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."
It's not a battery! It's a chemical weapon! Call Hans Blix!
Some would say that removing Saddam is more important than any priceless artifacts.
Read some history. Iraq is not populated today by the same peoples that invented this device or "discovered the wheel" as you say thousands of years ago. The Islamic faith and the migrations of Arabic peoples into historically Persian regions over time has erased the cultural legacy of these peoples you refer to.
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.
And I suppose the artifacts never had anything to fear from Iraq being run by an expansionist, sadistic madman who is known to do things such as setting whole oil fields on fire.
Sorry. I looked everywhere for guilt, but just couldn't find any.
So we either (possibly) lose some priceless artifacts, or we lose priceless lives when the next terrorist strike comes.
I know which one is more important. Do you?
was the big stone-carved vibrator that went with it...
Tired of being "punished" by the Slashdot $rtbl since 2002. I'm now over at http://soylentnews.org/ .
This is just another example of why aggressive archaelology is generally a bad thing. Archaeologists, whose real aim is to 'advance science' which just so happens to translate into not ever having to leave academia and get a job, make it their aim to uproot and document everything.
Once all the evidence and traces, which happened to have survived all the years for various reasons, is housed in steel and glass buildings, we can be assured that within a few generations it'll be reduced to dust.
Two hundred years from now when they've perfected some sort of x-ray telemetry measurement and can 'view' tombs without doing anything at all to disturb their contents, there won't be any tombs left undisturbed.
But Johnny won't have had to go out and get a job after graduating. He's got tenure now.
Subsequently, the defense department has changed Homeland Security status to Condition Copper, indicating a potentially shocking situation.
Agreed. Anyway, how many priceless artifacts have been destroyed by the massive tunneling the Iraqis have done to hide weapons. I am sure that preserving antiquities was not their highest priority.
Worst. Sig. Ever.
The article states:
Though this was hard to explain, and did not sit comfortably with the religious ideology of the time, he published his conclusions.
How did identifying it as a battery conflict with religious ideology of the time? I'm truly curious. Any suggestions?
I mean, it couldn't have been because there's no passage saying "And then God invented the battery and said it was good".
Did it confict with the European idea that they were the center of science and religion?
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
...when he invaded Kuwait in 1990 and his soldiers ransacked the museums:
r aq 1/000801a.htm
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/i
Tom
The Army reading list
Its a battery because it produced electricty you muppet.
oops... I must be tired, instead of than the liberation of millions of Iraqis, I've read "than the liberation of millions of oil barrils"
Under the right circumstances, ordinary pieces of metal (like plumbing) exposed to acid can make "batteries" by chance. More intriguing is the "un batteried" iron obelisk I recall hearing about in India--an iron monument that has resisted rusting for hundreds of years.
I think it's likely that the ancients put some vinegar in this metal container, discovered that it corroded badly, and threw it away.
Of course we can't rule out that they knew something about electricity, but I think we need some clay tablets describing the use of electric devices to confirm it before we can say "ancient battery" with confidence.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
It can't be!! It is!!
Its a precious Rimbaldi artifact. Its part of a weapon! Send in Jennifer Garner and the CIA goon squad. A little spandex, a red wig, and it will be ours!
anything i tell you will cloud your opinion.
Just because the Europeans hadn't heard of electricity doesn't mean it wasn't known elsewhere.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
Let it go.....
So that's how Junis was powering his C-64...
actually, Iraq is a laic state!
there is christians and muslims living together in Iraq! hell even Iraqi's prime minister (Tarek Aziz) is christian..
Iraq is not Saudi Arabia!
And the Greeks kept electric eels in big wading pools and would walk into the water and get zapped. It doesn't mean they knew what electricity was; they just knew it felt cool to get a mild shock.
I don't see how they can assume these are batteries when there is no evidence of wires or mechanical devices that would use the electricity.
A few months ago I saw something on the Discovery Channel talking about all of this. They found similar things (bowls/pots with acid in them) in South America too. They said all of these most likely were for magical purposes (cool shock or possibly even coating/electro-plating jewelry), but not batteries.
Karma: NaN
Never mind that since History endlessly repeats itself, technology gets discovered, forgotten and discovered again...
It's not because people worship Pazuzu instead of Jesus H. Fucking Christ (you know, the god that got nailed) that they are stupid...
Noone wasted time worrying about the art and archaeological treasures in Holland, France or Germany when they liberated Europe from Hitler.
With todays much more precise technology, it's unlikely that archaeological sites would be affected at all.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
My family has tried for generations upon generations to keep this sacred battery safe from the clutches of simple men. Now, all is lost. I wonder if I can get rid of this stupid pink bunny birthmark on my ass...
I also reply below your current threshold.
No. Electricity was first described by ThalesofMiletus around 600 BCE. He polished amber with fur, to produce static electricity, and this is where we get the word 'electricity' from, from the greek word for Amber.
as well as the Conspiracy nut in me wonders if this IS the reason we're going to war; to hide this and other archeological finds in the area where civilization on a human scale first began...but then again, I could be wrong.
Like the article says...
Many inventions are conceived before the underlying principles are properly understood.
The Chinese invented gunpowder long before the principles of combustion were deduced, and the rediscovery of old herbal medicines is now a common occurrence.
You do not always have to understand why something works - just that it does.
Discovery can happen by accident as well as by understanding :)
how can you call this a battery?
Because it is a battery.
correct me if i am wrong but it wasnt until the 1700's that humans discovered electricity
You're wrong. Clearly, electricity was being generated by man made means before the 1700's. Even if the people generating it didn't know what it was. Consider yourself corrected.
this priceless artifact sounds more like someone droped a spoon or fork into a bottle of vinegar
Yeah. Especially if the spoon happened to be a rod of iron surrounded by a cylinder of copper. And the person who dropped this oddly designed spoon in the jar then sealed it in with asphalt. Exactly like you describe, incredible!
In future, try clicking on those green bits of text with the line drawn under them. They're called links. Then read the words on the page. Thats called the article.
This is the first war ever fought in the region in the last 2,000 years? Were people concerned about artifacts when Iran and Iraq were blowing the crap out of each other? Were people concerned when Saddam was constructing enormous builings for his personal use?
Perspective... It's not just for breakfast anymore.
No sig, sorry.
The war is about oil right? As always Bush wants to capitalize on his own oil business and such. So where does this battery come in? It's obvious Saddam is working on alternative power sources!! Bush is scared shitless that Iraq will harness clean, plentiful energy and begin exporting these advanced clay pot fuelcells!
If only the wise and intelligent people who invented that battery were running Iraq right now. But, like nerds in high school, these people are too easily disposed of.
The acient art of glassworking was lost and rediscovered. Embalming was lost and rediscovered. The number zero disappeared, and was reinvented. Maybe the battery wasn't used to its full potental, but there are lots of fun and interesting things batteries can do, and I see no reason why someone acient person accidently discovered electricity, and then used it for entertainment, or starting fires.
~~~
Click here, you know you wanna!
How much German, Japanese, and European history was destroyed in the early 20th century? Is history more important than the present? I believe there was a quote, maybe from Tokien, which said something about the folly of being more proud of who your ancestors were than who your children are. Some countries are willing to trade the freedom and safety of their children to preserve the memory of their ancestors. France did it in the early 20th, and they are apparently willing to do it again today. I, personally, don't have much respect for this type of elitist cowardice. If the destruction of a pottery battery will save a couple hundred Iraqi civilians from being detained, thrown in jail, and tortured, it's worth it.
Public use of any portable music system is a virtually guaranteed indicator of sociopathic tendencies. -- Zoso
Innovative.
Here everyone was wringing their hands at the potential for Saddam Hussein to use Iraqi civilians as "human shields" in the event of U.S. attack.
Now we're moving on to "archeological shields", as if prospect of humans casualities weren't enough.
[I'd say the U.S. mistimed its Afghanistan venture, though, since the Taliban had enough time to actively seek out and destroy that giant Buddha relic.]
"Provided by the management for your protection."
It was used for electro-plating items of jewelry and small statues.
To say oh we cant go to war because there might be some artifacts that will be destroyed by it. Is pritty lame reasioning because these artificats have been around durring a lot more war then we will go thew in our lives. That area of the world is basicly War Central and has been sience before these artificats were created. So if dont go to war what will stop these people from testing their weapons and distroying these artifacts themselfs when testing their own armament. Or just by digging holes to hide there ileagal stuff.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
..they mention "Hero's engine"
Wasn't the guy named Heron? The same guy with the nifty formula for getting the area of any triangle by just knowing the length of the sides?
Let s be the sum of the sides a,b and c divided by two
s=(a+b+c+)/2
The area T of the triangle is then:
T=(s(s-a)(s-b)(s-c))^1/2
Can't say I can trust a scientific article that doesn't even get the names right.
"GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
[Dr Craddock] suggests a cluster of the batteries, connected in parallel, may have been hidden inside a metal statue or idol.
He thinks that anyone touching this statue may have received a tiny but noticeable electric shock...
Now, That's What I Call Entertainment!
Let's install these in some of the more fundamentalist places of worship.
I'm not really a web designer, I just play one on the Internet.
Some would say it's not.
and those people we would call weak-willed moral relativists.
If it's important enough to start a war (or, more precisely, continue a war, since Iraq is violating the cease fire agreement of the gulf war), then an ancient artifact is certainly acceptable collateral damage.
You may disagree wether or not we should invade Iraq, but the decision is not made lightly. The importance of an (already studied) artifact is irrelevant in comparison.
Moreover, It takes courage to advocate and perform an unpleasent but neccessary action. It takes none at all to come out in favor of puppies and kittens, children playing in the sun, and M-16 barrels being used to hold flowers.
Guess what? Bush, Rumsfield, Powell, and Blair value those things to. But these things will not happen in Iraq, or the middle east, by simply wishing them into existence.
Unless, of course, you believe that Saddam only poses a threat to his own people, so why should we care?
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
To everyone who thinks the wars is all about oil--it is, to France. FRANCE HAS HUGE OIL INTERESTS IN IRAQ. Do you need me to repeat that? I said FRANCE HAS HUGE OIL INTERESTS IN IRAQ. In fact, you might say that their opposition to the war is solely due them potentially losing $Billions in oil investments. Of course they would have you believe otherwise, and it isn't being widely reporting, since the media is anti-war. But check it out--it's true.
Besides, if the US really wanted Iraqi oil for cheap, they could just lift the trade embargos. Much, much simpler, a lot less costly, and bloodless.
This "it's all about oil" argument is a complete liberal cop-out. They can't come up with a real argument so they say it's all about oil. Equivalent to name-calling.
FEISAL: And I must do it because the Turks have European guns, but I fear to do it; upon my soul, I do. The English have a great hunger for desolate places. I fear they hunger for Arabia. LAWRENCE: Then you must deny it to them. FEISAL: You are an Englishman. Are you not loyal to England? LAWRENCE: To England and to other things. FEISAL: To England and Arabia, both? And is that possible? I think you are another of these desert-loving English. Gordon of Khartoum. No Arab loves the desert. We love water and green trees. There's nothing in the desert. No man needs nothing. Or is it that you think we are something you can play with? Because we are little people; a silly people; greedy, and barbarous, and cruel. Do you know, Lieutenant, in the Arab city of Cordoba were two miles of public lighting in the streets when London was a village?
* a merry live and a short one
People with Religion kill Science. Ask any Ph.D. who has been ousted from Bush II's science councils in favor of a wild-eyed Methodist preacher.
Many great scientists/philosphers/astronomers have come from the Arab world; indeed, I'd have a hard time doing binary without the handy '0' they gave us (ever wonder why our numeric system is called 'Arabic', not 'Roman'?) Even the algebra (al-jabr) is a product of an enlightened Muslim civilization.
"Praise God, and Pass the Ammo!" Idiots.
Similarily, when the Taleban was destroying ancient Buddha's should this have been a reason to invade all by itself?
I hate how every news article has to somehow relate to the cause of the day ...
Just because they were ONCE a great and mighty civilization does not justify allowing them to contimue down they path they are today.
Maybe, just maybe, if they tried contributing more to mankind then terror and oppression, they wouldn't be facing what they are today.
But then again, maybe not risking the first battery is more important than ridding the world of a menace and a tyrant.
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
correct me if i am wrong but it wasnt until the 1700's that humans discovered electricity and began trying to control it and use it.
You are wrong, that's the whole point of the artifact.
Humans had discovered electricity long before, but the knowledge was lost and took thousands of years to be discovered again. They obviously never pushed the tech as far as its been in recent centuries (it took many a genious to get us where we are now), but they had the basis for it...and it somehow got lost.
Now, if archeologist were allowed to dig up a bit more without Dubya bombing everything into oblivion, maybe we would learn much more about how advance early civilisations got.
BTW, your comment reeks of occident-centricism (just made that word up). The way you just assume that nobody could have thought of making a battery before Mr Volta...disgusting. Oh, and I guess aliens had to help the mayas build pyramids huh? 'cause those brown skinned savages could never be that smart...
Sigh
You can't take the sky from me...
The first casualty of war is truth, but that truth may exist in many forms.
One has to wonder how many wars have destroyed vital technologies and pieces of history.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Sounds suspiciously like something Erich Von Däniken would have forged.... Chuck "Results! Why, man, I have gotten a lot of results. I know several thousand things that won't work." T.A. Edison
To argue that a war should or should not be fought based on possible damage to historic artifacts is foolish. While such damage is a tragedy, it is nothing to the loss of human life. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the life of the night watchman at an archeological site than all the artifacts buried there.
You can argue whether war with Iraq is justified, whether it will (or will not) in the long run save more lives than it will take. You can argue about the U.S. motives for the war or any of a thousand other things, but the decision to go to war or not should have nothing to do with a people's historic contributions or lack thereof. While the preservation of artifacts should enter the discussion about how to prosecute a war (i.e. don't intentionally shell that museum), it is today's people that should be the concern - Iraqis, their neighbors, and the rest of the world community.
Everything else - ancient batteries or modern oilfields - they're just things.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
Hitler had already liberated said artifacts.
those artifacts are going to be destroyed by the arrogant, oppressive and foolish actions of Saddam.
You know he does not have to keep picking fights while keeping his thumb on his own people.
This is nothing but lip service to those that believe that war is not the answer to this. I don't want the war or its costs either, but I also am tired of Saddam.
Choices, choices....
Blogging because I can...
