Slashdot Mirror
Updates on War in Iraq
New Developments on the war in Iraq:
Oil Fields ablaze in southern Iraq.
Turkey opens airspace to U.S..
US Forces 3rd Infantry Fire Heavy Artillery at Southern Iraq.
The schedule has been accelerated due to infrastructure destruction.
CT: Explosions and heavy anti aircraft fire heard in Baghdad.
We'll continue to update as new information warrants.
Serious question: where are y'all getting your info on the war? I'm talking in depth stuff like tactics, maps. Not just the CNN bs, but real stuff like great terrain maps and discussions of the weaponry.
"If I could live to be several hundred
I could take a walk and really wander, really wonder."
Hmmm, interesting how the oil gets mentioned, wouldnt put it above some corporations to use war as an excuse to up prices! They've been stockpiling for years and this war isnt about oil .. is it?
Why is it that 200 years after the founding of the (admittedly flawed but still admirably fair) American democracy, billions of people around the world are still ruled by dictators who would rather destroy the country than give up their power?
said during the interview with Dan Rather that he will NOT set the wells on fire and I believed him. My trust in Saddam is now shattered. Going to see my shrink.
Tarek
Sitting here at work, I must say that the only thing I really wish I could get would be a live cable feed of some of the news conferences.
All the opinions, perspectives, and breaking news information I could ever want is available online, with the help of places like Slashdot, Fark.com, and of course... Matt Drudge.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
As a US citizen having spent the last 12 months outside the US, I can personally vouch for the fact that public opinion for the US has spiraled downwards recently. While I can see some justification for a conflict in Iraq, at what cost will it come?
Have you seen my stapler?
Anyone who ever buys oil. Anyone in Turkey. Anyone with a loved one in the United States 3rd Infantry. Anyone in the United States. Anyone in the Middle East. Anyone in France. Just about anyone.
why? with comments about being dictator or "who cares what you think", it should be no surprise.
I was against this before, but now its too late for that talk. I just hope they hit them hard, hit them fast and get Saddam out of there so we can come back home with as few killed as possible. Pray for the troops
Don't forget that Saddam's troups are launching Scud missles that the UN promissed us he didn't have.
The UN has discredited itself. Hans Blix is a tool.
As if I wasn't getting enough of a bombardment of this news, now I have to read about it when I want my geek fix??? I'd like to smack whoever posted this with a large herring.
Don't you think that Slashdot readers are intelligent enough to surf over to CNN or the BBC or (insert news site here?) These sites have all of the latest updates that anybody could want. What can Slashdot possibly contribute to this other than posting an article that is going to result in a whole lot of political flaming?
Just curious.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Even though half my students are against the war and the other half are for, they all are interested, involved, and informed. I've been grilled by my students with better questions than I have been by adults. There's a healthy population of students who want to protest the war, and a healthy bunch who see this war as something really important. Logarithms, exponentials? No, today, my students showed me that they can care about something, and I have nothing but confidence that some day my students will be critical thinking adults that make a difference in this country.
May free speech continue to live, in spite of the attempts of the far right to silence it, and the far left to exploit it.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
What does it have to do with the normal Slashdot faire? Nada. There are other forums available for everyone to discuss their own hidden agendas. Let's try to stick to slashdottish topics please.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Does anyone else think it looks really bad to rush in because Iraq is destroying its oil wells? Bush is trying to tell everyone this isn't about oil, so doesn't that undermine this?
Don't get me wrong, I know everyone knows it's about oil, but they're not even being consistent in their bullshit.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem
CNN was reporting earlier that Iraq has fired al Samoud missles at American forces and that Patriots were fired in an attempt to take them down. A total of four al Samoud missles were fired and Patriots were launched in response to two of them. During the Gulf War I remember many experts citing the poor accuracy of the Patriot. I am concerned that it is a continuing trend in Gulf War II - it took three Patriots to take down one missle. : \
Well regaurdless at least we have some big old Oceans between us and anyone we really could care about.
I oftern wonder if our stance would be different if we were part of Europe, or if England was originally part of North America and we had fled to what is now Europe.
Are we isolationists due to geography?
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Oil Fields ablaze in southern Iraq
A well is just one pump/tower combo. It is several of these that are burning. A field is a whole darn field full of the things. Several of these are NOT what has caught fire, which will be a major mess when (if) they do.
Why does this remind me of the Soviet Union when they came to "help" their neighbour states?
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
MSNBC has been doing live web broadcasts all morning. The link to these broadcasts can be found at the very top of the MSNBC page in a scrolling text block. I think CNN and FoxNews also both have live web broadcasts.
Of course, news.google.com is also a great source for up to the minute breaking news.
Let he who desires peace prepare for war... God protect our troops; God save the Queen; God save the president
They have to provide them with the weapons first. Next Stop, Afghanistan, to liberate it from the freedom fighters that tey gave the weapons to oust the Taliban to.
Some people seem to be indicating that they think Bush was after the Short, Victorious War. Over the ages many politicians, like Theodore Roosevelt, have indicated that this is a sure way to boost the economy and boost the flagging spirits of a country with nothing to do.
Maybe there is some of the Short, Victorious War thinking that lead to our current situation. Perhaps the politics of succeeding where his father had failed was motivation enough to lead a country to this point.
But I don't care, do you know why? Because the Son of a Bitch has it coming. I long ago gave up needing a reason to feel that Saddam Hussein had to be "removed" from the world scope.
If there was a shred of diplomacy, decency, reality or reasonability in the man, he would have, at one point in the past 12 years, delt fairly with the United Nations. How much rope do you give to someone, before you hang them with that rope?
Nah, screw it...it was time for War.
Craenor - Gulf War Veteran
Call me crazy, but no matter how real it is, I still can't "wait to see what happens next!" Gotta love the American mentality.
suck my ping!
I can't say it's one of my favorites, but it's certainly a different perspective.
Personally, I have opposed this war for a long time. I agree absolutely with the Bush administration that Hussein is a terrible dictator, but I have a hard time grasping why we are not dealing with a fundamentally more dangerous situation in North Korea, or why we are at this very moment "allied" with a military government in Pakistan, a Monarchy which is only nominally friendly in Saudi Arabia (interesting note: about half of all Americans believe most of the September 11th hijackers were Iraqi, not Saudi). Anyway, I believe that supporting bad governments for short-term gain is only going to wind up hurting us in the long run (as it did with our support of Hussein in the 1980s).
Furthermore, it is impossible to declare war on one man. If we could truly only direct our action against Hussein and his thugs, this would be an entirely different matter. The fact is, though, that the Iraqi people, as well as the American and allied troops, are going to suffer terrible losses in this war. War is always hell, no matter what the reason, and if a war can be averted, and the noble goals of disarmament and democratization achieved through peaceful means, then the path of diplomacy, however difficult, should be pursued.
That said, it is now entirely apparant that we are at war. I, like the vast majority of anti-war Americans, support our troops. I am grateful that my country has so many brave young men and women who are willing to endure the horrors of combat for their country. I pray that their lives and the lives of the Iraqi people are spared. I still, however, disagree with my president's decision. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, it is even more important for the people of America to scrutinize their leader's actions of time of war than in time of peace. I hope for the best possible outcome to be salvaged from this conflict, but I am deeply saddened that it came to this.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
How do you post something with a large herring?
The slogan "Stuff that matters" should apply, and if you don't think that the future of the world matters, then why do you choose to continue living?
I can't wait until the war is over to see the French doing their tap dance. For those who think the French, Germans, and Russians are really concerned with peace when they blast their 'no war' rhetoric, think again. They are trying their best to keep the US out of Iraq so we won't find all the French weapons and nuclear equipment. Who do you think built the Nuclear Reactor for Iraq in the 80's? The French. It's no secret that they knew it was for weapons building purposes. Now they are sh*tting bricks waiting for the US to liberate Iraq and in the process, find all the illegal technology sold to them by the lovely French.
Quote:
Granted, it's too early to be so optimistic, but surely the lack of any battlefield coordination in Iraq after an attempted hit on Hussein is a bigger story than the 4 oil wells that are on fire.
I hope the UK hasn't sent their policemen - they don't carry guns. Now, they might be very effective with those stubby little truncheons, but even Iraqi tanks will be too much for them.
Actually, prayer has no documented effect, so it's _literally_ the least you can do.
Go figure.
The reason you keep hearing this, is that this country is still ashamed at its treatment of Vietnam War veterans. A lot of people still think of war protesters as hippies who scream accusations of "Baby killer!" at veterans.
Everyone wants to make sure that no matter how much you disagree with the politics of the administration or the military as a whole, you never turn your anger on the individual solders, sailors, airmen and marines who are out there doing their jobs.
Here's a how-to to get RealVideo going on a linux box.
The free version is known as "RealSystem Server Basic" and supports up to 25 simultaneous users and is licensed for 12 months.
Have fun.
Look quick, before it's slashdotted!
Regarding the Iraqi oil fields, a senior Bush administration official said, "We wants it, we needs it. Must have the precious. They stole it from us."
In news stories, why is the leader of Iraq so often named just by his first name -- Saddam? I've yet to see a story in which the president is referred to as George.
Personally, I no longer know where I stand on this war. I firmly believe that Hussein is a monster, but I also believe that we (the US) made him.
Somewhere I saw a comic that said basically:
Reporter: How do you know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction?
Senator: Because we kept the receipts.
I think somebody else posted this link earlier:
http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
I hate to rain on your parade, but Iraq war news is not "news for geeks". It is news for armchair generals. If you want war news then tune in to CNN, or anything else for that matter. Check out the Drudge Report if you want constant updates. I come to /. to get away from the constant drone of war news, not to get more of the same
Personally I don't have any intrest in seeing war coverage on /. I don't go to CNN.COM for computer news and I don't come here for war news.
People want power. People will lie and steal and murder to get and keep power. Even Americans. And not everyone agrees that the US system is the best.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
CNN reported this morning that there is concern that Iraq knew our F-117 Stealths were coming and started anti-aircraft fire. This is a huge concern, as they are supposed to be undetectable (a.k.a. "stealthy").
If this is true, there is no way the technology to detect our stealths was developed in Iraq. It begs the question: did one of the countries that opposes the war pass this advanced technology, obviously developed since the 1991 Gulf War, to Iraq as an underhanded way of flipping the bird to the US and Bush?
shutup you communist
... and let slip the dogs of war!
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
when we already know that US has 100% chance to win? During the "war" in 1991, we used to make jokes about how pathetic the whole ordeal was. Nowadays the US has an even bigger upper hand in the matter, what with all the new technology and weapons we've perfected during the past decade.
But although victory conditions are basically assured for US, the long term effects are probably going to come and bite us in the ass. Already many arabs are displeased with our initiative, and we haven't even killed (many) civilians yet. If (or should I say when) Bush decides that it's "hammer time", then the arabs will truly have something to be pissed about, and we'll see the long term effects of that in more terrorist acts on US soil.
The truth of the matter is, until the US stops supporting Israel, there will be terrorist acts directed towards us. You can't ally yourself with a bully and expect the rest of the schoolyard to be your friend.
Amen, brother! How about the New IIS sploit?
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
To detect stealth, all you need to do is have some guy posed as reporter sitting at the airport that houses the stealths and to call up Saddam when you see the planes take off. Or you could watch CNN, they were reporting when the b-52 were taking off from england.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
But it's Government regulations that made the SUV craze in the first place.
Americans like big comfortable cars. People from other countries may find this strange, but the USA is a big country and outside of NYC, public transportation is not that good or popular.
CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Effieciency) standards did away with most large comfortable cars. They were too fuel ineffiecient. However, SUV's are considered Light Trucks, which have much more lenient CAFE standards. To summarize, a station wagon (car) that gets 20 mpg would be worse under CAFE than an SUV that gets 15 mpg.
"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
----------
Samuel P. Huntington
You say you want a revolution....
What the fuck is an mpa file?
If the New World Order doesn't come in plain ASCII or HTML, count me out.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Did the U.S. Set Fire to Kuwait's Oil Fields?
A popular radio program heard worldwide claims to have proof that the United States, working under the auspices of the United Nations, was responsible for igniting the massive oil field fires in Kuwait at the close of the first Iraqi war. The controversial talk show team of Joyce Riley and Dave VonKleist host the Missouri-based program "The Power Hour" which is carried mostly by independent and "patriot" radio stations. The program boasts an audience of several million listeners.
The duo has provided a transcript of an interview recently conducted with a Gulf War veteran who alleges that he participated in the covert detonation campaign of Kuwaiti oil wells, crafted to implicate Iraq, in order to "remove any doubts that Saddam Hussein and his regime were a terrible evil that had to be dealt with." This mission was allegedly necessary because "there was concern that America... might see this conflict as an unnecessary thing."
The talk show hosts, who gained notoriety for championing causes supporting Gulf War veterans, assert that this interview is bolstered by other independent testimonials they have received. "The information provided over a series of meetings with this veteran corroborates the reports from other veterans who are totally unconnected with this individual," the duo states in their press release.
...for being the self-sacrificial, benevolent, unbiased and wholeheartedly concerned neighbor who clearly stands to gain nothing significant from this deal... After US leaves Iraq, I'm sure the goodness of their hearts will compell them to step in and aid in "political restoration." Turkey, the Iraqi's friend...
Kinda OT from the above, but does anyone else notice how a large number of Americans think it's ok to set sovereign countries on fire from the air, yet as soon as a soldier overseas gets so much as athlete's foot, we all freak? And for no apparent reason, save for the "will of the Almighty" (Dubya-2003).
Right or wrong from their vantage point they are being attacked, so feigning indignation when they responds in a predictab way is kind of folly.
Help fight continental drift.
How do you set light to an oil well? I mean, do you just walk up to it with a match or what?
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
I would like to see efforts being made to donate food, water, clothing and basic necessities of life to the Palestineans, forced into refugee camps by the very same IDF that you want fucking pizza given to like a bunch of kids who just won their Little League baseball game.
Tool.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
Could someone please explain to Mr Bush that he is in Washington ruling a super power state and not in Hollywood making movies.
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
Turkey just approved entrance of their own forces into the northern areas of Iraq to secure their southern flank against possible insurgents. If the Kurds and Turks start going at it we're obligated to help the Turks even though the Kurds are our key to holding Northern Iraq. We gave weapons to both Turks and Kurds and now we have to try to diffuse that front while conquering the southern front. I have to wonder if Turkey did not allow US troops into their country because they had intended to invade northern Iraq all along, with or without US permission. Syria and Jordon have already expressed conern about the possibility of "resurrection of the Ottoman Empire" and are rattling sabers about military action if they don't back off. We have a new problem...or two...or three...
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
To those who think this war is about oil, answer this question:
If the all the U.S. wanted was Iraqi oil, why didn't we just buy it from Saddam. He's was willing to sell it to anyone who would buy and would be a hell of a lot cheaper than a war.
Something amusing I just overheard, and thought I'd post before all the flamage sets in here:
;-)
Two grad student TA's complaining that they need to grade a stack of midterms by themselves because the other TA has bravely walked out on grading to protest the war.
The stealth aircraft are (nearly) undetectable to radar by their very nature -- they are designed to absorb and scatter as much radar energy as possible, down to the paint used to make them black. In fact, the paint plays such an important role in the aircraft's stealth qualities, that they must be repainted whenever they've been exposed to rain.
Even if someone has given stealth technology to Iraq, that won't enable them to detect stealth aircraft. It'll just let them build stealth aircraft of their own. Which is fairly useless to them, in their current financial and strategic situation.
Remember sept 11th -- just about every news site was down, but slashdot kept right on humming.
I understand the thought you're expressing, but it's entirely possible that by tonight nothing else will be functional (we have just now started the shock-and-awe part of the war, according to CNN, MSNBC, etc)
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
for those interested 911 The Road To Tyranny infowars.com vcd disk1.mpg 911 The Road To Tyranny infowars.com vcd disk2.mpg
Who do you think built the Nuclear Reactor for Iraq in the 80's? The French.
And who do you think gave Iraq VX ? The US.
Heh, the Isreali people are like the white people of South Africa, their day of moral reckoning will come.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
i love when people say that it's great. hey do you really think that the US government would provide known terrorists with weapons? they gave them weapons so they could defend them selves against russia you dolt. why don't you go jump on some other bandwagon and show some respect for our leaders.
Seriously though, the military checks journalist credentials and assigns "minders" almost like Hussein does in Iraq to prevent this kind of stuff from happening.
I think there's something more to it, and the stealth technology has been cracked.
Wonder if there was a distributed computing project setup that figured it out?! That would be much cooler than cracking the XBox encryption key...
Somehow i'm thinking the whole "Stuff that matters" part applies, as a war does effect everyone like it or not. Also, who says nerds don't want the occasional update on it, with some hopefully semi inteligent conversation/debate about how its going, and what people think.
OK, I just thought that was his third forename, I'll call him by his second then: Herbert
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
Oh, but Saddam was taking care of that for us. Dropping $50K to every family of a suicide bomber.
Or, how about the other arab countries allow immigration of Palestinian refugees?
Stick it, bozo.
you're next!
I ran across this blog from a resident of Baghdad. Apparently, music websites aren't scragged by Iraqi security. It's not media coverage, but it gives a certain perspective you won't find in the media.
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
I worry that I might be perhaps causing trouble for the guy, but I figure if he put it on the web he wants people to see it.
I found this speech to be very moving. I just hope the US troops are getting the same advice as the Brits. Somehow I doubt it.
-----------
UK troops told: Be just and strong
British troops waiting to attack Iraq have been told to behave like liberators rather than conquerors. But they have also been warned some of them may not return from Iraq alive. Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins gave the battlegroup of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish the pep talk as the US deadline for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq or face action ticked away.
