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.
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?
BBC has the only free live feed I can find.
They have great coverage (of what can be covered anyway).
- OrbNobz
And the rockets red glare...the bombs bursting in air...
This turned out to be misinformation. They weren't Scuds.
Nope, they were Chinesse missiles, not Scuds.
(info from Kuwait and England forces)
Iraq is prohibited from having missiles that can travel further than 150 km under UN security resolution 687. But it is not prohibited from having the "original" Scud missile as well as the Alabil 100 Scud clone and the improved Al-Samoud missiles, because those missiles can not exceed that range.
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.
iirc cnn has an irc server (irc.cnn.com)? that has a bot spouting their closed caption feed.
Not exactly a great feed [or unbiased!], but a good way to keep in touch of what's going on.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A488 56-2003Mar18.html
Christina! Bring me an axe!
Actually, I think you misunderstand me. I do NOT in any way approve of the US invading North Korea. The costs would simply be far too high, even if the DPRK did not possess nuclear weapons (which it might). Even now, there are North Korean artillery in place which can fire 50,000 rounds an hour into downtown Seoul. A military conflict there would be disasterous.
What I am advocating is that we step up negotiations with North Korea, which China, South Korea, and Japan are all trying to persuade us to do. If our senate would have ratified the 1994 treaty, which would have given North Korea a couple of nuclear power plants jointly run by the US and Japan, this nuclear standoff could likely have been averted. In the meantime, North Korea's goals are still basically diplomatic: the regime there wants normalization of relations with the US, a non-agression treaty, and a return of fuel and power aid.
Additionally, I would like to note that China's government does have mixed feelings about North Korea. On the one hand, China has always enjoyed having another communist state as a "buffer" in the region. On the other hand, North Korea has become an albatross about China's neck. Without assistance from the Chinese government, North Korea would essentially collapse, both politically and economically, and the cost to China of maintaining that regime keeps getting higher. Additionally, China has (albiet slowly) been making economic and political reforms aimed at democratizing Chinese society and promoting more private industry. North Korea is not making similar efforts, which has caused the two countries to be farther apart politically than ever before. If anything, China is interested in being a partner with the US in resolving the Korean crises. The PRC, like the US, realizes it is in noone's interested to have a nuclear Korean peninsula.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
As for using SCUD missiles doesn't positively give evidence of using banned munitions
The SCUD itself is banned. His missiles are limited (by UN mandate) to have a range of no more than 150km.
irc.idlenet.org, channel #cnn-live
I believe CNN used to have their own server, and I believe somebody decided to steal the nick of President Clinton while there were people transcribing an interview.
This turned out to be misinformation. They weren't Scuds.
2 were Scuds, 2 were Chinese made missiles, codenamed Seersucker by the West.
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.
Just want to correct a minor historical error you made:
During WW2, we basically declared war on Hitler. A lot of "innocent Germans" were killed during that war, but I think most agree that sometimes a terrible price is necessary to bring peace to the world.
The US didn't declare war on Germany. Germany was the agressor. WW2 was triggered when Hitlers took Poland. Europe was then fed up by Germanys imperialism and declared war. The US on this time stood back and watch. When they entered it was in true self defence (perl harbour) and it was allready a fullscale war where Germany couldn't complain about losses (they were the agressor, remember.)
Look a monkey!
(Care of the Wall Street Journal ...)
In explaining the mission of our soldiers, we can't do any better than Major-General J.N. Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division now heading somewhere into Iraq. Here is what he told his troops in his "Message to All Hands" on the eve of war:
"For decades, Saddam Hussein has tortured, imprisoned, raped and murdered the Iraqi people; invaded neighboring countries without provocation; and threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction. The time has come to end his reign of terror. On your young shoulders rest the hopes of mankind.
"When I give you the word, together we will cross the Line of Departure, close with those forces that choose to fight, and destroy them. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression.
"Chemical attack, treachery, and use of the innocent as human shields can be expected, as can other unethical tactics. Take it all in stride. Be the hunter, not the hunted: Never allow your unit to be caught with its guard down. Use good judgment and act in best interests of our Nation.
"You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on your left and right and Marine Air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit.
"For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battles -- who fought for life and never lost their nerve -- carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world there is 'No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy' than a U.S. Marine."
