where's the discrimination in 'Under God'? God could be Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, Buddah, Money, Sex, Snicker bars, etc...

For example, I worship at the Church of My Livingroom Couch, and find that I am NOT in fact discriminated against through the pledge of allegiance.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[koinu]

So what?

And the export restrictions by USA? Don't they affect the GPL in exactly the same way?

Re:Not with my source codes!

[dubious21]

The GPL is not neutral. The concept of equality/free use is not inherent in a capitalistic/freemarket economy. Socialism and Communism (I am talking Communism as a theory not as practiced over the last 80+ years) lean/push those types of ideals.
A freemarket requires winners and losers to drive competition in the market place. Not equality.

I am not advocating one theory over another.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Xerithane]

Hey, I screwed up. That makes me human. I would be a fucktard, though, if I didn't apologize.

No, it would make you a Slashdot regular ;-)

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Pharmboy]

Supporting your troops and protesting a war are not mutually exclusive. Plus maybe she felt we had more reason to be in Bosnia than Iraq.

Except in Bosnia, we didn't go through the UN. No, I think its simply because she is very liberal, like many in the music and movie industry, and chooses to support based upon the political leanings of the person in charge. Yes, what you are saying is POSSIBLE, however, it is not PROBABLE.

And I agree that the race may not always go to the swiftest, but the smart money always bets that way.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Ignorant Aardvark]

Wow, finally, a slashdotter for whom the saying "IANAL, but ..." does not apply.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[two_socks]

I fail to see the destinction...

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is all really fine until you realise that they might not have a claim here because it's simply a legal notice, not a work of authorship. Oops! You will note that the FSF has not yet tested this in court. There are plenty of programs distributed under a modified GPL license. They could sue any and all of them if they wanted. I wonder why they haven't...

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now you taint the ability for Governments to switch to linux and escape the Microsoft licenses propogating less freedom in the world.

So... Microsoft licenses are propagating less freedom in the world. Agreed, more or less. But then how's military propagating freedom? people like you should be shot in the head for letting governments wage wars because "it gives more freedom."

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Anonymous Coward loses! Strangest NetHack death: Terminated by Godwin.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Xerithane]

I fail to see the destinction...

I was just saying most the people on Slashdot are fucktards who will never admit to being wrong.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Pharmboy]

A freemarket requires winners and losers to drive competition in the market place.

While I respect your opinion in this matter, I think you are missing a few key points.

A free market place is where everyone has equal OPPORTUNITY. What you DO with that opportunity will decide your fate, but you have the same rights as I do to sell "widgets".

The only losers in a free market are the ones who do not have something of value to offer the market. For instance: I am not an painter. I have an equal opportunity to paint as Picasso did. So I quit my job, and become a painter. No one buys them, but they will pay big money for Picasso's. I go broke. I go back to my old job, which I was pretty good at, and got paid good money for.

The market place did not make Picasso a winner and me a loser. His talent made him a winner, and my lack of talent made me a loser.

The concept of equity is absolutely inherent in a freetrade/capitalistic society. Equity in opportunity, NOT equity in outcome. Socialism is based upon redistribution of wealth, thus equity of outcome. In America, the concepts of "Equity in Opportunity" and "Equity in Outcome" are constantly debated, and are the basis for the differences of the two primary parties.

As to free use, it fits capitalism fine. I create something, with the same opportunity as anyone else, and I choose what I want to do with it afterward. I can sell it. I can lease it. I can hold it. I can freely distribute it and let others do the same. It neither favors capitalism nor socialism, as long as the creator has the option. It is neutral in this respect.

It may "sound" more like socialism, because someone probably isn't making money. But free software is about "free speech" more than "free beer". As the GPL states, I can sell Linux for $1000 a copy or $10 a copy, or give it away (the free beer part). What I can't do is restrict YOUR right to use it as you see fit, and redistribute it as you see fit, the "free speech" part.

As to Communism as a Theory versus Communism as it has been practiced, I am deeply of the believe that Communisim as a Theory is just that, and it will never work the same in the real world as it does on paper because people are selfish. This type of selfishness is not bad. It is natural, normal, and necessary to our survival. If the stronger birds didn't push the weakest birds out of the nest, there would not be enough food for all. People will not work harder than the weakest worker if they are not rewarded better. To do otherwise may sound wonderful, and self sacrificing, but the fact is man's instinct to preserve self IS stronger than the instinct to preserve species. If you want a man to do more than minimum, to excell, you have to have a carrot in front of him. Capitalism under a democratic republic free market society offers that carrot to everyone, with a guarantee of opportunity, but not of outcome. Outcome is based upon your choices of profession, the amount of work you put into it, how adept you are at the profession, and even a little luck.

Communism as a Practice has been tried by several different countries, and we have seen the best it could possibly offer as a practice. The problem is: It doesn't work in practice the same as it works in theory.

Trying to make a utopian society based upon communistic ideals is like herding cats. You can show me how on paper, but you still can't do it in real life.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[dondelelcaro]

it's simply a legal notice, not a work of authorship.

I'm not quite sure that I follow you, but most licenses (and legal documents) are copyrightable (in the US), at least as of right now. There is currently a case working its way through the legal system regarding building codes (many of which are copyrighted by icbo and the ilk), but that has little or nothing to do with licenses and contracts.

There are plenty of programs distributed under a modified GPL license.

There may be a few minor ones (you really should provide a few examples when you say something like that). However, there are no major programs distributed under a modified GPL known to me. There are programs that are licensed under the GPL with a linking exception in the Copyright, but this does not modify the GPL itself. (Perhaps that is what you were refering to?)

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is the GPL itself not GPL'd (or released under one of the open-documentation licenses)?

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Under GPL, you don't have the freedom to take away others' freedom. Under BSD, you do. That's why Bill likes BSD (but only for others --- Microsoft would never released BSD code.)

Re:Not with my source codes!

[two_socks]

I got it, and I really wanted to use a smiley emoticon to show that I was trying to be funny, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Xerithane]

I got it, and I really wanted to use a smiley emoticon to show that I was trying to be funny, but I just couldn't bring myself to do it.

Ah, the plane flew right over my head, missing within inches. I'll use the fact I'm on drugs due to being really sick... yay for Dayquil!

Re:Not with my source codes!

[two_socks]

Ironic. You're the one wacked on Dayquil, and I'm the one that started this with a dumb post.

;)

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Xerithane]

Ironic. You're the one wacked on Dayquil, and I'm the one that started this with a dumb post.

Well, in all actuality, the one who started this dumb post was some non-native speaker declaring his loathing for governmental use of his open source software.

This is probably one of the longest, least-substance filled, but fun threads I've ever been involved in. Yay for slow work days!

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh. Can you please furnish a list of your extensive contributions toward GPL/OSS so that I can delete it from my hard drive? I'm sure I'd better get an early start so that I can get it all done by tommorrow's dawn.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen brother pharm

Re:Not with my source codes!

[cronostitan]

Well.. since I see that i can't do much 'bout misusing my sources I will just lock it down. I know some people might upset that now and cry "free sources , free sources". It is my choice indeed what i do with my intellectual property. Yes... I enjoy using free software and sources too but if I see my software is misused or there is the possibility of misuse what reason do i have to give out a piece of source? I am not talking about a winamp player (or did i miss a military purpose for winamp players?). I would support an "army" which is used for helping people without weapons. But i will do everything to prevent a war because violence only creates counter-violence. Every war in history showed that an agressor never had the right to attack and only created a big mess of grief and death. Do you really want to support something like that?

Re:Not with my source codes!

[cronostitan]

Well... yes.. indeed I am scared :/.
You are right. It isn't GPL anymore if i would change a license like that. I know that by now ;).
The only way is to not publish sources at all if there is a possibilty of misuse. :(

Re:Not with my source codes!

[two_socks]

Hooray indeed. I think /. could use a whole lot more couth, humor, and thought, and less... well you know as well as I do.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Xerithane]

Hooray indeed. I think /. could use a whole lot more couth, humor, and thought, and less... well you know as well as I do.

This is why I stay in my journal cluster much more than the front site.

Re:Not with my source codes!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a fucking "vicious circle". I wish people would stop abusing that expression.

open

[DNS-and-BIND]

What part of OPEN do you not understand?

Re:open

[cachorro]

Should ___________ developers help the U.S. prepare for war... ...by showing a specific way that the U.S. military is using ___________...

Fill in the blank with:

Open Source software
Toilet paper
Footware
Small arms
Army cot
Clothing ...

Technology has no ethic.

Re:open

[the_real_tigga]

It's part in "OPEN FIRE".

Re:open

[wdr1]

This is one of the odder stories I've seen on Slashdot:

1) Nobody actually submitted the story
2) Nobody is actually seriously taking the position that the military shouldn't be able to use Open Source software. The wording of the story lead me to think that's what the interview would lead, but even he doesn't take that position.

What gives?

-Bill

Re:open

[Anonymous Coward]

I have become death, the destroyer of worlds...

I believe it was Oppenheimer who quoted this text in reference to his work

Re:open

[GlassHeart]

Technology has no ethic.

Yes, but engineers do. This is why security people usually notify vendors in advance of the publication of a new security hole, to give them a chance to fix things.

There are also technologies that have no other purpose. You can argue that a nuclear warhead can someday deflect a meteor bound for earth, but the fact is that the Manhattan Project was launched for another specific purpose.

Advocates like to say "guns don't kill people", and they are right to that extent. However, body armor piercing bullets have no other objective, because bears don't wear body armor.

I'm not objecting to your point that many technologies are neutral. I'm also not commenting on the specific ethics of the examples I cite, rather just pointing out that they are not ethics neutral.

Re:open

[schulzdogg]

What gives?

Slow news day + Newsforge needs some traffic.

Re:open

[e2d2]

Yes but what if the body armor is wore by gun touting armed robbers as was the case in Los Angeles a few years ago. In that case i think that body armor piercing bullets were used for the greater good by stopping the criminals, thereby protecting the average citizen.

Even a weapon can be used in a "good" way depending on your view point. If you have a rock and the bad guy has a assault rifle to say you are in a very bad position would be an understatement. Now I am not advocating killing BUT I know for a fact that the world has bad people in it. Should we to simply stop providing the means to stop them because it involves very nasty things? To fight a devil you've got to be a devil yourself. The engineers know that a bomb can be used to both kill and protect, life is not black and white as some portray. Maybe if we could stop killing altogether it wouldn't be a problem, but that eutopian view goes upstream against the current of the primitive mind.

Re:open

[DNS-and-BIND]

The unspoken assumption to most (all?) media stories is that the U.S. is bad, mmkay, and the U.S. military is worse, mmkay. Undoubtedly that was the unspoken subtext in this story.

Re:open

[Tassach]

Advocates like to say "guns don't kill people", and they are right to that extent. However, body armor piercing bullets have no other objective, because bears don't wear body armor.

Non sequitir. Bears don't commit armed robbery. Bears don't kick down your door in the middle of the night and drag you away to a secret location. Bears don't try to create a police state. Bears don't attempt to subvert the US Constitution.

The Right To Keep and Bear Arms is about more than target shooting or hunting, or even about personal self-defense. The Second Amendment was put in place by our founding fathers to ensure that the People will always have the means to defend their Freedoms against would-be tyrants.

Re:open

[Rolfje]

War has no ethic. Wether it's free or not, if some party thinks he's going to win using it, you bet they do! They just don't tell the world about it later on...

Re:open

[GlassHeart]

what if the body armor is wore by gun touting armed robbers

All I meant by this example is that some technologies have only one purpose. In this case, to kill a human, because only humans wear body armor. If you have a problem with killing humans of any sort, you should stay away from a job developing armor piercing bullets. I said the technology is not ethics neutral, I didn't say it was unethical. The engineer must come to an independent conclusion on whether he/she can live with all its effects.

life is not black and white as some portray

Exactly. To see technology as completely ethics neutral is to ignore the gray areas.

Re:open

[GlassHeart]

Bears don't commit armed robbery. [...] The Second Amendment was put in place by our founding fathers [...]

You managed to completely miss the point. Once you invoke the Second Amendment as a moral justification to participate in the design of a "controversial" device, you've made an ethical decision on the technology. You've decided that ethical considerations in favor of the technology outweigh the potential abuses.

Therefore proving my point that technology is not independent of ethics. Engineers shouldn't go to work completely oblivious of the uses of the technology they develop.

As for the Second Amendment, most people don't think Iraq's armed forces stands a chance against the US. Do you think your "well-regulated militia" really stands a chance if the US Armed Forces can be turned on its citizens? (IOW, the real safeguard of your liberties comes from the Armed Forces siding with the people in such an event, not with an independent militia.)

Re:open

[e2d2]

Bravo, well said. Forgive me for misunderstanding your point. There ARE consequences to an engineers actions, especially those that develop weapons, and they must weigh all the consequences of their efforts.

Re:open

[Anonymous Coward]

There are also technologies that have no other purpose. ... body armor piercing bullets have no other objective, because bears don't wear body armor.

WRONG - you have to ask yourself what is
an "Armor piercing bullet?" (i.e. HOW do you define that). Truthfully - they
are STEEL cored bullets. Steel and iron alloy
happens to be significantly cheaper than LEAD.
Thus a LOT of military ammo uses Steel cored bullets
due largely to the economics. There is NO good
reason why joe citizen shouldn't be allowed to
use the same. (surplus military ammo is
far more affordable than hunting ammo - and
sometimes the ONLY ammo you can find for
some older bolt-action rifles)
Especially since ANY decent hunting
rifle round (even Lead cored ones) will penetrate
the typical police "bullet proof" vest.
So much for your arguement.

Re:open

[Anonymous Coward]

That article is just propaganda.


Some Free Software and GPL supporters (and many coders) are virulently anti-war, and many are specifically against the U.S. invading Iraq ... Some Linux and Free/Open Source developers may not support current U.S. military goals in the Middle Eas


So there are *some* Free Software Foundation supporters who are anti-war. Even (possibly) a CODER! So what?


My wife, Hala, doesn't like George Bush Sr. or Jr. She remembers a time when George Bush Sr. was at the CIA and paid Saddam during the war with Iran.


This is an outright lie. The Iran-Iraq War was from 1980-1988. George Bush was vice-president at the time. Not a CIA operative. I don't think he was ever a field agent. He was appointed *director* of the CIA for 1 year, in 1976, but was replaced in January 1977 after Jimmy Carter was elected. Before that, he was in the US Liason Office in China. Before that he was a member of Congress. Before that UN Ambassador.

I don't know what the point the article was trying to make was, because it didn't talk about software or the the military except to provide a link to I.D.E.A.L. Technology and a text editor.

Re:open

[Fnkmaster]

Bears don't commit armed robbery...

The Right To Keep and Bear Arms is about more than target shooting or hunting...

Well, let's get the story straight mister. Either we have the right to Keep And Arm Bears, or we don't.

Re:open

[Anonymous Coward]

growl

Re:open

[FatalTourist]

Bears don't commit armed robbery. Bears don't kick down your door in the middle of the night and drag you away to a secret location.
"Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol must be working like a charm." - Homer

Re:open

[poisoneleven]

"armor piercing bullets", thats nice reporter talk. The fact is, that *any* bullet fired out of a high powered rifle (300, 30-06, 308, etc...) will slice clean through body armor. Period. Body armor is meant to stand up against handguns, and does a fine job of it. When people start saying "armor piercing bullets", they're usually just flaming.

Re:open

[eddy the lip]

The Second Amendment was put in place by our founding fathers to ensure that the People will always have the means to defend their Freedoms against would-be tyrants.

So, how's that working out for you?

Re:open

[Anonymous Coward]

Bears don't commit armed robbery. Bears don't kick down your door in the middle of the night and drag you away to a secret location. Bears don't try to create a police state. Bears don't attempt to subvert the US Constitution.

Yogi Bear might, I hear he's smarter than the average bear.

The Right To Keep and Bear Arms

That reminds me, do we still have the right to keep bear arms? I've got some taxidermist friends who might appreciate a warning.

Re:open

[brocktune]

Body armor should be available to bears. After all, the second amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right to arm bears.

Oh, wait...

Re:open

[Dot.Sig]

well said, thanks

Re:open

[thrillseeker]

There ARE consequences to an engineers actions...

There are also consequences to non-action. History is full of examples. Just because some particular decison is unpleasant to consider doesn't mean the alternative is better.

Re:open

[king_penguin_05]

"Bears don't attempt to subvert the US Constitution."

So what you're saying is that we need to save them for the government administration.

Re:open

[Elwood P Dowd]

Do you think your "well-regulated militia" really stands a chance if the US Armed Forces can be turned on its citizens? (IOW, the real safeguard of your liberties comes from the Armed Forces siding with the people in such an event, not with an independent militia.)

If the US Armed Forces were a group of well trained independent militias, then we would not have that problem at all. If all the money spent on the military were spent by militia members on whatever arms they desired, we would be awful difficult for anyone to invade.

We would also lose the ability to impose our will on other nations militarily. Oh... dear.

Perhaps you think the idea is hairbrained. It might be. But that's what the gun nuts often mean when they talk about the initial goal of the second amendment. It's not the *worst* idea I've ever heard.

Re:open

[bedouin]

As for the Second Amendment, most people don't think Iraq's armed forces stands a chance against the US. Do you think your "well-regulated militia" really stands a chance if the US Armed Forces can be turned on its citizens?

Maybe not -- at least if it's you and 30 of your friends against an entire Army, and that's a shame, because government (not just the US government, mind you) should never be allowed to become that powerful in the first place.

(IOW, the real safeguard of your liberties comes from the Armed Forces siding with the people in such an event, not with an independent militia.)

I kind of agree here. But the real safeguard comes when every single individual in the nation is armed, and willing to die. It's less likely a solider is going to be so eager to destroy the rights of his own people if he knows that means killing his own friends, neighbors, and family in the process.

On the other hand, military recruitment brainwashing can probably produce some interesting results, so who knows.

Re:open

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think your "well-regulated militia" really stands a chance if the US Armed Forces can be turned on its citizens?

Yes. The last time our militia took on the worlds preeminent professional army the militia won. ;-)

Re:open

[GlassHeart]

the real safeguard comes when every single individual in the nation is armed, and willing to die. It's less likely a solider is going to be so eager to destroy the rights of his own people if he knows that means killing his own friends, neighbors, and family in the process.

The Tienanmen Square Massacre is an instructive example. The troops actually around Beijing were well informed of the people's demands, and sympathized with the people. In fact, they refused orders to attack. Beijing had to move uninformed troops from elsewhere to carry out the attack, telling them that the people in the Square were enemies.

The People Power Revolution happened because the troops were informed, and did not fire on the civilians.

The key is whether the troops know what is going on. Soldiers are trained specifically to attack people who are well-armed and willing to die, and will probably follow orders unless they know what they're doing is wrong.

Re:open

[thynk]

Bears don't commit armed robbery... The Right To Keep and Bear Arms is about more than target shooting or hunting...
Well, let's get the story straight mister. Either we have the right to Keep And Arm Bears, or we don't. I think I have some bears to let out of my basement... anyone have a suggestion about how to get an M16 away from a bear?

Re:open

[schlick]

As for the Second Amendment, most people don't think Iraq's armed forces stands a chance against the US. Do you think your "well-regulated militia" really stands a chance if the US Armed Forces can be turned on its citizens?

I'd bet that armed private citizens could defeat the U.S Military. (I was in it) Lots of people were in it, so they know how it works (or doesn't work for that matter). Many would desert. Also, remember Viet Nam.

Re:open

[bluGill]

Yes I do think that US citicians could win against the army if they wanted to. However this would require the military to attempt an obvious takeover. If the Army marches on my town, and I agree with the army that people in my town are out of hand, then I won't do a thing to stop them. If the army marches on the people of the US without cause I won't do a thing.

Now multiply my by a majority of the population realizing more or less at once that the military is attempted to subvert good goverment. It is generally belived that there are more Guns in working order in the US than people, and most gun owners have a little amo for each gun. (Though not all guns are useful against people, lets assume all gun owners ahve one gun that can kill people)

It works like this: I see the army come (as does all my neighbors) Those of us who are are good shots sit in upper windows taking pot shots at officers. (Most sportsmen practice enough that they can shoot a person with reasonable accuracy, and since we assume anyone near the officer is a bad guy, missing is not a problem) We don't always shoot either, if we know big officer is coming by, than we get in possition, if a good opertunity doesn't present itself, we publicly say we support the military and are not the ones against it.

Now I will agree that many will be killed if it comes down to this, but my point required a bad takeover, and considering what I know about other countries where the military has taken over I'd rather they kill me than live under their rule - if I can take out of few of them for my fellow many before they kill me so much the better. Sheer numbers solves the rest of the problem.

Re:open

[DEBEDb]

Bears don't try to create a police state. Bears don't attempt to subvert the US Constitution.

The Right To Keep and Bear Arms


I say, we should Arm Bears!

Re:open

[SN74S181]

News Forge is a funny name for a site dedicated to journalsm.

Do they actually forge news there?

Re:open

[Anonymous Coward]

that has just made my day.

Re:open

[JimPooley]

No no, you're both wrong. It's a misprint, right? It should be The Right To Bare Arms meaning you can wear T shirts or short sleeved shirts as much as you like...

Re:open

[Amroarer]

Do you mean the war of 1812?

Re:open

[bungo]

Non sequitir. Bears don't commit armed robbery ... The Right To Keep and Bear Arms is about

But what if the 2nd amdt was "To Keep and Arm Bears", then maybe bears wold be commiting armed robbery.

Re:open

[Phillip2]

"The Second Amendment was put in place by our founding fathers to ensure that the People will always have the means to defend their Freedoms against would-be tyrants."

The founding fathers existed at a time when the notion of a standing army was an anathema to them. Anyone who supports the right to bear arms, to prevent tyranny, should also argue, it seems to me, for the abolition of the US army (and other military force).

It all strikes me as a bit ludicrous. The idea that a population with a few hand guns are going to prevent a tyranny from forming when the army has tanks, helicopters, and heavy bombers is little short of absurd.

Accountability, division of power, freedom of speech, are much more important. The pen is, indeed, mightier than the sword.

Phil

Re:open

[Grayputer]

OK, and last I checked for that to be effective both sides need roughly the same level of arms. If you don't believe that, you keep your pistol and I'll take a boomer with several nuke tipped cruise missiles and we can duke it out. Oh and last I checked, the nuke cruise missile isn't available at my local Walmart/Gun Shop/store, guess I'll have to mail order.

Seriously, anyone that thinks the 2nd Admendment STILL provides the ability to overthrow the Gov't is living in the early 1800's, or they have a better mail order catalogue than I do. Of course I guess we can change to allowing the sale of cruise missiles at WalMart but the crazies seem to be doing enough damage with the existing allowed armorments. Can you imagine the guys that currently walk in to the office and start shooting doing it with bigger and better toys.

What to hell if it comes to that, Canada's only about 3 hours away. Oh, wait the crazy with the cruise missile can get me there too.

Re:open

[Anonymous Coward]

You're such a fucking dipshit aren't you? Just an insight into your personality, sorry.

Re:open

[dvdeug]

It all strikes me as a bit ludicrous. The idea that a population with a few hand guns are going to prevent a tyranny from forming when the army has tanks, helicopters, and heavy bombers is little short of absurd.

Ever heard of guerrilla warfare? You can't bomb a rebel base spread throught a hundred square miles of metropolis.

Re:open

[dublin]

Those of us who are are good shots sit in upper windows taking pot shots at officers. ...and since we assume anyone near the officer is a bad guy, missing is not a problem)

Although I've not served in anything like the infantry, the historical accounts I've read of those that have stress that officers are the *least* likely and least useful targets.

Read these words of Sam Watkins from the War Between the States (BTW, that's the official designation by the US Congress of the war often mistakenly called a "Civil War"):

I always shot at privates. It was they that did the shooting and killing, and if I could kill or wound a private, why, my chances were so much the better. I always looked upon officers as harmless personages.... If I shot at an officer, it was at long range, but when we got down to close quarters I always tried to kill those that were trying to kill me.

Galactic War

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather wage way in Master of Orion. Pre-ordered already! w00t!

probably not

[sstory]

I mean, if they need to cut and paste from one app to another, or easily manage printers, or add and remove hardware frequently, or do things without having to spend large amounts of time learning arcane info, they should use Windows.

Re:probably not

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately I have no modpoints, troll.

Article slashdotted

[Mdog]

Looks like it's slashdotted. Here's the text:

Free Software and GPL supporters (and many coders) are virulently anti-war, and many are specifically against the U.S. invading Iraq. One well-regarded project, Bluefish, has a link on its site to an anti-war page. Could the use of popular GPL and Free Software packages in what many people overseas view as the "U.S. War Machine" cause strife and dissension among Free Software developers?

In another interesting question to the free source movement, one has to wonder whether using or participating in slashdot is a reasonable thing to do, given slashdot's editors history of censorship and secrecy.

Awtrey: I think the debate has caused strife and dissension in groups with less cohesion than Free Software / Open Source groups have. The chance of us avoiding some level of public debate on the issue seems unavoidable.

The war issue has an amazing ability to polarize opinion. There are people with good hearts and good intentions on both sides. My wife was born in Iraq and her family moved here to escape Saddam and the Baath party 30 years ago.

This makes the issue especially touchy around here.

She and her family hate Saddam. They have stories that would curl your toes about him and his psychopathic offspring Uday. It is not uncommon for people who make a quiet joke at a party on Friday to disappear with all their family, including cousins, before the weekend is over. They have no due process, they have no court to appeal to, the people are simply gone and never come back.

NewsForge: I take it, then, that you and your wife have no problem with the U.S. invading Iraq?

Awtrey: When people tell me that civilians will die in a war, I tell them that Saddam has already spilled more Iraqi blood than any aggressor. He is not a polite, reasonable man. He kills without thought. His son Uday rapes little girls and chops off the heads of prostitutes on the street.

War or no war, this man needs killing like a rabid dog. And Iraq needs to be free.

My wife, Hala, doesn't like George Bush Sr. or Jr. She remembers a time when George Bush Sr. was at the CIA and paid Saddam during the war with Iran. That war would be like a war between Florida and Georgia. Most of the actual people of the countries are related in some way. Politics aside, if there were a button she could push and kill just Saddam, she or any member of her family would push it. It's a hard decision when you know "the Iraqi people" as cousins, aunts, uncles, and have to risk them to save the country in the long term. She doesn't want her family hurt any more by anyone. Saddam is a little hurt every day, the war is a larger hurt, but likely a shorter period of time. The devil you know? The devil you don't? It's a hard choice.

NewsForge:The problem -- to some -- with GPL-licensed software is the fact that anyone can use it. How would you feel seeing some of your code used by Saddam Hussein's people. Or Osama bin Laden's? Or by the Chinese government to help prevent full Internet access?

Awtrey: No clear opinions yet.

I know there have been reports of them using PGP / GPG to encrypt messages. That has to give Phil Zimmermann the shivers sometimes. One of the things life in America has taught me is that the words spoken by a racist skinhead are just as important as the words I speak. It doesn't mean I agree with them, it means that the right to speak is important, not what is said. If Free Software is about Free Speech, then we have to suck up the fact that people will use our code for things we don't agree with. I don't agree with drug use, but that doesn't stop drug dealers from using Apache or Mozilla or GPG. I can only state what I am for; peace, goodness, truth.

I am with a crowd of people making statements. I hope that the sounds we make together are mostly peace, goodness, truth when heard by others, but all I can control is my own voice.

Re:Article slashdotted

[$$$$$exyGal]

The article is not slashdotted, and your text is not from any of the linked articles.

A double-edged sword...

[Xerithane]

Obviously, you have no claim as to what your software can and cannot be used for if you release it out into the world. Whether or not you believe the upcoming war with Iraq is justified or not, it doesn't stop the software they use from being used.

This is a completely moot issue, but it is good for discussion I suppose. The thing that should not be seen is exclusion clauses from the GPL and other open source licenses. I would hate to see "This software may not be used for military purposes" because that will lead down a path that is more counter-productive. Would you rather have the military and government using open source software or Microsoft?

Code audits are important when using software for military purposes, to ensure that everything is accurate. Whether it's personnel tracking, mission tracking, or simulation software, accuracy is important. Maybe my view is just tainted because I'm finding myself leaning more toward the pro-War campaign...

Re:A double-edged sword...

[namespan]

Maybe my view is just tainted because I'm finding myself leaning more toward the pro-War campaign...

I'm against the Iraq war as it looks like it would be currently conducted and justified, but I agree. Not letting your code be licensed for that use would do little good -- it would simply increase defense budgets and decrease auditability as closed source code was used.

I'm not saying you have to begin work on device drivers for a tank right now, or release IraqSim to the world. I'm saying that the idea that not releasing code to the world will make a difference is probably not particularly sound.

The only exception I can thinkg of is if you've come up with something truly unique. And if it's that unique and dangerous, you shouldn't release the idea at all, because one way or another, someone powerful will get their hands on/mind around it and use it with or without your permission.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[$$$$$exyGal]

Can't the government still just use any civilian software/patents/etc however they want? Have you guys seen the movie Armageddon? In Armageddon, the military steals Bruce Willis' drill designs, and they claim they did it legally.

--sex

Re:A double-edged sword...

[privacyt]

Would you rather have the military and government using open source software or Microsoft?

I'd rather see them use buggy Microsoft software, of course. In the case of IRS, that means they'll forget I owe taxes. If military used M$ software, that means some bombs might miss the Iraqi cities and instead land harmlessly in the desert, thus saving civilian lives.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Xerithane]

The only exception I can thinkg of is if you've come up with something truly unique. And if it's that unique and dangerous, you shouldn't release the idea at all, because one way or another, someone powerful will get their hands on/mind around it and use it with or without your permission.

This goes into the "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should" philosophies. The important thing to realize is that even though you have thought of it, someone else may have as well. The permissions of it are exactly right, even if you release something and say "Iraq, Al Qaeda, etc. can't use it," what makes them keep their word? I think that would fall low on the list of things to go after.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[DeltaSigma]

Would you rather have the military and government using open source software or Microsoft?

In all seriousness, I would like both allies and enemies to be using linux (or for military purposes, specifically, OpenBSD) as the software for any weapon of destruction they might have to launch. I fear many more civilian lives would be claimed if a less stable operating system were used.

Does this make those idiots that go around calling Saudi-Arabians, Iraqis, Iranians and other middle-easterners "towel heads," big supporters of the use of Windows by the military? I mean with their mentality you'd think they'd want the military to use less accurate software so they'd have to fire more weapons...

...no, I don't know if I'm trying to be funny or serious.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd rather see them use buggy Microsoft software, of course. In the case of IRS, that means they'll forget I owe taxes. If military used M$ software, that means some bombs might miss the Iraqi cities and instead land harmlessly in the desert, thus saving civilian lives.

Or a precision bomb might miss the bunker it's aimed at and instead hit an Iraqi school. I'd use whatever is best suited to the application. The more accurate the weapons are, the less collatoral damage there will be.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[questionlp]

But what if a missile targeted, tracked and controlled using Microsoft software, aimed at a critical target, the command unit fails (BSOD, GPF, Access Violation...), and hits a hospital that not only contains civilians but possibly other troops on our side?

(BTW - I'm against this warmongering and possible war)

Re:A double-edged sword...

[sconeu]

. If military used M$ software, that means some bombs might miss the Iraqi cities and instead land harmlessly in the desert, thus saving civilian lives.

1. Assuming the US bombs Iraq, targeting software is such that if it misses it's target, it would probably land on top of civilians.

2. Targeting software uses neither Open Source nor Microsoft. It is generally designed for proprietary real-time OSen (VxWorks and "home-grown" come to mind).

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Anonymous Coward]

If military used M$ software, that means some bombs might miss the Iraqi cities and instead land harmlessly in the desert, thus saving civilian lives.

Boy, now *that's* some mushy-headed thinking....if bombs miss, they'll miss civilians. What about when they miss a military target and hit a school or hospital, idiot!

Sheesh!

Re:A double-edged sword...

[wdr1]

Since you saw it in a movie, it must be fact?

I hope you don't watch professional wrestling.

-Bill

Re:A double-edged sword...

[dolo666]

"Would you rather have the military and government using open source software or Microsoft?"

Totally agree... because I would hate to see a headline like, "Microsoft gets exclusive US Military contract for $700 Million".

But on the flipside... man that's gotta hurt thinking that your Open Source could maybe have brought you that much money if you had sold it instead of gave it away.

So so very wrong the world is, isn't it?

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully if they use MS the missiles will miss Baghdad and end up in Israel!

Re:A double-edged sword...

[aminorex]

> Would you rather have the military and government
> using open source software or Microsoft?

That parses ambiguously;). Taking it as intended,
I can categorically state that I would rather have
the U.S. military and government using Microsoft,
because I think it is more likely to suffer
catastrophic failures of access security and
availability, thereby saving lives.

Now if you're talking about the government of
Nauru, it's quite another matter.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[t]

Yup, this is a pointless issue. Freedom of speech is great when people say things that you like and agree with, but when they don't...

Free means free, not "Free, except under the following conditions ..."

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Xerithane]

Can't the government still just use any civilian software/patents/etc however they want? Have you guys seen the movie Armageddon? In Armageddon, the military steals Bruce Willis' drill designs, and they claim they did it legally.

No, and Armageddon was so completely bogus even mentioning it in a serious discussion can make your entire point moot :)

The government does not have the power to do what they want. This is why the government still buys Microsoft licenses, and all that.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Bingo Foo]

Armageddon was such a rigorously accurate movie that you must be right.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking it as intended,
I can categorically state that I would rather have
the U.S. military and government using Microsoft,
because I think it is more likely to suffer
catastrophic failures of access security and
availability, thereby saving lives.

The more likely result is "costing lives." What you might have wanted to concentrate on instead is your desire to see the U.S. lose face, regardless of the lives it costs. Fuck You. Don't the Iraqis deserve better than their current oppressive situation? Have you asked one?

Re:A double-edged sword...

[vrmlguy]

Armageddon was so completely bogus even mentioning it in a serious discussion can make your entire point moot :)

You mean like this?

Re:A double-edged sword...

[greenhide]

Would you rather have the military and government using open source software or Microsoft?

Yeah, there's this smart bomb heading your way, and then suddenly, instead of killing you, you see the blue screen of death.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Code audits are important when using software for military purposes, to ensure that everything is accurate."

Posting anonymously as someone who writes code for military simulators: bullshit. Simulator code is as crap as code anywhere else, perhaps more so because the military change their mind so often about what it is they want.

"We want more accurate missiles". "Well tell us how they should work then". "We can't, it's classified". "Duh!"

p.s. it's relatively easy to say "use of this /Downloads/ directory is prohibited for members of
the US military", without having to edit the GPL. Even if it can be circumvented, you've made the intent clear.

p.p.s. Isn't circumventing a software license (an effective method of access-control for copyrighted work) illegal in the US anyway. So getting the software via someone who's permitted to download it would count as circumvention, so jail them under DMCA.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Xerithane]

But on the flipside... man that's gotta hurt thinking that your Open Source could maybe have brought you that much money if you had sold it instead of gave it away.

Well, you'd have to have money to market it, plus the contacts to get it in the door, plus the money to lobby it as high level contracts go... generally only the big players get to play with the government.

So so very wrong the world is, isn't it?
Without a doubt...

Re:A double-edged sword...

[ajakk]

The government *can* take civilian software/patents/etc. under certain circumstances, but they have to pay a reasonable rate for the product. It is a great part of the United States Constitution called the "takings clause". It is the last clause in the Fifth Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Gotta Love that Bill of Rights.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Xerithane]

Posting anonymously as someone who writes code for military simulators: bullshit. Simulator code is as crap as code anywhere else, perhaps more so because the military change their mind so often about what it is they want.


Fine, I hope you still read this so we can continue. What simulator are you using for your aerodynamics? On standard Octanes you can create a 99.7% accurate aerodynamic model. From someone who has worked on a simulator for the government, I disagree with you. Maybe it's just your segment, and we didn't do it military but the military did have a lot of ties with our code. In the end we had an extremely accurate simulator. Maybe you just aren't using the right tools for the job.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Anonymous Coward]

>>>Hopefully if they use MS the missiles will miss Baghdad and end up in Israel!

Now we know where *your* true feelings lie - Peace to all! Except the dirty Jews!

Fucking Nazi!

Re:A double-edged sword...

[notbob]

I guess someone didn't get a clue from Sept 11th.... Arabs & Muslims & All other Terrorists are psychos willing to do anything to harm us.... Kill them first.

If you think no one will die ... guess again.

If you think allowing the arab world to keep a stranglehold on the worlds oil supply is a good idea... think again.

We will protect american interests whether or not the politically weak minded tree-hugging pc nimwits join makes no difference. If you want to stop a war we openly invite you to stand in front of the M1Abrams... I'll even contribute a $1 to your flight over there just to watch the tanks roll on over to get something done.

This world was built on the blood and backs of warriors... time to do it again.
Lets get oil down to $1/gal. We should be compensated for the costs of these wars.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Melantha_Bacchae]

Xerithane wrote:

> Obviously, you have no claim as to what your software
> can and cannot be used for if you release it out into the
> world.

You have plenty of claim, it is your software, and you hold the copyright. Ever heard of EULA's, GPL, etc.?

It is an incredibly common practice for consumer software EULA's to have a provision in them forbidding the use of the software in hospital life-support and nuclear reactors. This is to reduce liability claims, as the software is usually not tested to the stringent standards that such applications would require. If your word processor croaks, the user looses part or all of a letter. If life support or a nuclear reactor's control systems fail, people die. Most people and software companies just aren't prepared to deal with that level of liability.

> Whether or not you believe the upcoming war
> with Iraq is justified or not,

It doesn't have to have anything to do with Iraq. Some people of conscience do not want to spend their time and hard work writing software to benefit their fellow humans, only to have the military or some repressive government grab it and use it to kill people, torture people, or take people's rights away. Remember, if it is open source with no restrictions, there is nothing to stop (or at least nominally protest against) the likes of Iraq or North Korea (or your idea of "villainous country of the month") from downloading and using it against their people or anyone else.

> it doesn't stop the software they use from being used.

No, it doesn't. But then again, the military and evil nations aren't too likely to honor the GPL, let alone any other restrictions imposed on the software. Even writing innocuous software, like a word processor, isn't necessarily going to keep your code from being used to kill people (a word processor can be used to compose an order of execution). Restrictions are more likely to help the conscience of the person writing the software than actually stop evil uses.

> This is a completely moot issue, but it is good for
> discussion I suppose.

It is moot only if every developer doesn't care how their software is used. For those of us that do care, it is an important issue, especially as the market for software is becoming increasingly global.

> The thing that should not be seen is exclusion clauses
> from the GPL and other open source licenses.

Such licenses already have exclusion clauses prohibiting the re-closing of the software. Such is the foundation of the free software and open source movements. Why is it okay for the GPL to impose the philosophy, ethics, and world view of the Free Software Foundation and its founder, and not those of other people or organizations?

I'm not giving answers here, just questions that the development community in general, and the free software and open source communities in particular, need to ponder.

> Would you rather have the military and government using
> open source software or Microsoft?

I would rather see the civilian sector of my government (US) using open source. The voting machines in particular almost have to be open source, as the exit polls have shown the closed source ones to be unreliable.

As for the military, why don't they write their own software? They take in all these people based on advertising that they will learn about computers or electronics, then their mothers are shocked to find out that their little boy is being airlifted to Iraq, sans education. They should either use these young people to write their own software, or else change their advertising to "Be a mindless drone dying of heat prostration in your anti-chemical attack suit in Iraq."

> Code audits are important when using software for
> military purposes, to ensure that everything is accurate.
> Whether it's personnel tracking, mission tracking, or
> simulation software, accuracy is important.

All the more reason for the military to develop their own software, rather than using off the shelf commercial stuff, or open source.

> Maybe my view is just tainted because I'm finding myself
> leaning more toward the pro-War campaign...

I won't argue the point with you, not when there are sites like antiwar.com with enough news articles and facts to blow a hole in Bush's "evidence" big enough to fit Godzilla through.

I will say this. If Iraq is a monster, it is one of our creation. The US and Britain, together with companies like HP and Kodak, gave Iraq those weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaeda would not be what it is today, if it were not for US lies and mistakes during the Gulf War. Today's US administration is still lying, and still making mistakes.

Iraq is also a mirror of what we are in danger of becoming. Iraq was a republic back in the late 50's and early 60's. Now Iraq is a broken republic, with a broken constitution, favoring one party over all others, with one man as perpetual president, and human rights out the window. Iraq invaded both Iran and Kuwait. The US has yet to rewrite her constitution. But the president has made no secret of his desire for a Republican dominated Congress, the sweeping away of inconvenient rights (Patriot, son of Patriot, etc.), and a planned series of invasions.

"The path of peace is yours to discover for eternity."
Japanese version of "Mothra" (1961)

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Anonymous Coward]

>I'm against the Iraq war as it looks like it
>would be currently conducted and justified, but
>I agree.

I on the other hand am drooling over the prospect of the US going up against Iraq, with Russia, France, Germany, and China defending it.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Yottabyte84]

I'll be taking your house, here's two bits, keep the change.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[BoneFlower]

Not to mention, you put a restriction like that into your open source license, it immediately becomes non compatible with the GPL. You could go to the point of saying "This code is distributed under the GPL, with the exceotion that it cannot be used for military purposes". Immediately upon doing so, you lose the right to integrate GPL code, and other people cannot use your code in GPL software. Completely against the intention of the GPL and open source movements...

Re:A double-edged sword...

[budgenator]

Microsoft gets exclusive US Military contract for $700 Million". Dude the US Military runs on Microsoft software. Sure there is a dab of Linux or Solaris or IRIX in the training simulators and I think a lot of Army websites run on Mac servers here and there but the VAST majority of software used by the military is Microsoft. Weapons systems may have some oddball stuff as an embeded system but when the Gerneral gives an order, its typed out in Word and sent out through Outlook.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[MoneyT]

Just compensation is decided by the courts. If you believe for a minute that 2 bits would stnad up in court, I have a bridge in brooklyn real cheap

Re:A double-edged sword...

[Anonymous Coward]

"It is a great part of the United States Constitution called the "takings clause". It is the last clause in the Fifth Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.""

"Gotta Love that Bill of Rights."

If you weren't being snide, ignore the next sentence.

No offense, but if your country is in danger of falling, fuck you and your corporate profits.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[WNight]

You have plenty of claim, it is your software, and you hold the copyright. Ever heard of EULA's, GPL, etc.?

If you sell your software you lose all control over it except where laws dictate someone's behaviour with it. You don't have to tell someone not to copy it, federal law handles that. You don't have to tell someone not to break into a bank with it, federal law handles that too.

You can't regain any control with an EULA. Contracts much be consensual and must offer consideration to both parties. EULAs aren't consensual because there's no way to refuse and still use the product you own. They don't offer consideration because all they can offer is the use of the software you already own, a $0 value now that you paid for it.

And, the first sale doctrine means you can't exert any control on your product after-sale, such as to forbid later sales, etc.

Re:A double-edged sword...

[mesocyclone]

Tell that to the environmentalists. Many, many people have had their property suddenly rendered effectively useless (with huge drops in value) by post-facto environmental laws, which is the equivalent of taking it for public use. Very few have been paid for it, because the Supreme Court has held applied a very high threshold to "taking."

This is the equivalent of the government taking your software and paying you 20% of the value, just because they can get away with it.

Of course, we rarely hear the "civil libertarians" complain about environmental takings, because of the marxist belief that private property is bad.

This is a bunch of crap.

[Mustang Matt]

Give me a break. Developers aren't helping the "U.S. go to war with Iraq" they're developing software. I'm sure terrorists somewhere have an apache webserver running, it's not like the "developers helped them become terrorists by giving them a tool to create a membership database."

Software is software, open source software shouldn't try to control who uses it (other than stopping someone else for breaking the GPL) or for what purpose.

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Bah. Real terrorists use IIS and you know it.

[posted anonymously for fear of anti-anti-M$ backlash] ;)

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[Y_A_Hacker]

Give me a break. [Gun makers] aren't helping the "[drug dealers kill people]" they're [manufactoring a product]. I'm sure terrorists somewhere have [Colts or Smith & Wessons in their holsters], it's not like the "[gun makers] helped them become terrorists by giving them a tool to [end a life]."

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with your statement and the facts back it up.

Explosives makers, on the other hand, do aid terrorists - but explosives are heavily controlled, so obviously no terrorist has those, right?

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[Rasputin]

Developers aren't helping the "U.S. go to war with Iraq" they're developing software.

And gun makers aren't building killing machines they're just making things that propel lead at high speed? If you build things that kill - or parts of things that kill - are you partly responsible for the killing? It's the sort of dilemma that plagued people like Oppenheimer and Einstein. It's one of the classic dilemmas scientists face and a prime issue for Slashdot.

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Software doesn't kill. People kill. Please stick your head back up your ass and allow GPL software to be used in the almost completely unrestricted way that GPL software was designed. The last thing the GPL movement needs is for a bunch of busy bodies deciding who can use the software and under what circumstances the software can be used.
What if Linus suddenly decided that anybody having anything to do with 'fur' , could not use Linux? ANTI-FUR GPL
What if Linus decided that companies that produce GM food could not use Linux? ANTI-GM food GPL ?????????

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your reply is a classic argument that is classically wrong. The Linux kernel may be used in some way to indirectly cause death and destruction via war, but it can also be used (and is primarily used) to create knowledge and wealth for people. A gun, on the other hand is primarily used for propelling lead at a high speed towards living things in order to cause them to cease living. Sure, you could use the butt of your gun to hammer nails, but that it not its primary reason for existing.

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[ajs]

To paraphrase your (implied) point in a somewhat geeky way:

s/software/guns/

I disagree. It actually doesn't matter what I think of gun control, the statement is still wrong.

It *would* be accurate if someone were writing open source missile guidance systems. In that case, you could agrue that you might want a missile guidance system for personal use either as a hobbiest (e.g. for model rocketry) or for hunting purposes (ok, that last one is meant to be funny, but you get the idea).

In fact, that argument currently does not fly in the U.S. You are simply not allowed to put a guidance system on any rocket without very special case permission from the military, which means that model rocketry types cannot make rockets that compensate for conditions, takeoff-and-land, etc.

However, if you're writing an OS, that's more like designing metal shop tools. Yes, those tools can be used to make guns, but I would disagree that we should restrict access to metal shop tools or that those who build them need concern themselves with how they are used. There is a level at which a tool is just a tool, and its function is not "dangerous enough" to restrict the freedom of making or using that tool.

Where you draw that line is, of course, a matter of debate, and you would be better off rhetorically focusing on that rather than specious search-and-replace arguments.

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sure they have clause somewhere in patriot act to get you, in cases like this one!! watch out! big brother is definitely watching!

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[Bingo Foo]

It can truthfully be said that the purpose of most guns is to prevent violence by the implied or explicit threat of propelling lead at high speed toward living things in order to cause them to cease living.

"Using" a gun as intended does not require firing it in the vast majority of cases.

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[matt_fk]

Lame. Aren't drugs tied to terrorists these days? Take a moment to digest what you just said.

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[Z4rd0Z]

Yes, and flatware manufacturers should stop selling forks and spoons because terrorists might buy them and use them to eat. We need to do all in our power to make terrorists starve to death, therefore I call upon all makers of spoon, knives, and forks to please stop distributing these products.

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[Rasputin]

It can truthfully be said that the purpose of most guns is to prevent violence...

That's beside the point. If I give you a gun and you blow someone's head off, am I partially responsible for the death? Openheimer helped to design the original atom bombs and felt guilt for the people killed by it. This isn't an arument about gun ownership, it's about responsibility for the consequences of your actions.

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please....

You can what-if yourself to death. If Openheimer didn't help develop the a-bomb, and someone else DID (say for Germany, USSR, or Japan), it'd be a much different world today, Comrad-Heir-Hy coward!

If no-one developed the A-Bomb and we had to invade Japan, the bloodshed would have been FAR worse.

On the other hand, a very bloody end to WWII may have prevented the baby boom, and thus saved Social Security!

Get the point?

On the other hand, if you didn't get the point, you're probably blinded by your own emotional reactions to the technology (A-Bomb, Guns, Windows, etc)- and thus probably aren't a proponent of people taking responsibility for their actions (blame the Gun, blame the Bomb, blame Windows).

I'm getting dizzy.

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[fucksl4shd0t]

That's beside the point. If I give you a gun and you blow someone's head off, am I partially responsible for the death?

Only if you suspected that he might do that. If you give him and gun thinking "Hey, he's a good guy, he's got his head on straight" and then he goes and slaughters his wife, then you just say "DOH!". OTOH, if he's foaming at the mouth telling you about his wife the slut, and you give him a gun, then you might be a little responsible for the death yourself.

Guns aren't in any way a black and white issue. Turn it around. The guy comes to you white-faced and shivering talking about his wife chasing him around the kitchen with a butcher knife because he wouldn't give her a divorce. You give him a gun and say "Don't use it unless you have to, but maybe just having a gun will prevent her from pulling any more crap." A valid argument, based on other posters, anyway. Then he goes and kills her in self-defense. Are you now partially responsible for murder, or saving someone's life? Clearly someone died, but just as clearly someone died so someone else could live. Also, presumably he's your buddy, and you believe the person who lived was, for some reason, more important.

Killing of any sort will never be a black and white issue. I'm personally opposed to zoos and the like, caging up animals so the human parade can come and look at them like they're freaks or something. But I eat meat, and enjoy it. :) In the first case, you take away the animals freedom. In the second case, arguably, you take the animal's life in a fair struggle for survival (I realize that ranching and agriculture in general have done away with the "hunt").

Personally, if someone used my code to kill someone, I'd have to say "Well, I didn't tell them they couldn't, in fact, I specifically told them they can do what they want with it." I mean, do the ALSA guys really worry about people playing 'N Sync through the sound card? That would be monstrous! Worse than killing! But didn't they put something in the license that says "You can do whatever you want with this software, I won't be liable for it."?

If Free Software is all about free speech, and fighting for out rights, is it also about fighting for other people's rights? SPecifically, should we be fighting for the rights of the people in Iraq? I'm split on the issue. On the one hand, I don't think we should, 'cause I'm just sick of hearing all this FUD about every other country in the world. I just want everybody to get along. :) On the other hand, while Iraq doesn't directly threaten us, Germany didn't directly threaten us in 1930's. Neither did Japan, for awhile.

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[dvdeug]

It can truthfully be said that the purpose of most guns is to prevent violence by the implied or explicit threat of propelling lead at high speed toward living things in order to cause them to cease living.

True -- including those guns used to keep shop keepers from bashing robber's heads in instead of handing over the till.

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[aggieben]

yeah, I have to agree. To draw from a previous argument about "guns don't kill, people do"...saying that oss developers are 'helping' the U.S. fight a war in Iraq is like holding Remington or Beretta or whomever responsible for the murders committed by people with guns of that make. Absurd.

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[vDave420]

''Developers aren't helping the "U.S. go to war with Iraq" they're developing software.''

Funny you should mention this!
And yet my (US) government regularly bombards me with "Anti-drug" or "infect-truth" commercials on radio and television which routinely accuse *me* of actively supporting terrorism when I purchase some joints, or accuse me of "helping to murder this family" (with picture of Mom, Dad, and Child face down on floor, etc)

I guess propeganda is only allowed to be one-way, right?
-dave-

Use BearShare for all your p2p and MP3 needs!

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you may are wrong. I am virtually certain that most of the bullets fired in the world on a daily basis weren't fired at a living thing (Instead a target, can, etc.). Therefore, they are not primarily used to kill living things. Perhaps you can say they were designed to kill living things. That, I would agree with.

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[Rasputin]

Only if you suspected that he might do that.

Golly, do you think that the military may actually use those BlackHawks to *kill* people???

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmmmm. What's your point?

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[fucksl4shd0t]

Golly, do you think that the military may actually use those BlackHawks to *kill* people???

In fact, that's not their mission. The military doesn't exist to kill people. The military exists as a deterrent to prevent other people from coming in here and killing us. Even Switzerland, with it's neutrality policies, has a military.

In this specific case, though, it's not a question of "Did Open Source developers give the military BlackHawks?". No, the military paid for their development, and then paid to purchase them.

I'm not sure what piece of Open Source software is used in the BlackHawk similators, but I'd have to guess that it's a basic component, like a kernel, rather than specific software. The BlackHawk is almost certainly classified, and as such it would be some huge charge of treason if a developer were to release source code for the simulator that let anybody who read the source code to know what the BlackHawk was capable of. I recall when the Stealth came to Holloman and my dad joined the program that he took us down to see the simulator. My brother asked him "What's that?" and pointed to a gauge, and my dad said "That's the only classified instrument left in the cockpit, and if I tell you what it is, I'd have to kill you." We were allowed to look at it, but not to know what it does. The source code for the simulator might well tell us what it does.

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[spirality]

A gun, on the other hand is primarily used for propelling lead at a high speed towards living things in order to cause them to cease living.

No I would say most guns are primarily used to put holes in trash or paper tagets. Well, that's what mine are used for anyway.

Sometimes hunting, but I shoot probably 10,000 more pieces of trash a year than I do animals....

You should think about that real hard.

-Craig

Re:This is a bunch of crap.

[spirality]

And yet my (US) government regularly bombards me with "Anti-drug" or "infect-truth" commercials on radio and television which routinely accuse *me* of actively supporting terrorism when I purchase some joints, or accuse me of "helping to murder this family" (with picture of Mom, Dad, and Child face down on floor, etc)

We can take a cut into the Federal Budget Deficit by getting rid of those commercials.

Is there anything to discuss.

[bmongar]

*yawn*
I don't want to write open source code becasue somebody may use it for evil.

I won't want to work for a corporation because they may exploit someone.

I don't want to sell hammers because someone could hit someone else with it.

Let's face it. If you are doing anything at all productive in society somebody can use that to their benifit in a way that you may not agree with.

Re:Is there anything to discuss.

[$$$$$exyGal]

I agree... it kind of goes down a path like this:

I will only buy vegetarian products that are grown, distributed, and sold by vegetarians.

As much as I'd like to do the above, it simply cannot be done. However! This doesn't mean I have to like it! Sometimes complaining does work.

--sex

Re:Is there anything to discuss.

[Jonny Ringo]

Funny how we will use open source software for war but not for our own voting system

Re:Is there anything to discuss.

[oliverthered]

1 and 3 fine, they'd find somthing else.
but in 2 you are directly helping exploit someone, i would never do 2, ignorance is bliss and all that.

Re:Is there anything to discuss.

[oliverthered]

I would be a vegie but.
Road Kill
Death by Combine Harvister
etc.. makes it pointless.
I do grow some food at home that is vegie.

Re:Is there anything to discuss.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to eat an all vegetarian diet, but I think I would quicky go through my supply of vegetarians and then what would I eat?

Re:Is there anything to discuss.

[sean23007]

Kind of like how 30 years ago we would send 18 year old kids to die for their country but not allow them to vote for its leader. Yup, history does tend to repeat itself...

Re:Is there anything to discuss.

[Anonymous Coward]

I would like to eat an all vegetarian diet, but only if they are vegetarians that look like $$$$$exyGal's Naked Links

Re:Is there anything to discuss.

[Jonny Ringo]

Its really interesting. Everyone seems to believe that our leaders haven't learned the lessons of history (which is why we screw up so much). I believe a lot of them have learned from history and are using that knowledge to further their own agenda.

All the answers are in history, if you look.

Re:Is there anything to discuss.

[Anonymous Coward]

That make sense because wars actually have an impact while voting does not!

Re:Is there anything to discuss.

[MyHair]

Let's face it. If you are doing anything at all productive in society somebody can use that to their benifit in a way that you may not agree with.

True. This is exactly why I produce as little as possible and consume as much as possible. It's my Msixram philosophy.

(reverse Marxism)

Re:Is there anything to discuss.

[ZvlvLord]

Could that be because OSS *works* ? Good for war, but bad for a voting sytem. Imagine a voting system that actually works !!! Oh, the horror... You honestly didn't believe that *they wanted a voting system that worked* did you ? Oh my... =)

BlackHawk crashes

[Flamesplash]

Tongue in cheek, but is this a good thing for OS when blackhawks have been crashing a lot recently?

Re:BlackHawk crashes

[aborchers]

Equally tongue-in-cheek: The real question is whether the simulators have been crashing, isn't it?

Open source hippies

[shish]

Isn't open source, GPL, et al supposed to be a digital hippie movement? Peace dudes!