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Or, more to the point, apparently nobody cared enough to go check it out after Desert Storm.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Let's just forget about the past 30-50 years where the entire region has been going between war with Iran and war with itself. Those wouldn't have damaged any artifacts.
I'm also sure Iraqis thoroughly check sites before they drill for oil or build "factories."
Geee, and all this time I thought it was some americans that figured out electricity...
rewritting history.....??? Or defending the history currently written?
How importanmt are these artifacts again?
Don't confuse anti-Bush administration, anti-war or anti-hypocrisy for anti-americanism. The are distinctly different. I'm not anti-american, but I am anti-war and I was on that march in London. And don't go confusing anti-war with pro-saddam either.
So maybe they should be completely "unbiased" like the Rupert Murdoch controlled media channels?
They dont mention that one Saddam's pet projects is removing any trace that any religious belief other than Islam ever existed in the region.
That means destroying any and all artifacts that point to any other belief system ever preceding them.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
So, presumably, the US patent office (which, as we all know, will have properly researched for prior art) will grant Saddam a patent tomorrow on batteries & electroplating.
That will somewhat put a block on Bush's war mongering when Saddam doesn't grant licenses.
..don't you think it will survive another?
We won't be using cruise missiles on MUSEUMS, after all.
The latest Slashdot meme.
Come on! Batteries are meant to be thrown away. And if it's so oldd it's bound to be leaking and useless, so chuck it out please!
-- Cheers!
Discovery can happen by accident as well as by understanding :)
/. this morning can explain how a battery works? How it really works?
And there are degrees of understanding. "Oh", we say, "those guy's didn't really understand batteries, they just discovered how to make them." O.K., fine. So how many people reading
Right.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
This must be the most pathetic anti-war stretch to date.
We must stand by and permit the torture and murder of unknown tens of thousands of Iraqis by the Hussein regime, and condemn an entire generation of Iraqis to lifelong misery and terror, because the alternative has the remote chance of destroying an ancient battery!
The priorities of the author are certainly on display.
Apprentice - "Look, master, I have invented what I shall call THE BATTERY"
Master - "And what is that battery of yours, young apprentice?"
Apprentice - "It produces electricity, master!"
Master - "And what does this electricity you talk about do?"
Apprentice - "Well, um... nothing really right now, but I'm sure that in a few centuries..."
Master - "You know, I think that wheel thing you came up with last week might be slightly more useful right now... and stop wasting our precious vinegar!"
Yup, it probably will go untouched due to accurate weapons and careful U.S. application thereof:
o ti on.html
http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/1991/s91/s91f
Tom
The Army reading list
It would almost certainly have been used at full potential as it is unlikely that they had invented voltage regulaters.
All my previous sigs now look like this one, I wish they were permanetly recorded when used.
As a dove, I'm concerned about American lives-- this strategy of preemption will not result in a safer world. Even if the war itself is bloodless, the occupation will not be.
Game, set and match.
Score one for the guy with the mirror who's not afraid to look in it.
Since you seem to be a "it's online - it has to be true" guy here is a link: USA: US Begins Secret Talks to Secure Iraq's Oilfields
There are far to many bits of that article to quote so I really hope you read it through. It is also said (although not mentioned in the article) that it's also already decided which foreign companies are going to control the oil "of the iraqui people". Dig the net, find out.
By the way, did you hear about the US plan of protecting hospitals and schools and historical artifacts in Iraq? Me neither!
Cheers
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
People keep implying that there is an inherent infinite value in human life. "The life of the night watchman is more important than all of the artifacts in the museum." I hate being the one to tell you this, but human life is not magically special, above all else in this world. My life and your life are not more important than the pursuit of knowledge.
Sure, I would rather destroy an old artifact than be destroyed myself. However, there comes a point at which the benefit of society outweighs the harm to an individual. Let's pretend that deep in the basement of an Iraqi museum lies an undiscovered bacterium that miraculously cures HIV, and there is one night watchman guarding the museum. The US accidentally bombs that museum, vaporizing everything contained therein, including the watchman and the bacteria. Which is a worse loss?
I don't have a rational answer to that question, but I know that, were I that watchman, I would gladly sacrifice my life to prevent the destruction of the museum. And you could make the argument that saving the bacteria would save more human lives. That is a valid argument, but how do we know that we are not destroying a similarly precious discovery when we destroy priceless relics from the past.
This battery will probably not benefit humanity much, but this is why many people devote their entire lives to the pursuit of knowledge.
Here: http://www.policyreview.org/summer93/cheney.html
Excerpting:
Policy Review: It is now two years after the spectacular victory of the United States and its allies in Desert Storm. What objectives were achieved during this war?
Cheney: The best way to evaluate Desert Storm is to consider what the world would be like today if we hadn't fought and won this war. If we had taken a pass on Saddam's occupation of Kuwait, by today he would have the eastern province of Saudi Arabia and would sit astride about 50 percent of the world's oil reserves, which he could control directly when you add up Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Iraqi oil reserves. He'd be able to dominate the rest of the reserves in the Persian Gulf. And he'd have nuclear weapons. We had to stop this from happening. And we did.
--
Notice how the nukes are clearly a secondary consideration.
--
P.R.: You got out of Iraq without going all the way to Baghdad. Are you worried that Saddam Hussein is still in power today?
Cheney: I'd rather he were not in power, but I don't see him at this point as a threat to any of his neighbors. In that part of the world, I'm more concerned about Iran. Saddam is unable to sell oil; without selling oil, he can't generate the revenue he needs to rebuild that military machine we destroyed. The Iranians aren't faced with that situation; they have access to the world's markets, they are selling oil, and they are using some of that revenue to regenerate their forces and expand their capabilities. For example, they're buying diesel-powered submarines and MiG-29s from the Russians.
--
Nah, can't be about the oil.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
I can't believe an article from 2,200 years ago is still readable now, and surely the BBC should hand it over to a museum
Powered by onion juice.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A more modern approach is to suspend a carbon and zinc rod in an acid solution. As an experiment try doing the following.
Take a jar of sulfuric acid (H2SO4) and place a rod of zinc into it. The acid will start to eat away at the zinc and in turn hydrogen bubbles will start to form along the zinc rod as it heats up. What's happening is that the acid molecules break up into three ions: two H+ ions and one SO4--ion while the zinc atoms on the surface of the zinc rod lose two electrons (2e-) to become Zn++ ions, the electrons from the zinc atoms then combine with the hydrogen ions in the acid to create H2 molecules (hydrogen gas).
Now place the carbon rod into the acid and connect a wire between it and the zinc rod. This causes the free electrons to flow along the carbon rod and combine with the hydrogen and causes it to bubble off the carbon rod.
Since electricity is jut the flow of free electrons you now have electricity (and less heat). Connecting a light bulb between the zinc and carbon rods will cause it to light up.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
They certainly use it to power their missile guidance systems.
What more proofs do we need ?
We must attack ! Remember The Maine^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H9/11 !
Nothing in the article or the submission is critical of your proposed moral war or your distinguished president. The knee-jerk shouting down of dissenting voices is not warranted here. However, your patriotism has been noted. You make Baby Jesus proud.
Interesting, but why not just open a thread entitled "OK, let's cut the crap. What are the arguments for and against invading Iraq," or something to that effect. At very least, I suspect it will get one of the highest post rates in Slashdot history.
As to the Baghdad Batteries, the final quote is excellent:
Let's hope the world manages to resolve its present problems so people can go and see them.
Dr Paul Craddock
I can think of better reasons to avoid war, but what the hell.
I agree partly with the statement that human life is allways more important BUT, iraq is somehow of the mother of all archeologicall sites....
My friend, most of the bible's stories has iraq as a background. Not only writing, but navigation, maps, law.... a large host of things where made in the area.
So lets gravitate to the middle, we can agree that war is allways a pitifull, incredibly animal and uncivilized thing.
We can agree that human life is more important than any piece of clay.
We can agree that iraq is one of the most important and amazing sites. The origin of western civilization.
So now, should america nuke it?
So now, should iraq nuke anyone else?
So now, should israel nuke iraq?
Is any of this justified over some oil, saddam's manhood (or lack thereoff), religious and nationalistic (practically fascist) arab feelings?
No, No No No.... im tired of all... im tired of germanies, france, russia hipocresy (they have allways been ruthless with their colonies, murderers as any powerfull nation).
Im tired of the US allways protecting the interest of the incredebly pitifull american "culture". Fucking bunch of barbarians that, come on, drool over fucking pecan pie or big-macs (that says a lot about a country).
Im tired of the damned arabs with their cocky attitude, thinking the truth is what they hold when mostly they arent even refering to the profets words, but to their own bloody local traditions (look up what the q'ran of omar says, versus to what the rest of the books say....the qran is pretty peacefull, the rest of the stories are bloody shows of animality and disgrace).
Humanity is inexistant, we are all sick, noone has the moral pull to convince anyone. All have ulterior motives, and yet, they will decide....i just hope an asteroid fucks us up before we do.
And there..... we are back to where we started.
NO SIG
Damn those pesky terrorists
elektron is the greek word for amber.
This can only mean that they perfected wireless technology. A bunch of l33t g33ks they were, if you ask me.
I thought a 'battery' was a group of 'cells'.
"could be threatened by the impending war"
As opposed to the wars that they have been fighting on and off for decades?
moo.
Wow! what a coalition.
Say again, how many of this pimp nations will be actually spending a penny or sending a marine on the war vs Iraq?
My other OS is the MCP!
Whoa! Damn! This dude is on to something! Wow, he must watch Fox TV or read Newsweek, those bastions of pacifism and respect for international law!
I am humbled by such an acute insight, such pithy observation. I would never have noticed by merely reading or watching "the media." Thank God Anonymous Coward has opened my eyes to the truth!
And while you're at it, tell me why Sadam needs to be off the country, if not for US control of oil. US don't need oil from Iraq, they get most of theirs from Venezuela and Kuwait (you didn't believe the USA helped kuwait out of good will back in '91, do you?). It's not about getting oil, it's about CONTROLLING oil.
One shall speak only if what one has to say is more beautiful than silence
Under the right circumstances, ordinary pieces of metal (like plumbing) exposed to acid can make "batteries" by chance. More intriguing is the "un batteried" iron obelisk I recall hearing about in India--an iron monument that has resisted rusting for hundreds of years.
... the secret seems to have died with the makers.
That is very interesting in its own right. However,
I think it's likely that the ancients put some vinegar in this metal container, discovered that it corroded badly, and threw it away.
They've found at least 12 such primative batteries, so unless they were throwing away a bunch of defecting jars that all mysteriously resembled batteries far more closely than simple storage jugs, I think the idea that they suffered a little accidental corrosion and threw it away is rather unlikely.
Virtually everyone believes these were primitive batteries, and used as such, but not to drive bronze age equivelent walkmans or the like. Rather, some believe it may have been to imbibe idols with magical "shocking" capabilities to lend credence to local religious cults, an invention that occurred likely by accident, reproduced by trial and error, and then applied (secretively) by the priests of Baal (or whatever cult was popular at the time) as a way to convice people of the divinity of their statue.
That they were batteries designed to deliver a low amperage, fairly low voltage electrical current is pretty widely accepted. Why they were made, and what they were used for, is really anybody's guess at this point
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
It is bizarre reading these posts and seeing people quote as fact the propaganda of the American government and media.
That the American public is completely unfamiliar with the modern history of Iraq and with their own government's history of creating instablity in the region is quite shocking. I think it's the reason why Americans swallow whole the misinformation and outright lies spoon fed to them by their media and politicians.
After WWII and continuing today, the UN mandates the teaching of the Nazi era to all German school children at all levels, in an attempt to ensure that Germans cannot hide from the legacy of the last world conflict.
I think that a similar UN mandate is warranted here. The uninformed/misinformed American public are creating real difficulties for the world by supporting extremist politicians in their government. I would like to see the U.N. step in and make an effort to teach American school children some basic facts about life outside the U.S. and the long history of America's damage to the wider world. Such an effort might go a long way towards helping Americans learn to behave in a civilised manner both as individuals and as a society.
American media (which we see here in Britain) is absolutely shocking. The only examples of blatant propaganda that come even close to it are Stalinst-era Soviet broadcasts and the works of Goebels in Nazi Germany.
It would be too much to ask that the power structures behind the American media begin to show Americans the truth, but perhaps with a U.N. education effort for young Americans they will become less susceptible to the lies that they are force-fed and gleefully regurgitate here in such a repugnantly belligerent manner.
I agree. The risks of potentially hurting the gutenberg press were much higher than freeing millions under naziism. We should have stayed in bed, or just rolled over like the french.
So how many people reading /. this morning can explain how a battery works? How it really works?
OK, you asked for it.
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
..all the PETA freaks would be out protesting war too.
The United States is getting less and less of it's oil from the Persian Gulf, but Europe, Korea and Japan still get much of thier oil from the Gulf.
Iraq in 1980 attempted to take control of Iran's oil which spiked oil prices around the world and messed with the Asian and American economies. In the mid 1980s Iran and Iraq started targeting oil tankers (Iran went after Kuwait and Iraqs, Iraq after Irans) which also spiked oil prices for a time. In 1990 Iraq took Kuwait and threatened Saudi Arabia with invasion, which spiked oil prices. In 1991 Iraq set fire to nearly 1000 oil wells and spilled millions of barrels of oil into the Persian Gulf in an attempt to destroy the desal plants in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
So it can easily be argued that in this case regional stability and oil are about the National Security of the United States.
Even if the United States was getting a tiny amount of oil from the Gulf, Japan and Koreas dependance on this oil and the damage to thier economy from Iraqi attacks in the Gulf would make it in the United States national interest to remove an unstable leadership from Iraq.
Japan's movement towards Australia in the Second World War didn't threaten the United States directly but it was in our national interest to support them.
the quote that you pasted is a standard polititian answer. Later inte the article (or was it earlyer) there is a similar answer to another question. That's standard behaviour and tells you there's someone told them what to say and not to deviate from it.
The US doesn't control german or french assets _litteraly_. But they (actualy the corporations backed by the government) have a lot to say in the global market. They put a lot of pressure on other governments and companies wich practicaly _is_ to control them. I guess it's ok if it would be a two-way thing, but it's not. Do you remeber the steelindustry "support" given by Bush in a matter that kills what the US som mutch fights for - free trade. That's just one example of how much real influence the US (gov and corporations) has. So they don't have to 0wn anything or "put up a flag and start bussiness". In conclusion, look for comanies, not governmental organs practicing pressure/power. it's not that evident at first, but you will start seeing the pattern.And I really don't believe Saddam has any plan to protect anyone elses but his own skin (and maybe his closest relatives). I'm not a Saddam supporter! He is a warmonger as good as they come, but so is his cousin the empty warhead G Dubya Bush.