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".
Hmm.. And America's better?
At least, at this point in Europe, people are actively looking for ways to avoid killing and war. Trying, for once, to put the power of thinking, and applying rational arguments to reach a solution.
Europe's large gripe with the US at the moment is that it didn't follow international law (which up to now, it's been clamouring for), and, as far as can be seen, simply got bored of waiting for the weapons inspectors to come to conclusions. So went ahead and waged war.
Many of the inspectors came to the conclusion that there was nothing more to find.. Incidentally, I wonder what would happen in the US was forced to account for all it's fissile material.. Last accounts were that there was a lot that couldn't be accounted for.
The politicians know that just because nothing's been found, you can never conclusively say there was nothing. However, finding one thing proves your argument. The know they can 'keep searching' forever for something that's not there, and still hold the moral high ground. It just got to the point that this was a pretty shaky argument, that most of Europe found too flimsy to wage a full war on.
So, to the eden free of bloodshed. Most of Europe wanted to keep this free of bloodshed. Guess which country plowed right on in there to spill blood at this current moment of time?
Further info:
In Kuwait, the four missiles fired by Iraq were not Scuds, but shorter-range weapons. Two were Ababil 100's, which were shot down by Patriots. Another was a tactical ballistic missile, but no name or type was made available. The fourth was an antiship missile, which landed near the marines at Camp Commando.
(nytimes.com)
Not only that, but Germany actually made the initial declaration of war against the United States shortly after Pearl Harbor. The US responded in kind 3 days later (I believe.)
CNN does have an IRC server. It's located at chat.cnn.com channel #cnn.
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!
"Scud" is now used (in this country, the UK) to mean any Iraqi missile capable of targetting a near by foreign country but not necessarily reliable enough to hit the city it was aimed at. In a technical sense it is a particular type of Soviet (?) missile sold to the Iraqis a long time ago.
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Several sources (CNN, NYTimes) I've read have reported that the missiles were, in fact, not Scuds. They go so far as to spell out the fact that they were not scuds. However, reports as to what sort of missiles they actually were vary significantly. Also, it seems that reports can only speculate what happenned to the two missles that the patriots missed - most seem to indicate somewhere 'in the desert' though. Read news from more than one source, and you will see for yourself.
--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.--
Wrong! It DOES matter. The US dollar is currently the standard currency in the world. We make money off of this every time someone coverts their currency to dollars. If the Euro becomes the standard we (the US) loose out on the conversion. Duh! It's not completely freely interchangeable. The is a percentage on the exchange.
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?
Because the UN inspectors were a very bad security risk. Their communications were monitored by the Iraqi government, they were driven around by Iraqi informants, and it's quite likely that their movements and plans were often known well in advance. We shared a great deal with them, but you don't give your most sensitive intelligence data to people who can't keep secrets. (All assuming that we actually had the current data then, anyway.)
irc.striked.org #livenews has a Fox Live news feed for anyone that would care to know, it seems pretty good and is only lagged a minute or so behind the actual broadcast.
Mind you discussion is available in #livenews-discuss on that network also.
Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
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.
Oh and how it matters. Money is not interchangable by all means, if you buy too much of one currency you decrease the value of your own. The U.S. foreign trade deficit is so high that 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. 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.
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
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
>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! :p
To put the role of oil in this conflict in perspective I think it's important to note the following quote by congressman Dennis Kucinich, which the Washington Post chose not to print:
"For what major Iraqi resource has Saddam Hussein denied contracts with the largest U.S. and U.K. multinational companies? (Note, those companies are the #2 (ExxonMobil), #4 (BP-Amoco), #8 (Shell) and #14 (ChevronTexaco) largest companies in the world, and the Bush Administration has been known to listen when large energy corporations speak.)"
Obviously the answer is oil. His full statement is available at http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15359
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
iirc cnn has an irc server (irc.cnn.com)? that has a bot spouting their closed caption feed.
Had. It seems to have been closed. (chat.cnn.com still opens up to a mostly barren chat with links to non exsisting web pages and email addresses which bounce)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I've mirrored that blog at
http://www.icarusindie.com/waroniraq
in the documents folder. I'll update the mirror every day or so.