Reporters said the men listened in silence to the address at Fort Blair Mayne desert camp, 20 miles from the Iraqi border.
"We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country," he said.
"We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.
"There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
"As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.
"Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there.
"You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.
"You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.
"Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.
"If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.
"Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves."
To his 800 men - an arm of the 16 Air Assault Brigade - he said: "It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.
"We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow.
"The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.
"There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.
"He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity."
He said: "It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly.
"I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.
"If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
"The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please."
He warned the troops not to get carried away in the heat of battle.
"If you harm the regiment or its history by over enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.
"You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation."
Warning that the troops were very likely to face chemical or biological weapons, he said: "It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack."
His closing words were resolute: "As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there. Our business now is north."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2866581.stm
When violence rules the world outside / And the headlines make me want to cry / It's not the time to just keep quiet
...after looking at CNN's 3D models of tanks, planes and rockets.. I have the insight that this war is good and couldn't be avoided...
Really, lookin' at those made me kind of horny!
Good entertainment!!!
Does anyone know where I can get a job in Europe? I would like to "boycott the USA" but I am stuck here...
Java developer for hire... Europe or Canada preferred.
We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy.
Those words were uttered by Supreme Court Justice Robert L. Jackson, the U.S. representative to the International Conference on Military Trials in Nuremberg at the close of World War II. But what did he know? That was in 1945, when everyone was complacent and comfortable. After 9/11, "everything is different" or something. A logical foreign policy is apparently a luxury we can no longer afford.
Ummm, How bout this: A bomb dropped from the sky, they started shooting. Not a whole lot of technology involved there, but hell, why the fuck not? Let's blame China! Bomb them next!
By THE JERUSALEM POST INTERNET STAFF
A Palestinian man from the West Bank city of Jenin was said to have been killed in the US missile strikes on Baghdad early Thursday morning.
The family of Ahmed Raed Elbaz received a phone call from relatives in the Iraqi capital to say that Elbaz had been killed in the bombardment that targeted Iraqi leaders.
The family set up a mourning tent and said that Elbaz was a bus driver in Baghdad.
Both Iraq and the International Red Cross said that one civilian had been killed and 14 wounded in the air strikes.
Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!
Anyone else tired of continous "LIVE" coverage of, well nothing? I was home at lunch and they were showing a night vision cam on CNN, just in case something happens at that particular second. Lots of talking heads with really nothing to say, just the same old crap over and over, and then one missile lands and they are all over that.
I think I'm going to resolve to sticking with the 6:00pm news for the most part...get a nice overview with the days events and move on, or possibly look for more info if something has happened.
Sigh. They probably weren't Scuds. Iraq has the right to keep missiles with less than 100km range under the UN resolutions. Plus they had about 75 al-Samaud 2 missles left that were to be destroyed under inspection.
Yah wanna know how you can tell between a 100km range missile falling down on you versus a 50km one? You don't. You run for shelter.
"I may be Love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."
Hey, someone is speaking sense at last :)
Yeah, he has lots of cred left.
1.) They show us respect in return and stop treating everyone like suspects (DMCA, Patriot act, etc).
Or
2.) When I go into boot camp and my opinion on this issue no longer matters.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
>Anti-aircraft going off above Saddam Hussein ;)
>International Airport now. (At least in the US we
>wait until after a president is out of office or
>dead before we name public places for him, e.g.
>Reagan National Airport in DC.)
Should be "Saddam Hussein International Terminal" - makes a nicer acronym. *g*
>CNN reported this morning that there is concern
>that Iraq knew our F-117 Stealths were coming and
>started anti-aircraft fire. This is a huge
>concern, as they are supposed to be undetectable
>(a.k.a. "stealthy").
!!!
>If this is true, there is no way the technology
>to detect our stealths was developed in Iraq. It
>begs the question: did one of the countries that
>opposes the war pass this advanced technology,
>obviously developed since the 1991 Gulf War, to
>Iraq as an underhanded way of flipping the bird
>to the US and Bush?
Could very well be...
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
That's what I would do if someone were attacking me for my oil. It's the country's oil. Not ours.
Unless you work in Iraq, Shut the fuck up you small-dicked I'll measure my importance by my country's military, never done a fucking good thing in my life, nitwitted fuckwitted I'll kick you in the box and use you as a waterski, dickless motherfucker. I don't see you in any war!
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=382 8
There's a picture of both Optimus Primes (Optimii Prime?) on the site.
National guardman changed his name to a toy
CUYAHOGA FALLS -- A member of Ohio's 5694th National Guard Unit in Mansfield legally changed his name to a Transformers toy.
Optimus Prime is heading out to the Middle East with his guard unit on Wednesday to provide fire protection for airfields under combat.
"On Sunday, we were awarded as the best firefighting unit in the Army National Guard in the entire country," said Prime. "That was a big moment for us."
Prime took his name from the leader of the Autobots Transformers, which were popular toys and a children's cartoon in the 1980s.
He legally changed his name on his 30th birthday and now it's on everything from his driver's licence, to his military ID, to his uniform.
"They razzed me for three months to no end," said Prime. "They really dug into me about it."
"I got a letter from a general at the Pentagon when the name change went through and he says it was great to have the employ of the commander of the Autobots in the National Guard."
Prime says the toy actually filled a void in his life when it came out.
"My dad passed away the year before and I didn't have anybody really around, so I really latched onto him when i was a kid," he said.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
I saw on another report that it was "more than 100 artillery rounds." 100 rounds is about a battalion 6, so it's 18 howitzers * 6 rounds. This could theoretically take 1 minute, probably two or three minutes.
Now, just about anything with MLRS (rockets and missles) counts as heavy, but I haven't seen much about this.
Some Confusing or Loaded Words and Phrases that are Worth Avoiding
If you can read this, thank an english teacher.
Cynthia, once the cutest little commie in Congress, got a section of GA-10 named after herself.
She was voted out of office soon afterwards.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Its the French, obviously (I think they mentionned that on Fox)
and
So is Rumsfeld lying?
Considering the amount of money the US is spedning on this war, the fireworks had BETTER be mroe impressive than anything Hollywood can do on a much smaller budget.
:-)
Since it's happening, I might as well get entertained
This may imply an understanding of the stealth technology -- more than you can see on the History Channel special a couple months ago -- but it may be dumb luck, too.
We did lose an F-117 early on in Kosovo. Any chance the recovery helicopters arrived a little too late and something was reclaimed and passed to the Russians, black market, etc.?
Looks like MSNBC has the same proofreaders as Slashdot...
It seems to me that there's a huge, gaping black hole in the discussion of this war. According to the Poll du Jour, we have the choices of:
A) being all for the war, supporting the president and the troops 100%, and let's nuke Iraq 'till it glows!
or
B) War is bad. Always Bad. Never go to war. NEVER. Anybody who goes to war (i.e. members of the military) is a murder.
Unfortunately, back here in reality-land, it's not so simple....and I've heard from several personal sources, that the people who are over in the Middle East right now are being told that the Anti-war protests are against them. Personally. That's a problem!
About 10 days ago, a group of military families formed in Suburban Chicago to support each other and to remind their loved ones overseas that while many of us do not support or endorse the politics behind this war, we DO love and support the soldiers whose job it is to go fight it. Being the techy I am, I of course felt the need to help this group get online...if anyone is interested in joining this growing online community, and expressing your support, you can visit www.family-vigil.org.
And I'll brace for the /.-ing...be kind to my little server!
Amen, brother.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Dont be stupid. When you sanction US, you are sanctioning yourself in effect. As for Bush, he has over 65% support. I'd say thats a majority. :)
As for this war, I am for it. One step at a time to make sure that nether I or my family have to be involved in anything like 9/11 again. (My father and I have worked in WTC, it was a great place to be.) Its easy to be anti-war when you and your family is safe and dont live in fear of another 9/11.
I still live in NYC and not planning to leave. Its still a great city to live in!
Peace :)
Free speech is getting expensive...
The US is very pragmatic. They would do it if they thought it would help out in the big picture (or sadly, at least in the short-term).
Everybody has known for a long time that Hussein is bad news. The US supported Hussein before and after he gassed the Kurds.
In fact the US has acted like a terrorist state itself. See Nicaragua.
No, you misunderstood what Saddam said. He meant that he wouldn't set fire to the wells personally !
;-)
I understand it now...
This is just like when Bill Clinton said he did not have "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky.
It was the cigar that had the sexual relations, not Bill.
You could argue that this is "Stuff that matters", aside from the already mentioned fact that the other sites will probably not take the pounding like slashdot will (like, say, the Washington Post Dispatch Page, which is already slowing down)
I'll see your herring and raise you a swordfish in #twoweapon combat.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
If you keep up with the technical Radar news, it is possible to detect stealth aircraft by looking at the radio noise they generate from huge networks.
It is possible to use cell phone towers/networks to find Stealth aircraft. It's not easy, but it is possible.
Sorry, dipshit, you just did. Effect on the war: goose egg. Effect on "business as usual": nil. (I telecommute, haha!)
sulli
RTFJ.
They did shoot one down once, I think. Perhaps they found a wavelength that the stealth fails at? If I were them I would have spent a lot of time trying different things on any captured F117 remains.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Send your request to Jordan, Syria and Egypt.
If you do not know the significance of that statement you do not need to comment on anything within this topic.
While you are at it, try convincing these so-called "palestinians" to accept improvements by Israel to the refugee camps under Israeli control.
Once that is complete, maybe you can convince them to spend their UN money on some of their own infrastructure, rather than using it for rockets and homocide bombers.
I'm guessing the cruise missiles they launched along with it. Cruise Missiles are detectable by radar and that may have started the AAA barrage.
Hans Blix is a tool.
A troll based on misinformation? THIS is scored as a 4?!
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
Might makes right.
Think about this...when I hear that the first order of priority in Iraq is to "secure the oilfields," this carries with it some fairly damning connotations with respect to motives. I've always wondered about an inherent conflict of interest that lies with someone serving as the Commander in Chief of the US armed forces, while also having such a heavy investment in a specific commercial sector that is heavily reliant upon the very same kinds of resources that lie beneath Iraq's soil.
While charges of Saddam's dictatorial reign may very well be true, the fact that Mr. B may not like it does not endow the US with the right to interfere with Iraq's own sovreignty. "Weapons of mass destruction" is a nice buzz phrase that is, so far, more hype than reality. Most of what's happening now, I'm tempted to believe, is to give the impression that something is being done, for some reason, though niether are abundantly clear. I'm not sure we'll actually know the answer to this until well after the conflict is over, and the appropriate spin has been carefully crafted by highly-paid media consultants.
Hey, someone is speaking sense at last ... and instantly it get's modded Flamebait
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
>> Economic sanctions to anyone that bypass UN resolutions
The last resolution set a deadline by which Iraq was to prove it had disarmed and dismantled its nuclear, chemical and biological programs. It authorized the use of force if they hadnt.
What US and Britian didn't do was go and ask for another resolution that says its OK to act on the first resolution.
And its a good thing too, because then they'd need a third resolution saying that the second resolution to enfoce the first resolution should be enfoced. And a fourth resolution, and a fifth, and so on ad nauseum.
The UN is a spineless, ineffective orginization. They have a charter of human rights and freedoms, yet rarely enforce it. They enforce nothing. What have they ever done?
I know you're a troll and an idiot. Boycott the USA all you want. That's where money comes from. Noone will notice the $4 a year you make in whatever country you live in.
As the world power, the USA has a responsibility to maintain order in the world.
In Bosnia. Why? Not because of radar, but because they got lucky with AA fire.
:p
One loss in how many bombing runs isn't that shabby for a weapon of war. It's a moot point, actually.
The Iraqis are just covering the air with AA fire, hoping that they hit something. There was a large bit o' outrage about our 'invincible' weapon being shot down back in Bosnia - Iraq's probably hoping for that to happen here, too.
Tip to military commanders: Never let the politicians insist you are undefeatable, otherwise, when your inevitable defeat happens, everyone gets whiny on your ass.
in other news...Iraqi forces have agreed to lie down and play dead if US forces agree to switch to Nurf Bombs.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Except that September 11 never happens.
Now fast forward to March, 2003.
To all you self-righteous americans who claim they're "ashamed" of being american, and to all others who think this is an agression against your beliefs or your comfortable position in the world pecking order - I say this: too fucking bad.
If the security of the United States depends on taking out Saddam Hussein, along with a few thousands of his soldiers and (regrettably) a few thousands of Iraqi civilians, too bad. Too fucking bad.
This war is not about oil, about momey or about anything else than security. If you can't see that... well, too bad. Too fucking bad.
You must be French. The real reason for the attack on Iraq, is that he has or is working on weapons of mass destruction and has worked on hiding them for the past 12 years. As for dated proof, the public would not and should not be given that information due to the fact that if there is a confilict (which there is now) he would not know that we have those sites targeted. The fact that he has them is not the threat. The fact that he may be willing to sell them is. The Presidents stance is that to protect the intrests of this country and safety of its citezens, pre-emptive action must be taken. Maybe if you had some religous zealots attack your country, your leaders would feel the same way. Apparently you must be reading to much French propoganda.
Take a look at the number of replies on this story and then see if the "Stuff that matters" part is satisfied.
If you want the occassional update, go to Google news, or other news sites. As for intelligent discussion, you must not be on Slashdot a lot :-).
Its not a war. The last declaration of war by the United States occurred December 8th, 1941.
It is a conflict!! The media is fixated on using the word "war".
The new US war on Iraq has begun: arguably the greatest moral tragedy of a generation, an unprecedented failure of diplomacy and international order, and a profound crime against the principles of democracy. Tens of thousands of people may lose their lives as a result of US attacks. Hardly any of them will be Americans; most of them will be civilians. They will add to the already huge death toll of Iraqis killed by a decade of sanctions and years of missile attacks raining down from American planes patrolling the no-fly zones with ever-expanding target lists and rules of engagement." People in many areas of the world - perhaps especially in the Occupied Territories, but also in Europe and North America have new reasons to fear terrorism, as a result of this great act of American aggression. The Bush administration pushed relentlessly towards this war with a long series of incredible lies about virtually every aspect of the current conflict--US intentions, international law, weapons inspections, Iraq's likely military status and the amount of international support for Bush administration aims. Applauded by American corporate interests and cheered on by media institutions, the Bush administrations unilateral drive to war has been actively opposed by most of the worlds people, governments and international institutions. Nobody on Earth will wake up safer tomorrow than they did today.
b bc.co.uk/
Whant to be informed? CNN?? hahahaha
http://www.indymedia.org/
http://news.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/
I read on slate warblog that Iraq is expected to take them hostage any time soon. I am sure this is going to be a pain in the ass for US.
Was his mouth moving ?
Was he squinting into the back of the room kind of twisting his face looking as if you caught a bad actor practicing a fantasy role into the mirror in the bathroom ?
I hope Mr. Hussein will weasels out of there.
Bin Laden had no problem weaseling out of there.
Another failure looming for the bushists.
CNN/Baghdad
CNN, besides going downhill after Turner stopped running the show, has managed to prove once more that it is the network for global news. Nick Robertson deserves the "large sack of the year award" for staying in Bagdad.
It turns out stealth airplanes are not that steakthy really. After the gulf war the pentagion admitted that iraq's chinese made radars could detect them, but there was not enough accuracy for their missles to lock on to them.
But then again once you have the general location you can always have your AAA gunners shoot there, and hope you get lucky.
I read in some articles, that the Ukraine may have smuggled a more modern radar into Iraq, which detects stealth planes. The fact that the ukraine even has such radar (their military R&D essentially stopped since they split from the soviet union) if true shows that those planes are not that stealthy after all, and can be detected with old soviet radar technology. But of course one does not know if that is true.
Give them power to keep on dancing!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2866547.stm
The link above, contains logs from BBC journalists that you can follow while they are walking with the troops, and in the cities.
This is
Are you being sarcastic or what? IMHO, there is a good possibility that the Turks kept the U.S. troops out because they are more concerned with keeping the Kurds down in their own country, and discouraging any uprising to unite with Iraqi Kurds.
The Kurds are a substantial minority in Turkey, and have long been oppressed there. Kurds are discouraged/prevented from speaking their own language and expressing their own culture, for fear that they might get the notion of breaking away from Turkey to form their own country. Therefore, there's a strong motivation on the part of the Turks to be able to protect their border and prevent any Kurdish uprising. They might even make an incursion into northern Iraq to assure there's no "trouble". I am sure they didn't want the Americans around kludging things up.
Don't get me wrong, I don't like us being at war with Iraq. But I think the motivations of a lot of countries to be part of the "coalition of the one, er, willing", is self-interest, and not the enlightened kind either.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
we're also somewhat acting like a terrorist state now. not that i'm against the attacks but critics would say that certainly. only because the state has elected to use military force without direct imediate threat. but it's something that has to be done, thankfully we don't have gore because who knows what would have happened.
1- What is 'his' definition of 'Rogue State'?
...come on, you can find a reason.
2- What is the mechanism in the US constitution to turn down an insane President? Would it be the case.
It seems more dangerous to 'flirt' with a yound lady (Uhm...) than to bomb foreign cities. Is it what is called 'Democracy-liberty-...'?
3- Why didn't he attack Mexico? It would have been more easy, it is not so far. There surely are a lot of reasons doing so.
One should wonder if this "war" will really be over if Saddam is killed.
Hey, not only did you apparently "have to read it," but something compelled you to COMMENT on it as well. Wow! You should really look into getting your computer fixed, it's begun to eat away at your free will, and that sounds serious...
Man, if MY computer made me read and comment on every story posted on SlashDot, I'd never get any work done! You must have a pretty cushy job!
The poster is obviously a terroristic anti-american who will be shortly interned on the terrorist island of cuba.
He's no Texan, pal. George HW Bush bought a ranch in Texas, but the Bush family is really your standard New England whitebread, not too different from the Kennedys...