I'm too tired and busy to continue this discussione but if you insist.. ;)
Cheers!
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
I would expect nothing more than a story like this from the bbc, they are known for their liberal reporting. I wouldnt be suprised if they came out and said saddamn hussein himself shits out gold nuggets.
People die. You know this. People die. People die all the time. It's part of the great game called life.
More people die and will die by other causes (such as road traffic accidents) in the USA this month than in all the terrorist attacks on the USA ever.
When people die civilisations move on. They evolve.
Civilisations need history and artifacts to survive... otherwise they die.
If you destory the literature and the history and the libraries and the museums and all the archelogical evidence to remove just one tyrant from power then you are losing.
In one hundred years we will all be dead (baring a miracle) and Saddam Hussein will be as distant a memory and as relevant to our descendants as Napolean or Kubla Khan are to most of us now.
Yet the "battery" will be AS relevant to our descendants as it is to us. A look back into the past and a glimpse of the ancients, their lives and civilisations... and a definite reason to look forward into the future.
cheers
front
If the so-called battery is destroyed, who is to blame? I say the ones who caused the war. And that would be . . . . . SADDAM!
I remember watching some show where they discovered a compass that was powered by a piece of copper submerged in grapejuice and, on this show, was touted as being the world's first electric battery.
The dang arabs prolly stole that thing from them Greeks!
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
What does this say about intellectual property? If the batteries were used for electroplating (one possibility) people kept them and there principal secret so that they could profit from them. Likewise , Hero's engine also mentioned in the article.
If the principle and functioning of these batteries and the steam engine had been studied and the knowledge shared, as such things were in the 18th and 19th centuries, science and the industrial revolution could have started around 200 BC.
The patent system was meant to encourage such sharing but it seems that it is helping to keep ideas and methods away from the public instead.
I remember Wheel lets you build chariots, and writing lets you build the library to increase science output, but I don't remember there even being a battery advance for back then.
Yeah, big mistake *(not your fault, the propaganda is really thick right now, it could happen to anyone who doesnt pay attention)
You (humorlessly) wrote:
Dear Saddam,
We assisted you in defeating a common enemy. In the hopes that you would see the light, and become a productive member of the world community. This you have not done. You continued in your hopes of Middle Eastern domination, and were found guilty by the United Nations. You have repeatedly violated the terms of your parole, and are now being brought to task.
However, if you feel tough enough, try it. But do it as a man. Do not hide behind civilians, artifacts, or other non combatant entities. Bring your forces out to play openly. Don't hide your AAA in schoolyards. Don't park your tanks in suburban neighborhoods. You play nice, and we'll play nice.
Come out of your bunker and lead your troops. It will make the whole process much easier on everyone involved, especially your people.
Ever yours,
The Rest of the World.
So that last bit should read:
Ever yours,
The American Empire(tm) (A tiny little division of the British one)
Correct that little number and we'll be all set.
if you think the batteries are impressive, you should see the ancient walkman
in ancient greece, a dude invented the steam enguine, well actualy, a metal sphear that held water and had 2 exit pipes pointing in oposit directions and then it was placed on a rod so when the water boiled and the steem released the spear would spin at a high rate of speed (it was an experiment to proove things can be moved with out human's touching them. he also invented a few other minor things so that if he had put them together and tried to come up with a way to use them together, the industrical revolution could have started back then!!
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
The Learning Channel did a very nice special about this last year. An archeologist cross referenced the Hebrew garden/creation story of Eden with material from the Sumarian mythical Edin. Moden Iranians have turned the place into a dump, but if you move up into the surrounding mountains it it beautiful.
There's a saying around the Middle East that goes something along the lines of:
"They write the books in Egypt, print the books in Syria and read the books in Iraq."
Anytime you see a word that begins with al such as algebra or algorithm, you know where it's from..
-- jimmycarter
I feel the need to invoke Godwin's Law.
"Most sources date the batteries to around 200 BC - in the Parthian era, circa 250 BC to AD 225. Skilled warriors, the Parthians were not noted for their scientific achievements."
Warriors made it, huh? How ironic.
-- Boycott Shell
Oh NO!
Greenpeace will attack Iraq.
"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."
I believe I've heard of a civilization with written texts (The Vedas) more than 6000+ years old. The Hindu civilization in India.
-Shaunak.
probably got stranded in 200BC and was trying to charge his GBA batteries... ~SL
And of course, you are of the authority to determine whether my life is equal to that of a few hundred people or some bacteria. Sorry, but my life is worth a billion or so people. So is yours.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
One rather interesting use for the batteries: Electroplating gold or silver onto base metals such as lead. This would be the next best thing to the legendary philosopher's stone, and one can imagine ancient Iraqi traders raking in a fortune selling gold plated leaden objects to unsuspecting buyers.
My rights don't need management.
Israel ? And what was Donald "lets invade" Rumsfelds job during the 80s... err selling chemicals to Sadam.
We know, beyond any reasonable doubt that the US has helped Israel get WMD, we also know its sold them to Britain as well.
So there are two official cases where it has happened. And officially the US and Britain supplied billions of dollars of arms equipment to Iraq during the Iran v Iraq war.
What else do we know
1) CIA trained Bin Laden and many people in Afghanistan against the USSR, many of these became the Taliban.
2) The US supplied weapons to terrorists in the Iran/Contra scandal.
So yes, apart from these cases and lots more there is no evidence at all to say that the US has potentially the dirtiest hands on the block.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I wish I could moderate article submissions. How can this wrtieup possibly lead to actual discussion? It seems like it was written to inspire the political baiting that is passing for a discussion in this thread...
If you were an Oil man and say it cost you $14 to produce a barrel of Oil which would you prefer
1) Cheap Oil that is sold at $20 a barrel
or
2) Expensive Oil that is sold at $80 a barrel.
Now simple me says that an Oil man would prefer 2.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
damn right...screw the inocent brown people in the world...like danny glover said at a rally "the Iraqi people should have the power to choose their own leader. the US should not choose one for them!!!"
movie stars and rock stars are so smart!!!
sheril crow went with Hillary clinton to entertain the service men in bosnia...but now she is anti-war...it is more like those people are anti-bush (like tony blair has said).
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Iraqi army -- CHARGE!
(ducks)
Instead of using 1000 bombs to take out a particular military target, we now try to only use 1.
That is considerably more precise. It also avoids most of the casualties associated with a modern European style war.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It is bizarre reading these posts and seeing people quote as fact the propaganda of the American government and media.
What is truely bizarre is that you manage to write so much, but give no examples of this propaganda. While I agree with you that the American media has a tendancy not to question statements by American leadership, this post is another example of ignorance (and arrogance?) toward American media and Americans in general.
The real tragedy here is that many Europeans truely believe that America is a country filled with mindless drones who believe everything they read and that everything they read is a lie. This is simply not true.
Many Americans have differing beliefs, and many (american) media outlets do reflect this heterogenecity. Examples include the 100,000+ people that marched in San Francisco against military action in Iraq. Or last night, Dan Rather's interview with Saddam Hussein. Do you think the Bush administration wanted that aired? Many newspapers have written in editorial pages reservations about the Bush administration stance. Ignorance is everywhere, and perhaps that smell is coming from your own back yard and not your short wave radio...
-Sean
Remember clipping the terminals of lots of 9V batteries together in series. That gave a VERY noticable shock. I doubt these would have thrown a spark though but it would be feelable with sweaty fingers if they connected them in series..
Eat at Joe's.
I know it is a bit of old news, however I have several pictures available for you to see. That url also includes video: here.
... but it is now.
(Sorry, it requires quicktime due to the format of the digital camera. Also, I couldn't hyperlink the movie for some reason) of the scene.
I am also hosting an short video of an independant journalist interviewing the types of individuals that attend these protests. The quicktime video can be seen here
Your best bet to download those is to right-click and save.
Now, I'm sure I will be modded down for this since most of the posts here are liberal and anti-war, however the last film reinforces my opinion of the anti-war individuals roaming this country. Obviously no one wants war or people to die, however these protestors simply do not have a full grasp of the situation at hand.
Recently Janeane Garofalo said it best "It wasn't hip to protest during the Clinton administration"
--I love this stuff, just love it. Ancient artifacts that suggest a much more advanced civilization than what mainstream scientists will admit to. The funny part is, it really DOES blow a lot of the current accepted beliefs. There's another one you can find with a google, and that's the evidence in india of a long ago past nuclear war.
You know that scene in the indiana jones movie where the ark of the covenant gets wheeleed into a huge gov warehouse to be forgotten about? I believe it! I think they do stuff like that when they can get away with it and when embarassing stuff shows up! Ha!
They should dig through their old military warehouses and get the ark of the covernant that Indiana Jones got for em back in the 1930s. As long as the US troops didn't look at it, legions of tormented ghosts would melt the Iraqi's eyeballs without damaging any artifacts at all.
Eat at Joe's.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
You know I just replied to another post derailing the ignorance of Americans and the lies of the American media. Germany and France have huge interests in Iraq and both helped arm Iraq (indirectly):
France and Germany protect Iraq ties
-Sean
Troll? Whatever. A blatant troll (the top parent) gets modded up and a reply (with examples) gets troll?
-Sean
Related link: Click here for the epitome of technology.
--- Ban humanity.
What they are describing could easily be a cell ... but 'battery' is used in place of 'cell' in everyday language so I think it's OK.
OTOH the article gets really sad when it tries to get technical - it tries to put cells in series to bump the voltage for electroplating (you need a minimum voltage, but after that parallel is much more usefull because the plating rate is proportional to the current). The later on it talks about putting cells in parallel when it should mean series .... (for shocks)
A JDAM doesn't have to be perfect to be remarkably better and more humane than any of it's predecessors.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
if they were so mature why didnt they document it?
i believe it was actually first described in homer's oddessy in the passage concerning carpets and doorknobs. the greek word for amber is actually a corruption of the phrase "doorknob carpet shock."
Your ramblings are actually the most reasonable case for the US to wage war on Iraq. He's OUR BITCH and he needs to be put down.
The US has a moral obligation to knock off Saddam and restore a reasonable quality of life to all Iraqis.
We should have done it before. We just didn't have the will to do so.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Right on. This book:
http://www.af.mil/lib/csafbook/stormoiraq.htm
has some excellent descriptions of how accurate the U.S. strikes were in Gulf War I. As you say, no doubt accuracy has only improved....
Yours,
tom
The Army reading list
I love it that the US Govt. is trying to say that if France etc. use the veto, they'll go ahead anyway and them using the veto will undermine the UN.
The US is the most vociferous user of the veto and has used it 46 times.
The next highest is France with..... 19 times.
The veto's fine it seems, unless it goes against them when they really, really, really want something (and Rumsfeld's threatening a temper tantrum or something if he doesn't get his way.)
Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
For a brilliant and entertaining read about many other ancient inventions check out this book.
And at the risk of stretching credulity there is some conjecture that the Ark of the Covenant may have had the dual characteristic of being a very large capacitor -- two large gold plate surface areas with an acacia wood core -- which may explain its dangerous properties. That is, if the high-priest had impure thoughts, or didn't follow the manual, he would get killed by a lightning bolt. Legend had it that attendants would tie a rope to the high-priest's ankle and in the event of an untimely death they could pull him out instead of risking another's life.
Perhaps it contained a battery of Bagdad cells?
The plan is this
First we free the Oil,
Then the liberate Iraqis,
Lastly the free artifacts.
The author is just getting over excited over nothing.
Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
the only country to use small pox or nukes against civilians is the US.
Why would they need to? What if everybody knew how to do it? Maybe it was obvious to them. You show children how to do it in the bazaar. There's no patent office that needs the minute details. And they don't care what future civilizations will think.
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
That is not correct. Iraq during the best of times only exports a fraction of what it is capable of exporting. They keep production down and maintain vast reserves in order to keep oil prices from getting too low. They also have older less efficient technology and a shoddy infrastructure. Replacing Saddam with a US Puppet would enable a MUCH higher export rate and thus drive prices way down.
I read that in the New York Times and WSJ months ago, but I'm not googling for it right now.
Please note this is a factual/economical correction and says nothing about my beliefs and opinions about war.
Operator, give me the number for 911!
In December, 2002, the Arcaeological Institute of America reaffirmed its standing resolution calling upon all governments to "protect ancient sites, monuments, antiquities, and cultural institutions in the case of war." Unfortunately, the U.S. is not a signatory to the Hague Convention which explicitly provides for such protection.
A few years ago, Archaeology Magazine also ran an excellent story on the problem of looting since the Gulf War -- Stolen Stones: The Modern Sack of Nineveh. It's worthwhile reading about how the chaos of war led to widespread sacking of these archaeological sites.
ancarett, historian and zombie gamer
very very funny how the general /. liberal bias shows up on all of the right wing conspiry theories.
It also shows a lack of factual knowledge and lack of logic. I guess that's why liberals have a hard time seperating their 'emotional' attachment to issues even when there is factual evidence that their belief is invalid.
like danny glover said at a rally "the Iraqi people should have the power to choose their own leader. the US should not choose one for them!!!"
h ) get on my nerves.
movie stars and rock stars are so smart!!!
Yeah, just like those stupid dumbfuck Iraqis...
Read "Our Hopes Betrayed", by an Iraqi who would like to have a say in his new government, since he didn't have a say in his old one. Duh.
This whole "attacking a country that hasn't attacked you without a U.S. peacekeeping mandate" thing just smacks of U.S. imperialism/Manifest Destiny stuff, which makes me extremely queasy. On the other hand, Bush could do a *lot* that would increase my support for his little pet war, but it would enatail admitting he, his father, and Presidents Reagan and Clinton were wrong occasionally. Ie., it'll take some moral backbone; I'm not holding my breath.
Here's what I want to see from Bush, Jr. before we go to war:
1. Recognition that the U.S. helped make Saddam the monster he is. (The U.S. government withdrew support not once but *twice* from Iraqi insurrections. That's why there's so little opposition in Iraq anymore -- they all got killed. Not only that, we gave him chemical and biological agents, and didn't give a damn when he used them on the Kurds. The only reason Bush cares now is that it makes for a nice soundbite.)