If you havn't already, please vote at
http://www.icarusindie.com/survey
You can view the current results of that poll at
http://www.icarusindie.com/survey/results.php
Thanks,
Ben
Work Safe Porn
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.
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.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15359
----
Obviously Oil
By Rep. Dennis Kucinich, AlterNet March 11, 2003
Editor's Note: Although Dennis Kucinich was aggressively attacked by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen for suggesting that the preemptive strike on Iraq was based on oil, the Post refused to print the presidential candidate and Ohio Democrat's response. This was especially frustrating, since the Post editorial stance and balance of editorial page columns have been decidedly pro-war. You can tell the Post how you feel about this ommission at ombudsman@washpost.com.
Is President Bush's war in Iraq about oil? Of course it is. Sometimes, the obvious answer is the right one: Oil is a major factor in the President's march to war, just as oil is a major factor in every aspect of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf.
Ask yourself:
What commodity accounts for 83 percent of total exports from the Persian Gulf? What is the U.S. protecting with our permanent deployment of about 25,000 military personnel, 6 fighter squadrons, 6 bomber squadrons, 13 air control and reconnaissance squadrons, one aircraft carrier battle group, and one amphibious ready group based at 11 military installations in the countries of the Persian Gulf? (Note, the disproportionate troop deployments in the Middle East aren't there to protect the people, who constitute only 2 percent of the world population.)
What was Iraq's number one export when the U.S. made an alliance with Saddam Hussein, sold him biological and chemical weapons agents, and then did not object when he gassed his own people?
For what major Iraqi resource has Saddam Hussein denied contracts with the largest U.S. and U.K. multinational companies? (Note, those companies are the #2 (ExxonMobil), #4 (BP-Amoco), #8 (Shell) and #14 (ChevronTexaco) largest companies in the world, and the Bush Administration has been known to listen when large energy corporations speak.)
For what Iraqi resource did French and Russian multinational companies receive lucrative contracts from Saddam Hussein? What valuable commodity does one reprehensible, megalomaniacal tyrant (Saddam Hussein) control that another reprehensible, megalomaniacal tyrant (Kim Chong-il) does not?
How do the White House and State Department plan to pay for a post-Saddam occupation and reconstruction?
The answer to all of these questions is oil, of course. Oil obviously drives U.S. policy in the Middle East. So who can doubt that this war in Iraq concerns oil?
Meanwhile, the justifications the Administration has made for this war can be rather easily dismissed. Contrary to Administration assertions, a war against Iraq will not be in self-defense: Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the United States. It doesn't have the ability, nor has it ever had the ability, to shoot a missile or send a bomber to harm America. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.
No credible link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda has been made. Iraq did not have anything to do with the anthrax-containing letters that killed several Americans.
Contrary to the Administration's portrayal of an Iraqi threat, Iraq is hardly uniquely threatening. Sixteen other countries in the world have or might have nuclear weapons, 25 countries have or might have chemical weapons, 19 other countries have or might have biological weapons, and 16 other countries have or might have missile systems. Yet the Bush Administration is not on the verge of invading them.
Contrary to their denials that this war has anything to do with oil, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle wanted to go to war in Iraq long before they became Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. In a 1998 letter they sent to then-President Clinton, they stated "it hardly needs to be added that i
help out.
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!
Well, it's debatable whether these were SCUDs. From what I've heard, they were missiles that Iraq was permitted to have. They were only banned from having missiles with a range more than a certain distance.
England wasn't established by a war WITHIN ENGLAND.
If you'll recall, however, the beginings of the English Parlimentry Democracy were set forth in the Magna Carta (the first step to establishing a democracy is to neuter the king).
Now the Magna Carta was signed by John the Softsword (John II? I forget) while Richard the Lionheart was off fighting a crusade (the 3rd I think).
At this point John was forced to sign the Magna Carta (Runnymede in 1215). John wasn't happy about this, and tried to go back on his word.
In 1216 he intentionaly violated the Magna Carta. His barrons declared war on him shortly thereafter.
So as you can see, it took two wars to give birth to the British Democracy. One of them involved killing Muslims. No wonder Blair thinks that's how its done.
Killfile(TGK)
No trees were killed in the creation of this post. However, many electrons were inconvenienced.