Re:Open source hippies

[Anonymous Coward]

movement? I'd hardly call a bunch of geeks stuck at there computer screens all night long "movement".

Re:Open source hippies

[MarkGriz]

movement? I'd hardly call a bunch of geeks stuck at there computer screens all night long "movement"

Oh there's movement alright. Generally just one hand though ;-)

Interesting licensing idea....

[jhouserizer]

This leads to an interesting idea of Open Source licensing...

Does anyone know of an OSS license that includes some statement to the effect of: "This software is free for use, redistribution, and modification by any entity for any purpose, as long as any form of it is never used for military purposes." ???

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[JohnFluxx]

RMS has fought this issue many times, and pleaded people not to do this.
It will become a mess if people start adding lines that match their own agendas. "People who kill cannot use this" "People who are gay.." "People who voted bush.." and so on.

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[donutello]

How about we change that to what you really mean?

This software is free for use, redistribution and modification by any entity for any purpose as long as any form of it is never used to do something we don't like

First you exclude military purposes, then you exclude people who indulge in kiddie-porn or hate speech, then anti-abortionists, and so on...

Freedom is freedom. Freedom with restrictions is not freedom.

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Does anyone know of an OSS license that includes some statement to the effect of: "This software is free for use, redistribution, and modification by any entity for any purpose, as long as any form of it is never used for military purposes."

No, and that's probably because such a clause would be impossible to define. For example, let's say such a clause was added to Apache.

Would that mean that the Army couldn't host their website on Apache? Probably. Would that mean that Boeing couldn't host their website on Apache? They make both civilian and military products. What about steel importers, who don't know where their product goes? It is reasonable to consider that their product would be used in the war machine, but has significant peacetime uses as well.

Bottom line: if you want to keep control of your code, and be able to dictate what is done with it, you need to keep it closed source. When you Open a door, you don't get to decide who walks in; that's the very reason that doors were invented in the first place.

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really open source as 'officially' defined,
but warftp has a license like that.
www.warftp.org
Free for everyone in the general public. Not
available for governments.
Last version is GPL but it's not really
usable for now...

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[Anonymous Coward]

A better restriction would be for single users only (no corperations, military, govt, whatever)

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[finarfinjge]

How many people are going to post variants of "don't use this code for army stuff" proposals? Armies use almost everything known to man. Name one thing NOT used by the military. Conversely even things like guns and cannon have non military and even non violent uses. Cannon for instance are used to trigger controlled avalanches. Name one military tool that (in some form) DOES NOT have a peaceful use. How could this get a score of 2????

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[gorilla]

And we know that RMS is not a man for pushing his own agenda.

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[jpetts]

For example, let's say such a clause was added to Apache.

Then the military would have to use another kind of helicopter...

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[HydeMan]

Get a clue!

Don't you understand that such a rule would only effect the free nations of the world? This would have no bearing on the traditional foes of the US. I bet that Linux is being used TODAY to develop new weapons in China, Iraq, and North Korea, and probably in support of these countries "noble" causes (sweatshops, slave camps, etc). What you are suggesting is that we cripple the free nations of the world in their use of technology, but the China's, North Korea's, etc, can have free access to such technology in their noble causes.

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[Anonymous Coward]

If some dumbasses tried to put a clause in their free software like that, they would be changing it the second their asses were getting bombed by some terrorists.

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[Vagrant]

Paul Heckbert, Associate Professor at Carnegie Mellon University, and now on sabbatical at Nvidia distributes his source code with the following:

/*
* Copyright (c) 1989 Paul S. Heckbert
* This source may be used for peaceful, nonprofit purposes only, unless
* under licence from the author. This notice should remain in the source.
*/

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no, no! The reason this is impossible is because copyright law doesn't grant you the exclusive right to use the work but only to copy and take credit for it. Even with no copyright waiver whatsoever, i.e., completely closed-source, you can do whatever you want with the software once you have bought it. If, however, you have signed a contract to license the software, then you are bound by that agreement. The GPL is not such a license agreement! This is also why the proscription against distributing compiler-derived programs in the GPL may not be lawful or actionable.

Bottom line: if you want to dictate what is done with your code, you can only distribute it under contract. You can't impose such a contract in the context of copyright alone.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but any dick can read copyright law and see that it doesn't say "only the copyright holder can make use of the work".

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[Anonymous Coward]

...or the mistreatment of animals, in a non-gender neutral application, in any form that could be construed as racist or intolerant....FILL YOUR CAUSE IN HERE ___________________________.

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[Anonymous Coward]

Freedom is freedom. Freedom with restrictions is not freedom.

Indeed, it is anti-freedom. Consider a linear scale of freedom. On the positive side is coöperation, on the negative is restriction. The zero is freedom. Software licenses shouldn't obligate the author to help the user because they may not agree, in which case it would be a restriction on the freedom of the author. So the ideal then is the neutral state of freedom. Any kind of restriction pushes it into the negative. You can't balance this out by adding more freedom. A restriction must be entirely repealed to get back to freedom. Adding more freedoms is just making exceptions to the restriction; it approaches freedom asymptotically.

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a clue! That license is not free or 'open-source'. It doesn't even waive his copyright claims. You can use the source for whatever purpose you like, even to make war machines, as long as you don't redistribute it, which you can't do for any purpose because it is protected by copyright. Don't be cute with your legal statements; talk to a lawyer!

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[Anonymous Coward]

I can tell you with 100% certainty there is no such OSS license. There may be licenses with similar restrictions, but such a license *by definition* would not be OSS. From the Open Source Definition:

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[dvdeug]

Does anyone know of an OSS license that includes some statement to the effect of: "This software is free for use, redistribution, and modification by any entity for any purpose, as long as any form of it is never used for military purposes." ???

It's a contradiction in terms. Open source software can not have restrictions on fields of use, which includes the military. Once you've stepped over that line, you're no longer open source. This (like most of the rest of the open source definition) comes from the Debian Free Software Guidelines (and ultimately the base ideas of Free Software.) The point being, is that I can download and use any program in Debian without worrying if it has clauses against military or Unitarians or vegitarians or meat-eaters or males or whatever other category you might want to think up. Otherwise, get ready to read a huge stack of licenses to find out whether any program you're using can't be used for your purposes.

Frankly, I wouldn't use a program with a no-military license. Militaries are tools, for use for good or bad, in defense against a cruel invader or a righteous uprising, in attack versus a psychotic despot or defiant democracy. Because some of their uses are bad, doesn't mean we need to stop all of them.

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[Anonymous Coward]

Would that mean that the Army couldn't host their website on Apache? Probably. Would that mean that Boeing couldn't host their website on Apache? They make both civilian and military products.

OK, I'm straining the old brain to think of any civilain products the Army makes. Heck, I can't think of a single product the Army makes... They buy everything from toilet paper to tanks, but don't make a single product that I can recall. ~AC

Re:Interesting licensing idea....

[Anonymous Coward]

let's say such a clause was added to Apache

It's a floor wax. No it's a dessert toping. No it's a helecopter. No it's a web server.

Oh come on

[JSkills]

That's like saying you support Free Speech - except when you say something I don't agree with.

Non-issue ...

Re:Oh come on

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's like saying I support Free Speech - except when you use it to murder thousands of people for dubious, at best, reasons.

Re:Oh come on

[JSkills]

Yes but the very fact that your opinion is subjective (rather than objective) negates your argument. Free speech is either free or it isn't. Same goes for Open Source.

Re:Oh come on

[Anonymous Coward]

A) The issue at hand isn't freedom of speech.

B) The freedom of speech has historically been limited to exclude things that infringe on the rights and safety of others. Shouting fire in a theatre, libel, et al.

C) No opinion is objective. Facts are objective. Opinions are by definition subjective.

D) Open source is not necessarily free software.

E) Free software isn't free in many senses, including that it forces you to make your software free if you use free software. This a feature, not a bug. The goal is to make all software available to all people.

F) I would never argue that speech needs to be restricted any further than illustrated in B). However, since you choose to use rhetoric and an invalid parallel to illustrate your point, I choose to do the same for mine.

Re:Oh come on

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are saying that radical Islam should not be allowed to voice its hatred of the US? They murdered thousands for those same dubious reasons a little over a year ago, after all. All in the name of hatred of the US.

No? You don't want to say that? Well then, maybe next time you'll at least think of the consequences of what you say before you say it.

Re:Oh come on

[Anonymous Coward]

I said no such thing. I have no idea how you drew such a conclusion from what I said. What I did say was meant to point out the folly of the thread parent's comment.

Now, I fully believe that all human beings have the inalienable right to express their feelings, whether messages of hate or love or anything in between, through speech, press and peaceful assembly. Certainly, flying airliners full of people into buildings full of people does not constitute any form of peaceful assembly.

I am a subject of the United States of America. I am also fully aware that people around the world have legitimate reason to hate us for the policies of our leaders, since we ostensibly elected them. I am deeply ashamed of the things this country's leaders do in the name of "freedom" and "safety".

Re:Oh come on

[JSkills]

To continue down this worthless path ...

So the government's use of Open Source to assist in the guidance system for a helicopter is analagous to yelling "fire" in a theatre?

Give up already - your argument's quite a reach.

Re:Oh come on

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no.

Apparently you're misunderstanding my argument. I apologize for being too obtuse.

I was attempting to point out to our audience that your (5, Insightful) comment that the question of "Should open-source code be used to wage war that its author disagrees with?" is equivalent to the statement of "I support Free Speech - except when you say something I don't agree with." is grossly inaccurate.

Mine, "I support free speech - except when it's used to murder thousands of people for dubious, at best, reasons.", was just intended as double-edged barb, pointing out the folly of your analogy and getting a dig in at Dubya's warmongering at the same time.

You then went on to say that Free is Free and that my opinion is subjective. So I illustrated cases in which free is not free and I agreed that all opinions are subjective.

With me so far?

My own opinion on the article's subject is that once you release a work to the public, you no longer have any say in what the public does with it. If you want to control your thoughts, don't share them.

Our argument, as far as I could tell, was about the use of rhetoric as a debating tool.

Re:Oh come on

[Anonymous Coward]

Our argument, as far as I could tell, was about the use of rhetoric as a debating tool.

More like two tools using rhetoric instead of debating.

Re:Oh come on

[Anonymous Coward]

You and way too many people like you (the kneejerkers) act like GWB has been the only President ever and that everything we've ever done is his fault. The Middle East has been at war for a thousand years at least. We didn't light that fire, and we sure as hell didn't do it within the past two years. Grow up already.

And you're a citizen of the US, not a subject. I know you think you were being cutesy and protest-y, but getting facts wrong tends to destroy your credibility.

Now, what were you on about? Oh yeah, bullshit rhetoric (you admitted as much in another post), so anything further that you say can be ignored from here on out as useless and puerile and trollish.

Come back when you want to get serious. Or don't.

Re:Oh come on

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting. I don't see any mention of Dubya in the grandparent's bullshit rhetoric.

Re:Oh come on

[JSkills]

"am I with you so far"?

Ok you got me. I'm not very bright. I just come here to read what all you smart guys have to say all the time. blah blah blah your gargantuan omnipotence bathes me in a shimmering light that makes my gills evolve into lungs. Ok you happy now?

Seriously, all I was saying was that authors who release software under a very specific license cannot suddenly change the agreement after it has been accepted by the other party just because the authors object against what it may or may not be used for - no more that the government can subjectively govern free speech because they don't like what you're saying.

Your "yelling fire" example simply does not apply to using software as part of an automated navigation system of a helicopter. The helicopter is used for any number of things (including rescuing soldiers and civilians), combat being just one. Even if there is a war (which I'd go on the record to say I'd love to see avoided at almost all costs), you cannot positively say that the Open Source software would be directly involved in killing innocent people - you simply cannot make that leap in a logic proof.

I'm sure the concept of war and people dying upsets you (it sure does me), but facts are facts and logic is logic. And this issue of who is actually correct here will all come out in the wash i.e. if it truly becomes a legal issue, let's see how it stands up in the courts).

Now you may have the last word. Enjoy it - it's silly for me to keep responding to someone who can't even be bothered to log into Slashdot. Why go around as "anonymous coward" anyway?

No offense to you or anyone else was intended in anything I said...

Yes, yes it does

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's under the standard sorts of open source licenses, then, yes, it's already answered. If some hippies and/or Frenchies want to make a peaceful purposes only license, well, then they can, and they can release software under it.

Anyone means anyone.

[shokk]

Although we can't perceive the use that code might have 100 years in the future (if any), developers should at least think about who might use their code when they make it open. Are there any licenses that restrict the military from using the code the way commercial entities are sometimes limited by certain licenses? Is it the place of the developer to show that bias? Does anyone really have the illusion that a government in North Korea or anywhere else is going to give a rat's ass about how a developer in Kansas wants his code used?

I don't think this faults the developers at all. This is like making knives; you can eat with it or you can butcher with it. The responsibility is up to the user.

Re:Anyone means anyone.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is also like making guns, you can shoot people with them or you can... shoot things with them?

Re:Anyone means anyone.

[shokk]

You can defend a family or you can end a family. Yes, in both cases you are shooting, just as in both cases of the knife you are cutting. The difference is in how you choose to utilize that power. Do you stop a knife-wielding maniac or go next door and blow someone away for rattling the garbage cans late at night?

Heck, someone can take a pen and write a solution to world hunger or they can take it and jab it in someone's jugular. Everything is a tool that depends on how you're wired. The gun, pen, and knife are not going to get up and hurt someone by themselves, they're neutral, so it's the human decision that is key. The individual is ultimately responsible for itself. And just because all of the above are human manufactured doesn't mean that we wouldn't hurt each other if they did not exist. Hurting each other is what humans do best, and rocks and sticks were around a lot longer than guns.

So will you write a piece of software to wipe out records at a hospital or to revolutionize hospital record-keeping? The ones and zeroes are all alike.

Freedom

[Apro im]

The problem with freedom - be it of speech or of software - is that you don't get to choose who you grant it to - otherwise it is no longer freedom.

You can choose not to give it to your enemies, but what's to stop you from arbitrarily dciding that your enemies are everyone except a select few.

There is always a responsibility that goes along with any project you work on - but it will get done with or without you. Ask Oppenheimer or Feynman or Einstein.

Re:Freedom

[geomon]

Ask Oppenheimer or Feynman or Einstein.

I would, but they are all dead.

Kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Never!

obvious response

[lfourrier]

Should Open Source developers help the U.S. prepare for war with Iraq?
Open source developper develop according to a licence. If certain uses are not ok with them, they can a licence like java, preventing usage where human life could be endangered (nuclear facilities, medical...).
If they release free software, anybody is free to use and modify it.
Now, placing restriction again use of software by some 'evil' organization, those organisations being, depending of the point of view, Osama bin Laden's crew, or Irak, or the US Army, is no longuer doing free software.

Re:obvious response

[Anonymous Coward]

"licence like java, preventing usage where human life could be endangered (nuclear facilities, medical...)."

Actually, according to every EULA I've read that contained this (regarding Java), it's because of rampant instability.

Go figure, I've yet to write a Java program that could go balls to the wall fscking bug-ridden. But hey, I guess there's developers out there without a fsckin' clue.

Re:obvious response

[lfourrier]

In fact, more than instability, I think the main problem is the impossibility, mainly due to GC, to know the certain maximum execution time of any java code. (certain is important in the previuous sentence. It means 100%, not 99.999).
Another point is that java is not an OS. It must compose with the platform. And run the best it can. In case of big trouble, (reactor meltdown or other), with big layers, even if java run flawlessly according to the specs, I'm quite sure Sun could not prove they are not, at least partially, responsible, without this type of disclaimer.

Re:obvious response

[gte910h]

I remember hearing an anecdote(sp?) in a smalltalk class about a guy who wrote the onboard control software for a missle using smalltalk (another language with a VM). To make sure the VM wouldn't need to garbage collect, he loaded it with 30GB of memory. The idea is, it would hit the target before it needed to garbage collect.

You bet!

[grep_a_life]

Being open source, who could even restrict it's usage? Well, we can bitch all we want if open-source is used for "controversial" issues, but that just says that open source is not that open at all. So do we start putting in "fine print (tm)" with the GPL licensing?

Worse case scenario in history. What do you think Einstein went through when other people expounded on his work and eventually created the nuclear bomb? He didn't like it one bit but there you go...

Re:You bet!

[jgerman]

Ok number one, expounded... not the word you're looking for. Number two, Einstein was barely even marginally responsible for the development of the bomb. He just happened to be the one pesuaded to write the letter to Roosevelt.

And three, you are absolutely right, even if you communicated it badly ;)

Software licenses

[JohnFluxx]

In terms of software licenses, which doesn't fully cover the question, but..:

RMS is very clear on this, and for those who don't agree with him (which seems to be the latest fad) many others have to.

You should not keep let politics like this get in the way. There was a particular project that released there code under a license that was basically GPL'ed but with a line saying that it was not to be used by terrorists and not to be used to help kill people. RMS really disliked the license, and argued that such lines are impossible to define.

Boring stuff. Dumb article.

[Anonymous Coward]

God this article is BORING.

# Important Stuff: Please try to keep posts on topic. # Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads. # Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. # Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about. # Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page) Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to goatse.cx.

On Socially Responsible Programming

[Anonymous Coward]

I just found some remarks by Eric S. Raymond on socially responsible programming. Very interesting.

Re:On Socially Responsible Programming

[n3k5]

Quote from the page referenced above:

And my first words are these: when I hear someone speak of `social responsibility', that's when I reach for my revolver. // In point of fact, I don't actually own a revolver ...

That's right. He owns a pistol and gave another one to his wife. Those are not revolvers. As much as I admire works like the cathedral and bazar essay, since I've seen stuff like "Sex, software, politics, and firearms. Life's simple pleasures..." and Eric's Gun Nut Page, this guy is among the last people on earth I'd ask to talk about social responsibility in anything.

Re:On Socially Responsible Programming

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn what BS is Eric S. Raymond spewing.

He talks about keeping power away from the government, and while the population has tried to do that over time, and the government has tried to take more and more, it has become obvious that the struggle will continue forever.

But when talks about "a socially responsible programmer not allowing his/her work to assist...." it makes no sense. If you really don't want your work to be used in ways you don't intend, then release it under a different license, or don't release it at all. Also as many others have stated, it is hard to have a clause so broad, such as "This Software cannot be used to kill", and expect it to be honored.

He also talks about "The founders of the U.S. expected us to exercise social responsibility with the ballot and the bullet", and that is exactly what is happening. Although some programmers might not be making software for helicopter simulation, or whatever it may be, they are still making software and in most cases DISTRIBUTING it freely - on the Internet which came from where? Oh Ok. Now this also does not take into effect that some programmers have no problem with how their software is being used.

ERS brings up some good points, that might have been valid a century ago, but to defend with "citizens arms if the vote fails". This simplistic view doesn't seem to consider the current global situation.

Re:On Socially Responsible Programming

[greenrd]

And my first words are these: when I hear someone speak of `social responsibility', that's when I reach for my revolver.

Is he consciously paraphrasing Goering there, I wonder?

Re:On Socially Responsible Programming

[Anonymous Coward]

... this guy is among the last people on earth I'd ask to talk about social responsibility in anything.

Yeah, baby, gimme some trigger locks and some mandatory registration with an eye towards elimination. Rapists and thugs love those.

give me a break.....

[nebenfun]

Closed and opensource software will both be used for good and evil....deal with it.

Example:
Opensource encryption software can be used to protect liberties and the prying eyes of big government. It can also be used to hide child porn or terrorist activities...
should we abolish the encryption software just because it can be used for evil?

I'd really hate to see a new modified license that restricts use of software based on political bias.

Re:give me a break.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes.
--John Ashcroft.

Re:give me a break.....

[Anonymous Coward]

This software may only be used by centrist Democrats.

a. If you are a rignt-wing fundamentalist crackpot you may not use this software.

b. If you are a McGovernite liberal Democrat, you may not use this software. Also I would like to meet you just out of curiosity.

c. If you are a Republican, see (a).

Re:give me a break.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Should we abolish child porn just because it's evil? Hello. Wake up. Libertarian fuckwits!

Re:give me a break.....

[HiThere]

That "new modified license" has existed for a long time (though I forget it's name). Of course, any code developed under that license can't be included in a standard GPL tree...

Some people license the code as "You can use this under the current, or any future version of the GPL". Other people just say "You can use this under version x.xx of the GPL". As long as the GPL is self consistent, you can include them all in a standard GPL tree. But were a new edition to start adding extra conditions, then you've got to strip out the code that doesn't let you choose to use the "new and improved!" version. In a way, it's a bit of a safety net.

Re:give me a break.....

[Anonymous Coward]

there are already laws "that restricts use of software based on political bias" (For political bias read us in th rest of the world outside of the good ol usa) in such things as encryption software. Does it make any difference ? not a jot, it still gets downloaded and used.

What kind of a question is this?

[bee-yotch]

How about:
"Should Open Source developers help the Iraq prepare for war with U.S.?"

Like come on, open source developers live in Iraq too, don't they?

Software doesn't kill people...

[gilesjuk]

People kill people, religion gives people the reason to do it. We create our own differences, hatred is a state of mind etc...

Anyway why Iraq is singled out I don't know, especially when North Korea launched a missile as a demonstration of the US visit to Japan. That's agressive behaviour, something Saddam hasn't engaged in recently anyway.

Re:Software doesn't kill people...

[Anonymous Coward]

>religion gives people the reason to do it
That's one of the most stupid marxist slogans anyone could ever say. Sometimes religion gives people EXCUSES to kill people.

Some terrorists use unique views of some religion to kill. But it could be anything else. The Colombian FARC's use the opression rethoric to "justify" terrorism. Unfortunately, the president of Brazil seems to LIKE them, because he didn't want to accept the Colombian President's request to consider the terrorist FARC's a terrorist group (!!!).

Re:Software doesn't kill people...

[gilesjuk]

Religion has been the dividing factor throughout history. Religion makes people look to the past, the bible for example is a book listing events that happened thousands of years ago. How do you expect people to live together in harmony when you encourage them to look backwards in time? if they look back they see that X killed so many Y, etc..
Who cares where a person came from, what colour they are etc..? we're no better than animals if we can't all get along.

Re:Software doesn't kill people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraq has been firing at U.S. planes for about a decade, now. Sounds pretty aggressive to me.

Re:Software doesn't kill people...

[HydeMan]

The reason why North Korea isn't as dangerous as Iraq is because this is par for the course with North Korea. They do this to get attention. When South Korea starts to really worry, then I'll worry about North Korea. Iraq, on the other hand, is ruled by a vengeful tyrant, who wants nothing more than payback for kicking him out of Kuwait. He would love to cause mass damage to the American government (people). Remember, he has a history of this sort of behavior. The only thing stopping him is his lack of capability to do it, and the fear of getting caught, which would result in a quick nuclear response if he was found out. That's why these terrorists are so intriguing to Saddam, and why the USA needs to fix this time-bomb that will eventually go off.

Re:Software doesn't kill people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Atheism is just another religion. The WORST ONE. Before religion, people were kelling each other for a banana, no morals, no police. It has been shown NUMEROUS times that morals without religion CANNOT LAST.

I know many marxists. My respect for them is below 0, by Kelvin that is.

Re:Software doesn't kill people...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's agressive behaviour, something Saddam hasn't engaged in recently anyway.

Yeah, except for that part where he invaded a neighboring country, gassed his own people, launched missles into Saudi Arabia and Isreal, set Kuwait's main source of income on fire while retreating, shot at American planes in the no-fly zone, was shown to have in ownership missle warheads specifically designed to carry chemical payloads, rigged his last election, and had received massive shipment of a base material for distributing chemical and biological agents.

Other than that, yeah sure, Hussein has shown no aggressive behavior.

Re:Software doesn't kill people...

[Anonymous Coward]

People kill people, religion gives people the reason to do it. We create our own differences, hatred is a state of mind etc...

Too true! Agreed!

Anyway why Iraq is singled out I don't know, especially when North Korea launched a missile as a demonstration of the US visit to Japan. That's agressive behaviour, something Saddam hasn't engaged in recently anyway.

Surely you have at least a small idea as to why. He's breaking international law. He's been breaking international law for over a decade. He has alleged ties to terrorism which could be contested for sure but history shows us that he does have bioweapons, has had a great desire to have atomic weapons and has complete disregard for human life not under his direct control. He's sympathetic to anything under the huge Muslim umbrella and I can't see him and many others in the middle east not supporting terrorism in some way. Many accounts have stated that Palestinian "martyrs" families receive money when suicide bombers detonate in Israel.

There's no way in hell inspectors would be in Iraq right now if it weren't for the buildup of forces around Iraq. Why should those few countries with the courage to put their forces where their mouths are have to suffer the burden of international scorn? Why should those same countries carry the financial burden alone? If those of you who disagree with war as an option truly feel that way then have your countries start funding our troops who have to sit on the sidelines making sure he abides by international law!

I'm not sure if North Korea is breaking international law but they certainly aren't worth a crap. The claims I've seen dominating headlines from them are just absurd. I don't know if something was lost in translation or what but I doubt that even North Koreans believe their own bullshit. N. Korea is taking advantage of an already ugly situation to try and salvage their long failing government while everyone is distracted in Iraq. I'm not aware of all of the politics involved but I can almost guarantee that decisions on this one are being left in the hands of North Korea's neighbors. Following that, if they decide military intervention is needed then I'm sure America will be there to assist which is more than I can say for quite a few unnamed countries.

I could spout like this for hours but it's off topic and sure to agitate.

Make your country support the law with actions as well as words. How many lies can you stand before you call it quits? War isn't the answer but it's better than non-action where genocidal lunatics are concerned.

-AC

Re:Software doesn't kill people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't forget to add that he kills thousands of his own people a year for saying bad things about him. Hell, they only have to be suspected of it. But somehow people don't see this as aggressive behavior because they are too busy buying soy milk in their safe Big D to care about it.

Really has nothing to do with open source, but this clearly shows why we can't divide software usage or other rights along poilitical lines. We might as well create two countries and start over.

Re:Software doesn't kill people...

[rawtatoor]

just to clarify...
NK didn't launch a missle in reaction to a US visit (especially considering the 30 some thousand permanent troops here)
but perhaps in concurrence with the inauguration for the new president; which Colin Powell attended

Military Censorship

[secolactico]

I understand that the goverment can declare something classified for defense purposes (or somesuch). Haven't they done this with books and research. Could they declare classified a pice of GPL software for "national security reasons".

I don't live in the US, so its a bit of a gray area for me.

Re:Military Censorship

[PhxBlue]

Could they declare classified a pice of GPL software for "national security reasons".

Yes, but they couldn't tell you what piece of GPL software they classified, or else they'd have to kill you. :)

Seriously, classifying software should be allowable under the GPL as far as I understand it--they're not distributing any "proprietary" copies of the software, so there's no concern regarding distribution of the source.

Re:Military Censorship

[nytes]

Yes. Phil Zimmerman was charged (google for details) for releasing PGP to the wild.

I also recall a story a few years ago about some guy who did his PhD or master's thesis about designing a nuclear bomb using unclassified literature. He was successful in rounding up all the necessary info, and finished his thesis, only to have it seized and classified by the US gov.

Re:Military Censorship

[Minna Kirai]

Sure, the government can modify a GPL program and then declare that the result is Classified Top Secret.

But then they can't distribute it at all. Not to their soldiers, spies, or anyone else, regardless of their clearance.

By the GPL license, when you give the software to someone, you must also give him permission to give it to whoever he likes. If security levels mean he is not able to republish it, then you can't give it to him at all. (The NSA can keep it locked in a safe until the copyright expires in 2101)

From GPLv2 section 7:
If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

Re:Military Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Slightly off topic, but I think I have an interesting take on how this software is developed. I am an engineer for the US Navy whose job is to develop simulators and trainers. From what I have have read it seems that some of the main executive engines, the Image Generator, and the Instructor/Operator System(IOS) are the software items under consideration. These three things combined only make up a small part of what goes into making a simulator. Besides physically building a simualtor, each of the separate systems needs its own mathematical model. This is usually customized for each simualtor based on the equipment on that platform, how the pilots for that platform actually use the thing, and what the instructors want to use. We currently have over 20 software engineers working full-time on a simulator. Only 1 is working on the Simulation Control Executive(SCE). About 7 are working on Avionics systems models. Another 5 or so are doing the airframe model (IE how the thing moves -- BTW we are reusing a well-established product that we have used for years in house on this part and it still takes this many.) Each simulator requires extensive customization. It does not make sense to use OSS for these parts. So if only the least complicated parts are open source, I really don't see how this would help except maybe to a startup company making its first simulator, certainly not to one as experienced as the ones the army and navy usually use.

Re:Military Censorship

[SN74S181]

But then they can't distribute it at all. Not to their soldiers, spies, or anyone else, regardless of their clearance.


They can distribute it to anybody within their organization. Further, the only people who have the right to ask for the source are people they distribute it to, and third, fourth, fifth party it is distributed to.

I can release something under the GPL. If the only person I give it to is a friend of mine, and he doesn't release it to anybody else (he has the right to, mind you, but he doesn't have to) then we can keep the source between us. Even if we're not in the same organization.

The best way of saying it is: The only people an organization that uses GPL software has to distribute the source to are people they distribute binaries to. This obligation ripples through the system.

Re:Military Censorship

[Minna Kirai]

The only people an organization that uses GPL software has to distribute the source to are people they distribute binaries to. This obligation ripples through the system.

Yes, that's true. But when you distribute the binaries and source to someone, you also have to give her the GPL. And you must provide the source under the GPL.

Which means you gave her the right to re-distribute it to whomever she wants. Including total strangers and competing organizations.

If you, as a superior in the organization, forbid her from distributing it outside, then you have violated the GPL- because distribution under GPL requires grant of permission to re-distribute. If, because of security classification, you cannot give someone permission to redistribute a GPLed program, then you cannot give her the GPLed program, without violating the copyright of the original author. And that would be illegal.

So if a group wants to modify GPL code for internal use, that's their right. But they shouldn't do this if they'd be hurt by their modifications becoming public, because they have no legal way to prevent it.

Re:Military Censorship

[SN74S181]

If you, as an organization, are careful who you distribute it to:

1. You can make sure it's not distributed out of the organization. No need to give ANYBODY the source.

2. You can make sure anybody you give it to out of the organization is in ideological agreement with you. It's possible they will give it out, but there's no coercion involved in your confidence they won't.

Once the binaries/source have streamed out to that organization, that organization can encapsulate the code, make their own little internal change (or not) and follow rule (1) internally themselves. As long as the transfer of the source/binaries from organization to organization goes between an elite trusted layer (trust is not the same thing as coercion), it can ripple through all kinds of social structures without the source needing to be distributed to hostile third partys.

Intelligence gathering organizations, i.e. the CIA, are composed of high-degree trust relationships, not coercion relationships. At least they are at a certain level where intra-organization transfers of resources like software is concerned.

Chip away at my arguement if you like. I view everything I write here as a hypothesis, not an absolute.

Humane Considerations

[PhxBlue]

The outcome of this war is certain. The only question is, how many Iraqis and how many Americans will die in the process? Good software is part of the key to preserving lives on both sides: the sooner the war ends, the fewer lives will be lost; and good software (along with good hardware and good training) will shorten the length of the war.

Finally, consider that the work on government programs won't be used only in Iraq. That's just where we need it at the moment. Should the US find itself fighting North Korea, the same software and hardware and training is going to save lives there as well.

I don't agree with the concept of invading Iraq. But I do believe in saving lives; and I think that contributing to government software efforts will help us toward that end.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. The huge amounts of money that the US has spent developing precision weapons shows how technology can save lives.

Re:Humane Considerations

[PhxBlue]

Quite right. Beats the heck out of carpet-bombing an entire city--because then you're not talking about a handful of civilian casualties, you're talking about thousands.

Nowadays, the modifications for the JDAMs, which are GPS-refits for normal bombs, are only about US$2000 apiece; which isn't much, compared to the cost of a laser-guided bomb. Yes, the development costs were high; but the US military's environmental footprint is smaller as a result, because they don't have to drop as many bombs to achieve the same objective.

Re:Humane Considerations

[lfourrier]

The outcome of this war is certain.
More poor countries despising the USofA.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I don't agree with the concept of invading Iraq.

I don't want to go completely off-topic, but I'd like to know why not. I've been looking for somebody, anybody, who could convince me that war is not the best option in this situation. What's your argument?

You don't have to respond here, but if you've got a minute, come post a reply in any of my journal articles. I'm really interested in hearing what you have to say.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

i luv your psots, h8 your nick

pls change, thx

Re:Humane Considerations

[Major Tom]

Here is why I am totally opposed to this war: pre-emptive war is *always* wrong. There are a host of moral reasons to claim this--what I can't understand is why the president doesn't seem to grok the political reasons.

I think, perhaps, the single biggest mistake the Bush administration has made since taking power is in lumping states together with terrorist organizations under the "Bush Doctrine" of pre-emptive strikes. The claimed reason for this doctrine is that terrorist organizations can't be deterred. This is almost certainly true. However, it is clear that Saddam/Iraq *can* be deterred. Recall that Iraq didn't use chem/bio weapons during the 1991 war, even though they had them. Why not? Because the military power of the US and the condemnation of the global community provided sufficent deterrent.

In proclaiming the US' willingness to strike first, the president has all but squandered the military's value as a deterent. When the US launches a pre-emptive invasion/occupation of Iraq, I strongly doubt that Saddam will refrain from using chem/bio weapons (assuming he has them.) The value of a "Big Stick" is that people fear beatings, so they listen when you speak softly. When you run around beating everyone who pisses you off, they have absolutely no incentive to listen to you.

This is a massively destabalizing doctrine. After all, India and Pakistan have much better reasons for invading one another than we have for invading Iraq. China has better reasons for invading Taiwan. The list goes on. If Bush is successful in conving the world that First Strike is a reasonable position for a civilized society to take, the world will become a much worse place.

There are many reasons why I am opposed to this particular war, but I hope this makes clear at least some of the reason why I am opposed to pre-emptive war categorically.

Re:Humane Considerations

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Reasons not to attack Iraq:

• Casue general dissruption to world peace
• Cause general dissruption to the global economy
• Breed more terrorists
• Won't solve the problem of Iraq having WMD. Infact might cause them to be used
• Innocent civilians will most certinaly die
• Why should Iraq have to dissarm anyway? The US hasn't

I'm not sure what news sources you have been reading. But I've made a point to read from as many differnt ones as possable. And all I can say is that attacking Iraq, at this stage, is a silly thing to do. Of course, what is more silly is that fact that the US sold WMD to Iraq in the first place.

Perhaps you can give some reasons to attack?

Re:Humane Considerations

[swordgeek]

I'm not the original poster, but I can offer an opinion.

War in Iraq is now inevitable. Let's just get that out of the way now.

But in the first place, there was never a reason to start the process that's now leading to war in Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction? So how come the US can have them, and Iraq can't? How come North Korea isn't even getting slapped on the wrist for restarting their nuclear program, against UN directives?

The biggest argument against war with Iraq is that there's no reason for it, unless you're willing to apply the same reason equally across the board and label everyone else equally guilty. Iraq has oil, Iraq has a dictator that takes pride in annoying/embarassing the US, and Iraq is a good focal point to distract the populace from the failure of taking down al Qaeda (particularly bin Laden).

Re:Humane Considerations

[workindev]

Reasons to attack Iraq:

Iraq is causing a general disruption to world peace

Iraq is causing a general disruption to the global economy (because of the current instability in the middle east)

Iraq is already breeding terrorists

Iraq already has WMD and has shown a propensity of using them

Innocent civilians are already being killed

Iraq should disarm for the same reasons Hitler was forced to disarm.

And all I can say is that attacking Iraq, at this stage, is a silly thing to do.

Is this as silly as sitting around and waiting for them to try and destroy us? In a post 9/11 world, we cannot afford to wait and see what our enemies are willing to do to us. Saddam has clearly stated that he wants to destroy the US, and has clearly demonstrated that he is willing to use WMD (against the Kurds). Is this a chance you are willing to take?

Re:Humane Considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

Hitler wasn't forced to disarm, he committed suicide well before that could have been possible.

Wilhelm II, maybe. But he abdicated, and the resulting Weimar Republic was forced to disarm by Allied enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles.

Not disagreeing with the rest of it, just picking some nits =)

Re:Humane Considerations

[Undertaker43017]

What everyone seems to forget is that Iraq lost the first war, and one of the conditions, imposed by the the UN, was that Iraq was to dispose of their WMD's. The US is not under such conditions, therefore we do not have to give up any of our WMD's (or any other weapons). North Korea is another issue, with has it's own set of political obstacles (China), but I'm sure that once Iraq is out of the way, focus will be put back on them. Our goal is to enforce the conditions, set forth by the UN, which the UN seems totally unable to enforce, for 12+ years! But of course, the totally worthless existance of the UN is another topic entirely....

Re:Humane Considerations

[cayenne8]

Sure its about oil!! The French and Russians are apeshit to keep the status quo so they can reap the benefits from Iraq's oil if saddam stays in power with sanctions lifted. Strangely enough..they are the main countries standing in the way of disarming a non-compliant dictator who has YET to abide by the surrender terms of the Gulf War. Yep, it is about oil at this point, yet is is the European countries' interest in oil that is the problem...not the US. The UN needs to show it has teeth in its declarations. Iraq has not abided by the terms of its surrender from trying to conquer Kuwait. If Gernany had not abided by the terms of its surrender in WW2, they would have been attacked again!! That is the case here with Iraq....nothing different, with the exception that in WW2 we wouldn't have given Germany 12+ years to comply...

Re:Humane Considerations

[mengel]

It's very simple. Take nearly any statement about Iraq and the United States, swap the two countries names throughout and see if it doesn't still hold.

The United States has Weapons of Mass Destruction, and is in fact the only country to ever use nuclear weapons on a civilian population. (Hiroshima)

The United States has biological weapons, and has in the past used biological attacks against unwanted minority populations (Native Americans given smallpox-laden blankets)

The United States has supported terrorist groups, even, in particular, Osama Bin Laden. (When he was fighting the Russians in Afghanistan)

So in summary, nearly every argument based on facts that I've seen to date argues at least as strongly that the United States should be invaded, and be forced to disarm. Now that may in fact be true as well, but it seems a poor set of arguments for the United States leadership to use.

Re:Humane Considerations

[FatHogByTheAss]

For the simple reason that Iraq isn't a terrorst threat. The terrorist tend to come from countries where there is little or no line between Islam and the government, i.e. Saudi, Egypt, etc...

The whole current Iraq fiasco was spawned by the 9/11 attacks. Yet there were no Iraqis or WMD on those aircraft. Same goes for The USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, or the embasy bombings. There are currently 0 Iraqis on the FBIs most wanted terrorist list.

The biggest threats to us come from terrorists, and the Iraqis just aren't players there.

I'm not opposed to war. We need to be killing some people. They just don't happen to be in Iraq.

Re:Humane Considerations

[cheezedawg]

Didn't you hear that Bin Laden tape from a few weeks ago? He said, among other things, that although he thinks that Saddam is a womanizing, partying 'infidel', he is glad to work with him towards the mutual goal of destroying the United States.

Re:Humane Considerations

[charon_on_acheron]

Three points:

You left out Nagasaki.

Osama was not a terrorist when the US supported him. He fought against Russian troops. He didn't fly a plane into the Kremlin and Red Square.

The reason Iraq is supposed to disarm and give up its WDM, and the US is not supposed to do the same, is that Iraq lost the Gulf War and that was one of the stipulations in the peace agreement. The US is just trying to enforce what Iraq already agreed to. This is a UN peace agreement by the way, not just between US and Iraq, so all the countries in the world that are in the United Nations should be agreeing that it should be enforced.

Re:Humane Considerations

[cheezedawg]

Its very simple, actually.

Iraq is under international orders to disarm, the United States is not.

About your other points:

-The United States decided to used nuclear weapons in WWII because they believed that it would save more lives compared to a drawn out conclusion to the war

-I think you are confused about the smallpox story- British troops used smallpox blankets against Native Americans during the French/Indian war, not the US.

-The United States did support the mujahedeen (including Bin Laden) in the very worthy cause of defending Afghanistan against the Soviet Union. The mujahedeen was not a terrorist group in the sense that they were not targeting innocent civilian populations- they were targeting the military aggression of the soviets.

Re:Humane Considerations

[FatHogByTheAss]

And that has what, exactly, to do with Iraq? Did he say "Reporting live from Bhagdad?" He said "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Re:Humane Considerations

[Chainsaw]

Iraq is causing a general disruption to world peace

Last time I checked, it was the United States that were waging war. Iraq just sits there exporting oil.

Iraq is already breeding terrorists

If by terrorists you mean "people who are seriously mad about the US fucking with them contantly because of their religion", then yes.

Iraq already has WMD and has shown a propensity of using them

Hiroshima. Nagazaki. THAT'S what I call mass destruction. Who did that again? Besides that - where's your proof that they do have any WoMD at all? Not just some pictures of a truck that might contain weapons or maybe even soft, fluffy teddybears - real evidence.

Innocent civilians are already being killed

And more will be dead if you won't let them import medicine. Right now, they are performing operations without any anaesthetic because they can't get enough medicine. Why? Oh, it might be used to create chemical weapons. The civil uses aren't even mentioned.

Iraq should disarm for the same reasons Hitler was forced to disarm.

Hitler was punished because he invaded other countries. The Kuwait invasion was ten years from now, right? You've already attacked them for that. Get a new excuse.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Last time I checked, it was the United States that were waging war. Iraq just sits there exporting oil.

Then check again. UNSEC resolution 687 defined the conditions for ending the Gulf War. Iraq has refused, for the past 12 years, to comply with them. If Iraq were to comply, the sanctions imposed by the UN would be lifted and the Allied Coalition would be able to stand down. Their non-compliance is, in effect, a continuation of the war.

Besides that - where's your proof that they do have any WoMD at all?

Two things. First, we've got tons of proof. Read Dr. Blix's 1/27 report to UNSEC for examples of that proof. (Skip down to the section entitled "VX Nerve Agent.")

Second, the burden of proof is on Iraq to demonstrate that they do not have WMD, and to allow UNSCOM (now UNMOVIC) to verify their claims. They have categorically refused to do this.

And more will be dead if you won't let them import medicine. Right now, they are performing operations without any anaesthetic because they can't get enough medicine.

Oops. That's an oft-repeated by false assertation. In fact, UN sanctions have never limited Iraq's imports of medicine, school supplies, food, or other humanitarian goods or contributions. Quite the contrary; the UN has urged Iraq to order more medicines, but Baghdad has refused. The Iraqi government has been roundly criticized for hoarding medicine for military use instead of distributing it to their people, then blaming inadequate medical care for ordinary citizens on sanctions. Unfortunately, a goodly fraction of the world media has fallen for this lie.

Please refer to the State Department's "Myths and Facts About Iraq" page for more information.

The Kuwait invasion was ten years from now, right? You've already attacked them for that. Get a new excuse.

Please educate yourself on this subject. A few minutes research will reveal that Iraq has never settled the Gulf War. We don't need "a new excuse" because we're still trying to deal with an old problem.

(Try googling for "resolution 687." It's a good starting place. In it you'll be able to see what Iraq is required to do, and from there you should be able to learn about Iraq's 12-year history of non-compliance. Or, if you prefer a summary, you can just read this post.)

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

This has already been addressed by other responders, but I just want to reiterate.

But in the first place, there was never a reason to start the process that's now leading to war in Iraq.

The process began on August 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Remember: we're still trying to settle that war.

Weapons of mass destruction? So how come the US can have them, and Iraq can't?

Because Iraq started a war, and lost. UNSCR 687 referred specifically to "the use by Iraq of ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks and therefore of the need to take specific measures in regard to such missiles." If Iraq hadn't lobbed Scuds at Israel, maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. Maybe Iraq would have been allowed to keep its chemical and biological weapons and programs, its nuclear programs, and its ballistic missiles. Of course, since they did, they now have no choice in the matter.

How come North Korea isn't even getting slapped on the wrist for restarting their nuclear program, against UN directives?

The biggest reason is that we don't believe the DPRK actually presents a threat to its neighbors. We know that Iraq presents a threat; Iraq attempted to invade Iran, Iraq invaded Kuwait, Iraq attempted to invade Saudi Arabia, Iraq attacked Bahrain, Iraq attacked Israel. The DPRK, on the other hand, has more-or-less minded their own business since 1953, modulo some events that, while individually significant, pale in comparison.

But another important reason is that we believe we know what the DPRK wants. The DPRK wants to be seen as a viable world power, despite the fact that their people are starving by the thousands. They want trade concessions and respect. And they're using their missiles to try to get that respect. But most of all, Kim is sick of being shown up by the ROK. Witness the missile test the DPRK conducted on the day of President Roh's inauguration. They weren't trying to threaten. They were just trying to upstage.

The biggest argument against war with Iraq is that there's no reason for it

Are you saying that because you haven't seen the reasons, or because you refuse to see them?

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Take nearly any statement about Iraq and the United States, swap the two countries names throughout and see if it doesn't still hold.

The United States invaded a neighbor country, started a war, launched ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks against a non-combatant neighbor, and ultimately got it's butt kicked by a coalition of allies led by the Iraq. Consequently, the United States has been ordered to disarm by the United Nations, and has spent the past twelve years refusing to do so.

Nope. Doesn't work.

Re:Humane Considerations

[fucksl4shd0t]

Is this as silly as sitting around and waiting for them to try and destroy us? In a post 9/11 world, we cannot afford to wait and see what our enemies are willing to do to us. Saddam has clearly stated that he wants to destroy the US, and has clearly demonstrated that he is willing to use WMD (against the Kurds). Is this a chance you are willing to take?

In a post 9/11 world, nothing is different. I'm really getting sick of hearing people use 9/11 as an excuse for doing stupid things.

Fact: Nobody can *ever* afford to wait and see what their enemies are willing to do to them.

That's the nature of having enemies. A much more intelligent policy would be to try to avoid making enemies. I realize it's not always possible to avoid making enemies, but if you avoid making enemies, then when one of your enemies does decide to do something to you, you have a whole bunch of friends on your side. You don't have to be the biggest, baddest military in the world.

Furthermore, Junior's given reasons for invading Iraq right now aren't any different than Senior's reasons when we did it in '91. In light of that fact, how is it that 9/11 somehow affects the situation with Iraq?

I think the statement goes more like "Ever since the Cold War ended, the US has been paying for the things it did during the Cold War." Goddamn it, we put Hussein in power in Iraq! We TRAINED Bin Laden. Now these guys come back at us? We knew they were nuts to begin with!

Why do we need to invade Iraq?

There's only one good reason, but until the President proposes it I'll be against this war. The reason is: We put him there and the people of Iraq have suffered greatly. It is now our responsibility to the people of Iraq to remove him.

Did Senior remove him? Is Junior going to? Not as long as Iraq is viewed as being a good ball for the political games going on in this country.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

pre-emptive war is *always* wrong

Sorry, but that's demonstrably false. If you could have decimated the German Panzer brigades on the eve of the invasion of Poland, would it have been right or wrong?

But more importantly, there's nothing pre-emptive about this war. This was started on August 2, 1990, remember? When Iraq invaded Kuwait. We went through a period of temporary cease-fire from April, 1991, to December, 1998, but since December, 1998, we've legally been in a state of all-out war. Only without the shooting.

Recall that Iraq didn't use chem/bio weapons during the 1991 war, even though they had them. Why not? Because the military power of the US and the condemnation of the global community provided sufficent deterrent.

You have a funny definition of "deterrence," I think. If Iraq was so deterred, how come they rolled their tanks into Kuwait City?

After all, India and Pakistan have much better reasons for invading one another than we have for invading Iraq.

I don't understand how you could say that unless you grossly misunderstood either the India/Pakistan conflict or our reasons for invading Iraq.

Re:Humane Considerations

[cheezedawg]

When Bin Laden said that he "is in partnership with Iraq", and when he calls on Iraqi citizens to carry out suicide bombings against Americans, I would say that has something to do with Iraq.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

Score another Takedown for Twirlip. Chainsaw better go home.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Major Tom]

If you could have decimated the German Panzer brigades on the eve of the invasion of Poland, would it have been right or wrong?

No, countries are already broadly assumed to have the right to defend themselves from an imminent attack. An attack on German tank divisions on the eve of the invasion of Poland would have been fine, and we wouldn't have needed a Bush Doctrine to do it. But if we had bombed Berlin to ruble in 1932, when Hitler was ascendent, would that have been wrong? I think so. In the same way, if Saddam were amassing troops to invade another country (particular if that country were the US) it would be permissible to attack. Without the Bush Doctrine.

But more importantly, there's nothing pre-emptive about this war. This was started on August 2, 1990, remember? When Iraq invaded Kuwait. We went through a period of temporary cease-fire from April, 1991, to December, 1998, but since December, 1998, we've legally been in a state of all-out war.

Hmm. I don't think even the Bush administration agrees with you on this one. If they did, we wouldn't be at all engaged at the UN. The Gulf War ended with a surrender. The weapons inspectors left voluntarily in 1998. They are back on the ground now. There is absolutely nothing in any of that to justify the claim that the first war never ended.

You have a funny definition of "deterrence," I think. If Iraq was so deterred, how come they rolled their tanks into Kuwait City?

He had weapons that he didn't use. How is that a funny notion of deterence? We had nukes we didn't use in Vietnam. Why? because we were deterred by Soviet nukes. Is that a funny notion of deterence? With a little clairty in US foriegn policy at the time, we might have been able to deter Iraq from a conventional war, as well.

I don't understand how you could say that unless you grossly misunderstood either the India/Pakistan conflict or our reasons for invading Iraq.

Well, that is one of at least two possibilities. At the very least you can agree that India feels a much more clear and present danger from Pakistan (and vice-versa) than we feel from Iraq. And you will certainly agree that a pre-emptive strike by either party would be a very bad thing.

Allow me to turn the tables, if you will. You seem awfully convinced that this is a great idea for a war. Why? And please don't feed me any line about liberating the Iraqi people from an evil dictator (when has any country ever wanted to be "liberated" by an invading power?) or national security (when the threat to us is not from states, but from terrorist organizations). How is this war a good idea, either in a moral sense, or in a US'-best-interests sense?

Re:Humane Considerations

[urbazewski]

Osama was not a terrorist when the US supported him.

That's because terrorists that are bankrolled by the US military are called "freedom fighters".

Re:Humane Considerations

[Minna Kirai]

The process began on August 2, 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Remember: we're still trying to settle that war.

It began in 1899, when Britain invaded Kuwait.

Of course, they were "invited" by local rulers, who were sqabbling amoung themselves. Some already had German or Turkish support, and it was those competing empires that Britain was really interested in challenging.

One more example of how imperialist adventures can pay of in disrupted societies a century later.

Re:Humane Considerations

[wrt2]

Although you and I disagree, you distinguish yourself by actually going back and reading 687. I've gone back a little further and read the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which the US is a signatory. Especially Article VI, which states:

Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.

Which, since treaties submitted by the President and ratified by the Senate are (along with the Constitution) the supreme law of the land, means that the US is obligated to work with the community of nations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Obviously, a nation announcing a policy of utilizing nuclear weapons in "preemptive" wars is in breach of Article VI. Meanwhile, the US develops chemical and biological weapons in violation of the spirit (and likely the letter) of the protocols on biological and chemical weapons. (Oh, and let's not forget that weapons-grade anthrax was left unsecured so that a person or persons unknown could kill two postal workers and attempt to kill the then-Senate Majority Leader and Judiciary Committee Chair.)

Iraq's breaches of these protocols which the US itself does not seem to care for were the prime mover behind the adoption of 687. Despite the fact that the US undermined implementation of 687 by inserting spies into the inspection teams, UNSCOM destroyed 90 - 95% of Iraq's WMD capability prior to the UNSCOM inspectors being forced to leave Iraq by President Clinton prior to Operation Desert Fox. Had inspections not been compromised and finally halted, Iraq would likely be disarmed by now. Unfortunately, the Clinton Administration and the Bush Junta both declared "regime change" as official policy, meaning that sanctions would likely have continued against Iraq regardless of its compliance with 687. Great motivator for Hussein to disarm -- damned if you do, damned if you don't. Outside his palace walls, of course, the populace is getting sick from water-borne diseases because the sanctions regime will not allow chlorine to be imported into Iraq for any purpose. And we haven't even mentioned yet that Israel's
nuclear weapons program should be dismantled under 687 as well, since it reaffirms the goal of ridding the region of nuclear weapons, nor that US aid to Israel, a non-signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, is illegal because of their nuclear weapons program. Nor should we leave out the fact that the so-called "no-fly zones" are not authorized by 687.

Now, if the US wishes to change policy and

• work seriously toward nuclear disarmament;
  
• abide by the biological and chemical weapons conventions;
  
• repudiate "preemptive" war plans;
  
• repudiate "regime change" doctrine;
  
• cease interference with the inspections process;
  
• acknowledge the Israeli nuclear program and cut off aid until it can be inspected and dismantled;
  

then it has true moral standing to lecture the world about 687. Otherwise, it's about oil and dollars, no matter how much you try to obscure that.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

No, countries are already broadly assumed to have the right to defend themselves from an imminent attack.

The time has come to refine our definition of "imminent." It is not possible to predict a terrorist attack. (At least, that's the theory. In practice, sometimes it's possible and sometimes it isn't.)

Hmm. I don't think even the Bush administration agrees with you on this one.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Secretary Powell, speaking in his official capacity on behalf of the administration, has said in recent weeks that he believes UNSCR 678 gives the US the mandate to carry out an invasion of Iraq should one be necessary. Why? Because the Gulf War is technically in a state of temporary cease-fire, and Iraq is in violation of the terms of that cease-fire.

The Gulf War ended with a surrender.

Please check your facts again. This is not correct. The hostilities were put on hold when Iraq accepted-- i.e., agreed to be bound by-- the Safwan Accords on April 6, 1991. Because Iraq never complied with the terms of those accords, which included UNSCR 687 and all subsequent relevant resolutions, a peace treaty has never been offered or signed.

He had weapons that he didn't use. How is that a funny notion of deterence?

Okay, I'll be more specific. You have a uselessly narrow notion of deterrence.

You seem awfully convinced that this is a great idea for a war. Why?

Several reasons, including some you either don't care about or don't want to hear. The first, though, is both the most important and, both legally and pragmatically, sufficient in and of itself: the supremacy of the UN Security Council as a peacekeeping body is in jeopardy. Some would argue that UNSEC is dead already, but my mind is not made up yet. I do know that if UNSEC fails to enforce the 1991 cease-fire agreement, they will have ceased to serve any meaningful purpose. Two-bit tyrants with delusions of grandeur-- I'm talking to you, Kim Chong-il-- will get the idea that they can bully the international community, and they'll be right. That sort of blatant defiance must not stand.

Two: Saddam Hussein is a threat to the peace and stability of the Arabian peninsula. His ambition, about which he isn't even trying to be coy, is to dominate or conquer the other nations of the peninsula. This is unacceptable. We must prevent him from acquiring the weapons he needs to do the job.

Three: the Baath government in general, and Mr. Hussein in particular, are ruthlessly tyrannical. If the word "evil" can be said to have any meaning at all, they are it. Their brutality is almost beyond imagining. It starts with torture and summary executions and just gets worse from there.

Four: we already know that Iraq provides aid and comfort to terrorists and terrorist groups. Iraq provides aid and assistance to Ansar al Islam, a fundamentalist group currently carrying out attacks against the Kurdish peoples of northern Iraq. (Ansar al Islam, incidentally, being an organization that was started with assistance from al Qaeda and between $300,000 and $600,000 of Osama bin Laden's own money. Back then they called themselves Jund al Islam, "Soldiers of Islam.") Iraq offers cash rewards to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. The probability that Iraq would, if given the chance, sponsor a terrorist group that strikes out at the people of the United States or at our allies is too great to ignore.

Five: the Middle East is in a terrible state right now. You've got a fundamentalist theocracy in Iran, a terrorist regime in the Palestinian territories, a monarchy just barely maintaining control of a fundamentalist, Wahhabist populace in Saudi Arabia... the whole region is unstable. Establishing a democratic government and a free society in Iraq will have a powerful effect on the region. As we saw in Europe between the 18th and 20th centuries, tyranny (be it monarchical, dictatorial, or oligarchical) is powerful, but freedom tends to spread. A free Iraq will lead to a free Palestine, which will lead over the years to freedom throughout the region.

To put it succinctly: the consequences of our failure to act at this time are even worse than the consequences of a war.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Minna Kirai]

"Going to war" doesn't have to mean "invading".