2. The admission that Saddam doesn't have provable ties to September 11th or al-Quaeda.
3. Fulfillment of our obligations to Afghanistan, and doing something similar with regard to Iraq. (ie., "sorry General Franks, but we want an Iraqi leading the Iraqi government.")
4. A formal declaration of war would be nice... as if it'll happen. This isn't necessary, but these undeclared wars (*cough*Vietnam*cough*Korea*cough*Gulf-War-I*coug
5. I know this last one is a long shot, and if the first three happen it matters less to me. Still, I'd appreciate it if Bush wouldn't "go it alone", since if he fucks it up we're in for six (or ten or twenty) more years of Anti-Americanism from the rest of the world, especially our former allies (France, Germany, etc.). If *anything* goes wrong, anyone who supported him (Blair, et al.) is going to be politically dead come next election, and someone who is virulently anti-American will take his place.
The UN only becomes a "toothless debating society" if Bush refuses to abide by their resolution, and the blackmail he's engaging in with Mexico and other countries that are still undecided doesn't bode well. He could also show some good faith by ratifying one of those 11 international treaties he's blown off since becoming President. Tit-for-tat, Mr. Bush; if you want their support you need to give them a bone.
It takes a big man to admit he is wrong occasionally, but that's just what Bush needs to do.
The US was partnered with the USSR when it was busy arming countries like Iraq. Also, it is not proven that the US has helped arm any other country with weapons of mass destruction. This claim is pure conjecture on your part.
What about Isreal?
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Listen, it is confirmed that Saddam has killed a plethora of his own people. It is confirmed that this same dude has mysteriously not accounted for most of the chemical weapons cataloged during the early 1990's. It is also confirmed that this SOB sent out 3 ships floating around the Indian Ocean with most of these "missing" weapons. He must be stopped period. No ifs and or buts. Most of the Peacequeers(Hollywood limosine liberals) talking out against the the war are ones with a political agenda and because of Bush. None of these people lifted a finger whilst Clinton was bombing aspirin factories on Baghdad. Make me sick how two faced these hippocrates are. As far as France, Germany, and Russia are concerned they have "business" dealings with Iraq worth billions of dollars. Selling arms-turning Mirage jets into anthrax cropdusters. These countries only care for their own economivcs interests. They don't care for the rest of the world. Wait,wait,wait is there game. I do not agree with Bush on most issues. I think he has been spoon fed by daddy most of his life. I hate his siding with corporations all the time but in the case of IRAQ he is dead right!!!
a mature civilization tends to document novel inventions
Does anyone remember Bin Laden? Isn't he who we were after FIRST?
*Whisper Whisper*
What does passing the buck mean?
g
> if Saddam Hussein did it, then it's
> okay for the U.S. to do it too.
U.S. troops didn't ransack museums in Iraq. U.S. bombs were used on military targets.
> Using your logic, it would be perfectly
> acceptable for Bush to use VX gas on
> demonstrators in New York.
throw new RudenessException();
Tom
The Army reading list
Islam hasn't even been around for 2000 years. Muhummad experienced the first of his revelations in 610. For most of its history Islam was less anti-intellectual than Christianity (which admitedly isn't saying much). The fundamentalist strain is a relatively recent phenomenon that did not really get going until the mid 20th century.
You mean like how during the dark ages, it was Irish Christian monks who preserved much of the scientific learning?
The US is planning to occupy and re-build Iraq, which means that they know they will have to pay for anything they break. So it is highly unlikely that the bombing this time around will be as extensive as it was last time around, and even last time no attempt was made to bomb them back into the stone age. That strategy dates back to Vietnam when carpet bombing was all the rage.
If you want to know what Iraq will look like after the war, take a look at Kosovo.
I can buy an 8 pack of batteries at the store down the street for $1.99.
Honestly, is this the best the anti-war types can come up with now? Let's not be so quick to forget that we almost lost WWII because countries like the US didn't get involved soon enough. Now the US is getting ridiculed for this? Not to mention Britain and others (pretty much anyone but Germany/France). How quickly we forget our history...
then I'd hate to see the vibrator it goes into! ;)
from the same civilisation that invented writing and the wheel
Many Slashdot story submitters must not have come from this "civilisation", because they obviously don't know how to spell civilization properly.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
I think it's time to replace our world leaders with small shell scripts............
Has the Patent run out on this? It still seems to be working, and who knows how long the orginial law says how long the patent is. If the originial patent was for the lifetime of the product, I would expect that Energizer, and Duracell and all those other battery makers to star forking over the dough. Remember there is nothing worse than a patent thief!
Wow, I could understand it if a real Iraqi wanted to post pro-war sentiments anonymously, but why post anti-war sentiments anonymously?
France, Germany and Russia all have heavy investments in the Iraqi oil industry. They have been working on getting huge follow on expansion of their involvement as soon as the UN lifts its sanctions. France, Germany and Russia all know if the US kicks Saddam out of power all their back office deals are down the tube and the rebuilding of the Iraqi economy will be handle by US firms.
France and Russia have been selling arms, duel use technology and nuclear technology to Iraq for the last 35 years. The Iraqis will continue to refuse to destroy the Al Samoud 2 missiles as ordered by the UN. They will whine and complain and drag their feet for years as France, Germany and Russia continues to support them in the UN Security Council.
I think the US should just state for the record an extension of the MAD deterrence policy of the cold war. ONLY they should tell the world "Okay we'll leave Iraq alone BUT if a terrorist group, any terrorist group, uses a WMD against the US, the US will use fusion bombs on the capitols of all nations that are currently refusing to deal with Iraq's weapons programs now."
Not like America didn't ship arms, supplies, and even troops to Europe to help the allies before Pearl Harbor was bombed...
Doesn't really matter, it's probably a dead battery by now anyway.
No, wait, before you mod me down for trolling, what I should have said is if Iraq has this old dead battery we should let Sadam build any weapons he wants and pretty much do anything he wants.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
What is the use of that, I already have lots of flat batteries... Battery technology hasn't improved much in 2000 years it seems.
You are willing to concede that they may have used these things for electro-plating jewellery (i.e. an industrial use of electricity, still commonly used today) but you still claim the devices are not batteries.
Would you care to clarify your definition of what a battery is?
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
The total cost of war will add up to billions of US dollars. Rehabilitating Iraq after such a war will add billions more to the cost. Oil prices are already soaring and effecting us already at the pump.
Think about it. IF it was primarily about OIL, there is a FAR cheaper way for the US to get their hands on it. The US should fire their accountants/economists/stategists if this was the case. They could easily screw other countries out of their oil.
...and civilian targets. Don't forget we bombed their sewage and water treatment plants. Not only is this explicitly verboten in the Geneva Convention, the UN estimates 500,000 children have died as a direct result of this action (read: cholera and dysentery). The standard counterargument is "well, why has Saddam pursued WMD instead of fixing the plants" and the standard counter to that is "well, there's this thing called 'the embargo' wherein it's difficult to get stuff you need." He already had the chemical and biological weapon equipment. We know because we've still got our copy of the receipts! All hail Reagan and "dual-use technology."
Not that I think Saddam is great. Frankly, I hate the bastard. But I also hate my government for not facing its shameful past.
I think the world deserves an apology.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb
bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb
we should bomb them I think
bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb
bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb
wouldn't a bomb for iraq be nice
bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb
bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb
kaboom!
My motto is: Never give up - unless it's harder than you want it to be.
Are you smoking something? There isn't a civilization on earth that's lasted 2200 years.
--Rob
"Small, green, and split three ways."
Towards the Singularity.
Oh, I forgot to mention body bags.
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/vnews/display.v/ ART/2003/02/25/3e5b33e322646
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
I would kill everybody in the region and set up a loosely-controlled government to be taken over by terrorists, of course.
/. folks agree that war itself isn't the problem, it's that the pending war excuse seems manufactured.
The problem, to me, isn't the concept of war. It is fighting terrorism with terrorism, and the policies which use pending war as an excuse.
I'm sure that most
Comply or be destroyed, take a look at what we can do. That's fucking terrorism, okay?
There's a bunch of thrown-out responces. Not intelligent as a whole, but you can build more intelligent statements out of them with some quick googling.
Now mod this post and the parent down, because they'd fucking off-topic.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
The Mother of all Batteries?
Huk huk huk.
"Believe me, it's much faster to drive across the country than try to take my battle axe on a plane."
Is that you Ulfur Lann?
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
I'm sure that most /. folks agree that war itself isn't the problem, it's that the pending war excuse seems manufactured.
Comply or be destroyed, take a look at what we can do. That's fucking terrorism, okay?
Call it what ever you want, imply that Bush is a terrorist if you like (although I said not to). The problem is that Iraq presents a threat to us and the peoples of the region, and we have to do something about it. I asked what we should do and recieved no answer. Are you saying that we should go to war but present a different reason? If so then what reason do you suggest? Because the President has given all the reasons I've already stated.
Now mod this post and the parent down, because they'd fucking off-topic.
The original post clearly mentions the war, and judging by the majority of highly-modded posts in the thread discussing the war directly, I would not consider it off-topic. We're tired of being modded down because no one has an answer to our challenge to the mainstream /. thought. If it continues then it will just show that most of the moderators are biased, and close-minded, and abusive of power, something that I do not yet believe to be the case. I'd hate to be proven wrong
I remembered reading a while back a theory that the Arc of the Covenant was actually a battery. This (so the article claimed) was the reason that when people touched it they died. It was an interesting theory.
I did my best to find a link to such a writeup, but Google keeps sending me to sites about UFO's. I can't speak for the validity of the site, but here is a mention of the theory. Right down to him referring to the Arc as 'Old Sparky'.
What a strange choice for describing where static electricity is noticable.
And I didn't know it was infectious. So that's where computer viruses come from! I never knew.
Any sufficiently simple magic can be passed off as mere advanced technology.
Now, if archeologist were allowed to dig up a bit more without Dubya bombing everything into oblivion, maybe we would learn much more about how advance early civilisations got.
I say: "Bomb them back to the stone age"
That way we could actually watch an early civilization evolve via satelite. It could be a new "reality show" seen thru your boob tube.
"Survivor: Mutants of the mid-east"
They hate us. We hate them. Ain't war a bitch?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagena
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
and for all we know, he got the idea from some farmer doing tricks for his son.
And it is elektron.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I wouldn't be surprised if they did document it, but that the documents did not survive. The battery is made of stone and metal. Unless a civilization advanced enough to create a battery was still carving all of it's documents in stone I doubt any would survive. The US National Archive spends millions of dollars a year to preserve documents, but even those are starting to crumble after just two hundred years. What would happen to them after a thousand?
I think if he and Al Quaeda (sp?) have a common enemy, they might join forces. AND, can you really take Bin Laden's word that he doesn't like Saddam? Ok, so Iraq sells weapons to terrorists. Lets think about how this justifies a war for a minute. The U.S. has funded, trained, and supplied terrorists (Al-Qaeda). Im sure we still are and in 20 years we will be catching it in the ass from the same people who we are now funding, supplying, and training to fight the "war on terror". Shouldn't the rest of the world attack the U.S. for funding terrorists? Also, please stop calling the US a freedom loving country. We are a freedom loving people, but the government is not freedom loving. Every day our freedoms are reduced even more and eventually they simply will not exist. Think about this: you can read whatever you want on the Internet, even if it is counter to U.S. policy, BUT you will be watched and logged by the FBI, CIA, etc...Now think about those agancies' record on civil liberties and you can judge for yourself wether or not the US is a freedom loving country. Do yourself a favor and read 1984. Note that "Big Brother" is always at war with somebody, and then look back on the last 50 years of U.S. history. Its just one war after another, and the "war on terror" is by defenition never going to end. Surveilance of every citizen is just the tip of the iceburg. Your right; games are being played. A reporter asks Ari Fleisher (sp?) why Americans should believe the Governemnt about Iraq considering how we been defrauded in the past (Gulf of Tonkin). His response: Its not about wether you can believe our government. Its about wether you can believe Saddam Hussein. That statement shows that the government thinks that we have been conditioned to believe anything. How can trust in our government not be an issue? The Bush administration is dangerouse. The U.S. is now a rogue state, working outside of the United Nations. Disarm George W. Bush in 2004!
Do me a favor and double it!
See, and when we told Saddam he wouldn't have a pot to piss in he thought we were joking. ;)
-FF
SQUEAK, the Death of Rats explained.
To quote from Richard Hallion's "Storm Over Iraq":
:-)
New York peace activist Erika Monk visited Baghdad immediately after hostilities, in the wake of a UN team that had concluded Iraq had been devasted back to a "pre-industrial" level. Instead, she found "a city whose homes and offices were almost entirely intact, where electricity was coming back on and water was running". She concluded it was "post-industrial enough for us to be caught in a lot of traffic jams".
You set 'em up, I'll knock 'em down
Yours,
tom
The Army reading list
Searched Google for for "Osiriak", like you requested. this is one of the articles I found. Was that the support you wanted for your point?
Remember "Bring 'em on"? *sigh
That's not a rebuttal, that's an anecdote and it only applies to Baghdad.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
From down here in Australia I certainly hear you and the millions of other Americans who don't agree with Bush... the millions of people who protested around the world against the war, the millions who are just trying to ask "WHY are you really wanting to attack this country?"
And I damn well hear the presidents and prime ministers who effectively said "Eh, they don't know what they're talking about".
Well f*ck you, you damn arrogant politions... I thought the whole point you're trying to push with this 'war on terror' is that DEMOCRACY is the aim, is the wonderful chalice we should all be aspiring to... but it seems in order to enforce that very view across the world, you are going to IGNORE the views of the very people you are supposed to be SERVING! Great demonstration of democracy there!
So, I hear what you're saying, many of us Australians do... so don't take the general USA bashing personally... it's aimed fair and square at your government, not you personally.
(And slightly off topic, I was recently at a concert where Ani Difranco performed, and she very elloquently summed up how herself and so many other Americans feel at this time, with their government doing things that they hate.)
First off, everyone does agree Saddam is dangerous, but the reasons stated by you are dangerous and misguided.
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.
Tell that to the families that have lost mothers, fathers, children, aunts, and uncles to US foriegn policy. Tell the hundreds of Americans who still have family in Iraq that "history" doesn't matter. Has the US ever made a public apology or offered real long term support to make up for past crimes?
And yes, Iraq is involved in terrorism. The main plotter behind WTC attack #1 (1993) was Ramzi Yousef, an Iraqi agent.
