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.
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
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.
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
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."
and this war isnt about oil .. is it?
Of course not.
It's not really about the oil, it's about "OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard".
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.
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.
"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....
No.... its about extending the empire of one of our allies in the middle east.
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
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.
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.
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."
Why does it have to be too late for saying you are opposed to this war? I see this type of thinking everywhere. I don't understand why people think that now that the fighting has started, those of us that are opposed have to shut up. I don't want ANYBODY to die for no reason at all, not just *our* troops. So, I will continue to speak in opposition to this unjust war/conflict/police action.
To the inevitable flame that will come my way:
No, the troops aren't fighting for my freedom of speech. They are fighting because Dubya doesn't understand what diplomacy is for.
No, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. In fact, Saddam Hussein is a socialist and Islamic freaks don't like the guy.
No, Iraq is not an immediate threat to anybody. Not even it's next door neighbors.
Saddam is not the only *evil* dictator in the world. Who is next? Uzbekistan? Zimbabwe? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? This tyrant argument should be applied evenly, not just in this case.
Yes, in fact, I do love French wine. Burgundy actually has some pretty good Chardonnays. And Wine Spectator just said that the 2000 Bordeaux's are the best in 39 years. If I had the cash, I'd buy a few bottles today.
Whew, I feel better. Now if this war would just end....
This has almost nothing to do with Iraq. Yes it's about oil, but it's about more than that. It's about maintaining US hegemony. For years people have talked about "regime change" (installing a puppet) in Iraq. But even before that they were talking about what might happen when China becomes an economic powerhouse.
People in the US (and Britain) don't like the idea of a future Earth where English is second to Mandarin. The aggressive game plan is to get a lock on the Earth's natural resources that will require China to play friendly with English speaking Westerners so that we have some degree of control over their economic growth.
This perspective also helps us understand why "North Korea cannot go nuclear". It may even explain why we'll probably never see a decent solar panel on the market until it's engineered and mass-produced in China.
BTW, I don't support this war. I'm not afraid of China. I'm not afraid to deal with demography.
A lot of people, including the Security Council of the UN, which has passed over a dozen resolutions over the last decade or so demanding that Iraq disarm (to which Iraq agreed in word but not in deed).
One thing to remember is that it's not like we just whipped up a bunch of troops all of a sudden and headed over to Iraq. We've been patrolling the no-fly zones since the end of Gulf War I. Are we supposed to keep doing that indefinitely? If not, then do we just cease patrolling? Then what happens when Saddam rolls in and stamps out the Kurds - the world would chastise us for abandoning them to a brutish dictator. The problem, of course, dates back to Gulf War I and the failure to finish the job at that time. This is merely a rekindling of a long-smoldering fire.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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!
OK. I've been pretty sceptical of the motivation behind this "war", but your post was simply offensive.
"I hope you get a new Vietnam" - do you know how many innocent Vietnamese lost their lives? Do you have any idea idea how many 100,000s of thousands died? No. The best thing for the Iraqi people now is for the war to be over as soon as possible with as few as possible casualities.
And - as a Brit - your knee-jerk anti-Americanism irritates me beyond belief. It is so fashionable to hate America and claim that it is horrible place run by a madman. America is a liberal democracy where freedom of speech is respected. By and large, citizens are not tortured (something you can't say for China or Russia) and public dissent is allowed. Best of all, citizens are allowed to force a "regime change" every four years.
America (and this was never meant to come across as a homily) has been remarkably un-territorial in its behaviour. When did it last attack a country to gain its territory? When did it last extract reperations from defeated countries?
The last two times the US has used force were:
* Afghanistan - where an incredibly illiberal and un-democratic regime (which banned women from being educated, which had no freedom of religion, which allowed its citizens few rights) was gotten rid-off. Ask yourself, would you rather live in Afghanistan following US intervension, or before?
* Bosnia - in a, not sactioned by the UN move, the US protected Muslims from being ethnically cleansed. Would rather have been a Muslim in Greater Serbia or in (UN run) Bosnia?
I would have happily have given Saddam six more months to dis-arm. But it's too late for that. Lets hope as few people as possible die in the current conflict, and the Iraqi people end up with a propserous, secular, liberal democracy at the end of this.
Robert
--- My dad's political betting
Who the hell cares if he never disarms? It's not our damned country. We have no room to talk about nukes -- we've been the only nation thus far to ever use one in combat. It sickens me, my country's arrogance.
I do, because he promised to do so. When he invaded Kuwait, and on UN charter America stepped in and stopped Iraq. He promised to disarm, and he failed.
