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.
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.
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."
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.
"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....
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.
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
It may be true that 70% of the American public favors the war, but I've found that most people also believe that the Iraqis were behind 9/11 and haven't heard that much of the "evidence" cited by Colin Powell in his "brilliant" speach to the UN was forged, and crudely at that. For that we can thank our free press, which feels its role is to function as publicist for the current leadership.
In short, if you're really concerned about truth, I'd be careful about believing any information disseminated by either side.
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)
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.
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
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.
If we truly knew where they were, why the hell did we not share the intelligence with the inspectors?
Read the articles of the UN resolutions again. The inspectors were not there to find weapons, but to be shown weapons. It's a subtle but important difference. The UN made it quite clear that Iraq had to tell the inspectors where the weapons were, not lead them on a wild goose chase.
He has body doubles, food tasters, a plethora of bodyguards
Yes, Saddam is a very different threat from Osama. Saddam loves living in palaces, he loves having his portrait on billboards, he loves hearing the crowds chanting his name. Saddam's objective is to maintain his lifestyle, he's not an ideological obsessive like Osama. I don't think he ever believed seriously that the West would actually attack him, just like he was surprised that the West cared when he invaded Kuwait.
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
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")?
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.