Back this up with real proof. I'm sure the US has proof, but in the interest of maintaining an edge in spying, the president probably decided not to reveal the information. Showing the information would surely compromise any current spies in Iraq. In this case the proof is needed to get international support. It's obvious you've never bothered to study history or pay attention in history class. Let's look at one the most successsful empire in human history. Ghaghis Khanh's empire at it's peak reached from china all the way into Russia and to Europe. In historical documents from several occupied countries show that GK allowed and encouraged the local culture to flourish. GK took time to pick governers who understood the local culture and made sure there was respect.
Based on what presiden GWB has said in public, does it give you an over-whelming sense of respect for other cultures? Does it even look like he takes the advice of the international community serious? If he was convincing, wouldn't the European nations given their support?
What would I do? Well I for one would have president Reagan and Bush volunteer to go on trail for their part in the death of millions of Iraqi. How is another culture supposed to respect our freedom, when our nation's policy show little to no respect of theirs. If the X-presidents and the US government put forth all the evidence it has about Iraq and provided a real solution/road map to a democractic and free Iraq, the international community would most likely go along. Not only that, it would probably get the support of the Iraqi people. But instead, it's about revenge. If history has a lesson to teach, it's revenge gets you deeper in the hole with fewer ladders to climb out. Letting SH stay in power is stupid, but how it is done is equally important as doing something about it.
Go read some history or perhaps some philosophy. Try The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass by Eric Hoffer, or The Art of War by Sun Tzu. Unfortunately neither has president Bush. The best way to win the war is to win the hearts and minds of Muslims and have them turn Saddam and Bin Laden in themselves. Acting like a bunch of egotistic cowboys isn't the solution to anything, other than making more graves.
You people crack me up. *wah!* War is bad! *wah!* "We're computer geeks who think we understand foreign policy!" Get over it, and stop putting yourselves in a position of supposed intellectual superiority.
I understand that most of you couldn't care less that Saddam tortures and kills his people. You are probably the same people who would have ignored Stalin's atrocities because they "didn't harm anyone else". Iraq's leader has stated objectives that include controlling the entirety of the Arab world and its oil. So certainly, let's let him go so that he can lead Iraq to becoming another WW2-era Germany or current-era North Korea.
Or, perhaps you could consider this. Liberate Iraq so that the rest of the world can have access to the historical treasures of the Cradle of Civilization.
Feel free to continue your "witty" political banter.
Walgurf
Er, what the hell? Bombing Iraq will only lead to more hatred of the United States around the world. And how do you know there will be another terrorist strike, and that bombing the shit out of Iraq will fix it?
Quit your bitching. Do some research and either reply in a positive manner, or go away.
It's no wonder Americans ignore the international community in general. You people whine too much.
Walgurf
unless the administration has a personality disorder... Did Rumsfield suddenly realize that giving WMD's to Sadaam was a bad thing, maybe even immoral? If you pay attention to the news you will realize that the dead in Iraq have been balanced by those we allowed to die in Afghanistan...by preventing humanitarian aid. Stop the catlap argument that this is about human rights...it's not - wake up!
In America, we provide sources for our quotes. That way, it doesn't look like we're making them up.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
After the Enlightenment, there were civilizations more advanced than Europe? Really? I know that `advanced' is the squishiest of terms, but I'm really wondering which ones, since the rest of the world was still stuck with feudalism or tribalism, and didn't have anything like science going on...
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Isn't this like saying the U.S. should not have gone to war in Afghanistan because the ancient statues of Budha might be destroyed.
Oh wait...nevermind.
Okay, no library here, and I don't think I can acquire and read the referenced book before the discussion gets archived. So, I'm going to ask you to summarize.
What about the Chines inventing gunpowder, clockwork, beaurocracy while the Europeans were sitting around in caves? What about the entire middle ages in Europe, which were essentially a thousand years of degeneracy and decline?
And how come the middle east is "The West" when it's the cradle of civilization, but "The East" when you want to invade?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I tend to agree. --Interestingly, the currents required to stimulate healing biological responses have been described as vanishingly small by Robert O. Becker, who spent a life time researching this line of inquiry. --Why and how salimanders are able to regrow limbs while more complex animals cannot; how cells can and do dedifferentiate on the DNA level, (which throws cold water on the while stem cell research parade). . . Among other things.
It's annoying that the bulk of interest here seems centered on U.S. bombing campaigns. Especially on a tech-news site!
-Fantastic Lad
During the Gulf War, Iraq attempted to launch terrorist attacks on American targets but they proved to be fairly incapable of doing anything on their own.
Today, with war a near certainty, Iraq is outsourcing its terrorism to fundamentalist groups, most notably in the Philippines.
Prior to this, Islamic fundamentalists and Hussein hadn't worked together because, well, Hussein is an "socialist apostate" who'd been using his chemical weapons to kill countless muslims. With the US bearing down on both of them, they're now entering into an temporary alliance of convienence.
So basically, our "war on terrorism" is forcing into existance the kind of alliances we presupposed going into it. Fantastic.
As I read over the great history lesson being presented, I note two omissions:
i ju dgment/inus_ijudgment_19860627.pdf
The anti-terrorist campaign in Afganistan was a failure. Bin Laden is still free.
The only country ever tried for terrorism in the World Court is the United States.
http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/inus/inus_
All things considered, don't you think the US motives are at least suspect (as well as anyone elses)?
And for all the discussion... wow, look at those MEMES go.
And I would like to see the damn batteries (preferablly under peaceful circumstances).
Worst was probably too strong a term. Your list certainly contains better canidates (I certainly don't agree with all of the entires on your list ;) for that honor.
I had to laugh though at Grant, because my wife is a decendant of Grant, so in order to keep the peace I have had to tuck away all of my Grant comments. He is one of the finest examples of why high ranking military officers should be barred from running for elected office.
The problem with this article is that it ignores two things. First, it depends mostly on the statments of Howard Teicher, who is a known liar (and even perjured himself in a sworn affidavit, where he made most of these claims), and second, it mentions NSDD-114 out of context but ignores the contents of NSDD-139, which made "unambiguous" the US refusal to support the Iraqi chemical & biological weapons programs.
Wow! Impressive claims, especially when made against the Post, who are, y'know, an actual newspaper. You'll pardon me if I give them a little more credence than some blowhard on Slashdot who can't be bothered to find references for his opinions.
So, can you back any of that up, or are you just making it up as you go along?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Look.
Baghdad is old.
It has been old when the Bible was written.
It has survived a lot of wars. It will survive this war.
And that is a Good Thing in my book.
my
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.
Because two wrongs don't make a right. When Hussein was our pal in the '80's, we knew about everything he did, and it didn't bother us much, we gave him what he asked for. Now that we've apparently come to our senses, we cannot, as much as we'd all like to, simply go in from outside and remove him. You'd be surprised by how the Iraqis *won't* appreciate their 'liberation'.
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.
Point 1: The UNSCOM inspectors did uncover and destroy liquid Anthrax and other nasty things during their first inspections. This was in the mid '90's, after the Gulf War. The bio agents that they had had a shelf life of 3 years. The UNSCOM inpectors themselves claim that they managed to find and deal with 95% of Iraq's chem and bio stockpiles.
Point Two: Hussein did not "kick out" the inspectors in 1998. They we told that they should get out before Desert Fox began. Their safety could not be guaranteed vis a vis the bombs that were about to drop. Iraq (and the U.N.) we also pretty upset that the U.S. was using the inspection data to develop air strike packages.
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.
That's a HUGE IF. Manufacturing nuclear weapons of the "dropping" variety is not something that can be done out of a barn. We would know. He doesn't have them, because he never had them. There's no doubt that before the Gulf War he was tying to get them, but under the sanctions regime, the materials needed to develop nukes and the ability to produce them is beyond his grasp. If he had them, or had evidence that he was gearing up to make them, we'd be there already.
WRT to Iraq and terrorism, has Saddam Hussein supported international terrorists? Yes, probably. So does Saudi Arabia (at fairly high levels, too.)
Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi, but Iraqi *agent*? You don't know that. Incidentally, the recent 'evidence' that Sec. State Powell unveiled trying to prove a link between Iraq and Al-Q showing pictures of a camp in Northern Iraq is a blatant lie. That that area is actually controlled by the US and GB, Saddam has no power there, it's been that way since 1991. There *are*, however, Kurdish groups that are somewhat Aligned with Al-Queda, and technically they are in Iraq, but they have no affiliation with Saddam.
And here's what I would do:
1. Continue the inspections. Hussein isn't going to invade anybody. He isn't going to do a freakin' thing, because he knows what will happen.
2. The US needs to drop the John Wayne act. Pretty soon, we won't have a friend left in the world. Then Hussein can continue to give Bush the finger, because without international support, it ain't happening.
3. Get back to dismantling Al-Queda, and while we're at it, let's get back to Afghanistan.
That's what I would do. I just don't think Iraq is much of threat.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
Perchance... but it's an applicable anecdote in that it addresses the extent of U.S. bombing of water facilities.
Furthermore, and with all due respect since my knowledge of U.S. airstrikes on water facilities during the Gulf War is quite limited, without supporting references, one could consider your statements anecdotes. Crikey!
Yours,
Tom
The Army reading list
and next to the batteries, they found a 2,000 year old walk man and a few CDs. Nothing too interesting, though. Mainly dinosaur rock.
"We shall party like the Greeks of old! You know the ones I mean." - HedonismBot
Then what? You wait and see how people fight back with mutant powers? Psychic terrorism maybe? Go watch sci-fi instead of reality shows, please.
You can't take the sky from me...
You fell for it, the If you're against unilateral invasion of Iraq you support Saddam Hussein straw man argument. Well, cheer up, most people have. G. Bush has gotten some stunning mileage with it.
The fact is, if we all got together as nations and set up, ratified, enforced, and evolved a system of international law, we might be able to
Because two wrongs don't make a right.
Exactly. That's why we must do the right thing now. Getting rid of this tyrant who is a threat to his people and the world
Point 1: The UNSCOM inspectors did uncover and destroy liquid Anthrax and other nasty things during their first inspections. This was in the mid '90's, after the Gulf War. The bio agents that they had had a shelf life of 3 years. The UNSCOM inpectors themselves claim that they managed to find and deal with 95% of Iraq's chem and bio stockpiles.
Wrong, the inspectors had no idea about the extent of Iraqs bioweapons until the defection of Hussein Kamel, saddam's son-in-law and head of the weapons program.
Point Two: Hussein did not "kick out" the inspectors in 1998. They we told that they should get out before Desert Fox began. Their safety could not be guaranteed vis a vis the bombs that were about to drop. Iraq (and the U.N.) we also pretty upset that the U.S. was using the inspection data to develop air strike packages.
Wrong again. Saddam told the inspectors that they were no longer welcome and stopped cooperating with them. The inspectors reported this to the UN/US, at which point Clinton decided to start the bombs. Or do you think he just did that for fun?
WRT to Iraq and terrorism, has Saddam Hussein supported international terrorists? Yes, probably. So does Saudi Arabia (at fairly high levels, too.)
Saudi arabia has also started cooperating with us on terrorism after 9/11. The princes have already decided that after the Iraq war they will be moving towards democratic reform. I think we should make it clear that we expect them to cooperate fully, and punish them if they try and screw us. On the other hand Saddam has been openly screwing us. Like you said, two wrongs don't make a right. Even if we need Saudi support now to get rid of Saddam, we still ought to get rid of saddam.
You question the links to terrorism, but not all of them. It was Iraqis who tried to assassinate former Pres. Bush. Saddam OPENLY pays suicide bombers. Yes, there are some terrorists operating out of Kurdish areas; but al Zarqawi is/was in Baghdad. Salman Pak is under Saddam's control (near baghdad.) And yes, Ramzi Yousef was an Iraqi agent
Sorry, you've been misinformed. I agree we should crack down on al Qaeda, help afghanistan. None of that has anything to do with Iraq. You point out that Saddam won't do anything now. That changes if the US military leaves (and they can't stay there indefinitely). It also changes when he develops a nuclear weapon, which he WILL do, given enough time. Intelligence estimates anywhere from 6 months to 2 years. Of course our nuclear intelligence is well known for underestimating our enemies. (See N. Korea, Pakistan). He is openly trying to acquire parts for nukes on the black market (see: aluminum tubes) And I guess you would just let the people of Iraq suffer in the meantime.
You'd be surprised by how the Iraqis *won't* appreciate their 'liberation'.
That is a flat-out lie. The Iraqis would love to get rid of Saddam. He has made their lives torture, in many cases literally. He's killed millions of his own people. They'd love to be rid of them. It's easy for you to say otherwise sitting behind a computer in a first-world country. I'd like to see your evidence. And no, a march in Iraq isn't proof. When you live in Iraq, they make you do certain things. If you don't, the security services come and threaten you and your family.
A false dilemma is bad reasoning.
Tell that to the families that have lost mothers, fathers, children, aunts, and uncles to US foriegn policy. Tell the hundreds of Americans who still have family in Iraq that "history" doesn't matter. Has the US ever made a public apology or offered real long term support to make up for past crimes?
Very well-- lets listen to those Iraqi families. Almost every last Iraqi exile will tell you that we must remove Saddam. That is how we begin to repay the Iraqis. That is how we apologize. We don't do it by leaving him there to kill millions more. You've proved my point for me.
Back this up with real proof. I'm sure the US has proof, but in the interest of maintaining an edge in spying, the president probably decided not to reveal the information.
The burden of proof isn't on me. I'll give you some links to get you started- but this murdering, torturing, genocidal, chemical-weapons using madman has given the world plenty of proof of what he's done. the burden of proof is on those who would protect him-- on YOU. Here's the links: One Two Three That is on the WTC alone. Saddam OPENLY pays families of suicide bombers. Here's one on Salman Pak: Four I could go on forever. Clearly it is you who has not done enough reading. I've fulfilled a burden that wasn't even mine. Now you think we should protect a madman. You present your evidence.
If he was convincing, wouldn't the European nations given their support?
Actually, they all do, with the exception of France and Germany, who are trying to dominate Europe. And instead of just listening to other people, why don't you analyze the facts? If those guys are right, prove it. Don't just base your opinion on their authority. That is no more valid than me basing my opinion on George W. Bush's opinion alone. Chirac, by the way, is the only major world leader to be personal friends with Saddam, dating back to the days when he helped sell Saddam two nuclear reactors. He's also being investigated for corruption, and is only not being prosecuted because of immunity afforded by his office. The argument at the UN isn't about Iraq. They all know he is in violation of the terms of the resolution. This is about constraining US power.