It would be entirely reasonable for the US to declare a "war" on Iraq, and then simply expand the scope of it's current air superiority (which is unchallenged). The No-Fly Zone could easily be expanded to the 34th and 35th parellel, or even beyond. Any obvious military vehicles in that area could be bombed whenever it is convenient.

This action would be low cost (the pilots and aircraft are already in place), and low risk (as compared to the inevitable 100s of US casualities from a ground incursion). And there could be several kinds of benefits:

• F-18s would streak above Bagdad every day, constantly reminding the people who's really in charge. Such an environment would further degrade Saddam's local prestige, and make it more likely that someone will depose him and begin negotiating concessions with the US.
  
• With regular combat jet patrols over most of Iraq, the jobs of UN inspectors would be expedited. If at any time they're denied access to a location, they can simply check-off their clipboards and head back home, knowing that a fuel-air munition will be detonating on it within 8 hours. (After the first few incidents, inspection-compliance should skyrocket)
  
• With air cover provided by the US, a ground force of local troops could challenge Saddam. Turkey could invade- they'd like to expand their borders. Iran could invade- they'd love to claim some oil fields. Or Kuwait could afford to arm mercenaries and get some revenge. Whoever starts it, Kurds and other Iraqi rebel groups will join in. It could turn into a "Race to Bagdad".
  I'll admit this is unlikely- but it could happen 5-6 years later. The air-power only strategy worked well in Afganistan, didn't it? The US public doesn't mind a land-war, as long as the infantry are faceless foreigners.
  

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Your argument is, as near as I can see, entirely irrelevant. You seem to be arguing that the United States is not perfect, and therefore is not qualified to lead a coalition to enforce UNSEC resolutions. Whether you're right or wrong-- some of what you said is correct, some incorrect-- the argument has no bearing on what the correct course of action is at this time.

I respect your opinion, but you need to understand that nobody is under the illusion that the United States is beyond reproach. The United States is, however, a member of the United Nations Security Council, and is therefore obligated to carry out its chapter VII resolutions. If you want to argue that the US should be kicked off of UNSEC, go right ahead. I would leave you to it, however; I'm not particularly interested in having that argument, because it could be applied equally well to every nation on Earth.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

It would be entirely reasonable for the US to declare a "war" on Iraq, and then simply expand the scope of it's current air superiority (which is unchallenged).

We did that in 1998, in an action called Operation Desert Fox. We bombed everything we could find to bomb. It didn't work.

F-18s would streak above Bagdad every day, constantly reminding the people who's really in charge.

Um. Unless we put troops on the ground and defeat the Special Republican Guard, Mr. Hussein is really in charge.

With regular combat jet patrols over most of Iraq, the jobs of UN inspectors would be expedited.

You're assuming that the inspectors have a list. They don't. Iraq has never made a complete declaration of all of their weapons programs and materials. The inspectors cannot inspect it if they don't know about it. And it's unreasonable to expect that they could just visually inspect every square meter of a country that's twice the size of Idaho.

Without Iraqi cooperation, inspections can never work.

With air cover provided by the US, a ground force of local troops could challenge Saddam.

Believe me, if we could figure out a way to make that happen, we would. The danger is that we'd just be replacing one dictator with another, and that doesn't help anybody.

Turkey could invade- they'd like to expand their borders.

That would not be okay. The Turks and the Kurds do not get along well.

Iran could invade- they'd love to claim some oil fields.

That would not be okay either. Are you quite sure these are arguments against a US-led invasion? Sounds to me like they're pretty strong arguments for a US-led invasion!

The air-power only strategy worked well in Afganistan, didn't it?

There are some important differences between Afghanistan and Iraq. First, Afghanistan had a cohesive, organized opposition that could easily reach a consensus about a plan for their country. Mr. Karzai, from the majority Pashtun ethnic group and the well-respected Populzai clan, stood out as the obvious man to run the Afghan Interim Authority. The Taliban was very weak in comparison to their opposition; all we had to do was put about 200 Special Forces troops on the ground to advise and lead, and the opposition were able to overthrow their enemy.

Iraq is a completely different situation. You've got the Kurds in the north, who are organized and democratic; the Shiites in the south, who would like to see a fundamentalist theocracy in the style of Iran; and the Sunnis in the middle who have been living under the Baath government for so long that they'd rather just hang the whole thing up and join Jordan. (A partition plans along those very lines has been floated, but the Turks shot it down quick. A sovereign Kurdistan would cause no end of problems for the Turks with their Kurdish minority.)

Overthrowing the Hussein regime will be a lot harder than defeating the Taliban, and building a free and democratic country where Iraq used to be is going to be harder still. But we have a plan, a plan that I think can work.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Minna Kirai]

Their non-compliance is, in effect, a continuation of the war.

Bush should've instructed the US military to resume hostility against Iraq in Aug91, when the UN resolutions were first strongly violated. (Specifically, he should've call airstrikes on every suspected WMD site).

His noncompliance was, in effect, a discontinuation of the war.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Bush should've instructed the US military to resume hostility against Iraq in Aug91

Yes, I agree. There were, in fact, many points on which we could look back and say, "That's when we should have done something." I think the point is that we don't want to be sitting around a year from now saying, "We really should have done something back in February, 2003."

His noncompliance was, in effect, a discontinuation of the war.

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. UNSEC set the conditions. Until they withdraw them-- which they have not done-- they still stand.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Minna Kirai]

put about 200 Special Forces troops on the ground to advise and lead, and the opposition were able to overthrow their enemy.

They neither advised nor lead. They called in air strikes. "Advising and leading" is what US SOF are trained to do, and what they love to do, but it isn't what was needed in Afganistan. The SOF knew nothing of Afgan geography or language, and were not even able to distinguish enemies from allies. Their only purpose was to relay targeting data to the men in the sky.

That would not be okay either. Are you quite sure these are arguments against a US-led invasion? Sounds to me like they're pretty strong arguments for a US-led invasion!

You might not like the idea of Turkey and Iran free to storm around Iraq in the wake of US air support. I agree, it'll be chaotic and unpredictable.

But in the aftermath of an invasion, that is exactly what will happen. Bush is not going to be willing to keep a garrison of 100,000 controlling Iraq. He'll push the assault until Saddam is dead or imprisoned, declare victory, and then, just like his father, pull the troops out within 8 months. (9, 10 years down the line, maybe President Jeb Bush will get to repeat the same steps)

The issue of Kurdish sovereignty, to me, is something that should be resolved before any invasions proceed. At least the US should announce it's intensions on the issue- otherwise, both Turkey and the Kurds will try to advance their agendas, planting seeds for more violence and recrimation down the road.

building a free and democratic country where Iraq used to be is going to be harder still. But we have a plan, a plan that I think can work.

Really? I haven't heard a word breathed of such a plan.

Back in 1991, I had some hopes that the first Gulf War would leave Kuwait a free and democratic country. Since then I've learned that expecting the US to promote international democracy only leads to disappointment.

As you've pointed out, Afganistan had factors in place making it much more likely to move towards a peaceful government- but yet, conditions there have barely improved, and there's much doubt that the US will see that job through to completion. Since the task will be many times harder in Iraq, what is the chance that the US will decide to follow through on this one?

Re:Humane Considerations

[Major Tom]

First, let me say that I appreciate the thoroughness of your response. I enjoyed reading it.

[re: legal justification for war]
You say that it is Mr. Powell's position that the Gulf War is technically in a state of temporary cease-fire, and Iraq is in violation of the terms of that cease-fire.

I concede this point, so long as there is due stress put on technically. Sure, the administration thinks they technically can go to war without being in clear violation of international law. If they thought this case was compelling--legally, yes, but especially morally--they wouldn't be engaged at the UN. I don't know anything about international law, so I can't really say whether or not Powell is technically right on this technical point, but I do believe that if he is, this is little more than exploiting a loophole. And this is the attitude that I think the Bush administration shares. After all, we have a new first-strike defense doctrine, a new foreign policy declaration, and months of debate at the UN, all to justify a war we are technically allowed to undertake anyway.

>>He had weapons that he didn't use. How is that a funny notion of deterence?

>Okay, I'll be more specific. You have a uselessly narrow notion of deterrence.

I want to push on this point a little more, because I think it is a major mistake to blur the lines between nuclear and chem/bio weapons, and between chem/bio and conventional weapons. To say a notion of deterrence that doesn't include all three levels of weapons is "uselessly narrow" is dangerous. Conflicts will happen periodically, and if they can be kept from escallating to chemical or nuclear conflicts, this is no small thing. Deterence of ABC weapons is certainly not useless. And I say again, our pre-Bush defense policies might well have deterred Iraq from a conventional attack, had those policies been clearly and consistently applied.

[re: the "relevance" of the UN]
The UNSC, in this particular situation is damned either way. They did an inadequate job of enforcing previous resolutions, and this is a mark against them. However, it is the clear opinion of the majority that war is not, at least at the moment, the solution to the problem. If they flipflop and sign on to a war that only three members are pushing for, they will be irrelevant by virtue of becoming yes-men for the USA. This is a tough position for them to be in, and I at least partly blame incompetent diplomacy out of the USA. There had to be a way to allow the UNSC to correct past wrongs without having to completely subjugate itself to the whim of the US. Of course, as we see in your later points, disarmament is not the point here, which is probably why UNSC was not given the option of enhanced or more forecful inspections regimes.

[re: Saddam is ambitious]
Granted. He is also living in a country that is completely incapable of acting on these ambitions. He has few weapons, no infrastructure, a small military of questionable loyalty, and a populace that, if we are to believe the news media, hates him. Continued inspections can insure that he doesn't develop new weapons, and IAEA has tentatively concluded that he is completely free of a nuclear program. As far as I'm concerned, he can be ambitious all he wants, so long as he doesn't have the weapons to make good on his ambitions. And all indications are that he currently does not.

[re: Saddam is evil]
This, I think, is the most compelling argument for regime change. But this is completely independent of invasion and occupation. If he is as evil as you say, surely he must be widely hated. Surely it must be possible to encourage a popular uprising. Surely there must be thousands or millions in his own country who are plotting overthrow or assissination. Surely the Iraqi people are no less competent to decide when they've had enough than were, say, Americans in the late 18th century.

[re: bringing democracy to the middle east]
I just watched president Bush's comments to American Enterprise, and got a kick out of his comparing the current state of things in Iraq to the state of Germany at the end of WWII. The salient difference, I think, is that Germany was a burgeoning democracy that was co-opted by a fascist dictator. In helping rebuild Germany, we were helping to restore the pre-Nazi way of things. (Has anyone really made the claim that German culture was incapable of accommodating democracy?) The same can't be said of Iraq. I am all for promoting and encouraging freedom and democracy around the world. But I do not believe these things can be externally imposed. It seems pretty clear that imposed democracy and enforced freedom are oxymorons from the start.

I truly hope I'm wrong about this last point. I would love to see the democratic virus catch in the middle east. I also wish this was the true motivation of the administration, and not a PR stunt. Then, it might be the case that some real care would be taken for the lives of Iraqi civilians.

And finally, I want to get back to issue of the first-strike policy. You say we need to re-define imminent. And you support it by citing the terrorist threat. I can see the claim with regards to terrorist, but again, I say it is a major error to lump states, which can be deterred, whose plots can be spied on, whose troop movements can be observed, together with terrorist groups. First strikes against proven terrorist training camps I wouldn't object to too loudly. First strikes against countries that might someday develop a weapon that they might someday decide to give to a terrorist group is not only morally wrong, it is bad public policy.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Bush is not going to be willing to keep a garrison of 100,000 controlling Iraq.

That's exactly what President Bush is going to ask Congress for. (Well, not the number. The interim government.) And it's two years, not eight or nine months. I respect your opinion, but it's completely contrary to reality on this point.

The issue of Kurdish sovereignty, to me, is something that should be resolved before any invasions proceed.

It already has been. The Iraqi opposition leaders are meeting in Salahuddin today in an effort to hammer out the details of the post-Baathist government, and the Kurds are among them.

Really? I haven't heard a word breathed of such a plan.

Try turning past page one of your newspaper. ;-)

Re:Humane Considerations

[Minna Kirai]

Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. UNSEC set the conditions. Until they withdraw them-- which they have not done-- they still stand.

3/5s of UNSEC is against a resumption of an Iraq war. Certainly seems like they've withdrawn support, even if it's not down on paper.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If they thought this case was compelling--legally, yes, but especially morally--they wouldn't be engaged at the UN.

Please go read the draft resolution. It says only that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded by 1441. This is incredibly significant. If the Coalition had thought that their case for war-- their legal case, not the moral or pragmatic one-- were even a little shaky, they would have asked the UN to approve "all necessary means." They didn't, specifically because the administration and our allies in the Coalition believe that no such authorization is necessary.

It's not a technicality.

I can't really say whether or not Powell is technically right on this technical point, but I do believe that if he is, this is little more than exploiting a loophole.

Does it change your opinion to know that we have been actively engaged in military action in Iraq every single day since the war began? Some days it's overflights, some days it's actual engagement. Just yesterday we attacked and destroyed a surface-to-surface missile site in northern Iraq.

Not a technicality, not a loophole.

To say a notion of deterrence that doesn't include all three levels of weapons is "uselessly narrow" is dangerous.

Look, I see your point, but I don't think this is worth making a big deal over in context of the rest of the discussion. Yes, Iraq had CBW in 1991. No, as far as we know they didn't use them. (Some of Iraq's CBW were so primitive, it's possible that they might have been used in such a way that nobody noticed.) Was Iraq deterred from using CBW in 1991? Looks like it, yes. Were they deterred from invading Kuwait, then invading Saudi Arabia, then attacking Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain with ballistic missiles? No. Do we have any reason to believe that Iraq will be deterred from those sorts of tactics in the future? No.

If they flipflop and sign on to a war that only three members are pushing for, they will be irrelevant by virtue of becoming yes-men for the USA.

Huh? I don't see it that way at all. If UNSEC signs the present draft resolution, they will have chosen to do the right thing after all these years of doing the wrong thing. They won't be irrelevant; they'll be at least partly redeemed.

Of course, as we see in your later points, disarmament is not the point here, which is probably why UNSC was not given the option of enhanced or more forecful inspections regimes.

(sigh) I'm getting pretty tired of repeating this. You seem like a reasonable fellow; why don't you get it? Inspections cannot disarm an unwilling participant. We have a model for voluntary, unilateral disarmament: South Africa. South Africa had a nuclear weapons program and they constructed a number of bombs. They made a full and complete declaration of their program to the IAEA, then cooperated without exception with the IAEA inspectors. Iraq is nowhere close to doing this. More inspectors, more time for inspections, more inspectors with more time... none of these things can work if Iraq is unwilling to declare and cooperate.

He is also living in a country that is completely incapable of acting on these ambitions.

That's what we thought in 1988, too. We were wrong. By 1990, he had an army that was poised to dominate the entire peninsula. Given that Iraq's oil exports are up to pre-war levels now, thanks to "smart sanctions," how long do you think it will be before their military is ready to invade another of their neighbors?

And, more importantly, how willing are you to trust that they won't?

Continued inspections can insure that he doesn't develop new weapons

As I've explained time and again, no, they can't.

Surely there must be thousands or millions in his own country who are plotting overthrow or assissination.

After enough of them got themselves and the families summarily executed, the rate of attempted coups dropped off significantly. Surprisingly, torture, imprisonment, and mass executions work extremely well as a subjucation strategy.

Has anyone really made the claim that German culture was incapable of accommodating democracy?

Yes. It was a point of serious and heated debate in 1943 and 1944. The idea was that because democracy failed so miserably in the 1930's, maybe we should take the hint and realize that the Germans simply weren't capable of ruling themselves that way. Of course, that idea was wrong.

I am all for promoting and encouraging freedom and democracy around the world. But I do not believe these things can be externally imposed.

Freedom and democracy are not the natural order of things. The natural order is for the strong to subjugate the weak. If we don't impose freedom and democracy on Iraq, it will never happen.

Besides, as the president pointed out, you're demonstrably incorrect. Imposed democracy in Germany and Japan were the true national success stories of the 20th century.

First strikes against countries that might someday develop a weapon that they might someday decide to give to a terrorist group is not only morally wrong, it is bad public policy.

When you know that a state has connections to terrorist groups-- both within its own borders and in neighboring states-- and you know that that state has an agenda that puts you squarely at the top of their enemies list, and you know that that state has produced or is attempting to produce a weapon of mass destruction, sitting idly by and waiting to take the first punch is both morally wrong and incredibly stupid.

Remember, we are not speaking of Iraq in hypotheticals or subjunctives. We know that Hussein has relationships with Ansar al Islam, the Palestinian intifada, and other terrorist groups. We know that Hussein considers the US to be his enemy; he tried to have President George H.W. Bush assassinated. We know that Iraq has developed CBW and is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Do you want to wait for them to connect all of those dots?

Re:Humane Considerations

[Minna Kirai]

We did that in 1998, in an action called Operation Desert Fox. We bombed everything we could find to bomb. It didn't work.

That's wasn't nearly the same thing. I proposed expanding the no-fly zones to encompass all of Iraq. A permanent claiming of airspace. Not bombing for a week, then quitting. Desert Fox was a few days of airstrikes, which were terminated because it was believed they were successful.

So it turns out they weren't. If something doesn't work, there are 2 options: more of the same, or something else. In this case, "more of the same" is much cheaper in American lives than the alternative, so it deserves another attempt. Seriously, this time.

3-4 months of daily CAPs in central Iraq would possibly accomplish some positive results- or if nothing else, leave the region more vulnerable to a ground invasion.

The US military is superior to Iraq's, but it's biggest advantage is in air power (16,000,00% stronger) than land (400%). Take advantage of what you do best.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

luv psot, h8 nick, pls change nick thx

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

3/5s of UNSEC is against a resumption of an Iraq war. Certainly seems like they've withdrawn support, even if it's not down on paper.

UNSEC has 15 members, not 5. It remains to be seen exactly what their positions are. That said, if UNSEC wants to try to pass a resolution declaring all resolutions pertaining to Iraq between 687 and 1441, inclusive, to be null and void, that's their prerogative. (The US may or may not choose to veto such a resolution; chances are we would.) Until they do so, the existing resolutions stand, even if the other UNSEC members lack the political will to enforce them.

Remember, chapter VII resolutions, as these are, are binding on all members of the Security Council. The other members have an obligation to enforce the resolutions. If they are unwilling to do so, then that's a failure on their part.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Desert Fox was a few days of airstrikes, which were terminated because it was believed they were successful.

Actually, Desert Fox was terminated because we hit, literally, everything we could find to hit. If we had wanted to continue, we would have been forced to either (1) expand our targets beyond those of a purely military nature to attack civil or, God forbid, civilian facilities, or (b) bounce rubble.

If something doesn't work, there are 2 options: more of the same, or something else.

What leads you to believe that more of the same will work? And by "work" I mean accomplish our goals, that is, force the Iraqi government to comply fully and completely with UNSEC resolutions?

The US military is superior to Iraq's, but it's biggest advantage is in air power (16,000,00% stronger) than land (400%). Take advantage of what you do best.

We have a battle plan on the table right now that calls for the complete destruction of every fixed and mobile target on our list within 48 hours. "Shock and awe," they're calling it. Fixed targets-- like buildings-- will be hit with JDAM or BGM-109 Block 3's that are so accurate it's almost unfair, while moble targets-- like tanks-- will be hit with laser-guided GBU's from F-117's. All told, the plan calls for something like 800 cruise missiles and an unspecified number of B-2 bombing runs hitting upwards of 3,000 targets.

After we execute this plan, what would you suggest we do for the rest of the 3-4 months you talked about? Find more targets or bounce the rubble?

Re:Humane Considerations

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

I doubt Saddam really wants to destroy the US. I doubt he'd even have the technology to do so without being able to it. He knows that he doesn't stand a chance if he were to try and attack the US. Saddam is only interested in bullying the people around him and his own people.

Maybe he does have links with the Al Quada(?). But I'd rather take the risk, because as I said, attacking Iraq is more likely to cause terrorist attacks that prevent any.

If there's any country needs disarming, it's the US, since it has a bad habit of stiring these things up in the first place (take that last comment with a gain of salt).

I think there is still hope in a diplomatic solution. I'm not against dissarming Iraq, I just think using military force is a mistake this early on.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Minna Kirai]

(1) expand our targets beyond those of a purely military nature to attack civil or, God forbid, civilian facilities, or (b) bounce rubble.

(c) Maintain vigilance. The OHOs might grumble, but there's nothing shameful about landing with unexpended ordnance. A cheap option (particularly in the north), since the airstrips and daily patrols are already in place.

After we execute this plan, what would you suggest we do for the rest of the 3-4 months you talked about? Find more targets or bounce the rubble?

A "Scud Hunt", they call it. (although really, other units are targeted as well). It cannot be expected to proceed very rapidly. Like you said, Iraq is a big area. Expecting all useful air targets to be found in 48 hours- even 48 days- is stupidity.

The only way to accelerate the process is to lure Iraqi units into action, by providing them with ground targets they can engage. A rapid land push would achieve this, and trade Army blood for AF fuel.

A partial ground incursion- enter Iraqi terrortory, but stay well inside the NFZ- would be safer. Saddam would be forced to deploy his land forces towards the US incursion. To do otherwise- to leave a US tank company unmolested in the southern desert- would weaken his credibility as a leader.

But, if Iraqi forces are lured into a counterattack, they are very vulnerable. The USAF needs to search a much smaller area to find them, and the targets are forced out of caves and into the open. Running engines creates thermal signatures at night, and radio chatter to coordinate movment also gives away their position. Maybe they'll even kick up a dust trail.

Meanwhile, the further the Iraqi forces get from Baghdad, the less control Saddam has over them. Both due to longer-range communication (which can easily be disrupted), and lower autocratic authority (the army will be more willing to surrender)

Would the token invasion force be at much risk? Not at all. If Saddam does manage to coordinate a push that's too numerous for the AF to disrupt, M1A1s can tear through whatever's left. (Or leverage the US Army's superior mobility into a quick retreat).

Chemical weapons? Yes, maybe Saddam could have a VX-tipped Scud within range. Upgraded Patriots might destroy it- but even it gets through, buckled down US forces are immune to CB attack. It's the cold season in Iraq right now, so it won't kill the guys to spend a few days at MOPP 5 (an exaggeration). Holding a position against chemical attack is fairly easy (especially if you can withdraw back to an uncontaminated area). Gaining ground in the face of CB warfare is more difficult and deadly. Gasmasks reduce tank commanders' vision and infantry's stamina. Waiting for CB detectors to arrive and give the clear slows down all movment. All of the tasks of securing a position (filling sandbags, digging latrines, stringing wire and erecting antennas) are much more difficult and hazardous in an area that may be sprinkled with anthrax.

Plus, as they get further into inhabited Iraq, the chance of civilian casualties increases. Even if the muntions were actually launched by Saddam's men, if US troops are in the area, some victims will decide to blame them. (And become terrorists later. Post-war terrorism killed many more US troops than the actual Desert Storm operation)

(Besides, provoking a CB strike would be the fast-track to UN approval)

Why isn't Bush willing to go for the slower, safer plan? Speculation:

1. Impatience
   
2. Symbolically, wants to restart the Gulf War where his father left off- on the virge of assaulting Bagdad.
   
3. Starting a tentative, progressive invasion would encourage rebellion towards Saddam's rule throughout Iraq (both by Iraqi dissidents, and opportunitistic neighbors). The people in the "liberated" area (everything behind the ground troops) would spread enthusiasm around the country. It might by tantamount to partitioning up the nation. All of the regional border disputes (like the "Kurdistan issue") would begin to flare up. The world, and the voting public, will get a preview of the instability and chaos that will roil a post-Saddam Iraq. And they might not like the looks of it.
   

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

(c) Maintain vigilance.

(Actually, after b comes Roman-numeral iii. It goes 1, b, iii. It's a thing I do. It amuses me, and only me. And I'm okay with that.)

How does maintaining vigilance over Iraqi airspace achieve our goals? Remember, the goal-- the one and only goal-- is to get Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. How does your plan achieve that?

Expecting all useful air targets to be found in 48 hours- even 48 days- is stupidity.

We have these neat things called satellites, and also other high-altitude aerial reconnaissance assets. We already know where the targets are. Fixed targets, like buildings, are identified by lat and long. We'll know generally where the moving targets are-- we'll know that the fourth (armored) brigade of the Special Republican Guard is deployed on the eastern side of the river between Khulafa and Shaikh Omar streets, for example-- and they will be killed by pilots equipped with LANTIRN and other optical technologies. Tanks and other armored vehicles soak up the sun and then glow like little lightning bugs in the infrared after the sun goes down.

A partial ground incursion- enter Iraqi terrortory, but stay well inside the NFZ- would be safer.

Maybe, maybe not, but it still wouldn't accomplish our goal: compliance. Remember that?

Meanwhile, the further the Iraqi forces get from Baghdad, the less control Saddam has over them.

The government will have zero control over their forces about 30 minutes after the war begins. Our cruise missiles and other ordinance will eliminate the government's C3I capabilities almost immediately. We did it in 1991 with weapons that by today's standards seem almost incomprehensibly primitive.

...and lower autocratic authority (the army will be more willing to surrender)

The army will be-- is, in fact-- willing to surrender because the enlisted ranks of the regular army corps are made up of Shiite conscripts. These are the soldiers who surrendered in droves in 1991. The officer corps, as well as the entire Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard, are staffed with Sunnis who are, nominally at least, loyal to the Baath party and to Mr. Hussein personally, but in '91 we saw these soldiers surrendering left and right as well.

Why isn't Bush willing to go for the slower, safer plan?

Keep in mind, please, that President Bush is not planning this war. The overall strategy of the war is largely the brainchild of Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and the actual planning comes from the Joint Chiefs. That pretty much nullifies 1 and 2 from your list. With all due respect, 3 just doesn't make any sense.

The reasons are essentially these:

1. Anything less than a complete invasion of Iraq and the deposition of the Baath government will not achieve our goal of compliance.
2. Given that a complete invasion and deposition is inevitable, a blitzkrieg will put fewer lives, both American and Iraqi, at risk than the tentative approach you suggest.

Does that make it any clearer?

Re:Humane Considerations

[Minna Kirai]

We already know where the targets are.

No, we do not. Analyzing those targets is my job. My company has spent 10 years planning Iraq invasions. We told Cohen what an invasion would be like, and he listened. We told the same to Rumsfeld, but he seems not to care.

Naturally, classification prevents me from getting into details, so you'll have to wait and watch CNN. (Ok, also, my NTK doesn't permit me to see the big picture. But my viewpoint is secondhand from some very smart analysts, I assure you)

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I have learned the hard way that the "I know this is true for reasons I can't or won't discuss" argument doesn't really work too well. I also am privy to a great deal of information that I don't feel comfortable-- or simply can't-- discuss here. But I've learned that the best approach is simply to keep that information to myself and argue with only the facts that are already in the public domain.

The bottom line here is that the leadership of the Department of Defense disagree with your assessment. They think a hundred-hour battle and an up-to-two-year occupation is the way to go to accomplish our goal. (Compliance, remember?) If you can demonstrate that you're more qualified than the leadership of the Department of Defense, or that you've got some information or insight that they lack, then I will be happy to listen to you and give due consideration to what you have to say.

Heck, you may even change my opinion.

Now, that said, we most certainly do know where the targets are. We know where the Special Republican Guard barracks are. (We also know which ones are near which elementary schools.) We know where the telephone switching stations are. We know where the secret police headquarters is. We know where the ministry of propaganda is. We know where Muthena airfield is. We know where the Baath party headquarters is. We know where the Karada and Jumhuriya and Ashudad bridges are. We know quite a bit about Baghdad in particular, and Iraq in general.

Re:Humane Considerations

[SN74S181]

Less chemical and biological weapons in the posession of a madman who has used them against his own people, has committed human rights violations that should make ACLU supporters faint, etc. etc.

Don't buy into the myth that Saddam has popular support. Also don't buy into the myth that the media in any other country is less biased than the media in this country.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Minna Kirai]

We have these neat things called satellites,

They work great in the desert. Not so good in cities or inhabited areas. And if you find a military vehicle in a populated area, do you shoot it at once, maiming 30-50 local folk? Or mark it on the big map and wait until it transits?

Tanks and other armored vehicles soak up the sun and then glow like little lightning bugs in the infrared after the sun goes down.

Not if they're buried in sand, in caves, or inside barns or garages (for maximum "human shield" effect).

A gradual assault will force these assets to come into the open, where they can be targeted and destroyed. A rapid push into the heart of Bagdad simply passes many of these troops by, where they can begin surrounding and harassing overextended US ground forces. Retaliating against them will kill more civilians.

A blatant, inexorable push will leave behind a trail of bound prisoners. An unpredictable blitzkrieg scatters corpses in its wake.

The war doesn't end when an M1A1 reaches the capital. Saddam will have hidden, and we have no idea how long is forces will continue to fight for a ruler in an "undisclosed location". They're used to long incommunicado periods, though.

lat and long

Actually, depending on which service made the detection, several other coordinate systems may have been used. MGRS and UTM for example. (TBM people even use GCC). Latitude and longitude are unwieldy for calling CAS, or to use in a CAOC. (Although with the increasing need for JO, and more use of COTS, thet need to standardize on one system seems to be rising)
(Yes, now I'm just going overboard with obscure acronyms)

LANTIRN and other optical technologies.

LANTIRN is not optical, at least not as that term is used by military survelliance planners. They use "optical" to mean visible spectra only.

Remember, the goal-- the one and only goal-- is to get Iraq to comply with UN resolutions.

No, my goal is to protect myself from terrorist attack.

The US military can, depending on ROE and tactics, sweep into Bagdad with small casualties themselves*. But the deaths amoung the Iraqi people will be high, and the political damage will be severe.

The surivors will be displeased..
The Arab community will be displeased.
The world community will be displeased.

The international opinion that shelters & spawns terrorists will be strengthened.

Terrorists don't need chemical manufacturing facilities to do their work. (Efforts with urban disperal of Sarin have been embarassingly ineffective). What they need is 2-3 zealous people ready to die killing 500 others.

Rushing into a war like this will encourage anti-American sentiment for the next 40 years.

A slower approach creates more opportunities for international acceptance of a plan, more opportunities for Saddam to behave evilly, and more chances for a brave Iraqi to put 2 slugs into him.

How does maintaining vigilance over Iraqi airspace achieve our goals?

My goal- for no one to see the US as an enemy- is well served by the No-Fly Zones, where life is a vertiable paradise. Expanding this step-by-step would show the indigenous people who their friends are, and the eventual retaliation from Saddam would appear as aggression, showing who their enemy is.

*Low total casualties, but much collateral damage, including some US troops. Invading Bagdad could see a fratricide rate of 35%.

Re:Humane Considerations

[SN74S181]

Terrorists are insurgents who attack civillian populations, in order to wreck terror upon them.

Freedom fighers are insurgents who have the support of the civillian population that they fight on the behalf of. Without attacking other civilians.

It has nothing to do with what outside third parties choose to call said insurgent groups.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Minna Kirai]

I have learned the hard way that the "I know this is true for reasons I can't or won't discuss" argument doesn't really work too well.

And yet, the case for attacking Iraq in a hurry is based on those kinds of assertions...

Heck, you may even change my opinion.

Easier to just stay home on Monday and watch CNN. (I need to buy some popcorn...)

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

A gradual assault will force these assets to come into the open, where they can be targeted and destroyed.

Yes, sir, General. A hundred years of military theory disagrees with you, but what do they know? Sorry I ever doubted you, sir. ;-)

No, my goal is to protect myself from terrorist attack.

Wrong. We're not pursuing Iraq because of the Bush Doctrine. We're pursuing Iraq because they invaded Kuwait. We're pursuing Iraq hard, now because of the Bush Doctrine, but that's not the same thing.

It will be difficult to have an intelligent conversation on this subject until you get a grip on the why of this conflict.

Rushing into a war like this will encourage anti-American sentiment for the next 40 years.

Twelve years: longest rush ever.

Rushing into war will encourage anti-American sentiment. Not rushing into war encourages anti-American sentiment. Putting ketchup on a hot dog encourages anti-American sentiment.

People are going to hate America. They're going to hate us because we're the most affluent, the most free, the strongest, the most successful. Pick a reason, and somebody's going to hate us for it. Letting the fact that somebody is going to hate us if we act dictate American policy decisions-- especially in light of the fact that somebody's also going to hate us if we don't-- is foolish.

My goal- for no one to see the US as an enemy- is well served by the No-Fly Zones, where life is a vertiable paradise.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, do you? Veritable paradise? Are you joking?

Re:Humane Considerations

[Minna Kirai]

A hundred years of military theory disagrees with you, but what do they know?

That's what we learned from reviewing Operation Desert Storm. The military has been training to fix this problems since then. We'll soon learn how successful the new techniques & technologies are. Note that Desert Storm was hugely successful militarily, because it hardly resembled any traditional military action. It's a stretch to even call it a "war".

It will be difficult to have an intelligent conversation on this subject until you get a grip on the why of this conflict.

It will be difficult to have an intelligent conversation on this subject until you get a grip on the why of this conflict.

Twelve years: longest rush ever.

Interrupted by multi-year periods of absolutely no progress or planning, it doesn't look like a rush at all. The fact that the US endured 12 years without acting renders current actions suspect.

It would've been rational and consistent to build up into an invasion from 1999 onward. The same conditions existed in 1996, the US could've progressed to an attack then. Or in 1991. Nothing's really changed around Iraq since then.

Launching a war in response to nothing in particular appears capricious and even aggressive. And yes, appearances do matter. Especially in a democracy. By all appearances, Bush woke up last year and proclaimed Bagdad would be conquered in 12 months, then proceeded to look for reasons to do it. And here we are.

Can you tell me of anything that'll change in 3 months, or 9, that'll make waiting (at high readiness) until then any worse? I've got 11 reasons to wait through a few more rounds of watching UN inspectors advance and be rebuffed- assuming a more aggressive posture each time- before the US can honestly say "I've got no other choice; you forced me to do this"

Even Desert Shield gave the troops 3 months to prepare in-theater, and that was responding to a blatant provocation. From the flavor of today's rherotic, it sounds like Bush expects combat by next week. It's just much too soon.

Veritable paradise?

I'm talking about Operation Provide Comfort specifically- the Kurdish northern NFZ. In comparsion to the 70s and 80s, life there today really is a paradise. In some ways, it's even better than nearby Turkish communities.

It is inevitable that the region's people will suffer in the aftermath of a war. Any kind of US pull-out, actually, will open them to attack from jealous neighbors. There's no reasonable way their lucky condition can continue- funded by Saddam, without being oppressed by him- but it would be kind of the US to make the fall as soft as possible.

Re:Humane Considerations

[lfourrier]

Don't buy into the myth that Saddam has popular support.

I dont buy into it. What I'm sure is that, for some poulations, and generaly the poorer, pride and honour are very important. A solution, even good for the people, imposed from the outside, will be badly accepted. And if this solution don't permit the leader to have an honourable way out, he will oppose it, as he is, at least culturaly, obliged to pretend.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

People are going to hate America. They're going to hate us because we're the most affluent, the most free, the strongest, the most successful.

Many in the world hates US because they spend too much time thinking they are the greatest, the only problem is that the world understand that all the 'greatness' you talk about is because other countries are fucked up by it, in every possible way.

On the other hand, you think you are the most free country? Really? The strongest? (sure if to be strong is only a matter of muscle and not brain) Successful? Sure you have to tell in what.

By the way, you're also beliving you're too much when you speak of AMERICA, which is not a country. Or maybe it is, to you?

Re:Humane Considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

I just think using military force is a mistake this early on

Early on??? Iraq has been in direct violation of dozens of UN Resolutions for almost 13 years! We are well past the "early on" stages of this conflict.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Anonymous Coward]

-- "You can take the blue pill, and believe that George W. Bush is president..."

It is readily apparent that you are one of those people still beating the "illegitimate president" drum, which helps make abundantly clear that you're only yammering on like you are because you want to see Bush fail.

Thanks for disclosing your true intentions. It makes dismissing your arguments much easier.

Re:Humane Considerations

[wrt2]

The fact that the Unites States is not perfect is acknowledged in the preamble of the Constitution. While the preamble does not have the force of law, I have no argument with it. But we're not arguing perfection here, are we? You seem to be arguing that giving aid to a nuclear-proliferating state -- Israel -- and undermining nuclear deterrence by threatening "preemptive" nuclear war, all while having an active biological and chemical weapons program and significant amounts of said stockpile unaccounted for is a minor blemish on an otherwise clean record, as opposed to a string of highly illegal actions that citizens of a democracy should not stand for. The United States is a constitutional, democratic republic, and as such its elected officials are not above the law. My argument, which you did not bother to refute, is that the US is not within the law. Some of its transgressions consist of actions which actually undermined enforcement of 687, such as inserting spies into the inspection teams and forcing removal of inspectors prior to Desert Fox. As to kicking the US off of UNSEC, I would rather see UNSEC itself cease to be following full implementation of the NPT and bio- and chemical weapons protocols. The only excuse for having UNSEC is that its permanent members can end life on earth. When that's not true any longer, power should devolve to the General Assembly.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

My argument, which you did not bother to refute...

As I said, your argument is irrelevant. If you have a personal pet cause, that's fine. Good luck with it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the Iraq conflict, which is the topic of our little discussion.

Thanks for contributing your thoughts, though.

Re:Humane Considerations

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Time is relative.
Early on also meaning before we know they will attack someone.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Major Tom]

Not a technicality, not a loophole.

I think I've muddied my own message here. To be clear: the guidelines of the law are not congruent with the guidelines of right conduct. Perhaps I was overly glib in describing our legal case against Iraq as a "loophole." What I am trying to say is that, in pressing on this legal right, we are exploiting a gap between the boundaries of legal and right action. And yes, I'm fully aware that we have been continually engaged in "military activities" in Iraq since 1991. Policing an agreed-upon no-fly zone is, as far as I can tell, both legal and right. Invading, overthrowing, and occupying the capitol is another matter.

I'm not sure yet just how ready I am to assent to the thesis that inspections are useless when the inspectee is unwilling. My uncertainty springs from two sources. First, in addition to willingness, trust between parties is needed. Yes, South Africa appeared willing in their disarmament. But if we didn't trust that appearances reflected reality, we never would have been satisfied with the inspectors declarations; and for good reason: it is impossible to prove constructively a negative. In the end, we are really only confident that SA disarmed because they said they did. Can you imagine any scenario in which the US would declare Iraq's intentions genuine? Did the president deliberately set us on a path he could never be satisfied with when he originally supported inspections?

Second, inspections worked pretty well from '91-'98, with no real help from Iraq. In fact, they worked a heck of a lot better than the war itself did. Something near 80% of stockpiles destroyed due to inspections, right? And even if inspections aren't good at finding secret caches of buried weapons, they seem pretty good at preventing new development. If IAEA is right, and Iraq has no nuke program, they won't be developing one as long as inspectors are there. It worked well in North Korea. I do agree that it would be a lot easier with genuine Iraqi compliance, but that's a lot to expect of any country in a region so volatile. Let alone from a country with an, as you have pointed out, ambitious dictator.

The natural order is for the strong to subjugate the weak. If we don't impose freedom and democracy on Iraq, it will never happen.

Wow, a level of cynicism unmatched in the press! I disagree, of course. Plato, Hobbes, Machiavelli, and most of the founding fathers also disagree. Hobbes is particularly convincing on this point: there is no man so strong that he can't be ganged up on and beaten; no man so clever that he can't be killed while he sleeps. Subjugation doesn't work without the complicity of the people. Given that any government must have the at-least-tacit approval of its people, what is so unnatural about democracy? It seems that the only requisites for democracy and freedom are prosperity and security from external threat. Any time these two things coexist, democracies sprout like weeds. And there are many vastly superior ways of bringing peace and prosperity to the middle east. Better than war and occupation, that is.

Surprisingly, torture, imprisonment, and mass executions work extremely well as a subjucation strategy.

They can work against minorities, yes. I don't buy that a single man, or the Ba'ath party, can forcibly subjugate an entire country. See above authors.

Do you want to wait for them to connect all of those dots?

I know it is hard for you to believe, but yes. I'd at least like to see Iraq start to draw the lines. I suspect this is a point of fundamental dissagreement between us that can't possibly be resolved through discussion. I simply do not think that a risk a future really bad things is justification for present really bad things. Risk is part of living in the world. It can be a scary place. If everyone killed everyone who scared them, or presented a possible future risk, it would be an unliveable place.

Re:Humane Considerations

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Second, inspections worked pretty well from '91-'98, with no real help from Iraq.

On what do you base that conclusion? Between 1991 and 1998, UNSEC passed more than a dozen resolutions condemning Iraq's defiance, and demanding immediate compliance. It finally got to the point in 1998 where Iraq simply declared that they would no longer cooperate with UNSCOM at all. How do you interpret that as "worked pretty well?"

Something near 80% of stockpiles destroyed due to inspections, right?

We haven't the foggiest idea. We have no idea what Iraq's stockpiles consist of. The figure may be 100%, or it may be 10%. We have no way of knowing, because Iraq refuses to tell us.

And even if inspections aren't good at finding secret caches of buried weapons, they seem pretty good at preventing new development.

According to Iraqi defectors, this is not the case. According to defectors, Iraq's nuclear program in 1994 was stronger than it had been before the war:

Four years later, the international agency was so certain that it had eradicated the Iraqi nuclear program that it wanted to end aggressive inspections in favor of passive "monitoring." Then a slew of defectors came out of Iraq ? including Hussein Kamel al-Majid, the son-in-law of Saddam Hussein who led the Iraqi program to build weapons of mass destruction; Wafiq al-Samarrai, one of Saddam Hussein's intelligence chiefs; and Khidhir Hamza, a leading scientist with the nuclear weapons program. These defectors reported that outside pressure had not only failed to eradicate the nuclear program, it was bigger and more cleverly spread out and concealed than anyone had imagined it to be.

In the late 1990's, American and international nuclear experts again concluded that the Iraqi nuclear program was dormant: yes, the scientists were still working in teams; yes, they still had all of the plans; and yes, they probably were hiding some machinery ? but they were not making any progress. Then another batch of important defectors escaped to Europe and told Western intelligence services that after the inspectors left Iraq in 1998, Saddam Hussein had started a crash program to build a nuclear weapon and that the Iraqis had devised methods to hide the effort.

(Kenneth Pollack, "A Last Chance to Stop Iraq," New York Times editorial, February 21, 2003.)

I do agree that it would be a lot easier with genuine Iraqi compliance, but that's a lot to expect of any country in a region so volatile.

I'm a little unclear on this point. Are you saying that we (by "we" I mean both the Allies and UNSEC) should back down from our demands on Iraq which have stood since 1991, and which Iraq has accepted in full, because they're a lot to ask?

Given that any government must have the at-least-tacit approval of its people, what is so unnatural about democracy?

Your premise is incorrect. A government does not need the approval of its people. The Taliban did not have the approval of its people; it stayed in power as long as it did through domination and intimidation. The Baath government does not have the approval of its people; it has stayed in power as long as it has through domination and intimidation. (Incidentally, the House of Saud doesn't have the approval of its people either, but it's stayed in power through appeasement rather than through violence. Better, but still hardly legitimate in the western sense of the word.)

Any time these two things coexist, democracies sprout like weeds.

Democracies have never sprouted like weeds. Ever.

I don't buy that a single man, or the Ba'ath party, can forcibly subjugate an entire country.

Denial is not a valid argument. ;-)

Re:Humane Considerations

[Major Tom]

Your premise is incorrect. A government does not need the approval of its people.

Denial is not a valid argument. ;-) Besides, as I have already said, I have borrowed this premise from Hobbes and Machiavelli, among others. If I don't deserve a better response than "It's obvious that Saddam/Taliban/Saudi Royalty doesn't have the support of his people," surely H and M do. If your thesis is correct, and the powerful few really can subjugate the many weak, then the contractarian basis of American democracy is turned on its head. I don't get the impression that in advocating for war in Iraq your goal is to assail the foundations of American democracy. But it seems to me you've found a clever way to do it, nevertheless.

Democracies have never sprouted like weeds. Ever.

Who imposed democracy in ancient Greece? England? America? Europe? Your reading of western history must be dramatically different from mine. Democracy has been mutating and spreading like a delightful disease at least since Athens. It has never needed to be imposed at gunpoint. The fact that it was at one point in German and Japanese history does not mean they wouldn't have come to it on their own.

Are you saying that we ... should back down from our demands on Iraq which have stood since 1991, and which Iraq has accepted in full, because they're a lot to ask?

No. I'm saying that, when disarmament is imposed at gunpoint, it is naive to expect Iraq to smile and say "thank you sir, may I have another." There is going to be tension, unpleasantness, anger, and machination on both sides of this thing. Whining that "they aren't being has helpful as they could be" is mostly a waste of time. They don't want to disarm. The international community wants to force them to disarm. We certainly shouldn't back down, but we may as well stop complaining, and start looking for ways to make the inspections as effective as possible.

According to defectors, Iraq's nuclear program in 1994 was stronger than it had been before the war

Defector testimony? Really? This sort of testimony has its place, but when it flatly contradicts the findings of IAEA, I know which is the definition of unreliable, and which is not.

Re:Humane Considerations

[mengel]

Sorry, but:

- If the United Nations ordered the United States to disarm, we wouldn't either.

- While British troops did use the smallpox trick, according to this reference, so did we:

See Ann F. Ramenofsky, Vectors of Death: The Archaeology of European Contact (Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press, 1987):

Among Class I agents, Variola major holds a unique position. Although the virus is most frequently transmitted through droplet infection, it can survive for a number of years outside human hosts in a dried state (Downie 1967; Upham 1986). As a consequence, Variola major can be transmitted through contaminated articles such as clothing or blankets (Dixon 1962). In the nineteenth century, the U.S. Army sent contaminated blankets to Native Americans, especially Plains groups, to control the Indian problem (Stearn and Stearn 1945). [p. 148]

See also Robert L. O'Connell, Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons, and Aggression (NY and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989):

- The claims of Iraq "being connected to" Bin Laden have never stated that they did so at any given time. My point was that a claim that vague is easily made about the United States as well.

Re:Humane Considerations

[wrt2]

Gosh, you are correct, US violations of international law and actions undermining implementation of UNSCR 687 have nothing to do with the Iraq conflict, which is all about the oil and dollars, except on Tuesday, when it may have something to do with the abundant water in the Tigris and Euphrates. Thanks for playing. See you at the impeachment!

Article NOT slashdotted

[missing000]

I call bullshit. It works fine for me.

I see.

[JWyner]

And then have the blackhawk control software crash, like the new 7-series BMW control software?

That could be interesting... a "possessed" Blackhawk bombing random targets and crashing into buildings...

Re:I see.

[sstory]

Yeah, Unix never crashes, and I never have to try to SSH into it when it does, and that always works. Right.

open source doesn't mean gpl

[Purificator]

he can design his own open source license, if he so chooses.

i'd be vaguely disturbed if something i wrote went toward killing people, but how you deal with that as a developer would be your choice. ultimately you can't control how people use your code once you release it. after all, the government could choose to ignore his "CUL (civil use license)" and who could stop them? who's to say that windows xp doesn't contain half the linux kernel in it? theft is one advantage of having the closed end of a closed source program.

Re:open source doesn't mean gpl

[tha_mink]

i'd be vaguely disturbed if something i wrote went toward killing people, Not killing....SAVING

Re:open source doesn't mean gpl

[howardjp]

Except, in order to meet the requirements of the Open Source Definition, the license cannot be biased against certain "fields of endeavor." Therefore, if the license prohibited use in war, terrorism, or midget tossing, it would not be open source.

Re:open source doesn't mean gpl

[briancnorton]

i'd be vaguely disturbed if something i wrote went toward killing people

Software kills people like McDonalds made fat people fat.

Re:open source doesn't mean gpl

[JWSmythe]

I've read through this thread, but just kind of randomly chose your message to put my reply on.

Everyone seems to forget about the legal concent of "eminent domain". That is, the government (federal, state, and/or local) has the right to take any property it requires for a public purpose, as long as the owner is compensated fair market value.

I was introduced to the concept when I was a kid. The state was considering a new highway. But, some of the land owners on the proposed route refused to sell. The state was offering slightly over the value of their property to be more than fair. When they were finally ready to do the road, the state took the land, and gave them fair market value for their property.

This interaction wasn't a matter of days or weeks. This went on for years before the state finally said "we're taking it, get off.", so they knew what was coming.

It's a pretty big card for the gov't to play, but it does get played frequently.

The most common use I've heard of is for highway expansion, because people rarely want to give up their homes. In the case of my story above, most of the landholders that wouldn't see were in rusted out mobile homes, and the state was being nice by giving them the opprotunity to live somewhere else, as they would have never sold their property for anything anyways.

In this situation, if the government sees the software as a property that is required to better the public's protection, they'll take a copy, and reimburse the owner fair market value. Unfortunately, that will be $0.00 , since it's free open-source property. They probably wouldn't even notify him that it was being done.

In your example, on the other hand, if WinXP uses Linux kernel source, that doesn't fall under this.. If it's found that they *DO*, they've broken Linus' licensing, and are liable. No matter how much Microsoft would like to belive it, they aren't the gov't.

If the gov't decided they wanted to use Linux to run their new tanks or super-duper death ray gun, and Linus said "no", they would anyways, because the gov't can do anything they want.

Remember that if you do make a prototype of something that would be appealing for gov't use, they may just tell you "it's ours now", and pay you what they feel is appropriate.

I'm keeping the super-duper death ray gun that I have in my closet a secret. :)

Re:open source doesn't mean gpl

[Purificator]

yeah, yeah. guns don't kill people; people do. this doesn't make me want to own a gun or work for smith & wesson.

note i didn't say i'd feel CULPABLE for any damage people did with something i wrote, but that i wouldn't feel good about the result. most people can't just say "i made a neutral tool and have no connection with it."

phil zimmerman, while voicing strong support for and belief in pgp and crypto, still mentioned
how bad he felt that the september 11 terrorsts may have used pgp.

my point isn't that people who write things that get used in unpleasant ways are responsible, but that they need to be aware --and prepared for-- that possibility before they start.

Re:open source doesn't mean gpl

[Purificator]

as far as i know "eminent domain" in the US only applies to real property (not personal property, like your prototype). software is even more fuzzy, there, since the government does not physically take something from the creator (like his land, the classic use of eminient domain).

i'd be interested to hear if the government has ever used eminent domain on personal property, even though i don't think it applies
to software.

Re:open source doesn't mean gpl

[Minna Kirai]

Unfortunately, that will be $0.00 , since it's free open-source property.

As you said, the government doesn't enjoy invoking it's rights of Eminent Domain, because there's so much paperwork and doublechecking before the forced sale can move through. They really have to demonstrate that free-market purchasing has failed before this step can be taken.

If they wanted any piece of software or IP, they would certainly try to purchase it conventionally before starting the seizure process. And, if when they tried to obtain it, the author asked for some value greater than $0.00 in compensation, then they couldn't later claim that it cost zero dollars. The original developer could solicit a quote from SAIC or some other government software contractor, asking how much they would charge to deliver a product of equivalent functionality.

They probably wouldn't even notify him that it was being done.

I can tell you from experience that this is not the case. For one thing, actual government employees rarely do much programming. It's delegated to contractors with virtually the same legal status as Microsoft. (And, anything written by a 100% government employee is public domain anyway, so it's very likely the original author will get a copy of the changes offered him)

If the gov't decided they wanted to use Linux to run their new tanks or super-duper death ray gun, and Linus said "no"

He's already said yes, back when he choose the GPL license for his project. Linux is already used in some tanks (just experimental things, not fielded yet)

the gov't can do anything they want.

That may be nearly true, but most of us like to pretend there are things they can't do. But it's always true that "National Security" trumps many things, and in the past few years it may have become even more powerful.

Mod parent DOWN -- It's NOT slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is NOT slashdotted -- it works fine. Besides, if you are going to cut-and-paste the story to help others, you should do it ANONYMOUSLY! This is the most blatant attempt at karma whoring I've seen in quite awhile. Mods, please cut him down to teach him and others a lesson!

Re:Mod parent DOWN -- It's NOT slashdotted

[Anonymous Coward]

hahaha - you fag, you fell victim to one of the oldest tricks in the book! Of course it's not slashdotted - it's on NewForge's server which is part of the OSDN network! you fucking retard.

Because if the US military...

[Anonymous Coward]

...is willing to break international law to wage a unilateral war, they sure are going to obey some stupid provision in a modified GPL. Yeah.

Re:Because if the US military...

[Highwayman]

Almost every single copy of any software that I have used while in the military has been pirated (Blackhawk pilot in the Army 5 years). Can't say that the intent to disregard rules is malicious, but often down where "the rubber meets the road" users will do whatever they need to get the job done. Often IT in the military is poorly funded and as a result information managers (some poor person chosen to do the job on top of their regular job) "acquire" software. As far as finding out if someone is using GPL code, I assume you would have to file a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request which now, more than ever, thanks to Aschroft is very easy to deny.

By the way, when you crash the Blackhawk simulator you get a red-screen-of-death. I'd love to see a tux screen saver while the simulator reboots.

Re:Because if the US military...

[Anonymous Cowtard]

Unilateral? My understanding of that is "go it alone". Lets look at the list of supporting countries of war against Iraq:

1. Britain
2. Australia
3. Italy
4. Spain
5. Denmark
6. Portugal
7. Kuwait
8. Qatar
9. And more...

Now, I know the use of "unilateral war" is a great rhetoric-filled way to drum up opposition for the action, but, well... it's a falsehood. Try again?

Re:Because if the US military...

[Anonymous Coward]

The War tecnically never ended. Saddam Hussein was given 90 days to disarm after the Gulf War of 1991 according to the cease fire. He has violated the cease fire, so firing will commence once again, just because the previous U.S. administration didn't think that enforcing an agreement was a top priority, doesn't mean that doing it now is wrong. Obviously many people agree, showing the number of countries supporting action in Iraq. Do I want war, no I don't, only phycopaths do, but it is sometimes the only option left.

Re:Because if the US military...

[the_raptor]

QUOTE Unilateral? My understanding of that is "go it alone". Lets look at the list of supporting countries of war against Iraq: END QUOTE I think you should say governments! I am an Australian who does not currently support the invasion of Iraq (I believe North Korea is more of a threat, and I doubt the sense of trying to prop up Afghanistan and Iraq at the same time). Most polls here say (if you can trust them) that the MAJORITY of people are against invasion. Whatever our government says I dont believe the Australian people actually want war. So much for being a democracy. James

Re:Because if the US military...

[Tyreth]

Could you please immediately remove Australia from that link. Little Johnny Howard is gung ho for war, but a majority of us here are unsupportive of it unless the UN sanctions it. I do _not_ want people to think that Australia supports America in this, we Australians do not. Get UN support first, then we'll talk.

Re:Because if the US military...

[kpeerless]

If you bother to check you'll find that none of the countries on your list have populations who support their governments in this.

The dude in Italy is up on corruption charges and the turkey in Spain is a real beauty... used to be a registered member of the Fascist Party and was a staunch supporter of the old Franco regime.

One suspects that there have been some fairly heavy bribes paid to get some of these idiots to sign on.

For real international news try

Re:Because if the US military...

[LordMazza]

Yeah, the Australian people don't support a war, but our government does, so that basically puts us on the list. If it makes you feel any better Tyreth I don't think the majority of British subjects support the war either. Oh well, at least we'll get to exercise our democratic right to show John Howard what we think in a couple of years...

Re:Because if the US military...

[nairolF]

Well done, you've produced a list of governments who support a war on Iraq. If by contries you actually mean the majority opinion of the citizens in those countries, your list reduces roughly to "Kuwait, Israel".

You're right, this isn't unilateral, it's trilateral. In world of 180+ countries that's just so much better.

Re:Because if the US military...

[Spaham]

If I may say so, your list is simply wrong. The governments might be for the war but the people are against it in the following countries: britain, italy, spain, portugal... (don't know about the others) Have you seen what bush is doing to convince countries ? how many billion dollars the us is gonna give them to have their leaders be pro-bushwar ? get some real facts, please.

Re:Because if the US military...

[Anonymous Coward]

And let's look at the list of countries putting their money where their mouths are by committing troops to support the US:

Britain
Australia

And if the US goes in without UN sanction you can cross both those off the list anyway... The leaders of both nations would have a near-revolution on their hands if they went in without the UN.