Dubya, despite his accent, ain't much of a real Texan. What real Texan would skip out on Vietnam, then skip out on National Guard duty? It ain't right, amigo...it ain't right.
How do you post with a large herring anyway? Was the herring looking over CmdrTaco's shoulder? Was the herring dead and with CmdrTaco, who was about to eat it? I just don't get it!
Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
Try keeping up on the issues of identity theft among the "alleged" terrorists. Google it. Christ.
I view this comment just like people complaining about case mod stories. If you dont like, wait until the next story is posted. No one forced you to read this story, If you dont like it ignore it.
*posting at 2 so this comment will last through a few abusive moderators*
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
1- What is 'his' definition of 'Rogue State'?
...come on, you can find a reason!
2- What is the mechanism in the US constitution to turn down an insane President? Would it be the case.
It seems more dangerous to 'flirt' with a yound lady (Uhm...) than to bomb foreign cities. Is it what is called 'Democracy-liberty-...'?
3- Why didn't he attack Mexico? It would have been more easy, it is not so far. There surely are a lot of reasons doing so.
Why are we doing this?
1) Because we cannot continue to monitor and control nuclear weapons proliferation.
We have about another 10 or 20 years of this "control" before the technology to enrich heavy elements for use in weapons will get too small to easily find, and too technically feasible to prevent through restricted access to plans and hardware.
We need a regime change in the gulf region, not for oil*, but to:
2) Introduce Democracy in the region. Democracies do not wage wars of aggression. If you want the planet to be safe any time soon, if you want our species to aspire to something greater than self-inflicted violence, we need to be rid of fascists, isolationists and xenophobes. That starts with Saddam.
* No blood for oil is lame 20th Century rhetoric. The only possible connotation of that catch-phrase now is "No (innocent Iraqi) blood for (French) oil." If you think this war is about oil, you need to wake up.
Who says "they" want Democracy, you ask? Everyone deserves a higher quality of life. The Iraqi people will have a much higher QOL when this is over with, because they will have a Democracy. Don't they deserve it? The anti-war protest folks need to realize that they are fighting AGAINST a better life for the Iraqi people.
If not me, who?
If not now, when?
I choose LOVE
Iraqi children
50% of the population
this is the text of a sign i held this morning in my downtown intersection. the text was bordered by images of Iraqi children from here: Thomson Gallery #2
i received the peace sign from two out of three drivers, the rest gave me the finger.
A German citizen notes, "all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing" with regard to what German citizens needed to do to facilitate the rise of Nazi Germany.
peace
U.S. Defense spending is less, as a percentage of GDP, than it was in the 70s and 80s. We were able to support the higher level then, why couldn't we now, especially when the US is less dependent on natural resources, like oil.
Secondly:
Money is fluid, and interchangable. It doesn't matter if the oil countries want US Dollars, Euros, Suiss Francs, or Beanie Baby Futures, as long as it's freely exchangable, then it doesn't matter. I know it fits into some people's idea that this whole thing is "(old) Europe vs. America", but c'mon, there'd be better ways to do it than this.
:p
Of course, never mind the fact that France has, over the last 10 years, signed deals with Saddam Hussein giving them rights to 25% of Iraq's oil reserves. Or that Russia is currently owed at least $10 Billion by Iraq. That wouldn't explain those reluctance on their part to remove Saddam Hussein, would it? Of course not... Because... well... uh... George W. Bush is a Cowboy! Yeah!
And who do you think gave your mom VD? The Me.
A friend of mine messaged me this morning with "Happy Birthday, I had hoped to get you a war for your birthday, but looks like Mr Bush beat me to it...Hope you have a nice day anyways!"
I hereby dub this war "The Adam War", removing all crappy CNN titles from the possibility of being used...not Gulf War Redux, not Gulf War Two, not Desert Storm Again...The Adam War
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
There is a Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston.
Actually, I think it would be most appropriate to post a story about the technologies employed in this war - that's truly News for Nerds. Take yesterday, for example. Despite a terrific sandstorm that normally would have immobilized troops, the US forces were able to make a speedy and well-organized maneuver up to the border of Iraq thanks to GPS and other tools. It's just this sort of "we couldn't have done this a few years ago" application that makes the difference in war. Let's hear about the Nerds that will liberate Iraq!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
CNN reported this morning that there is concern that Iraq knew our F-117 Stealths were coming and started anti-aircraft fire. This is a huge concern, as they are supposed to be undetectable (a.k.a. "stealthy").
If this is true, there is no way the technology to detect our stealths was developed in Iraq. It begs the question: did one of the countries that opposes the war pass this advanced technology, obviously developed since the 1991 Gulf War, to Iraq as an underhanded way of flipping the bird to the US and Bush?
During Gulf War 1, the Iraqis liked to pepper the sky with AAA (anti-aircraft artillery) when it was clear there were strike aircraft in the area. You know there are strike aircraft in the area when your buildings start blowing up. It doesn't mean they can track individual aircraft, or hit them.
As well, there is no "perfect stealth" Even stealth aircraft can be detected if they fly close enough to the radar emitter. Various countries started developing more sensitive radar in an attempt to counteract new stealth technology.
Even if the 117s were dectected by Bagdhad, they probably couldn't be targeted by AAA. AAA is limited to about 10,000ft effective altitude. The 117s should be above that. It is doubtful the Iraqis have SAM missile technology to knock down a stealth fighter.
The biggest risk here is to the ground troops when they hit Bagdhad. If the Iraqi's dig in and fight, it could be bloody. It took about 1/2 million Russians to take Berlin in WWII.
Article I, Section 8: "The Congress shall have power... To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;"
Now last time I checked, Congress had not declared war, so the US is not at war with Iraq anymore than we our at war with Canada. Checking out CSPAN it looks like Congress is still in the middle of some finance debate, so don't expect a declaration of war anytime soon. If you look at Bush's speech you see that he never said we are at war with Iraq, now if only slashdot was as smart as Bush
Where the f--k has slashdot been for the last year? Finally we get some discussion of this lunatic adventure, but only once it's too late to do anything about it.
be sure to check out this famous quote
a famous quote about war, leaders, and this sick world.
same link
We need to have a new moderation flag: -1, Propaganda. This post merits it.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
Hey, /. is a free service so why do *you* think you should decide what goes up for discussion over one of the /. crew?
Besides, news for nerds - yes. stuff that matters - yes. Its good to hear views and perspectives from nerds around the world.
And at the end of the day, if you don't like it, is it really that f**king hard not to click on the link?
sorry, couldn't resist...
send cmdrtaco to go search and catch saddam
so we will get at last rid of both at the same time
send cmdrtaco to iraq now
hehe good one m8
I've never seen horror, war, famine, or any suffering on a national scale. I've not trekked across Tibet or Sri Lanka, or even been waved at by the Pope. So take this as you will...
What's my thought on this attack? Only that it's a war of lifestyles. A war to keep the electricity for my twelve computers, the gas in my black sports car, the cold air in my Florida house. It's a war to keep me comfortable. Am I OK with this? I don't know. I'm lazy, comfortable, soft and pudgy. What do you think?
But don't pee on me and tell me it's raining. I know that professional wrestling is fake. Everybody knows that professional wrestling is fake. It's nice to pretend once in a while, forget the doldrums of your existence. Just don't pee on me and tell me it's raining.
Don't tell me that the US is bombing Iraq because they broke UN resolutions. Every other country, including the US, Israel and the UK have laughed at UN resolutions.
Don't tell me it's about rousting a dangerous dictator. There are more violent, more dangerous regimes out there than Iraq.
All the "reasons" for war are weak. Just tell me that the truth that this is a war to protect the American lifestyle. I'm OK with that, really. We're all damned anyway, everyone of us with the exception of a few children, but maybe we'll be less damned -- get dumped in the fifth Circle of Hell rather than the last -- if we at least tell the truth about our reasons. Be direct, you know, cross with direct eyes to the Dream Kingdom...
Of course, the reason why there's a big gap in the Shia region of southern Iraq with Republican Guard to the north outside Baghdad is because the missing Russian Nukes are buried in that area.
Saddam lets the convoy roll in up the Tigras/Euphrates valley, then detonates a couple of nukes as they pass by. Republican Guard rolls in to mop up the shattered survivors. USA can't retaliate because the rest of the RG are in urban areas and it would cause 100s of 1000s of civilian casualties.
Simple.
So nerds aren't supposed to care about the biggest foreign event in years?
I'd like to give us more credit.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
(UPDATE) It's tight here, I'm amBUSHing
two kuwaitis- dammn friendly fire.
(UPDATE)- two camels loaded with
just crossed the DMZ
(UPDATE) CNN reporter just died of friendly fire-we feel for family etc..
US is going against the UN.
This criminal act is riscing the peace in the whole world!
The nation that has the most mass destruction weapons is the US. Some of them are Pentagon eager to try in Iraq.
Please try to stop this madness!
Per
09-11-2001 -> 9+11+2+1 = 23 /. did, I have to wait another minut)
Todays date: 20-03!
Time of this post? 20:03
Wuaaaaah, somebody stop me! (Well
The site where: "I'm right, as long as you ignore the things that prove me wrong", became a valid method of debate.
It is not a war. It is an attack on a nation that has done nothing to the US.
That makes you a Minnovite! (Jonah Veggie Tales movie joke). Fishmonger! I'm just posting this for the halibut.
Who moved my sig?
This is probably news to you too, but there were no Iraqis in the 9/11 planes.
There were, however Saudis. Which are one of our allies against Iraq. Funny, isn't it?
Bush's War and the War Against Terror are quite different beasts.
Mind your own business and maybe the world will stop hating your guts.
Nah, we'll always have jerks like him generating hatred. Heck, it's gonna probably take a long time for us to live down *this* stupid attack.
May we never see th
We'll continue to update as new information warrants.
Must we? There are a bazillion other news sites on the web where we can go and read up on the events.
Personally, I'd much rather read about something besides man bringing destruction upon his fellow man, justified or not. Saturation coverage numbs us to the true importance of what's going on.
live to fight another day. Taking Iraq will be easy. It's holding on to Iraq that will be hard. What would you do when faced with huge opposing force? Line up to be killed?
There are two routes: (a) the US tries to take the cities, this will initially work, but eventually terrorism against the new leadership will fail; (b) don't bother with populated areas, instead just focus on securing the oil fields... after all, this is what we're there for anyway.
Ok, the inspectors can't find weapons of mass destruction. The US accuses Saddam of hiding them. Now in early phases of the war special ops have been going on to find and disable weapons of mass destruction. If we truly knew where they were, why the hell did we not share the intelligence with the inspectors?
And another thought - Mutually Assured Destruction. Has everyone forgotten about the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction? I brought this up to some folks the other day and they told me Saddam was crazy and does not care about his life. Yeah, I agree he is crazy, but come on, the guy moves from place to place to avoid being detected. He has body doubles, food tasters, a plethora of bodyguards. Does that sound like someone who is is not afraid to die?
The fact of the matter, above all Saddam desires power. There is not much power if your country gets incinerated off of the face of the Earth...
Just my $.02 as an American who is displeased with the actions of his government.
--Jon
Ok, I'm getting a little sick on the 'why is this on Slashdot?' questions. Look up in the left upper hand corner. Slashdot. News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. Dont' forget the second part.
(UPDATE) Now we just bombed two hausfrau's
as they would not surrender
and they delayed kickoff! I mean I NEED the Iraqi's to beat the spread by 2-1/2 SCUDS.
Vote Quimby!
Here, the war starts and we have 2 slash-dot articles. Hummf. Why not a few weeks ago during those Anti-War marches?
What about anti-aircraft weaponry going off above Saddam Hussein International Trainstation (SHIT)?
Fellowship 9/11
I wonder what it would be like if they proposed something along the lines of "This isn't for the oil" and to prove it let the countries holding out that get their oil from Iraq have the rights to the oil.
But I doubt that France, Germany, etc would still allow the war it if that happened.
What the hell do troop movements in the Middle East have to do with "News for Nerds"?
If I want shoddily reported, unsubstantiated rumors about the war, I can go to CNN. I count on Slashdot to give me shoddily reported, unsubstantiated rumors about technology.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
The F-117 can be seen visually. Perhaps that's how they knew to fire.
I recall during Kosovo that a F-117 was shot down. Perhaps Serbia (another enemy we have created) passed along some technology. It was theorized at the time that the Chinese may have given some technology to Serbia.
History is so yesterday!
US has 1.18 billion ppl in the coalition (Disputable other than US,UK,Australia and well...Afganistan). Sadly, 5 billion against
.. the world would be a safer place.
US has 11,000 nuclear weapons, which can destroy the whole world several times over.
US spends more money on defense than the rest of the world combined.
Has involved itself in more attacks than any other nation in history.
Iraqis are returning from many countries (not many though) to fight. (says BBC)
The US has decided that the UN security council is irrelevent, becoz it refused to tow its line. Now if other countries would also apply the same logic and hit countries which teh "think" might pose a threat
My warm wishes to the prosperity of the American nation.
Er, let's try that again... There's also a broadband BBC News 24 feed
It's a interesting commentary on our times, when intelligent people hold so tightly to thier political presuppositions, that they ignore basic truths.. If there was any one BASIC lesson from 9/11, it was that a failure to PRE-EMPT our enemies, will lead our suffering... A pre-emptive defense movement is NOT the same as an aggresive attack. We must look past the action itself so examine the reasons for which the action was taken..
SF Indy Media has a very interesting live feed here . It's a nice alternative to the korporate controlled US media outlets.
(UPDATE) Most iraqi's will have to use sand for hygienic purpouses, which will lead to their demise , reports ex. US general Mr. I. A. M nowretired
Personally I think it's better than watching CNN. At least you get something other than constant towing of the Dubya line. Like links to Indian news sites from the last story, or links to the Iraqi guy's blog. Don't read if you don't want to.
Random is the New Order.
Saddam: What happen?
Uday: Someone set up us the bomb.
Saddam: Main screen turn on!
Bush: How are you gentlemen!! All your base are belong to us.
Blair: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Saddam: Ha Ha Ha Ha...
Saddam? or Bill Gates? Who wins as the evil dictator. You decide.
Why don't we just post a link to Saddam Hussein on the front page of /. ? Then he will be done for....
And how come /. never gets /.ed?
Hans Blix is a tool is my opinion. And yes, I think that the UN has become the League of Nations.
That Scuds are being launched from Iraq into Kuwait is based on what CNN and Rueters reported ealier today. I understand this fact is in now in dispute. I guess in your mind that means he poses no danger.
There are efforts underway to pinpoint the locations of his illegal munitions. If / when they are found, I suppose you will still think we are the bully.
In the end, Iraq will be liberated from the dictator, and the world will be safer for it. When Iraqi people have the right to vote, learn, travel, speak freely, and live without fear - I suppose you will not think the US has served any humanitian good. You think this is all about making money on oil, which is going down in price as I write this.
And if you think I'm a troll, I'll take that as a compliment. Flame on.
kill the moose limb fuckers.
I think that's XP only. It doesn't do anything for me in 2K. Or maybe it's just not working. ;)
Random is the New Order.
The blog hasn't been up that long.
Why does an action have to be popular to be right? Yes there are a lot of people against this war... but that fact doesn't make the war wrong.
Personally, I like having a leader that will do what he feels is the right thing to do, even if it isn't the popular thing to do. I hope the British feel the same way.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
They burnin' tha oil! Damnit Dick send them there airbornes in ASAP! Mah daughters both drive them land rovers you know how much gas that TAKES?! -GWB
I don't think the F-117 was ever intended to be completely invisible to radar. It's not as if they designed it to be able to fly down Main Street Baghdad and have people wondering what the noise was. It's not an invisible UFO.
It is, however, more difficult for radar to distinguish from background reflections, and thus more difficult for missile radar to track. It's also heat-shielded against heat-seeking missiles.
You are thinking about America's Imperialist past. In the modern world, you do not gain physical terrority, you open markets and install friendly puppet regimes.
Kind of how slavery was abolished, and then replaced with economic peonage.
You have words from 30 countries (a few less since it actually started). You have troops from 3. That's not "support".
instead, pray for the Iraqis that are being attacked and killed as we speak.
don't get me wrong: fuck saddam, but *WE* are attacking *THEM*
Apologies to Texans here about my error before, but the guy above was absolutely right. G.W.B. doesn't have the guts that real Texans do.
Heheheh, I just thought it would be fun to see how many people would reply to this. I'll take my mod points any way I can get them. Yeah, I like my job, slashdot and a Cheeseburger works pretty well on a lunch break. Again thanks for all your posts. Hopefully this next topic will prompt some more replys. The only way to argue successfully with a fool is to reduce yourself to their level. :-)
The moon is virtually full. The F-117 and any other plane can be seen under such conditions. Moonlight is what allowed the Serbs to down an F-117 during that campaign several years back. They can't see it that well on radar (until it gets real close) but you can see it well in moonlight and then all it takes is a lucky shot.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
One possibility is that, in addition, we don't want to risk letting enough information out that Saddam's people can figure out where the US is getting its information on the prohibited weapons, and kill those involved...
(On an unrelated note, I'm getting utterly sick of hearing "Weapons of Mass Destruction(tm)" (which is bandied about in the press so much that everyone's been abbreviating it WMD instead...). Not because of what they're referring to or anything, but because I think the term is nonsensical and designed entirely for "marketing" reasons, much like "assault weapon" (isn't a WEAPON, by DEFINITION, for assaulting things?). How is a canister of gas capable of killing off most of a building's inhabitants more a weapon "of Mass Destruction" than a really big conventional bomb which is capable of doing the same thing, as well as destroying the building itself (which, I gather, really isn't "Mass Destruction", according to the usage of the terminology by the media)?...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Here's a link, and here's an abridged copy:
The Hitler regime was possessed of imposing military might, backed up by an advanced industrial complex that was working flat out and was a leader in various spheres, including weaponry. The Führer, who had come to power through democratic means, boasted of the superiority of his State and his model of society and did not conceal his intention to seek world control. Such was his power and arrogance, and so obvious was the fervour of his support, that he was able to cow most Western governments. In the face of their cowardice, he was able to flout international law, aided by the Western governments' approval of his ferocious antipathy to communism, whose adherents the Nazis accused of terrorism (vide the trials for the Reichstag fire).