The best way to win the war is to win the hearts and minds of Muslims and have them turn Saddam and Bin Laden in themselves
How about starting by promoting democracy in the region, giving the people political power and economic hope? How about removing these dictators bent on regional domination through WMD, who brutalize their populations and then conveniently blame the US and Jews to deflect criticism from themselves? How about stopping the torture and genocide practiced by Saddam? But you're not really interested in the people, if you were you'd advocate saving them from this monster. Why don't YOU read something instead of telling other people that you're more well-read than them in "philosophy" and "history". And although I asked that we keep this debate civil, every respondent has taken a cheap shot at President Bush. I can't take you guys seriously unless you show that you're interested in whether war is right or wrong-- instead of whether you're more well-read, sophisticated, and "subtle" than the President.
Don't be surprised if three generations from now the truth about the ancient battery is uncovered:
it was a mistake made in the future when someone went back to the past. They're probably laughing at us right now in another timeline because we don't get it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well I can't think of another, more clear, way to say "using terrorism to fight terrorism and using war as an excuse to take away rights is not good"
Please don't ignore my post before replying to it, okay? I didnt imply anything, I said Bush is a fucking terrorist. That isnt a personal attack, it's an attack on his policies. That is relevant. I told you what I'd do, did Bush, before he was elected? Would he have been elected if he'd said "I will use any opportunity to take away rights from the citizens and impose the power of this nation across the globe ignoring all borders"
no, he waited until after he was elected to say that.
And giving a disclaimer at the top that says "This is not flamebait" does not take away that something is flamebait. Your political views aren't being censored. If you'd spent any time actually reading the posts which haven't been modded-down, instead of sticking to a +5 troll bonus, you'd see that if anything, the opposite is true, and furthermore that most people using mod points don't have the comprehension level required to politically censor someone.
The original post clearly mentions the war. It also clearly mentions the wheel. Want to talk about cars?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Can I say wow! A sane voice on slashdot able to form completes sentences and understands this looming war in Iraq. I am beside myself reading this and your follow-ups. I hope this is just a glimpse of more to come. I hope more users become frustrated by the blathering no nothings who post their anti-war/anti-american messages without considering all that has been done already to avoid a war. Thanks for helping to prove that not everyone out there is blind to the facts or crazed with misdirected anger towards our country.
Might as well hit it before others do. I know typo completes. (There is something to be said for the preview button. I just can't remember what it is.)
What about this pot ?
WOW a 2200 year old battery !!!
I wanna know more !
I request everyone not specifically talking about the foreverready batter be modded to -1. That way I can find the useful information about this fascinating pot
The fact is, if we all got together as nations and set up, ratified, enforced, and evolved a system of international law,
Saddam has had 12 years to deal with 16 resolutions. We've given him the letter of the law. He's ignored it. Now it's time to enforce the law. There is nothing unilateral about it.
Bush has gone out of his way, delaying for a whole year, trying to persuade the UN. In this process he is unecessarily prolonging the suffering of the Iraqi people, endangering US troops by giving Saddam unnecessary warning, and compromising intelligence sources and methods. All for the sake of multilateralism. This is the most multilateralist president in the history of the United States. No war was ever deliberated over for so long, with so much credence and legitimacy granted to world opinion by a country defending itself against a war (of terrorism) and enforcing international law (resolutions 1 through 16). Clinton certainly didn't ask for UN approval to bomb Iraq in '98, and essentially went into Bosnia and Kosovo with much UN fretting and opposition. Yet nowadays the agreement is that Clinton waited TOO LONG to do those things; or did them without enough force.
Well I can't think of another, more clear, way to say "using terrorism to fight terrorism and using war as an excuse to take away rights is not good"
Exactly what rights are being taken away? The right of a government to oppress the people? The right of a government to bully other nations with WMD?
And no, I don't think that is what the Bush does. He does not threaten to attack the world. He does not threaten to conquer France (though it would be insanely easy) because they do not support our policies on Iraq. All Bush does is threaten force if Iraq does not start clearly and seriously complying with the UN resolutions that the vast majority of the nations agreed should be followed.
If Hussein was really interested in disarming, wouldn't you think he would have started disarming years ago and invited inspectors back? The FACT is that Hussein responds only to force, and that is clear as he reluctantly and half-heartedly complies with the resolutions (note: only under threat of force). No nation besides Iraq argues that he is fully complying with these resolutions.
It is easy to overlook the fact that Sept 11 occurred after Bush took office. Don't you think it highly likely that the threat of governments bent on developing WMD and supporting terrorism endanger our national security, especially in a post-9/11 world? As with anything, if you take it out of context and reduce it to a narrow enough scope you lose sight of the truth. That's like focusing on the last year and ignoring the 100 that came before...
Without the threat of force (and the will to back it up) tyrants reign. Need we wait for the use of a WMD on another country or our own before we act?
And don't even bring up sanctions, what have those done except to starve the people of Iraq? Even in the hard times of sanctions, Hussein manages to build new palaces and develop a missle program. Not to mention the aluminum tubes and the finger they point towards a nuclear weapons program. That's not even mentioning the US intelligence on his chemical and biological programs, nor his ability to sell those weapons to terrorists who are quite likely to use them against nations such as the US.
But hey, let's give him some more time to prepare and yank our chains? I mean, that worked in WWII now didn't it?
If Iraq is such a great place and these batteries are so interesting, why hasn't anyone been over there to study them?
And I can't think of another way to insist that there is a simple question that you ought to answer. That is, what SHOULD we do if Bush is wrong? If you think that using the word "fucking" over and over somehow gives you more legitimacy, you're wrong. And i'm only "ignoring" what you said to the extent that I am looking for an answer to my question. What SHOULD we do? What COULD we do that you wouldn't consider "terroristic"? Why don't you answer MY question?
As for censoring, it is very real. I am sure there are plenty of moderators who aren't on this power trip. But there are just enough to ruin the system. And as for the "off-topicness", i am giving the people what they want. All the highly modded posts are about the war, or only about the "battery" in the context of the righteousness of war. You can throw insults all you want-- but you still haven't answered the question. Is it perhaps because you haven't got an answer?
Now for the terrorism accusation. It's just petty name-calling when reduced to "Bush is a terrorist" (or my favorite, "Bush=Hitler"). But the sheer uninformedness of equating war and terrorism in a moral sense is astoundingly stupid. If you can't see the difference between intentionally blowing up children to get the "infidels" out of the "holy land" and a military that tries its hardest using weapons designed for the purpose of minimizing civilian casualties while trying to save them from a murderous, genocidal, bent-on-domination tyrant, then you are out of your mind. ("Murderous" refers to one who kills innocent people, not by accident, but on purpose. "Genocidal" refers to one who intentionally kills people based on their ethnicity -- as opposed to, say, WMD programs, history of use of WMD, or to protect the free world from terrorism. "bent-on-domination" refers to one who has repeatedly launched wars of aggression for the purpose of taking their oil wealth. "tyrant" refers to one who governs, say, by murdering his enemies, instead of through the process of election) If you've got such little moral judgment that you honestly and truly think that Bush and Osama bin Laden are "equals" then you need to seriously reassess your values. If you think that, since Bush only won by a few hundred votes in Florida, he is a "tyrant" comparable to Saddam, who has your tongue cut out on national TV for insulting him, then you're more than uninformed-- you're foolish. I've answered your question which ignored mine. But you chose to respond to my post. So now you answer my question -- or simply admit that you have no answer.
Sex toys.
.8 volts...
Ah the pleasant tingling of
Is this a duplicate or is it just me? So many replies so little time (cut && paste).
Recap what makes you a type 3 moron.
"FACT...IF...MIGHT" is subjective.
"AMONG OTHER THINGS" you mean you have more subjective opinions to bombard us with that may or may not be relevant to anyone or anything outside of an asylum.
I would also like to point out your use of the term UNILATERAL. I am seeing this a lot from the anti-war side. Part of me wonders how UNILATERAL translates from Arabic. In any event, I will explain it to you since you are using it incorrectly. Unilateral means to benefit one side only. I am not going to bore you with details, beyond proving it is not true, because they seem unimportant to you anyway. Getting sadam out of power and helping to rebuild the country helps Iraq and Israel without question. Sodamb Insane has a stranglehold on his people and pays suicide bombers families in Pakistan. No longer unilateral but I understand you hear it used it is a big word so you feel like you should use it also.
I will like to close with a true fact. There is nothing that prevents the Commander and Chief of our armed forces from using our military to help enforce resolutions imposed by the UN. In case you missed it, George Bush, the president of the United States of American, is the Commander and Chief of our armed forces.
I hope others read this and decide to do their own research on why this is a just move on Bush's part and why we are doing the right thing here. People like you "Un pobre guey" are scum not even offering a true rebuttal to war instead spreading what is otherwise known as bullshit. You mask it as a stance for peace, but at the expense of American ideals and values.
As an aside, I support those who truly think war is never an answer. I despise those who are using this situation to spread false accusations against our president and our country. To the former I extend the olive branch. To the later I extend my finger.
Guess what you would be seeing right now "Un pobre guey"?
Yeah, yeah, yeah and blah, blah, blah... The question was, what would you do ABOUT IRAQ? Jack Nicholson said it best in the movie "A Few Good Men", "You live under the blanket of freedom in which I provide, and then question the way in which I provide it. I would rather you say 'Thank You,' and went on your way. Otherwise I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post". That's what I did in 1966, that's what I would do now. So, what would you do ABOUT IRAQ?
Keeper of the terrible karma ---
Thanks for your support, pauldy. I don't mind if know-nothings post their anti-American messages. I just wish people would stop modding down my anti-anti-American messages. This is the third time now I've posted something in favor of the war and been modded down. I have a feeling that if these moderations were not so widespread, then there would be more "sane voices" on slashdot.
Perhaps it is because people with facts and logic to support their positions need not fight with the tools of censorship. But pro-democracy voices on slashdot need not fret. If we see unfairly moderated posts, we will mod them back up. We don't need to reciprocate by playing their censorship games.
We can fight with words and ideas; and, from the looks of this thread, they cannot fight back. All they have are vulgarity, name-calling, President Bush insults, and mod points. That is nothing compared to the truth.
I post not because I wish to be given credit for stating facts (which I feel are obvious). I post because there are people out there with a good heart and a sense of morality but perhaps are not informed enough to assemble their knowledge into one coherent course of action that they can advocate. Certainly, people are busy with jobs, school, and family. They may be limited to what they've heard from a usually intelligent friend or professor. And thus the possibility of misinformation.
Don't let the abusive moderators or swearers intimidate you or depress you. Just say what is on your mind, and people will listen, even if they aren't as noisy as the people who are wrong. They are out there, reading.
I recently sent this to my local newspaper as an open letter to my community. Seeing as this discusion is a thinly veiled pretext to vent on the Iraqi situation I thought I'd just wade right into that. (I have a comment on the battery elsewhere in the discussion.) Try to enjoy.
I am of an age that when I was in high school History was still being taught, not modified to make the kids feel good. I learned about how WWII got started. I was taught about Neville Chamberlain, the English Prime Minister who went to Germany in 1939 and got Hitler's reassurance about his non-aggression policy as Germany's Army, Navy and Air Force were being tooled to be the mightiest the world had ever seen. How he came back home to England with "peace in our lifetime" on his lips on the eve of Hitler's blitzkrieg through, first Eastern, than Western Europe?
People back then all wanted peace so badly that they were willing to accept any price to maintain the illusion. Then, after Poland was overrun, France and England declared war on Germany but did nothing as the tanks rolled across the Arden. The rest of the world held its breath waiting for somebody else to stop Hitler. Then Mussolini and Tojo, seeing that the world couldn't get off its ass, just went out and started grabbing huge sections of it for themselves.
Those are the people that we should wait for to 'help' us do something about Sadly Insane? Why? Do we need to watch the French surrender yet one more time? Why should Germany care, they have been protected for so long (by US) that they just want to maintain the status quo. Surely they learned something from WWII? Like, let somebody else take care of it while they are protected.
Who then should we wait on? The United Nations is the group of spineless, hollow people who told Sadly Insane to disarm 12 years ago 'or else'. Or else what, they'd tell him to do it again, and again, while he laughs and plays 'hide the bombs' with the inspectors? Sadly insane has had more last chances than Barbra Streisand has had final concerts. Maybe it's time to leave the United Nations to whither on the vine and leave US to take care of ourselves.
We would get a lot more respect from countries like N. Korea if they saw that we mean what we say. As it is they see us as gutless and without the resolve to do anything but rattle our sabers. I wonder where they got that idea? As hard as it is for good, honest, God-fearing people to understand that there are people who see compassion and kindness as signs of weakness, there are such people. Unfortunately some of these people have come to control weapons of mass destruction and have given the world little reason to believe that they would act with restraint if given half a chance.
When should we stop these people? Everybody seems to want to wait for everybody else but doesn't want anybody else to do anything out of fear of retaliation. This is circular logic. The despots will act unilaterally and without warning while that circle of thought spins itself and US into self destruction.
We've lost face in the world's eyes during the Clinton administration. All he'd use the military for was to get his personal scandals off of the front page. We were attacked no less than four times on his watch and he did something between little and nothing about it. We lost so much respect that a small bunch of cave dwellers brought down the World Trade Towers. Cave men for God sake!
This is about more than Iraq, N. Korea and Iran combined. If we don't regain our manhood as a country then we will be the targets of every yahoo with a will to do harm. Doing harm is easy, look at what a couple of screwballs did in Oklahoma city; regaining respect is very hard. There is only one way to do that in a way that these sorts of people understand.
Think about the former Soviet Union; did anybody attack them the way that we were attacked, or as often? Any idea why? I know why: any attack would have been met with sure and sudden retribution so harsh as to make the thought of the original act unthinkable.
Now, cave men attack us with our own planes on our own turf. Maybe they thought we were all Clintonian in our lack of self respect. They are wrong about me, they are wrong about G. W. Bush and his team. I surely hope they are wrong about the majority of us, or we will get more of the same, more and more frequently until there are none of us left.
The case has been made since Sadly Insane invaded Kuwait; and then it was made again when he expelled the inspectors some four years ago. There was no backbone at the helm of State then, there seems to be now. All we accomplish while waiting any longer is for him to be more and better prepared. The sooner we get in there the sooner done and the less lives (on both sides) lost. Why wait any longer? How many more must die?