*That's* what "unilateral war" means: the US deciding that it will attack Iraq because it says so and the UN can get stuffed.

Those nations you listed are supporting the US *in the context of a vote in the Security Council*, in otherwords a multilateral decision. If the Security Council still voted a US-led attack down, do you reckon they'd support the US attacking anyway? Pig's backside they would!

I have no problems...

[Cyno]

with my government using open source software to fight terrorists...

as long as they...

don't call me a terrorist.

Re:I have no problems...

[charon_on_acheron]

[ComicBookGuy]

Worst haiku . . . ever.

[/ComicBookGuy)]

Closed Source

[st0rmcold]

Iraqis are allowed to buy Microsoft Flight Simulator to enhance their techniques, as well as Microsoft Excel to keep track of their renegade bombing missions. I don't see any difference with them having access to opensource, except that m$ dosen't make money from them.

Re:Closed Source

[Anonymous Coward]

"renegade bombing missions"? you must be slow or something...

Premises?

[aardvarkjoe]

This article starts out by claiming that Free Software and GPL supporters are both "anti-war." (A very nebulous term in itself; anti-war can mean a lot of different things.) Last I checked, your opinions on software licensing didn't dictate or even hold particular relevance to your opinions on war. I'm sure that you can find people who consider themselves to be FS or OS supporters who have all sorts of differing opinions on war.

When somebody tries to start their argument by stating something like that as fact, it really reduces their credibility.

Re:Premises?

[aardvarkjoe]

Huh. That'll teach me to read the /. karma whore's version rather than the real thing. To anyone who read the article above, the poster didn't include the word "Some" that starts the first sentence. (Or read the original; it's not actually slashdotted.)

Since when is open source a "we"?

[Alea]

The question itself is flawed. Why should participants in the open source movement as a whole take any particular position? Surely that's up to each individuals?

This "we should" or "we shouldn't" is the kind of factionalism that starts wars in the first place.

The problem of evil

[FearUncertaintyDoubt]

Software is a tool. It can be used for good or evil. The freedom to use the tool is always a good thing. How the tool is used is the responsibility of the user, not the tool-maker. This is the fundamental problem we are facing with DRM, EULAs, Palladium, etc. -- it is trying to restrict and control freedom which is inherent to the tool.

Any free/open source software developer should be aware of the ramifications of allowing freedom of use of their software. I think people look at OSS in a very pollyana fashion, thinking it will only be used for helping children find lost puppies or curing cancer or something like that. If you give power to someone, including through software, the temptation is there to use it for evil. It's sad because most OSS types are genuinely interested in the betterment of others, not themselves. But the reality is that you have to make the choice whether to release it.

Should Open Source developers help the U.S ....

[Anonymous Coward]

no, we'd loose.
open sores sucks.

Personal Choice

[Hungus]

This of course is as simple and as complex as you want it to be.

For the pure Open Source Developer I would suppose the answer is "Its the code I do it all for the code" and so it is truely free software/libraries ect.(free as in beer)

For the Hawks its "For Freedom, God, Country and GNU/BSD" not nesc. in that order

For Doves its probably something like "No Software/War for oil"

Others it may well be: "What does my software have to do with anything related to terrorism/war? Who cares"

and then finally for the rest it is a balance of all of the above and more.

I personally think that everything we do has an effect one way or another. We should be aware of it and be aware of the consequenses.

GOATSEX LINK IN ARTICLE! PLZ MOD DOWN, THX

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a goatse.cx link in this post. Please mod it down so other /. readers aren't tricked into viewing it.

Open Source and Nations

[borkus]

One of the things that struck me is how much Open Source is dependent on international development. Just off of the top of my head, Linux and Python were started outside of the US. Now, both are supported by developers around the world. Historically, nations have viewed techological advances as national resources, both out of national pride as well as national security. However, Open Source software is inherently borderless.

This would appear to some to make Open Source a security risk, but it isn't necessarily so. To play in the open source game, you have to be a contributor. So you need to be a nation that develops people with strong technical skills and keeps them. You also have to allow those people access to other people around the world in order to share ideas.

Saddam Hussein may get some benefit from Open Source, in that it gives him software that is free distributable. However, I would imagine it's rather difficult attracting and retaining technical talent in a regime as oppressive as his. In short, despots may be able to use Open Source software, but they'd have a hard time leveraging it fully without free and open communication with the rest of the world.

It's also further proof of the interdependence of developed countries upon each other.

Re:Open Source and Nations

[mauri]

Hey! Saddam can even contribute to our code with no problem. Iraq has internet cafes and such, why do we think there are no software developers who contribute?

Even people who match US definition of "terrorist" can contribute and I'm sure there are many of them, to open software. Does it make open software worse?

Free Sami Al-Arian !!!

If They Used Windows...

[Anonymous Coward]

...the U.S. military is using Free and Open Source software (in simulator-based training for Blackhawk helicopters)

Coming soon: Black Hawk Down II: Blue Screens of Death, Literally

Way cool!

[TopShelf]

I'm sure terrorists somewhere have an apache webserver running, it's not like the "developers helped them become terrorists by giving them a tool to create a membership database."

Wow, I didn't know they ran webservers from those Apache attack helicopters!

Re:Way cool!

[Beatbyte]

(Score:-29764, Not Funny)

it's simple

[g4dget]

If you are a US military employee or draftee and you are told to work on the software, you do it because you are obligated to. If the US military pays you to do it and you like the money and don't mind working for them, you do it.

If they ask for a feature or bug fix without paying, it's like any other open source project and any other feature request: you have no obligation to do anything for whatever reason. You have a perfect right to decide for yourself if this is something you want to volunteer your time for. There is absolutely nothing wrong with telling the US military, like any other open source user, that if they want a feature, they can hire you to implement it.

But don't worry: Rumsfeld will probably invoke some sort of "emergency draft procedure for skilled individuals", used to force open source developers for free. After all, it's only big companies like Lockheed and Microsoft that should receive the benefit of our tax dollars.

Re:it's simple

[Anonymous Coward]

Gadget.

You forgot to include your usuall dose of whining about qt and qt embedded and evils of abandoning X etc..

Re:it's simple

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I'm just not as single minded and zealous as you are. Besides, with friends like you, the poor folks working on the KDE project are burdened enough.

Unfortunately....

[callipygian-showsyst]

...if GPLs had statements restricting their use for military purposes, then no government agency would ever use Linux, GNU, FreeBSD, Macintoshes (with Darwin.)

If you want to ensure Microsoft has a monopoly, then adding political baggage to Free Software Licences seems like a great way to do that.

Re:Unfortunately....

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately... (for the the accuracy of your comment), BSD and Darwin aren't released under the GPL.

Re:Unfortunately....

[Anonymous Coward]

BSD != GPL.

Look at the bright side.

[supabeast!]

The government is going to use someone's code one way or the other. If the government is using crappy proprietary code that has not been through the open-source peer review, military systems are at a greater risk of failure. Failures when lives are on the line mean that even MORE people die. At least if some quality open-source is used, there is a smaller chance of bugs causing more death on both sides.

Oh no!!!

[ucblockhead]

You mean that the government could use my GPL'd Winamp plugin for military purposes!?

Oh crap...the thought of my software being used to kill Iraqi children is just too much to bear...[sob]

Re: Oh no!!!

[m3573]

Never underestimate the military potential of apparently innocent stuff: i recall a note in my old K2000's manual (it's a hardware synth/sampler) which prohibited the use of its dsp chips for military purposes like missile guidance systems.

Re:Oh no!!!

[dwillden]

You mean that the government could use my GPL'd Winamp plugin for military purposes!?

Well,
As I enjoy listening to Music while working, and I Used Winamp to listen to the MP3 cd's I prepared before getting deployed on my last peacekeeping mission, and since I am in the Military. I guess I could be using your GPL'd Winamp Plugin for military purposes!.
I hope you don't mind....
Correction, I really don't care, as every system I had access to had winamp on it when I got there.

Proud to protect your Freedom to protest my providing your freedom to protest my pro... you should get the idea. Remember freedom isn't free, it has a very expensive cost that can only be paid in blood.

Re:Oh no!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ya know, technically you can't distribute a GPL'd winamp plugin as it must link to winamp which is not GPL (nor do you have the right to make it GPL).

(yes, I know, I'll die alone and unloved.)

Amageddon 0.8

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush prepares for war. With a simplistic view of the Near East he will spill fire and and encourage terrorism. Nobody can stop him anymore not even old European allies of the US.

However everybody is obliged to resist. The internet provides you with the ability to be better informed than media industry. The internet is a perfect tool against governmental desinformation.

I suggest you to read the bible. What would Jesus do? Bush say he knew the Bible but he does not read it.

Software is only a tool, but...

[gentlewizard]

there are horizontal applications (Apache, PGP) that are useful for a lot of purposes, and there are vertical applications (Blackhawk training simulators) that have a specific purpose. As a developer, if I write a horizontal application, I don't think I should be able to restrict who can use it or what they use it for, because that leads to a loss of freedom in general.

But...

If I write an application whose sole purpose is to train people to use expensive flying machines to kill people, the problem is not with my software licensing, it's with my choice of projects.

The Morality of making a hammer.

[jellomizer]

When you release a tool out to the public wether being a program or a hammer. You will have to expect that people are going to use your tool in different ways and in many of which you dont expect or perhaps dont agree with. Those are part of the risks you have to take when you release software under OSS licences. You risk that people who you dont want to have you software will have it.
If release an open source program, is just like if you made a hammer and mass produced it. they are both designed to be tools to help improve ones life, and both are easaly available to the public, (assuming you hammer design wasnt pattented) and can copied and manuplited. Now should you feel morality responcible because you hammer was more effient or cheaper then someone else hammer that a military used you design and started using it to help a military? Of course not it is a tool attended to make a job easier.
Its your right to oppose war but one shouldnt feel morally responcible if something you did helped out the war effert. Because the war will still continue without your effert. They would just use more Tax money (that you are paying anyways) to make or buy the tools themself. We have been going to war for thousands of years, before open source software has even been consived.
As in the case as OSS software for flight simulators and the like you should at least get a better consiousness that you are at least making sure the solders are better trained to so they are safer in their activites and more effective in their targets. War is not pritty can clean but at least to modern technology of the last couple of decades causualtys on both sides of a formal war is lessen. So your program helped the solder knock out a telecomunication complex. compared without you program the governmet that will go to war anyways will drop carpet bombing all over the city.
Killing people is a side effect of war not the point of it. The point of war is to nutralize a threat inorder to make a statment or to gain power to change a situation.
I am not pro-war I would much rather have a peacefull situation but if there is one I much rather have the least amount of death as possible on both side and if OSS programs can help that I am all for it.

GPL Iraq?

[elflet]

From the interview:
War or no war, this man needs killing like a rabid dog. And Iraq needs to be free.

Free?! What version of GPL should I use for a country>?

Re:GPL Iraq?

[Eberlin]

That'd be GNU/Iraq to you, buddy!

Is that free as in beer or free as in say something bad about the government and mysteriously disapp

But wait... there is more...

[Keebler71]

Those same helicopters are used for search and rescue as well as to deliver humanitarian aid. Do you believe that the military should not be allowed to use linux on their computers too? How about the defense contractors... they're using linux to design future weapons... What about the movie industry... again using linux for special effects in movies that glorify war. While you are at it, why don't you boycot swingline as I just used their stapler to staple together my report on how best to employ napalm against women and children.

Re:But wait... there is more...

[Anonymous Coward]

Em, excuse me, I, I believe you have my stapler

Canada? Where's that??

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't that the tiny little backwoods place north of New York?

GNU Baby Killing Mill

[Anonymous Coward]

It's obvious that Free Softare can not restrict the usage. It is available for all to use for any purpose. Morally that must be the case to ensure Freedom.

Once Richard Stallman said that someone should make a machine to grind up babies and turn them into lubrication for tanks and guns. If they did, then he would write the software to operate it and release it under the GPL.

The point of this is not that he supports that goal. He doesn't. The point is that Free Software must be Free and must be Free for All. If it is not then it inherently loses its value and might as well be proprietary.

Some notes on open source code:

[Anonymous Coward]

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are dimmer than dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Consider that you are SAVING lives

[YrWrstNtmr]

If OS software helps the military be more efficient, then the developers of such are helping save lives.

1. The inspection team lead, Hans Blix, has said that the small concessions to Resolution 1441 Iraq is making are due to the current show of force by the US/UK and others. If not for that, he would simply be continuing to blow the UN off. So, the feared war may not happen. Scare him into submission.

2. If it comes to war, a more efficient military would be able to win sooner, with fewer losses on either side.

3. A better trained and equipped fighting force will be able to hit the actual military targets better, will less collateral damage. Or would you prefer we revert to WWII-style carpet bombing with 100+ aircraft to hit a particular building?

4. Whether they use OS or proprietary, if the decision is made, they WILL go to war. "Oh no...we can't use ProjectX. The developer has said we can't use it for military purposes!" does not enter into the decision.

So, by the military using the best software for the task (open, closed, whatever works the best), they are better able to prosecute and finish combat action.

Coders...start your keyboards!

Re:Consider that you are SAVING lives

[swordgeek]

One point.

If it comes to a war? The US has over 50,000 troops over there! There's no way they're going to bring the boys home without giving them something to shoot at first.

One other issue with "restricting" Open Source.

[taliver]

If you decide that there are certain types that shouldn't use it, all of a sudden you are responsible for those who do use it.

For example, since the telephone system makes no attempt to monitor who uses the phones, they are not responsible for crimes planned with them. If they started monitoring for reason 'A', then people could sue with, 'Well, you stopped people doing A, but my guy was hurt because you didn't stop them from B'

So then the question becomes, how much effort are you going to go through for your licensing. I mean, will you say that any protest group shouldn't use it, or any private schools with religous leanings shouldn't use it?

Why bother with the restrictions-- and if you are really paranoid anyway, what's going to stop the government from using it for their oh-so-evil-and-nefarious purposes and jus not telling you about it?

baby-mulching machines

[Luyseyal]

Free software has always prided itself on being useful in baby-mulching machines... I don't see how war is any different.

(seriously, just google for "baby-mulching machines")

-l

Why is it automatically assumed.....

[NDPTAL85]

.... that all Open Source developers are against the war?

Hmm....

[M.C. Hampster]

Free as in death?

Re:Hmm....

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

Free as in oil ;)

Re:Hmm....

[M.C. Hampster]

Or Free as in Iraq. :-)

I guess I'm slow

[sirgoran]

I'm still trying to figure out why we need to go to war?

There hasn't been any proof given to the UN or provided by the US or any other contry that proves that Iraq has or is building weapons of mass distruction. I mean its been a while since Iraq has tried to do anything against it's neighbors or the US, so why are we going to war? It wasn't Iraq that caused the attack on the twin towers, it was Osama and his followers and we've done a good job shutting down most of his group, but what is the reason for going to war?

Anyone want to explain it for me?

-Goran

Re:I guess I'm slow

[Anonymous Coward]

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are dimmer than dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Re:I guess I'm slow

[SuiteSisterMary]

There also hasn't been any proof from Saddam that he's disarmed in compliance with various UN resolutions.

What it all boils down, to, though, is that if you say 'Bark, or I'll smack you,' and the other person doesn't bark, you damn well better smack them, or don't count on having any credibility.

Well, the US said 'bark, or we'll smack you,' and Saddam has been saying 'meow!' So, the US has to do some smacking. Granted, they probably shouldn't have said 'bark, or we'll smack you' in the first place, and left the thing as a bit of a festering mess, but that's a different discussion.

Re:I guess I'm slow

[swordgeek]

You just answered your own question.

The US has *NOT* done a good job of dealing with bin Laden. He's still alive, al Qaeda is still active, anti-US sentiment is at an all-time high in the middle east. What better way to distract people from the failure of dealing with al Qaeda than a war they're guaranteed to win with someone who the US public knows as a Bad Guy? Hussein has thumbed his nose at the US so many times that he has a callous on it, and yet he hasn't really done anything in GWB's regime to justify a war. That alone is probable cause for a war.

The whole "weapons of mass destruction" argument is such a sick joke that it gives me hives. Tell me again which is the ONLY country in the history of the human race to use nuclear weapons against another country? Tell me which country has the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction? Oh that's right, it's the holier-than-thou US.

North Korea is violating UN resolutions left, right, and centre; but the US is still happily supporting them. The US is promising to tear up the 1972(?) international nuclear non-proliferation treaty and also start developing chemical/biological weapon programs, but they don't see anything wrong with THEMSELVES doing it. No, it's only when an arrogant Enemy Dictator(tm) with huge oil reserves (another important point) gives them half an excuse to start a guaranteed-to-win war which will distract the population from how ineffective they've been elsewhere that they MUST go to war for the good of the world.

How's that?

Re:I guess I'm slow

[Anonymous Coward]

NOTE: I do not necessarily agree with everything, or have proof to back it up. Some of it is fact, some of it is opinion based on good logic, and some of it is rampant speculation.

Why are we going to war. First off, let's be realistic. This is not about oil, at least not in the way the protesters present it. That's just disingenuous. Ironically, the biggest opponents to the war (Russia, France, China) are some of the biggest beneficiaries of the "Oil for Food" program with Iraq. They're actually most concerned about war. Some evidence has been presented to justify war. It convinced some people (like Spain and much of Eastern Europe) and other remain unconvinced (yourself, the French, the Germans). Hans Blix has come very close in the last few days to saying that Saddam has not been and will not ever cooperate with weapons inspectors, and so neeeds to be taken out. So, if Saddam is not cooperating, then the UN's resolution on Iraq demands that action be taken.

However, there is still the question of why the US wants to invade Iraq in the first place. He really hasn't done anything in quite sometime. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq supports/-ed al-Qaeda. And yet, since the earliest days of the war on terror, Iraq has been part of the plan (according to some leaked documents). Why?

OK. Here's the rampant speculation:
Iraq is a very large, and Oil-rich nation. In order to wage war, the US will need oil. Considering the volatitlity of the region, the middle east could cut off oil supplies at any time. This is especially a concern if the war on terror turned to some other middle eastern nation, one that was more religious and theocratic. Now then, the 800lbs gorilla standing quietly in the room while all of this is going on is Saudi Arabia. 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were from SA, and there is evidence that people in the gov't might have been giving financial aid to al-Qaeda. The Us might simply be invading Iraq in order to have a staging are to wage war against SA (and probably the rest of the ME, as they'll be up in arms about their brutal, ass-backwards, oppressive, terrorist breeding brethren in SA being invaded). Iraq provides a good location for waging this war (central location, lots of oil, access to the Persian Gulf, lots of chemical and biological weapons (j/k, maybe)).

but that's just my opinion. i could be wrong.

Re:I guess I'm slow

[LinuxGeek]

Iraq admitted to having certain amounts of VX gas, bioweapons and longrange missles after they surrendered in 1991. They were then ordered by the U.N. to destroy all of these weapons.

Jump to 2002 and intelligence information points to quite a few terrorist cells having access to or possesion of the same types of chemical and biologic weapons. Iraq is asked for proof that they destroyed the items and they cannot provide proof of anything being destroyed after the inspectors were forced out of Iraq in 1998. Very large amounts of chemical and biologic weapon materials were destroyed by the original inspectors, an estimated 80-90% of their weapon stockpile. The inspectors themselves said that they would have no way to estimate the rebuilding of the weapon stockpile after they had been gone for six months.

The discovered and destroyed amounts of chemical and biologics are less than the the amounts admitted to by Iraq in 1991 so they must still have at least the difference between the declared and destroyed amounts( 10-20% of the declared amounts). They cannot or have not produced documentation proving that they have destroyed the remainder. That small percentage of what remained is still enough to kill huge numbers of people even if they haven't produced any more. Evidence suggests that they have pursued equipment capable of producing biologics and keeping them in a powdered form in stasis. Easily transported and undetectible, reactivated when they come into contact with water.

Why do you say "There hasn't been any proof given to the UN or provided by the US..."? Do some research, don't take what I wrote as truth without other supporting information. Watching the news dosen't count as research.

Re:I guess I'm slow

[NullProg]

Why do we need to explain anything to you. Can't you look up the information yourself and make an informed opinion? Anyway, disseminate this article for starters:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,6786 10 ,00.html

Also, all this week the History Channel is showing documentaries on Iraq.

Enjoy,

Re:I guess I'm slow

[aengblom]

Well, you asked! ;-). We are off-topic, so moderators. Moderate with abandon.

You can start by watching Parliament debate it. Blair made some very persuasive arguments (better than I will in the few minutes I'm spending here). link

The basic idea is that Hussein attacked Kuwait. He surrendered under certain demands, but he has failed to meet them. "Peace" was granted only because of those demands. However, he has never met those demands. He has tried to get out from under them. In other words, "we" have been at war with Iraq for 12+ years.

There is a moral argument. It's a brutal regime by itself and the current "containment" program (sanctions) has made it even worse. He will be able to threaten millions in the middle-east and beyond.

There is a legal argument. Iraq has not met U.N. demand. Some countries/people want absolute and definitive proof of weapons. This is nearly impossible -- even with complete compliance with inspections. Iraq is big. ABC's (Atomic, Biological, Chemical) are small.

There is a common sense argument. Can we point to the ABC weapons? No, at least not with unclassifiable data. (Read, the value of having the ability to get the information is to high to give up for the political benefit). However all reason points to him having these weapons. Further, Hussein has prooven time and time again the willingness to back down just before war. As troops move back home, he rachets up the rhetoric and his weapons programs. (Fool me one, shame on you. Fool me five times... shame on me)

There is a strategic argument. If the U.N. can't uphold its promise of disarmament (do it voluntarily or we'll do it by force) because it rejects forece, then it is a body that will not be taken seriously by the world. It would then become powerless. Hussein would then go Kim Jung Il on us, put together a nuclear program and cause some serious havoc in the region.

On Sept. 11: Personally, I am not quite convinced on the links between Iraq and Sept. 11. Bin Laden and Hussein are -- at best -- "enemy of my enemy is my friend" types. Still, Sept. 11, showed the possibility for small powers to do great damage to the Western world. It was a realization that to protect our lives--one cannot

My reservations are: 1) End game -- can we build safer, better state within Iraq 2) Will the cities go black-hawk-down on us 3) Will the economic and political cost for (my) country--the United States be to great to bear alone. 4) After this, can we afford the even more expensive task of building greater relationships with the rest of the world. It will be difficult to put down this active enemy, but it will be much more difficult to make the more passive ones friends.

But those are mine.

P.S. The worst, however, has been much of Europe's unwillingness to even threaten war. If the allies had acted more as one, it seems to me war might have been less likely.

Re:I guess I'm slow

[SoupIsGoodFood_42]

The US's business plan goes something like this:

1) Sell weapons of mass destruction to Iraq
2) Profit
3) Claim that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and should be dissarmed
4) ???
5) Profit!!!

Re:I guess I'm slow

[geekoid]

As much as they try to intertwine them, o the best of my knowledge those are two sepperate things.
Iraq signed an agreement after the last war, and has failed to uphold there end of it. They have also happered UN inspection teams constantly.
That is the 'official' reason.in summary, of course.

It is also a great distraction from 3 other things:
1)Horrible economy
2)Haven't caught Osama
3)N.Korea has a million man well trained army and nuclear missles that can reach the US.

If Saddam caught and turned Ossama over to the US,and made it very public, the Bush administartion would loose what little support they are getting from US citizens.

Re:I guess I'm slow

[sirgoran]

I guess its the xenophobic in me, but shouldn't the US get its own house in order before it starts forcing its demands or will on another country? I guess I feel that my government should spend more of its time at home rather than outside its borders.

Granted, Hussein hasn't provided documents to prove he doesn't have the weapons anymore. But I would have to ask that even if he did, would we believe him? Seems to be a case of Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

As I sat and read through some of the recent legislation that has been passed (The Patriot Act) I really begin to wonder what it is that is going on in Washington. Granting wide sweeping power to allow search and seizure of records, property, etc. all in the name of Homeland Security leaves me wondering what country I'm living in. That people can be held without trial, or tried in a military tribunal without public knowledge orbeing allowed to present a defence worries me.

Is it possible that Bush is just using Iraq as an excuse to make a power grab or to place himself as a possible dictator?

After all, with the patriot act, opposing the "current government" and its "policies" can land you in jail. And wouldn't anyone that runs against Bush in the next election, run the risk of possibly being labeled a threat to national security and jailed? I know its far fetched, but still, the powers being given to the CIA, FBI and other agencies to monitor, track, investigate, hold, jail and question anyone for any reason even without probible cause can't be a good thing. It bothers me that a president would pass and sign anything that sets aside the bill of rights for its citizens. Sacrificing freedom in the name of securing freedom seems like too much to ask. It reminds me of the old saying of "We want peace so much we're willing to go to war for it."

I don't know what the answers are, but the questions are making my head hurt!

Thanks,
-Goran

Re:I guess I'm slow

[Junta]

I don't think going full force against Iraq for crimes the US has failed to prove is the correct choice of action.

If the US does have *proof* of what the US alleges, it should be brought to the attention of the allies. If whatever evidence the US can present isn't convincing enough to sway allies, then it isn't enough to go to war. Going to war without the support of the allies and against the desires of the allies is bad. *If* Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, they sure as hell can't do anything with them right now under the scrutiny of the world. The US can afford to be patient in this matter.

It is *really* hard to believe anything the US government puts out about this issue. It is clear, the US are going to attack very soon, disregarding the position of all of its allies, disregarding the protests of the people. Iraq *knows* this, and is now faced with two options:
1) Destroy the missles, make themselves look good and appease most of the U.N. In doing so, making themselves weaker, and the US will attack anyway, because they don't give a damn.
2) Keep the missles. Piss off more of UN. Face more opponents in a war. Come out looking bad and beaten.

They cannot win in this situation. Hussein requests a internationally televised debate between him and Bush. Bush refuses to take it seriously. Why the hell not? No matter what Bush thinks, he should at least give the *appearance* he is interested in letting both sides be known and letting the people see them. If Bush's convicitons are right, why should he fear a debate? He certainly cannot claim the matter is too insignificant, it is a very critical issue for the whole world.

Also, saying explicitly that no matter how many protest in the US, he will not be swayed is boneheaded. The president is supposed to represent and accomodate the will of the people. If 60% of the people protested and he refuses to be swayed, he wouldn't be fulfilling his duty.

And if it is truly about getting rid of a dangerous tyrant, why the *hell* are they ignoring N. Korea, saying they are innocuous? Even if Iraq has weapons, they lack the delivery capability. N. Korea seems to have the capability to strike US Soil, and they make it public knowledge and make repeated threats. The US response comes off as 'Oh that silly N. Korea, they're harmless, ignore their nukes and delivery capacity, now Iraq, they are dangerous, they *might* have a warhead.. somewhere.... maybe... let's go attack iraq and liberate the iraqi oil... err people!'

*Maybe* the US military has good reason and evidence for an assault, I wouldn't doubt it. But even if they do have right on their side, they sure as hell are not handling it in a manner that looks good in the eyes of the world. Don't withold evidence. At least *pretend* to participate some in peaceful approaches to the issue (i.e. debate). Act consistantly towards threats (don't ignore N. Korea if your sole justification for war is to pre-empt aggressive nations.)

I know, Saddam and his regime isn't good. I know they are likely lying about a lot of things. But the US *cannot* just pretend the rest of the world's opinion and view does not matter. Everyone knows that ultimately this is about getting oil so those SUVs can keep on wasting that gas. If they treated N. Korea the same way and at least appeared to participate in peaceful, diplomatic approaches, the US would look a lot better.

Re:I guess I'm slow

[aengblom]

Shouldn't the US get its own house in order before it starts forcing its demands or will on another country? I guess I feel that my government should spend more of its time at home rather than outside its borders.

Because isolationism and appeasment has worked so well in the past. Yay WW1, WW2, Kosovo, Rawanda (oops never went).

Don't forget, Bush came into office with the intent on pulling back from Clinton's "loony" policies in Kosovo, Somalia and Hati.

Granted, Hussein hasn't provided documents to prove he doesn't have the weapons anymore. But I would have to ask that even if he did, would we believe him? Seems to be a case of Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

In mid-90s, there was proof--he did have an illegal (internationally) program. He says he's stopped, but has no paper work etc to even say that. Hussein is renowned for documenting EVERYTHING. He's gotten 12 years--and it's a pretyt pitiful showing. He's only damned if he fights the international community at each step.

As I sat and read through some of the recent legislation that has been passed (The Patriot Act) I really begin to wonder what it is that is going on in Washington. Granting wide sweeping power to allow search and seizure of records, property, etc. all in the name of Homeland Security leaves me wondering what country I'm living in. That people can be held without trial, or tried in a military tribunal without public knowledge orbeing allowed to present a defence worries me.

It's worries me too, but that does not pursuad me against this policy.

Is it possible that Bush is just using Iraq as an excuse to make a power grab or to place himself as a possible dictator?

Oh come on. Let's not play fiction here. Besides that this is ludicrous, how do you suppose this would occur. You think the military would actualy support Bush as a Dictator? The civilian population? In fact, Bush strikes me as one of the lesser power hungry leaders we've had in a long time. I don't like most of his policies, but he's not not going to be a dictator and he's not fucking Hitler.

After all, with the patriot act, opposing the "current government" and its "policies" can land you in jail. And wouldn't anyone that runs against Bush in the next election, run the risk of possibly being labeled a threat to national security and jailed? I know its far fetched, but still, the powers being given to the CIA, FBI and other agencies to monitor, track, investigate, hold, jail and question anyone for any reason even without probible cause can't be a good thing. It bothers me that a president would pass and sign anything that sets aside the bill of rights for its citizens. Sacrificing freedom in the name of securing freedom seems like too much to ask.

You say that as if its not a continum. We have swung too far in the wrong direction IMO. It was shoot-from-the-hip legislation. Congress backed off on the Total Information Awarness system and we should see some slow recovery begin. Fast enough for me? But we havn't lost our legitmacy as striving for a better world.

It reminds me of the old saying of "We want peace so much we're willing to go to war for it."

Exactly--and it's true. Imagine a brutal regime, that is willing to attack outside it's boreders and has B/C weapons and neared nuclear ones was required by the international community to disarm. It AGREED--to avoid its destruction.

Pop quiz. It went back on it's agreement. What do you do.

I don't know what the answers are, but the questions are making my head hurt!

Sorry the truth hurts

I enjoyed the debate.

Re:I guess I'm slow

[aengblom]

I don't think going full force against Iraq for crimes the US has failed to prove is the correct choice of action.

Ok, but personally, I feel that all signs point to Iraq being guilty. (Even if its not indisputable proof).

The US can afford to be patient in this matter.

12 years is a very long time. The point is the only real evidence of ABC weapons has come out through defectors. One of whom (a Hussein son-in-law) returned to Iraq and was killed.

It is clear, the US are going to attack very soon, disregarding the position of all of its allies

Spain and the U.K. don't count??? How about Australia?

The president is supposed to represent and accomodate the will of the people.

Yes and no. We could use polls to run foreign policy, but that's not how we believe these things work. We (ideally) elect experts to these positions because we feel they will do a better job. Our influence is in making sure the experts actually do a good job. If Bush is wrong, he will suffer in '04. He is not supposed to do whatever is popular.

And if it is truly about getting rid of a dangerous tyrant, why the *hell* are they ignoring N. Korea

A. I think Bush bungled it diplomatically, but given the current situation:

N. Korea has nukes and one hell of a strong army. In other words, N. Korea is nearly beyond the point of no return.

We can't take Korea without losing thousands of men and risking a nuclear conflict. N. Korea has also (for now) stayed in it's box. Hussein screwed up when he went after Kuwait. That war ended in a LEGAL requirement (via U.N.) that it meet certain demands. It didn't. The only option beyond sactions, is war. That's it.

If Bush's convicitons are right, why should he fear a debate?

What is there to DEBATE? It's bizare. It's very clear what has to happen hear to avoid war. This idea doesn't even really warrent a response.

How would a debate solve this conflict? Give me one question that won't make me laugh and you get a cookie.

Bush: Should you be required to disarm?
Hussein: Noperooney!


Everyone knows that ultimately this is about getting oil so those SUVs can keep on wasting that gas.

If Bush was after the gas, he would of ended the sanctions 2 years ago and said "let it flow". It's not hard. Persian Gulf I was about oil--and the power Iraq would have acquired with like 40-50% of the oil deposits (or something crazy like that). That would be dangerous, but unacceptable under and expansionistic lunatic.

Re:I guess I'm slow

[Anonymous Coward]

"The whole "weapons of mass destruction" argument is such a sick joke that it gives me hives. Tell me again which is the ONLY country in the history of the human race to use nuclear weapons against another country? Tell me which country has the largest stockpile of weapons of mass destruction? Oh that's right, it's the holier-than-thou US."

This is a freaking idiotic statement. So yes, we are the only country to use an atomic bomb on another country. And never since then. We could have obliterated any country we wanted to. But we didn't. We could have conquered the world. But we didn't. So what's your point? The US is the only country in the history of the world to have so much power and not try to take over the world.

I can hear you now, "the US is trying to take over the world!" No it's not.

Re:I guess I'm slow

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's that penis size thing...

Re:I guess I'm slow

[jefflar]

...after the inspectors were forced out of Iraq in 1998.

Wasn't someone getting a BJ around then? FYI the inpectors were pulled out of Iraq by the US in 1998 b/c we were going to start bombing heavily for a few weeks. They were not kicked out. Read all about it.

In export law, some s/w is classed as munitions

[OldAndSlow]

If you post certain kinds of encryption software, expect a visit by the FBI.

Have you never noticed those labels on software packages that say "not for export outside the US and Canada?" I am pretty sure that reflects the strength of the encryption in the product.

Yes...

[jhh09]

The very popular War ftp server is open source (GPL) and free, but is not allowed to be used by any form of government. They can't even pay to use the software if they wanted to. Here is the developer's software license:

All files that origins from Jgaa's Internet (including the War software series) are released as copyrighted freeware under these conditions. In short: Unless you are the government, you can use the software for free.

Re:Yes...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is like saying, "Unless you are the police, you can use your legal authority to arrest me." It doesn't mean anything. It's not a lawful statement. Of course, no one really understands all of the government procurement policies anyway, so they probably wouldn't touch it.

Re:Yes...

[spirality]

Unless you are the government, you can use the software for free.

I live in a democratic republic, in a way I am the government.

Commies

[Baldrson]

The fundamental problem with the General Public License is in the definition of "distribute" of paragraph 2b:

You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

This "distribute" within 2b of the GPL has been explicitly interpreted, by Richard Stallman and others with key position in open source licensing organizations, not to apply to large organizations that deploy software internally. While this means big corporations can deploy GPL'ed software without publishing their modifications to it, thereby favoring centralization of business assets, it also means the ultimate beneficiary of GPL software is the government since it is the biggest organization of them all.

Fundamentally, the GPL is the product of the communist culture from which Stahlman issued as close as his immediate family who were card-carrying members of the US communist party.

If you thought there was a conflict between centralized business and communism you should read more on the history of the communist revolution in Russia -- specifically the half-billion (2003USD) contribution to Leon Trotsky made by Wall Street magnate Jacob Schiff, without which Trotsky could not have started bolshevism.

Trotsky and Schiff both would have approved of the GPL.

Re:Commies

[GlassHeart]

the GPL is the product of the communist culture

Maybe, but a very big difference is in how the culture occurs. You voluntarily extend GPL software, and in return, you are bound by the license. Many other instances of communism involve coercing the members who would rather not join.

Oversimplified, this is why a small commune of like-minded individuals might work (possibly even very well), but no nation managed to exercise true communism.

Re:Commies

[Baldrson]

Many other instances of communism involve coercing the members who would rather not join. ... Oversimplified, this is why a small commune of like-minded individuals might work (possibly even very well), but no nation managed to exercise true communism.

Tell that to a kid who is being disciplined by his father.

Communism, like theism, feeds on the sociobiology of human kin selection by substituting the idiological "body" for the consanguinous history of a deme.

That's why socialist states like Sweden did so well until mass immigration and why polyglot empires have never sustained altruism for more than a few generations.

A debate on this matter should happen.

[miguel]

I am against the killing of innocent civilians, and the military and the public relations for the military are experts in spinning massacres into `collateral damage' and `mistakes'.

I have given a lot of thought about the issue of whether I want the military of any nation to use the software I create to mutilate the lives of other people. I obviously do not want this, and I would love to have a debate about having a software license that explicitly forbids this use.

As the previous poster pointed out, once you go down this path, some people might not like X, or Y, and impose further restrictions, but this is not too different from where we are today.

There is a line to be drawn, and I would very much like to hear people's opinions on what is an acceptable line to draw, and where to draw it.

As you might expect, I consider the war being promoted against Iraq to be immoral. The spin for this war has gone through a number of phases, and it has yet to click. Alarming how easily the population can be manipulated through fear.

Miguel.

Re:A debate on this matter should happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is official; Netcraft now confirms: *BSD is dying.

Yet another crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are dimmer than dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

Re:A debate on this matter should happen.

[spruce]

Alarming how easily the population can be manipulated through fear.

It's very easy to chalk it all up to the American public being manipulated, but you have to remember that there are a lot of very smart people that have weighed the evidence and decided enough is enough.

I find it amazing that anti-war people don't see the case for action. What kind of a brutal dictator would you have to be before force is justified?

Re:A debate on this matter should happen.

[msouth]

I am against the killing of innocent civilians

Good, then you'll be glad to know we're about to go after a huge killer of innocent civilians...

Re:A debate on this matter should happen.

[greenrd]

There is a line to be drawn, and I would very much like to hear people's opinions on what is an acceptable line to draw, and where to draw it.

I would like to find a way, but I don't think it would be beneficial to put any ethics clauses in open source licenses at all. I think that any further fracturing of open source licenses into incompatible variants would do far more harm than good - because then you would have even more projects with incompatible licenses who couldn't ever share any code with each other. This would likely lead to the creation of "straight GPL", "straight BSD", etc. forks/reimplementations of major projects that decided to introduce ethics clauses into licenses. Then the "straight-licensed" projects (or "amorally licensed" if you wanted to be pejorative) would be more likely to succeed, by attracting more developers.

I know that sounds like a simplistic freemarketroid argument (like saying "the market will always favour efficiency" or whatever), but I think in this case it's true.

Re:A debate on this matter should happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am against the killing of innocent civilians,

By implication you apparently believe that (in this context) people in the US military are not? Your view is narrow, arrogant, and wrong.

the military and the public relations for the military are experts in spinning massacres into `collateral damage' and `mistakes'.

"Collateral damage' and `mistakes' are not intended. Massacres are. If you fail to understand that, then nothing else will help you.

There are certain classes of places and people who are supposed to be protected from the effects of combat, such as: churches, museums, and non-combatants. The US generally goes out of its way to honor those protections. However, those protections can be abused, and the protection thereby nullified. That is why Saddam puts missiles by mosques and in neighborhoods. That is why those weapons will probably still be attacked in some fashion. Who do yo think is at fault? It is a well settled point of international law that Saddam is.

I would love to have a debate about having a software license that explicitly forbids this use.

Don't get yourself too whipped up. Any software license only has the power granted to it by the law of the country in which it is used. Any inconvenient term in your license could be nullified by the law of any country that is actually concerned about such legalities. I think that your concern is somewhat pointless.

As you might expect, I consider the war being promoted against Iraq to be immoral.

By any chance, did you consider it immoral and consider protests when Iraq invaded Iran? How about then the Iraqis used chemical weapons to kill tens of thousands of Iranians? How about when they used missiles against the Iranian cities? What about when they invaded Kuwait and declared it to be a part of Iraq, just another province? What about when they threatened to invade Saudi Arabia? What about then they tossed missiles at Saudi cities? What about when they tossed missiles at Israeli cities and threated to gas them? What about when Saddam was having Kurdish villages gassed (i.e. killed every man, woman, and child with nerve gas)? If not, I think that your moral sense is very late in developing, and that you don't have much credibility in judging the morality of the looming war. Either that, or you are just another leftist protecting the head of the socialist Baath party (Saddam), in which case morality is largely irrelevant to you anyway.

Alarming how easily the population can be manipulated through fear.

That remark cuts both ways.

Edmund Burke said, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. " Today that should be ammended to, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, or actually help it."

There are far too many well-intentioned people today who actually help enable terribly evil* men like Saddam remain in power. What is even more troubling is that they just can't see it. I fear for our future.

*Working definition (sad that its necessary): brutal dictator, mass murder (nerve gas entire villages, etc.), invades or threatens to invade most countries around them, torture (amputated limbs, burning in acid, rape of women & children), etc. (Allegedly "stealing" an election based a ruling of the highest consititutional court and the contested votes from four counties controlled by members of the political opposition isn't a good case for evil, despite the views of some in the US.)

Re:A debate on this matter should happen.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was a kid when Iraq when this happened, but I found a history of the Iran/Iraq war. The bottom line is: Saddam was financed during the period of its worse attrocities by the United States administration.

In fact, every time the CIA has overthrown a democratically elected government, it has made the situation worse for the population. In Chile (where Allende, the popular elected president was deposed and assasinated in a state coup, and Pinochet assumed power), in Iran, where the democratic government was overthrown by the CIA. The Sha's government was brutal. The brutally went to the point that a religion uprising lead to the extreme muslims to take the power again.

Given past history (and who could forget the five continous US administrations that lied to the american public, and manufactured evidence to wage a war against the Vietnamese), I am more than reluctant to believe that there are any moral reasons to wage this new war.

If morality were the real issue, why not begin by taking Ariel Sharon to the world court for his crimes in Sabra and Shatila.

The supposed buildup against Saudi Arabia was manufactured evidence. Also, the story of the babies in Kuwait: that was also a lie.

Now, since you feel so strongly about the gassing of the kurds. Tell me how you feel about the five US administrations that used agent orange and destroyed Vietnam?

You know that the US agreed to pay reparations to Vietnam, and has to this date not paid a cent?

Stop watching FOX news, it will burn your brain ;-)

Excuse me, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

What does this article have to do with rampantly homosexual linux zealots? Isn't that the only kind of news Slashdot posts about?

Speaking of which, my ass took quite a pounding last night by a Hawaiian lumberjack named Keoni Morrell. He looked sexy as all hell with the "Got root?" shirt that I gave him for Valentine's Day.

Re:Excuse me, but....

[Anonymous Coward]

Vance Taylor? is that you? My schlong hasn't been that sore in weeks. How about we try again Friday?

-Keoni

Re:muslims are all evil! caliphate of DEATH

[Anonymous Coward]

Death to King Fahd, DEATH to the Leaders of Islam! Death to that religion. We need to purify the Islam Muslim murderers and save them from Religion, NO RELIGION should be mandated before that SCUM SHIT. ITS A CULT. Like Charles Manson, like NAZIS CULT. DEATH TO ISLAM!

CLITORIS CHOPPERS. Hi there you fucking Islamic career clerics, doctors of death, Waffen Schutzstaffel doctor Josef Mengele is a patron saint compared to you fucking ragheads. You suck. You aide and abet terror and death. You are partially responsible for the deaths of other fellow men. For this fratricide you shall pay dearly. Your soul is black with the stains of inaction, ineptitude and sympathies to those who walk the dark side. Your foul life is full of sins, not religious, just heinous, your karma is low, you don't confess, and you aren't in prison where you belong. You are your own dark, kept secret. I see through you, the worthless academic, the pseudo intellectual, the unproven unpublished un patented WASTE OF FUCKING FLESH. You are a drain on society, you are a member of the 1st world but pretend to not be. I hate you, you are a stained man.

Hi clitoris chopper, ISLAM supports clitoris carving. You are Islamic, and of course are a fucking animal. I hate you you pull-start camel jockey lover. Towelheads, Camel Jockies, Sand Niggers, Ackmids, Abeebs, Carpet Flyers, Dune Coons, Rag Heads, Sand Scratchers, Habeebs, Abba-Dabbas, Camel-Humpers, Demi-niggers, Fig-Gobblers, Hucka-luckas (hucka hlacka ghalcka ghugh), Lefties (If you steal, you lose the right hand so, since they are thieves...) Ocnods, Pull-Start-ables (imagine pull starting Ossama's dirty rag like a Briggs and Stratton), Roach-Ranchers (habibs cant kill roaches by a tenant of Is-slum), Sand Moolies.

Shut up all you dirty fucking Islamic pigfucking swinehundts and the pigs, the communist fuckin Islamic terrorist supporter.

Take your fucking Koran and cram it up your ass. The sooner the earth sees Islam leave it, the better off it will be. Your Koran is Goat Piss.

I hope if there is a God and a Hell, you have to drink the liquidy shit from a Pig's ass, and Jewish Rabbis defecate on you.

I hate the stupid ISLAM fucks who read into the trash they come up with. Saddam Hussein [who needs to take a dirt nap] is higher on my sanity list than fucking Muslim "clerics." In fact, I like Saddam more than most of the other Arab leaders because he is secular. We should fucking nuke the Saudis and Mecca and Medina and turn it into rubble, then tell Saddam to remove the heads of all the buttfucking "royalty" in the area.

I want to wipe my ass with Mohammad's shroud. I want to grind his body up into bone meal and fertilize my garden with it.

Our tortured dead scream out in HORROR, asking for vengeance:

1. Kill all Camel Jockeys.
2. Kill all Mohammedans.
3. Kill all Dune Coons.
4. Kill all Rag Heads.
5. Kill all Towelheads.
6. Kill all Arabs.
7. Kill all Camel Rooters.
8. Kill all Osama Bin Laden supporters.

Nuke their countries to hell.

Nuke them again.

Death to Islam.

I piss on Mecca. I wipe my ass with the Koran. I shit upon Mohammed. I wipe the cum for a freshly fucked pussy with Mohammed's shroud then throw it in the pig sty so it can mire in pig shit as it decomposes.

Special terms for government use is not unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

Commercial software seems to regularly have clauses in their EULAs specific to government use. One such found with a Google search (links added):

6. Government End Users. If you are acquiring the Software on behalf of any unit or agency of the United States Government, the following provisions apply. The Government agrees:

(i) if the Software is supplied to the Department of Defense (DoD), the Software is classified as "Commercial Computer Software" and the Government is acquiring only "restricted rights" in the Software and its documentation as that term is defined in Clause 252.227-7013(c)(1) of the DFARS; and

(ii) if the Software is supplied to any unit or agency of the United States Government other than DoD, the Government's rights in the Software and its documentation will be as defined in Clause 52.227-19(c)(2) of the FAR or, in the case of NASA, in Clause 18-52.227-86(d) of the NASA Supplement to the FAR.

So if commercial software is giving special attention to government use of software in their licenses, perhaps there is reason to have the same in the various open source software licenses.

Besides all the restrictions some software has against its use in mission-critical situations like controlling nuclear reactors (though mainly to protect themselves from legal liability if the software fails spectacularly).

How about NONVIOLENCE-GPL?

[clevelandguru]

A license which will restrict use of the software by anyone releated with violence or hate against humanity.

Double Standard...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Open Source developers attempting to regulate what their *Open* Source can and can not be used for... please.

Pretty much the plan in ...

[burgburgburg]

The Last StarFighter. The StarFighter video game was a "stealth" training and selection tool. And the candidates were paying for their training. Cost effective.

Re:Pretty much the plan in ...

[Gehenna_Gehenna]

Greetings Starfighter.
You have been recruited by --George Bush-- to defend the frontier against Xur and the --Sadaam-- Armada....

Re:Pretty much the plan in ...

[Lucas Membrane]

Didn't Reagan or Bush I once say that video games were helping keep America strong by training the next generation of military pilots?

BTW, Last Starfighter was done in some kind of Fortran on a Cray XMP1 with the geometry database on an IBM mainframe IIRC, so you've probably got a problem running make install on that baby at home.

Drinking games

[t0ny]

ya, there is nothing those military boys like more than free beer. They may even like it more than the college kids!

Re:Drinking games

[govtcheez]

They may even like it more than the college kids!

How dare you even suggest that! I'm a college student, and the only thing I hold higher in regard above my beer is the prospect of getting more beer!

Re:Drinking games

[t0ny]

ya, but you arent forced to spend months separated from members of the opposite sex! Beer is the only form of stress relief they have available...

Re:Drinking games

[petong]

If I had all the money I'd ever spent on beer, I would go out and buy some beer!

Re:Drinking games

[govtcheez]

Dude, I go to an engineering school. I'm not actively forced away from members of the opposite sex, but I may as well be. I think my school's all of 20% female.

Re:Drinking games

[pixelpusher220]

Mod Parent Funny...and mod my college experience sadly similar...

The few women got creative and in the 'converted' mens bathrooms, they put plants in the urinals. Even I'd water plants if it was THAT easy!

Re:Drinking games

[JebusIsLord]

Women as stress RELIEF?? Lord, they are the cause of it most of the time...

Where can we sign up to counter the US Attacks?

[totierne]

The best place for a hacker to be is countering US electronic attacks on Iraq, it is anti war, and you get to be mildly subversive and get to earn your spurs defending rather than attacking.

Do they give logs of what the US military have been doing so there can be a community deconstruction and defense?

Re:Where can we sign up to counter the US Attacks?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you "counter US electronic attacks", then you are making war against the coalition and are an enemy combatant. Wecome to 40 years in jail, stupid, (if a patriot doesn't kill you first for endangering our men and women in uniform).

Re:Where can we sign up to counter the US Attacks?

[Anonymous Coward]

The best place for a hacker to be is countering US electronic attacks on Iraq,

Unless you live in Iraq & are not a US citizen you would be well advised to forget that plan. Aiding and abetting the enemy in time of war* may constitute treason or other crimes for a US citizen, and may be punishable by death or life imprisionment. People are allowed to protest, but there are limits, and interfering with military operations in time of war crosses the line. People might have gotten away with crap like that during the Viet Nam war, but this is a different time, a different war, and different circumstances. If you want to protest, grab a sign and go to the streets, or put up a web site. If you actually plan, or do, anything to actually impede the US military, or aid Iraq, you are taking your life into your own hands.

Frankly, if the only thing that happens to you is to be declared an enemy combatant (hmmm, hacking might be considered electronic warfare, and hence you might be considered a combatant) and cool your jets for 5-10 years in solitary confinement, you might be lucky.

If you aren't a US citizen and live overseas, your best course of action would be to check on the stand of your government. I don't think you would want to consider this if you are a resident of at least the following countries as they have generally sided with the US in this war: UK, Australia, Albania,Baharain,Turkey, United Arab Emirates, Spain, Slovenia, Slovakia, Saudi Arabia, Romania, Qatar, Portugal, Poland, Oman, Macedonia, Lithunia, Latvia, Jordan, Kuwait, Italy, Israel, Hungary, Czech Republic, Hungary, Egypt, Estonia, Denmark, Croatia, & Bulgaria. (Source: guardian.co.uk) I don't think that I would feel real comfortable if I were in Canada, or a few other countries either. I expect that other countries would honor an extradition request if we made one. The US has pursued cases spying over the internet before.

Here are two other thoughts for you.

1. Before you start putting any great plans into motion, why don't you go to your local library and read up on the dictatorship you're considering protecting from the point of view of those who had to flee the country for their lives. Otherwise you might feel bad when, after the US wins, they start bringing out the chainsawed bodies, and the kids who were tortured to make their parents talk start telling their stories.

2. If after doing #1, you still decide to interfere with military operations, you should start planning now to run for the rest of your life, especially if you get as much as 1 (one) US or allied soldier killed (aw, heck, or wounded too.) I feel pretty comfortable stating that the Department of Defense, FBI, CIA, NSA, Army, etc. will have absolutely no sense of humor about this. Period. End of story.

This is a serious war, 3,000 Americans have been killed while peacefully going about their business, and our enemies are still planning and attempting to do us harm. With the weapons they are attempting to obtain (or already have?) they could kill thousands, or tens of thousands in the next attack. To fight them, the US Government has dusted off powers that it has, but hasn't used in 60 years. There were US citizens executed in WW2, I expect that there will be some in this war as well. If you feel the need, then write letters, songs, and poems; join the marches and protests; carry banners and signs; put up a web site; but do not engage in sabotage, espionage, hacking, treason, or other such activities.

*You really don't want to base your chances for living on "Congress vs Declaraion of War" hair-splitting.

Re:Where can we sign up to counter the US Attacks?

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be a little more careful when you're trolling. Someone could take you seriously, do what you suggest in this case, and find themselves on the wrong side of a firing squad.

Even trolls should have some limits.

Re:Where can we sign up to counter the US Attacks?

[totierne]

IANAA

I Am Not An American, and if America chooses to kill 100,000 people or more this time I prefer to have made a stand to make a better stand next time. If the US chooses to use its proxys to reach me for attempting to deconstruct their weapons of mass destruction, go ahead shoot me.

This is the passive majority view here, and I am just a want-to-be activist. The rabid reaction just shows how out of touch America is with free speech etc. I could couch my words in meally mouthed terms like 'some Americans' or the 'American government', but why should I speak oddly for war mungerers or their apologists?

Re:Where can we sign up to counter the US Attacks?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a serious war, 3,000 Americans have been killed while peacefully going about their business, and our enemies are still planning and attempting to do us harm.

That is not probed!, and more over there is no probed link between Irak and Bin Laden, that is a petro$ war

Re:Where can we sign up to counter the US Attacks?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean there is not a probed attack plan

Can't exist

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone know of an OSS license that includes some statement to the effect of: "This software is free for use, redistribution, and modification by any entity for any purpose, as long as any form of it is never used for military purposes." ???

The definition of "open source" says, among other things, "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor".

So if you made a license that said it couldn't be used for war, by definition, it wouldn't be an open source license.

(You could change the definition of "open source", but other people have already pointed out what's wrong with that.)

As lennon would say:

[Jeedo]

Make love not code.

and Saddam says what?

[mschuyler]

"Oh, dear! This American programmer says I can't use this software, so I guess I'll just have to leave it alone! Darn these modified GPL licenses anyway. What's this world coming to? These programmer types just have too much power. Now I can't do what I want to."

And you'd have to write the code from scratch...

[siskbc]

...so I hope you don't intend on using any GPL'd code in your project.

A Suggestion

[asv108]

If open source developers should do anything for the Bush's "war effort", it should be this!.

Re:A Suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

i masturbate when i lack a piece...

lol

Definition of Free software

[Chymaera]

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

From http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

All I have to say is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the U.S. government! It is always trying to force its laws on people in other countries. They charged Skylarov for breaking U.S. laws even though he did it in Russia. They are telling Iraq what weapons it can and cannot have, even though it is an entirely separate country.

Bush is a fucking war-monger. In the past two years he's attacked one country (Afganistan) and is already trying to attack another (Iraq). His justification for Afganistan was that a small group of people in that country attacked America, therefore he can go to war with the whole country and overthow the government. What kind of logic is that? According to that logic, if the KKK blew up a building in Toronto, Canada would be justified in attacking the U.S. and overthowing the government.

As for Iraq, since when can one country dictate to another what weapons it can and cannot have. Especially when there has been no indication of that Iraq would even use the weapons against the U.S. or any of its allies. If the U.S. can demand Iraq not have any weapons of mass destruction, why can't Iraq demand that the U.S. destroy all its nuclear weapons? The U.S. has actually threatened to use them against Iraq. Talk about a double standard!

And yes, I am an American and not proud of it.

Re:All I have to say is...

[CrashRide]

I'm sure there's plenty of room for you in the wonderful country of Iraq. If you hurry, you can still get there just before we kick Saddam's worthless ass, again. With any luck at all, you can personally take a few rounds for him.

Re:All I have to say is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The only part I agree with you about is that I, too, am not proud of you being an American.

Love it or leave it.

Can't do anything about it

[MouseR]

In the US, laws, amendments and provisions to various justice levels permits the military to use anything they want, regardless of patents or licensing, provided it has something to do with national security.

This means that if the military juges your software (or hardware or whatever), they can appropriate, use or copy the work on their own if security calls for it.

IANAL, so I dont have references to these, but it's been mentioned before, and there has been occasions where this has already been done, such as in imaging and communication fields.

In theory, though, they can't use this provision to resell the idea outside of their own use.

Interpretability of "Moral" licenses

[Erwos]

The problem is more one of how a license with "moral clauses" could be interpreted. How do I know what's a moral use of software? If I advocate violence against Americans because I think they're horrible warmongers who all deserve to die, I certainly think it's moral, but would other people? What if I put up a page saying how we shouldn't blame Israelis for whacking a few Palestinian civilians in the streets by accident? How do I know if the author thinks that's moral?