So how does this compare with the regime of Saddam Hussein? The Iraqi dictator - whose army could not defeat Iran despite backing from the United States and Russia - is in no position to contemplate attacking anybody. Industrially, the country lacks the means even of defending itself, with an underfed population and half its territory subject to foreign-imposed no-fly zones. Indeed, Saddam for many months has resigned himself to ever-increasing humiliations as inspectors are allowed even to look under the carpets in his own home.
Valete!
(UPDATE) the first camel droppings were analysed by Hans Blix.
I wonder what that hell hole is like right now. No way am I going back or reading anything there, it's populated with Joe Sixpacks and Joe Threepacks.
Sure glad I left that place before my IQ level dropped to a single digit
Then please explain what a recently commisioned aircraft carrier is doing with former President Bush's name.
Like eagles on pogo-sticks! -- Glottis
In fact they belive they missiles where Al-Samoud I.
:0 031 055
US deny koweithian saying that scuds where fired.
Read it here
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?vts=03202
Colosse.
They were Scuds but this guy gets a +5 Karma???
1) Reagan also has an aircraft carrier named after him and he isn't dead.
2) You will note that the original poster said "dead or OUT OF OFFICE".
-ac
Well, who the fuck else is going to rebuild Iraq? If oil wells are broken, then you bring in an oil company to fix it. Are we going to let greenpeace put out those fires? Who would (in your eyes) be the legitimate group to fix the oil wells, if they get destroyed?
When I was in the USAF I worked with a guy who'd changed his name to "Vega Epsilon Altair." When I knew him he was a SSgt, but still living in the dorms.
An odd character, to be sure.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Yes, rightly so.
The right tool for the wrong job
when people try to be clever beyond their means.
So little time to sort through it all.
Steps to dealing with Stealth Technology(tm):
1) Know the air base where operations are started from.
2) Have a guy/gal near there.
3) Binoculars.
4) Stopwatch.
5) Radio.
6) Type of plane.
7) Average cruising speed.
8) Guess the intended target.
9) Distance to target from base/avg cruising spd = time to start shooting blindly in the air.
This is a case of one person claiming to speak for every last person "inside Iraq".
As much as I am against the war under the present so-called justifications and sympathize with this blogger, I have to think this oft-repeated sentiment is wrong, that "No one inside Iraq is for war".
While this would be technically wrong just on the fact that there have been American special forces "inside Iraq" for some time who clearly want the war, I think this would be true on broader segments. Start with segments of Kurd populations or others who are not particularly in harms way, who have been protected by nofly zones or other actions, do not have freedom to make blogs, and are probably in favor of the war, however much of a minority this may be, etc. Such universality of opinion is only what you get when it is being claimed by a usurper of public opinion, such as Sadaam frequently claims.
How come the US (and partners) ignore the democratic process of the UN, and then go and say "we do this for democrasy(I think I may be mispelling that word)!"?
Just wondering....
You don't solve voilence with voilence...
As for this war, I am for it. One step at a time to make sure that nether I or my family have to be involved in anything like 9/11 again
What does one have to do with another?
9/11 was caused by a loosely banded group of terrorists who are largely made up of Islamic fundamentalists from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
Iraq is a nation led by a very secular and even womanizing leader who has no ties to Bin Laden.
The two openly HATE each other and make that fact no secret whatsoever.
Imagine you are one of 20 people on a small island. One of the other people has a gun. They are the only one with a gun.
One day there is a loud gun shot, and everyone runs over to find that the guy with the gun shot someone else dead. He claims "He was evil. Trust me."
You might think that he might shoot you next. Everyone treats the guy with the gun nice and all, like Billy Mummy in a Twilight Zone episode. "Yes, you did a good thing. That was really good. Shot the evil people. That's good."
Unlike a TV show, the guy with the gun does need to sleep, and will be killed shortly.
This is how I worry other countries will see us. If we make them worry about the gun we have, they will find unity in taking it away.
-- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
He lit up over 700 on his way out of Kuwait, and it took over 9 months to put those fires out, costing the Kuwaiti's over 50 Billion Dollars. How can you put a price on the ecological damage done?
Saddam Hussein forfiet any legitimate claim to sovereignty back on August 2nd, 1990. When he rolled over the Kuwaiti border, it was over for him, and his regime.
I find it unfortunate that he has spent the last 12 years in power. If you want to blame a Bush for this conflict, you can lay it squarely on the shoulders of the elder Bush for not having completed the job in 1991. Of course, that foray into Iraq had UN support, and the world wasn't willing to go the distance. He should have been removed from power then. Instead, he was allowed to remain, on the condition that he behave himself.
The UN reminds me of the old comedy sketch about the Unarmed English Bobby... "Stop! Or I'll have to ask you stop again!"
So here we go, undertaking a task which must be undertaken, for the benefit not only of the United States, but for the entire world. If you don't want to help out, that's perfectly fine. Just sit there, and shut the fuck up. Your regularly scheduled programming will return soon enough.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
except that AAA basically gets you ugotz past 12k feet. that's what SAMs are for, but, if you can't get a lock, SAMs aren't good for much either
The British fellow's speech was by far better. As typical American talk, it echo's a Top-Gun style theme: "We are the Best - to be Feared and Respected". It doesn't say *anything* about RESPECTING THEM and not waving our flag on their homeland.
... for not understanding the political environment surrounding their involvement. If this is typical attitude of our US forces, then this so-called 'Liberation' will be a disaster. P.S. I give Bush an E. No where in his speach did he talk about "Humility" and "Respect" for the peoples of Iraq.
My Score... D
Sorry... The "Ays" have it.
I believe it was stated in one of the media, however, that most of the Iraqi wells are not positive pressure. This significantly increases the chance the wells will be permanently destroyed by a fire, or so said a talking head.
Even those sites are full of FUD and properganda.
How many contractors have put in bids to rebuild Iraqi homes, hospitals and the like?
I would assume none because of the lack of money in it.
Oil on the other hand is why the US is attacking Iraq... rather that sorting out North Korea who are blatently being naughty (but luckily don't possess miles of oil miles).
Don't tell me you've forgotten that whole "Axis of Evil" propaganda? A quick war (AKA "lopsided massacre") in Iraq just means we'll be attacking Iran sooner rather than later. Or if they're smart enough to take the initiative rather than waiting for the US to prepare, they'll attack us and stand a chance. Of course then we wouldn't have to cook up an excuse for war.
Of course we may not feel like going after a country as big as Iran immediately. So we may detour to Syria first.
Fact is, Iraq will make an extremely convenient base - centrally located, shares borders with two regimes that don't do what we tell them to and two others that don't always cooperate, abundant energy resources, well developed infrastructure, weakened by years of embargo, and a major port capable of handling large ships.
Domino effect my ass. If anything is going to be turning muslim nations "democratic" (otherwise known as US proxy regimes) it'll be our overwhelmingly powerful military. It's all part of the neocon plan, which has been outlined explicitly. And once we're in Iraq it will be impossible to leave.
I was watching a call-in show on C-Span. A bunch of people called in saying that because we're at war, you have to support the President, and anything less would be traitorous. Garbage. He and his ilk have created a situation that will keep us at war for years to come. Only a fool would support a president for a crisis of his own creation. But I'm sure he thinks so. He seems like the kind of self-righteous asshole that would run for a third term - "To ensure the stability of the nation in these times of danger" of course.
(Yes, I posted this on an earlier article but that was just an hour ago, obviously I was late)
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Visit http://www.prorev.com for news from people other than CNN and Fox...you can even read an article from someone outside of the US for a change.
man rtfm
Was that a body double of him on that broadcast last night? If it was Saddam he looked like hammered crap. Not trying to incite a troll post but did that really look like Sadaam last night? He just didn't seem to have the charisma and stance.
Looks like a pretty good resolution.
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
That Slashdot not cover the war in Iraq.
Seriously.
I love Slashdot. And I feel very strongly about the war in Iraq. The thing is that for some time in the very near future there will be no shortage on the web for coverage of the war. The newsites are going to run with every damn rumor like it is fact. And I (along with many, many other people) am going to be firmly addicted to that.
It is nice to know that I can placate the geeky side of me in a politic free zone on Slashdot.
It almost seems ironic, but Slashdot offers a unique site this day in age. Slashdot can serve the slashdot community best right now by being what Slashdot is.
Maybe I didn't make that statement very well. I am just trying to say that Slashdot is the best site I know of for geeky news, and I love it.
I also take great comfort that when I am all politicd out, wether it be the war on Iraq or whatever, I can go to Slashdot and enjoy it and my politics, or anyone elses don't matter.
Your greatest service might be to stay a politic free zone.
Thanks for listening.
USA is doing this only to free the oppressed people, nobody cares about the oil...
The first steop to bring peace to the world is not to start any wars.
I wonder how people like you can really belive that a country like Iraq is a menace to the states.
If another story gets 2000 comments or more, "Kathleen Fent Read This Story" will be out of the Hall of Fame!
Please stop! Thank you.
Funny how the US Marines sitting still in the desert have already seen more banned SCUD missiles than the inspectors found in six months of active searching!
Hey! Just give peace a ch... INCOMING!!
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
You might want to get some perspective on the Iraq conflict from an another source. The
m
http://www.pand.kaapeli.fi/uudet%20ihmiset%201.ht
describes how the Finnish Artist group New People declared war on Switzerland after it didn't want to cooperate with them. It's worth a look.
OK, I know this is getting a little offtopic.
But I do know a fair amount about the Bosnian conflict. Or at least I know the region pretty well. I've been to Bosnia, to Slovenia and to Crotia. I've met Paddy Ashdown, the High Representative of the UN. I know local journalists. My best friend was in Sarajevo last weekend. Please don't tell me I know nothing about it.
I am not saying the US is or was perfect, heck they make mistakes all the time. But they intervened in Bosnia for reasons that had nothing to do with oil, or money. They intervened to save further needless bloodshed. Maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong. But you can't maintain they put Americans live on the line for narrow nationalistic purpose, or out of a desire to gain power, prestige or money.
--- My dad's political betting
I've searched through messages and the faq, but don't see time zone information.
What is the time zone of the timestamps on Slashdot posts?
This is actually my favorite argument to use against conservatives who support Bush.
Such Corporate Welfare flies in the face of "Free Market" economic theory. It's nepotism of the worst sort, and will only guarantee that the company that wins the business, is NOT the best one for the job.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Not to mention that the Iraqis are going to need to be able to sell their own oil in order to reconstruct the country.
Or would you like our taxpayers to rebuild a nation?
I'd prefer the former.
Roadmap for War on Iraq and the New American Empire brought to by:
Elliott Abrams , Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney , Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes , Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld , Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz
xyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzy
Please don't flame me it's just a question to learn the truth if anyone knows...
On the "last two times the US has used force were" issue is it accurate to observe that the willingness, solitude in the undertaking and frequency with which the US goes to war are all increasing?
Just a few thoughts to balance things.
Might doesn't mean right...
Here is a link that elaborates on the prior link to Washington Post. Perhaps you would like to link to something to support an argument that "preventive" declarations of war are somehow a good thing for the country?
Since this war isn't about oil, but about freedom and liberty, Saddam burning all the oil fields shouldn't matter
stealth fighters (and presumably the stealth bombers).
Um, I'd like to point out something about why the stealth are called fighters. It's because at the time they were originally built, Congress wouldn't fund *another* bomber program, so they called them fighters.
The primary mission of the slowest fighters in the world (the stealth) is to BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, and COME HOME so that they can BOMB AGAIN.
Like what I said? You might like my music
There are a scary number of parallels between Saddam Hussein of today, and Hitler of the 1930s.
Uhm-hm. I came across this text from Thom Hartmann which you may find interesting. The closing pieces about federally empowered corporations are especially interesting, and may ring a bell with the Slashdot crowd.
When Democracy Failed: The warnings of history
18 Mar 2003
The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.
It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms
Did no one notice this little tidbit?
No, eat ME!
I'm not in favor of this war and I don't think that Bush has been truthful or honorable. However, for now, I am putting my distrust and belief that there are hidden agendas being perused down.
I believe that because the war has started, it is important that we support our troops. It is my hope that the war will end quickly and without massive loss of life.
There will be time later to discuss accountability.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." G. W. Bush, 2003 ...
...
No, wait.
That was Adolf Hitler in 1933.
Darn.
You'd think that 70 years of evolution would be enough.
Then again, it only takes a quick look in a history book to understand that evolution does not apply to politicians
Ofcourse the same applies to us, the people who vote for them and support them. And the way we 'educate' our children. The future politicians and leaders.
Will it ever end ?
*sighs*
Can Slashdot stick to jusy covering "News for Nerds" and leave the war reporting to the thousands of other news outlets at our disposal? I come here to get away form all of the other news.
The protests in NY were not actually banned. The New York City government would only allow protests in small, barracaded areas, rather than permit a march down various routes that would make the protest visible. The excuse for denying a normal protest was that the government feared terrorists would take advantage of the peaceful demonstration by attacking or detonating bombs nearby. The area allotted to the protests in the end were not nearly large enough and spilled over into the streets, which I believe then resulted in various arrests. I'm uncertain about that last part. Anyway, concentraiting a huge number of people in a smaller area is a great way to thwart terrorists, right?
Its sad how so many fellow geeks tend to be Liberal anti-american types.
I am so tired of hearing people talk trash about the U.S and our president George Bush. Saying he is a cowboy bla bla.
I think anyone living in America that dosen't support our troops dying right now in the name of peace should be kicked out. Go to another country if you don't like the governements actions.
And to all the people talking trash that do not live in the U.S, Its sad how jealous you are of the U.S.
And to all the people talking propaganda crap about how this war is about oil, you are very misinformed. When you watch news, try to watch it from multiple sources and draw your own comclusions....do not let the media propaganda crap get to you. 40+ countries are supporting this effort, only a handfull of hippie protestors here in the U.S are against it. Saddam has been torturing his own country since 1979 and has also tortured others...the U.S is here to stop this evil power before he gets to the U.S or anyone else. It's terrible that we have to go around and do this crap because not many other countries have the ballz like we do. Yes I said it.
The U.S helps so many countries out and the only thing we get back is stupid propaganda crap that we are evil and bullies. France and the others can go suck it....we liberated them and this is how they repay us.....oh wait...if and when Saddam using chemical or bio weapons they will be on our side. If they did use these weapons I say we reject France's help anyway....more and likely these weapons came from them and thats why they will do something about it...
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Oh, puh-fuckin-lease. They want to secure the oilfields because they know otherwise Saddam the Sadistic will order his troops to destroy them -- making sure that if he can't have them, nobody can. But when he's out of power, those wells belong to the people of Iraq. With proper technology upgrades, they can go from producing 2 million barrels a day to over 6. Without Saddam to suck up all the profits, that directly benefits the PEOPLE of Iraq.
As it is, Saddam's already booby trapped his wells because he can't stand the idea of someone else actually benefitting from them, even after he's dead. What a fucking turd of a human life.
It's "Operation Iraqi Freedom", not "Operation Iraqi Liberation". But I would've thought it was funny.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
We've invaded a sovereign state, with military forces, and we have engaged military forces.
We are not targetting civillians, and we are not acting solely in the hopes of destruction.
I never thought that I'd be living in a terrorist nation. Bush, against international law, has unilaterally (a bought coalition is not a coalition of the willing, it is a bribed mob) begun a war against a country that has not attacked (or been able to attack) anyone for 12 years. My country must be stopped. I call upon the United Nations to liberate my people, and the Iraqi people from the despot George Bush, and ensure that democratic elections are carried out so the people, not a group of men loyal to the party of the candidate, select a leader of the country.
The U.N. should also investigate allegations that the U.S. sold weapons of mass destruction to terrorist or alleged terrorist nations in the past 20 years.
Que?
How is the US less dependent on oil? That's utterly ridicuolous. Defence spending has gone down? Good. So why do you want it to go back up again when there's still no health care for poor people in the US?
Obviously the French have interests in Iraqi oil, practically all the industrialised nations (certainly the ones that are vocal in this matter) do. They haven't copyrighted 25% of Iraqi oil, you can't do that with oil. French companies have deals with Iraq but like all the deals they come under the UN oil for food programme.
Prehaps pretzel-eating-war-monkey would rather he could control all of the oil. They won't let him drill in those damn national parks so what else is a guy to do.
And perhaps Chirac (that's the French president) opposes because, like Bush, he knows that doing so makes victory at the next election much more likely for him.
P.S. Pretzels are German and democracy is French! (sorry)
I agree, however, when your living under someone who would shoot you if you voted against him, this is a problem.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
I will add my voice to the growing chorus to please, for f***s sake, stop covering the war in Iraq. Yes it's news, but I don't think slashdotters are SO cloistered that they don't check other world news sites. Please keep slashdot's appeal, namely good stories (-Jonkatz) that won't really be headlines in those other news sites. The only thing more depressing than the war are the idiotic responses to it, both pro- and anti-war. Please, stop with the war coverage. Thankyew.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/history/0,12792,876 851,00.html
"A disaster
The world must be told clearly that millions of British people are deeply shocked by the aggressive policy of the Government. Its action in attacking Egypt is a disaster of the first magnitude
Thursday November 1, 1956"
it's actually rather simple for a small group of people to stop W without doing anything illegal or violent.