Make good on your word or be punished; now he is being punished.
Every person on earth knows that if a single nuke were launched from any rougue nation (like Iraq), they'd be vasprozed from the planet by every nuclear power that existed. They'd get only one shot.
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?
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
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)
So wait free, spech may suffer because the far left exploits it? Arent you supposed to exploit freee speech? And if you cannot exploit free speech than doesnt that mean that you do not have freedom of speach?
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.
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!
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
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
A snippet from there that I found to be pretty damn good...
No one inside Iraq is for war (note I said war not a change of regime), no human being in his right mind will ask you to give him the beating of his life, unless you are a member of fight club that is, and if you do hear Iraqi (in Iraq, not expat) saying "come on bomb us" it is the exasperation and 10 years of sanctions and hardship talking. There is no person inside Iraq (and this is a bold, blinking and underlined inside) who will be jumping up and down asking for the bombs to drop. We are not suicidal you know, not all of us in any case.
I think that the coming war is not justified (and it is very near now, we hear the war drums loud and clear if you don't then take those earplugs off!). The excuses for it have been stretched to their limits they will almost snap. A decision has been made sometime ago that "regime change" in Baghdad is needed and excuses for the forceful change have to be made. I do think war could have been avoided, not by running back and forth the last two months, that's silly. But the whole issue of Iraq should have been dealt with differently since the first day after GW I.
The entities that call themselves "the international community" should have assumed their responsibilities a long time ago, should have thought about what the sanctions they have imposed really meant, should have looked at reports about weapons and human rights abuses a long time before having them thrown in their faces as excuses for war five minutes before midnight.
What is bringing on this rant is the question that has been bugging for days now: how could "support democracy in Iraq" become to mean "bomb the hell out of Iraq"? why did it end up that democracy won't happen unless we go thru war? Nobody minded an un-democratic Iraq for a very long time, now people have decided to bomb us to democracy? Well, thank you! how thoughtful.
The situation in Iraq could have been solved in other ways than what the world will be going thru the next couple of weeks. It can't have been that impossible. Look at the northern parts of Iraq, that is a model that has worked quite well, why wasn't anybody interested in doing that in the south. Just like the US/UK UN created a protected area there why couldn't the model be tried in the south. It would have cut off the regimes arms and legs. And once the people see what they have been deprived off they will not be willing to go back, just ask any Iraqi from the Kurdish areas. Instead the world watched while after the war the Shias were crushed by Saddam's army in a manner that really didn't happen before the Gulf War. Does anyone else see the words (Iran/not in the US interest) floating or is it me hallucinating?
And there is the matter of Sanctions. Now that Iraq has been thru a decade of these sanctions I can only hope that their effects are clear enough for them not to be tried upon another nation. Sanctions which allegedly should have kept a potentially dangerous situation in Iraq in check brought a whole nation to its knees instead. And who ultimately benefited from the sanctions? Neither the international community nor the Iraqi people, he who was in power and control still is. These sanctions made the Iraqi people hostages in the hands of this regime, tightened an already tight noose around our necks. A whole nation, a proud and learned nation, was devastated not by the war but by sanctions. Our brightest and most creative minds fled the country not because of oppression alone but because no one inside Iraq could make a living, survive. And can anyone tell me what the sanctions really did about weapons? Get real, there are always willing nations who will help, there are always organizations which will find his money sweet. Oil-for-Food? Smart Sanctions? Get a clue. Who do you think is getting all those contracts to supply the people with "food"? who do you think is heaping money in bank accounts abroad? It is his people, his family and the people who play his game. Abroad and in Iraq, Iraqis and non-Iraqis.
Here, the war starts and we have 2 slash-dot articles. Hummf. Why not a few weeks ago during those Anti-War marches?
And Hans Blix said this morning that he was surprised [freerepublic.com] that Saddam had any Scuds either!
I was pretty shocked by Saddams speech, vowing that the invaders would find certain fiery death and whatnot. How's he going to kill all those invaders, with weapons he pinky-swore he doesn't have?
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..
The blog hasn't been up that long.
I agree. I am bitterly disappointed with how this whole situation (diplomatic) has been handled.
Me too, Saddam should have stepped down or been forced out 11 years ago.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
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?
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...
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
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
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).
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.
Of course someone in Baghdad has no idea how the Iraqi people feel, but you, living thousands of miles away know exactly how he feels. Shut the fuck up, troll
The countrymen should have organized a coup and oust the turd. Instead everybody knuckled under his regime. It's a real shame.