This sort of license is only trying to impose someone else's political views on other people. The GPL is political enough - we don't need this. We certainly don't need something which opens up the possibility of a lawsuit with minimal justification.

-Erwos

Re:Interpretability of "Moral" licenses

[PigleT]

"How do I know what's a moral use of software?"

Well, you could ask if its use is the best possible, or least-bad possible course of action in terms of consequences you know about; or you could see whether it treats people as an end in themselves rather than a means to an end.
Read _Computers, Ethics and Society_ (2nd ed) for a few interesting case-studies on the matter.

"The GPL is political enough - we don't need this."

Indeed. I find the OSD's point about no discrimination to be quite enlightening: how should one apply that? If it's "discrimination" to discriminate between development of commercial or open-source software, is it not also discrimination to unlicense the software for use in certain countries?

Thinking more, this leaves only selfish interest on behalf of the US - both behind the original crypto-export restrictions, and in further use of open-source software by various countries. If you want to "win", you'll have to, and should, choose another avenue that isn't software or legality - either force or negotiated peace seem potential options to me.

And no, I refuse to use Plan9 because I disagree with the per-country restrictions on use. That download license is not Open IMO.

Check the license for mention of war

[Wee]

Exactly. As long as people aren't violating the license, then when you put code out there, you have to expect it to be used in lots of ways.

If a developer doesn't like war, then he better put that in the license. Short of that, he has nothing to complain about.

-B

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[joedavis123]

I don't think some people realize that a simulator can be used for alot of different things. Yes simulators can simulate nuclear explosions, etc. etc.. but simulating flying a helicopter is not directly related to U.S. "war on terrorism". Yes it will be used if our troops are flying choppers into Iraq..

BUT, you would want our troops to be well trained flying a helicopter if the U.S. or an ally were attacked some day, and needed it for defense eh?

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[Wee]

BUT, you would want our troops to be well trained flying a helicopter if the U.S. or an ally were attacked some day, and needed it for defense eh?

Well, I've leaned more towards a Robert Frost-ish attitude with repsect to defense and the military: good fences make good neighbors. This day and age, a good fence is a capable offensive force. Used to be big walls and a moat and protecting a landbridge. Now it's helicopter and tank simulators.

Personally, I'm all for open source being used for military, as long as the author hasn't specifically proscribed such uses.

Where I think it gets more sticky is if a country like Iraq or Libya or N. Korea (or China?) were using stuff from freshmeat to aid their military. Could the developer be tried for treason? If they didn't explicitly say "Everyone but the following countries can use this software..." or "This software not to be used for military purposes", is that an omission of action which can land them in legal trouble? Remember that in the US you can be put to death for treason during wartime, and aiding the enemy is treason. It sounds far-fetched, but it might not be all that "unpossible" (apologies to George W. on that word).

-B

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[dvdeug]

I'm all for open source being used for military, as long as the author hasn't specifically proscribed such uses.

It's open source. The author can't specifically proscribe any use and it still be open source.

(And no, distribution is different from use.)

if a country like Iraq or Libya or N. Korea (or China?) were using stuff from freshmeat to aid their military.

And how are we going to stop them? Blame Microsoft for translating their software to Chinese and selling it to them; blame IBM for selling computers to the Nazis and showing them how to use it. But for the most part, free software is just out there. If an agreement with the world's largest superpower isn't going to stop them, how is something in the license?

Now, there are closer lines to cross. What about accepting translations from the Chinese? In my role as the one-time maintainer of the GNU Unifont, I accepted Farsi glyphs from some Iranians. A paranoid might want to avoid that.

Remember that in the US you can be put to death for treason during wartime,

I think you've got a pretty solid defense that you aren't helping the enemy during wartime if you just write software with no knowledge of their use. And war is war; China and Iran and Libya, while not places we are happy with, are not at war with us. As long as you act as a software maintainer of civilian software, I can't see a solid case against you, even if you accept translations.

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I'm all for open source being used for military, as long as the author hasn't specifically proscribed such uses.
Where I think it gets more sticky is if a country like Iraq or Libya or N. Korea (or China?) were using stuff from freshmeat to aid their military.

So, you are all for open source being used for military, as long as it happens to be your military, but totally against when it happens to be mine? Just like using the Atom Bomb was all right when it was American, but the mere possibility of someone else using it is great threat to the whole world?

These days I am proud *not* to be an American!

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[Wee]

It's open source. The author can't specifically proscribe any use and it still be open source.

Yeah, I get ya. I should have amended that a bit. I meant unless they put stipulations in the license (which might not necessarily be a 100% software livre license).

If an agreement with the world's largest superpower isn't going to stop them, how is something in the license?

It might not stop them, but it might allow you to wiggle out of any suspected culpability.

Now, there are closer lines to cross. What about accepting translations from the Chinese? In my role as the one-time maintainer of the GNU Unifont, I accepted Farsi glyphs from some Iranians. A paranoid might want to avoid that.

This is closer to what I was wool-gathering about. You would have a hard time defending yourself against being a "collaborator" if a two-way relationship existed (would commit priveledges in a CVS repository count?).

As long as you act as a software maintainer of civilian software, I can't see a solid case against you, even if you accept translations.

Maybe I'm a fatalist. I just can't get it out of my head that it wasn't very long ago that the US government actually rounded up and imprisoned US citizens purely because of their race. And it wasn't long after that we had the US Congress ruining people's careers because someone said the word "commie". I've just got the USA PATRIOT Act in my head, I guess. Ever since I heard an FBI agent talk about the Act, I've been thinking about political sorts of things in the context of over-reaching government authority.

-B

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[CVaneg]

Where I think it gets more sticky is if a country like Iraq or Libya or N. Korea (or China?) were using stuff from freshmeat to aid their military. Could the developer be tried for treason

I believe programs that utilize "strong" encryption are still considered a munition, and so distributing them outside of the United States is a federal offense. So while under current law you probably could not get prosecuted for distributing an open source helicopter training program, it is not entirely inconceivable that congress pass a law dictating that to do should be illegal.

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[tres]

Hmm..

I've always interpreted "Mending Wall" (the Robert Frost poem you're referring to) as completely the opposite.

Good fences make good neighbors because they bring neighbors together.

A little OT, but I know, but still relevant

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[Wee]

Good fences make good neighbors because they bring neighbors together.

Weird. I always read it as making good neighbors because it keeps the boundaries in place. I saw the walls as being borders which exist to let everyone know where he stands, and so nobody can cause offense by inadvertantly trespassing (for example); walls keep everyone polite. In those places where everyone knows where his trees are, and therefore where his land is, no walls are needed. Meaning that without the distinction of the trees, the walls are needed to define the boundary between the neighbors. Put (yet another) way, the walls remove any possibility of doubt as to were "his" property ends and "mine" begins.

Yeah, the walls bring do them together, but only to put the walls back up. The walls must be repaired, must be there; both neighbors have to keep them up. I see it as borders being important.

I could be misinterpreting it. But that's art.

-B

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[tres]

I think you're right on; the walls are a kind of metaphor for the defining lines between and around us all.

I guess I just see them as a metaphor for the joint between places, or people rather than a dividing line across any single entity. (Frost once again leaves me with a baffled smile).

Anyway, I don't want to drag this off course for too long. Thanks for the reply. It's been much too long since I've spent time with Robert Frost (let alone talk with someone about a poem).

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[SN74S181]

And it wasn't long after that we had the US Congress ruining people's careers because someone said the word "commie".

In spite of the mess created when an amateur zealot like Senator McCarthy got ahold of the microphone, there were Communists who needed to be rooted out of government. The Soviet Union has fallen, many of the Kremlin and KGB archives have been opened.

1. The Rosenbergs deserved to die for treason.
2. There was a Communist conspiracy trying to overthrow the US government in an undemocratic fashion.
3. Hell, Henry Wallace has been well documented as a Communist sympathizer, and he was a Vice President.

There's no room for a "one-man, one-vote, one-time, then one-party" regime in a democracy, and that's what Communism is about.

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[Wee]

I guess I just see them as a metaphor for the joint between places, or people rather than a dividing line across any single entity. (Frost once again leaves me with a baffled smile).

You're going to start making me think like an optimist before too long. I still feel like "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening" could be about an assassin... :-)

Anyway, I don't want to drag this off course for too long. Thanks for the reply. It's been much too long since I've spent time with Robert Frost (let alone talk with someone about a poem).

You bet. Not your usual /. discussion, eh? Good stuff. I'm going to go read from Frost before bed (I haven't read "Mending Wall" in a long time).

-B

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[dabadab]

"If they didn't explicitly say "Everyone but the following countries can use this software..." or "This software not to be used for military purposes", is that an omission of action which can land them in legal trouble?"

Yeah, I can see that:

- Hey, there's that great combat simulator on freshmeat, let's use it to train our troops!
- But Hussein, its license says that we can't use it.
- Oh, right, then I cancel the download...

Of course, that will not happen. It's the same thinking that leads to have questions like "Do you want to travel to the U.S. to commit terrorist acts?" on the U.S. visa form (no kidding). Do they REALLY expect the terrorists to say "yes"?

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[Wee]

Of course, that will not happen. It's the same thinking that leads to have questions like "Do you want to travel to the U.S. to commit terrorist acts?" on the U.S. visa form (no kidding). Do they REALLY expect the terrorists to say "yes"?

Obvisouly a license won't stop terrorists and the like. But actively saying "You cannot use this if you're a bad guy" removes any doubts about the author's culpability and/or intentions as far as his own government is concerned.

Of course nobody asked me about those Cuban cigars I may or may not have brought back from England and Mexico, so I might not be one to talk about heeding the letter of the law...

-B

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[dabadab]

"actively saying "You cannot use this if you're a bad guy" removes any doubts about the author's culpability and/or intentions"

Yeah, the same way like saying "I am here to bring you love and not to harm you" and then proceeding to shoot everyone in sight removes any doubt about one's intentions :)

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[Wee]

Yeah, the same way like saying "I am here to bring you love and not to harm you" and then proceeding to shoot everyone in sight removes any doubt about one's intentions :)

Heh heh.

Well, for those developers worried about maybe getting implicated legally, having a license restriction at very least might give them an "out" in court. That's all I was saying.

I'm still not sure that it's at all possible to get prosecuted. I mean, what if I made some open-source 747 simulator? Or a Palm app that lets people play air traffic controller? Or a "Drug Wars" kind of game that simulates breaking into banking systems? If the FBI found that terrorists had used my software to gain knowledge they otherwise wouldn't have, could I be liable? What if I worked at a banking company, or Boeing, and they thought my "inside" knowledge was something that gave me a unique position to aid foreign enemies?

I think the answer is that I'd be just as liable as the guys who trained them to ply real planes in Florida. They had no prior knowledge that they were showing terrorists how to kill people. If I released software to the wordl, then I would, by definition, have to expect it to be used by whomever happens across it.

Like i said earlier, the more I think about our government the more I dislike the direction it's headed in.

-B

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[danro]

So, you are all for open source being used for military, as long as it happens to be your military<snip/>

Well put.
The sword cuts both ways people.
Lets never forget that, ok.
If you release a piece of OSS software on the world someone somewhere is bound to use it in ways you don't like.
Get over it!
If you can't accept that, don't release the code.

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[Stephan Schulz]

If a developer doesn't like war, then he better put that in the license. Short of that, he has nothing to complain about.

Well, I disagree. Even if a developer grants the legal right to use his code in any way, he still retains a moral right to complain if people use his/her creation in a way he does not like. Cue RMS and GNU/Linux (even if he and the FSF created only part of a Linux distribution and little to nothing of the kernel.

Re:Check the license for mention of war

[Wee]

Well, I disagree. Even if a developer grants the legal right to use his code in any way, he still retains a moral right to complain if people use his/her creation in a way he does not like.

I don't know about that. With licenses like the GPL, that which is not expressly forbidden is implicitly allowed. By releasing software under a free license, you are saying that people can use your source code freely. You put some restrictions on it (giving changes back, etc), and you let people have it. It's open, except for those stipulations you mentioned. They can do what they want with it because you never said they couldn't.

You can always complain if someone is using your software in ways that you do not like, but unless they agreed to terms set forth when you released the code to them, you have no real right to expect them to stop using it.

-B

*BSD is dying

[Anonymous Coward]

It is painfully official; Netcraft continually confirms: *BSD is dying.

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last [samag.com] in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin [amazingkreskin.com] to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are dimmer than dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

Fact: *BSD is dying

moron letting george&bill run IT

[Anonymous Coward]

word for the daze: execrable.

maybe va lairIE should enlist the source forgerIE, in some last gasper attempt to re-incarnate the lnux payper.

lookout bullow. don't leave your head up your .asp much longer, or it might eXPlode.

all or nothing is a cop out

[urbazewski]

If you are doing anything at all productive in society somebody can use that to their benifit in a way that you may not agree with.

I think this "all or nothing" argument is a cop out, a "reductio ad absurdum" excuse for people who can't or won't consider the potential ramifications of their actions in the world at large.

Everyone, no matter what their position in society or what work they do, has a responsibility to consider how their actions affect other people both in the short and long term. We can no longer afford short-sighted short term thinking -- the earth is too small a place these days.

Furthermore, this comment (and others) don't seem to be based on the content of the articles. (No, I am not new to slashdot! I just haven't let my standards sink to the lowest common denominator. Yet.) The anti-war link to the bluefish site in the original article is a discussion of whether or not to put an anti-war banner on the bluefish, not whether or not to develop code. Anthony L. Awtrey's remarks in the article presents his contrasting opinions in support of military action against Iraq, based in part on his wife's personal experience. Serious public discussion of these issues is what democracy is (supposed to be) all about.

Maybe the prospect of a major war in the Middle East makes you *yawn* but I'm glad to see that not everyone shares this view.

Re:all or nothing is a cop out

[bmongar]

I think this "all or nothing" argument is a cop out, a "reductio ad absurdum" excuse for people who can't or won't consider the potential ramifications of their actions in the world at large

I agree it is. It was posted to make fun of the all or nothing aspect of other posts. I think people should carefully consider how they affect the world at large. I just don't think that a lot of the chatter about open source helping the war effort is meaniful. My point being that open source software is useful so DUH! It can and will be used for something you don't approve of.

Furthermore, this comment (and others) don't seem to be based on the content of the articles

Once again you are correct. I did read the article, but my post was about the trend in other posts not the article. It was meta-discussion of the article so to speak.

Maybe the prospect of a major war in the Middle East makes you *yawn* but I'm glad to see that not everyone shares this view

No, I am not in favor of this war nor do I think it is the source of my *yawn*. The blathering of people who want free software to not be free for things they don't agree with was my *yawn*

Re:all or nothing is a cop out

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you taken the time to consider that a war in Iraq may end up being the best thing for the Iraqi people? How the action of not going to war might actually in the "long term" cause the deaths of millions of people if he starts another war? Do you practice what you preach? Or are you going to say, "I have thought about it!" Then I too will *yawn* How predictable.

I am soooo sick...

[siskbc]

...of people taking for a given that this war is bad because that's what "good liberals" think. I'm not necessarily saying it's a great idea, as I haven't really made up my mind - but mindlessly accepting pacifism is pretty stupid. Granted, peace is a better default position than war, but there are times where other avenues fail. And I'd say they've failed here. Saddaam is staying a step ahead of inspections thanks to delaying tactics (not to mention Germany and France).

Not to mention which this won't be a war as we are used to thinking of them. Casualties in the Gulf War were very low, and I can't imagine this being much different. As you say, the military considers minimization of collateral damage to be a top priority. The concept of there being 100,000 civilian deaths (I've heard someone say it) is FUD.

Not to mention which, programmers aren't experts on military matters. This is scarcely better than Susan Sarandon et al spouting off about the war. Yes, they have a right to free speech, but I'm not exactly going to let a moron actor change my views easily. Nor a programmer, just because he won't let the military use his crappy program.

Re:I am soooo sick...

[PhxBlue]

Not to mention which, programmers aren't experts on military matters.

Well, military programmers are. . . :)

Re:I am soooo sick...

[HiThere]

My understanding, perhaps I'm wrong, was that the CIA evaluation was "Iraq isn't any danger unless they're invaded."

Well, that matches how Iraq's acted in the past, so maybe the CIA's right this time. Of course, I don't know their basis for the evaluation, so I can't really say. But the public information for the invasion seems to be "He's a bad man, and he won't let us push him around, either.", not exactly a ringing endorsement, but hardly a causus belli either. For that matter, Bush seems to be hardly a saint, the way he rides rough-shod over the constitution. He clearly doesn't take his oath of office seriously, and nobody seems able to stop him, for some reason. It really puzzles me that he hasn't been impeached. What he's been doing is clear violation of his oath of office. (I don't just mean impeached, actually. Impeachment is just the charge. I actually mean impeached and convicted.)

Re:I am soooo sick...

[greenrd]

mindlessly accepting pacifism is pretty stupid.

I agree, but I think you'll find the anti-war movement contains a large majority of people who don't believe in knee-jerk "no war under any historical circumstances" (i.e. the dictionary definition of pacifism). Very few people now believe that going to war with Hitler was wrong.

Casualties in the Gulf War were very low, and I can't imagine this being much different.

Casualties on our side were ridiculously low.

Casualties on the Iraqi side were vastly higher - but clearly you don't know that - not surprising, since the media hardly ever mentioned the numbers of Iraqi casualties at the time.

The concept of there being 100,000 civilian deaths (I've heard someone say it) is FUD.

It's not only not FUD, it's actually a conservative estimate. Check out the UN research on the subject.

Re:I am soooo sick...

[siskbc]

Do you have some objective links on casualties during first gulf war, or projections for the coming one? (I'd actually like to see them).

Re:I am soooo sick...

[Anonymous Coward]

"not to mention Germany and France"

france i could care less about, they have oil companies who have deals with iraq. but in the german constitution it says that they can not send forces outside of germany excepte for NATO, and NATO can only be used defencivly. so constitutionaly germany can not send troops to iraq.
just thought id point that out.

Oh, gee, here come the Cubans again...

[StupidKatz]

... to drag off our women and rape the children. But wait! We can't fight them! That would be war! We can't have war, not at any cost! Darn, and this sewage pipe is so cold and stinky.

Disclaimer: Actual Cubans may not necessarily drag off American women and/or rape American children.

Re:Not with my source codes! [Why?]

[WheelDweller]

I had a buddy that worked in Huntsville, Alabama, for a DoD kinda place. He created/tuned rocket engines on a 'Fat' Mac way back when.

He was always worried about 'creating something that might hurt someone', but I could never see the fear in that. Let's say I create a rocket-thingy. It's *intended* use is to shoot down attacking hijacked aircraft. But what if it misses and hits someone on the ground?

What I'm getting to is, even if you don't expect it to, it could. (See also Apache) And if your product *is* used in anger, there's also a chance for it to save the day. We just have to hope that those we counted on at the last election do what we expect.

So don't sweat it- if it's what you like, do it- get paid, go home, have babies and live happily ever after.

Warftp

[harmonica]

Reminds me of that free FTP server Warftp. Obviously the author dislikes government agencies so much he released it under a license that allows everybody except governmental institutions to use his software.

So if someone doesn't like the US military, they can restrict the license of their software.

Re:Warftp

[bedouin]

Time to switch from Proftpd; I've found a new friend.

I seem to recall something about "crypto"

[Bingo Foo]

Just remember that the hypocritical "open" zealots whining about the militarization of OSS are likely the same ones who ranted and raved that the benefits of pervasive crypto among ordinary citizens outweighed the very real danger of the use of crypto among organized crime and terror.

What's the common thread? Anti-U.S. sentiment.

Re:I seem to recall something about "crypto"

[Anonymous Coward]

You my friend, have a memory leak in your sig. Thus you are evil.

Re:I seem to recall something about "crypto"

[Bingo Foo]

Thus the new sig();

This is Sad

[Anonymous Coward]

Believe as we believe of no software for you, sheesh at least microsoft just wants you money and control of your computer -- they don't tell you what to believe.

No ...

[taniwha]

You do have control, you can write a GPL-like license that explicitly denies the military from using your software ....

But therein lies a real 'double edged sword', the great thing about the GPL/LGPL is that it doesn't have lots of different potentially incompatible licenses - so people can mix and match their software - libertarian code works with lefty code works with evil warmongering republican code.

These sorts of of issues ARE real-life ethics problems people deal with every day, 20 years ago I used to port Unix to new hardware for a living .... one day a new job came into work from Israel (we would get them from all over the world, even from behind the then iron curtain), one by one engineers refused to work on the project (we found out it was going into a tank), eventually management found someone who would do it.

Re:No ...

[Xerithane]

But therein lies a real 'double edged sword', the great thing about the GPL/LGPL is that it doesn't have lots of different potentially incompatible licenses - so people can mix and match their software - libertarian code works with lefty code works with evil warmongering republican code.

By omitting the ability for the military, and therein the government, to utilize your code you are causing more damage. The proprietary code is less easily auditable, thereby potentially more buggy causing more destruction. Also, what about the peace keeping portions of the military?

If you write something that can be used for military purposes, and forbid the government on your side from using it and gaining advantage, than what will stop the opposing force from using it without your consent? Fear of a lawsuit... don't think so :)

Re:No ...

[Anonymous Coward]

>> .... one day a new job came into work from Israel (we would get them from all over the world, even from behind the then iron curtain), one by one engineers refused to work on the project (we found out it was going into a tank), eventually management found someone who would do it.

What *is* it with you guys that Israel is evil but the Arab/Muslim terrorists are the good guys? Are you blinded by your anti-Semitism or is it just the oh-so-chic "Palestinians don't have tanks, therefore they *must* be the good guys" ethic?

If the Palestinians *did* have tanks, they wouldn't be a tenth as restrained as the Israelis are in using them.

Re:No ...

[Anonymous Coward]

evil warmongering republican code?

i reject your view that as a republican, i am evil and warmongering. your prejudiced statement doesn't hold water for me.

bottom line - "evil warmongering republican code" = "apple sucks" = "microsoft sucks" = me scratching my head

but anyway...

real-life ethics problems people deal with everyday? huh? this isn't an ethics issue unless you are anti-military or something along those lines. you act as if no good has ever come from military action.

for me it seems like some people want to take their toys and go home if you don't believe the same things they do. "I'm taking my open source and I'm going home! And when I get their I'll probably play an RTS military-style game, you republican warmonger." i do assume you'd never play a game involving military battles right? how would you ever solve that terrible ethical problem?! oh please.

Re:No ...

[bedouin]

You do have control, you can write a GPL-like license that explicitly denies the military from using your software ....

Seriously though, if the government sees a program they feel will help them accomplish a specific task, do you really think they care about violating a software license? Who is going to come in and stop them, find out, or press charges? If a violation occurs chances are no one will ever know. The best precaution here seems to be to only release code openly, no matter what license, if your conscious is clear about what it might be used for.

Re:No ...

[taniwha]

Geez don't go off half cocked, read what I wrote. Did I say "Israel is evil"? look at the reason I gave for people refusing to work on it "we found out it was going into a tank".

You have to realize that some people actually think killing is bad whether it's Israeli or Palistinian or anyone else. Your reaction just comes over as being totally ultra-paranoid

And for the record being "blinded by my anti-semitism" didn't stop me marrying my jewish wife (nor, as a result, having jewish kids) .

Let's count civilian deaths...

[Anonymous Coward]

> Awtrey: When people tell me that civilians will
> die in a war, I tell them that Saddam has
> already spilled more Iraqi blood than any
> aggressor.

I guess he's killed over 150,000 civilians that the "surgical bombing" of the Gulf War did. It's certainly possible.

When was the last time you had to wonder if the plane flying overhead might be dropping a bomb on you and your loved ones?

Re:Yes..no no

[Anonymous Coward]

Please stick your head back up your ass and allow GPL software to be used in the almost completely unrestricted way that GPL software was designed. The last thing the GPL movement needs is for a bunch of busy bodies deciding who can use the software and under what circumstances the software can be used.
What if Linus suddenly decided that anybody having anything to do with 'fur' , could not use Linux? ANTI-FUR GPL
What if Linus decided that companies that produce GM food could not use Linux? ANTI-GM food GPL ?????????

[ Reply to This | Parent ]

Zealotry and Ulterior Motives.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't want people using your code, get a clue - and make it proprietary.

The day I see the GPL include a subsection denoting, "Unless you're a warmongering nation, then you can't use it!" is the day I start including, "Unless you're a smelly hippy trying to use software as a political platform. Then you can't use it!" on all my code.

Software != Politics.

Stop trying to make it such.

Of Course an Open License Can be Restricted

[zang0]

The bulk of the comments here all seem to insinuate something to the effect that as an open source developer, you should not expect to have any restrictions whatsoever placed upon your work, and that you accept this upon "opening" your work. This is totally ridiculous. The GPL itself places all types of restrictions on the use of the open source. It could be argued that some of these restrictions are in fact politically motivated. Arguments to the effect that it is impossible to define "military uses" could be applied to just about anything in the law. The law is all about attempting to place a concrete definition on an inherently ambiguous problem, so that folks can interpret it as their reason dictates -- and upon a conflict of understanding, the parties show up in a court and a judge/jury settles the dispute w/ their interpretation. I see the task of defining an open source license that excludes military uses as no more difficult than defining the GPL that excludes derivative uses (i.e. new apps that uses GPL'd libraries) from not being GPL'd. If a group of programmers wants such an open source license, I say great, go for it, and get a good lawyer to help you draft it.

Re:Of Course an Open License Can be Restricted

[dvdeug]

I see the task of defining an open source license that excludes military uses as no more difficult

Then you don't understand what an open source license is. It is a grant to use the code for any purposes - read the Open Source definition. You may feel that adding a license statement against the military may be reasonable; someone else may feel that a license statement against pornography may be reasonable; and yet another may feel that a license statement against religion is reasonable. What you end up with, then, is a collection of software with license terms where you have to read every license to make sure your use is conforming, which is something that Free Software was created to prevent, and something that Free Software developers and users don't want to deal with.

Are you kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

3 Years ago when I was in high school the army parked a big trailer in front of the school filled with video games to entice people into joining the military. People were skipping classes to play games.

Yay propaganda.

Re:Are you kidding?

[sixdotoh]

and now some high school kids are trying to ban the military from coming to their schools. that is whats rediculous

Re:Are you kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. They don't want to be subjected to the military propaganda.

Re:Are you kidding?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not the kids, it's the Democrat party^w^wteachers union

What about Open Hardware?

[supergiovane]

Shouldn't Open Hardware licenses include the restriction that such hardware cannot be used to harm people smashing their heads with circuit boards?

Seriously, 'free' means 'free', not 'free minus epsilon'.

Thinking and having opinions is a bunch of crap.

[urbazewski]

Actually, if you read the article, you'll see that the developer being interviewed (Anthony L. Awtrey) works directly with the U.S. Dept. of Defense on military applications of open source software. How is this not "helping the 'U.S. go to war with Iraq'"?

To Awtrey's credit, he has thought the issue through and considered the effects of his actions, and is willing to engage in a reasoned discussion of his decisions. What I can't understand is other people's unwillingness to go through the same process with regards to their own opinions and actions.

YES! Let OpenSource FREE IRAQ/Kill Saddam!

[TheCeltic]

Yes, of course OpenSource can/will/should be used to truly free iraq. Freeing the Iraqi people by Killing Saddam and his Armies is a great use for OpenSource. Over the years, our freedoms have often been defended by using "free" and/or volunteer resources.

Slippery slope...slippery slope...

[uimedic]

Wasn't the internet itself a military project? Besides, where do you draw the line. The military is HUGE. If I use your code to run my business that makes MREs (Meal Ready to Eat) which I sell to campers and relief agencies, am I violating the terms of your license if I sell them to the Military too? "I was thinking of the immortal words of Socrates who said...'I drank what?'"

I'd like to buy the world a Coke...

[Anonymous Coward]

Death to all fanatics!

Get some priorities!

[Thud457]

"the only thing I hold higher in regard above my beer is the prospect of getting more beer! "

Dude, your head is screwed on backwards! The prospect of getting more beer should be priority #2 after you deal with item #1 on the agenda, the beer currently in front of you.

Sheesh. Kids these days. I weep for America.

Re:Get some priorities!

[Grayputer]

Hey, haven't you heard of pipelining and parallel processing! Start the 'get beer' processing early and let it run in parallel with the 'consume current beer' processing, overlapping the Inputs. Now if you could do that in the bathroom you'd truely overlap the I/Os.

Which law have they broken?

[porkchop_d_clown]

Going to war would be in compliance with resolution 1441.

Al Qaeda is known to use PGP -- Ask Zimmerman

[jerryasher]

As Declan McCullagh notes, Al Qaeda is known to use PGP.

Quotes from Zimmerman regarding developing technology that might be used by criminals and terrorists:

What are your feelings about the fact that your tool can be used by people with intentions that are opposed to your original idea?

I can't think at one way to make this technology available to everyone, without also making it available to criminals. I thought about it a lot. This has been the focus of the debate in the '90s: many cryptographers tried to think about the way to make this technology available to good people without making it available to bad people, but nobody could find a solution.

Like the telephone?

Yes. For example: after 11 September there were some speculations about the terrorists using some GPS technology. I don't think there is any evidence that they did, they were only speculations that I read in an article at that time. Well, if they did, they were applying technology directly to kill people. You know, it's difficult to fly a plane. It's difficult even to fly it to the airport, it's even more difficult to fly it against the World Trade Centre. It's not a normal path, it would help to have a GPS. This is just speculation. Anyway, the manufacturers could stop making GPS receivers. But what about the rest of us: we benefit from GPS receivers.

By the way, the U.S. Military is not the bad guy here, and by no means do I want anyone to think that I feel that way. Should we go to war, it's our kids that will be the targets of bullets and most likely gas and bio shit, all because in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, our elected leaders sowed the seeds of discontent around the world, and ignored the crop.

I hope our military uses whatever they can, however they can, legally. If you have a problem with the war, run for the PTA, the local council, state government, or federal government. Did you remember to vote?

Re:Al Qaeda is known to use PGP -- Ask Zimmerman

[harlows_monkeys]

Phil Zimmerman was quoted as saying: "I can't think at one way to make this technology available to everyone, without also making it available to criminals. I thought about it a lot. This has been the focus of the debate in the '90s: many cryptographers tried to think about the way to make this technology available to good people without making it available to bad people, but nobody could find a solution"

A good start would be make it so that good people don't NEED to use it.

For example, I've used gpg to encrypt email concerning romantic feelings. There shouldn't be any need to encrypt such email, because reading about other people's romantic feelings should be boring, because it is so common.

However, the nature of my romantic feelings in that case did not align 100% with what society considers to be normal, and there are some people who would see that as a perfectly good reason to deny me a job, or housing, or service.

So, I encrypted.

In a truly free society, where society accepts the freedom includes the freedom to be different without penalty, then most of us would not bother with encryption. At most, we'd use digital signatures to verify identity, and those things that we did need to encrypt would be encrypted to protect against theft (e.g., credit card numbers when buying online), and in those cases, we'd have no problem with key escrow.

Re:Al Qaeda is known to use PGP -- Ask Zimmerman

[Planesdragon]

However, the nature of my romantic feelings in that case did not align 100% with what society considers to be normal, and there are some people who would see that as a perfectly good reason to deny me a job, or housing, or service.

So, which are you:

* Man-boy lover
* Bestiality freak
* Incestuous
* Homosexual

As of very recently, if someone denies you anything in New York, you can sue them. As for the rest--well, if any of those three describe you... nah, can't finish that sentence with someone who's probably just gay.

My point is, you CAN be different--but you can only be so different. Society is a lot more tolerant and open than it once was--but we don't know it, because semitransparancy and privacy are locked in a vicious cycle with identity theft and stalking. (Think about it--if the system were truly transparant, both stalking and identity theft would essentially never happen.)

Re:Al Qaeda is known to use PGP -- Ask Zimmerman

[bedouin]

By the way, the U.S. Military is not the bad guy here, and by no means do I want anyone to think that I feel that way.

Oh my God, this is so laughable. Let's take a look at history, shall we?

I know there's a whole preconceived notion that when you're young and join the military you're innocent, and deserve some kind of sympathy. It's sad when people die, but the fact of the matter is, when you join the armed forces, knowing you could at one point be ordered to kill people who've done nothing wrong to you, just on the command of one person, you are responsible . Given that, if you disagree with war you don't "support our troops" on principle. If you joined the Armed Forces you made a stupid decision, and even a dishonorable discharge is better than the other result.

I hope our military uses whatever they can, however they can, legally. If you have a problem with the war, run for the PTA, the local council, state government, or federal government. Did you remember to vote?

Yet at the same time you admit previously that stupid American policy is the reason those troops are in danger in the first place? So why do you "hope our military uses whatever they can?" Enlightened people don't waste their time viewing themselves as members of some fictitious nation drew up by manmade borders, with some horrible notion that these lines must be defended. You don't support a war just because your 'country' happens to be involved in it -- this isn't a fucking football game with your local teams playing in it.

Re:Al Qaeda is known to use PGP -- Ask Zimmerman

[jerryasher]

Given that, if you disagree with war you don't "support our troops" on principle.


Hey Mr. Black & White, sorry you're just wrong.

Turns out that I can make a distinction between the troops, their immediate leaders, and our society's leaders. And it turns out you can't tell me I cannot. Cause that's the beauty of our system. Nyahh, nyahh, nyahh.

Or to put it another way, read my post again, this time without all the baggage you carry into it.

And Mr. Takes Quotes Out of Context, what I said was: "I hope our military uses whatever they can, however they can, legally". Which is to say, that the folks with their ass on the line, on the line for you whether you choose to acknowledge that or cop out, are for the most part young adults and young kids that we've placed in harms way. I take that seriously, while you seemingly would like to avoid that responsibility. If they have a weapon available to them, one that's legal to use in their context, I want them to use it and use it with necessary force.

Please don't tell me of enlightened people. I haven't seen many enlightened people on our planet, mainly just folks pushing their own self interests.

I would like to think that enlightened people do whatever they can, however they can to ensure that human rights are respected and fostered around the world. Dictators and tyrants should be recognized as such and treated appropriately.

Don't tell me why I am supporting this war. You don't know if I am or not, or why I am or not. Don't set up strawmen. Don't associate me with a false karass.

Don't give me a history of the US Military. I specifically said they are not the bad guys "here."

If you don't like this war, what are you really doing about it? How are you protesting in ways that matter? What kind of car are you driving? What have you done wrt ANWR? What insulation is in your house? Do you turn your computers off at night? Do you support the ACLU and the EFF? Have you voted recently? Have you spoken to the candidates or written them letters or visited them in their offices? Have you volunteered?

Or do you just like to badmouth the troops that your carelessness has placed in harms way?

Re:Al Qaeda is known to use PGP -- Ask Zimmerman

[bedouin]

Turns out that I can make a distinction between the troops, their immediate leaders, and our society's leaders.

Yes, you can -- congratulations. And you know what, so can those soldiers before deciding to sign up to be reservists. They're still responsible. It doesn't take a genius to know that joining a government's military means defending that government's political leaders, no matter how wrong it may be.

Which is to say, that the folks with their ass on the line, on the line for you whether you choose to acknowledge that or cop out, are for the most part young adults and young kids that we've placed in harms way.

If I started a fight with some kid trying to steal his lunch money, and he totally kicked my ass in the process, then I went to my mother and asked her to feel sorry for it, because I was only trying to protect my peers' interest and social status, do you think she'd give me a hug and say "good job?" When Bush sends his gang over to sniff for oil and bully around already poor Iraqis in the name of it, I don't see a reason to say "it's okay guys!" Being young and stupid isn't an excuse. At age 18 you're old enough to be tried as an adult for a crime, but that person doesn't understand that war, inherently, means innocent people die? Presumably, at age 18 he would've studied enough history to know that most wars were over bullshit, and maybe glanced over that whole Vietnam thing. If after doing all that he decided the college money from the US military was just fabulous and he had to do it, hey . . he can get this year's darwin award after getting blasted.

I take that seriously, while you seemingly would like to avoid that responsibility. If they have a weapon available to them, one that's legal to use in their context, I want them to use it and use it with necessary force.

Blah, this argument is so tired. So the issue for you is WHO is being killed, not the simple fact that SOMEBODY is being killed? So essentially, you'd PREFER a 20 year old Iraqi, poor and, by your fearless leader's terminology "oppressed" at that, be murdered than a similarly aged (and also white, another subconscious bonus for you probably) American, who happens to be wrongfully INVADING their country? Here's a solution: when the call to go to war comes, you refuse it, and nobody gets killed.

Please don't tell me of enlightened people. I haven't seen many enlightened people on our planet, mainly just folks pushing their own self interests.

Oh right, you mean like Americans who want lower oil prices and support a war with Iraq, and even when there is no war still bitch about how high the prices are, when they pay less per barrel than most European nations?

Dictators and tyrants should be recognized as such and treated appropriately.

Yeah, so you should probably deal with that Sharon guy that you keep mistakenly sending millions of dollars of aid to. I mean, it's not like he kills people unjustly on a regular basis or anything.

If you don't like this war, what are you really doing about it? How are you protesting in ways that matter? What kind of car are you driving? What have you done wrt ANWR? What insulation is in your house? Do you turn your computers off at night? Do you support the ACLU and the EFF? Have you voted recently? Have you spoken to the candidates or written them letters or visited them in their offices? Have you volunteered?

Or do you just like to badmouth the troops that your carelessness has placed in harms way?

I'm what one might call a 'student activist' and have done a number of things on my campus. Hell, after 9/11, and especially recently with this upcoming war on Iraq I've found allies amongst people who would generally never speak to one another (environmental organizations on campus working alongside anarchist ones for similar causes is one example I can think of).

And even if I didn't vote, I don't see how that would've placed any troops out of harm's way, after watching Bush rig this last election.

And do I turn my computers off at night? Of course not, otherwise I wouldn't be on Slashdot.

open source and...

[trb]

Where are you going to draw the line? You don't like the USA military starting a war with Iraq. The next open source developer doesn't like baby-killing pro-choice people. The next one doesn't like privacy-invading anti-abortionists. The next one doesn't like Moslems, Jews, Hindus, capitalists, and so forth.

A related quote, on the selective enforcement of laws:

More: There is no law against that.

Roper: There is! God's law!

More: Then God can arrest him.

Roper: Sophistication upon sophistication.

More: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal.

Roper: Then you set man's law above God's!

More: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact - I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of the law, oh, there I'm a forrester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God....

Alice: While you talk, he's gone!

More: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law!

Roper: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law!

More" Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

Roper: I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you - where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast - man's laws, not God's - and if you cut them down - and you're just the man to do it - d'you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake.

--Thomas Bolt, "A Man for all Seasons"

Re:open source and...

[seanadams.com]

You don't like the USA military starting a war with Iraq.

Iraq's starting this war? Have you been in a fucking coma since 09/10/01?

War is a fact of life. If you're not willing to fight, someone else is, and YOU WILL DIE.

Re:open source and...

[seanadams.com]

Er... meant to say:

"the USA is starting this war?"

Re:open source and...

[trb]

You don't like the USA military starting this war with Iraq.

That is not what I meant to imply. I presented a realistic conjecture encompassing a set of hackers with diverse opinions, implying that if we chose to throttle open source development based on differences in our ideologies, we would certainly fail in our goal to produce software.

I did not state my opinion on anyone starting a war with anyone else, I think that subject would be off-topic here.

Re:open source and...

[dvdeug]

Iraq's starting this war? Have you been in a fucking coma since 09/10/01?

There's no evidence - even Bush claims none - that Iraq had anything to do with that. The terrorists were from Egypt and Saudi Arabia - our "friends".

War is a fact of life. If you're not willing to fight, someone else is, and YOU WILL DIE.

Kill them all, and let God sort then out? War is not a fact of life; we as humans can choose to fight, or not. If we choose to fight anyone who scares us, then this planet will be covered with shrines to the battle-god ("Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom -- A field where a thousand corpses lie.") War is horrible, and the man who wants to fight one should remember that.

Do not weep, maiden, for war is kind.
Because your lover threw wild hands toward the sky
And the affrighted steed ran on alone,
Do not weep.
War is kind.

Hoarse, booming drums of the regiment,
Little souls who thirst for fight,
These men were born to drill and die.
The unexplained glory flies above them,
Great is the battle-god, great, and his kingdom --
A field where a thousand corpses lie.

Do not weep, babe, for war is kind.
Because your father tumbled in the yellow trenches,
Raged at his breast, gulped and died,
Do not weep.
War is kind.

Swift blazing flag of the regiment,
Eagle with crest of red and gold,
These men were born to drill and die.
Point for them the virtue of slaughter,
Make plain to them the excellence of killing
And a field where a thousand corpses lie.

Mother whose heart hung humble as a button
On the bright splendid shroud of your son,
Do not weep.
War is kind.

-- War is Kind, by Stephen Crane

A different perspective

[sielwolf]

A hypothetical case: Let's say I was going to blow up VA Software with a cruise missile and inside this cruise missile I was running embedded RTLinux. You find this out because I have a Sourceforge project where I am releasing my modified source in compliance with the GPL.

As we can see the GPL is only a legal document, not an ethical or moral one. As I'm following the letter of the GPL, the RTLinux developers shouldn't care... legally.

Sure, they can be outraged and upset with everything else (and why not?). But ethical use has nothing to do with the GPL. Open Source is egalitarian in that way. I can use Apache to host anti-abortion or anti-death penalty websites. As many as I want. The license isn't there to judge intent.

Now could they create a new OS license that makes it illegal for someone to use the technology in weaponry? SURE! But it isn't, so right now it is moot.

Re:A different perspective

[will_die]

Except that they would have no reason to release the code.
According to the GPL they only have to release source code to people that get the binary. You can use the code in-house all you want and the general public would never see the changes.

I guess you could argue that putting it in a missile would be the same as inbedding it in a ROM, and putting that in a PDA. In which case I guess that thoses hit by the missile would have the right to request the source code, but IANAL.

Focusing on the wrong point

[Thud457]

The software's just a neutral tool.

If you're generous enough to give it freely to society, you shouldn't worry about whatever applications misguided people put it to.

If you have concerns about how members of society choose to behave, you need to work to improve society.

Let me get this straight...

[DarkGamer]

By making machines that can kill foreigners more efficiently, we save lives. You say: "the sooner the war ends, the fewer lives will be lost"

If d is total deaths, weapon killing efficiency is K, and t is time;

Kt = d or
t = d/K

Given that time = money;

$ = deaths / Killing efficiency

Expect a profit-motivated Bush war to be a long, slow one, with lots of body bags.

Re:Let me get this straight...

[shreak]

You're exactly right. Except that the $$ you're quoting isn't "Money" it's "Money saved". Your assersion that time=money comes from the expression "Time is Money". The usage of that phrase is typically in conjunction with someone or something waisting time and costing money.

So in your equation:

$ = deaths / Killing efficiency

$ is money saved not revenue.

If # deaths required to end the conflict remains constant then any improvement in efficiency will DECREASE cost.

=Shreak

Re:Let me get this straight...

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying we should reduce the killing efficency (K) in order to maximize profits ($)?

That seems counter intuitive.

Actually, to maximize profit, shouldn't we kill all foreigners (ie, non-Americans) and take their stuff? Or is it sufficient just to make them all Americans?

Crackerz

[IanBevan]

I had a look at the slideshow in the link and was amused by this page where it has some word definitions, one of which is Ownship. Now I thought that this is what happens when crackerz take control of the simulator and take the driver on the wildest ride of their life.
Then I realised it probably should have read own ship. Much less interesting...

Stallman is against war

[WildBeast]

If you follow Stallman closely, he's against war.
www.stallman.org

Creating stuff to help governments kill people isn't exactly a good hobby.

Not a free software issue

[Angst Badger]

This isn't an issue limited to free software or even to software at all; it's a technology issue and, reduced to its bare essence, the question is whether an inventor is responsible for the use of his inventions.

The question of intellectual property is entirely beside the point. I remember that, when downloading Oracle for Linux, I was required to fill out an HTML form affirming that I would not use the product for the development of nuclear weapons. Somehow, I have a hard time picturing Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il saying, "Well, shit. I can't use Oracle for my clandestine nuclear program because of this license. I guess I'll have to use MySQL instead." The same is true of commercial software. Does anyone believe an export license (or for that matter, a licensing fee) would stop anyone from either purchasing a boxed copy in the US or Europe or just downloading a copy from alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc? If you don't want your code to be misused, don't release it. If you release it, it eventually, inevitably will be misused.

Several years ago, I completed work on a library and set of tools for textual- and communication-traffic analysis. Among the things you could do with the tools was determining authority relationships between people in an organization on the basis of the patterns of their email communications. Another interesting application, which I tested with a full non-binaries Usenet feed, was a surprisingly effective system for determining the political affiliation of posters on the basis of their non-political postings. (For the curious, I used a sample group of 1,000 posters who made consistent ideological posts to political newsgroups as well as non-political posts to non-political newsgroups.) The accuracy rate over a six month period approached 95%.

Concluding that such code could be used by governments to track political dissidents, I was reluctant to release the code. Once John Ashcroft and John Poindexter appeared on the scene, I destroyed the source. This was probably pointless, as the algorithms being used are well-understood -- only the particular combination of algorithms was novel -- and the NSA probably has similar software written by much smarter guys than me, but when my own government, much less foreign tyrants, is arresting people without charges and holding them incommunicado in undisclosed locations, I didn't want to be responsible for contributing to the next round of political arrests.

Contrary to what the above seems to imply, I don't think inventors ought to be held responsible for the misuse of their inventions. I do think that inventors ought to be held responsible for failing to consider the potential consequences of misuse, however. In my case, I decided the potential benefits were outweighed by the potential abuses and decided not to release. Ultimately, that's all you can do if you are concerned about abuses, for the simple reason that the people who are likely to abuse your code are not going to be stopped by legal fictions like the GPL, copyrights, patents, or anything less substantial than the barrel of a gun.

Failure of the M247 Sergeant York DIVAD

[Anonymous Coward]

I once knew a couple of programmers who were avowed pacifists and who worked on the software which ran the Sergeant York air defence system.

I have often wondered if it was a coincidence that some of the software components of the system never really worked properly.

Source for War

[LittleBigScript]

#include
#include
#include
#include

int main()
{
cout "Attack!" endl;

while ((War==True) && (!Over_And_We_All_Go_Home_Heros))
{
Bomb();
}

return 0;
} //Ok let's see if it will run without //War being declared...

Re:Source for War

[boomka]

This source is fake, you can tell because the real one would never end with return 0;

The Straw Men

[Un pobre guey]

Unfortunately, Mr. Awtrey and his Iraqi wife have fallen prey to the several fallacies, rhetorical tricks, and straw man arguments in common circulation:

• The point is to disarm S. Hussein and Iraq
• We need to "keep the oil flowing"
• If you are against the invasion, you support S. Hussein
• If you support the UN, you do not have the will, courage, strength, etc. to confront S. Hussein
• We are doing it to stop the proliferation of WMD
• We are going to liberate the people of Iraq
• We are going to bring democracy to Iraq
• We have no "territorial ambitions," as G. Bush has claimed
• We are committed to fighting evil
• We are by definition fundamentally good, and thus most suited to decide on our own what regimes should be confronted and how to do it
• An overwhelmingly strong military and demonstrable willingness to use it are the best guarantors of peace
• The best way to dissuade authoritarian regimes from developing deterrent WMD arsenals is to threaten them with full-scale military invasion
• We will defeat asynchronous, decentralized, distributed religious fundamentalist terrorists with full-scale military confrontation

I could go on, but I don't have time. If you believe in the above points, then may the gods have mercy on all of us.

Re:The Straw Men

[Bingo Foo]

Ah yes, the old "fart and leave the room" rhetorical technique.

My wife (also an erstwhile Iraqi), and I would like to address your points, but alas, I don't have time. Let me at least discuss your first and last points:

First, the point is not simply to disarm S. Hussein and Iraq, it is to wipe him and his regime off the face of the planet. It is to humilitate him utterly and dissuade anyone else from attempting to emulate him. The Mussolini treatment would not be inappropriate in the least. It is to put a functioning free government in place that will scare the crap out of neighboring despots. "Disarmament" comes as a corollary.

Your last "fallacious" point is the only one you've listed that is actually false, and I know of no one who believes it. That is why the war is being carried out on dozens of fronts, from full-scale military, to special forces, to financial forensics, to conventional law enforcement, to ideological psy-ops, to signals intelligence, ...

Re:The Straw Men

[cranos]

Ummm just a question, what makes Saddam and Iraq any different from the multitude of tin-pot dictators around the world. And what gives the US the right to decide who is bad and who isn't?

Frankly I would be more supportive of an effort to remove Saddam if it was led by the UN without any US involvement at all.

Tell me something, what if the rest of the World decided that the US presented a threat. After all it is run by a fundementalist christian with access to WMD, and it has a notoriously trigger happy military.

Re:The Straw Men

[Un pobre guey]

By writing that I did not have time, I assumed it was obvious that I didn't have time to write a longer list, not that I would "fart and leave the room."

First, the point is not simply to disarm S. Hussein and Iraq, it is to wipe him and his regime off the face of the planet. It is to humilitate him utterly and dissuade anyone else from attempting to emulate him. The Mussolini treatment would not be inappropriate in the least. It is to put a functioning free government in place that will scare the crap out of neighboring despots. "Disarmament" comes as a corollary.

Well, well, as luck would have it you appear to be a faithful believer in many of the extant themes of the Invasion of Iraq morality play. While it is believable that the Hussein regime will be largely removed, it is childish and short-sighted to believe that it is possible to "wipe him and his regime off the face of the planet." He and many of the highest-echelon members of his regime will most likely be eliminated, but from a certain level downwards, current members of the Iraqi government, armed forces, and civil service will remain. Why? Because American forces are stupid? Because they are in collusion with them? No, because it is the easiest and most practical way for the banal drudgery of government to continue after an invasion. I suspect you will be rather disappointed when that occurs.

If you think part of the point is to humilitate him utterly and dissuade anyone else from attempting to emulate him. The Mussolini treatment would not be inappropriate in the least, then you evidently believe those sorts of things actually do dissuade tyrants. My personal view is that you are mistaken, and I wonder whether you can adduce any credible evidence to support those beliefs, but I will not debate it further.

It is to put a functioning free government in place that will scare the crap out of neighboring despots. "Disarmament" comes as a corollary.

This, tragically enough, is your most important mistake. I wish as much as you or anyone else that this were a likely outcome. It is not, and the second half of the last century is littered with false hopes, broken dreams, poverty, misery, and arbitrarily tortured and disappeared individuals in many countries. I suspect the best we can hope for is for the new Iraqi regime to be significantly less savage than the current one. I don't think we can realistically expect much more. As to scaring the crap out of neighboring despots, I can only hope you are not referring to the monarchies we suppoert in the area to control Persian Gulf oil production. It is precisely that system of client management that the war is meant to support and defend.

My last point is indeed false, as you point out. The sort of threat represented by the likes of Al Qaeda is not one that we can neutralize militarily. As you point out, it must be done on many fronts. And that is why I pointed out this fallacy. As you say, not many people believe it (or so I hope) yet we are concentrating a lot of money on the military solution. That, as it happens, is an important clue about what the wizard is doing behind the curtain. That brings me to the final point I will make (I am at work, and I am not paid to write rants on slashdot).

...the point is not simply to disarm S. Hussein and Iraq

The disarming of Iraq is but an incidental purpose. If you follow the money, you will find the more compelling ones.

Re:The Straw Men

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish as much as you or anyone else that this were a likely outcome. It is not, and the second half of the last century is littered with false hopes, broken dreams, poverty, misery, and arbitrarily tortured and disappeared individuals in many countries. I suspect the best we can hope for is for the new Iraqi regime to be significantly less savage than the current one. I don't think we can realistically expect much more.

Of course, since everyone knows brown people can't govern themselves with equity. We'll reserve that right for us. You go boy!

Re:The Straw Men

[mi]

if it was led by the UN without any US involvement at all.

Yea, Belgium will send 200 troops, Spain will provide 500 and Germany will pay for the rental of two Ukrainian transport aircraft to get them to Iraq. 120 Danish soldiers will setup a "safe haven" refugee camp, which will be overrun by Iraqi military (because the Danes will only be armed with pepper spray), that will execute all refugees as traitors. France will not participate, because its Foreign Legion is busy in Cote d'Ivoire (sp?). Turkey's and Iran's offer of troops will be rejected, because of suspected insencerety of their position... Russian navy will be monitoring "the safety of Russian interests in the region"... Noone, including China, will even think of asking China to participate...

Sorry, you can not do it "without any US involvement". Seeing it lead by UN would be much better, of course, to keep the UN's shattering prestige, among other reasons... And that's what Bush is trying to achieve. But we should go on without UN backing -- it is better than drag our feet, like France is proposing. Give him another 12 years? No...

If Saddam is showing any cooperation at all (after 12 years, that were supposed to be 1), it is because of the US/Brittish/Australian armada at its borders. However, keeping such an armada is not at all cheap or easy.

Tell me something, what if the rest of the World decided that the US presented a threat. After all it is run by a fundementalist christian with access to WMD, and it has a notoriously trigger happy military.

What exactly do you want to be told? Throughout the years US managed to avoid developing such feelings in the rest of the world... [BTW, Saddam is not a fundamentalist or even much of a follower of any faith. He is desperately trying to change that reputation -- to rally the Muslim world -- but he is not.]

This is the root of your disagreement -- the anti-americanism. Even if you think, the your anti-americanism is justified, you should realize, that you are not really opposing the "regime change". So, consider an anti-McDonalds rally instead :-)

-mi

Re:The Straw Men

[cranos]

Umm Bush by no means is trying to keep the prestige of the UN, if anything he would probably prefer to see the UN relegated to the history books. Much easier to be the dominant player without those pesky hinderances like international law.

As for America going in without UN approval, you do realise that such an action will open up the US to charges of war crimes don't you, surprise surprise, it is actually illegal to invade another country, not that the US actually worries about that.

I am not anti-American, America has come up with some wonderful concepts and ideas, freedom of expresion comes to mind, I am anti-Bush, which is completely different. I think Bush is either a not to bright puppet put up by the right and conservative christians or he knows exactly what he is doing and really doesn't care what it does to global stability. Either way he is dangerous and I trust him about as much I trust our Prime Minister, better known as Deputy John. (Im Australian by the way).

Re:The Straw Men

[pauldy]

It is called doing the right thing and judging by recent news your country understands it even if you and certain aerial skiers don't.

I'm sorry you are anti-bush have you ever been pro any american leader. Let me get the duct tape casue if you say Clinton.

Gotta Save Money Somehow

[Hellraisr]

After all, that America's Army game must cost them a ton in development fees and distribution fees

Why Iraq and not North Korea...

[jeff67]

If you are right that Iraq doesn't have the bomb (I'm not sure even the inspectors can say that with any certainty), all the more reason to invade them rather than North Korea - Iraq won't launch nukes it doesn't have. Attacking North Korea in no way assures they won't get a nuke off, unless the US were to launch an all-out preemptive nuke attack against them, which is not on the table right now, in small part because it would prove true North Korea's belief that the US wants to destroy their country.

Re:Why Iraq and not North Korea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, gimme a break.

The weapon inspectors have very clearly said that it is *very* unlikely that Iraq has any kind of nuclear capacity.

It just seems that much of America just hear what it likes to hear.

If Iraq gives up any weapons of mass destruction they find, US officials say it proves they have kept them hidden and shall be attacked.

If Iraq continue keeping them hidden in fear of accusations of having WMD, they shall be attacked.

Anyone else smell a catch 22?

Re:Why Iraq and not North Korea...

[mfrank]

Sounds to me like the Iraqis, after the Gulf War, should have shown the inspectors their WMDs and let them watch as they were destroyed. In other words, they should have lived up to the terms of the cease-fire. They chose not to do so. Kicking the inspectors out in '98 was not a bright thing for them to do either. Now the only way to be sure they're living up to the terms of the cease-fire is with an occupying army.

Oh well, on the bright side, Saddam was able to get in another twelve years of torturing and murdering innocent men, women, and children. But all good things must come to an end.

Re:Why Iraq and not North Korea...

[GlassHeart]

all the more reason to invade them rather than North Korea - Iraq won't launch nukes it doesn't have. Attacking North Korea in no way assures they won't get a nuke off

Let's see if I got this right.

Invade Iraq because it wants nukes. In fact, better invade them now before they surely have nukes.

Don't invade North Korea, because they have nukes.