Simply organize a well hyped "sell all your stock" day. Followed by a "cash out your 401k" day (yes you will have to pay a tax on that). Followed a week later by the "withdraw all your money in cash from the bank and put it in a safe deposit box" day.
You will have to really do it. Having a web site where people can post scanned docs proving there "not with my money" status will help. A lot of people won't do it until they see proof that they aren't the only ones.
If all the people against the war did that, the war would stop.
Now try to immagine yourself doing it. Try to immagine Arianna Huntington or whatever her name is doing it.
See, you really aren't against the war, are you ?
North Korea has, in the last few weeks, repeatedly threatened to do things like "Turn New York into a sea of ashes." Maybe you didn't notice because US news sources have soft-pedaled that? Do a google, man.
Before you throw that "uninformed" brick, you might want to make sure there's no glass structure over your head.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
So let me get this straight: we're supposed to believe it 72 missles have killed only 4 soldiers. UH no buddy. Perhaps, only 4 soldiers have died but many more civilians have been murdered already.
so it would not be terrorism if the whitehouse was bombed by a foreign group?
you say this isn't terrorism, however installations such as the presidential pallaces (their equivlant of the whitehouse, only more of 'em) were bombed, but when anyone talks about attacks on the US, such as those on the pentagon, or attmpts on the whitehouse, those are terrorism? how does that work?
Stay tuned to Ogrish.com and Rotten.com for nice pics of Iraqi babies being gassed by Bush!!
I for one am glad that the US is taking care of Hussein now
If you feel this way, why are you letting other people do your dirty work?
I agree completely with Presidential candidate Howard Dean, who says that we absolutely cannot allow North Korea to begin manufacturing nuclear weapons. The result of inaction is that North Korea will be in a position to engage in nuclear blackmail or to sell nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda or Hamas terrorists.
We absolutely can do something about it. Dean says that he would call for direct talks, contingent on the following two things:
1) U.S. guarantees not to attack North Korea during the period of the talks.
2) North Korea ceases nuclear development and allows inspectors to come in and verify.
Implicit in Dean's position is that a refusal on the part of North Korea to agree to these terms means that there is no guarantee the U.S. will not attack. And I would argue that if North Korea did not cooperate, that the United States should state unequivocally that we will attack, and we will destroy all known nuclear production facilities.
That would leave the choice for war up to North Korea. Yes, a war could cost hundreds of thousands of lives, but the risks only increase the longer Bush ignores the problem.
The idea behind holding talks is to negotiate a permanent settlement to the nuclear standoff, and perhaps formalize a peace treaty for the Korean peninsula. It might involve opening up trade relations or helping North Korea get through the famine. In exchange, we get the right to intrusive inspections to ensure that North Korea will not build anything that can be set off in one of our cities.
I would like to remind every tiny-minded citizen who has declared his dog to now be a Freedom Poodle while he entertains himself with a Freedom Tickler that a mere two years ago, there were thousands of people in the Parisian streets, not protesting us, but having vigils in remembrance of our terrible loss.
Guess I'm not mindlessly pro-american enough? Trying to get both sides of a story rather than believing everything the US government tells me like a sheep is apparently trolling.
Apparently the US uses force far more often than you remember. The last one was Afghanistan, which we freed from a horrible government. That government threw out a more liberal government. Prior to that, in the 80's, the United States backed a different "incredibly illiberal and un-democratic regime"
All of a sudden we're supposed to be the knights in shining armor for simply undoing what we ourselves once did to the county.
The last military action the US took part in before Afghanistan was actually with NATO against Serbia in early 1999. Technically it was Yugoslavia at the time and we were trying to stop genocide in Kosovo.
And before that? Iraq. I believe Clinton dropped more ordinance on Iraq leading up to his impeachment in late 1998 than in all of Vietnam and the Gulf War. Or maybe that was Kosovo. They were so close together.
Aside from that, I think you're right that Bosnia was the previous one.
It's interesting how people completely forget that we've been dropping and shooting weapons in Iraq with relative frequency for almost a decade.
In the modern world, you do not gain physical terrority, you open markets and install friendly puppet regimes.
I see what you are saying, the slavish obedience of puppet regimes in the conquered vassal states of Germany and France is truly stunning. The sense of cruel oppression by American puppet regimes in Austria, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the Philipines, Panama, and Bosnia stands in stark contrast with the freedom and prosperity enjoyed in nations like Vietnam, North Korea (and until now Iraq) where the US failed to install our oppressive puppets.
/ignore #cnn all -public
at least that works for epic
XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-U
or so the news say, connections in and out have been disrupted for several days...
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Lets say you have a wife. If someone pulls a gun and aims it at her head, do you wait till he pulls the trigger until you do something? If you have the capability to stop him before he pulls the trigger, you know that you can stop him but you have to kill him. Who do you choose?
What if you were in a room with a dozen people, some which you know have guns, some which might, and others which would like to get them. One or more of them would like to shoot you. So you shoot a few which you happen to dislike just to make your odds better...
No lets make your wife be a barrel of oil, and the guy with kind eyes- he's actually the devil, and you have shot people in the head without UN sanction in the past, so what do you do when-
Fuck it.
I was watching CNN the other day prior to the beginning of the festivities last night. They mentioned that US Marines had affectionately nick-named the impending compaigne the "Bagdad Urban Renewel PRoject".
I wonder if they referred to it as Operation B.U.R.P. ?
Look here:
e ts /content.9.html
e ts /content.5.html
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0303/leafl
US government has sighted a dangerous Iraqi worker with a barrel,
obviously full of nuclear waste, maybe on his way to arm a missle.
Later the day, the same man was sighted again, but with a different
barrel. This time obviously he had no nuclear waste. Probably this
time it's just the fuel to fire the missle:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0303/leafl
Or is it?
"It begs the question: did one of the countries that opposes the war pass this advanced technology, obviously developed since the 1991 Gulf War, to Iraq as an underhanded way of flipping the bird to the US and Bush?"
The original poster's point was clearly that someone may have shared stealth technology with the Iraqis, and that knowledge of how stealth works would render our technology worthless. I was simply pointing out that mere possession of the technology isn't a magic bullet that renders it ineffective.
The stealth will still do its job of being incredibly difficult -- but not impossible -- to detect. You can be damned sure that the engineers who designed it in the first place did the best job they could to render it as invisible as possible throughout as much of the spectrum as possible.
Even if Iraq or one of its allies has gotten ahold of an entire aircraft and had extensive opportunities to play with it in the lab, they're still going to have trouble detecting them. As other posters in this thread have pointed out, the stealth *can* be detected. The point is that it's hard to detect, and even when you do detect it, the returns you get will be sporadic and faint enough that you won't be able to target the aircraft with radar-guided missiles.
http://www.nationalreview.com/
a sp
and their essential blog:
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.
Drives the Left crazy.
Consequences ensue.
Karma to burn I fear
This is an excellent example of how our 'American allies' sold us down the river in their haste to break up the British empire and curry favour with the Egyptians.
There's been much talk over recent months of the Americans comming to 'help' the British in 1943. America's lack of loyalty over Suez is never mentioned.
Why is that I wonder?
Text is downloadable in PDF from http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm. Have fun.
As stated here.
"In the key period between 1973-91 the US exported a mere $5 million of weapons to Iraq; more reprehensibly the UK sold $330 million-worth of arms. Of much greater interest are the arms export totals to Iraq of the four countries most against military action: Germany with $995 million, China $5,500 million, France $9,240 million, and the Russians a massive $31,800 million. So the claim that we armed Saddam has to be treated with a degree of care, particularly by those who would award the moral high ground in this debate to the leaders of nations such as Germany, France and Russia."
At least the U.S. is willing to do something to try to fix this mess...the U.S. was certainly NOT alone in creating it. They are likely a smaller factor than many seem to want to make them out to be. I'm not saying that the U.S. is completely innocent, but they sure as hell weren't alone in arming him.
Axis of Evil Wannabes, by John Cleese
Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be more evil than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address. Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil...in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil...we're the best."
Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
"An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So, you can only have three, and a secret handshake. Ours is wickedly cool."
International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.
Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the "Axis of Somewhat Evil," forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the "Axis of Occasionally Evil," while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the "Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable." With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up...Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the "Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics."
Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the "Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America," while Scotland, New Zealand and Spain established the "Axis of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick." "That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.
While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axis, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.
Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, leaders said that's only because no one asked them.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if the U.S. missile barrage this morning actually lit up the oilfields. All the targetting happens at high-up levels, where intelligence and the millitary chain-of-command meet. I wouldn't put it past the Bushies to target some oil fields (and a few potshots over Kuwait) to get us all riled up that Saddam is on the offensive. In a live feed earlier on Fox News the embedded correspondent stated quite clearly that they were not under attack, even though they were attacking Iraqi targets.
I also think 9/11/2001 was intentionally allowed to happen so the powers that be could draw our attention from Bush's poor leadership and economic bungling. Note that I don't think it was orchestrated by Bush himself, or that Osama BinLaden isn't responsible for 9/11, I just think the powers BEHIND Bush arranged for that morning to go off without any trouble.
I found this when I was looking for more information about the Palestinian people. This puts a face to some of the people that we are killing right now. Read it. Learn a little bit about them. Then tell me it's OK to bomb the hell out of that country.
Un-news
"U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile."/ 20/sprj.irq .kuwait.rockets/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03
We are not targetting civillians
I bet they don't care if you targetted them or not when you hit them
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/1585845_comme nt.php#1586350 hear whats going on as it happens in the streets!
the mainstream news isnt going to cover this, listen to those who are there as it happens!
Given that my day job is a web designer, I put little work into my website because the last thing I want to do when I get home is deal with HTML. However, I dislike bookmarks/typing in web links so I have a small homepage I use that contains nothing but hyperlinks(sort of my own personal web portal). Ive created a small news section at http://www.tuzworld.com/news.htm in order to have an easy means to checking breaking news concerning the war with Iraq. Feel free to use it yourself. Again, not very many people will find this useful probably, but I am posting it anyway. Also, if anyone has any major news sites that I dont have listed that they would like to see posted there, just fire me an email at tuz@tuzworld.com.
A good friend of mine who is a Lt. in the 101st sent me this quote right before he shipped out. "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mills-
I just want to state clearly that this war is fucked up. Unilateral action by the U.S. is unnacceptable. There is a reason the U.N. works together to solve problems: because it is a system of checks and balances that prevents tyranny from a lone incompotent wolf. George Bush is a fucktard. I don't say that lightly, I'm not even positive it's a word, but it describes Bush in an exact manner. He is a fucking retard. I am pretty sure that's what it's short for.
To detect stealth, you might need some kind of trip-wire for it to cross.
Say there's a connection between several transmitters and a satellite.. wouldn't the connection be briefly lost as a stealth plane flew over it?
The first "Strike on Iraq" story from yesterday has 3700+ comments. I've never seen a count that high, not even after 9/11. This story currently has 1300+ comments and is growing like mad.
Obviously Slashdotters want to discuss it, and that's why these stories belong here.
"now I have to read about it when I want my geek fix?"
Nobody is forcing you to do anything, much less read the comments section and post one of your own. You can just skip to the next story the instant you see "Iraq" in the headline.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Great job..way to sock it to saddam.
Unfortunately, you forgot about the fact that
the US had plenty of time to deal with him
the first time.
Also there are quite a few people just doing
their duty over there that will die now because
bush has a wild hair up his ass.
..Free Live Free...
You'd think those fuckweasels from the Democratic Underground took over /. or something.
This, however, does not mean that the US shouldn't have tried harder to get UN cooperation - France's compromise seemed reasonable....
Quack!Quack!.....QUACK!!
"Perhaps they found a wavelength that the stealth fails at?"
A very Hollywood idea. Radar low-observability is designed to foil all radio frequencies. It is debatable at best that long-wave frequency radars are capable of detecting them. It's undeniable though that Iraq has neither the resources nor the expertise to construct such a radar.
Bzzzt. Wrong!
Krajina and Yugoslavia-NATO war both happened before Bosnia. Nice try, but please get your facts straight before feeling so "proud" about being a dis-informationist war monger.
US CIA/paramilitary intervention (i.e. "US using force" as you say in Bosnian (1992) ) happened before the US led attack and ethnic cleansing of Serbians in Croatia (1995) and Clinton's attack on Yugoslavia.
Altough, we Americans do thank you Brits for being our "bitches".
"Moonlight is what allowed the Serbs to down an F-117 during that campaign several years back."
The official explanation from the DoD was that the Serbians caught on to the route the F-117 was taking, which had been used previously in other strike missions (I think this explanation sounds quite reasonable). The whole thing is still widely debated though, and I don't see how you can state your hypothesis as fact.
Steps to dealing with Stealth Technology(tm):
1) Know the air base where operations are started from.
2) Have a guy/gal near there.
3) Binoculars.
4) Stopwatch.
5) Radio.
6) Type of plane.
7) Average cruising speed.
8) Guess the intended target.
9) Distance to target from base/avg cruising spd = time to start shooting blindly in the air.
That is a lot of variables to get just right in order to have a chance. I can add a few more:
10) Guess the waypoints of the incoming strike. (Strike aircraft tend to randomize their route somewhat, to avoid prediction by enemy).
11) Guess the altitude profile for the mission. A high-low-high profile will have a different time-on-target than high-high-high for example.
12) Guess if inflight refuelling will occur. Then guess how long that takes.
In the end, the chance of a kill with this strategy is pretty close to 0.
No we weren't, we were trying to hide this embarassing fact"
Clinton made 1995 Ethnic Cleansing in Krajina Possible. Secondarily, the Yugoslavia-NATO war was the war smother the lingering effects of Monicagate. If you think it's to stop "genocide" in Kosovo, then you were/are fooled. Sadly, "President Penis" will go down in history as a war criminal along with Itzbegovich, Blair, Milosovic and Tudjman.
Well if good leadership and morals means raising one's eyebrows and spitting out cheesy lines which inspire patriotism in simple minds to you, then yes, he's an excellent leader.
I'm surprised that your post received "Insightful" and "Interesting" as its mod. I attempt to read as much as possible when it comes to opinions across the board with regards to a potentially dividing topic.
If we look at the strict "cause and effect" of the Gulf War, not the current conflict - we find that the UN resolution that ended the war in the first place explicitly stated that the loser (Iraq) had to succumb to the wishes of the winner (the United Nations). The wishes were pretty simple - I'll paraphrase for those who have forgotten:
"Dear Saddam, we, the clear winner, will discontinue kicking your ass, the clear loser, and accept your surrender if you abide by the following: completely disarm your weapons of 'mass destruction', withdraw completely and vow not to attack Kuwait again, and allow UN inspectors into your country without any stipulations to witness and categorize the complete disarmament of offensive weapons and munitions of your country. We will continue to examine your munitions manufacturing process to make sure you are in compliance with said terms."
This was the terms of the surrender. This was not forced upon Hussein. This was agreed upon by his government in order to end the conflict waged in his country. By choice, the Iraqi government chose this method to continue operating without being completely defeated and occupied by UN peacekeeper forces.
History lesson of the "democratic process of the UN" up until now:
During the beginning of the Clinton administration, our UN inspectors (comprised of a multitude of factions - including the United States) were being given the run around as to the locations of their scud missiles (banned) and their chemical agents they were so fond of using in the 80s versus the Iranians. This spurred a number of UN security council resolutions which said (paraphrase): "Dear Saddam, you are a bad boy for not being upfront with the locations of your armament. If you do not be upfront with the required resolution that ended the war, we will continue to the act of kicking your ass."
Shortly after, the Iraqi government revealed more locations of weapons. The UN inspectors seemed to be achieving success through the threat of the security council. We would continue to see the games of cloak and dagger throughout the disarmament process while the world looked on in hopes that the Iraqi government would live up to the agreement it pledged to uphold - the complete disarmament of offensive (hostile) armament.
During the latter part of the Clinton administration, we (the United States) had our men and women in uniform be fired upon while performing reconnoissance via military aircraft. This act of aggression was responded to, with the support of Congress (both democratic and republicans alike) with an order by William Jefferson Clinton to bomb the anti-aircraft sites of the Iraqi government. This was aligned with the wishes of the security council because UN inspectors did not need to die with a country that pledged to willingly disarm.
In 1998, the UN security council learned that the Iraqi government kicked out the inspectors and were told to immediately leave their sovereign terrority, completely forgetting that "all their b[ass]es belong to us." Our response? The world, including the United States, sat back and took the defiance of a dictator to reneg on its pledge.
It took a change of government in the United States and the will of the citizens of the United States to finally say enough is enough.
The democratic process of the UN? 17 complete resolutions - all of which said "disarm or else!" - were filed and agreed upon by the security council. The last resolution (the now infamous 1441) was simply restating the original resolution - disarm or else! The unanimous vote of the security council, now a complete joke or a replay of a childern's classic "Cry Wolf!", spoke once again to the Iraqi government.
The change? It had been more than
Ayup
"It's not as if they designed it to be able to fly down Main Street Baghdad and have people wondering what the noise was. It's not an invisible UFO."
The F-117 is very quiet due to the type of engines and how they're housed in the fuselage. In addition, I can't see how making it less stealthy is beneficial in any way. And why wouldn't the Skunk Works engineers have intended to make the F-117 as undetectable as possible?
"It is, however, more difficult for radar to distinguish from background reflections, and thus more difficult for missile radar to track. It's also heat-shielded against heat-seeking missiles."