OK, asshole. Guess what? There wasn't one time a coup was organized, but TWO, right after Gulf War I. You know what happened? The air support that the US promised to provide was pulled completely. The Shi`a in the southand the Kurds in the north both tried and the good old democracy-loving, anti-despotic USA allowed Saddam's army to mow them down from the sky INSIDE THE SO-CALLED NO-FLY ZONE.
Religion is the opiate of the masses. The wealthy smoke the real stuff.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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.
"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." Maybe to us, but to W and the people who control the Press that is a big deal. They are losing big $$.
It IS possible to be against the war and support the troops you trog. To those troops, I say "Godspeed!" But I still think this action is wrong. It is just a sign of the times though. Many people in the United States are extremely arrogant. I think a lot of it has to do with the tech boom in the 90s. Just because of that, they feel like the US is a great place. It USED to be pretty nice, but it gets worse every days. Too many citizens of the United States are arrogant, self-centered, greedy and xenophobic. I think a lot of people here could use a good bitchslapping. Maybe then the message will sink through. The US is not, doesn't deserve to be and never will be the empire that rules the world. Some of my personal pet peeves with the US:
-SUV Drivers who use their vehicles to carry two grocery bags a mile and a half down the road. (I drive a used Nissan Sentra that gets decent gas mileage.)
-Lunatic gun owners who *think* they know what a militia means in today's society. Although their argument about needing to overthrow an unjust government is starting to have some validity these days.
-Corporate types who seem to think that profit at any cost is a worthwhile thing. Always arguing that when they make money, their underlings make money. Tell that to the single mother working at McDonalds for peanuts and living in a shithole hovel. We REALLY need to re-evaluate the damage that was done to the welfare system by the conservatives.
-The general asshole that seems to be more prevalent in our society. You know the type. The guy with an IQ of 20 going around saying "I RULE!!" when he displays some violent act of agression. Or the woman who thinks she "rules" when she puts other women down.
In general the United States has become a VERY ugly place.
Un-news
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-
We have freedom of the press in this country. This includes freedom of the press to put themselves in the middle of a war zone and get blown up. If these people end up casualties it is sad, but it is a choice they made to put themselves in a dangerous situation. Personally, I like the fact that as an American I can do something so dangerous as to place myself in a position that means very possible death or capture. THAT is freedom and I don't expect the military or government to clean up any mess I might make by making such a decision.
POWs are a different story. Soldiers don't go into dangerous situations by choice, rather, they avail themselves to our orders and we put them into those situations. I am much more in favor of rescue missions for soldiers then I am for reporters.
2 sovereign nations slugging it out on the battlefield. Sure sounds like war to me.
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
Have a look at the US's track record of war crimes and see how proud you are of your country. The US government looks remarkably good in comparison to the current Iraqi regime, but pathetic when its record stands alone. CIA led assassinations and abductions in Central and South America, and in the rest of the world; several against democratically elected leaders that it considered unfavourable (see Guatemala, Iran). The armament of dictatorships (see Iraq in the '80s). Flying military troops in and out of nations in planes with Red Cross markings (see Nicaragua); another war crime. Assassinations of political leaders that are not part of the military chain of command , yet another war crime. Installation of dictators in place of US-removed dictators (see Iran). Invasion and attempted invasion of countries that do not pose an immediate threat (see Cuba, Panama, Iraq).
Yes, the best thing in a war is to get right in and win it. That should be obvious to almost anyone. But not by ignoring international law and by commiting human rights violations. While we're only two days into this mess, and there's no evidence of war crimes committed by either side yet, it should be clear why so many oppose the current US led strikes, and doubt that this will be a war without completely unnecessary atrocities. The US doesn't exactly have a clean track record here.
I don't think anyone disagrees that the current Iraqi government is brutal and repressive. That doesn't mean that war is the answer. Look how much good it's done for the Israelis and Palestinians. Look at what US regime-change did for Iran. You can see why people have so little confidence in the US government here.
As a Canadian, I'm proud that my country is refusing to take part in this war. At the same time, I'm not for a moment absolving the Canadian military of war crimes either. In Somalia the 1st Airborne was without question guilty of war crimes as well. And as much as that was an embarrassment to our country, it cannot compare to what the unarmed Somali teenager who was roasted alive over a fire had to go through as he begged for his life, screaming the only word he knew about the men who tortured and killed him: "Canada".