Sounds like the logical thing for any country to do is to hide their nuclear program as well as possible until you're ready to detonate one. Is that the world order America really wants to see?

I submit that if America - as the sole superpower - respects and treats each country without concern for nuclear capability, then people wouldn't be working so hard to get some.

Re:Why Iraq and not North Korea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see if I got this right. You would be happy if we went after North Korea for a newly broken agreement? Iraq broke it's agreement a long time ago. As a matter of fact, never comlied with it fully to begin with. The US is taking it slow on both counts. North Korea deserves time to work things out don't they? Iraq has had loads of time.

I submit that you would be just as cranky if the US was trying to invade North Korea. I sure would be. Give it some dang time! Iraq needs no more time in my opinion.

Re:Why Iraq and not North Korea...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

In other words, if Iraq chooses any path but complete compliance with UN resolutions, they shall be attacked.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Tally ho.

Re:Why Iraq and not North Korea...

[Twirlip of the Mists]

Kicking the inspectors out in '98 was not a bright thing for them to do either.

In all fairness to both sides of the argument, that's not precisely how it happened. What happened is that on August 5, 1998, Iraq sent a letter to the UN saying that they intended to stop cooperating with UNSCOM. On October 31, they followed through on that intention. On November 11, UNSCOM executive director Richard Butler decided that there was no reason for the inspectors to be in Iraq any longer, and told them to come home.

Just to reiterate, Iraq did not kick the inspectors out. They just decided to stop cooperating with them. The inspectors-- understandably-- decided to leave on their own.

Threatened with Allied air strikes, Iraq invited the inspectors to come back in, but still refused to cooperate with them. After three weeks, UNSCOM reported that Iraq still wasn't complying, and pulled the inspectors out once again.

Of course, unilaterally declaring that the inspections were over wasn't all that bright an idea. It bought them four days of bombings. It should have bought them an all-out invasion and a military governor-general, but at the time we (the US, and the Allies) didn't have that kind of political will, or, for that matter, that kind of ready military force.

Now the only way to be sure they're living up to the terms of the cease-fire is with an occupying army.

It certainly looks that way.

Re:Why Iraq and not North Korea...

[mirko]

Saddam was able to get in another twelve years of torturing and murdering innocent men, women, and children
What about your "colateral damages" ???
Your fscking embargo just made a million of these.
it was even acknowledged by Madeleine Albright.

Re:Why Iraq and not North Korea...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, that much most of us agree to.

The real question is what "complete compliance" mean.

Even more, what US read into the phrase.

But I must give US credit for letting Iraq disarm completely, then attack them. Kind of clever tactics, which will result in low US casualities.

Re:Why Iraq and not North Korea...

[mfrank]

I suppose you want us to apologize for the oil embargoes we placed on the Japanese before Pearl Harbor, too?

Re:Why Iraq and not North Korea...

[mirko]

what the hell are you talking about ?
I am just telling that the last time you sent a bush there (or a bush sent you there), there have been more colateral damages than actual accomplishments...

Re:Not with my bonified!

[TarPitt]

Its about bonified equality of use.

I thought you were making a statement about "equality" turned to "bone". I looked up "bonified" in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and found the following:

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

Suggestions for bonified:
1. boniface
2. bonefish
3. brownfield
4. Boniface
5. bonfire
6. bonfires
7. brownfields
8. bonefishes
9. Bondi
10. biannually

So is it the bonefish or the bonfire that you believe should have "equality of use"?

I look at it this way:

[s-orbital]

If Open Source is good for for the militaries (not just the US's), the militaries and their billions of dollars of research will be very good for open source. Most of our beloved geek stuff like the internet had its beginnings in military research.

Besides, wouldn't it be cool if the Recuiting games like AA, were made for Linux?

How to stop the terorists

[DaveAtFraud]

Just spread a rumor that they're using unlicensed copies of Windows, IIS, Office, etc. Then just have the Army follow the Microsoft lawyers and its all over in a couple of days.

China?

[BigChigger]

Should China be prohibited from using GPL code because they enslave their population and have a dictatorship/communist government? No. As much as despise the Chinese government, that's not what GPL is about. BC

Re:China?

[IXI]

Should [XXX] be prohibited from using GPL code

That is something explicitely disallowed by the GPL.

PS: the White House gets overgrown, could someone please remove the Bushes from the White House?

Ok

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this really what you want Open Source software to be associated with? War and bloodshed? "...xx..people died....aid...open source....developer's cheer..." Ok. Good. Great...

Dammit, they already covered this in Star Trek

[corebreech]

When the Klingons gave weapons to one faction in a pre-industrial society, Kirk went ahead and gave weapons to the other faction in an effort to restore equality.

Think of open source as having your own built-in Kirk... or RMS with a phaser. Sure they're going to use it for military purposes, but then so can the other guy.

And if there are bugs, so much the better.

No no No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Open source can never be used for military purposes. China, North Korea, Iraq, Iran, and other unfriendly to the USA countries would never, ever, ever use open source.

Oops, forgot about the China government sponsored version of linux.

Linux is Pure Evil (TM)

[Mitchell Mebane]

OMG! Super villians use Linux! LINUX MUST DIE!!!

Open Source is bad, 'mmkay?

Secrecy orders and eminent domain

[mr_death]

While I wouldn't put much stock in a Die Hard-type movie as a good source, the government can stop a patent from issuing, or take it outright. Methods include secrecy orders (seals a patent application for N years) or eminent domain (where the government takes property, but must compensate the owner.)

The war???

[codepunk]

Mr Bush just go in and get the job done, not tomorrow not next week but do it now. The UN and the opposing countries have been reduced to untrustworty cowards. France, Germany and Russia all signed the disarament agreement in November. That is right they signed the document, now that we know their signatures are not worth the paper they are written on, their opinions mean nothing. The hell with the UN just go get it done...

Tom Lehrer said it best...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Once rockets go up,
who cares where they come down?
That's not my department,"
says Werner von Braun.

Information

[t_allardyce]

The American millitary answers to no-one. The debate is pointless since they would use whatever technology they could get there hands on. Oddly enough this sounds similar to the Iraqi millitary. They mentioned zimmerman and pgp and guilt but software is no different from any other technology. Hundereds of years ago, no-one had guns, then someone invented guns, and now all countries have guns (except for us brits who have guns that dont like sand). Software just propogates faster than hardware because of its nature. But then you could argue that its ok to sell other countries software and weapons, if technology is already being made availiable freely. Why is putting instructions to build chemical weapons from household ingreadients on the web different to giving instructions to build gpg from the source? (ok they are very different things, bad example)

Re:Information

[Anonymous Coward]

"The American millitary answers to no-one"

WRONG!!!

The US military answers to a civilian master: the President of the US, a.k.a. the commander-in-chief. The President answers to Congress, who can impeach-convict-replace anytime they choose.

Re:Information

[t_allardyce]

Didn't Independance Day teach you anything? The US millitary spens $10000 on a hammer and $20000 on a toilet seat so they can pipe the funds into building secret installations that not even the presidents know about.

Re:Not with my bonified!

[Pharmboy]

No, its means I am from the south. We also use "yall, aint, momandem, fixing to, younto, aight, yonder, hellatious, wondermus" among others.

bonified defined: Genuine article. Real deal. Certifiable. True.

Use in context:
Anyone who would make fun of the word "bonified" is a bonified yankee or foreigner.

Any more questions? :)

Freedom

[SpikyTux]

Open source is about giving freedom/free speech to all. I'm very sure all developers have their very own contrasting idea about a lot of things. But it really doesn't matter, they're to co-exists.

If you force some idea to someone, you're just talking the freedom out of open source.

I anti-war myself. But whatever any developer do for the US government is their business. They have the freedom/right to do so.

Or ask yourself this, planes are used by terrorists to destroy the WTO towers. So are we to stop the production of planes because the terrorist use them? Similarly, the US government may use open source software to do whatever they want, even though a lot of them are idiotic.

You can have tools fall into good hands and bad. And yes, they yell vastly different result. But what about it? Are you to control who should use it or not? Will you be able to? Do you want to take away the freedom?

Opponent advantage

[gruhnj]

While one might not be supportive of the US military, restricting use of the software would not stop anyone, especially our enemies. Say that the enemy, regardless of who they are, begins to blow off the licence and begins to use it for military purposes. If its a critical enough target, we would like to bring it down. Unfortunatly we would be restained since WE FOLLOW THE LICENCE. Our only way to attack your software would (probably) be to use your own software to study its strengths and weak spots. Therefore for us to do our job, we would have to break the licence that the enemy already broke.

Hiding behind a licence is wrong, but evil will do it while we would respect it and get screwed in the process

PFC Gruhn
US Army, Fort Lewis
"Serve and Sustain"

Careful

[jimmyCarter]

I heard SendMail has a killing radius of 20 meters. Newer Patriot missiles are actually being fitted with Gimp warheads.

Rock-on.

uhm call me dumb but..

[Monofilament]

does writing or contributing to open source, have anything at all with your own personal political views. I really don't think it does.

I'd say do what your own convictions tell you to. If you feel that your contributions to a project are going towards a means that you don't like.. then don't contribute. But as a previous post said, Open source is open source. Anybody can use it. If you don't like that then don't do open source anymore. (or at least not in the project that is contributing to your moral conundrum.)

perhaps maybe?

[Ender Ryan]

Perhaps, maybe, did you even fucking acknowledge the possibility(?), that someone who came from Iraq has more insight into the situation than you do?

But, oh no, listening to someone who actually came from the region and is free to talk about it would go against one of the principles of Cyber-punditry.

Re:perhaps maybe?

[Rasputin]

Perhaps, maybe, did you even fucking acknowledge the possibility(?), that someone who came from Iraq has more insight into the situation than you do?

Better insight as to conditions inside Iraq, yes. Better insight as to the proper course of action for the United States, no. Being on the ground in Iraq does not necessarily give you insight into America's best interests. Unfortunately, it appears that the same can be said of being in the White House.

Re:perhaps maybe?

[Un pobre guey]

Perhaps, maybe, did you even fucking acknowledge the possibility(?), that someone who came from Iraq has more insight into the situation than you do? But, oh no, listening to someone who actually came from the region and is free to talk about it would go against one of the principles of Cyber-punditry.

Perhaps maybe you might consider whether knowing much at all about Iraq per se informs the discussion. Try substituting "Country X" for "Iraq" and "S. Hussein" in the list I posted, and you might find it to be both more general and more informative about current political dynamics.

As an aside, I lived for a total of almost 20 years in a despotic, corrupt, ruthless, exploitative, feudal, anti-democratic third world country, the country of my ancestors. It is a general problem, my friend, that cuts across culture and geography.

Re:perhaps maybe?

[pauldy]

General Noriega is this you?

For real here, I can't believe you argue this stuff with such fervor and yet the only points you make are predefined templates that you believe are applicable to all situations. So for you taking the situation on its merits, or lack of, and having an educated opinion is somehow beneath you? The more I read of you the more I'm seeing the tainted image of an old hippie smoking pot wondering why the world is so cruel.

Progressive ideals in non-progressive uses

[Project Bomns]

Even as a very strong anti-war activist, I find offense to the idea that people would want to restrict free software from being free. While I hate the thought that my code could be used to kill people, I also have to accept that it is just as likely to save people with advances in medical technology, etc. Open source is a progressive movement, and just because it benefits an act that can be seen as non-progressive, you're causing as much harm as good by limiting it. Parallels can be drawn to the recent Supreme Court case involving civil disobedience by anti-abortion activists. No matter how much I disagree with their cause, they have the same right to liberties as I do, and I support their ability to voice them. Freedom is no longer freedom if it only belongs to a select few. And in the end, it works out all right. I use Open Source technologies heavily in my struggle to keep this war from materializing. There are uses for server technology, desktop publishing and imaging, encryption, communications software, etc., that would not be available to me without Open Source due to my status as a volunteer - working completely without funding. Additionally, I'm much more trusting of Open Software, as there's no way to tell with closed products if the government has a backdoor to every word you say, every rally you organize; and suddenly federal marshalls start appearing before your act of civil disobedience even gets underway. It's tough to see code you right used in a way you don't agree with, but limiting its use in ANY way puts you on the same level as corporations with thick EULAs designed to circumvent freedoms to individuals.

USA May Absolutely Use My Code

[ibpooks]

I would be qutie proud if the military found my code worthy of their use.

Re:I am soooo dumb.....

[FatHogByTheAss]

of people taking for a given that this war is bad because that's what "good liberals" think. I'm not necessarily saying it's a great idea, as I haven't really made up my mind -

So, let me see if I understand your position.

You havn't made up your mind, but your sick of people that have? You havn't made up your mind, but you know enough about it to critique people that have thought about it, and made up their mind?

Are you waiting around until someone tells you what to think on the AM radio?

Personaly, I'm sick of people supporting the war in Iraq because it's the "good conservative" answer to terrorism. What has failed is Bush forign policy. He doesn't have an answer for terrorism, so he's got the sheep bleating "Iraq!" Apparently, it seems to be working.

So, stop microsoft but not iraq?

[taskiss]

ah, but ms is trying to take over OUR world...hey, you see evil, you bring it down, it's that simple. so, bring em both to their knees! and, no, i'm not joking.

C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[argoff]

Now the Iraqi pilots get get up to snuff in their large fleet of Blackhawk choppers using US simulators!

No No No - you got it all wrong. Contrary to the title, I refuse to believe this is a open source software issue. We all know both the US armed forces and the Iraqi's have a right to use it as much as anyone else does. IMHO this is about the war, so I'll bite. (I know I'm gonna get it, but I can't resist)

Screw the UN, screw France, and screw Saddam Hussein. We simply need to invade now and get it over with. Let's get real - you can't possibly expect the US gov to dally while this guy biulds god only knows what. C'mon we all know the first place any terrorist is going to go when they're looking for those big bad bombs - Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. But unlike the other two, we've patiently been trying to rid ourselves of Saddam's bullshit for 12 years. Even if he didn't have massive amounts of oil to finance his nuke programs, and even if he hadn't killed millions, and even if he didn't genocide his own people - it would still be a just war if for anything for the sake of trying to resuce the Iraqi people. I think even the folks in France know I'm right.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Frymaster]

you can't possibly expect the US gov to dally while this guy biulds god only knows what

why not? you guys did a great job of dallying while pakistan and north korea built the bomb. it's an open secret that isreal has the bomb and the u.s. continues to do nothing. seems like the us gov is good at dallying and doing nothing.

it would still be a just war if for anything for the sake of trying to resuce the Iraqi people

oh please. since when has the u.s. government cared about the lives of foreign civilians? do you not remember in 1984 when the un security council sought a resolution condemning iraq that it was blocked by the united states? how about in 1981 when the us state department took iraq off the list of nations that "sponsored terrorism"... conveniently this was done a few weeks after the iraqi invasion of longtime us-enemy iran. do you not remember in 1986 when the center for disease control and the american type culture collection sent anthrax and Clostridium botulinum strains to iraq? how about in 1988 when cdc/atcc *gave* iraq botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod? if there are bio weapons in iraq, remember where they came from: atlanta.

the us backed hussein for a decade because it was looking for someone to keep iran in line. no one gave a damn about the "iraqi people" from 1979 until last week. so why, all of a sudden, is it the united state's number one priority?

I think even the folks in France know I'm right

i think the people of france know that when the us ousts a government and puts in a new one, the new puppet has a bad habit of becoming a monster later on. remember noriega? remember (dare i say it) osama bin laden? the mujahadeen were called "the moral equivalent of the [us] founding fathers" by reagan back when they were fighting the soviets. oops. the difference between the us and france is that france understands history and is not blinded by ultranationalism.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Minna Kirai]

C'mon we all know the first place any terrorist is going to go when they're looking for those big bad bombs - Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

No, the smarter terrorists will head to Chechnya for their WMD needs. It's still uncontrolled and violent (easy for guerillas to move in and out), and it's got stockpiles of nuculear missiles that are tested, proven and functional.

We're not talking some tin-pot dictator's vanity A-Bomb program here; the fruits of 50 years of USSR R&D are up for grabs.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[mi]

Your point, that Iraq's monster is partially of US making is correct. The monster helped to contain another monster -- Iran -- as you point out. Saddam has also appeared to be a lot more sensible back then. He was quite secular and gave the country's women many of the rights they still don't have in other Muslim countries. However, the monster went out of control and will now be dismantled. Pitting different monsters against each other can be a legitimate policy...

Your other point, about other countries with dangerous weapons has little merit. Iraq is the only country, that was defeated in a righteous war and spared the "regime change" on condition of verified disarmament within a year. That period turned into 12 years, over which 17 UN resolutions were passed compelling it make good on its pledge.

No other country has such record, Iraq is the worst, (with North Korea being a distant second). [Neither Pakistan, nor India, nor Israel have ever joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties or otherwise promised not to develop WMDs...]

Back to pragmatism, yes there are other evil regimes out there. Seeing the "realpolitik" circumstances finally leading to one of them being "changed" should delight, rather than upset a sensible person.

Oil? I wonder, why we even went to Somalia, or why we are still in South Korea. Racism, anti-Muslim pro-Christian? It was U.S. that protected Albanians from Serbs -- after years of UN/European impotence... None of it is sheer generosity, but it is not "all about oil" either.

-mi

P.S. The French? Oh, they just can't get over the loss of the "grand nacion" (sp?) status. I doubt many distinguish anti-Iraq-war protests from smashing McDonalds' windows :-)

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[*weasel]

Seems to me that Japan turned out alright after US occupation. East Germany and later reunified Germany also seem to be alright.

If the US was in that habit of propping up more dictators, then i might agree with you in worrying about another monster. But since we seem to have been slowly learning the lessons of nation-building - and back democracy over puppets - I think you're just being contrary for the sake of demonstrating your knowledge of past foreign policy f*ckups.

Unfortunately, the cost of our defense priority at the time (stopping the spread of communism, right or wrong it was our public goal) - is that we have left people like noriega, usama, and saddam in power. utterly unfortunate - in hindsight. However, at the time, we didn't have the fortune of picking our battles or picking our time. We couldn't spend resources in securing a nation building in every country we used to help protect western thought. Now, with no one to openly oppose our military might on the battlefield - we can be a little more spendthrift. with the UN actually commiting a decent number of troops to assist in peacekeeping - we can take our time. But we didn't have that luxury before.

France and Germany's current elected officials seem to only be blocking in the UN to try to make UN approval seem like less of a formality for US foreign policy. Unfortunately - by doing so they run the risk of forcing the only remaining super power to operate outside of the UN, and potentially irreparably destroy the viability of that entity. Currently, the UN itself has felt compelled to do nothing but pass resolutions that apparently have no consequence when ignored outright. Should it insist on being stubborn on this issue - it might well fall by the wayside.

N Korea and Pakistan do not have histories within the last 40 years of gassing their people, nor in invading their neighbors. Pakistan is not ruled by dictatorship, but by democracy. N Korea has only recently been under the control of a dictator who is drawing a shocking parallel between himself and saddam. At the time of the bomb building - we tried to put a cap on the situation with diplomacy. Thats where the power reactor plans and the fuel shipment agreements came from.

So which is it? Are we wrong for wantint to forcibly stop Saddam? Or were we wrong for trying to feel secure with diplomacy in reigning in N Korea? You can't complain that we're too aggressive, and yet not aggressive enough at the same time.

The real problem now is that we've learned the tragic results of inaction. After the 1993 WTC bombing (under beloved liberal Clinton) and the USS Cole bombing we couldn't get any international support to put down ground forces and stop Osama. That's why we had to settle for cruise missiles. We've learned that we can't just settle with what the international community thinks.

When we encounter world governments that are not forthright, not honest, not stable - we have no choice but to ensure that they cannot jeopardize the safety of other free peoples.

You're right, we aren't motivated by the plight of the Iraqi people. We're motivated by the plight of the state of world security. Just as we weren't motivated by the horrible atrocities the people in Afghanistan had to live with. But does that mean that we aren't doing good by freeing them? Does that mean that we're tyrants for ousting murderous regimes and installing democracy?

The risk of inaction is too high. Tyrants can no longer be ignored because they don't have many troops or tanks or are half the world away.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[tpengster]

why not? you guys did a great job of dallying while pakistan and north korea built the bomb.

So let me summarize your logic: "We made terrible mistakes in the past, so let's repeat them." Thank God the President has more sense than you.

that isreal has the bomb and the u.s. continues to do nothing.

Israel is also an open democracy with elections, a free press, and (ironically enough) more rights for palestinians than any other country in the middle east. It also hasn't the history of invading its neighbors for their oil (like Saddam) or of blackmailing the west for aid (like North Korea). Israel is also our ally unlike the others. Israel is also surrounded by enemies who have openly promised to rid the world of Jews in a second if there were no threat of retribution.

[Long List of Mistakes we've made in the past]

Right. So we have a moral responsibility to the people of the middle east to rid them of the monster we created. Let's not leave this problem to fester until Saddam gets a nuclear weapon, at which point we will have utter and total chaos.

the us backed hussein for a decade because it was looking for someone to keep iran in line. no one gave a damn about the "iraqi people" from 1979 until last week. so why, all of a sudden, is it the united state's number one priority?

Because George W. Bush is a man of greater character than his predecessors. Because in the 1980's, we were fighting the greatest evil mankind has ever witnessed -- communism -- which took the lives of over 20 million people. Because we failed to destroy Stalin in 1945 before he got the atomic bomb. Because we engaged in a costly peace only a decade after the similarly idiotic appeasement of Hitler. Because September 11 awoke us to the true suffering of the peoples of the world, to their political powerlessness and economic hopelessness. Because we now understand the evilness and determination of our enemies. Because the President can now fight for the freedom of the Iraqi people with the majority backing of the American public. Because technology is changing the nature of the world and we must adjust to that change. Because democracies don't pick one foreign policy for all of time and stubbornly refuse to improve upon it. Because as a democracy we are constantly self-critical and strive for improvement at every stage. Because it only makes sense that we would be more helpful to others as our understanding of the world grows. Because such is the nature of progressivism, once called "liberalism". (Nowadays liberalism means criticism of the president of the U.S.)

i think the people of france know that when the us ousts a government and puts in a new one, the new puppet has a bad habit of becoming a monster later on.

I think the people of the United States also know that. That's why the US is promoting democracy in Afghanistan. And that's why we will continue to promote democracy in the Middle east -- Starting with Iraq.

I sincerely pray that this parent post was a troll, however, based on my personal experience with people's opinion it probably is not.

For anyone interested in the actual issues surrounding the war on Iraq, see my webpage: http://www.tpengster.com/bad.html

Thank you for keeping an open mind and contributing your thoughts.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[xombo]

oh please. since when has the u.s. government cared about the lives of foreign civilians? do you not remember in 1984 when the un security council sought a resolution condemning iraq that it was blocked by the united states? how about in 1981 when the us state department took iraq off the list of nations that "sponsored terrorism"... conveniently this was done a few weeks after the iraqi invasion of longtime us-enemy iran. do you not remember in 1986 when the center for disease control and the american type culture collection sent anthrax and Clostridium botulinum strains to iraq? how about in 1988 when cdc/atcc *gave* iraq botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod? if there are bio weapons in iraq, remember where they came from: atlanta.

No, you instensive clod, I don't remember, I was born in '87. Oh wait, you weren't asking me, ok then.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[joedavis123]

You forgot one other difference between the US and France.

They haven't had a few planes flown into their skyscrapers which killed a few thousand people. Its obviously known that Iraq didn't commit this crime, but there have been traces of people coordinating this who have fleed into Iraq because they known jack shit is gonna be done once they get in there. The situation could (and is) obviously similiar in other countries, but given our history in the past 10 years with Iraq, they seem to have become a priority.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Anonymous Coward]

You were born in 1987? You're a fucking zygote. I have sperm older than you are!
My fucking underwear is older than you! And it smells just as bad as you!

ZYGOTE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Frymaster]

The monster helped to contain another monster -- Iran -- as you point out

and where, exactly, did the iranian "monster" come from? well, in 1941 the allies invaded iran and deposed the shah. miracle of miracles, the new power structure in iran was decided by an election. the guy they elected was a chap called Mossadegh. Mossadegh did a lot of things... most of them very popular with the iranian people (he was even time's man of the year for 1951!). unfortunately, he decided to nationalize the iranina oil reserves. such a move was not popular with the us government as it limited foreign (read: us and british) investment in/control of the oil industry in iran. the solution was for the cia to orchestrate an overthrow of Mossadegh and a re-implemnentation of the shah. this, of course, they did and gave the people of iran 26 years of murderous dictatorship.

the rule of the shah resulted in two things in iran: 1. a hatred of the shah and a desire to oust him 2. a distrust of the united states who had put him there in the first place. eventually in 1979, the shah was ousted by kohmeni and ko.

a simple formula: you subvert a nation and its people will hate you. the us continues to prop up dictators and foster bad will around the world, then to contain the situation they develop more dictators (and develop more bad will).

Oil? I wonder, why we even went to Somalia, or why we are still in South Korea

south korea was a cold-war anti-domino play. why don't you ask your government why they bombed hanoi or cambodia instead? why don't you ask your government where they were when rwanda needed help? how about east timor? why don't you ask your government why they supported burtal dictatorships in el salvador and honduras in the 80s. were all of these decisions made to help the people of these nations? the united states government is not concerned with the lives and well being of foreign civilians unless it is convenient for public relations. that's realpolitik.

Neither Pakistan, nor India, nor Israel have ever joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties or otherwise promised not to develop WMDs...

so iraq merely has to not recommit to the nnpt andeverything is fine? unlikely. hey! you know what country is the biggest owner and producer of weapons of mass destruction? the united states. forget about nukes, there are over one million pounds of nerve gas in the pine bluff arsenal in arkansas right now. go and inspect it yourself.

The French? Oh, they just can't get over the loss of the "grand nacion" (sp?) status

so it's hubris? hm. there are some other nations that may have a little more in that department than the french...

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Pav]

Questions of the merits of a war aside :

There are too many lies, too much emotive language and too much unilateralism for me to be comfortable with the US position.

There are two issues : merits of war and the attitude/method employed by the US.

Most people agree that Hussein is a big problem and needs to be dealt with in some way, but the way the current US administration is dealing with this gives me a bad bad feeling.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Frymaster]

They haven't had a few planes flown into their skyscrapers which killed a few thousand people

no. they were crushed by the nazi war machine while america sat on it's ass though. :)

seriously. how many of the sept-11 pilots were iraqi? zero.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Anonymous Coward]

Osama bin Laden had never been to Afghanstan by 1983, when the Russian-Afghanistan war ended. The Mujahadeen were Afghans, not Arab, not Pakistani.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1999 President Musharraf (formerly General) ousted a corrupt non-democratic government in Pakistan that was headed for a Taliban-like dictatorship. The military coup was widely popular with most citizens of Pakistan. In 2002, after the instability of September 11, 2001, he postponed a promised referendum that would legitimize his presidency. Political opponents, radical Islamists, and western critics express skepticism about his (and the Pakistani military's) motives.

North Korea has been under the control of a dictator since the end of World War 2, when American and Soviet occupying forces split the country (which had been under Japanese control since 1895) at the 38th parallel. Stalin was the the first dictator. Kim Il Sung was established as a puppet ruler by the Soviets. In 1949, Kim courted Chinese dictator Mao Tse Tung, and in 1950, Stalin agreed to a joint influence. On June 25, 1950, Soviet backed North Koreans invaded South Korea. The United Nations, supported by the USA, sucessfully defended South Korea. Since then, North Korea has been a puppet state of communist China, with Kim, and his now his son, allowed free reign in personal matters, but not on state or international policy.

North Korea has been under a dictatorship for over 50 years, and it has always been a foreign dictatorship in real command. Kim's policies would not be allowed unless they were specifically endorsed by China. China only allows (I think encourages) such renegade statements and actions at present in order to test the United States while it is occupied with Iraq, and while it has lost international favor.

King Jong Il's behavior is a direct retalliation for President Clinton's "accidental" bombing of the Chinese embassy in Yugoslavia in 1998, and was instigated entirely because of the Iraq issue.

Korea's nuclear threat exists only from Chinese technology. Chinese long-range missile technology comes directly from US tecnology sold to China by the Clinton administration, made available because of Communist Chinese contribution to the Clinton/Gore presidential campaign.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[TamMan2000]

France has had plenty of problems with terrorists, in fact just about every western nation other than the US had terrorist incidents within their borders befoer 9/11.France has had plenty of problems with terrorists, in fact just about every western nation other than the US had terrorist incidents within their borders before 9/11.

I realize that 9/11 is an emotional issue for all of us Americans, but we need to keep our wits about us, and not let our emotions trick us in to believing Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The Bush administration is a much greater threat to our freedoms than Hussien is.

If it is true (I have not seen anything supporting your claim) that there is evidence of individuals affiliated with Al-Queda (sp?) in Iraq, we should give Iraq the same chance we gave the Taliban. We should demand that Iraq turn over a list of individuals known to be Al-Queda members, until we do that, and our demands are rejected (as they were in Afganistan) to even try to justify this war with the terrorism argument is wrong.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Anonymous Coward]

So in WW2 the US did too little (who gave France back to the French?), and now the US is doing too much? Where's the line you allude to?

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignore France, going to war with them is like going hunting with bagpipes. Just leave that noisy baggage behind, it's useless.

Oh yeah, frenchy, you're meaningless to us. Go home and read your history since you have a fine understanding of it. We'll make history. You read it.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[dvdeug]

The monster helped to contain another monster -- Iran -- as you point out.

The head of a popularly elected government decided to nationationalize Iranian oil. So we assasinated him and put the Shah back in power. When the students marched, he brought in soliders with machine guns to shoot them. We put this monster into power; why should be surprised that when his government is overthrown, the resulting government doesn't like us?

I've read about the current Iranian government. It's partially democratic, with elections open to all over 15, male or female. (Kuwait, which I assume you don't consider a monster, doesn't let women vote. Saudi Arabia doesn't let anyone vote.) It's not the most nice, liberal government in the world, but the governmental failings present themselves as voter apathy, not rebellions put down at gun point. It's probably optimistic, but I've defenitely got the impression that Iran will go totally democratic in the next decade, possibly without bloodshed.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[plierhead]

Because in the 1980's, we were fighting the greatest evil mankind has ever witnessed -- communism -- which took the lives of over 20 million people. Because we failed to destroy Stalin in 1945 before he got the atomic bomb.

Destroying Stalin in 1945 was hardly an option - he was America's ally at that time, and no-one of any political persuasion thought there was any chance at all of fighting Russia just as WWII finally drew to an end.

Probably the "right" thing would have been for the US to follow the British line more, and deal more harshly with the Soviets and the iron curtain. Who though can blame them for not doing so. And who's to say they were wrong anyway - somehow the world got through the next 40 years with organizations like NATO never firing a shot in anger. Sure there was a lot of tension. But maybe the outcome was the best that could be hoped for.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Anonymous Coward]

the difference between the us and france is that france understands history and is not blinded by ultranationalism

france *is* ultranationalsim - it's all they have left. All they ever try to do is poo poo the us in the world theatre. If they learned so damn much from history, why are they on the list of 3rd tier super powers? Additionally they don't give a rats ass about genuinely protecting the sovreignty of rack any more than we are trying to help the civilians of Iraq. It's all a big money/power grab - none of the UN countries *really* care, its allabout what will affect the interests of the nation(s). Don't try to take the high road (and don't think that france cares about the moral high road). It's the i'm holy'er then though of politics. France (as well as Germany) only cares that Iraq doesn't LOSE the power it has because it adversely affects their energy trade - just as our concern is to remove Iraq's power because it adversely affects our energy trade. Russia is one of the largest oil producers in the world - and stands to lose out big time if oil prices were to drop post America's trouncing of Iraq. Energy and Oil are the issues, for us - and the small dissenting voices of the UN (majority of UN countries are in favor of the US 16-3, on the news we only really here about and from the dissenting countries - France, Germany, and Russia).

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[tpengster]

Destroying Stalin in 1945 was hardly an option - he was America's ally at that time, and no-one of any political persuasion thought there was any chance at all of fighting Russia just as WWII finally drew to an end.

After the war, no one really considered him our ally. We adopted a policy of containment as early as 1948 and we knew he was trouble in 1945, which is why we were in a rush to beat him to Berlin. It's true that no one considered a preemptive invasion of the USSR at the time, and it probably would have been a diplomatic nightmare, as you point out.

But we would have saved those 20 million from the Soviet police state, millions more from the gulags, tens of millions from poverty under Communism, and hundreds of thousands from the proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, we would not have had to prop up all those terrible regimes, and the proliferation problems we face today would be significantly less.

So it's easy for me to say this in hindsight, but nevertheless, it would have been wise to crush Stalin in 1945. The Cold War was in fact the worst case of appeasement in the 20th century, worse than the appeasement of Hitler, just due to the existence of nuclear weapons.

Thanks for replying instead of modding me down. And thanks for keeping an open mind

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[plierhead]

I should have been clearer, I was referring to 1945, when Russia was still very much an ally. And the US was emphatically not in a race to beat the Russians anywhere - Eisenhower was very dogmatic about only going advancing up to the lines of demarcation that had been agreed between the US, Britain and Russia beforehand. In several places he ordered rapid withdrawals where the local fighting conditions against the Germans had caused them to go beyond those lines. In fact Churchill urged him to go further because he foresaw the need for leverage against the Russians in order to address the Polish problem. But Eisenhower refused, often to the chagrin of the commanders at the front.

You make a good point about the casualties caused by communism. I don't think you can include Vietnam though. Quite possibly if the US had not stepped in, communism would have imploded under its own economic burden without the massive cost in lives that actually resulted. I realise this might be a contentious viewpoint !

It would have been nice to dispatch or at least contain Stalin in 1945. Who is to say it could have been done though, without resorting to nuclear war ? The Russian war machine was massive and by far the largest and strongest force in Europe at that time. They had the benefit of not having to kowtow to public opinion and could have fought on for years, whereas probably American public opinion would not have stomached the US turning on their recent allies. When Churchill made his famous "iron curtain" speech (I think in 1947 ?) it was loudly rejected by virtually all influential voices in the US (and even in the UK).

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[tpengster]

Right, so Eisenhower I think was a very appeasement-oriented guy. Remember the Aswan Dam, and how he thwarted the Britain-France-Israel coalition taking of the Suez Canal after the Dam was nationalized by Egypt. In retrospect, Eisenhower should have been tougher. Its a good point that the American people were pretty sick of war by 1945.

If we had launched war in 1945 or 1946, would the Russians not have surrendered immediately in the face of the American nuclear option? It is tough to say. Those communists didn't really care much if millions of their people died. Another problem would be a postwar exit strategy. We were new to the concept of nation-building in those days.. our first successes were Germany and Japan, which took several years.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[fenix down]

I'm with you there. The emotive language is what's tripping my nutcase filter right now. I'm hoping this "preemption" stuff is really just the Reaganites pulling their old Pax Americana stuff out of the closet and not a reflection of some genuine belief on Bush's part that Iraq is Evil. Bush is a hardcore Methodist. I'm related to hardcore Methodists. When hardcore Methodists say Evil, they mean the influence of Satan. If Bush is genuine in his language, I don't doubt he'll do anything, at any cost, to get rid of Saddam. That kinda freaks me out a little.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[einhverfr]

No other country has such record, Iraq is the worst, (with North Korea being a distant second). [Neither Pakistan, nor India, nor Israel have ever joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties or otherwise promised not to develop WMDs...]

Actually there is one that has a worse record. They have more UN Security Council resolutions outstanding against them, they too invaded their neighbors (back in 1967) and have been told by the UN Security Council in *no uncertain terms* that their occupation of Golan, Gaza, and the West Bank is illegal. In fact, if it wasn't for the US, Israel would have an even worse record...

This is a country which uses Air to Surface Missiles against targes who are in crowds of people, drops 1-ton bombs on apartment buildings as "targetted killings" attempting to kill a single senior Hamas millitant!

But hey, we can't compare them because Palestine became the Jewish Homeland in recent history because of anti-Jewish sentiments in the UK during World War I, and after WWII, after the horrors of the hollocaust, there was another surge of immigration, which lead to the war of Independence (1948-49). So because Israel is a nation born of anti-Jewish sentiments, many Jews feel that criticism of Israel is the same thing as a hatred of Jews (yet what about the brave Rabbis who stand and try to prevent the demolition of Palestinian homes-- do they hate the Jews too? What about those in the Peace Movement?).

Personally, I think that the United Nations needs to declare the Middle East excluding the Pakistan/India conflict to be an area free of WMD's and forcibly disarm Iraq, Israel, and any others that choose to disobey. Lets enforce UN Security Council resolutions, and authorize a peacekeeping force to liberate the people of Gaza and Golan from the illegal occuption.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[flacco]

Bush is a hardcore Methodist. I'm related to hardcore Methodists. When hardcore Methodists say Evil, they mean the influence of Satan. If Bush is genuine in his language, I don't doubt he'll do anything, at any cost, to get rid of Saddam. That kinda freaks me out a little.

This is what scares the crap out of me on both sides.

The terrorists rolling their eyes back into their heads saying "Yes Allah, Jihad!", and Bush rolling his eyes back into his head saying "Yes Jesus, I am the instrument of The Rapture!"

They're all a bunch of primitive, medieval fucks.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Anonymous Coward]

Britains terrorist problems with the IRA in Northern Ireland were almost entirely caused by people in the USA giving money to the terrorists through NorAid. The Brits asked, begged, pleaded with the USA to outlaw NorAid and it was repeatedly refused. Over the years, the IRA caused thousands of deaths - in terms of total body count, they are probably worse than Al-Queda. Dual standards?

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Wizord]

Majority of Iraq's population is Islamic fundamentalist. Hussein comes from the non-fundamentalist population segment. So if Hussein is helping fundamentalists, Hussein is helping his own enemies.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[glesga_kiss]

many feel that criticism of Israel is the same thing as a hatred of Jews

Ironic. You critizise Isreal and get modded as flamebait, yet critizing Iran/Iraq is insightful.

The above post is not flamebait. It is all true, and if you are looking for "nasty nations" to go after, Israel should be a lot higher up the list than Iraq. They are actually partially responsible for 9/11, as their actions lead to most of the anti-US sentiment in the Middle East.

What a world we live in. I'm about to lose karma for not toeing the party line. The Isreal government are a bunch of evil bastards. The does not reflect in any way on the Jewish people. I wish folk could get their heads around that simple fact.

When someone critizises Israel, it does not mean that they hate Jews.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[glesga_kiss]

You make a good point about the casualties caused by communism

Communism or socialism did not cause any casualties, it was totalitairism (sp?) that did. I wish people would learn the difference, but the cold-war propaganda is too deeply rooted to allow that to happen.

It is possible to have a democratic communist country, just as it is possible (in fact epidemic) to have a capitalist dictatorship. You can't equate political theory with economic policy as easilly as that.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[glesga_kiss]

not let our emotions trick us in to believing Iraq had something to do with 9/11. The Bush administration is a much greater threat to our freedoms than Hussien is.

Perhaps you will find this link interesting. It's a breakdown of the disinformation tactics used by the present US administration to dupe the public into backing this war.

The rest of the site is interesting as well, unfortunatly it's a frameset site, so you'll have to hack the URL to get to the home page

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[glesga_kiss]

I like the concept of Freedom of Religion, but I'm begining to veer towards telling these idiots off for their stupid backwards beliefs.

I don't mind someone believing in god, let's face it, the thought of death is a bit scary and if self-delusion helps, then go for it! But, don't go killing people over your beliefs!!

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[plierhead]

Really ? What would be an actual working example of a democratic communist country ?

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[glesga_kiss]

What would be an actual working example of a democratic communist country ?

Unfortunatly, there aren't any. A dictatorship "works" very well in a Communist system though, because it's easier to keep the people backing the system. There are plenty of examples of Socialism working however, mostly in Europe.

Communism is pretty much against normal human nature though, the old "hunter/gatherer" system. Even in communist states, capitalism has been evident amoungst those with access to it, especially those at the top.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Aapje]

Good post, but not entirely accurate. Iran is a theocratic country, in which substantial power is granted to religious leaders. They are not democratically elected and are deeply conservative. The citizens are mostly young and progressive and have voted for a modern and intelligent president during the previous elections. Unfortunately, he has been unable to change much. I fear that this will result in bloodshed, because democracy is not in sight until the religious leaders are replaced/shot.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Probashi]

Misinformation about Pakistan. Pakistan had three differnt wars with its neighbour in last 40 years. In one instance its army killed directly/indirectly about 3 million of its own people because they were not of the right religion or did not have the right ethnicity (1971 civil war that resulted in creation of Bangladesh).

Moreover, Pakistan in its 50 some odd years, did not have democracy for the most part (only about 10 years worth). And, right now a general has the power in that country who took over through military coup from a democratically elected gov.

Morever, unlike Iraq, Pakistan has the nukes already and are periodically threatning to use it against its neighbour India (who is doing the same by the way).

And, don't forget, Pakistan government is the one brought Taleban to the power in Afganistan (their secret service was directly involved and was one the only three countries to recognize the taleban gov) and then subsequently lost control over them.
Osama Bin-Laden regularly stayed in Pakistan till 9/11.

Pakistan is also the same country that has people who still have actively support Taleban style gov, has widespread anti-american feelings.

Only thing that Pakistan does not have is the amount of oil Iraq has.

All of the above are well documented. So, make your own judgement why US is about to attack Iraq instead of Pakistan.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Anonymous Coward]

The author points out that Israel's defiance of the Security Council resolution would have been even worse if the US had not vetoed other resolutions criticizing Israel. He could have
mention that the US exercised its veto on behalf of Israel 30 times.

In fact, we rarely use the veto except to protect Israel from criticism or sanctions.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Anonymous Coward]

I should have mentioned that the previous comments are not mine (Greg "too lazy to register" Akins). But are my uncle's; an ex-US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Didn't want to appear to be claiming credit.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[plierhead]

I asked the question because I was confused by your statement that "It is possible to have a democratic communist country, just as it is possible (in fact epidemic) to have a capitalist dictatorship. You can't equate political theory with economic policy as easilly as that.

I think your own answer here shows that that ain't so. It is not possible to have a democratic communist and history proves that. Sure you might say "it is theoretically possible", in the same way that it is possible to get everyone in the world to jump in one direction at the same second and thus change the earth's rotation, but using that kind of test anything is possible.

Communism only sticks when it is forced on people. No democracy has ever kept a communist system.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[mi]

I've read about the current Iranian government. It's partially democratic, with elections open to all over 15, male or female.

That's current Iranian government. A lot in Iran has changed for the better lately, but there is a long way to go. It is their attempts to acquire nuclear weapons (despite being members of NNPT), that added them to "axis of evil" list.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[mi]

and where, exactly, did the iranian "monster" come from? [...] this, of course, they did and gave the people of iran 26 years of murderous dictatorship.

So, you agree, that the Iranian regime was indeed, monstrous. Good. I skipped your history lesson above, although it is valuable. But it even further entrenches my view. If these "monsters" are of US making, US is responsible for bringing them down, is not it?

south korea was a cold-war anti-domino play. why don't you ask your government why they bombed hanoi or cambodia instead?

The same anti-domino play? Just less successfull. US could not find the resolve to fight the commies (in my opinion, they are worse than nazis, but, definetly, not any better). Otherwise, South Vietnam could now have been as advanced as South Korea. Or even better, Hanoi would still be called Hanoi, and noone would remember who Ho Shi Min was (just as today's youth in the former USSR does not know about Lenin). But US government made the mistake of using military draft, and the US populace made the mistake of trusting communist propaganda...

so iraq merely has to not recommit to the nnpt andeverything is fine? unlikely.

Of course not! It is too late. If you steal, bringing it back is not enough -- especially, when you are already cought. With Iraq it is more like a parole violation, which now leads to the full punishment, that was delayed 12 years ago.

hey! you know what country is the biggest owner and producer of weapons of mass destruction? the united states. forget about nukes, there are over one million pounds of nerve gas in the pine bluff arsenal in arkansas right now. go and inspect it yourself.

So? Our enemies were developing it and so did we. But unlike Iraq, we did not promise to destroy them withing a year. Iraq escaped the "regime change" 12 years ago by making the promise. It clearly broke it, and will now faces the delayed punishment. I just regret Bush senior actually believed Saddam back then -- so many lives and so much money wasted...

The French? Oh, they just can't get over the loss of the "grand nacion" (sp?) status

so it's hubris? hm. there are some other nations that may have a little more in that department than the french...

That was a joking flaimbait (some moron-moderator actually downgraded the whole post as such). Some people oppose the looming war with reasonable arguments. Some just can not miss an opportunity to diss the United States because -- their wording -- it is too powerfull. France -- formerly the most powerful (at least, in its own perception) -- where the petty houligan, who broke McDonalds' window quickly became the anti-US/capitalism/globalization hero and was acquited of the misdemeanor, seems particularly full of those.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[Anonymous Coward]

A nuclear weapons program they don't have much choice about for national defence because Pakistan has nukes.

So when is Pakistan (nuclear, home to lots of Moslem fanatic organisations, a military government) going to be on the Axis? Oh that's right, the government's on "our" side...

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[cellardoor]

It is possible, but socialism and capatalism go against each other, and the wests imposition of capatalism over the world makes it difficult. France is a country where the govornment controls capatalism by owning some of the large busineses.

Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War

[einhverfr]

When someone critizises Israel, it does not mean that they hate Jews.

Tell me about it :-P A quarter of my family are decended from those that were kicked out of Spain in 1492, and their only crime was being Jewish.

BTW, as an amateur linguist, I do not use the term antisemetism because Arabic and Ethiopian are also Semetic languages (so one wonders of a Jew who hates a Arabs is as antisemetic as an Arab who hates Jews). Instead I use Anti-Arab and Anti-Jew so that there are no misunderstandings.

Israel is where it is today because the British decided during World War I that their mandate in Palastine should become a homeland for the Jews provided that the people of Palestine were provided for, as per the Balfour Declaration of 1917. While it is unclear why the British government decided on this stance, anti-Jewish sentiments were commonplace in Britain at that point. Things were made far worse by World War II, and the result was the "War of Independence" which was also known as The Nezbah or Catastrophe (Holocaust also means "catastrophe) by the Palestinians, and many were expelled from their homeland never to be allowed to return.

The Jewish *people* are a very humane, and compassionate people, but the paranoia which has been the founding principle of the modern state of Israel is responsible for so much pain today.

It is time we separate support for Jews from support for the Israeli Government, and separate support for our troups from support for Bush's march to war.

Can't have it both ways

[Anonymous Coward]

Software and source are either free and open or not. There's no gray-area here. You can't put restrictions on its use and still call it "open" or "free." Period.

I work for a major news publisher and develop its Web site. One of the most frustrating thing I've run across is when seeking "free" and "open" Perl scripts and other resources only to find that the author has included comments in the source that it's free for use except by corporate users. Great. Your anti-corporate attitude does nothing to hurt the big-wigs at these large corporations, but makes my job infintely more complicated and shoots yet another hole through the credibility of the free software movement.

So, either make it free... all free, or don't. Don't make yourself a hypocrite.

Re:Can't have it both ways

[WildBeast]

he probably meant that you should pay if you're a corporate user. What's wrong with that?

Re:Can't have it both ways

[Quill_28]

I would disagree. There is a huge difference between open and free.

In open I license my software to another company, it saves them time(and hence money) and they pay me money.

If my company ever goes under or relations get bad then they still have the source to modify if they wish.

Free is BSD I far as I can tell.
GPL is free to use but not make money off.

Though I do agree with your conclusion.

Why you should not contribute to Open Source

[NoCoward]

The High Priests of the Bazaar

This paper presents a case against the open source movement and explains why the open source model does not work economically for the vast majority of those involved in the production of commercial software. There are several arguments against the OS (open source) model.

Open Source Doesn't Make Economic Sense For Most

The open source organization has presented a few cases that supposedly explain why OS works economically. However, if you examine the cases objectively you will find that the cases are flimsy and non-specific and do not address any specific concerns. They attempt to bolster their case by pointing out a few "successes", among which Caldera and Red Hat are displayed as shining examples.

The real economic question of the OS model is how is money made, and who is making the money. Who is being rewarded financially for the enormous development effort? The open source initiative claims that there are at least four different models that allow someone to reap rewards. Oddly, it is not mentioned that it is not necessarily the people who did the development work that gain financially.

The four primary business cases mentioned by OS proponents are "Selling Support", "Loss Leader", "Widget Frosting" and "Accessorizing."

The first case proposes that money can be made via selling support for the free software product. This is by far the strongest case and is proven to work, for a few small companies. The two companies that are shown as positive examples of this business model are Red Hat and Caldera, who distribute and support the Linux operating system. What is never mentioned is that neither of these two companies has contributed significantly in relative terms to the Linux development process. Its important to note that using this business model, the people that make the money are usually not the ones who have invested in the development process. So much for the strongest case.

The second case is based on the idea that you give away a product as open source so you can make money selling a closed source program. This also can work, but it should be noted that the money is being made off the closed source product and not off of the open source. An example of this model would be Netscape, who gives away the source code of their client browser so the OS community can do development, but keeps their "cash cow" products completely closed. Obviously, this case may only work if you have a software product that lends itself to this sort of "give away the razor and make money on the blades" system. The truth is that the vast majority of software is monolithic. So much for the loss leader case.

The third case, "Widget Frosting", sounds completely practical. The premise that hardware makers produce open source software so that the OS development community will work for free to produce better drivers and interface tools for their hardware products. It sounds great on the surface, especially for the company that produces the hardware: they get free drivers and do not have to pay for expensive developers. The OS community wins by getting presumably stable drivers and tools. What is not mentioned is the reason hardware makers usually don't do this is because they do not want to reveal trade secrets regarding their hardware design. Production of efficient drivers requires an intimate knowledge of the hardware the driver is for. It is almost always the case that it is in the hardware developers' best interest to keep their hardware secrets close to home. This also brings up the question of why isn't hardware "open"? So much for the frosting case.

The final case, "Accessorizing", is similar to the first, but throws in the idea of selling books and complete systems with the open source software, and other accessories as well. It is obvious that selling books qualifies as support, and that it really belongs in the first case. The idea of selling computer systems, T-Shirts, dolls, again begs the question: "Who is making the money?" As with the first case, it is not necessarily the people who have done the development work. Additionally, the question of how much money can be made selling books, t-shirts, mugs, etc, is never answered. O'Reilly Associates is frequently used as an example to be a company who has made money using this case. The reader should notice that O'Reilly Associates are not the people doing the development work. Indeed, it is never asked why all the O'Reilly books are not available for free or at least at manufacturing cost? This also brings up the question of why isn't book production "open"? Perhaps they are waiting to see if they could sell enough O'Reilly T-Shirts to pay their bills. So much for the accessories.

Open Source Does Not Necessarily Produce Better Software

The open source proponents frequently state that OS necessarily produces better software. This statement is made without any evidence. Indeed, there is evidence to the contrary. GCC is a standard compiler produced by the GNU organization. It lags its commercial counterparts in both efficiency and features. The reason behind is illustrates the largest weakness in the OS plan. It is very hard to convince qualified engineers that they should do such boring and unglamorous work without any sort of financial reward. The idea of throwing large quantities of people at the source does not work in this case, since there are not large quantities of qualified individuals available.

Open Source Did Not Make the Internet Successful

Another statement made by the OS community is that somehow open source was responsible for the success of the Internet. The reason behind this is probably a result of the confusion between what is open source and what is an open protocol. It is easy to see that the foundation of the Internet was built on open protocols. This does not equate to open source, for the two are quite different. The vast majority of the machines on the Internet run on closed source operating systems running mostly closed source software, which communicate using open protocols.

Where Does Open Source Work?

Open source does work in certain cases. A good example of where it may work well is Netscape. The act of giving away the source to the OS community so they can work for free and produce a product that helps the sales of their server software was a stroke of genius and proved very profitable for the relatively few at Netscape. But is this truly making money off of open source? Isn't the money is made off of the closed source software?

Another example of where it does work is the aforementioned Red Hat. Red Hat has been successful making money off of the work of thousands of others who have contributed to the Linux operating system and the associated GNU programs that have shipped with the Linux distributions. The question is: do those who work at Red Hat deserve to be rewarded, or do the people who do the actual development work deserve to be rewarded? Should the money go to the few, or to the many? It seems that the High Priests of the Bazaar believe the former.

THIS DOCUMENT CAN BE RECOPIED AND REDISTRIBUTED WITHOUT RESTRICTION, HOWEVER ADDITIONS/MODIFICATIONS/CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE LABELED AS SUCH WHERE THEY OCCUR.

war monger

[Anonymous Coward]

Screw the UN, screw France, and screw Saddam Hussein. We simply need to invade now and get it over with. Let's get real - you can't possibly expect the US gov to dally while this guy biulds god only knows what. C'mon we all know the first place any terrorist is going to go when they're looking for those big bad bombs - Iran, Iraq, and North Korea. But unlike the other two, we've patiently been trying to rid ourselves of Saddam's bullshit for 12 years. Even if he didn't have massive amounts of oil to finance his nuke programs, and even if he hadn't killed millions, and even if he didn't genocide his own people - it would still be a just war if for anything for the sake of trying to resuce the Iraqi people. I think even the folks in France know I'm right.

It's war mongers like you that are going to cost this world billions of lives.

Re:war monger

[Ominous Armed Cow]

"peace at all cost" thinking costs more lives than just going to war when you are up against a madman. Think Europe, 1938 or Ethopia, 1933.

Saddam is a psychopathic fascist who does unspeakable things to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the region. He won't be any easier to deal with once he has nuclear weapons.

When you support the anti-war movement, you support him and everything he stands for, much like people who in the 1930's insisted that we should stay out of the war. Just as then, it is lead by anti-capitalists (pro-fascists and stalinist freaks), who hide their very unpopular political backgrounds from the useful idiots who suck it up because they have the philosophical sophistication of a six year old, (or in this case, missed out on the sixties) and can't seem to draw moral distinctions between the fire and the fire brigade.

Just as then, the anti-war movement is totally irresponsible because it offers no practical solutions except the immediate and total surrender of our ridiculously successful way of life. Suggesting we should kick the oil habit without a viable replacement is the mark of an idiot or someone who wants die of starvation. Suggesting we should do nothing while our cities are attacked or while our enemies prepare to attack our civilian populations is the mark of a coward or klebold worshipping loser. Suggesting that we are a haven for facsim when people who live in *real* fascist countries risk their lives to get here and not the other way around is just deluded.

The Iraqi's *want* us to invade. You'd have to be a moron not to see why.

"Appeasement is the practice of feeding a steak to a tiger in the hopes he will become a vegetarian". - Winston Churchhill

Re:war monger

[Anonymous Coward]

you cannot say : I think even the folks in France know I'm right.
when you begin with: Screw the UN, screw France,...

and we cannot expect anithing from the US gov.
remember GWB was not elected by a majority of US citizens, neither by a majority of US electors, and in fact, according to university who recounted florida , he was not elected at all.

Perhaps people in France want the "coup d'etat" to be limited to USoA, and not exported to the world.

Re:war monger

[glesga_kiss]

Saddam is a psychopathic fascist who does unspeakable things to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the region.

Bush is a psychopathic fundamentalist who does unspeakable things to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the Gulf region.

(By unspeakable, I refer to his complete lack of respect for everything that the USA is supposed to stand for)

When you support the anti-war movement, you support him and everything he stands for

Bullshit, this is one of the disinformation tactics mentioned in the above link.

Being opposed to war does not mean that we are opposed to doing anything. All it means is that we are not happy about being deliberatly misled by our leaders to start a war that is going to cause more long term problems than it will solve.

Do you think the USA is going to win over any friends in the region by medling further in the Middle East? Why don't you ask the next generation of potential terrorists, who will grow up hating the country that killed their parents...

Suggesting we should do nothing while our cities are attacked or while our enemies prepare to attack our civilian populations is the mark of a coward or klebold worshipping loser.

Ahh, but you forget the fact that your cities were attacked because of meddling in the past. Doing nothing would be a better solution (I'm not saying it's the best though). Going around killing people is only going to inspire the next generation of terrorists. And as the war on terrorism is inherently unwinnable (you can't defeat an enemy you can't see), I question the reasoning and motives behind the current policies.

Re:war monger

[Anonymous Coward]

Excuse me, but how on Earth is the above flamebait?

Obviously a pro-war moderator...