Background reflections from what? Clouds produce negligible amounts of radar echoes, it would be impossible to design an aircraft, especially with the knowledge at the time of the F-117's construction, to be able to hide in those. And what use would a stealth aircraft be if it could only be stealthy when there were clouds present? Also, do you know how surface to air missiles track targets? They use either radars or infra-red emissions (i.e. heat). If a missile's radar has trouble tracking the target, so would any other radar. Judging by your lack of knowledge of this simple fact, I suggest you not inject your worthless, uninformed opinions.
And what the hell does "heat-shielded" mean? When I read that I thought of something like the space shuttle's heat-resistant tiles. The F-117 does has reduced infra-red emissions via wide, flat exhaust ports that cause the hot air to cool down more rapidly. There is no sort "heat-shielding" involved.
I can only hope that slashdot will break away from its present path of posting frivolous news and get back to stuff that REALLY matters, like anime, futurama, and glowing cyber balls.
"After the gulf war the pentagion admitted that iraq's chinese made radars could detect them, but there was not enough accuracy for their missles to lock on to them."
Really? And every military analyst (except the almighty you), Western and others forgot or never heard about this? And I guess this fact missed every single engineer designing every single 5th generation combat aircraft, all of which involve some measure of radar stealth. Maybe you should help them out.
Killing is murder, period. Taking Hussein out with a sniper rifle is way more ethical than the way we're doing it now. It also costs less. Tell that to the "C" student convicted drunk driver who has a lying Iran Contra felon for a dad.
dubble = double
democrasy = democracy
voilence = violence
How come the US (and partners) ignore the democratic process of the UN, and then go and say "we do this for democracy!"?
smoother grammar:
How can the US (and its partners) ignore the democratic process of the UN and then turn around and say "this is for democracy!"?
HAND.
"CNN reported this morning that there is concern that Iraq knew our F-117 Stealths were coming and started anti-aircraft fire. This is a huge concern, as they are supposed to be undetectable (a.k.a. 'stealthy')."
Maybe they started anti-aircraft fire because they knew the aircraft were coming, which has nothing to do with being able to detect and/or track the aircraft. You can not use this to base an opinion stating that Iraq may have the capability to detect the F-117.
From a reuters.com article on psyops:
"Another tactic was to send a flood of e-mails and faxes to Iraqi leaders and ordinary citizens urging them to help U.S. soldiers in the event of war and promising they would be rewarded."
MAKE.PEACE.FAST!
Get RID of UNSIGHTLY DICTATORS in JUST 7 DAYS -- GUARANTEED!
A Search Found $10920457 Under The Name "Rat Out Saddam" -- Could It Be Yours?
An interesting factoid on Channel 4 news tonight:
"The weapons used last night ( Thursday morning ) have so far cost £26million whilst the amount of money availble to the UN for work in Iraq after the war is £30million"
Are you being sarcastic or what?
Are you being oblivious or what?
So much hate, it seems you'd better consult a psychiatrist.
He finances other terrorist organizations, and there is a lot of evidence supporting this. Who is to say that the next act is not going to be by one of these groups? Terrorism is terrorism no matter what the 'cause' is.
Free speech is getting expensive...
"Average cruising speed."
Which the aircraft will not be flying at when in range of triple-A. And also, to know the average cruising speed useful to estimate ETA, you need to know the speed it's traveling at several points and the distances at which they'll be flying at those speeds. Which is kind of like begging the question.
"Distance to target from base/avg cruising spd = time to start shooting blindly in the air."
Too bad aircraft never take a direct path to a target, making the distance very difficult to estimate correctly.
As Croatian troops launched their assault on August 4, U.S. NATO aircraft destroyed Serbian radar and anti-aircraft defenses. American EA-6B electronic warfare aircraft patrolled the air in support of the invasion. Krajina foreign affairs advisor Slobodan Jarcevic stated that NATO "completely led and coordinated the entire Croat offensive by first destroying radar and anti-aircraft batteries. What NATO did most for the Croatian Army was to jam communications between [Serb] military commands. . . .(2)"
Following the elimination of Serbian anti-aircraft defenses, Croatian planes carried out extensive attacks on Serbian towns and positions. The roads were clogged with refugees, and Croatian aircraft bombed and strafed refugee columns. Serbian refugees passing through the town of Sisak were met by a mob of Croatian extremists, who hurled rocks and concrete at them. A UN spokesman said, "The windows of almost every vehicle were smashed and almost every person was bleeding from being hit by some object." Serbian refugees were pulled from their vehicles and beaten. As fleeing Serbian civilians poured into Bosnia, a Red Cross representative in Banja Luka said, "I've never seen anything like it. People are arriving at a terrifying rate." Bosnian Muslim troops crossed the border and cut off Serbian escape routes. Trapped refugees were massacred as they were pounded by Croatian and Muslim artillery. Nearly 1,700 refugees simply vanished. While Croatian and Muslim troops burned Serbian villages, President Clinton expressed his understanding for the invasion, and Christopher said events "could work to our advantage.(3)"
so it would not be terrorism if the whitehouse was bombed by a foreign group?
If the foreign group was a national or international army? No.
I am so sick of hearing the word terrorism misapplied. A terrorist act is one meant to inspire terror in its target. The WTC attack right out of the blue was a terrorist attack. An attack on the White House by foreign agents would not be done to inspire terror, so it would not be a terrorist attack.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Though this is a troll this one must be fed:
Bush didn't win the vote, he got elected.
Bush doesn't have morals, he has moralism.
Bush doesn't have class, Blair has.
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
Man, you take your playbook from Madeline Albright and the Davos commission? Please read about Tutsi subjgation and genocide of Hutus before the "crisis" that happened on the news and tell me who's side your on. Please.
And why wouldn't the Skunk Works engineers have intended to make the F-117 as undetectable as possible?
They did, of course. But some people (possibly you?) seem to think that means a stealth aircraft is 100% invisible to radar and heat detection.
And what the hell does "heat-shielded" mean?
Heat shielded means that the exhaust ports are designed to avoid radiating obvious, detectable heat. Exactly what you said.
If a missile's radar has trouble tracking the target, so would any other radar. Judging by your lack of knowledge of this simple fact, I suggest you not inject your worthless, uninformed opinions.
Jesus, man, relax. I'm not an expert on this, but obviously neither are you. You claim I offered a worthless opinion, and then proceed to restate exactly what I said. The stealth fighter and bomber are designed to reduce radar reflection, heat emissions, electromagnetic radiation, and sonic signals. Reduce, not eliminate.
That's what what the menu bar looked like when I just opened it:
Updates on War in Iraq | Preferences | Top | 1441 comments | Search Discussion
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
When you look at the way the US gov is acting it seems like they know something. They're like disarm... disarm NOW... DISARM RIGHT NOW... you have 48 hours to step down. It's more than possible that the government has information that they can't share without risking the lives of their informants.
Did you know that Iraq bought a lot of playstation 2's ? It seems like they've been actively developing missile technology for a while now and maybe they had finally succeeded, making the Americans antsy.
I find it hard to believe that if it was because of oil, the US gov would be so impatient. Especially when Iraq's disarmament efforts so far had been half-assed enough to warrant action eventually.
In answer to the various replies to the parent comment about the differences between British and American orators, I'd like to point out that Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins is actually American.
The tone of the message was different though - UK troops tend to be very cynical, appeals to patriotism would just have been laughed at.
~Cederic
No word on Megatron's whereabouts.
Why are you Americans doing all this? What's the point of this war? War??? Can you call war a giant crushing a small ant? Come on, all the they could do as a response was shooting some old Scuds against Kuwait, probably because that's the furthest they can reach!
You can't behave like the Rulers of the World, bombing the hell out of whatever/whoever pisses you off. What will be next?
From yesterday, this world is (for me), a much more less comfortable place to live. Thank you so much, US!!! You did it again!
PS: I'm Spanish; my government is one of the only THREE in the world supporting your crazy battle, even with the desagreement of almost all the country's population. Who's the dictator here? Sadam?
I thought slashdot was supposed to be tech focused? If you want to hear about the latest developments in the president's blood for oil war, go to cnn.com or see how many people you can fit into an AOL chatroom, dont come here to piss and moan. Bush doesnt read it, nothing said here is going to be earth shattering. If you want to get your voice heard, get outside and tell somebody.
Buck
Fush
Is Truth. RIP.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
...parallels can be drawn between most countries and Germany. Most countries, before going to war, tend to embrace a certain type of rhetoric. The article leaves out the fact that - and to what extent - Hitler was on of the most brutal dictators in recent history.
I read the article twice, and the writing is fantastic. Thanks for posting it.
I state it as "fact" because it is as close to fact as you can get. It was on CNN last evening with CNN military advisors (retired military) stating point blank that it was a "golden bb" in the moonlight allowing the fighter to be visable.
Simply knowing the route of an aircraft doesn't make it very easy or likely that you will be able to shoot it down with small arms or AAA fire. SEEING a plane, whether you gained intel on its route or not increases the odds of a hit immeasureably.
Through all of Desert Storm, with the Iraqi's spraying FAR more ordinance into the air than the Serbs managed, they didn't have much luck hitting aircraft - and they had knowledge that the aircraft were there (they took looks with radar VERY briefly to get a general bead) and they could clearly hear them as well. I was there and thus have first-hand experience in that regard (Desert Storm, not Bosnia).
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
At the White House, officials said that just before Bush addressed the nation, he pumped his fist, winked, and said "I feel good." He then delivered his address, which lasted four minutes.
Sounds a whole lot like masturbation to me. Proves once and for all that it takes war to get this guy off.
PRESIDENT BUSH AGREES TO MORE INSPECTORS IN IRAQ
(AP) Washington DC Wednesday, March 19, 2003 3:45 PM
President George Bush has announced that the US will not attack Iraq. The President announced that he is agreeing to deploying additional inspectors throughout Iraq.
The US will send 250,000 additional inspectors:
24,000 members of the 1st Infantry Division
15,000 members of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)
15,000 members of the 82d Airborne Division
More than 5,000 members of the 4th armored division with their "M1-A1 all-terrain vehicles"
Additional US Army personnel, as needed for inspections
A variety of US Air Force personnel for aerial recon missions and other "surveillance" activities
A significant number of United States Marines to aid with inspections
United States Coast Guard personnel to inspect coastlines
An undisclosed number of Rangers, Green Berets, Navy SEALs, Recon Marines, Delta Force, and other Special Operations personnel to inspect Iraqi "hideaways"
Special air deliveries to aid the inspections will be made by aircraft from the USS Constellation, USS George Washington, USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Enterprise.
The President said: "With these additional inspectors, the inspections should be completed in a few weeks."
Yes, They were Scuds, and yes, the UN really is blind. And no, you really don't know what you are talking about.
AP Wire
(At least in the US we wait until after a president is out of office or dead before we name public places for him, e.g. Reagan National Airport in DC.)
Not in Georgia. We have numerous highways, bridges and state roads named after SEATED members of the state board of transportation.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
doesn't anyone else find it funny that kuwait is now being attacked with missiles that iraq never had? what's this about inspections working?
i think that everyone that said 'let the inspectors work' needs to take a reality check. go back, see what happened. ask yourself: why is he firing missiles that 'don't exist'. because they do.
hans blix is a tool of the irrelevant un that will not enforce it's own resolutions. the united states is showing it's relevance as we argue, the un is showing it's uselessness.
THE USA SHOULD LEAVE THE UN!! KICK IT OUT OF OUR GREAT CITY OF NEW YORK! GO HOME APPEASERS!!!
oh, yeah....
in appeasment un, the resolutions are worthless.
if it wasn't for that horse, i wouldn't have spent that year in college.....
a democracy. They had elections, as promised by Musharraf, in October 2002 and elected government is running the affairs of the state since then. The Prime Minister Jamali of Pakistan to expected to meet President Bush on March 28. Musharraf is still there to supervise the new government and once it is completely on its feet (might take few years), he will leave the office.
I've been reading his Dear_Raed blog for months, but I won't even try now. He's been mentioned and linked to by just about every web news outlet I've seen in the last few days. The Mother Of All Slashdottings!
Poetic justice here would have him surviving the war with more street cred than all the reports in the West, then getting big $$ to be the new CNNMSABCBS correspondent and commentator. Viva la capitalism!
As terrifying and deadly as the next week or so will be, this could be a microcosm of what happens to Iraq, once worldwide investment and interest begin to pour in....
The US didn't want the weapons inspectors to stay any longer in Iraq because that would have made it more difficult for them to feign the evidence of Saddams weapons of mass destruction they want to present after the war.
How did the parent ever get modded up to 5?
It's been known for most of the day that the initial reports of SCUD launches had no basis in fact - even CNN has reported that the missiles were not SCUDs (go check it out!).
Of course, the sibling post is equally incorrect - troops did _not_ don chemical gear because any chemicals were detected, but simply as a precaution, and took them off a short time later when the all-clear was sounded (about 3 times so far today).
Please, people - by lying, you make it look like there really is no justification for the war, and that, more than any Iraqi missiles, is the biggest threat to US security and interests now.
Iraqis where stunned today by the calculated release of Duke Nukem Forever. Saddam was quoted as saying, "We were expecting the unexpected! But this.. this is beyond comprehension."
After over 4 years in development, it had been assumed that DNF was vaporware. It placed in the Wired Vaporware list for 3 years running.
Word from the White House calls the attack a decapitating blow. President Bush stated, "I think the release of DNF was the most significant tactical move ever made in the history of warfare."
When asked about these developments, Duke claimed, "It's time to kick ass and chew bubble gum. And, I'm all out of gum."
More at 11:00
Str8Dog
using System.Darkside; public
parent post up please. And don't waste your valuable points modding this down, there are far more appropriate posts on this thread.
- Chris
There's also a broadband BBC News 24 feed
Where did you find that?
Al.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
No, I have more education than the _normal_ USA people.
The problem in USA is the _very low_ education.
The US ended up "storming out pissed" because several key countries said they would veto any war on iraq no matter what. Not, "we don't see a reason for war yet." Not, "We'll only go to war if the following conditions are met.", no - nothing reasonable like that. It was, "No matter what, we promise we will veto any action that has war with iraq as even a POSSIBLE consequence, even if it's predicated on some list of conditions." Once that statement is made, then why should the US ever bother trying to prove it's point to the UN - it won't matter? Why should it ever bother pursuing the diplomatic path when such a statement robs it of all possible teeth? By making that statement, France guaranteed that there would be no reason to bother with further pursuit of a UN resolution.
It was a very stupid move. If they wanted to make diplomacy work, they should have never made such a statement. I'm not saying that France was wrong to oppose war under the current conditions. I'm saying France was wrong to make a public announcement that they would oppose it under any and all circumstances. That public announcement made Bush believe that he no longer had any reason to talk with the French - no reason to bother trying to convince them (which in turn, robs them of any avenue to try to convince him to tone it down) It was a tactical blunder, unless pushing the US into making war without UN approval was part of some larger plan of theirs.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I'm an old hippie and my son is out there in the navy, think how that would make me feel, opinions are cheap when they don't involve a personal connection. I wrote him an email last night and thought I would share it with Slashdot.
Dear Son,
I hope you get to read this. You have been much in my thoughts. I keep
thinking what it must be like, I should imagine, there is a lot of tension. I
know what it is like to be away from home for a long time. I don't however
know, what it feels like to be in a war zone. It might sound silly, but one
bit of me envies you. There is a saying 'what difficult things you go
through, that do not kill you, make you stronger. Or as A.... put it, it is
all the rubbing that brings out the shine. You will look back at what you are
going through now, in the future with a different eye.
They had a vote in the House of Commons after a day long debate. 217 MPs - 139 of them
Labour backbenchers - backed a rebel amendment opposing the government's
stance on Iraq, with 396 opposing the motion.
Stepping out of the murk that masks for political thought these days, I'll
tell you what I think.
Bush worries me, how stable is the man? He talks like the gunfighter at the OK
corral, weird or what? Come to that, how stable is America? 9 11 struck deep
into the American psychy. Talking to my mate p---- who served in the last do
as a life guard tank driver in '91, he said some interesting things. All
that hardwear and software does not get moved out to the middle east for
nothing, the decision to use it must have been made ages ago, irrelevant of
the UN, irrelevant of the House of Commons.
This is a very worrying situation, when the US ditched Kyoto, it sent a clear
signal to the rest of the world, that the US was going it alone. The fact
that the US massively out guns any other nation and they have the most
advanced technology, should tell which way the wind blows. What does England
do? England kept out of Vietnam, I think perhaps because, it was never an
area that England traditionaly messed with, it was more the French's bag and
they wisely dropped that hot potato.
The middle east is different, most of the borders in the middle east, were set
up by England, England had an enormous effect on the area, after the first
world war. Before the first world war, Turkey was the dominant power in the
area. I read an amazing book on the 'net called 'The Seven Pillars of Wisdom'
by TE Lawrence, If you ever saw the film "Laurence of Arabia" it was
basically true, as far as I could find out on the 'net.
I would guess the Arabs, trust the Brits more than they trust the Yanks, they
know us of old. Imagine Blair's dilemma, Bush says to him, we are going in,
with or without the UK. The middle east is a powder keg, mainly because a
desert culture breeds harsh, but wonderful people, very tribal, more evolved
because of environmental weeding. Moreso than us weak westerners, kids with
no shoes, get hard feet.
So will the world be a safer place because Britain backs America in this, well
that remains to be seen. But I know one thing, the Arab people will feel
different about it 'coz the Brits are along. 9 11 showed there is a deep
strand of hate from some sections of Arabic culture for American culture,
there has been no such attacks against Britain and English culture has had
doings in the middle east for centuries.