If not US, who?
If not now, when?
Cave dwellers for God sake!
Now is the time.
We are the people.
United we stand or divided we'll surely fall.
Sincerely,
Aimé F. Watts, Jr.
aimew@sprintmail.com
Keeper of the terrible karma ---
I hope more users become frustrated by the blathering no nothings who post their anti-war/anti-american messages without considering all that has been done already to avoid a war. Thanks for helping to prove that not everyone out there is blind to the facts or crazed with misdirected anger towards our country.
Might I say a few words about Anti-Americanism? As the son of immigrants I am acutely aware of the state of the Union compared to the other intellectual and political wastelands on the planet. My parents moved here precisely because here the voters have a true voice in government, here we can determine the direction of our government and the future of our children. Here we can work towards our own futures.
For those out there who think that President Bush is "corrupt" or "bloodthirsty", my friends, you do not know the meanings of those words. You have no experience with truly corrupt leaders. I only need a few minutes of the tales of The Old Country to realize how lucky I am, and for that I wake up everyday and thank God (metaphorically, since i'm atheist).
Government is faulty, as Madison pointed out: In government are the weaknesses of men -- if men were angels, then no government would be necessary. So I believe that our leaders may sometimes act contrary to the public interest or otherwise selflishly. But I also believe that you have more opportunity here than anywhere else in the world to avoid that kind of thing.
I also believe that, when it comes to the important things, our leaders aren't selling us out. They are defending the national honor and the national freedom. No President has engendered such strong emotions in me as President Bush, because he is a man who truly loves his country and cares for its people. And that is evident in the politically suicidal position he has taken on Iraq -- a path which can only win him more enemies, but he has undertaken for the sake of the future of our children.
We moved here because this is a country in which people are free to voice their opinions and we encourage criticism and debate. But do not be mistaken. There is a difference between constructive criticism and whining. I love criticism and self-improvement, but there is nothing I find more pathetic than the whining, nauseated, anti-American, anti-Bush, I'm-angry-Democrats-didn't-do-it-first tirades of so many people lucky to live in America or Europe. Because I truly believe that America is successful not because we whine, but because we find solutions. We solve our problems, and we don't have problems with optimal solutions. And that is why I issued this challenge today. I am of open mind enough to take your solutions seriously -- provided that you are willing to make them. Don't whine. Tell us what you would do.
Clarifications:
-Rights of US Citizens.
-Our WMD, Our refusal to comply with regulations we insist other nations follow, Our developement of weapons which could only be used to attack in the interest of "defence"
-9/11 didn't prove anything about foreign governments needing to be stopped, if anything it proved that trying to stop others from attacking us is futile, and perhaps we should focus less on trying to provoke absolutely everybody.
Nuclear powers are going to be developed, already are developed, are going to be used, etc. We are in that age, it will happen. Once we get over trying to stop everybody from getting their hands on American textbooks, I for one think there are slightly more pressing concerns.
Now for terrorism vs the US:
You are looking at two potential targets:
One is heavily armed, well trained, and pretty much looking for an excuse to step on you anyway.
Another is comparatively defenceless, but has ideals or beliefs which are a lot more offencive to you.
You choose the defenceless one, 'cause that one you know you can hit.
Are you:
a) a 9/11 hijacker
b) The President of the United States
And yes, I due tend to ignore the years in which Bush was not president when talking about the things Bush has done during his presidency. I don't see how I'm ignoring that 9/11 was after he was in office when I say that his _ADMITTED_ attacks against american freedoms are out-of-line and bring up serious questions about whether he is fit for office.
Now I have not said that war is bad. I have not said that war with Iraq is bad. _This_ war is bad.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I like the word "fucking". I'm not sure why, I just do. See, instead of saying "fucking", I could spend several hours working out a perfectly-worded post which is insightful and has had all the facts in it checked for accuracy, typos, mis-phrasings, mis-quotes, etc, etc.
;)
But when I do that right-off, the conversation usually ends right there, and then I feel like I've wasted a perfectly good moment on something which never gets read.
So it's easier to just say "fucking", spread various thoughts out over a few different posts, than to offer a whole responce out in one post which, if ever read, I'll never know.
I have answered some of your questions in another post in this thread, and don't feel like re-typing them, so please go visit that other post.
Now just to see if you're paying attention, and since you've gone through all the trouble of trying to insult me without just admitting to it- Fuck you, whorebitch.
And that would be Bush==Hitler
Not that I consider such to be true.
Now what we should really do is send a bunch of Ninjas after Sadam. Seriously, have you ever seen a movie with Ninjas in it? Those guys could kill all the Sadams and nobody would hear the screams.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
-Rights of US Citizens.
Arguably a problem, but not directly relevant to the issue of Iraq. Certainly doesn't make the Administration "terrorists"
-Our WMD, Our refusal to comply with regulations we insist other nations follow, Our developement of weapons which could only be used to attack in the interest of "defence"
Difference is that we are a democracy, and we trust democracies to have destructive weapons, but not people like Saddam who take over other countries for their wealth. The Saddams of the world are a threat to the notion of sovereignty as we know it. We're not exactly threatening to invade France or Britain if they don't disarm. Also, Saddam HAS USED WMD against his own civilians and Iranians. George W. Bush has not. The difference is extremely important.
-9/11 didn't prove anything about foreign governments
Wrong. It proved we should have taken out the Taliban long ago. Terrorists can't exist in some mythical limbo. They need state support, if only to ensure that they have somewhere to live and gather and raise money.
You choose the defenceless one, 'cause that one you know you can hit.
Are you implying that because the president and terrorists both employ strategy that they are moral equivalents? That's extremely misguided. Terrorists are wrong because they kill innocent people, on purpose, so others will listen to them. In the war on Iraq, we may kill innocents, but only by accident, and only when pursuing human freedom or defending ourselves. There is a huge moral difference
his _ADMITTED_ attacks against american freedoms are out-of-line and bring up serious questions about whether he is fit for office
He may have gone too far in defense of the homeland, but it is nothing like a police state-- it is not some concerted effort to consolidate his power by eliminating his enemies. It was a legitimate response invoked by the legitimate fears of an American people recently struck by a horrific attack on innocents. His motives were to control terrorism. If that is over the line, the Court can check his power, and the people can elect legislators to roll back the changes. You can't say that Bush is evil -- Congress passed those laws. Your position is only tenable if you contend that the entire GOVERNMENT is evil, every last person who voted for it. We Americans were willing to temporarily sacrifice freedoms to ensure we didn't get hit again. This was evident when the Republicans took the Senate in 2002. It was worth it. However, None of this has anything to do with iraq.
I have not said that war with Iraq is bad. _This_ war is bad.
Why is that? It seems illogical. If war is good, we should do it now, to prevent Saddam from building more WMD. In fact, we should have done it a year ago, before the UN. The longer we wait, the more American soldiers he will kill. The more he will be able to prolong conflict and make us kill Iraqi soldiers. And what would you propose instead? The challenge is unanswered.
Going in to open war, there are yet more lines to be crossed.
/another/ country. Seems to me like he's got more a right to kill his own people than we do.
;) [again, you may replace previous metaphor with various fast foods if it pleases you]
[jumping around a bit now to help clarify things to come]
Okay, now I'm in no way trying to say that the whole of congress is immune. Sure, the whole government is evil, but that's a little harder to swallow, isn't it? I could go off and list each individuall person employed by the US government who is a bad person, but I'm not going to. Mainly because it would take several years, if not decades, to track all that information down. [note that the following sentance is not meant to equate anything, just try to come up with your own metaphore which involves hamburgers and potato chips or something] Osama Bin Ladin is an evil guy, but he's also got bunches of people under him. Yet we tend to say things like [but not exactly] "Osama Bin Ladin's policies are somewhat disagreeable." Such is not meant to imply that others in his organization are not fuck-heads.
I very often wonder why people stress "against his own people" so much when they're trying to be pro-war. He's using them against his own people, you want to blow him up. Are you not working towards the same goal here? Wouldnt it make sense, save time, money, American Lives, to let him keep on gassing his own people?
We, on the other hand, want to attack
"But he's doing it on purpose".
If a bankrobber is holding someone hostage, and is pointing a gun at a croud, and you take him out with a grenade- you have just killed both of them on purpose.
Use of the dictionary to attack the above statement will be ignored.
Okay, but "We wouldn't do that". Correct, we would not do that if one hostage is involved. But thousands of civilians? Of course! A blanket-cover of bombs over a city full of civilians is just a good strategy, after all.
[Inserting this here because I just re-read your last block and need to have this said before I hit submit- You have made the grave error of equating !bad with good. Such a thing is incorrect.]
To clarify the final statement, "This" war is the war on terror, a very different thing from a war on Iraq. [to use an example from a previous comment] It would be like declaring war on Europe, and then attacking France.
You know how that ends
We can go ahead and kill Iraq when it's Iraq that we're fighting. A war against an idea canot be won.
And the challenge has been answered, several times, and was already obvious:
- in magical happy-world, don't kill Iraq.
- In this world, let him kill himself
-OR-
kill Iraq, not terror. It's just finishing up a game that's been delayed.
-OR-
Ninjas. Seriously, they RULE.
Now let's talk about Sadam. "Sadam is evil" blah, is it Sadam or the entire Iraqi government? Does Sadam even exist? There are reports that say nobody has seen the "real Sadam" in years, publically. He could be dead already. What reason would a government have to tell its people that their leader, of whom they have several doubles, is dead?
Yes, the allusion I am making is not merely imagined. Unless you are thinking of one I have not thought of, in which case you are wrong.
Has Sadam really gassed "his own people"? Well, who are "his own people"? Iraqi citizens? What does it take to be an Iraqi? Loyalty to Sadam. Sadam has not gassed his own people, would never gas his own people. No one ever would. He just has a different definition of what his own people are.
[I realize that the above conflicts with previous sarcastic comments, please comprehend the concept of sarcasm]
Okay, your turn.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Can you explain what it means? It looks like "The French are of the monkies of something who eat cheese".
Stick Men
Here's some info:
Allies Deliberately Poisoned Iraq Public Water Supply In Gulf War. htm
(originally published in Scotland's Sunday Herald)
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines/091700-01
Also, just google around for "gulf war", water, and "geneva convention".
I retract the "500,000 children". Just found an article here that disputes that number: http://reason.com/0203/fe.mw.the.shtml
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Fair enough.
I must say, it's good that the U.S. is the kind of place where these sort of documents are unclassified and posted on the web. In other countries I daresay these documents would never see the light of day.
"Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried" --Winston Churchill
Yours,
tom
The Army reading list
> "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."
So these guys could've been driving electric cars since, what, about 2000 years ago? *And* selling oil to the rest of us?
No wonder they were happy to torch the oilfields in 1991; we'd have all been walking while they were driving around with the top down, picking up chicks at will. Damn you Saddam; you and your whisper quiet automotive technology.
A 2200 year old battery? Where can I get one for a Sony laptop?
Cop that, Energizer bunny!
oh, I totally agree with that. I just think we have some "legacy API issues" we need to address as we continue our progress toward the ideal democratic republic.
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Yup, it'd be nice to deprecate some of our past. Trail of Tears, slavery, and much more. If we're Win32 programmers, we need a USHistoryEx.
I was thinking about what you said earlier about "our government's shameful past". Sometimes I wondor if it would make a difference to say "our government leaders' shameful actions" or "the bad things some people did". Because it seems to me that companies don't do wrong things, and countries don't do wrong things - _people_ do wrong things.
There's a neat short story by the Russian author Bulgakov called "A Dog's Heart". In it one of the characters is talking about how the country has changed since the Bolsheviks took over, and he says "It's not the fault of the capitalists that someone stole the boots in the hall! And it's not the fault of the capitalists that the house committee instituted mandatory choir singing!" And he goes on to say, more or less, that it comes down to individual people making individual decisions. When I go to work this morning, will I curse and shout at someone who cuts me off in traffic? Then that's my fault, not society's, or the government's, or anyone else.
Re-reading that, it's murkier than I had hoped. Ah well.
I highly recommend that Bulgakov book if you're a Russian author fan, though. Good stuff.
Yours,
Tom
The Army reading list
The BBC has an interesting article about a 2,200 year old battery ...
... how this priceless artifact as well as many others...
... threatened by the impending war.
This are is undoughtedly a hoax or a fake, If it was a battery it would show signs of electrolysis not corrosion, it does not it is also rather pointless without something to apply the power to, a light, motor, a transistor radio. It is probably an early 20th Century hoax or propaganda aimed at the appeasenicks and is to be expected from Saddam really.
However you don't expect this type of sloppyness from the BBC. The article makes the automatic assumption that the West will be bombing museums, and by implication, schools hospitals etc. This is just plainly absurd. The BBC seem to have dropped their usual impartiality and integrity on this whole issue and adopted a pro-appeasenick position.
Oh, I believe in holding individuals accountable for their actions. But, for example, note the huge percentage of elections that were fixed prior to the 1970s; it seems to point to a wider systemic problem of the older U.S. implementations of "democratic republic". I.e., if the public's choice has to use corruption to win, the system is broken, not necessarily just the candidate.
In terms of foreign policy, it's a matter of perception. The U.S. government is perceived as a whole, however skewed that view may be. The U.S. is continuous in history, even if the individual actors are not. So, the system has to take responsibility for its historical actions, even though its current actors may or may not have anything to do with the situation. (We also use this convenience any time we talk about company property, ideas, and actions.)
This is why I think the U.S. government must officially recognize and apologize for its wrongdoings. It doesn't have to be a big "boo hoo" session, just a "we recognize that we've made policy mistakes in the past. Unfortunately, hindsight is 20-20 and we wish we'd done otherwise, as a nation. However, going forward, we intend to treat all people of the world as worthy of humane treatment, human rights and liberties."
This would be in contrast with the current policy which goes so far as to label U.S. citizens as "enemy combatants", subject to trial by rocket, rather than trial by jury.
Thanks for the book recommendation,
-l
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Really, I appreciate all the "batteries of mass destruction" jokes, but isn't there a little bit too much off-topic political commentary floating up to the +5/Insightful (inciteful) level here?
Bah, nobody will read this anyway...
This Like That - fun with words!
> (We also use this convenience any time
) , accidental bombing of the Chinese embassy in Belgrade (http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/kosovo/koso590 .htm).
> we talk about company property, ideas,
> and actions.)
Fair enough, yup, that's true.
> This is why I think the U.S. government
> must officially recognize and apologize
> for its wrongdoings.