I don't think anyone who has seen a country in the aftermath of a war would be so quick to ignore the alternatives. When war happens, innocent civilians die. It should be an absolute last measure when everything else has failed... not in the middle of weapons inspections.
why did it end up that democracy won?t happen unless we go thru war?
Every democracy has been established through war. Tyrants don't value the lives of their people enough to willingly give up power to avoid killing them. Tyrants didn't avoid killing people while in power, so why should they avoid killing them when losing power?
Now that Iraq has been thru a decade of these sanctions I can only hope that their effects are clear enough for them not to be tried upon another nation. Sanctions which allegedly should have kept a potentially dangerous situation in Iraq in check brought a whole nation to its knees instead.
Sanctions are the only reason Saddam hasn't already nuked us. True, he spent his country's entire economy on himself and his cronies, but he would have done that regardless of how good or bad his economy was-- sanctions had nothing to do with it.
The writer could have helped lift sanctions by rebelling against the cause-- Saddam. The writer's logic is just as rational as the children of jailed murderers who blame the cops instead of their parents for their poverty. Stop whining and take personal responsibility for not pulling yourself up by the bootstraps.
When American colonists had enough of British sanctions, we overthrew them. Iraqis who failed to overthrow Saddam have only Saddam and their own cowardice to blame for their poverty.
Sanctions are necessary to control Tyrants. They have a dual purpose. First, they limit the resources available to the Tyrant. Second, they give the oppressed ample motivation to overthrow the Tyrant. Sanctions against Saddam succeeded to slowing his weapons buildup, but success on the second count was in the hands of the Iraqi people, who proved themselves too cowardly for the task. A sabateur or suicide bomber should have taken out Saddam long ago.
Actually I think Canada was established without war. Not that they are good example of a country (any chance to rib a Canadian. jk)
England was not established through war, unless you count the fact that they reformed because they were scared poop-less over the French revolution.
I am sure there's lots of other examples, but there are 2 big ones.
Personally I think the "liberate the people" reason is pure propaganda. We were Iraq's ally for many years as a tyrannical dictatorship. This war is about disarmament. We told dude: "don't make big guns." He made big guns. We squish him now. Creating a democratic republic is just a side benefit.
I highly suspect that without having lived under an opressive regime (which, being an America, you haven't) you have no clue what you're talking about in-so-far as saying that the people of Iraq "should have just done away with Saddam themselves" and to "stop whining". Given enough despair and helplessness the end of the rope _may_ be reached but it takes a very long time..and that time is filled with despair and helplessness in the face of the regime. Opressive regimes tend of a have a very large number of secret service informants among the population...nobody ever knows how safe or how private their conversations are. You talk to a friend one day who made a joke about the wrong person, and the next day he's hauled off to jail. I'm not telling fairytales..I speak from experience...so until you actually know what you're talking about when it comes to toppling a truly oppresive regime from the inside, stick to topics you're truly informed about.
At the same time, comparing pre-Revolutionary War American and British relations and sanctions to current day-to-day life in Iraq is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a long time. Fighting a foreign government is an entirely different thing than fighting your own government...
Care to poin out who provided the US with that right? And since when it's ok for a nation to attack another because they feel like it (read "it is in their self-interest")?
Every nation has a right and duty to protect itself and more importantly its citizens. Iraq has been massing weapons of mass destruction. Sadam has become known for supporting families of suicide bombers in Israel and most likely supports other forms of terrorism, especially against the US and allies. If you want to fight terrorism you can't wait until they try to step on a plane and hijack it. You can't wait until they drive up your street with a van full of anthrax. I am all for going in there and destroying all of this chemical/bilogical weapons and also his ability to produce any more. That's the reason we need to go in there with force.
We saw you trying to create a few democratic republics by now and how do those people live now? How is Cambodia doing? Vietnam? Do i need to name more? Are they all swimming in wealth? Are they celebrating you as heroes? If USA want to eliminate unjustice regimes from this world why don't they free Tibet? Oh they would have to face someone who is at least as powerfull as they are. Better to pick on someone who they starved allready with years of sanctions.
Claiming that govt. has the same rights as a govt. that protects the rights of its citizens is irrational.
The patriot act certianly infringes upon the rights of us citizens. Is the US suddenly illegitimate?
A person who abuses his rights is a criminal, and therefore, forfeits his rights.
thats not one of the ideals our country was founded on. rights to a fair trial, to know your accuser (even if you are guilty), etc.
but if they feel it's necessary to protect their own interests, they have the right to do so.
So the soviet union had every right to topple the us gov't, b/c it was in thier self interest?