In between a rock and a hard place, one hopefully takes the lesser of two
evils. At the end of the day, no bugger knows, let us hope the huge gamble
pays off. I worry though, about the motives for this latest page turning in
history, it is difficult not to be cynical. It would be naieve to think the
fact that, Iraq is sitting on the worlds second biggest oil reserves is not
part of the equation. Also when Saddam asked for his oil money in Euro's
instead of dollars, it pissed off the Yanks no end, there is more
logarithms?
because of this effect, its quite possible they saw "something" coming, but they would still be unable to determine exactly where the planes were. and therefore, unable to lock onto it
as one of the other posters pointed out, in serbia i think some clever people worked out that by using a huge array of sensors(mobile phone networks?) they could detect enough of the scatter (or was it the effect of the plane moving through the atmosphere my memory is faulty) to accurately pinpoint these planes.
nothing is ever totally invisible, remeber these planes are BLACK, if they fly during the day, theyll know they are coming
dms0
-= world leaders choose world leaders not us, not a democracy, not a revolution! =-
.. don't take it personally but it's incredible how many people are getting brainwashed with with this credo . It's a standard printout of the american propaganda and really it's what I would prefer to believe too. (If it would be that simple and justified though)
The real problem is that there exists something like international law and UN and many counties are trying to work together and tradeofss are being made on a daily basis. The US is already for years a part of it but isn't a real democratic player since it abuses veto all the time to promote personal interrests (and much more than the other few countries having the same right). Now while veto isn't realy democratic it has been tollerated for decenia in order "to keep the peace" (more along the line like : if you play by the rules we're maybe willing to bend them a little bit towards your comfort).
What the US however just did with much arrogance was ignoring even this and the rest of the world and doing whatever fitted them best first.
Now the real danger is not comming for a small country like iraq having limited resources. The danger is comming from a big countries like america willing to abuse it's superior military power in order to gain more economical control over other countries (e.g. control over limited resourse like oil) and thus endagering world peace.
It's not because your an important player you have the right to do anything you like. Even If you have one of worlds most powerful weapons : media control
It is a hard read to begin with, but with perseverance, well worth it.
Did the US Militaryt ranscri pt.htm
participate in starting the Oil Well Fires of Kuwait in 1991?
http://www.thepowerhour.com/postings-four/
About a week ago, RealPlayer just gave me a pop-up that informed me that I didn't make it my default media player and then gave me a prompt to "correct" this "problem".
The free market solution would be to sell the land to the highest bidder and let them decide who to hire to repair the oil wells. I doubt this solution would go over well, however
Vote for Pedro
I just have a hard time swalloing someone, or some group of people, had such a lack of regard for human life that they could let thousands of our own people be slaughtered. I don't believe it. I can swallow us targetting oil fields, maybe, but letting our own people get hit?
Jeremy
Preventive War Sets Perilous Precedent
by Helen Thomas
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is radically revolutionizing American foreign policy in a way that has changed our image -- the object of envy around the world -- and has transformed our close relations with other nations.
The president asserts that the United States has the right to preemptively attack any nation it deems a potential threat. The problem for Bush and our nation is that the United Nations authorizes such retaliatory acts only in self-defense.
The test case obviously is Iraq where the United States is embarking on an unprovoked war. In our own history, such a move would have been labeled an aggression. I'm thinking of the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.
No one doubts that Bush can change the Iraqi regime and oust Saddam Hussein in short order. But the repercussions will be felt for decades and could justify other so-called "preventive wars" by other nations.
Do we really want that? This is a perilous precedent for our country to set.
The new Bush policy also breaks with our proven post-World War II policy of collective security. With the help of friends and allies, we were able to keep the peace during the Cold War with a containment policy toward the now-defunct Soviet Union. Likewise, Iraq has been contained since the first Gulf War 12 years ago.
In my continuing search for the logic of the new Bush policy, I went back recently to the president's speech on June 1, 2002, at West Point. Historians years from now will dredge up that text as they, too, seek the roots of Bush's war on Iraq.
In his address, the president declared: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge."
His tough address stressed that "the only path to safety is action."
Delivered just months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with a shattered America seeking revenge, that bombshell speech was not widely recognized at the time as a major turning point in American foreign policy -- nor were its pros and cons properly debated in the Senate afterward.
The nation was still in shock and ready to embrace any new measure that was billed as a step toward enhancing our security.
It paved the way for Bush and his hawkish advisers to put Iraq high on their target list.
When I measure his Iraq policy against the standards of his West Point speech, I am still puzzled about the administration's insistence that Iraq poses an imminent and direct threat to the United States. That, after all, should be the fundamental test of soundness for any decision to attack.
He has very few believers among fellow members of the U.N. Security Council or the world at large. The "coalition of the willing," as the White House calls it, consists of 30 nations that have publicly sided with the Bush administration. Only three of those have offered combat units: The United States, Britain and Australia.
There are another 15 nations that have offered their anonymous support to the U.S.-led war, according to State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. One wonders why these nations don't want to be identified publicly.
This adds up to a small percentage of the 191 nations that belong to the United Nations.
Contrast this with the 1991 Persian Gulf War, where the U.S.-led coalition -- animated by the clear and moral goal of repelling Iraqi aggression against Kuwait -- consisted of 31 member nations contributing military support. Arab nations were publicly supportive and sent their military forces to pitch in. The world at large applauded the efforts of President George H.W. Bush.
This President Bush has apparently persuaded Americans that military action is needed. Polls earlier this week showed him with a 71 percent approval rating.
After the war there will be rewards in victory. Bush will have achieved a new imper
help out.
Or as President Bush distorts it: a widdow of dead opportunity.
They are ground to ground defensive missiles. They should be entitled to defend their country however it be possible.
.... regardless of what the Media is saying).
I personally hope they use whatever weaponry they can against American troops (Note: It is NOT a "coalition force"
I hope they gas as many American troops as possible and light as many oilfields they feel they need to. Its their oil, its their right to burn it!
Ever need an online dictionary?
I heard this from multiple sources, but I can't really confirm it - cell phones stop stealth. I wish I had the documentation for this (maybe someone else can help), but cell towers use a frequency that stealth aircraft have a high crossection for, and cell coverage gaps reflected down from the atmosphere can be used to track stealth aircraft. Thats why FRY managed to detect the direction to fire into - it had dense cell coverage (like the rest of Europe).
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
"How many contractors have put in bids to rebuild Iraqi homes, hospitals and the like? I would assume none because of the lack of money in it."
I wasn't aware Hussein had plans to sabotages homes and hospitals as well as the oil wells. I doubt the US is planning on bombing a lot of homes and hospitals. Your "lack of money in it" comment doesn't make sense either. Presumably, if the oil wells are repaired, there will be plenty of money to repair damaged infrastructure.
"Oil on the other hand is why the US is attacking Iraq... rather that sorting out North Korea who are blatently being naughty (but luckily don't possess miles of oil miles)."
If the US was in Iraq for oil, it would have been a lot less costly, both financially, and politically for Bush, to simply lift sanctions and buy the oil from Saddam. As far as N. Korea, the US has taken the correct 1st step. They refused bilateral talks, which N. Korea planned to use to extort oil and money from the US to promise to stop developing nuclear weapons. The 94 agreement showed how well this worked. Without outside aid, N. Korea will self destruct. This could be dangerous, but if the US sends troops in there, that action will be protested as well (and also dangerous). N. Korea is a good illustration of what the world will face with Iraq in a dew years if nothing is done now. Some people seem happy to wait until the threat has materialized however, which makes no sense to me.
Vote for Pedro
Published on Thursday, March 13, 2003 by Yahoo News
Don't Support Our Troops
Win or Lose, War on Iraq is Wrong
by Ted Rall
NEW YORK--Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential frontrunner, opposes war with Iraq. Despite this stance, he suggests that Americans should set aside their political differences once the Mother of All Bombs starts blowing up munitions dumps and babies in Baghdad.
"When the war begins, if the war begins," says Kerry, "I support the troops and I support the United States of America winning as rapidly as possible. When the troops are in the field and fighting--if they're in the field and fighting--remembering what it's like to be those troops--I think they need a unified America that is prepared to win."
Fellow presidential candidate Howard Dean, who calls Bush's foreign policy "ghastly" and "appalling," is the Democrats' most vocal opponent of a preemptive strike against Iraq. But once war breaks out, he says, "Of course I'll support the troops."
This is an understandable impulse. As patriots, we want our country to win the wars that we fight. As Americans, we want our soldiers--young men and women who risk too much for too little pay--to come home in one piece. But supporting our troops while they're fighting an immoral and illegal war is misguided and wrong.
An Unjust Cause
Iraq has never attacked, nor threatened to attack, the United States. As his 1990 invasion of Kuwait proved, Saddam is a menace to his neighbors--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel--but he's their problem, not ours. Saddam's longest-range missiles only travel 400 miles.
Numerous countries are ruled by unstable megalomaniacs possessing scary weaponry. North Korea has an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the western United States and, unlike Iraq, the nuke to put inside it. Pakistan, another nuclear power run by a dangerous anti-American dictator, just unveiled its new HATF-4 ballistic missile. If disarmament were Bush's goal, shouldn't those countries--both of which have threatened to use nukes--be higher-priority targets than non-nuclear Iraq?
Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism. The only link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is the fact that they hate each other's guts. And no matter how often Bush says "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same breath, Saddam had nothing to do with the terror attacks.
That leaves freeing Iraqis from Saddam's repressive rule as the sole rationale for war. Is the U.S. in the liberation business? Will Bush spread democracy to Myamnar, Congo, Turkmenistan, Cambodia, Nigeria, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan or Laos, just to name a few places where people can't vote, speak freely or eat much? You be the judge. I wouldn't bet on it.
Of course, it would be great if Iraqis were to overthrow Saddam (assuming that his successor would be an improvement). But regime change is up to the locals, not us. George W. Bush is leading us to commit an ignominious crime, an internationally-unsanctioned invasion of a nation that has done us no harm and presents no imminent threat.
Germans in the 1930s
We find ourselves facing the paradox of the "good German" of the '30s. We're ruled by an evil, non-elected warlord who ignores both domestic opposition and international condemnation. We don't want the soldiers fighting his unjustified wars of expansion to win--but we don't want them to lose either.
Our dilemma is rendered slightly less painful by the all-volunteer nature of our armed forces: at least we aren't being asked to cheer on reluctant draftees. Presumably everybody in uniform knew what they might be in for when they signed up.
"I'm horrified by this war," a friend tells me, "but once it starts we have to win and win quickly." For her, as for Kerry and Dean, our servicemen are people performing a job. They go where the politicians send them.
The thing is, we don't really have to win. Losing the Vietnam War sucked, but not fighting it in the first place would have been smarter
help out.
(UPDATE) I use special menu f7 and press 1 for creating a decoy into the desert when an Iraki
Engineer penetrated my bunker trying to place a sentry on the main exit. Nice try!- I said after taking him out with my freeze gun / flamethrower combo.
CNN reports
Those so-called "Peace" protestors are the largest group of _hypocrites_ I've ever seen. They cry "Peace" and "No war" and yet are causing violence themselves - how "peacefull" of them. They are being just as destructive as the war is. It proves that the protestors aren't really for peace but are using the war as an excuse to act as like those who they are protesting against.
Also, _none_ of these protesters were _ever_ around when Clinton was bombing places. If Clinton was still President and was doing this war not one peace protestor on the planet would be found. Again peace protestors are being hypocrites!
I say this, if any so-called hypocrite "Peace" (hahaha) protestor gets to the point where they threaten or otherwise near are to hurting my family I _will_ defend myself and my family. Period.
As for the cowardly surrender people of France - you people are hilarious - and pathetic. Ha, yeah that hurts destroying a McDonalds restaurant in France - destroyed by so-called "Peace"full non-violent non-destructive people. Again hypocrites in action doing just as much damage as this war. This war is just an excuse for them to express something they always felt - hatred against the US.
Keep up the hypocrism so-called "Peace" people! You're just providing fodder for my and others amusement when we can point out your false beliefs.
Who is lying? You mean I didn't see the guy on TV say that they detected chemical wepaons and were putting on the protective gear? Sure it was a false alarm, but that still doesn't make what I saw a lie.
We already do buy oil from Saddam. In fact, we now buy twice as much oil as we did before the Gulf war. Part of the reason for this is the Food For Oil program, which was intended to stop the sanctions from killing civilians and let it punish the leadership (because they can't get Gold Toilets and Scud Missiles). Unfortunatly the regime funneled the food and money into programs that only helped to enhance their lifestyles. Plus, no matter what friendly regime we put into power, democratic, dictator, hitler or whatever, the price of oil is set by Opec and Opec alone. And the amount of oil that Iraq accounts for (just 10% of the entire Gulf) isn't enough to raise or lower prices significantly based on how much they choose to pump.
At least in his last presidential election he had 100 percent of the vote. That's more than twice of what George W. got!
Here is the text for all interested. It's an important read for those concerned with the international political situation.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
you are an idiot. Yeah, we're gonna wage an urban war and _not_ distroy homes and hospitals?!!? What, the "coalition" forces have magic bullets or something?
gun: *blam*
bullet: "oh look, that's a civilian, better not hit it" *swerves out of the way"
are you retarded?!
Yes. You've describe yet another reason to go into Iraq. They've abused the food for oil program by taking money meant for starving people and keeping it for themselves (Iraqi govt.). This is another violation of UN resolutions.
Vote for Pedro
Yes. They're called smart bombs. Ever heard of GPS? Of course there will be some destruction of buildings. Presumably that's where the Iraqi leaders are holed up. You might want to think twice, or just think, before calling someone an idiot.
Vote for Pedro
the F-117's were not alone in their flights. they were accompanied by navy prowlers, out fitted with radar jammer etc. the point is once their radars are gone are they just going to sit there? hell no, they knew something is/was flying into there air space...so they took to their AA guns. It doesn't seem all that complicated. The radar visiblity many be debatably, but the radar jammers would definately have been a dead give away to coming attacks.
anyways my point was they didn't have a direct fix on the airplanes in the area, but they still facking knew birds were in the air!
Sorry, a quick addendum. The Canadian division responsible for the incident in Somalia was the Canadian Airborne Regiment, not the "1st Airborne". The unit has since been disbanded.
The victim was Shidane Abukar Arone.
CBC Newsworld report
Click here for the Somalia Inquiry Report.
Canadian Airborne Regiment Unofficial Homepage To get their side of the story.
Every story has two sides, and those who are truly interested in this case should be willing to consider both of them before making up their mind.
Let me get this straight;
...
You are using a hypothetical solution to the problem of the September 11 attacks that involves a pre-emptive strike (rather than acknowledging that US foreign policy had irritated certain groups to the point where they are prepared to die and kill to express their disatisfaction) to justify the current 'pre-emptive strike'?
Firstly, even if the excuse that Hussein or his regime is planning some sort of war of terror is more than a thin fabrication, all that may be accomplished is to remove Hussein and his regime and create a couple of thousand more people so irritated with the aggression and imperialism of the US that they too are willing to kill and die. You have not solved the problem, just shifted where it lives. What next, pre-emptive strikes on Iran, the Palestine, Turkey
Secondly, trying to justify the invasion of a foreign nation to remove and (potentially) replace the government on the pretext of targetting people who _may_ take action against the US _justifies_ the actions of terrorists attacking the US by the same logic. They too are targetting a nation they deem to be harbouring those who would seek to do (or have already done) harm to their nation, home or family. They have acted with the sanction of their government (or at least that is the accusation made of Hussein).
Forget for a moment arguments of right and wrong, takelook at the potential consequences of this action. If enlightened self interest does not show that this invasion serves only a very few people and not the majority of the US (or the rest of the world) then I am truly talking to a fanatic.
Whoa -- just give us updates of war news for nerds. Which interesting graphics technologies are being used by the news groups? What new tech is being used in battle? How many nerd jobs are there in the military, and how many of those are mobile jobs? What kinds of nets are being used?
BBC reports that the anti-war ribbon for Oscar wear will be... duct tape on their expensive outfits. They didn't say what the anti-Saddam ribbon is -- maybe it's a campaign ribbon (if you don't know, that is the kind of ribbon covering the left chest of military dress uniforms).
Forget for a moment arguments of right and wrong, takelook at the potential consequences of this action. If enlightened self interest does not show that this invasion serves only a very few people and not the majority of the US (or the rest of the world) then I am truly talking to a fanatic.
*bonk* You're right. What possible bad could come to to the world by letting a known mass murderer who's attempted the takeover of neighboring countries -POSSIBLY- come about? I don't know about you, but if we had never pissed Hitler off maybe WWII would never have happened. Maybe if we just let these maniacs run loose for a while they'll get their fill on their own turf and never both anybody else.
We tried that for a number of years. It failed. Miserably. Millions of lives were lost in WWI and WWII. We, and Britain, won't make that mistake again. You do realize that Saddam is a bad boy playing with toys that the UN has declared he shouldn't have right?
Then again, if you think Saddam should have all these weapons around, and it's okay for him to hang onto them and dipose of them on his own free time you're probably okay with violent convicts with felonys on their record in the US slowly disposing of their firearms for a 12 year period. After all, it's only fair. Just send a probation officer to their door every now and again to make sure that they got rid of one gun every so often.
Regarding your first setence that I quoted; forgetting the difference between "right and wrong" is the most assinine argument I could think of in this time. The difference between right and wrong is, well, central to this whole argument.
The second part of your first sentence, regarding the consequences of the US's actions, I think is a moot point. We're doing the right thing; and when you do the right think you accept the consequences of that. I'm fine with that. Many of us are. The fourth plane on Sept 11 realized quickly how to deal with terrorism. Just thank your lucky stars that there's a few of us here in the US that still know passiveness is a thing of the past.
Us fanatics keep the enemy scared and keep you safe. If you don't like that, go to Iraq.
and now you understand why the Iraqi's have never shot down a F-117...
The Fletcher Memorial Home for incurable Tyrants and Kings....
.sig is pretty obscure, but I've always liked The Final Cut.