Re:war monger

[Ominous Armed Cow]

If I'm going to get "flame-baited" by every knee-jerk teen fool with Mod points, I might as well go for broke... Now *this* is flamebait:

Bush is a psychopathic fundamentalist who does unspeakable things [medialens.org] to his people because he wants to expand his influence in the Gulf region.

yes, I must have missed that part about him trying out chemical weapons on his own people, or the acid baths, or calling for the holocaust part II, or paying bounties to PLO for their terrorist organizations. What kind of clueless f*ck compares the *elected* (by official electors as provided in the constitution, you moron) leader of the Free world to a second rate hitler who starves his people so that he can have a bigger nuclear penis? You're an idiot.

(By unspeakable, I refer to his complete lack of respect for everything that the USA is supposed to stand for)

Ooo boy. That's nearly as bad as torturing children to death in front of their parents.
What *EXACTLY* has Bush done that shows a lack of respect for what the USA is supposed to stand for? Can you even tell me what the USA is supposed to stand for? I doubt it, because you're just another vile spouting idiot with a feeble "education" who learned everything you "know" about "freedom" from MTV. I bet you can't even define what a "right" is. You probably can't even rationalize why the Constitution does a better job of protecting human rights than the U.N's declaration of Human Rights ever will. Fool.

When you support the anti-war movement, you support him and everything he stands for

Bullshit, this is one of the disinformation tactics mentioned in the above link.

Logical error: Appeal to authority/Circular reasoning.
The original claim is baseless and wrong, written by an idiot who might try reading a little Orwell if he can sound out the big words. If you support stopping the war, you must logically be in favor of extending Saddamn's regime. Even a chimpanzee could grasp this binary relationship.

Only a Eurotrash pseudo-intellectual would try to rationalize that it doesn't. Have you read too much Postmodern French Philosophy?

Being opposed to war does not mean that we are opposed to doing anything. All it means is that we are not happy about being deliberatly misled by our leaders to start a war that is going to cause more long term problems than it will solve.

spoken like a true frenchman. Q: Hey, why are there trees lining the streets of paris? A: So the Germans can march in the shade.

Do you mean long term problems like keeping Americans alive to buy some more oil? Long term problems like liberating the Iraqi people? Long term problems like destabilizing a fundamentally corrupt chain of arab states led by backwards authoritarians who blame all their internal problems on the west? Here's a clue: You can easily see that you're argument is flawed because it can be used to justify all sorts of ridiculous conclusions. If your grandfather thought like you did, you'd be living in a fascist police state. War solves most intractable problems in human interaction in a very permanent fashion. Only a deluded idiot who has never cracked a history book or lived through a time of strife would believe the old hippie canard that "violence solves nothing".

Inspectors are now in Iraq because of a tangible threat of force. They are not there because of 12 years of sanctions, or 8 years of inspections. Iraq is not complying because it is hoping people like you will win the day. It will not comply until American boots are in the sand, because that is how the world works, little lamb.

Do you think the USA is going to win over any friends in the region by medling further in the Middle East? Why don't you ask the next

Well, win some Iraqi friends, and we already have the Iranian youth on our side. This stupid ass idea that "the arab street will rise up" is an obvious myth. Gee, by your account we f*cked with them for fifty years, (Guess muslims don't appreciate that we fought the last three wars in Kuwait, Somolia, and Kosovo on their behalf) back up their supposedly mortal enemy, Israel, (who hasn't attacked a muslim neighbor since the Six Day War, and humiliated the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. What is it going to take to get this street off it's ass? Bombing Mecca? Only fools think that the most advanced society on earth has to fear the scorn of people who don't even have the freedom to protest without their government's permission.

...generation of potential terrorists, who will grow up hating the country that killed their parents...

Yeah, just like the Japanese and the Germans are running around trying to blow up Americans today. Even the Vietnamese respect the fact that we weren't there to conquer them.

Ahh, but you forget the fact that your cities were attacked because of meddling in the past. Doing nothing would be a better solution (I'm not saying it's the best though). Going around killing people is only going to inspire the next generation of terrorists.

Yes, that's why there's all those nazi's and japanese militarists running around today. Because killing people who are bent on killing you really solves nothing. Is it naptime yet?

And as the war on terrorism is inherently unwinnable

ASSUMPTION - which is patently ridiculous.
Terrorism will end if people don't think it's in their interests to kill their children for some misguided cause. Right now many do. That will change if A) things improve for them, or B) Antiterror techniques are racheted up until it's very difficult to inflict damage on American targets.

(you can't defeat an enemy you can't see)

Woa, they have "predator" light bending camofluage now? Wow, we better just kill ourselves then, before they get us for refusing to stop that barbarous habit of hunting them down and killing or capturing the deluded fools who want to slaughter every single American they can get their hands on. Yes, let's just become good muslims, and enslave our women, and do nothing while they slaughter or enslave members of other religions, or even their own religion (like that bombing of Shite muslims in Pakistan) or Al Queda's hatred for Saudi Arabia, which practices a very strict version of the Sharia, all because the [insert offender here, especially if he has something worth taking] were not backwards enough to please the ignorant little wannabe iman.

Our priests are our servants. They used to be the leaders of our society. They aren't any more, and there's a reason for that. We are the apogee of human achievement. They are a common pox not worthy of classification. They have nothing of value to show us. We have much to show them, as they will soon see as we tighten the noose around this pathetic little twelfth century cult.

I question the reasoning and motives behind the current policies.

Oh, beg you're pardon your majesty, I didn't realize that we needed you're leave before we go free that slave pen and put an end to France's illicit oil supply. Can you perhaps provide better reasoning for your position than "killing is always bad" and "violence never solves anything." You're a twit. Leave the Geopolitics to the professionals who have forgotten more than you'll ever know about foreign policy.

Go ahead now little fools, mod me down.

Re:war monger

[glesga_kiss]

I must have missed that part about him trying out chemical weapons on his own people

I'm from the UK. We were gassing the Kurds long before Saddam was born. Saddam's attacks on the Kurds were supported by the Regan administration, who shut down congresses attempt to do some thing about it. But, now that this suddenly suits Bush, it becomes a big issue. Where was the call to war back then? Iraq was an ally of the USA at the time, the west was supplying the ability for him to do this. That is complete hypocracy.

or the acid baths, or calling for the holocaust part II, or paying bounties to PLO for their terrorist organizations.

I'd like to see proof of either of the first two. Sounds like the usual "he is evil" talk, used by the like of Bush. If you can remember the first Gulf war, perhaps you can remember the story about the Iraqi soldiers stealing Kuwaiti incubators, leaving the babies to die on the cold floor. It was Bush Sr. that used that lie to get the undecided congress and public to back that war. Frankly, I don't believe a word Bush says.

As for financing terrorist organisations, that's a bit rich comming from an American. Perhaps you should have a chat to the people from England and Northern Ireland, who's lives have been destroyed by the IRA, a terrorist organisation funded by the US.

Or perhaps the Taliban and Al Qeuda, who we both funded and partially created by the US. Or countless other terrorist groups in South Africa, Asia and South America.

That's nearly as bad as torturing children to death in front of their parents.

Hmm, next you'll be telling me that he eats babies! If we are going to go for all the traditional racist hatred incitements used throughout history that is. These insults date back to biblical times. Gimmie credible proof that Saddam has tortured children to death please.

What *EXACTLY* has Bush done that shows a lack of respect for what the USA is supposed to stand for? Can you even tell me what the USA is supposed to stand for?

To paraphrase a popular cartoon, "Truth, justice and the American way". Democracy is founded on the principle of an informed electorate. Bush is deliberatly lying and misleading the electorate, to push though policies and wars that coincidently work out well for his oil buddies. Jeez, the national security adviser has an oil tanker named after her! He is corrupt and a disgrace. He is also turning the entire world against the USA.

vile spouting idiot with a feeble "education" who learned everything you "know" about "freedom" from MTV.

Jesus, are you are one of these Yanks who thinks that the USA is the only country in the world where freedom florishes?

Just to bring you up to date, most of the world has more freedom than the US. Your complete lack of world knowledge and blind patriotism shocks me. The USA is a great place, don't get me wrong. But you need to throw off this "we are superiour" attitute. If you were superiour, I could maybe handle it, but you aren't/

And let me point out that this is the first time I've ever heard an American imply that everyone elses education system is "feeble". You don't know jack, the US education system is a joke. While you are still gluing macaroni to card we are learning calculus and second languages.

You probably can't even rationalize why the Constitution does a better job of protecting human rights than the U.N's declaration of Human Rights ever will. Fool.

Perhaps the original constitution does, I'm not an expert in US history. Not the key word "history". The US constitution doesn't stand for shit anymore, all the ammendments have pretty much destroyed the original values it once held. Just about every one of the primary ammenments (or whatever they are called) has been attacked by recent legislation. By all means be proud of what the US constitution once was, but stop pretending to yourself that it means anything nowadays.

Bullshit, this is one of the disinformation tactics mentioned in the above link.

Logical error: Appeal to authority/Circular reasoning.

Actually, it's a classic straw man argument, not Circular reasoning. Are you suggesting that starting a war is the only option available at the current time? Of course it isn't.

Even a chimpanzee could grasp this binary relationship.

It's not a binary relationship. Sure, you could have a war, or you could not have a war. Two choices there. You could also increase sanctions, encourage the population to revolt (and actually back them up this time) or use the SAS/CIA to go into Iraq to attack the infrastructure and leadership. There's several options right there.

Raining down 800 cruise missiles on a highly populated city is not the only choice available.

Only a Eurotrash pseudo-intellectual would try to rationalize that it doesn't.

Your true racist tendances are showing now. Is it impossible for a citizen of Europe to be an intellectial? And the "Eurotrash" mention? You are sick, twisted, misguided fool.

spoken like a true frenchman. Q: Hey, why are there trees lining the streets of paris? A: So the Germans can march in the shade.

Semi-funny, I'll grant you that. It's also highly racist and would not be tollerated here. But racism is much inbred into the American way, isn't it. First it was the Indians, nice bit of ethnic cleansing there. Twenty million culled down to less than half a million in the space of two generations. Hitler would be proud, he never thought of calling the concentration camps "reservations".

Then the blacks. Nice bit of slavery you had going there. You stole them from their homeland, make them work for no pay, denied them the rights granted by the constitutions and are still shitting on them today. Look at the startling ratio of blacks/whites in your prison population. Disgusting.

Then the Japanese. Again, rounded up into re-named concentration camps, this time you called them "interment" camps. Since you mention Orwell, I guess you are familiar with the concept of "newspeak".

And the communists. Ohhh, that was a deep hatred, wasn't it. I wonder how many were starved by forcing the Ruskies into an arms race that their ecconomic environment (communism) could not support, ultimately breaking the countries back. I bet you are proud of this to. Yet, despite you stockpiling masses of nuclear weapons, pointing them at everyone who shows a little independance, and using your government agencies to fuck these countries over big time, putting CIA agents into the highest governmental positions then later killing them because they disagree with someone. And you are trying to tell me Iraq is a bad nation? Don't make me laugh, you're lack of knowledge of world history only goes to prove the point that your eduction is sub-standard.

And now it's the Arabs. Can you see how you have been manipuated into hating various groups over the years? Hatred which has aided those at the top to acheive their goals...

Do you mean long term problems like keeping Americans alive to buy some more oil?

When has Iraq ever presented a threat to the USA?

Long term problems like liberating the Iraqi people? Long term problems like destabilizing a fundamentally corrupt chain of arab states led by backwards authoritarians who blame all their internal problems on the west?

Jesus, you really need to get hit by a clue-stick. The liberation of the Iraqi people was never an issue when the US first aided Saddam to power, and supported him. The people of many states in the Middle East are currently (as I type) being surpressed by the governments supported by the USA. Kuwait (where women can't vote), Saudi Arabia (where no one can vote, even if they could, they'd find it hard with the government cutting their hands off).

Why, all of a sudden, has the plight of the Iraq people become an issue for the USA? Historically, you couldn't give a shit about them. Ditto the people who suffered under the US creation and support of the Talliban. When they stopped playing ball with US business interests, they suddenly became this "axis of evil". Note, this switch of "good guy" to "bad guy" happened prior to 9/11, that had nothing to do with the demonisation of Afganistan.

War solves most intractable problems in human interaction in a very permanent fashion. Only a deluded idiot who has never cracked a history book or lived through a time of strife would believe the old hippie canard that "violence solves nothing".

Hmm, sort of. War is the ultimate power, I'll grant you that. It it isn't always the answer, and it's never the only answer.

With respect to your mention of "permanent fashion", that is completely false. It worked in WW2, very well in fact. However, I'd hardly call Korea, Solmalia or Afganistan a permanent solution. War didn't work out very well in those places. Just because the media stops reporting somnething it doesn't mean that it's no longer a problem, it just means that it no longer gets ratings. The rain forests are still being destroyed you know, yet the media interest has gone elsewhere.

(In case you don't know, and if you only follow US media outlet you probably won't, but control of Afganistan is currently being fought over by the government left in place by the US, the remainder of the Talliban and the drug/crime lords. It's a total mess, but the western media seems to have forgotten about it)

Inspectors are now in Iraq because of a tangible threat of force. They are not there because of 12 years of sanctions, or 8 years of inspections.

Yes, and if the threat of force brought all this about, then it is valid. But it's not as simple as that. War is inevitable, there are too many troops commited to the region to not go in. Iraq is now completely complying with the inspectors etc. We have no reason to attack, but we will anyway.

Iraq is not complying because it is hoping people like you will win the day. It will not comply until American boots are in the sand, because that is how the world works, little lamb.

Jesus fucking christ. I really hope you are trolling me here. I really do. This "American boots in the sand" belief was the reasoning the terrorists behind 9/11 hate you. The lives of all those innocent people were lost due to these arogant beliefs. Do you think you can run half-way across the world, kill and fuck people over, without some form of retailiation. Who made you King of the World?

Seing as your country has a terrible record for international relations, I think you are the worst possible nation to do this role. It is the role of the U.N., which represents the whole civilised world. Are you familiar with the concept of democracy, or is facism more your thing?

Gee, by your account we f*cked with them for fifty years, (Guess muslims don't appreciate that we fought the last three wars in Kuwait, Somolia, and Kosovo on their behalf)

You weren't fighting on their behalf. You fighting in the iterests of your own business dealings. I'm not saying that these things weren't admiral or anything like that, but it's not a clear-cut as you make out.

back up their supposedly mortal enemy, Israel, (who hasn't attacked a muslim neighbor since the Six Day War, and humiliated the mujahadeen in Afghanistan.

Excuse me? Israel is illegally occupying a foreign land right now! They are commiting their own holocaust. They have killed all of the key Palestinion figureheads. Any intelectials, writers and politions have been assasinated by the Israelis, but the media refers to these as "targeted killings". Please follow the link and learn about the corporate medias deliberate distortion of the facts in this matter.

Only fools think that the most advanced society on earth has to fear the scorn of people who don't even have the freedom to protest without their government's permission.

Firstly, I have to laugh at the "most advanced society on earth". Please explain the why so much poverty is allowed to exist in this mythical land? Why there are communities of homeless people all over the place. I was amazed to see this in the US, hardly a shining example of modern living. Please explain why you still apply the death penalty to mentally retarded people.

And please explain to me your beliefs about free expression are in any way relevant in modern America. We are talking about a place that cages protestors into "free speach zones", well out of the way from whatever they are protesting. The same society that attempted to ban the anti-war rallys in several cities. And how your government is now tracking an analysising every communication on the internet, databasing anything deemed interesting. How can you feel safe critizing a government who is noting down everything you say? Again, a keystone of democracy is the ability to critize the government, but now all that will get you is a higher "terrorist ranking" on an automated system somewhere, again something that is specifically stated against in the US constitution.

Yeah, just like the Japanese and the Germans are running around trying to blow up Americans today. Even the Vietnamese respect the fact that we weren't there to conquer them.

So, it worked some times. Big deal, it doesn't mean you are going to get a 100% success rate. Remember, Bin Ladens personal beef with the US is due to the fact that the Saudi royal family (dictators) are supported and guarded by US troops. I'd say that's a pretty big example of this kind of thing not working out.

Terrorism will end if people don't think it's in their interests to kill their children for some misguided cause. Right now many do. That will change if A) things improve for them, or B) Antiterror techniques are racheted up until it's very difficult to inflict damage on American targets.

Hmm. And you do you propose making it difficult to inflict damage to the US? Ban diesel and fertiliser? Have checkpoints every 10 miles on the road, searching for bombs etc? Having all plane passengers tied up in their seats? Not possible.

Amazingly, we are in agreement on your first point. If things improve for them, terrorism will stop. But that's not going to happen, and it's not in the interests of our leaders. Again, I bring attention to the fact that our governments (I'm from the UK, which is more similar to the US than Europe by the way) happily deal with and support countries that are screwing over their populations. Until we have honest governments that refuse to have anything to do with these nutjobs and display some honour and valor, then that's not going to happen.

And as I can't see either of these things happening in the near future, I say that the war on terrorism is unwinnable.

(you can't defeat an enemy you can't see)

Woa, they have "predator" light bending camofluage now?

No, but the US is actually developing that sort of technology, not sure with what success though. But that's a geeky side note that has so far been the most on-topic statement so far.

You can't see them because they look like you and be. They don't wear uniforms. They don't have special badges or rings. Sure, you could round up all the Arabs (if you were to throw out yet another part of the constitution), but then you still get the likes of Timmoty McVeigh and the IRA. How do you propose to "win" this "war"?

Yes, let's just become good muslims, and enslave our women, and do nothing while they slaughter or enslave members of other religions, or even their own religion (like that bombing of Shite muslims in Pakistan)

100 years ago, America was enslaving the Blacks. Around the same time, my country denied women the right to vote and the right to own property. We are a more advanced society than them. But it doesn't mean that we are "better" than them and we shouldn't look down on them. Look at how far our societies have come in the last 200 years. You can't expect the world to advance at a uniform rate.

And the sad fact is that we call many countries who do look down on women "allies". We can't critize one nation for doing something when we support other nations that do the same, if not worse. Saudi is an ally of the west, yet Afganistan in 2001 would be a relative paradise for the women there.

They are a common pox not worthy of classification. They have nothing of value to show us.

Again, we are in agreement about something. It's a shame thought that the only ammendment in the constitution to survive unscathed is the first. The Ruskies had that right, religion is stupid.

I didn't realize that we needed you're leave before we go free that slave pen and put an end to France's illicit oil supply. Can you perhaps provide better reasoning for your position

Simple. Because there are other slave pens being supported by us that give us oil supplies that we aren't preparing for war with. If we are going to go around the world fighting for freedom, then we should apply that fairly and not pick out only the ones that we also benefit from attacking.

It is this hipocracy that is the basis for my anti-war stance.

Re:war monger

[dvdeug]

You don't know jack, the US education system is a joke. While you are still gluing macaroni to card we are learning calculus and second languages.

Well, the part of you they bother to teach. (In Germany, it'd be that part that goes to the Gymnasium.) The majority are considered too dumb to learn, so you send them off to job training programs, while the Americans are still trying to teach them history and math and literature. It's the great lie of international education: that you can validily compare the European students in college-bound schools with the American students in general-education schools, and get a valid result.

Re:war monger

[glesga_kiss]

Well, the UK is much the same as the US system. General school up until a minimum of 16 years old, to a maximum of 18. You get a choice of subjects, with most of the rest being mandatory, e.g. maths. Then if you want to take education further, it's a choice of college or university, where you are in a specialised course, but most of these start off in a generic way and become more specific as you advance though the years. You choose this path yourself. Or, in reality, you choose what you parents would want you to do! ;-)

While the US higher-ed system is a bit more generic than ours, the mandatory part of schooling is almost the same.

Cannibalism is a culture, too

[Anonymous Coward]

Does your moral relativism extend so far as to label cannibalism something that "serve[s] the needs ot the society in the area"?

If not, then you refute your own argument, and if you do effectively condone cannibalism you're utterly amoral.

Either way, you're a FOOL

Re:Cannibalism is a culture, too

[ramzak2k]

If cannibalism was accepted in a society with very few advocating change, it would form part of the culture. And Like it or not, it is serving its purpose for otherwise we would see the internal need for change.

Anyways, the issue at hand has nothing to do with cannibalism. To think it does would only serve to indicate a highly distorted view of the issue.

GPL is already all about ethics, moral and rights!

[fredrikv]

Choosing GPL as license is in itself a pretty strong political statement. GPL is restrictive for many uses (e.g. compared with BSD/MIT/Apache licenses) so I don't find it strange if someone would add another paragraph.

Something like
No part of this software can be used for research, manufacture or use of nuclear power, nuclear, chemical or biological warfare or in states sanctioned by United Nations embargos or blockades.

That's very much like GPL's idea "It can't be used as a part of products that don't share our ideas about software licensing".

Many people in this discussion seem to think that "freedom" in the true sense means "the user's freedom to do whatever he wants" when actually "the authors freedom and right to be respected for his work" is a more important basis of freedom (and GPL).

Maybe the war in Iraq (soon on a theatre near you) is a too hot issue to be a good example. But show me someone that would be proud of seeing their free software enabling the genocide in Rwanda. GPL is already a lot about ideas, ethics and moral so anybody choosing GPL for their project should be articulate enough to decide for themselves which uses are acceptable. Choosing GPL just because "it is the ultimately cool freedom thing" is not what GNU is about.

Define military uses...

[frozencesium]

First of all, as everyone else points out, it's a non-issue. The government will do what they want, the terrorists are more than likely using opensource encryption, etc...

for the sake of argument, let's say you can ban the military from using open source. what about those linux clusters that help break "bad guy" encryption, or the clusters they use to similate any number of things including nuclear weapon blasts. would you rather we go back to dropping nuks on remote south pacific islands?

how about this...i'm in the US Air Force. does that mean i can't run linux on all my machines in my dorm room? i know it's a stretch, but i do live on a military base and use my computers to contact people in my office regarding work (unclassified of course). couldn't that be taken as "use by the government"? what about a previous posters thought of saying "can't be downloaded for use by members of the military"?

-frozen

Wow

[ucblockhead]

I stand corrected...that RMS guy is one smart cookie.

Re:I am soooo dumb.....

[siskbc]

You havn't made up your mind, but your sick of people that have? You havn't made up your mind, but you know enough about it to critique people that have thought about it, and made up their mind?

No, that's the damned point. I'm criticizing people who have done the opposite - made up their mind without thinking just because NPR told them to. Yes, there are people on both sides that are guilty of this, and they piss me off equally. However, I'm surrounded by the pacifist camp, being as how I'm in grad school, and Universities are pretty leftist. If I still lived in the south (gun racks per capita: 3) I would probably be having this discussion with the other side. No, I do NOT favor "killing them all and letting God sort them out," which seems to be considered a reasonable argument there.

Personaly, I'm sick of people supporting the war in Iraq because it's the "good conservative" answer to terrorism. What has failed is Bush forign policy. He doesn't have an answer for terrorism, so he's got the sheep bleating "Iraq!" Apparently, it seems to be working.

That's true. To an extent, Bush's motivation, consciously or subconsciously, is that this is a proxy war for bin Laden, whom he can't find. So I agree, the motivation for it kind of sucks. However, that doesn't necessarily mean the war shouldn't occur. A lot of the evidence regarding an Iraq/Al Queda link is classified, but other non-Germany/France countries seem fairly compelled by it when they see it. That's enough reason for me to be a bit less skeptical about the war given, say, Spain's reaction.

Also, to defend Bush - he inherited this situation after 8 years of Clinton and the UN allowing Saddaam to blatantly violate terms of the treaty with no consequences. Bush Sr. bowed to pressure, largely of a humanitarian basis, to end the first war and save lives - something that in hindsight may not have been so smart. However, he had no way of knowing just how weak the UN would prove. So to say that this is Bush Jr's foreign policy failure is a bit disingenious. What should he have done - asked Saddaam a little nicer to let inspectors have unfettered access (which they've never had) ?

Also, when will diplomacy have effectively failed? Because it ain't working now, either from us or the UN. And what do we do then?

Here's a question - what's your answer for terrorism? Because taking out governments that blatantly sponsor it seems to be the only recourse, other than just living with it. Ultimately, it comes down to this: how much risk are we willing to assume for something worse than 9/11 to happen? Saddaam has illegal weapons, and assuming he won't use them is dangerously naive - he's used them in every war he's engaged in, including genocide on Iraqis (Kurdish).

Used to Be

[Lucas Membrane]

15+ years ago, almost everything done for the government was open source. It was hard to figure out exactly who to get what from, and you did have to pay distributions costs, but there was plenty of military-related software available free. I bought a catalog of this software from a company that would, for a hefty fee, actually go through all the hoops of getting the free code for its customers. (I think that Greg Aharonian who now publicizes absurd patents ran that business.) Things like fighter and logistics simulations and such were in the catalog. Sadly, I chucked the catalog in a sorry fit of cleaning years back when my office just overflowed with such useless but precious effluvia.

Consider yourself manipulated.

[lucianx]

If you think that the United States is interested in deposing brutal dictators, you need to brush up on your recent US history.

Why does the United States support Saudi Arabia? Why has the United States backed military coups and dictatorships in Venezuela and Pakistan? Why did it support Saddam Hussein when he was at war with Iran, using chemical weapons?

Even if this hypocrisy wasn't self-evident, this is a war of aggression, a first strike, an unprovoked war. Do you feel comfortable with your government setting that precedent?

The world is starting to view Bush as a pretty serious threat to world peace, at this point.

RE: Consider yourself manipulated.

[spruce]

And you don't think you're manipulated? You've got your finger on the pulse of truth or something? Get over yourself. I supposed it's a big oil conspiracy, right?

If you think that the United States is interested in deposing brutal dictators, you need to brush up on your recent US history.
Why does the United States support Saudi Arabia?
Why has the United States backed military coups and dictatorships in Venezuela and Pakistan?


Nobody said we should attack all brutal dictators. And I never said the US foreign policty was always right. However, if you have a brutal dictator like Saddam who has weapons, has used them, has invaded other countries, who to this very day continues to defy the UN, and has a personal beef with you, then you have a situation where force might just be necesary.


Even if this hypocrisy wasn't self-evident, this is a war of aggression, a first strike, an unprovoked war. Do you feel comfortable with your government setting that precedent?


I don't see how you call this unprovoked. It was provoked 12 years ago, and every day in between. Hell they still shoot at our planes. Iraq has been in violation for 12 years. You're damn right I feel comfortable in this situation. I'd feel uncomfortable if we didn't do anyting, and let Saddam do his thing.


The world is starting to view Bush as a pretty serious threat to world peace, at this point.


Actually a lot of the world supports our position.

Re:Consider yourself manipulated.

[Anonymous Coward]

"The world is starting to view Bush as a pretty serious threat to world peace, at this point."

Fair enough. But so far they are only using words. Will France, Germany and Russia be mobilizing to defend Iraq? If they truly believe that force is not justified and US aggression is not the answer, they could easily stop it. I don't believe the American people would be quite as eager to support this invasion if the stakes were higher.

Either the countries who are defending Iraq right now with only words actually believe in their position, why won't they take action to stop the invasion? I think it would be a wonderful lesson for Bush if he learned the limits of his power, taking us to the brink of WWIII -- an *European* theatre WWIII, mind you -- and being forced to back down.

I am not at all convinced he will back down under any opposition less than that. He clearly does a fine job of ignoring words, resisting attempts at diplomacy, and steadfastly maintaining his position amid domestic and foreign criticism.

Let the US-Iraq conflict be a fair fight! Otherwise it's just too damned obvious to be worth watching. Nobody will cover any bets with the current odds.

Re: Consider yourself manipulated.

[lucianx]

And you don't think you're manipulated? You've got your finger on the pulse of truth or something? Get over yourself. I supposed it's a big oil conspiracy, right?

I don't claim to know for sure what's going on. I'm at the bottom of the information chain, just like you, but I do feel as though there are some obvious discrepencies and hypocrisies to be found in what we are told, if we just have the nerve to look. I'm not privy to any privileged information, but I don't just parrot what the mainstream media tells me without investigation of the topic.

If I had to guess, it does seem the most likely to me that the chief motivating factor is strategic; partly for the natural resources, partly to help push the stated Wolfowitz doctrine (you know, our Deputy Secrety of Defense?) of repressing any other nations from being able to position themselves as a competitor to the United States.

Nobody said we should attack all brutal dictators. And I never said the US foreign policty was always right. However, if you have a brutal dictator like Saddam who has weapons, has used them, has invaded other countries, who to this very day continues to defy the UN, and has a personal beef with you, then you have a situation where force might just be necesary.

And Israel's defiance of UN resolutions, possession of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons!), and propensity to invade neighboring countries doesn't apply to this same logic? Of course not, they are on "our side."

It's a clear double-standard. It's evidence of an unstated agenda, but you don't seem willing to recognize that.

I don't see how you call this unprovoked. It was provoked 12 years ago, and every day in between.

How has Iraq provoked war against the United States in the last twelve years? You can't point to an invasion of a neighboring country over a decade ago as a casus belli.

Hell they still shoot at our planes. Iraq has been in violation for 12 years.

You mean the planes we fly over Iraq's sovereign airspace, without sanction from the United Nations? (The US and Britain imposed the so-called "no fly zones" on their own authority, not the UN's, so why don't the Iraqis have the right to defend their airspace?)

You're damn right I feel comfortable in this situation. I'd feel uncomfortable if we didn't do anyting, and let Saddam do his thing.

I feel damn uncomfortable with my government launching a first-strike war of aggression on a country on the other side of the planet as though it's an "imminent threat." What sort of precedent will this set? Will you be so comfortable if India invades Pakistan (who do have Nuclear Weapons) on the same grounds--possession of weapons of mass destruction, border disputes over Kashmir, a military dictator in power?

Or does this right to pre-emptive aggression only apply to the United States?

Re: Consider yourself manipulated.

[spruce]

...but I do feel as though there are some obvious discrepencies and hypocrisies to be found in what we are told, if we just have the nerve to look. I'm not privy to any privileged information, but I don't just parrot what the mainstream media tells me without investigation of the topic.

Oh I have the nerve to look and I have, I just haven't found any solid evidence that there's a motive other than disarming Saddam. None of the anti-war rhetoric concerning our motives seems very plausible to me, especially when there seems to be an extremely convincing case as to why there should be action. Occam's Razor. Even you don't really have a coherent theory as stated, you have some things that "maybe if you had to guess" are the motives. And I'm not parroting anybody, I've weighed the facts as reported by a myriad of sources and made up my own mind. In fact I was skeptical at first, but over time I've changed my view.

If I had to guess, it does seem the most likely to me that the chief motivating factor is strategic; partly for the natural resources, partly to help push the stated Wolfowitz doctrine (you know, our Deputy Secrety of Defense?) of repressing any other nations from being able to position themselves as a competitor to the United States.

If it were for oil, wouldn't it just be easier to try to purchase that oil? You think Bush is really so evil he would rather kill US & Iraqi soldiers and civilians and risk other terrorist threats just for oil, when we could probably just lift sanctions and purchase it? Also let's remember Ari Fleisher and others have stated that Iraq will keep their oil, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Why didn't we just keep their oil the first time? As far as your Wolfowitz policy, I'm not extremely famaliar with it, but from your info - who are we scared is going to be on a level playing field with the US - Iraq? Why the hell would we really care unless they started amassing an army that could give us a challenge? You'll have to spell that out for me.

And Israel's defiance of UN resolutions, possession of weapons of mass destruction (including nuclear weapons!), and propensity to invade neighboring countries doesn't apply to this same logic? Of course not, they are on "our side."
It's a clear double-standard. It's evidence of an unstated agenda, but you don't seem willing to recognize that.

First let me say that I think that situation is very messy and there's no good solution. But whether you or I like it, Israel is our ally, and you tend to look past the actions of you allies. Also, I'm unaware of Israel using chem or bio weapons, if I'm wrong please correct me. But saying that, I don't understand how the fact that Israel is our ally is in any way proof that we have other motives than disarming Saddam. First off, we don't really have any reason to fear Israel, so of course we'll deal with them differently. It's not a cookie cutter situation, the same way we shouldn't necesarliy be banging heads with North Korea, yet. I think you're connecting things which are not connected.

How has Iraq provoked war against the United States in the last twelve years? You can't point to an invasion of a neighboring country over a decade ago as a casus belli.

They provoked us because they did invade another country, and then we and other nations defeated them. As part of the agreement for a cease fire, they were to disarm, and to this day they have not. If you think they have you're disagreeing with the entire world. Everybody agrees that they need to disarm, that's why everybody is calling for inspections. The difference is we're putting our foot down and saying enough of this bullshit - disarm now, or else.

I look at it like I'm in a room with some people. One of them has a gun and has killed another person in the room, and beaten other people with his gun. One person says put the gun down down, or I'm going to attack you. The gunman refuses to put the gun down over and over again, in fact he pretends he doesn't even have a gun even though we all know he does. All the other people in the room are content to just ask "please, please, put it down", but at this point it's just obvious he's not going to.

Or does this right to pre-emptive aggression only apply to the United States?

I think the world is a fucked up place with fucked up people, and basically all you can do is what is in your best interest first, and then hope and help for the rest. If other nations adopt this poicy, yes, that's their right. It would be great if we could all be peaceful, but the idealistic part of me went away a long time ago.

Re: Consider yourself manipulated.

[lucianx]

If it were for oil, wouldn't it just be easier to try to purchase that oil?

It's not about consumption, it's about control. After the second world war, the State Department of our government designated in now declassified documents the Persian Gulf as a "stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history." The United States has an incredible dependence on oil, and it's only increasing.

It's also militarily useful to have a presence in Iraq if you are intent on continuing the war on Iran, or Syria, as Retired US General Wesley Clark (NATO's chief of staff during the war in Yugoslavia) said in an interview to the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag.

You think Bush is really so evil he would rather kill US & Iraqi soldiers and civilians and risk other terrorist threats just for oil, when we could probably just lift sanctions and purchase it?

I believe the powers behind Bush are ruthless enough in their drive to dominate and control the world's markets. Yes, I do believe this, and I think it's reflected in their actions if you look past the rhetoric.

As far as your Wolfowitz policy, I'm not extremely famaliar with it, but from your info - who are we scared is going to be on a level playing field with the US - Iraq? Why the hell would we really care unless they started amassing an army that could give us a challenge? You'll have to spell that out for me.

I'll let Wolfowitz spell it out for you. His doctrine's stated intent is to "ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge. With its focus on this concept of benevolent domination by one power, the Pentagon document articulates the clearest rejection to date of collective internationalism," as summarized by the New York Times. Its main intent is "to guard against the emergence of hostile regional superpowers, for example, Iraq or China. ... America is No. 1. We stand for something decent and important. That's good for us and good for the world. That's the way we want to keep it" as reported by the Washington Times on the same topic. Look it up yourself if you want.

They provoked us because they did invade another country, and then we and other nations defeated them. As part of the agreement for a cease fire, they were to disarm, and to this day they have not. If you think they have you're disagreeing with the entire world.

The US, the UK, and Spain are "the entire world"? The world agrees Iraq should not have certain weapons in its arsenal. I don't know about you, but I have seen zero evidence presented which has not been thoroughly dismantled or cast in serious doubt from Bush and his administration that he has these vast stockpiles of weapons, and even the UN Inspectors called the "tips" from US intelligence complete garbage.

Everybody agrees that they need to disarm, that's why everybody is calling for inspections. The difference is we're putting our foot down and saying enough of this bullshit - disarm now, or else.

No, the difference is that Bush's administration has no interest in disarmament. Every step towards disarmament is immediately dismissed as a ploy. If Iraq says they do not have weapons they are accused of lying; if they do have weapons, they are accused of not destroying them. When Bush says "disarmament" he means "colonization."

Our favorite ex-secretary of state-cum-fugitive for war crimes, Henry Kissinger (the guy Bush bizarrely tried to get involved in the investigation of 9/11), stated in an interview that "No government that talked to President Bush or his advisers since Resolution 1441 was passed in November 2002 could have any doubt that within a few months the Americans would announce a material breach of this resolution as well as retaliatory measures."

They don't want disarmament, they want a piece of paper that says it was the will of the United Nations so that now they can cloak themselves in the garb of multilateral, cooperative efforts.

I look at it like I'm in a room with some people. One of them has a gun and has killed another person in the room, and beaten other people with his gun. One person says put the gun down down, or I'm going to attack you. The gunman refuses to put the gun down over and over again, in fact he pretends he doesn't even have a gun even though we all know he does. All the other people in the room are content to just ask "please, please, put it down", but at this point it's just obvious he's not going to.

Are you familiar at all with the international behavior of the United States over the past 50 years? The United States is the only nation to have used nuclear weapons against another nation. It's the only nation known to have produced weapons-grade anthrax in the last 25 years. Do you remember a little war in a nation called Vietnam, based on a now well-known fabrication about an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin? Cambodia in 1969? Laos through 1973? Grenada in 1983? Panama in 1989? Iran in 1984? Libya in 1986? Sudan in 1998?

(This is the short list. Feel free to peruse a longer summary, here.)

Are you aware that in your little analogy we gave Iraq the gun and were glad he was using it against Iran? We had little to say at that time about their use of Chemical Weapons, when Rumsfeld himself was cozying up to Baghdad. Doesn't this set off any kind of alarm in your mind that we're not getting a straight story from these jokers?

I think the world is a fucked up place with fucked up people, and basically all you can do is what is in your best interest first, and then hope and help for the rest. If other nations adopt this poicy, yes, that's their right. It would be great if we could all be peaceful, but the idealistic part of me went away a long time ago.

Supporting more bloodthirsty politicians spouting bald-faced lies is not going to make the world a better place. Remember that being against war is not being in favor of Saddam Hussein.

Doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that nothing changed between September of 2001 and September of 2002 in regards to Iraq's arsenal or attitude towards the United States, but suddenly they are considered an imminent threat? Even though they are on the other side of the planet? Even though his neighbors have no such revulsion and fear of Iraq?

Thanks for considering what I've had to say.

Re: Consider yourself manipulated.

[dvdeug]

I look at it like I'm in a room with some people. One of them has a gun and has killed another person in the room, and beaten other people with his gun. One person says put the gun down down, or I'm going to attack you. The gunman refuses to put the gun down over and over again, in fact he pretends he doesn't even have a gun even though we all know he does. All the other people in the room are content to just ask "please, please, put it down", but at this point it's just obvious he's not going to.

The guy who wants the gun put down, also happens to be the largest guy in the room, and gave the gun to the gun-holder to beat up on a third party. Most of the people in the room have weapons, and aren't really scared of the guy with the gun, despite his obvious irrationality. They're more scared of the guy who keeps demanding the gun get put down - while more rational, he has a history of things like giving guns to irrational people, and picking fights. He's also by far the biggest guy in the room, carries more weaponary then anyone else in the room, and has weapons that everyone in the room agrees should never be used, including one that only he has used. The gun-waver may be dangerous, but you can deal with him, while you're not sure you can deal with the big guy pushing his way whereever he wants, and it's never a happy scene when lead fills the air, and often innocent bystanders get hurt.

Given those extra details, I'm not sure I'd be jumping on the oppertunity to fight this battle.

Hopefully slashdot is taking notes

[Anonymous Coward]

and for very personal reasons, as you'll see from his words, which NewsForge has edited (very lightly) only for grammar and clarity, not for content.

See, slashdot editors? It's not impossible for someone running a website to actually fucking EDIT.

Maybe it's the other way around

[Anonymous Coward]

Should open source developers help Iraq prepare for war with the United States?

Re:Not with my bonified!

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's bonafide (from the latin bona fide, meaning good faith).

Open Source Definition

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems that the very definition of Open Source precludes any restrictions on who can use it and for what purpose. Get over it. It's really best in the long run.

Note the following provisions of the Open Source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php)

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.

Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.

Not open for long

[Wingnut64]

Once they start hardcoding weapon specs, it will cease to be open-source.

military secrecy

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody with security clearance can label anything secret up to his level of clearance. Declassification is harder. We generally just burned the papers rather than try to declassify. Dealing with knowledge by people who are not supposed to have knowlegde is tricky and done on a case by case basis. {I created electronic warfare software.}

My father was an officer in Air Force Intelligence and one fine day they had a problem. It seems there was a professor going around proudly talking about how he had deduced some important military secret (and he was exactly correct). My father flew out to his location in full uniform, took him out into an empty field and told him, "You are right. Now for your nation's sake, please shut up!" My father says thats all it took and the problem was solved.

Re:I am soooo dumb.....

[Anonymous Coward]

preface: this isn't meant as a troll or flame, etc. but it may be quite naive. nevertheless, honest questions.

why shouldn't iraq have weapons? they're a sovereign nation, just as the u.s., right? seems strange to pre-emptively declare war on a country because they have their own weapons. do they have more or better weapons than the u.s.?
finally, if you prevent countries from having their own weapons, then aren't you forcing countries to resort to clandestine "terrorist" tactics?

i do understand that iraq lost, signed a treaty, etc. i'm not asking a historical question.

What's karma for after all...

[ektor]

As you might expect, I consider the war being promoted against Iraq to be immoral. The spin for this war has gone through a number of phases, and it has yet to click. Alarming how easily the population can be manipulated through fear.

The war againts Iraq is hardly immoral considering that resolution 1441 was passed with an unanimous vote. That's as moral as international politics go.

On the other hand I consider keeping Sadam in power clearly inmoral. The same goes for every other dictator out there.

However I agree that the population is easily manipulated through fear; you just have to look at the Europeans. They think they can appease terrorists by supporting Saddam and bashing Bush.

Did you read the article?

[charon_on_acheron]

Let me highlight a small part.

It is not uncommon for people who make a quiet joke at a party on Friday to disappear with all their family, including cousins, before the weekend is over. They have no due process, they have no court to appeal to, the people are simply gone and never come back.

When people tell me that civilians will die in a war, I tell them that Saddam has already spilled more Iraqi blood than any aggressor. He is not a polite, reasonable man. He kills without thought. His son Uday rapes little girls and chops off the heads of prostitutes on the street.

War or no war, this man needs killing like a rabid dog. And Iraq needs to be free.

I can't verify the claims of course, but have no reason to doubt them.

Re:Did you read the article?

[Anonymous Coward]

--War or no war, this man needs killing like a rabid dog. And Iraq needs to be free.

It would be nice if there were an easy way to make a nation "be free" - but war ends up being a reflexive and primitive 'solution' and cannot possibly create freedom in this situation. Invading and killing a single civilian (not to mention the projected thousands), will create more of a problem for the US than solve one. Most Iraqi people despise Saddam Hussein, and for good reason, but they also have good reason for not thinking the US can 'liberate' them. Most Iraqis probably have seen our government's pattern of invading with promises of liberation and then leaving little changed. RAWA reports the situation of women has changed little in Afghanistan. The economy of Afghanistan is worse than ever, with kids being sold as brides/sex slaves in greater numbers. The US did not deliver all the aid promised to Afghanistan.

An invasion will also further cripple the civilian infrastructure of a nation whose waste treatment plants have not yet recovered from the last war, perhaps deposit more radioactive substances (cancer is hugely elevated in areas near where DU weaponry was used), and harm already damaged hospitals.

An alternative to war:

The US could PROVIDE needed medicines, lobby against the sanctions except for clear military items, fund the reconstruction of waste treatment plants, the hospitals, the clearing of radioactive material, and cease fining organizations that aid Iraqi hospitals with banned items. We could fund education along with all of this and probably come in at way under the current disgustingly large budget for destroying things.

Re:Did you read the article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Saddam was torturing and executing opponents and using poison gas as a WMD during the 1980's when the US was supporting him (including initially *supplying* him with the capability to manufacture chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction!). The Saudis, our "allies" in this war, torture and execute opponents, as does the Algerian government, the Egyptian government,and the Israelis have violated a far greater number of UN Security Council resolutions than Iraq!

There are far more al Queda sympathizers in Pakistan, Egypt, Algeria, and Saudi Arabia, for that matter, than in secular Iraq. The focus on overthrowing Iraq due to it's potential as a supporter of international terrorism is unbelievably cynical.

It is amazing the degree to which our government is LYING to us about Iraq - the so-called chemical weapons terrorist training camp in Northern Iraq that was shown (by Kurdish opponents of Saddam) to be a decrepit, abandoned military outpost, and the "new British intelligence findings" of a connection between Saddam and terrorist groups that were lifted (gramatical errors and all!) from a twelve-year-old research paper by a U.S. graduate student!

Saddam Hussein is a Frankenstein, and he is really the US's Frankenstein - supported to "counterbalance" the Iranians and only condemned when he "overstepped his bounds" (i.e., invaded a US-friendly oil-rich country) and showed himself to be a threat to "strategic interests" of the US in the Middle East (i.e. control of oil). BTW, why didn't the US government push the UN to intervene to condemn Iraq when it invaded Iran? In fact, the US SUPPORTED Iraq when it invaded Iran resulting an a bloody war that killed over a million people!

This war has nothing to do with overthrowing dictators or torturers, or supporters of al Queda. It has to do with strategic control of oil resources throughout the Middle East and Caspian Sea. The Bush policy of unilateral pre-emtive attack has already started destabilizing the entire world...

This is outrageous news for developers

[Anonymous Coward]

I say we infiltrate an Air Force base, find a stealth bomber and replace "thier" eproms with "our" eproms.

Next we get a buttload of pop-corn and secretly stash it in one of Saddam's palaces.

When the war starts, we get even with both sides and feed the Iraqis for a week.

Oops, Sorry, Enjoy,

Re:I am soooo dumb.....

[FatHogByTheAss]

A lot of the evidence regarding an Iraq/Al Queda link is classified, but other non-Germany/France countries seem fairly compelled by it when they see it.

It isn't classified, it's fabricated. If there were al Queda in Iraq, we would have already invaded Iraq. We have established that we don't need UN approval to destroy al Queda.

Queda is a fundamentalist Islamic group, and will be where it finds sympathy. Iraq is a secular state. The only power in Iraq is Hussein. He doesn't share it with the mullas or the imams.

he inherited this situation after 8 years of Clinton and the UN allowing Saddaam to blatantly violate terms of the treaty with no consequences.

Blaming Clinton, the typical republican excuse, doesn't carry any water. Clinton inherited the situation from Bush Sr. His excuse wasn't "humanitarian," but "no UN mandate" for a regiem change. Just like we have now.

Here's a question - what's your answer for terrorism? Because taking out governments that blatantly sponsor it seems to be the only recourse, other than just living with it.

The problem isn't one of government, its one of culture. We do for the House of Saud what we did for Japan after WWII. We park several armored divisions in downtown Mecca and change the culture with blue jeans, VCRs and constitutional government. To that end, Hussein could be an asset, as he already oversees a secular government and a fairly westernized society.

Saddaam has illegal weapons, and assuming he won't use them is dangerously naive - he's used them in every war he's engaged in, including genocide on Iraqis (Kurdish).

So he's used them in his own country's military actions. Big deal. To date, they havn't been used in *any* terrorist act.

Box cutters and ammonium nitrate seem to do the trick for most terrorists. We should be focusing our resources on that.

In related news... A Virtual March on Washington

[egoff]

The Win Without War Coalition organized today the first ever Virtual March on Washington. Opposed the potential war on Iraq, the protesters have organized over 85,000 emails, faxes, and phone calls, translating to more than one phone call per minute to each Senate office.

The New York Times, the BBC, The Washington Post, and others While not using any new technology, the protest was organized completely via the Internet, and could be indicative of the way digital culture is blending with traditional culture every passing day."

Re:I am soooo dumb.....

[Anonymous Coward]

no, it's cos they have stockpiles of, and have *used on their own people*, biological agents, germs, gas.. deadly nerve gas, for instance.

Who's to say they'd ever use stuff like that again? Eh. But I'd have a hard time believing that, once a leader used such a weapon in such a fashion that he could be trusted to never use it again.

The US is not suggesting that Iraq's conventional military be stripped a la Versailles, rather that they show proof of having destroyed certain types of weapons that they implicitly admitted having when they agreed to destroy them.

Cray XMP1

[Anonymous Coward]

Boy, imagine a beowulf cluster of those!

statements restricting their use for

[Anonymous Coward]

statements restricting their use for ...

How stupid! Governments are sovern. There is no one to stop them from ignoring any and all statements anyone makes anywhere.

Ou, oo, I'll write words on paper!! That'll stop the greatest military force in histoty ! Yeah!

Not quite...

[Kjella]

The word "unilateral" has 2 different senses:
Adjective:
1. Involving only one part or side.

Now, I'm not sure how you want to count it, UN votes, population, land area or whatever. The US side is nowhere near having a majority of the world supporting immidiate war, so *their side* wants to unilaterally wage war on Iraq.

Of course, the only reason they use that word now is because the alternative is to have "the world" behind them, pretty much every other war ever fought has been unilaterally decleared by one side, nations usually don't come together and sign a joint statement "Let's have a war" ;)

Kjella

Free Software

[forii]

The article asks:

"Should Open Source developers help the U.S. prepare for war with Iraq?"

The question for "Free Software" can then be:

Free as in beer?

Free as in speech?

Free as in not suffering under the thumb of a murderous dictator?

don't forget

[Anonymous Coward]

killing is still wrong, which makes war wrong by extension.

try not to forget the basics, as they're important.

Yo buddy, here's an ampersand lt semicolon for ya

[msouth]

Looks like you could use a few:

<
<
<
<

:)

Govt of the people...

[krysith]

And name me one of the above countries in which the majority of the population is ~for~ the war? What happened to "Democracy"? (Kuwait and Qatar are not democracies, so I guess that shouldn't be a requirement for them)

Re:Govt of the people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, who elected the member's of the security council? Why the hell should I trust them with my national security? Explain that to me please! I think I shouldn't, I should trust a president of the US to make a well informed decision about how to best protect me. Not trying to offend you, but you really don't have all the information that a sitting presiden of the United States has.

Re:Govt of the people...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, trust George Bush...

Theo De Raadt said it best...

[Goonie]

Theo De Raadt made the following comment in the context of explaining why an externally-written packet filter needed to be removed from OpenBSD:

But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.

Theo is right.

Open source war simulation software as a equalizer

[NZlinux]

A group of friend here in New zealand are developing glp licensed "battlefield simulation software". This would allow poorer nations greater understanding of the weaponary, that a more hightech foe such as the US might use against them. The aim was to reduce the treat of imperilism by, by making casualities more prevailant on the hightech side. There are currently 17 of us involved, with backgrounds varying from New Zealand Army, to wireless communications experts. Open source software sould be used to breakdown the barriers between the haves and have nots, not increase them.

This is a great idea for a trolltrend!

[msouth]

Actually, maybe it's been too long since I browsed at -1, mabye this is already in use. You could just take the text of this post, and put the name of whoever is in it for Stallman.

Not that I would EVER encourage the trolls. EVER. I NEVER laugh at a good troll. That would undermine the role of slashdot as a high quality source of news and discussion. Just laughing. So stop that!

Re:This is a great idea for a trolltrend!

[Baldrson]

When reality is satire the only option is to "troll".

previous replies attached to wrong posts

[Un pobre guey]

Sorry, my previous replies were somehow attached one level too low. My mistake, I think.

Hmmmmm!!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Dunno. There may be two different approaches to tackling this moral question. If you're in the GNU camp, you wait for Mr. Stallman's opinion on the war and help/stonewall the U.S. armed forces accordingly. If you're in the BSD camp, you make up your own mind on the matter or just avoid the issue altogether and keep coding, not giving a rat's behind whether the masses will use your code for good or evil. Does that answer your (stupid) question?

notice how no one talks of the immorality of Iraq

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one who thinks it is nuts that only the use of Open source software by the US is considered amoral??? What about all the other nations with far worse records of human rights abuse and their use of open source?? Should we mention that North Korea's is starving their people while investing in weapons of mass distruction---why don't people question about their use of open source? The list goes on and as usual, only the US (and maybe Isreal) are somehow held to a different standart than the rest of the world.

So what are you gonna do about it, Hmmmm?

[Mulletproof]

And the funny thing is a lot of people seem to think that a Saddam would give a shit about how he uses, modifies and impliments your open source code. There's not a whole hellva lot you can do to stop him even if it wasn't "open source". Think he gives a crap about MS copyrights if he were so inclines to try and modify something of theirs?

It like the gun myth that if you somehow regulate everything it'll be "alright" when the sad facts are that 95% of this countries shootings are commited by people who don't care about regulation, laws or copyrights. If they have a mind to, they will obtain your code, alter it and there isn't a thing you can do to stop them short of never releasing it. On that note, it sure as heck isn't your fault if they use that code for purposes you never intended just like the gun company isn't responsible for your murdering rampage.

Shifting arguments and red herrings

[siskbc]

It isn't classified, it's fabricated. If there were al Queda in Iraq, we would have already invaded Iraq. We have established that we don't need UN approval to destroy al Queda.

Great conspiracy theory. You chase UFO's too? There don't have to be al Queda *IN* Iraq for Iraq to *collaborate* with them toward a common end. Yes, bin Laden has condemned Iraq as a secular nation, but that doesn't mean they both don't consider us enemy #1 - and therefore willing to work together. Your assumption that "we would have already invaded" doesn't fly.

Blaming Clinton, the typical republican excuse, doesn't carry any water. Clinton inherited the situation from Bush Sr. His excuse wasn't "humanitarian," but "no UN mandate" for a regiem change. Just like we have now.

Carries a lot of water. Yeah, the UN was weak - but had Clinton done something about it in '92 when Saddaam sensed weakness and started blocking inspectors, we wouldn't have the problem we have today. At that point, the coalition was strong, he could have more easily pressured the UN, and there was more momentum toward disarming Iraq at the time. But what did he do? Jack shit. So he has to carry a lot of the weight for the problem, because he could have influenced the UN but he didn't even try. Put it this way - you can't blame Bush Jr. for not solving the problem without blaming Clinton at least as much. You could contend that neither is at fault at best an dblame the weak UN instead.

The problem [terrorism] isn't one of government, its one of culture. We do for the House of Saud what we did for Japan after WWII. We park several armored divisions in downtown Mecca and change the culture with blue jeans, VCRs and constitutional government. To that end, Hussein could be an asset, as he already oversees a secular government and a fairly westernized society.

You're being a bit generous with "fairly westernized" - they don't seem to have any of the characteristics unless you consider a military dictator as opposed to a religious dictator "western." I don't care how you define the problem, you have yet to advocate ANY solution. Unfortunately, Saddaam isn't as likely as the house of Saud to let our tanks in. And as for constitutional government in Saudi Arabia - did I miss something?

So he's used them in his own country's military actions. Big deal. To date, they havn't been used in *any* terrorist act.

And you don't have to be a damned genius to realize that if he'll use them on his own people, he'll use them on anyone else. As for whether they've been used in any terrorist act yet...do you want to wait? Want another 9/11?

Box cutters and ammonium nitrate seem to do the trick for most terrorists. We should be focusing our resources on that.

Yeah, and we are. For one, box cutters will never work again - didn't even work on the fourth plane. And there are only so many people you can kill with ammonium nitrate/diesel oil bombs, as they're pretty crude. And since Oklahoma City, ammonium nitrate (and other oxidizers) are HIGHLY controlled.

Bottom line - you criticize the planned war. OK, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, but your arguments against it are...what? Claims of conspiracies and fabricated evidence? That's ridiculously lame. Go with the cost, ($100b) if anything. Go with the slippery slope argument - basically, that getting rid of *just* Iraq won't work without Syria, etc. Or fear of the scorched-earth policy that Saddaam will likely follow if deposed. Or power-vacuum theory. You have so many choices, don't go with the shitty argument. Do realize, though, that an anti-war stance ultimately admits that we have effectively no hope of stopping terrorism, as its sources will go unchecked. You have no alternative solution, the UN has done *absolutely* nothing - so, again, other than *living* with terrorism, which I don't find particularly attractive, what do we do other than destroy all regimes that support it?

Re:Shifting arguments and red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

You have no alternative solution, the UN has done *absolutely* nothing - so, again, other than *living* with terrorism, which I don't find particularly attractive, what do we do other than destroy all regimes that support it?

How about we put an end to 100 years of fucking around with countries that don't belong to us? There is no quick-fire solution to the problem of terrorism, it's the long-term result of the West's foreign policy decisions. If we don't change, we will have to live with it, however many wars we fight against it. Terrorism doesn't require "rogue" states to function - sure, it help a bit, but terrorism can't be cured through invasion and "regime change"; these things just play into the hands of terrorist propaganda.

Re:Shifting arguments and red herrings

[siskbc]

How about we put an end to 100 years of fucking around with countries that don't belong to us?

