Slashdot Mirror
The Riddle of Baghdad's Battery
Jodrell writes "The BBC has an interesting article about a 2,200 year old battery discovered in Iraq in 1938. It is basically a clay pot containing a copper/iron core immersed in an electrolye solution (probably acidic vinegar). The article talks about how this priceless artifact as well as many others, from the same civilisation that invented writing and the wheel, could be threatened by the impending war."
French fries indeed!
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
bullshit!
if it was the case, he would have first removing his prime minister (Tarek Aziz is christian)
again, Irak is not Saudi Arabia!
I read that 1/3 of Iraq is Christian. It is not a Islamic Republic like S.A. or Iran.
I also believe that Saddam is a brutal person who does not put civilians life much higher than we'd put a cock-roach. The reason why we did not "finish the job" back in the early 90's is because we were so easily blowing through their military that Bush Sr. and his advisors were worried that we were killing soldiers needlessly. So when we negotiated the cease fire, we mistakenly allowed Saddam to bring armed helicopters into the South, which he used to exterminate the civilians that were rising up against him.
Another difference- Iraq is under orders from the United Nations to prove that it has disarmed, and so far (12 years) it hasn't cooperated. The United States is under no similar order from the UN.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
I can't believe that the parent has been modded to +4 informative. It's not even about the goddamned post! Take your retoric elsewhere.
Mod me down, I don't care. But at least mod the idiot down who can't keep on-topic. It's about science and batteries, not fucking French oil interests.
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
WE don't condemn anyone. Had we not existed, who would you blame for that? WE should not have anything to do with that, unless WE are threatened. Your altruist etics, which has been eating the US for the last century is what causes the slowdown of the natural process of liberation throughout the world. If it takes 100 years for Iraq to liberate itself, that's great. But it is YOU, the ones who want to change the world who are destroying it.
Alright folks, this is obviously just an excuse to talk about the war, so let's talk about it. I'm announcing a challenge the antiwar contingent on slashdot (clearly the majority). This is not flamebait. I am asking for non-aggressive answers to an honest question. If you accept the challenge then respond: Do not mod me down to censor me.
Everyone seems to be in agreement that Saddam is an evil man. He's killed and tortured many of his own people, launched regional wars of aggression, in both cases using weapons of mass destruction. As many point out, the US in the past has made great mistakes in its foreign policy. But that has nothing to do with the present. The decision to create this monster in the past does not suggest we should allow him to continue now; on the contrary, it suggests we should slay the monster we created and repay our debt of honor to the Iraqi people.
We also have the problem that inspections in the past have failed; they did not find his biological programs (those were revealed by a son-in-law who defected, who Saddam murdered in retaliation for this revelation). Neither did they "contain" Saddam, who kicked out the inspectors in 1998, and we have every reason to believe that his weapons programs will continue and the inspectors will either be fooled or kicked out once again if the US military stands down. Neither will such supposed containment deter Saddam from passing these horrific weapons to terrorists or otherwise supporting them, leaving no fingerprints behind.
If Saddam is allowed to develop a nuclear weapon, we can expect to see a situation worse than North Korea today. Saddam's stated goal is to dominate the region, which will cause turmoil in several ways: 1st, the world economy will be thrown into chaos, as the Middle east is the main source of energy. 2nd, it will start a regional nuclear arms race, as neighboring states attempt to counter Iraq's nuclear force. 3rd, saddam's genoicidal and murderous practices will be expanded to millions more. Finally, we will have no defense against terrorism if Iraq is allowed to develop a significant deterrent.
And yes, Iraq is involved in terrorism. The main plotter behind WTC attack #1 (1993) was Ramzi Yousef, an Iraqi agent. Iraqi agents also tried to assassinate George H W Bush in 1993 along with the emir of Kuwait. There have been high level contacts throughout the 90s between Iraq and al-Qaeda, and although many speculate that the two are too "ideologically different" to cooperate, they seem to like each other enough to call their men to support each other, from the looks of their press releases. Saddam openly pays $25k to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. We know from surveillance and defectors that Iraq was training airplane hijackers at Salman Pak before September 11th. We also know that Iraq, a police state where no one gets in or out without permission, is harboring al Zarqawi, an al Qaeda associated terrorist who also has connections with the terrorists found with Ricin in Europe.
So here's the challenge: in the face of the the terrorist threat, the regional threat, and the oppression and murder of the Iraqi people, what would you do? Do not respond by making personal attacks on President Bush. Do not respond by pointing out past US mistakes. Just tell us what you would do.
Lawyers say hard cases make bad law; on /. , polarized, passionate argument makes for injudicious moderation. Here we see prime examples of incompetent, blatantly biased rating of posts. Whether you want to fix it or junk it as forever hopeless, the fact is moderation is a mess.