That
Another good one from that album, and somewhat apropos:
Get your filthy hands off my desert!......(whoosh BOOM!)
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
Advocating peace, to bring the troops home so they won't be killed or maimed is not "supporting" them?
What a lot of people mean when they say "support the troops" is "do not question authority".
Ironic that questioning authority is the basis of democracy...
known mass murderer who's attempted the takeover of neighboring countries
does the distance from the countries the US has invaded make them different from Hussein, or it their success?
Maybe if we just let these maniacs run loose for a while they'll get their fill on their own turf and never both anybody else
the alternative to doing nothing is not just war as you imply.
You do realize that Saddam is a bad boy playing with toys that the UN has declared he shouldn't have right?
so now that the US has broken a UN recommendation, is it OK for poeple to invade you?
Saddam should have all these weapons around
why is it only the US that is allowed these weapons?
forgetting the difference between "right and wrong" is the most assinine argument
oh, i am prepared to argue 'right and wrong', just not with narrow minded bigots. to them i appeal to their (demonstrated) self interest. read the original, the context matters.
when you do the right think you accept the consequences of that
which is just an 'ends justifies the means' argument.
The fourth plane on Sept 11 realized quickly how to deal with terrorism
what has that got to do with this, apart from demonstrating your inability to filter your own country's propaganda?
Us fanatics keep the enemy scared and keep you safe
no, they are singularly responsible for more death, more destabilisation and more harm than any other group. my safety has _nothing_ to do with the actions of the narrow minded fools who cannot even understand the concept of consequnce.
you have demonstrated the pointlessness of arguing with such people far more eloquently than I could have otherwise. your ignorance, coupled with your inability to conceive of it truly terrifies me.
No, but it does make you a gullible alarmist who's watched far too much cheerleading coverage of "our boys" to be anywhere near objective at this point. Go take a cold shower before posting again, k thanx.
Oh and for the record, the missiles were not "banned scuds" either. as a few more rational people have pointed out, even the warporn media outlets that have been working you people into a righteous frenzy are now acknowledging this. Boy its gonna be a fun few weeks watching you all get your panties in a bunch and prematurely shout "HAHA WORLD WE TOLD YA SO!" every time CNN or Fox cracks that whip.
When history makes its final judgement on all of this it thankfully won't be relying too much on the propaganda, they'll be relying on the facts - facts that are in rather short supply right now. Soon as the first shot is fired you people just lap up anything the media tells you, and that's scary. Hate to bring up the tired cliche, but at least in Soviet Russia most people knew it was all a load of shit and lies that they were being told by their media, particularly when it came to official enemies and war. Americans by contrast are looking particularly stupid and sheeplike when faced with the same sort of rah-rah reporting. I just got back from a bar and jesus christ, I'm scared of my own people at this point - what the fuck is happening to us? Is this what empire is to look like? So much for the well-informed and politically active citizenry that keeps democracy from sliding towards aristocracy and tyranny..
See?
Consequences ensue.
Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War
WASHINGTON, DC--Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences."
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Sorta makes sense if cell towers are close together the are effectively looking straight up at the overflying aircraft. Not sure how stealthy they are from underneath but it would be hard to avoid some signature. So if you are flying over 500km of basically radar towere every 10 km then it might very well be possible.
Please. Do you really think the American military is aiming for '. . .homes, hosiptals, and the like?' If you do, then I completely understand where you're coming from...
Oil on the other hand is why the US is attacking Iraq... rather that sorting out North Korea who are blatently being naughty (but luckily don't possess miles of oil miles).Is this a double-standard or what? NO ONE, inluding the U.N., wants to touch N. Korea. Everyone wants the U.S. to deal with them alone. Japan simply wants to ignore it. S. Korea is ho-humming around and not really doing anything. China isn't sure it wants to lose it's only Communist 'ally' in the region (even though KJI is fucking crazy and China really doesn't like dealing with NK anymore)...
The U.S. has to screw around with the U.N. when oil is concerned, but they pretty much have to go it alone when it comes to a (probably) nuclear armed N. Korea. Yep. Double standard.
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington DC
PS pls send as many tix as possible
THX!!
Its worth remembering that the US always exagerates its successes by a factor of about 3; I doubt very much that the stealth "feature" is as good as they claim, although it is certainly good.
It's undeniable though that Iraq has neither the resources nor the expertise to construct such a radar.
Perhaps the Chinese installed one while they were putting in the fiber-optic comand and control system. Perhaps the CIA sold them one. Who knows? Nobody's going to tell us!
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
the only way oil (and other) imports can be made without causing the domestic finance system to go bankrupt is to make these transactions using the dollar as currency, so that the spendings are reinvested by the foreign exporters in the u.s. finance market.
In fact, the truth is that no matter what the currencty of exchange, foreigners are left holding U.S. dollars. Compare the purchase of German BMW in American dollars to its purchase in German marks and you find that the resulting balance of payments between nations is the same in both cases.
In dollars it goes like this:
The German seller says he will sell the car for X dollars. You give him X dollars and he gives you the car. Result: A German has X dollars and you have BMW.
In German marks it goes like this:
The German seller says he will sell the car for Y marks. A German currency dealer says that he will sell you Y marks for X dollars. You give the currency dealer X dollars and he gives you Y marks. You give Y marks to the guy with the BMW and he gives you the BMW. Result: A German has X dollars and you have BMW.
That ultimately the balance of dollars is shifted to Germany after the purchase of German goods by Americans is unavoidable and does not depend on what currency is accepted in exchange for those goods.
Otherwise u.s. importers would have to massiveley buy foreign currencies to pay the imports, which would lead to an enourmos decrease of the value of the greenback, resulting in higher inflation, less consumer spendings and thus to a decrease of the u.s. economic output over long.
That makes no sense at all. It is a nonsensical use of jargon. You thought if you used the words "inflation" "consumer spending" and "economic output" together in the same sentence that you would sound more important ? No. Words have meaning and should be used to express ideas. You sound like a Star Trek engineer, "The hyperdrive transmodulator has overloaded the intercouplers on the alphatron phase inverter, resulting in a decalibration of the transonic inductive energy couplers on the primary thrusters. We have to shut down the warp drive immediately!". It makes as much sense as what you wrote, and it is more honest about its status as fiction.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Blair doesn't have class.
He's a polo-wearing ruffled populist red neck.
If I had to vote for him, I'd expect him to be wearing decent clothes and to smell more than just cheap perfume : he's a g8 country leader, for Christ's sake !
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Apparently Marinus van der Lubbe was beheaded by the Nazis after his trial. There are rumours that he was encouraged to burn the Reichstag by Nazi agents to provde a "trigger" for a crackdown. He was also a Communist, not a Jew.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
"Just a couple of years ago, near the whole world was behind America..."
I don't mean to be a cynic, honest, but this keeps getting said all over the web. Who in their right mind, when the worlds only superpower is really pissed off and looking for someone to attack, is going to stand up against them on a matter of principal?
The 'whole world' only appeared to be behind America, the day before _that_ event, the 'whole world' was not behind America.
No one is saying the US is saintly by any means but at least the US tried to end the genocide (and obviously failed in this case) which is more than any other nation in world can say. Tell me, did your country do anything to try to end the killing of innocents in the former-Yogoslavia beside just talk and look at the horror on TV?
yup
-- No, no -- Not that one!
hence the "hopefully semi intelligent discussion" part :)
Those that Saddam puts there so he can show lots of civilian casualties on TV.
WIfes are not countries.
Alegories don't always work, and this one is pathetic.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
in fact stealth was a "wonder-weapon" in the 80's of the last century, but radar technology has advanced too. good radar systems have no real problem with the F117, maybe a little more with the B-2.
already in the second gulf war, french radar in saudi-arabia was able to track the F117 flights.
"Please, people - by lying, you make it look like there really is no justification for the war..."
Umm, there *really* isn't.
Like one dude sang (to the tune of "if you're happy and you know it")...
If you cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets are a drama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are frisky,
Pakistan is looking shifty,
North Korea is too risky,
Bomb Iraq.
If we have no allies with us, bomb Iraq.
If we think someone has dissed us, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections,
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.
It's "pre-emptive non-aggression", bomb Iraq.
Let's prevent this mass destruction, bomb Iraq.
They've got weapons we can't see,
And that's good enough for me,
'Cos it's all the proof I need to
Bomb Iraq.
If you never were elected, bomb Iraq.
If your mood is quite dejected, bomb Iraq.
If you think Saddam's gone mad,
With the weapons that he had,
(And he tried to kill your dad),
Bomb Iraq.
If your corp'rate fraud is growin', bomb Iraq.
If your ties to it are showin', bomb Iraq.
If your politics are sleazy,
And hiding that ain't easy,
And your manhood's getting queasy,
Bomb Iraq.
Fall in line and follow orders, bomb Iraq.
For our might knows not our borders, bomb Iraq.
Disagree? We'll call it treason,
Let's make war not love this season,
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.
Short On Change
Is America Building Nations Or Tearing Them Down?
Natasha Hunter is associate editor at TomPaine.com.
One way to measure the Bush administration's commitment to building democracy in postwar Iraq might be to look at the funds we've allocated to cleaning up after our last big regime-change project.
Bush included Afghanistan in his State of the Union address, and reasserted the United States' commitment to the war-blasted nation. "In Afghanistan we helped to liberate an oppressed people," he said. "And we will continue helping them secure their country, rebuild their society and educate all their children: boys and girls."
So how much money did Bush request in the budget for all this securing and rebuilding and equal-opportunity educating? None. And it's not because Congress ignored the White House's request -- the administration simply failed to include funds for reconstruction or humanitarian aid.
Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, expressed "surprise" to the BBC that the president had overlooked Afghanistan in its budget proposals package. Kolbe says that when he questioned the administration on the oversight, it couldn't offer a satisfactory explanation.
Later in the State of the Union, Bush discussed Iraq, and compared the situation to Afghanistan: "And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military and we will prevail. And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food, and medicines and supplies and freedom."
But only if someone else foots the bill, right?
Much talk has been circulating about a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, and polling shows the American people standing solidly behind such a program. And as the only reigning superpower, the United States would have to lend its support -- and its cash -- if any such plan were to blossom. But blunders like the administration's budget omission provide a dreary if unsurprising insight into what's not motivating the White House.
And what is? Is the attack on Iraq an imperialist economic grab, an exchange of blood for oil, as the far left claims? Is it a show of overwhelming force, intended to cow our "enemies" in an increasingly fluid and unstable world? Evidence for these claims, convincing now, grows more compelling every day.
Right-wing ideologues look forward to regime change in Iraq as a stepping stone from which the Arab world can be Westernized. Liberals who believe in civil society hope that -- if war is inevitable -- Iraq and Afghanistan will create a harmonious blend of Islam and democracy. But with no money behind its words, America is nothing more than a bully that brags of building nations as it tears them down and walks away.
help out.
This should be obligatory reading, specially for all those that blindly support Bush and wonder why other people are so worried.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It's simple, there are always more uninformed or underinformed people. So, it gets modded up if it sounds good, whether it has any basis in fact or not.
__
L.
That is way the USians first instinct today was to replace Iraq's flag with their own at the first opotunity.
Class is class, USians simple lack it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... the first reaction of US troops today was to begin replacing Iraqi flags with their own in the first military outposts conquered.
Class is class, some have it, some lack it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Who is forcing you to click in the link to this thread?
You don't like it you don't click it.
Very simple.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... you can't spell?
Hussein will be proven a liar when the arms are used or found, not when US troops done protective clothing just in case.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
How did the parent ever get modded up to 5?
...troops did _not_ don chemical gear because any chemicals were detected, but simply as a precaution...
Because I'm at the Karma cap and don't need it. I though a +3 Funny or -1 Troll.
It's been known for most of the day that the initial reports of SCUD launches had no basis in fact - even CNN has reported that the missiles were not SCUDs (go check it out!).
Still to early to say. Reports are saying a mixture of SCUDs (which Iraq doesn't have), AL SAMOUDs (which Iraq claimed to be destroying last week, having only ten left) and some type of Chinesse short range missile (which are not banned).
Correct. At this point, no chemical or biological weapons have been detected. The closest thing so far is that artillery shells that COULD be loaded with such weapons were detected, but they were not loaded. Of course, the shells are also not supposed to exist, but they are no worse right now than any other shell.
Of course, by the time I hit submit, all of these 'facts' I state could be proven wrong. No one will really know for weeks. It's called 'the fog of war'.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
Yes, pre 1.3, Mozilla is a crappy browser that doesn't even support the basic function of sending the X,Y coordinates where you clicked the image map. Something IE has supported since who knows when.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
This is patently false, as will be demonstrated later. As for the worldwide economic crisis, the economy of the Weimar Republic was actually improving.
Also a load. Chancellors, like Hitler, were not elected, but appointed by the Reichstag and the Weimar Republic president. And while not having a solid majority, the Nazis did hold the most seats in the Reichstag. In fact, Goering was president of that body.
Yet another error... Hitler railed against the Communist Party, which held the second greatest number of seats in the Reichstag. He declared a state of emergency and had his political opponents arrested. Not Jews.
As mentioned above, Hitler's political opponents, including the leaders of the Communist and Democratic Christian parties were the first to meet the 'police', most of whom were SA brownshirts. As for the rest, Hitler was always a brilliant orator and propagandist. How did you think he took control of the Nazi party (he didn't found it-he joined when it was an insignifigant group of about 20 persons).
Really? Are we talking about the same Germans who have always been violently xenophobic? Who have a word (auslander) in their language that means 'everyone who is not German', and is considered to be a derisive term?
The German media, with the exeption of some newspapers and magazines, was a state institution long before Hitler came onto the scene. You know, kind of like the same way it is in Europe now.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What are you proposing? That I take a bus over the ocean?
Un-news
There is a difference between undetectable and stealthy (i.e. difficult to detect). There are some theories regarding "bi-static" radar systems that can be used to detect stealthy aircraft due to the fact that these aircraft are designed to reflect radar energy away from the transmitter. By using one or more remote receivers, this scattered energy can be detected> http://theregister.co.uk/content/2/19874.html
People are the problem, stop procreation now!
http://www.landfield.com/isn/mail-archive/2001/Jun /0099.html
http://www.landfield.com/isn/mail-archive/2001/Jun /0099.html
There is more information here on the Czech "Tamara" anti-stealth radar, which apparently the Iraqis were set to buy in November 1997.
People are the problem, stop procreation now!
Of course they held vigils. Just about the hole world did. Now the target has shifted to a rather lucrative customer of France. By disrupting evrything in Iraq, they stand to lose a lot of money. Lets hold vigils for the US, what a terrible loss, but wait a minute, now its going to cost us money....
Via the BBC News broadband console, which is only avaliable to most UK broadband users.
Fent
What about Bacon?
i am sick of all the idiots who disagree with me. They are all wrong and I feel that I am right. They should shut up because I cant believe how wrong they are. Dont they know?
The War in Iraq is most likely to reduce America's security, not increase it. The Arab world is getting the point that for the next few years, it can't hope to oppose the US in open combat. That leaves "Low Intensity Warfare", a game anybody can play.
There are kids all over the Arab world carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein. Making that scumbag into a hero is a remarkable accomplishment, but Bush has accomplished many remarkable things. Most of which no patriotic and clued American could possibly want. Only a Bush supporter could believe that making more terrorists increases American security.
If the goal of the US is to create another generation of Arab terrorists, Bush is performing well for us.
Your best possible contribution to the security of the USA would be to go to Iraq and join Saddam yourself or join al-Queda. I feel safer as an American with you on the other side. The idea of you doing your best to make a terrorist op work and fucking it up beyond all recognition amuses me.
The time to deal with bin Laden permanently was while he was still on the US payroll.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Nationalism also tends to be based on a particular personality. Using your German and Italian references, remember the "greater german" and "lesser german" ideals of unification. Gerater germans wanted to unite under the Austro-Hungarian government via the Hapsburg monarchs given their dynasty or under Frederick Wilhelm I of Prussia specifically because of the relative power and prestige. Particular rulers, and hence partcular governments, were involved in nationalist movements. In Italy we see the same idea around 1830. Some called for a republic under the Pope, most called for a federation under the Kingdom of Sardinia (since he was the only significant king to grant basic liberties to his people via a constitution) and still others wondered if the Hapsburgs could unite Italy under their control. Specific governments were used as a means to create a nation. Most of the people who saw the situation and wanted a united country with freedom ended up leaving for the USA in both cases (especially in Germany). Pan-arabian nationalism found a popular expression with the Ba'ath party starting in the late 50s and leading to the temporary unification of Egypt and Syria under the United Arab Republic. Saddam Hussein is a Ba'athist, so don't be surprised if this party fades into the twilight (at least officially) during the next few years. Again, a loyalty to a specific government being used to justify a new nation instead of vise versa. Basque nationalists tend to be largely found in Spain and are merely seeking to restore their old country of Navrone (spelling?). Like those arab who look to restore the Caliphate (not all pan-arab nationalists seek that; Bin Laden does, Hussein does not), they are trying to restore something that previously existed but is no longer present. Any questions?
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Nope they weren't.
you are back. you fucking skull fucking rabbit raping puke. i really thought you wen back into your fucking hole from whence you came, shitcake. fuck off you fat sexless live in parents basement mediocritomaton loser asshole greasy poor cant afford shit loser.
fuck off.
Who R U?
I am become Shiva.
I for one cannot protest the recent M.T.A. fare hike and the
accompanying promises that this would in no way improve service. For
the transit system, as it now operates, has hidden advantages that
can't be measured in monetary terms.
Personally, I feel that it is well worth 75 cents or even $1 to
have that unimpeachable excuse whenever I am late to anything: "I came
by subway." Those four words have such magic in them that if Godot
should someday show up and mumble them, any audience would instantly
understand his long delay.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...