Ultimately, isolationism is the only thing that will work long term. You're probably right. So, what do we do? Make an announcement that, from now on, all you bastards can solve your own problems for a change? Leave us alone and we won't kick your asses?

Hmmm...that doesn't actually sound bad. Here's the thing though - quality of life in the Muslim world absolutely blows, and it could be argued that they hate us because otherwise they'd have to be jealous of us and the easy lives we have. So if we get out, they have three choices - still keep screwing with us just for old times sakes, find another enemy to blame their plight on, or actually consider their situation for what it is and realize that they really don't have that much going for them. And I don't see the last one happening. Religious zealots need an enemy to exist. We're it.

So the question is, will isolationism even help?

Re:Shifting arguments and red herrings

[FatHogByTheAss]

Great conspiracy theory. You chase UFO's too? There don't have to be al Queda *IN* Iraq for Iraq to *collaborate* with them toward a common end. Yes, bin Laden has condemned Iraq as a secular nation, but that doesn't mean they both don't consider us enemy #1 - and therefore willing to work together.

You're describing a conspiracy between Queda and Iraq that has *zero* evidence to support it. Who's chasing UFOs?

Your assumption that "we would have already invaded" doesn't fly.

By "doesn't fly" do you mean "established a precedent in Afghanistan, Yemen and the Philipine Islands?" Did we get UN approval to destroy Queda in those areas?

So don't tell me we need it in Iraq. If Powells pictures of "Queda" bases were really bases, we would have destroyed them already. It's what we do everywhere else.

Yeah, the UN was weak - but had Clinton done something about it in '92 when Saddaam sensed weakness and started blocking inspectors, we wouldn't have the problem we have today.

What problem? The problem is terrorists flying airliners into buildings. Iraq hasn't been part of that.

Put it this way - you can't blame Bush Jr. for not solving the problem without blaming Clinton at least as much.

And we can follow that logic right up to Bush Sr.

You're being a bit generous with "fairly westernized" - they don't seem to have any of the characteristics unless you consider a military dictator as opposed to a religious dictator "western."

Besides Turkey, the most westernized nation in the region is Iraq. There is a strong seperation of church and state. They do not have the religious prohibitions that you see in the Saudi states relating to many things western. You see western style clothing, food, and entertainment.

That it's run by a military dictatorship has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is a westernized culture.

And you don't have to be a damned genius to realize that if he'll use them on his own people, he'll use them on anyone else.

This is pure bullshit. History shows otherwise. He could have used them during Gulf War I, but didn't. No terrorist attacks have used Iraqi WMD, or Iraqi's, for that matter. He's used them to suppres insurgents in Iraq, and against Iran. Iran used them too. Thats it. "He could use them anywhere" is pure conspiracy theory.

Yeah, and we are. For one, box cutters will never work again - didn't even work on the fourth plane. And there are only so many people you can kill with ammonium nitrate/diesel oil bombs, as they're pretty crude.

So show me the bodies. Show me the mountain of dead killed by terrorists using Iraqi WMD. You can't. I can show you the mountain of bodies killed with conventional explosives, though.

Want another 9/11?

Perhaps you could detail exactly what WMD and Iraqi's were involved in 9/11. The whole point is that destroying Iraq ISN'T GOING TO PREVENT ANOTHER 9/11. You don't have to be a damn genious to see that.

And since Oklahoma City, ammonium nitrate (and other oxidizers) are HIGHLY controlled.

I can walk into a feed store and buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer by the bag right now.

Claims of conspiracies and fabricated evidence?

The only claims of conspiracy are those that come from those who think Bin Laden is hiding out in Saddam's closet. This whole war is desperate dog wagging. If Queda were in Iraq, we'd be in Iraq right now. We've established that already. We did it in Afghanastan, Yemen, and we're about to do it in the PI. Those are the facts. The only conclusion we can make about our farting around with the UN regarding Iraq is that Queda isn't there.

But we knew that.

Re:Shifting arguments and red herrings

[bedouin]

Ultimately, isolationism is the only thing that will work long term. You're probably right.

Yes, isolationism is the solution -- on both sides. Japan knew the deal years ago when they kicked all Europeans out (up until about 100 years ago). They knew outsiders would do nothing but exploit the land's resource's and never allow it to grow. Unfortunately Arabs got puppet UK and US rulers who, by obligation, didn't isolate enough.

Hmmm...that doesn't actually sound bad. Here's the thing though - quality of life in the Muslim world absolutely blows, and it could be argued that they hate us because otherwise they'd have to be jealous of us and the easy lives we have.

Riiight. That's why all of the hijackers except one came from wealthy Gulf nations that have equal, and in many cases higher (UAE and Kuwait come to mind) standards of living than the US. Somehow I'm thinking the issue isn't lack of resources here. But, you can keep chanting your George W. Bush "they hate our freedoms" mantra if that makes you feel better about your own country's fuck ups.

Re:Shifting arguments and red herrings

[tres]

had Clinton done something about it in '92 when Saddaam sensed weakness and started blocking inspectors, we wouldn't have the problem we have today. At that point, the coalition was strong, he could have more easily pressured the UN, and there was more momentum toward disarming Iraq at the time. But what did he do? Jack shit.

Besides the fact that this is a false statement, I think there's good reason that Clinton didn't use the present administration's bull-in-china-shop diplomacy when it came to Iraq.

You remember Somolia, right?

That's the one where poppy Bush leaves a shit-load of problems for the incoming president.
The incoming president attempts to press onward with the agenda left by the outgoing administration.
Before he can do anything about it, the young president finds out that the "new world order" poppy Bush was trying to force on people of other nations (read 'nation building' -- a practice used by poppy Bush in a number of instances) has burned him.
After having his ass chewed upon for years because poppy Bush screwed up, you think that he could just wildly galavant over to Iraq, and do whatever he wanted? After he took the heat for the bad planning and lack of foresight that poppy Bush had, do you think he'd want to?
I'm sorry, but your logic baffles me.

Oh, and isn't it kind of funny how Rush and the good ol' boys forgot that poppy Bush was responsible for Somolia. Hell, they've been blaming Clinton for everything that's gone wrong for ten years now... Why stop now, right?

Yeah, it's Clinton's fault that Saddam Husein is still in power.
It's Clinton's fault that Bush outright ignored the Clinton administration's warnings about Al Qaeda.
It's Clinton's fault that US citizens are being locked up in military prisons.
It's Clinton's fault that more and more of the world sees the US as an oppressive nation.

The roots of terrorism are in opression. Somolia grew out of a feeling of oppression. Bush's oppression of others for short term political gain will cause the number of terrorists to multiply faster than Al Qaeda ever could have hoped for.

Bush has pissed away the good-will and benevolence of a world united against terrorism. I fear that we'll be paying for his stupidity for the rest of our lives.

Re:Shifting arguments and red herrings

[Anonymous Coward]

(I being the anonymous coward you'v being replying to)

I wasn't advocating isolationism. I meant that we should stop using cynical power-politics to use brutal regimes fas our pawns for decades, and then turn aginst them when they stop doing what they're told. Certainly, we should help the Iraqi people to get rid of Sadam Hussain (if they want to, which I suspect they do), but at the moment, the US seems to be trying to colonize it (current plans are for a US administration in Iraq post-war).

Re:Shifting arguments and red herrings

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You're describing a conspiracy between Queda and Iraq that has *zero* evidence to support it. Who's chasing UFOs?

You are, dude. Just because you deny the existence of evidence doesn't mean it's not there. For those who don't feel like clicking a link, it's a press release from last week from the Department of the Treasury that says, in relevant part:

AI [Ansar al Islam] is a terrorist group operating in northeastern Iraq with close links to and support from al-Qa?ida. Al-Qa?ida and Usama bin Laden participated in the formation and funding of Ansar al-Islam, and AI has provided safe haven to al-Qa?ida in northeastern Iraq. AI?s predecessor, Jund al-Islam, was formed in September 2001. AI came into being with the ?blessing? of bin Laden after its leaders visited al-Qa?ida in Afghanistan in 2000 and 2001. Bin Laden provided AI with an estimated $300,000 to $600,000 in seed money.

The connection between Ansar al Islam and Iraqi military intelligence is, of course, well documented.

If Powells pictures of "Queda" bases were really bases, we would have destroyed them already. It's what we do everywhere else.

Were you even listening to the presentation, or did you just look at the slides afterwards? The camps shown belong to Ansar al Islam, which is kind of like a sister group to al Qaeda. It was, as the above quote says, founded with Osama bin Laden's personal seed money, and it has close ties to al Qaeda.

That it's run by a military dictatorship has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is a westernized culture.

I won't presume to speak for what siskbc meant, but when one uses the word "westernized," one is typically talking about more than jeans and fast food. It's tough to imagine any country were you can be arrested, tortured, and summarily executed for no reason at all to be called "westernized."

Re:I am soooo dumb.....

[fucksl4shd0t]

Ultimately, it comes down to this: how much risk are we willing to assume for something worse than 9/11 to happen?

Where's the definitive proof that 9/11 was completely, wholly, and independently a terrorist action? As I recall, the investigation pretty much stopped when it pointed at Afganistan. Can we pick up the investigation and try to follow the money trail all the way to the end?

Where will it lead? Russia? France? Back to Germany? To George W. Bush Jr.?

The WTC attach has the trappings of a group of professionals, but was carried out by amateurs. I'm not at all convinced that Bin Laden was solely responsible for it, if he even had anything to do with it.

I'd really prefer for people to think, learn, and think some more, before they act. This hasn't happened. Our Fellow American is pointing his finger at everybody slightly darker than he is accusing them of terrorism, or seeking weapons of mass destruction. He's really starting to look a lot more German to me (as in Adolf Hitler), and as far as I know there's still no definitive proof who Hitler's terrorist adversaries were and plenty of suspicion that he paid them off himself.

Before you can use 9/11 as a reason for going around warmongering the middle east you MUST prove that the Middle East as a region is responsible somehow for it. So where's the proof?

Well, Here's another moral dilemma.

[Anonymous Coward]

China is a huge one-party state that brutally oppresses its people, but it has also shown a great deal of interest in Linux and other open source projects, many of which could easily be used to monitor and/or block the the activities of Chinese citizens whether on or off the net. China's usage of information technology as a way of controlling its citizenry (perhaps paralleling our own government's actions after 9/11) has been a controversial issue longer than this coming war. So how can it be any less morally relevent to the open source movement than the war against Iraq? I'd like to hear what people think about this.

This is troubling.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm.. This is troubling to me. Here's my take. At any point certain people are going to be against a certain war for certain reasons. But it doesn't mean that the certain war is unjust. If you try to prevent something from being used in a war, but then you need war to protect your own ass, are you going to change your mind and allow it because now it suits you?

8. Qatar

[dameron]

Number 8 is Qatar??? That's pretty damn unilateral. When you're thumping your chest, counting your allies and your number eight backer is Qatar you're in deep shit. Hell, number seven on your list is Kuwait, oh yeah, like they'd dissent on this issue. If "unilateral" gives you problems how about calling it:

monolithic
unsolicited
expansionist
opportuni stic
obessive
imperial

or

hypocritical?

The U.S. justifies attacking Iraq because Iraq has violated UN resolutions. At the same time the U.S. cries that if the UN doesn't give it the go ahead to attack then the UN risks becoming irrelevant. How can the U.S. argue in good conscious that it has the moral right to enforce the UN resolutions without the blessing of the UN? That's shameless vigilantism, and it's pretty clearly wrong.

-dameron

Re:8. Qatar

[Anonymous Cowtard]

I take it your impression of this list was to be 100% complete. No... it's more a random sample of a greater list of countries.

How can the U.S. argue in good conscious that it has the moral right to enforce the UN resolutions without the blessing of the UN?

Maybe because the US is on the Security Council and would like to see that mean something? Maybe the fact is that the UN doesn't seem to have been up on actually enfocing any of the resolutions passed?

What good are the resolutions if they have no teeth to them?

Come on guys...

[Fnkmaster]

What part of Freedom are you misunderstanding? Freedom is a double-edged sword. Even RMS, who I'm sure isn't a flag waving patriot warmonger, would, I hope, argue that part of the Free in Freedom involves people who you don't like doing things you don't always approve of with your software. People can use software to train people who then kill people. People can use software to coordinate schedules and plan meetings to coordinate schedules and plan meetings about killing people. This is Freedom - they have the Freedom to do good or bad things with your software. If you are serious about Freedom in your software, you will accept this.

If on the other hand, your software is a political platform for your views and you think that's more important than Free Software (or Open Source Software, depending on your leaning), then go ahead and add the restrictions. I won't use your software since I find software that pretends to be Free while throwing in lots of additional random restrictions to be much more distasteful than straightforward, honest commercial software.

3 points....

[Ominous Armed Cow]

1) If partial de-Batthification were only half answers, then Germany and Japan must still be ruled by closet nazis and militarists, respectively.

2) The main goal is to gain the freedom for the U.S. to exert leverage against the main source of terror in the Mideast: A corrupt house of Saud, that pays for terrorism to appease it's people so long as it happens elsewhere. This is not exactly the sort of policy that can be expressed before it is inacted, unless you want to walk to work, until your company folds because it can't get its products to market.

3) This is a question of oil to be sure: France opposes regime change because it gets a large chunk of its oil cheap (illegal, black market items are always cheaper than retail) This cheap oil comes at the expense of the Iraqi people. Plenty of blood for oil there. Oil is worth fighting for. Maybe one day we'll get the "opportunity" to fight for food or water, (like if we don't fight for oil when the issue comes up). I guess we'll just have to make due with a "lesser" reason until more "moral" reasons are available.

Smack that boy with the clue bat!

[Rasputin]

The war againts Iraq is hardly immoral considering that resolution 1441 was passed with an unanimous vote. That's as moral as international politics go.

1441 does *not* authorize war. Bush demanded the UN authorize an invasion if inspections fail and the UN refused. The final resolution warned of "severe consequences" instead. Bush has been trying to spin that into authorization ever since.

Re:Smack that boy with the clue bat!

[ektor]

1441 does *not* authorize war. Bush demanded the UN authorize an invasion if inspections fail and the UN refused. The final resolution warned of "severe consequences" instead. Bush has been trying to spin that into authorization ever since.

As far as I know the English language "war" would be a "severe consequence". For a country isolated internationally, under sanctions for twelve years, with weapons inspectors in place and with no-fly zones in more than half its territory what else would constitute "severe consequences" when given its *last chance* to disarm? A slap in the hand? Trimming Sadam Hussein's moustache? Stop or I'll have to say stop again?

Bush has been trying to get a second resolution to have more support but legally 1441 is more than enough.

Re:Smack that boy with the clue bat!

[Rasputin]

..."war" would be a "severe consequence"

That is indeed *one* type fo sever consequence. There are many more. Do you have any particular reason for ignoring the others?

Bush has been trying to get a second resolution to have more support but legally 1441 is more than enough.

George W. Bush wants a war in the worst way, which is why he tries so hard to spin things that way. However, the resolution does not sanction a war. The Security Council members were quite clear on that at the time. There's nothing legal about what Bush is trying to do.

A New Clause...

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people would support a new clause in the GPL or another free software license prohibiting the code from being used in support of killing people?

Re:I am soooo dumb.....

[Anonymous Coward]

why shouldn't iraq have weapons? they're a sovereign nation, just as the u.s., right?

They shouldnt have weapons because that was the condition that the international community placed on them at the cease fire at the end of the Gulf War. The world told Iraq that once they learned to play nice (read: not invade thier neighbors and lob SCUD missiles at Israel for no reason) they could have their weapons back.

I forgot one

[Un pobre guey]

I have appended a couple of important points which I somehow omitted. How could I have forgotten. Thanks to a couple of the posters for reminding me.

• The point is to disarm S. Hussein and Iraq
• We need to "keep the oil flowing"
• If you are against the invasion, you support S. Hussein
• If you support the UN, you do not have the will, courage, strength, etc. to confront S. Hussein
• We are doing it to stop the proliferation of WMD
• We are going to liberate the people of Iraq
• We are going to bring democracy to Iraq
• We have no "territorial ambitions," as G. Bush has claimed
• We are committed to fighting evil
• We are by definition fundamentally good, and thus most suited to decide on our own what regimes should be confronted and how to do it
• An overwhelmingly strong military and demonstrable willingness to use it are the best guarantors of peace
• The best way to dissuade authoritarian regimes from developing deterrent WMD arsenals is to threaten them with full-scale military invasion
• We will defeat asynchronous, decentralized, distributed religious fundamentalist terrorists with full-scale military confrontation
• If you disagree with or question American foreign policy and its consequences, you are anti-American
• If you point out negative consequences of American foreign policy, you are anti-American
• If you do not equate the terms "American Government Political Model" and "The Free World," you are anti-American

Re:Open source war simulation software as a equali

[NullProg]

I'm not trying to start a flame war but,

The aim was to reduce the treat of imperilism

Name one country that has ever been threatened by imperialism from the United States? Spoils of war with western europe back in the 1890's does not meet the criteria.

You can accuse of us of "capitalism" though. How about a "capitalism simulation software" where 3rd world nations can train to block walmarts and McDonalds from entering thier sphere of influence?

Enjoy,

Re: Body Armor -- slightly OT I suppose.

[pi_rules]

This is getting slightly OT -- but the body-piercing ammo was actually created by a former police officer.

In that case i think that body armor piercing bullets were used for the greater good by stopping the criminals, thereby protecting the average citizen.

They were -created- because FMJ (full metal jacket) and JHP (hacketed hollow point) bullets don't fare well when shooting into a car door at awkward angles, or when hitting a windshield. They were made to go through -that- kind of stuff without being deflected. It so happens that it also works well against a kevlar vest I guess.

So, was the point of making a bullet that goes through car doors to kill people better? No, not really. It so happens that a bullet that goes where it's supposed to is -SAFER-. The officer can how take a shot that otherwise would have been much more dangerous -- possibly sending the deflected round into an innocent person.

Somehow this relates the the parent discussion -- I hope.

Contributions

[m3b3l33]

I think if the military wants to use it they should at least give their training program up to download, or pay some full-time developers to improve the Linux Kernel (or other open source project) and publicly release the modifications, it would be better for them and everyone, and why wouldn't they do that they have billions (trillions?) of dollars to spend.

not quite

[n3k5]

not paraphrasing; the original 'göring quote' is about culture. but now that you said it: the syntax _is_ remarkably similar to the canonical english version of the 'göring quote' you find at google. the canonical german version, however, doesn't speak of reaching for the revolver, but of switching the safety lock of.

so why do i put 'göring quote' in quote marks? because göring never actually said that, it's one of these phrases that originated somewhere else and became famous because they fit and he _could have_ said that. like the 'marie-antoinette quote', "let them eat cake", that she never really said.

You've already attacked them for that.

[budgenator]

Yes we waged a war against Iraq for invading Kuwait, and yes we stopped because Iraq agreed to certain terms. Iraq has not met those terms so we are not starting a new war, we are continuing the exsisting war. Just because we gave them more than enough opertunity to comply doesn't mean we have to continue to wait.

What I really fear is when its over will the Iraqis ask us why we waited so long like the holocast survivers asking us why we didn't bomb the concetration camps durring WW II?

I don't need any "proof" of WMD, I've seen pictures of Iranian soldiers in a hospital with the skin peeling of their bodies and blisters the size of grapefruit because of Iraqi mustard gas attacks.This was back when Iraq was our "friend" because they were fighting the evil Iranians. If Saddam does this to fellow Muslums, what would he do to infidels like us?

Re: You've already attacked them for that.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

If Saddam does this to fellow Muslums, what would he do to infidels like us?

That raises an interesting point. Mr. Hussein has never been a devout Muslim. He once sent two mullahs-- holy men-- to negotiate with the Kurds. They carried concealed bombs, which were detonated remotely. It's never been clear whether the two men knew they were carrying explosives or not; they may have been willing suicides, or they may not have been. In either case, nothing even remotely like that could be said to be compatible with Islam.

But in recent years, basically since the Gulf War, Mr. Hussein has tried to project the public persona of a devout Muslim. He's been seen praying at mosques, he's been on a hajj and had his picture taken kissing the black stone. During a recent interview with Dan Rather of CBS News-- broadcast tonight; a transcript is available in my journal-- he made frequent reference to Allah and even stopped the interview when it was time to pray.

Has Saddam Hussein found Islam? If so, its principles obviously haven't influenced him too greatly. He still lies, he still tortures, he still murders. Is it possible that Mr. Hussein is simply trying to put on the appearance of being Muslim in order to influence public opinion about him? Whose public opinion? The Shiite fundamentalists in his own country, or the Wahhabist fundamentalists in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere?

There are many questions about this man who claims to be a follow of Islam and yet conducts himself as if he were the anti-Christ.

Re:Open source war simulation software as a equali

[Minna Kirai]

17 people huh? Do they have a web site yet?

Politics 101

[mattite]

You seem to be missing some very important concepts (the original poster even more so).

Concept #1: Government acts on behalf of it's own interests. If said country's interests are the same as another country's, then great. Most of the time it doesn't work that way. Let's use your confused concept of bin laden for this one: bin laden didn't like the Soviets. The US didn't like the Soviets either. Have you ever heard the phrase "your enemy's enemy is my friend?" Naturally the US gave bin laden some weapons. One thing to keep in mind is that we never sponsored him in any government. He was always a rogue. He was even disowned by his family. Citing him in your post was not a totally logical decision (but who ever accused a liberal of being logical?) You are also confusing the Mujahadeem with the Taliban. Not very poise.

Concept #2: Morality. It is grey in international relations. This is a result of different value systems (e.g. different definitions of 'good'). This is where socialists (liberals) have a lot of trouble. I can't support everyone's comments, but is the US inherently evil because of freedom (see chapter 1,What's So Great About America by Dinesh D'Souza)? This is relavent as to why we are being attacked by Islamic terrorists.

Concept #3: Good citation practices. This is a problem for a lot of people, so don't feel too bad. It's really hard for me to remember 1984 because I was 2 years old back then. If you could post links to relevant sources in your comments, at the very least cite a book or article, it would be a great help. I've never heard before that the US gave Iraq chemicals . This in peticular would be an enlightening read.

Concept #4: Nuclear Weapons. No one in their right mind actually wants to use these things (see Concept #2). The whole purpose of having these weapons is so that one need not use them. Husein is so dangerous because he's actually crazy enough to use them. North Korea hasn't passed that test yet, even though they don't actually have 'the bomb' (but they're trying to get one) and Israel isn't that stupid (they ARE pretty stupid). This relates prominantly with liberating the Iraqi people. Their leader is NUTS (in a BAD way)! Also, you can thank Mr. Clinton for dallying. It was HIS administration that was in office when opportunity was prime to take care of all these terrorists. It was during HIS administration that the US was beginning to be severly attacked. All Mr. Clinton did was raise highway speed limits and play around too much with Concept #2. The past can't be changed now, but I believe that Mr. Bush is trying to deal with it.

I hope that this will help you and other slashdotters. Have a nice day!

Re:Politics 101

[glesga_kiss]

Husein is so dangerous because he's actually crazy enough to use them.

No he isn't! Where are you getting that suggestion from? The same people that want you to back their war. Hmmm.

If he uses a nuke, Bagdad will be a smoking hole in the ground and the whole world will be queuing up to take potshots at him. Presently, most of the world is against this war. Do you think that's what he wants? Of course not!

The only people that could ever plausably resort to nukes are terrorists. And as the CIA has not been able to prove any terrorist links to Iraq (despite it being their priority lately), attacking Iraq is a non-starter.

Re:Politics 101

[SirTreveyan]

"If he uses a nuke, Bagdad will be a smoking hole in the ground and the whole world will be queuing up to take potshots at him"

If Hussein got a nuke, why would he use it on Bagdad? Kinda stupid if you ask me.

This is what I see him doing. He has a nuke, wants to use it. Makes arrangements to have it shipped somewhere. Any large shipping port is fine. He has someone loyal to him go along with it, in its container to activate the bomb when they arrive at the destination. Bomb goes off...scratch one city...maybe New York City, Baltimore, or Los Angles. Maybe Southhampton, Brest, or any other major coastal city in the world. The point is this..a nuke has gone off, and no one...I mean no one, except for Saddam, knows for sure who set it off. I hope you dont think the guy who activated the bomb can tell who did it. Do you REALLY think Saddam would let the guy who activated the bomb actually live to tell about it?

So tell me now... why would Bagdad be a smoking hole in the ground?

Re:Politics 101

[glesga_kiss]

If Hussein got a nuke, why would he use it on Bagdad?

It's called a "response". I never suggested he'd use it on his own capital! Standard response to a country using nukes would be to turn it's capital into a parking lot.

He has a nuke, wants to use it.

Ah, the good ol' disinformed US public. Let me first show you this link pointing out the lies and disinformation prevailent in the current pro-war speaches.

Now, a lot of what you are suggesting comes from the speaches and quotes that are ripped apart in the above link. May I also remind you that Iraq are simply not capable of producing nukes. While the physics are simple, the equiptment isn't. They could not develop a nuclear program without us noticing. Their country doesn't have the manufacturing capabilities to produce the kind of engineering required to build nukes.

Makes arrangements to have it shipped somewhere. Any large shipping port is fine. He has someone loyal to him go along with it, in its container to activate the bomb when they arrive at the destination

I read the Clancy book as well.

I personally could make a nuke. I personally could have it shipped somewhere. I personally could detonate it. Are you going to start a war with Scotland now, just because it's a possibility? Don't be so stupid.

The possibility of someone doing something evil or bad is not the justification for war. If that we're the case, the US would have banned guns by now. After all, they could kill someone.

What you are suggesting is a paranoid fantasy, implanted by a group of people who have lot's of experience in using fear to get what they want. Please educate yourself and rise above it. The US media revolves around fear, if this is a new concept to you, I'd suggest watching "Bowling for Columbine", where Michael Moore spends some time discussing the fear culture in the USA.

No one is saying that Saddam should be left in power. I just don't believe that killing innocent people is the answer, and long term it will only fuel hatred and terrorism towards the west. A bit self-defeating, don't you think?

There should still be a free market

[LimeColoredSloth]

OSS isn't helping the government in this case. If the army can't get open source software, the army will go buy closed source software and spend tax money. Is CompuServe being unethical for selling Windows to a US military official? No. The availability of, or the lack of, open source sotware does not aid or hamper tax-backed government's acquirement of software... but it does save tax-payer's money!

Similarly, the Drugs Fund Terrorism argument is equally flawed. The Atmosphere provides breathing for potential terrorists. Shall we Blast the Atmosphere? No.

Re:open...

[spirality]

Do you think your "well-regulated militia" really stands a chance if the US Armed Forces can be turned on its citizens?

Nope, but it's better to die fighting for your beliefs that to live a coward.

And, yes, engineer's should be cogniscent of what they are developing and it's possible uses.

-Craig

Post to Slashdot, then

[Pseudonymus Bosch]

If you are doing anything at all productive in society somebody can use that to their benifit in a way that you may not agree with.

Fortunately, posting to Slashdot is not productive to society.

Ethical pondering

[wunne]

on the one hand I think it is an ethical question if you do like to develop software or not. Anyway, everyone has to decide it for himself. In the case one does not want to support war explicitly, one should put this into the license.

But if one realizes that developed code can only be used to kill civilians or perhaps even worse, a software that does not help in deciding a conflict, i.e. software that might unintentionally heat up the conflict, one must take the responsibility and decide not to do the coding.

Who funds al-Qaeda?

[urbazewski]

A lot of the evidence regarding an Iraq/Al Queda link is classified,

There is solid, non-classified evidence of an al-Qaeda / Saudi Arabia link. Have a look at the nationalities of the 9-11 hijackers and where they obtained their visas. (15/19 were form Saudi Arabia.) link to article It's well known that Saudi money funds Islamic fundamentalist groups all across the Middle East.

Oh, and that Osama Bin Laden guy? Remind me again where he was from...

It's tempting to believe that because both Hussein and Bin Laden hate the US so much, they must consider themselves to be on the same side. Not the case at all --- there are more than two sides.

There is no reason to believe that an attack on Iraq will weaken al-Qaeda, and lots of reasons to suppose that it will strengthen the appeal of Islamic fundamentalism.

Re:Open source war simulation software as a equali

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that you're lying

BUT you do realize that the likely result of an accurate simulation of advanced capabilities will not provide a battlefield advantage to these parties , it will inspire them to avoid battlefield warfare. The technological and resources advantage enjoyed by US and NATO forces is a factor in the emergence of high yield ( ie. lots of dead civilians ) terrorist strategies. So you wouldn't be impeding our capabilities , you'd be promoting the extermination of innocent civilians. But that's good too - right ?

I'll be sure to forward you're information to our contact at the SIS , just in case ;)

Hey MODERATORS ! - CENSORSHIP?

[argoff]

How come every post in this thread that is sympathetic to war is modded down as flamebait?

Re:Hey MODERATORS ! - CENSORSHIP?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Liberals have no arguments to make. Just like Chirac tried to silence the Eastern Europeans by leveraging France's power in the EU. Come on guys -- prove me wrong, answer the arguments for the war. All the best ones in the thread have been left unanswered. Or will you mod me down too?

Re:Hey MODERATORS ! - CENSORSHIP?

[errxn]

My sentiments exactly! If you are moderating comments favorably or unfavorably depending on how close they are to your own personal beliefs, you are ABUSING THE SYSTEM. That's not what the moderation system is meant for.

Please do us all a favor and go practice your politically correct hypocrisy elsewhere. Thank you.

Re:Hey MODERATORS ! - CENSORSHIP?

[Anonymous Coward]

The original antiwar post was modded 100% insightful. So this game is only being played on one side of the political spectrum.

Re:Hey MODERATORS ! - CENSORSHIP?

[Sunnan]

The entire discussion is flamebait. Mod points are limited and I guess people concentrate on the opinions they disagree with the most.

Re:Hey MODERATORS ! - CENSORSHIP?

[spun]

O my god, that's like saying the 'liberal' us media is anti-war. Completely false. I have seen as many pro-war as anti-war statements modded up.

Moderators do tend to mod up the cogent arguments on both sides. They mod down the inane, the flamebait, and the poorly thought out. Both sides have some good arguments, saying it isn't so doesn't mean it really isn't. And as much as we might wish otherwise, both sides have their angry morons.

Personally, I can't remember the last time I modded something down. If I don't agree and I feel strongly, I'll reply.

Re:Hey MODERATORS ! - CENSORSHIP?

[WhiteDragon]

I agree with you. Modding down is a waste of time. There are a few stupid exceptions such as blatantly obvious trolls, but normally, I just mod up.

Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Moderators,

I understand that war invokes strong feelings on both sides. But please stop moderating down people whose views you disagree with. If you feel the need to point out some gross misrepresentation of facts or some illogical argument, then reply. Don't Mod.

Thank you.

Re:I am soooo dumb.....

[bedouin]

Here's a question - what's your answer for terrorism? Because taking out governments that blatantly sponsor it seems to be the only recourse, other than just living with it.

So, before heading to Iraq the US should probably head over to Israel, then perhaps they can begin giving reparations for their home grown terrorism.

I would love to debate any moron who tries to draw a connection between Bin Ladin and Saddam on national TV. Saddam is the absolute antithesis to Bin Ladin's ideology, so much of an apostate in his eyes that working with the likes of him would be totally out of the question. Saddam regularly kills and imprisons Islamic activists, ones much less radical than Bin Ladin. Hell, Bin Ladin's main beef with the Saudi family was over American troops being stationed there, something much less damning Islamically speaking than what Saddam does on a day to day basis -- in most other respects he believed they were fine. Do you think someone as secular as Saddam is going to fly with him?

Of course, since these televised "political analysts" don't actually know anything about the religion or culture of the region, they aren't able to make that connection.

Ultimately, it comes down to this: how much risk are we willing to assume for something worse than 9/11 to happen?

How about adopting policy that's fair, instead of planting conflicts across the globe to ensure US economic benefit? Wouldn't that be nicer than getting frisked down at the airport, for the so-called "protection of your freedom."

Saddaam has illegal weapons, and assuming he won't use them is dangerously naive - he's used them in every war he's engaged in, including genocide on Iraqis (Kurdish).

Right, and the US is the only country on earth that's ever used Nuclear weapons. In case you didn't know, the US used biological weapons on its civilians too. Don't you feel so much more righteous than Saddam now?

don't bother

[Anonymous Coward]

you must remember that you are speaking of logic and reason. Why use those tools when sheepish groupthink is so much easier. Free thinking is ever the enemy of reactionary masses as it would force them to use energy in critical thought that they feel is better left to selective and often hypocritical application of criteria and judgement. Yes, USA is evil and wrong... I know this because Sean Penn tells me so. Remember that we are a society that punishes the victim and rewards the criminal... then in turn blames the end result of that action on those who were opposed to it in the first place. If a democrat was president and doing the exact same thing then you would not see the same level of protesting much less the same people "speaking out."

I believe it was under Clinton that more military action was initiated than any president up to the time of WW2 (might be right after, its been awhile since I saw the raw data). Clinton was also in power when so many Americans were put under the lethal boot of the wanna-be police state. That is much more like Saddam than what we had before or after Clinton so I can see why people so eagerly support Saddam actively or through the passive-aggressive method of not applying consistent criteria to him and other monsters as they do the current US president.

Re:I am soooo dumb.....

[Arandir]

You havn't made up your mind, but your sick of people that have?

It's sort of like my friend the weekend before last. "Let's go over to San Fransisco, they're having this big peace rally thing. It will be fun. We can meet some chicks!"

I get just as tired as the poster at these people who protest the war simply because it's the thing to do. They're a "good liberal" so they think the way other "good liberals" tell them to think. I mean, Hollywood isn't out there telling people what to think because they're stupid. They're doing it because they know people will actually think how they're told to think by Hollywood!

Re:Open source war simulation software as a equali

[cranos]

Name one country that has ever been threatened by imperialism from the United States?
Ummm how about the Philipines, various pacific islands and South American nations. Not to mention cultural imperialism which has a far greater reach than the military might. I hate to burst your bubble, but the US has a history of extending its sphere of influence, often to the detriment of those who come under it.

Re:Open source war simulation software as a equali

[NullProg]

Ummm how about the Philipines, various pacific islands and South American nations
Again, the spoils of war with Spain in the late 1890's. Are they free now?

Not to mention cultural imperialism which has a far greater reach than the military might.
Nobody in America forced our products or culture on you. If you don't like WalMart or McDonalds then don't purchase these products. Somebody liked them and thats why they are there.

I hate to burst your bubble, but the US has a history of extending its sphere of influence, often to the detriment of those who come under it.
Again, statements with no proof or facts. We extended our power over Germany and Japan and thats why they have to agree with us on all US issues. We are soon to influence Afganistan politics. If you don't like us because we are capitalist then say so. Do you know that your local McDonalds is owned by someone in your country? It's called a Franchise. Does your country ship products to the US? Do you know that if you make a good product it will sell in the US? You need to look again at the "Free Market" economy.

I am not your enemy. Just a voice for logic and common sense.

Enjoy,

In other news

[Edmund Blackadder]

... a Blackhawk crashes over Colombia killing 20 something people on board. Hope it is not related.

Re:Open source war simulation software as a equali

[cranos]

Does your country ship products to the US? Yup but the US insists on imposing tariffs to protect its own interests while demanding that we drop ours. That is the price of doing business with the US. Australia is just about to enter into negotiations with the US on a free trade agreement and one of the points is the US demand that we drop our local content rules for television so as to allow more American television onto our screens.

As to the Philipines they weren't declared free until 1946. Tell me something, does America still hold onto Samoa, Guam, Wake, Puerto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, and Guantanamo Bay? Formerly independant nations or parts of independant nations that are now part of the US.

A nation does not have to have an Emporer to have imperial designs or notions.

Do you know that your local McDonalds is owned by someone in your country? It's called a Franchise.
Ooh look sarcasm, on slashdot, who'ld have thunk it, listen mate I am fully aware of how McDonalds nd other purveyors of edible shit operate. America lecturing others about opening up their markets to foriegn investment is laughable considering the massive tariffs they inflict on others.

Re:Open source war simulation software as a equali

[NZlinux]

Yes but know for instance the correct range to engage M1s with T72s does help a under equiped nation prepare its self. Also knowing the formational structure and tacticial doctrine greatly helps a nation prepare for war. Also choices such as whether to engage tanks which you cannot destroy vs APC's which you can easily kill, can often turn the tide of a modern battle. Tactical doctrine in allot of smaller countries is whoefully lacking, knowing when and how to fight was how the Vietcong were able to defeat the US, and how the Afgans defeated the USSR. As to your lame comment about the SIS, why would they care, making such software violates no NZ export laws.

Yes, US citizenry is stronger

[argoff]

First off, yes I think the armed forces would not want to go up against the US citizenry. There are over 100 million gun owners in the USA and nearly half the guns on the planet are in the US. Piss off the most radical extreme 1% and you have a major problem on your hands, 10% and you have an uncontrolable unmanagable disaster, plus many of the citizenry IS ex military and well trained - not fun to mess with either. (renember when the ATF went up against the NRA and the militas and Clinton later backed off - you don't think he did it cause of his character do you)

Second, in the US - the military is highly integrated into the civilian population. You would have treason out the yin yang. (this integration is there for a reason BTW)

Third, renember that the economic engine that pays for all that nice military equiptment, supplies, and logistics IS the civilian population. Good luck trying to seize and supply it all by force.

Finally, they nearly tried a military occupation after the civil war. I forgot what happened, but it turned out to be such a disaster that it is taught as a no-no in military text and training to this day.

You can add most of Europe, actually...

[Anonymous Coward]

9. Czech Republic
10. Cyprus
11. Hungary
12. Slovenia
13. Slovakia
14. Bulgaria
15. Romania
16. Turkey
17. Poland
18. Lithuania
19. Estonia
20. Latvia
21. Malta
22. And even more...

For story see here.

this isnt too unlikely...

[InfoHighwayRoadkill]

That someone in Iraq is using Open Source software right now.

If you live in a country thats economically crippled free as in price sofware must seem like a good deal.

As if you can stop 'the bad guys' using software

[Ed Avis]

From the article:

NewsForge:The problem -- to some -- with GPL-licensed software is the fact that anyone can use it. How would you feel seeing some of your code used by Saddam Hussein's people. Or Osama bin Laden's? Or by the Chinese government to help prevent full Internet access?

Oh, sure, if you put a clause in your licence saying 'not for use by terrorists', that'll fix it.

Market Windows to IRAQ

[upt1me]

Microsoft should market Windows to the iraq people. We will be sure to win the war.

Re:As if you can stop 'the bad guys' using softwar

[Simon]

hey, and while we're at it perhaps we could print 'not for use by terrorists' on back of airline tickets too ...mmmm you're on to something here... ;-P

--
Simon

quit yelling...

[danro]

What makes you think he would work on a palestinian tank, or any tank for that matter?
I for one would not work on code that would primary be for military use, I would consider it immoral to do so.

So, no, I wouldnt work on a israeli tank.
I guess in your mind that makes me a anti-semit.
But I wouldn't work on a Swedish tank or an US tank or any tank at all.

Can you grasp the difference?
Please try.

Re:Open source war simulation software as a equali

[NullProg]

Yup but the US insists on imposing tariffs to protect its own interests while demanding that we drop ours. That is the price of doing business with the US. Australia is just about to enter into negotiations with the US on a free trade agreement and one of the points is the US demand that we drop our local content rules for television so as to allow more American television onto our screens.
What tariffs on what products? Maybe our business news is slow but I haven't heard of any. If we did enact tariffs on a product it is to save our workers manufacturing the same product. I would think Austrialia does the same thing.

As to the Philipines they weren't declared free until 1946. Tell me something, does America still hold onto Samoa, Guam, Wake, Puerto Rico, the American Virgin Islands, and Guantanamo Bay? Formerly independant nations or parts of independant nations that are now part of the US. All became territory after the war with Spain. We didn't invade them, Spain did. They are free to leave at any time. None seem to mind being receipients of our tax money.

Enjoy,

Re:Open source war simulation software as a equali

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't get too whipped up about your special project. Unless you are unusually wonderful I doubt that you will do anything better, or more militarily useful, than what they could get for $50 from any of a number of computer game companies, or from various wargaming magazines. Frankly, they would probably benefit more from a single Cuban, Chinese, or Russian advisor.

Imperialism? You need to get out more. Maybe read a few books not written by knee-jerk leftists. Heres a hint comrade: The historical dialectic brought an end to real imperialism by major western powers 50 years ago. You've heard that the UK left India and the French aren't in Indochina anymore, right? What about the Phillipines being independent? You've heard that the Italians aren't in Africa any more? The Germans are out of anywhere they used to be?

Actually, most imperialism these days is by third world nations. Viet Nam captured Cambodia and threatened Thailand. Iraq has invaded Iran and Kuwait, and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia. (Kuwait was actually declared to be an Iraqi province after being captured.) For Bonus points Iraq has threatened to simply destroy Israel, apparently being willing to take the Palestinians with them. Saddam has done pretty well with modern weapons too: He used nerve gas against tens of thousands or Iranians and his own villages, and threatened the UN sanctioned coalition led by the US. He has used missiles against the cities of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel (didn't need to against Kuwait since he captured the whole country).

*Not* OpenSource

[T.E.D.]

I know I'm a day late (and probably a dollar short) on this, but I thought a note from someone who is familiar with the subject matter in the report might be of value.

Personally, I think its a rather shoddy bit of work.

First off, and most importantly to the Slashdot crowd, last I checked MODSAF was not OpenSource, by the OSI defintion. See section 5: "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups". MODSAF is freely available to anyone working on a DoD job, but so is just about any other DoD-bankrolled software ever written.

Secondly, he actually did a study and found that using translators to automaticly turn Fortran into C, is a bad idea (created unmaintainable crap that ran slower). I suppose there may be some PHBs out there who need to hear this, but for the rest of us...DUH!

Thirdly, he kept talking about C++ like its the paragon of OO-ness, and implicitly calling Ada a non-OO language. Both horribly wrong. The only bright spot I saw here was the use of Java for a new IOS. Java's actually a really good fit for an IOS (Instructor/Operator Station), as they are all about GUIs and network communications. I just hope the component library they used isn't "disappeared" by Sun on them. These Sims need to be maintained for decades.

I think the subject of OSS in the military is a really good topic. But MODSAF is not an example. Instead, look at Gnat (GPL), CLIPS (public domain), and RTEMS (Modified GPL). All were originally sponsored by the DoD, but now have lots of users outside the military and commercial companies supporting them. The DoD should be doing more such projects.

Re:Cray XMP1...Beowulf cluster

[SirTreveyan]

I dont need to imagine...keeps the house nice and toasty in the winter.

Makes good barbeque in the summer.

What the war was about.

[Ashurbanipal]

The gulf war was about removing Hussein's army from Kuwait. That was all that was authorized by the UN.

No, the Gulf War was about using the military to artificially manipulate the price of domestic oil.

It is vitally important to the current regime that US citizens believe the war is to "keep the oil flowing" or "keep the cost of oil down". Joe Sixpack is perfectly willing to have a lot of brown people in a foreign country die for cheap gas, and the administration cannot be unaware of this.

However, the obvious and demonstrable result of attacking Iraq is higher profits for US oil companies due to greatly increased market value of their product. Attack Iraq -> Gas costs more -> Texans make more money. This isn't theory, it's a historical fact.

Both President Bushes have demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice the economic well-being of the US citizenry by enacting what the elder Bush called "Voodoo Economics"; purposely driving portions of the middle class into poverty in order to further the social agendas of the ultra-rich.

Sir William of Occam thus concludes that they are most likely quite willing to drive up the price of oil by fleecing the American consumer, even if it means killing a bunch of heathens far away.

Re:What the war was about.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

No, the Gulf War was about using the military to artificially manipulate the price of domestic oil.

Oh, whatever. It's funny the way the world works. You think you're talking to somebody perfectly normal and reasonable and rational, and then the next thing you know he's on about how the Jews are at the center of an international conspiracy, or how space aliens built the pyramids, or how the Gulf War was about oil prices.

Kinda sad, really. There are so many people in the world who are healthy, productive citizens except for the fact that they're raging nutballs.

Just to give at least a cursory pass at the thesis of your post: can you produce one document, one interview, one photograph... hell, let's skip the primary sources. Can you even produce one credible news story-- i.e., not one printed opposite a story about the Zionists or the pyramids-- that links the 1991 Gulf War with oil producers in any way, shape, or form?

Because just making stuff up and then citing Occam's Razor is not the same as understanding history.

Re:What the war was about.

[Ashurbanipal]

That's what we call ad-hominem attack, Misty. I had thought you were a bit more resourceful than that! How disappointing.

The principle of parsimony states that the simplest answer that fits observed data is most likely to be correct. You propose exquisitely baroque explanations for situations more easily accounted for by simple human greed and bigotry - characteristics frequently displayed by the Bush presidents, purveyors of "crusades" and "voodoo economics".

Dr. Malthus said war is a result of population and economic pressures. You disagree?

As for cites, sorry, I don't believe popular news articles are based on rigorous research. Here's a few papers you might want to read, though:

* Price of Oil and Conflict in OPEC, by Ali M. Reza, 1984

* Historical Causes of Postwar Oil Shocks and Recessions, by James D. Hamilton, 1985

Or, you could simply look at the US Government's tracking of oil prices (unfortunately, the data tend to split at 1990/1991 so you might have to do a little math to resolve any graph rescaling across page breaks) and see that the US President and his confidantes have been in an excellent position to predict global oil futures during our periodic anti-iraqi frenzies.

How do US attempts to destabilize the legitimate government of Venezuala fit in with the theory of market manipulation by the President? Quite nicely, thank you.

I'm "just making stuff up" you say. Right, I suppose I am making up the price I pay at the pump, hmmm? I must be hallucinating the rise in oil prices that has preceded each American invasion of Iraq. I suppose buying my Prius was a stupid idea, I should have bought some gas-guzzling Detroit iron and counted on Smilin' George Bush to keep those gas prices low!

Re:What the war was about.

[Twirlip of the Mists]

That's what we call ad-hominem attack, Misty.

No, it's not. An ad hom attack would be if, for example, I said that you're ugly, or that you're stupid. Instead, I pointed out that you are expressing an opinion that is unsupported by any facts whatsoever, and therefore that your argument is not even worth the time required to address it. (Then I went ahead and addressed it anyway, just proving that I'm not very good at managing my time.)

Dr. Malthus said war is a result of population and economic pressures. You disagree?

Yes. Malthus is a favorite of high school debate team captains, but not particularly well regarded in the real world. The mere mention of the name of Malthus inside the Beltway is snicker-inducing.

Here's a few papers you might want to read, though...

Okay, so we've established that conflict affects the price of commodites. It was not necessary to cite sources to demonstrate that. It's patently obvious. When I asked for sources, I was specifically referring to any sort of source, primary or otherwise, that linked US government policy in Iraq to oil companies in a causal way. Find me one source that says, for example, "Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz received 10,000 shares of oil futures as an under-the-table gift from Exxon-Mobile in January, 2002." Simply saying that oil prices are affected by global conflict does not mean that global conflicts are motivated by people who want to influence oil prices.

Since you accused me of ad hom, I'll throw one right back at you: post hoc ergo propter hoc.

How do US attempts to destabilize the legitimate government of Venezuala fit in with the theory of market manipulation by the President? Quite nicely, thank you.

Actually, you're right. US attempts to destabilize the government of Venezuela do fit in quite nicely with the theory of market manipulation by the president. How? They're both fiction.

Re:What the war was about.

[Ashurbanipal]

The "nutball" remark was purely ad-hominem.

Your evasiveness has become tedious to me. You know perfectly well that the Bush family and their friends are heavily invested in dirty energy, both at home and abroad, and that prior knowledge of US military intentions is to their financial advantage.

I suppose I can simply listen to the Limbaugh hour if I wish to hear any more of your views.

Goodbye, and I thank you for some interesting insights into what passes for reasoned discourse among some Americans.

You skipped July 25, 1990!

[Ashurbanipal]

You left out the part where US Ambassador April Glaspie gave Saddam Hussein the green light to attack the nasty little slave-trafficking dictatorship of Kuwait. Kind of a key moment I think.

You left out Bush's refusal of Iraq and Russia's peace offers, too, but that's not quite as bad.

Re:You skipped July 25, 1990!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

You left out the part where US Ambassador April Glaspie gave Saddam Hussein the green light to attack the nasty little slave-trafficking dictatorship of Kuwait. Kind of a key moment I think.

Once again, a history lesson is in order. It continues to amaze me how events that happened a mere dozen years ago could be so misremembered and misinterpreted now.

In the days leading up to the invasion, the United States asked Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to visit Baghdad and ascertain President Hussein's intentions. During his visit with Mr. Hussein, Mr. Mubarak asked him if he planned to invade Kuwait. He responded that he did not, and that he expected the crisis over oil prices to be averted soon. Mr. Mubarak asked him again, and Mr. Hussein said again that he would not, under any circumstances, send his troops into Kuwait.

Mr. Mubarak left Baghdad later that day, and immediately relayed that information to Washington. During the same period, similar messages were sent to Washington by Jordan's King Hussein and Saudi Arabia's King Fahd. All signs pointed to the conclusion that the build-up of troops along the Kuwaiti border was nothing more than saber rattling, that the Emir would soon give in to Iraq's demands, and that the crisis would soon be over. Richard Haass, National Security Council director for Near East and South Asian affairs, prepared a report outlining three possibilities: one, that Iraq was simply trying to intimidate the Emir; two, that Iraq was preparing to seize one or more northern Kuwaiti oil fields; three, that Iraq was preparing for an all-out invasion. He concluded that the third scenario was by far the least likely.

Ambassador Glaspie knew these things when President Hussein summoned her on the 25th of July. When he asked her about the US position, she replied with the now famous line, "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts." Why? Because everybody in the US government, from Glaspie to the president, believed it was just a simple dispute that was, in fact, already well on the way to a resolution.

We blew it. We completely misinterpreted Hussein's intentions. (Then again, so did the rest of the Arabian peninsula.) Did we give Hussein a green light to invade Kuwait? Absolutely not.

Re:You skipped July 25, 1990!

[Ashurbanipal]

Oh come now. I will point to this link instead of retyping the same data, but this is all well known now. I've seen the Glaspie tape, and leaving it out of your previous chronology was either a mistake or biased apologism on your part.

Your case would be stronger if you included the data that does not perfectly fit your views. You sound like you are just parroting the American Spectator.

The US goverment purposely demonized Reagan's former bosom-buddy Saddam Hussein (which was easy, he's pretty demonic after all) and refused to allow him any options that would preserve his sovereignty and also prevent American invasion. He's just a ugly, pathetic little whipping boy for the US like Noriega was; so, what purpose does toying with him serve?

I continue to believe that US attacks on Iraq are driven by economic and political issues in the USA. You haven't shown me any explanations that are more likely.

Re:You skipped July 25, 1990!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I will point to this link instead of retyping the same data, but this is all well known now.

If by "well known" you mean "oft repeated," then we agree. But oft repeated does not mean correct. The course of events simply didn't unfold the way that web page (which has been copied all over the Internet, incidentally) says they did.

Your case would be stronger if you included the data that does not perfectly fit your views.

Which data? If you're referring to that web page again, I don't see any data on it. I see some absurd accusations-- "You thought he was just going to take SOME of it? But how COULD YOU?!"-- but that's all. So which data are you referring to?

I continue to believe that US attacks on Iraq are driven by economic and political issues in the USA.

You are free to believe whatever you want. The rest of us will base our opinions on the facts instead.

Re:You skipped July 25, 1990!

[Ashurbanipal]

So no documentation is valid unless it supports your views; a single newspaper article conforming to your expectations is sufficient, but it's clear that the videotape of Saddam conversing with the US ambassador would not be "a fact".

I bid you adieu.

Re:You skipped July 25, 1990!

[Twirlip of the Mists]

So no documentation is valid unless it supports your views; a single newspaper article conforming to your expectations is sufficient, but it's clear that the videotape of Saddam conversing with the US ambassador would not be "a fact".

Um. We all know what Ambassador Glaspie said to President Hussein. We've all seen the tapes and read the transcripts. My point is that what transpired at that meeting does not support your thesis, which is that the US greenlighted the invasion of Kuwait.

Black pots and kettles

[Ashurbanipal]

Incidentally, this is not to defend Iraq, but I don't think the US Government has ever produced a 12,000 page document that was both complete and correct.

I mean, seriously, the documentation is another straw man. It's not worth your time, and nobody really cares one way or another about it except possibly the inspection team members themselves.

No major player has substantially switched their position based on that document, and there was no realistic expectation that anyone would.

At this point, unless God himself rides down from the heavens on a shining chariot and strikes George Bush on the forehead with a thunderbolt, the US policy is "war, red war we'll give 'em".

Re:Black pots and kettles

[Twirlip of the Mists]

I mean, seriously, the documentation is another straw man.

Um. The documentation is the key point here. UN resolutions going all the way back to 687 require Iraq to produce a complete and accurate declaration of their weapons programs. The inspectors would then use this declaration to destroy or verify the destruction of all of those assets. Without a declaration, the inspectors have nothing to do.

(UNSCR 687, incidentally, called for this declaration to be submitted within 90 days. As of today, it has been 4,348 days. The declaration is slightly overdue.)

Iraq's failure to produce a full and accurate declaration is not a straw man. It is the absolute center of this conflict.

At this point, unless God himself rides down from the heavens...

Blah, blah. Hyperbole and misrepresentation. The US will accept three outcomes. Either (1) Iraq will immediately comply fully and completely with relevant UN resolutions, (b) Saddam Hussein and his staff and family will accept exile and leave Iraq forever; taking their place will be a new regime that will immediately comply fully and completely with relevant UN resolutions, or (iii) the US will lead a coalition, with or without UN approval, to remove Saddam Hussein and his Baath government by force and replace them with a new regime that will immediately comply fully and completely with relevant UN resolutions.

There are two easy ways to avoid war. Mr. Hussein is free to choose either of them, or he's free to sit back and watch while Allied forces march into Baghdad. He does not, however, have any other options available to him at this time.

Re:Black pots and kettles

[Ashurbanipal]

I disagree.

The US will make whatever moves guarantee maximum profitability for the President and his cronies. Papers and treaties mean nothing to Bush, and there was never any chance that a declaration from Iraq would be accepted by the US.

However, neither of us has any proveable claim to infallibility, so this is just "he says, she says" and not worth either of us debating further.

Read the presentation

[JWhitlock]

The company is investigating whether open source tools are adequate for the task of real-time simulation, in a military training setting.

The question is: is it reasonable to run the simulation on top of open source components (i.e. RT Linux), using open-source tools (GNU C++, f2c, etc).? The answer is yes - simulation can be run on almost any system that meets the requirements for hard or near-hard real time.

However, this DOESN'T mean you can run an F-16 simulator on your desktop. While the tools may be open-source, the actually simulation code will be owned by the government, and won't be freely distributed. Plus, it is not an easy problem to divorce the code from the hardware. You have to build that into the code, and most of this code was written in Fortran or Ada, back when they felt lucky not to be writing in assembler.

The comparison to Apache is good: can the military run it's webservers off Apache? Sure. Does that mean Joe Linux can have a .mil site? Not really.

Re:I am soooo dumb.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, you piece of shit Muslim. Always making excuses for all your genocides. Hope the USAF coats their bombs with pig fat.

Re:I am soooo dumb.....

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to worshipping your demonistic pedophile prophet and his fucked up Allah, you uncivilized piece of shit. After Iraq, it will be Saudi that will get bent over. I can't wait!

Twirlip of the Mists and Major Tom

[spun]

Are both going on my friends list. If all conflicts could be so rational, and respectful, as the arguments presented by these two gentlebeings, we would have no war.

While I agree with Major Tom's points more than those of Twirlip, I have the utmost respect for both of them based on how they conduct themselves while discussing emotionally charged issues.

You might have to sift through a lot of dirt to find them, but there are diamonds to be found in the slashdot rough.

Absolutley.

[jotaeleemeese]

Every time Hussein executes somebody with a gun, or that ETA in Spain kills yet another politician, or another robber kills a victim, yeah, they are preventing the violence of those people against them

Absolutely, you hit the nail in the head with that bullet of yours.

Last Post!

[alpg]

The so-called "desktop metaphor" of today's workstations is instead an
"airplane-seat" metaphor. Anyone who has shuffled a lap full of papers
while seated between two portly passengers will recognize the difference --
one can see only a very few things at once.
-- Fred Brooks

- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...