I think the U.S. has done this in some situations... i.e., national holidays for Martin Luther King Day, apologies for Japanese internment camps (http://www.factmonster.com/spot/internment1.html
Yours,
tom
The Army reading list
Are you not working towards the same goal here? Wouldnt it make sense, save time, money, American Lives, to let him keep on gassing his own people?
/another/ country. Seems to me like he's got more a right to kill his own people than we do.
If this was the ONLY thing Hussein was doing wrong, your argument would be valid (though still morally horrifying). The fact that he gasses his own people shows that he is willing to use these weapons, and certainly he wouldn't hesitate using them against another nation. I guess I must mention that this makes him a very dangerous person. And as the leader of a nation this makes him a global threat to peace and stability.
We, on the other hand, want to attack
The poster that you're replying to already brought up the argument that we aren't going in there to kill civilians. Yes, it is a sad fact that people die in war. The only place this logic leads is to "we can't fight a war because we don't have the right to kill the opposition's forces". Yeah, some fine logic that is. Again, we're not going in there with the goal of killing people or opposition, rather we are targeting Hussein and the government.
If a bankrobber is holding someone hostage, and is pointing a gun at a croud, and you take him out with a grenade- you have just killed both of them on purpose.
Hahahahahaha!! Is this an argument? OK, I guess I'll take it seriously. Again, war is a messy pursuit and innocents will die, that is a fact. We're not proposing taking a nuke to Iraq and saying, there we go, he's dead. You can't honestly claim that we really intended to kill civilians, what you're arguing is that we know that innocents will die. That's a big difference. We do what we can to avoid killing innocent people, but when a government uses civilians as shields, sometimes that cannot be avoided. Also, sometimes bombs just end up in the wrong place, again, a sad fact of war. That does not make it "on purpose", that makes it an unintended accident.
To clarify the final statement, "This" war is the war on terror, a very different thing from a war on Iraq. [to use an example from a previous comment] It would be like declaring war on Europe, and then attacking France.
Well, frankly we are attacking terror. This is both a war on Iraq and a war on terror. Just because he is attached to terrorism doesn't mean this is the only reason we are going after him. And another thing, that argument is hugely flawed. Let's use a metaphor here... That's like saying, let's go paint my car. With your logic, we can't paint one panel at a time, but rather we have to paint the entire car at the same time. Now let's make this applicable by saying that I'm the one that needs to do this and that I don't have access to a huge automated factory painting booth. The fact is that I cannot paint the entire car all at once, it's just impossible. So, the US attacks terrorism with the help of governments where possible. Where it is not possible we try to coerce them through international pressure, and when that fails we wage war. We don't propose waging war simultaneously on all the nations supporting terrorism, that would overextend our resources. Besides, by attacking one at a time, hopefully that will prove to doubting nations that we are serious. Again, I don't believe this solely a war based on fighting terror, but even if it was your argument seems flawed.
"Sadam is evil" blah, is it Sadam or the entire Iraqi government? Does Sadam even exist? There are reports that say nobody has seen the "real Sadam" in years, publically. He could be dead already.
And Elvis is alive... Didn't Dan Rather just interview Hussein, and didn't Barbara Walters do that not long ago as well (and she had interviewed him earlier, so she would know if he was the real Hussein). Besides, it's widely regarded that the rest of the government is just a puppet and has no real say in what goes on.
Has Sadam really gassed "his own people"? Well, who are "his own people"? Iraqi citizens? What does it take to be an Iraqi? Loyalty to Sadam. Sadam has not gassed his own people, would never gas his own people. No one ever would. He just has a different definition of what his own people are.
So we agree that Iraq is not democratic and kills people that are not loyal to him. So at least we agree on something, and that is that Hussein is bad for a lot of his people. What we don't agree on is how to solve the problem and apparently whether we should care about other human beings living in opression. Perhaps you're not one that likes to stick his neck out to defend a person in need. I guess that's just something we're not going to agree on then. The only thing then to discuss is "what is the real reason for this war", and "should we wait". I think Hussein and UN non-compliance are the reasons for this war with other positives on his removal from power. I think we should not wait any longer, I think we have waited long enough.
Sorry, but the link to resolution 1441 is bad. However you can get there from here, or here (unless I goofed it up yet again...).
Arran Frood investigates what could have been the very first batteries and how these important archaeological and technological artefacts might now be liberated by the impending war in Iraq.
War can liberate more than a people, a country, or a region. Culture, tradition and history also stand to benefit.
Iraq has a rich national heritage. The Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel are said to have been sited in this ancient land.
In any war, there is a chance that priceless treasures will be lost forever, articles such as the "ancient battery" that resides defenceless in the museum of Baghdad. But with the current state of Iraq, they may as well be lost, given the limited access and importance these articles are assigned.
Trust me. This is an inactive account. Regardless of what the
Regarding "the whole government is corrupt". They're also elected. Lots of people question the 2000 election. I don't. But no matter what, you can't deny the will of the people, over time (see 2002). If they are corrupt, then that means that all of America is corrupt. Osamas people are the result of a lifetime of living through propaganda. And even if you think FOXNews is conservative, Americans do NOT live through propaganda. If we bomb Iraq, we are TRYING to minimize civilian casualties. We're spending millions on precision laser-guided weapons in the midst of economic hard times, but Saddam is placing his missile launchers in mosques and schools and hospitals. Again, a world of difference.
- in magical happy-world, don't kill Iraq."
I'm talking real-world.
- In this world, let him kill himself"
Won't happen. (prove it will.) Waiting for him to die won't work either. By all accounts his sons are even more brutal than he. And in the meantime, millions of Iraqis suffer, and he gets nuclear weapons. Next.
kill Iraq, not terror. It's just finishing up a game that's been delayed.
= war
Ninjas. Seriously, they RULE.
I wouldn't be against a targeted assassination. If we could pull it off
Has Sadam really gassed "his own people"? Well, who are "his own people"?
Fine. He's gassed Iraqis -- therefore he is extremely unfit to control Iraq -- so let's take him out.
Now let's talk about Sadam. "Sadam is evil" blah, is it Sadam or the entire Iraqi government? Does Sadam even exist? There are reports that say nobody has seen the "real Sadam" in years, publically. He could be dead already. What reason would a government have to tell its people that their leader, of whom they have several doubles, is dead?
Yes, the allusion I am making is not merely imagined. Unless you are thinking of one I have not thought of, in which case you are wrong.
yes, Saddam is alive. Dan Rather interviewed him last week. If he's not alive, SOMEONE is doing all of this crap, and needs to be stopped
I'm Probably going to reply to the other reply again, so read that when the time is right. Just wanted to say for the moment that my point was that it is unlikely that there is any "someone" who needs to be stopped. Like I said, Sadam has doubles. Our president has doubles too, but not anywhere near the same extent. Our idea of a double is someone who is the same height riding in a limo with tinted windows, Iraq uses facial reconstructive surgery.
I'm just trying to say that it isn't this one guy who's bad. Like I said, we're not trying to fight a country, we're trying to fight an Idea.
[please don't reply to this post, I'm planning on making another one in this thread]
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
I can honestly claim that we intend to kill civilians. I understand that this is just a different way of looking things morally, but since it is something which depends entirely on the person reading it, I know for a fact that I am right and you are wrong. :)
Your painting analogy would be fine if there was a larger panel which was scared shitless that it would be painted, and was able to kill you instantly, and each of the other panels was also afraid that you wanted to paint it too, but all they would be able to do is attack your foot- something they damn well would do if they see the paint coming near.
I have made a reply to another reply to my previous reply, read that one for notes on TV Interviews not meaning diddly.
Now I'm not saying that the government isn't a puppet, but a puppet-body can still have a figurehead on top. The real question is who's pulling the strings. Who influences Sadam? Who makes Sadam angry? If Hitler were killed before WWII, I suspect that it still would have happened.
I'm not the guy who sees a croud of people, pulls the little one out, says "You're all next!" and beats the little guy to a pulp. Even if the croud of people was beating somebody else.
So what do you do instead? Well, you'd call some friends over. Trouble is, when we did that, three people showed up.
And the idea of Americans not being lead by propaganda is laughable. We can't even grab lunch without somebody telling us that somethingoranother is evil.
I don't know about "conservative" or "liberal", so if |/FOX\| news is conservative, I've just never been told. I watch 3 minutes of it and all I get out of it is that |/FOX\| news is evil. But that's from hype, I don't know "conservative" or not.
anyway, got things to do, I'll reply to replies later
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Well, if they're scared shitless it's because they don't understand how our country works. Certainly I understand their position, clearly we are for democracy and that's a threat to a good portion of the world's leaders. The thing is we'll let you be as long as you treat the people OK and don't stomp all over their rights. We'll probably even let you get away with that unless you start bringing other countries into it. Also, I don't think "every" country is afraid of us invading. Come on, I thought you were leaving the hype out of this.
I think it's pretty clear where the orders are coming from, but there's that interpretation thing again... I don't know, the devil? Mabye he has some black ninjas forcing him to do stuff? I think it comes down to the fact that Hussein wants more power, he wants more to rule. As ruthless as he is, I'm sure he has his government setup so that opposing factions provide him the information he needs. I can't see where anyone could significantly influence his thinking. I'm sure he's been influenced by something he's read, probably something religious. It's tough to say without knowing, but sometimes things come together at the right time. Had Hitler been gone and it taken another year for someone like him to arrive, I think things would have been quite different. After all, the main reason he did so well was due to the appalling economic (and moral) condition in Germany at the time. He used that to his advantage.
Come on, I don't beat people up either. I'm just saying if you see someone getting beat down for voicing an opinion or whatever, don't you feel the need to defend them? I'm not saying you beat them to a pulp. And certainly the US isn't going after every other country on the face of the earth. We're just saying if you're going to be threatening the world (eventually those missles will be able to reach us like North Korea's can now, we don't want that...) and fund terrorism while making it clear what you'd like nothing better than to see us gone off the face of the earth, we might just take notice of you. He doesn't comply with the international voice right now, do you really think that will change when he gets more WMD?
We did call some friends over, and I assume this relates to UN Security Council. In that case we probably have 4 with us (Spain, Mexico, Pakistan, and Britain) with 4 clearly against us (France, Germany, China, and Russia) on the action resolution. I doubt a resolution calling for more time would face much better odds. What that means to me is that the countries are quite divided on the issue.
I guess the UN is a propaganda machine as well? Just take a look at the recent Iraq humanitarian violations. If torturing, raping, killing, abducting, threatening, imprisoning, and intimidating ones own people is not "evil", I don't know what is... Let's just have a look a the definition of evil in the webster's dictionary: I'm not sure what you mean about evil hype... I searched for the word evil and got 990 hits on FoxNews and 1880 hits on CNN. I don't know what that means to you, it doesn't mean anything to me. One leans right, one leans left. If you find FoxNews evil and CNN not evil, then I suspect you lean towards the left (as if I haven't gathered that yet anyway). I can be perfectly honest, one leans right, one leans left. Both hype. I personally lean somewhat right, so I read FoxNews. I still don't think I would use the word evil on CNN just because it leans left and hence expresses views contrary to my own.
Insightful and interesting.
:)
I found it to be one of the best comments made so far in this thread.
Ugmo, I think this one should be rated at least a four. But I think everybody ran themselves out of mod points today.
Great comment. (I still can't believe it is only a two. Oh, well at least one mod was on the ball)
Since I cannot do the real thing, please consider this a karma mod. In other words: good post!
Not "every" country is against us, but every country we're planning on painting certainly is. Other countries can be considered to be a different Vehicle, possibly an SUV, parked in the next space.
/next door/ off the _ground_), and you say we should be attacking Iraq "because the longer we wait, the worse it will get"
:D
So North Korea can attack us now, has said they want to attack us, calls us evil 24 hours a day, has a huge army- In short, is a lot more capable and able to attack us than Iraq (which can barely get the type of missile required to get to a country
In North Korea, _it_is_already_worse_. A Lot worse. So why attack the other guy first, leaving our troops in the opposite hemisphere of the most likely places of attack? [I figure your original question has been answered already, so yes, I'm straying from the original guidelines here]
Is there really an excuse to attack Iraq instead of North Korea?
-Both are places we fought with and pulled out of
-Both hate us
-Both are not complying with regulations
-Both have lied about complying
-Both have switched back-and-forth between admitting and not-admitting to non-compliance
-Both want to attack us, and have said they will attack us
-One of them can
There's two reasons I can think of:
The obvious, Oil. The one that I don't mind ignoring completely after this point but still want to say- "Dad said too." And the Immoral and probably[imo] correct one: Human sacrifices for a live training ground.
Sounds a bit barbaric, doesnt it?
As for FOX being evil, I seem to have miscommunicated something. I don't mean that they hype the word evil, I mean that I find them evil, due to their hype. I don't watch either of them, usually, but when someone calls out "Hey, Columbia just exploded!", I'd rather flip to the channel that doesnt feature a flaming logo of the top story and then tries to bully the responces they want out of the people they're interviewing.[no, I can't provide examples, just calling it like I see it. Probably an opinion, but they seem evil.]
Fucking!
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Whether we go in now to Iraq, we go in later, somebody else goes in later, Saddam does it himself, he attacks someone or there is internal civil war it does not make any difference. These things are all threatened until a democratic government and civil society occur in Iraq that cares about history, preserving culture, preserving life, developing a future. The current government is a threat now and in the future and all the US can do is get it over with and give the Iraqis some peace from the 12 years of immoral containment and 30 years of dictatorship.
An american wouldn't flee huis home? Please! What you call America (the USA) was _founded_ by people who (for many different reasosn) fled their homes. Stop talking crap.
And about me being a coward, It's kinda hard to "stay home and fix it" whan you are 2 y.o. you sorry dumbass.
If you don't come up with better arguments next time I will not even bother answering...
Cheers!..
$HOME is where the
-- silver_p
And wasnt the US who threatened Mexico (a non-permanent member of the Security Council) with severe economic sanctions and to forever tie-up in the US congress a visa waiver program for temporary mexican workers in the US?
Even though a visa waiver program would bring much needed dollars to mexican small towns all over the country, the whole of the country is firmly against the war and President Vicente Fox has stated that, despite the promises (and later threats) received from Bush and Spanish president Aznar, he will uphold our constitution which prohibits the country to engage in offensive war (as opposed to defending one's country), and also prohibits us from condoning other country's invasions.
No sig for the moment.