Slashdot Mirror
Updates on War in Iraq
New Developments on the war in Iraq:
Oil Fields ablaze in southern Iraq.
Turkey opens airspace to U.S..
US Forces 3rd Infantry Fire Heavy Artillery at Southern Iraq.
The schedule has been accelerated due to infrastructure destruction.
CT: Explosions and heavy anti aircraft fire heard in Baghdad.
We'll continue to update as new information warrants.
Serious question: where are y'all getting your info on the war? I'm talking in depth stuff like tactics, maps. Not just the CNN bs, but real stuff like great terrain maps and discussions of the weaponry.
"If I could live to be several hundred
I could take a walk and really wander, really wonder."
Hmmm, interesting how the oil gets mentioned, wouldnt put it above some corporations to use war as an excuse to up prices! They've been stockpiling for years and this war isnt about oil .. is it?
said during the interview with Dan Rather that he will NOT set the wells on fire and I believed him. My trust in Saddam is now shattered. Going to see my shrink.
Tarek
Sitting here at work, I must say that the only thing I really wish I could get would be a live cable feed of some of the news conferences.
All the opinions, perspectives, and breaking news information I could ever want is available online, with the help of places like Slashdot, Fark.com, and of course... Matt Drudge.
Hire a Linux system administrator, systems engineer,
As a US citizen having spent the last 12 months outside the US, I can personally vouch for the fact that public opinion for the US has spiraled downwards recently. While I can see some justification for a conflict in Iraq, at what cost will it come?
Have you seen my stapler?
Anyone who ever buys oil. Anyone in Turkey. Anyone with a loved one in the United States 3rd Infantry. Anyone in the United States. Anyone in the Middle East. Anyone in France. Just about anyone.
I was against this before, but now its too late for that talk. I just hope they hit them hard, hit them fast and get Saddam out of there so we can come back home with as few killed as possible. Pray for the troops
Don't forget that Saddam's troups are launching Scud missles that the UN promissed us he didn't have.
The UN has discredited itself. Hans Blix is a tool.
As if I wasn't getting enough of a bombardment of this news, now I have to read about it when I want my geek fix??? I'd like to smack whoever posted this with a large herring.
Don't you think that Slashdot readers are intelligent enough to surf over to CNN or the BBC or (insert news site here?) These sites have all of the latest updates that anybody could want. What can Slashdot possibly contribute to this other than posting an article that is going to result in a whole lot of political flaming?
Just curious.
We're going down, in a spiral to the ground
Even though half my students are against the war and the other half are for, they all are interested, involved, and informed. I've been grilled by my students with better questions than I have been by adults. There's a healthy population of students who want to protest the war, and a healthy bunch who see this war as something really important. Logarithms, exponentials? No, today, my students showed me that they can care about something, and I have nothing but confidence that some day my students will be critical thinking adults that make a difference in this country.
May free speech continue to live, in spite of the attempts of the far right to silence it, and the far left to exploit it.
F-bacher
James Tiberius Kirk: "Spock, the women on your planet are logical. No other planet in the galaxy can make that claim."
What does it have to do with the normal Slashdot faire? Nada. There are other forums available for everyone to discuss their own hidden agendas. Let's try to stick to slashdottish topics please.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Does anyone else think it looks really bad to rush in because Iraq is destroying its oil wells? Bush is trying to tell everyone this isn't about oil, so doesn't that undermine this?
Don't get me wrong, I know everyone knows it's about oil, but they're not even being consistent in their bullshit.
I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem
Well regaurdless at least we have some big old Oceans between us and anyone we really could care about.
I oftern wonder if our stance would be different if we were part of Europe, or if England was originally part of North America and we had fled to what is now Europe.
Are we isolationists due to geography?
"Not knowing when the dawn will come, I open every door." - Emily Dickinson
Oil Fields ablaze in southern Iraq
A well is just one pump/tower combo. It is several of these that are burning. A field is a whole darn field full of the things. Several of these are NOT what has caught fire, which will be a major mess when (if) they do.
Why does this remind me of the Soviet Union when they came to "help" their neighbour states?
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
MSNBC has been doing live web broadcasts all morning. The link to these broadcasts can be found at the very top of the MSNBC page in a scrolling text block. I think CNN and FoxNews also both have live web broadcasts.
Of course, news.google.com is also a great source for up to the minute breaking news.
Some people seem to be indicating that they think Bush was after the Short, Victorious War. Over the ages many politicians, like Theodore Roosevelt, have indicated that this is a sure way to boost the economy and boost the flagging spirits of a country with nothing to do.
Maybe there is some of the Short, Victorious War thinking that lead to our current situation. Perhaps the politics of succeeding where his father had failed was motivation enough to lead a country to this point.
But I don't care, do you know why? Because the Son of a Bitch has it coming. I long ago gave up needing a reason to feel that Saddam Hussein had to be "removed" from the world scope.
If there was a shred of diplomacy, decency, reality or reasonability in the man, he would have, at one point in the past 12 years, delt fairly with the United Nations. How much rope do you give to someone, before you hang them with that rope?
Nah, screw it...it was time for War.
Craenor - Gulf War Veteran
Call me crazy, but no matter how real it is, I still can't "wait to see what happens next!" Gotta love the American mentality.
suck my ping!
I can't say it's one of my favorites, but it's certainly a different perspective.
Personally, I have opposed this war for a long time. I agree absolutely with the Bush administration that Hussein is a terrible dictator, but I have a hard time grasping why we are not dealing with a fundamentally more dangerous situation in North Korea, or why we are at this very moment "allied" with a military government in Pakistan, a Monarchy which is only nominally friendly in Saudi Arabia (interesting note: about half of all Americans believe most of the September 11th hijackers were Iraqi, not Saudi). Anyway, I believe that supporting bad governments for short-term gain is only going to wind up hurting us in the long run (as it did with our support of Hussein in the 1980s).
Furthermore, it is impossible to declare war on one man. If we could truly only direct our action against Hussein and his thugs, this would be an entirely different matter. The fact is, though, that the Iraqi people, as well as the American and allied troops, are going to suffer terrible losses in this war. War is always hell, no matter what the reason, and if a war can be averted, and the noble goals of disarmament and democratization achieved through peaceful means, then the path of diplomacy, however difficult, should be pursued.
That said, it is now entirely apparant that we are at war. I, like the vast majority of anti-war Americans, support our troops. I am grateful that my country has so many brave young men and women who are willing to endure the horrors of combat for their country. I pray that their lives and the lives of the Iraqi people are spared. I still, however, disagree with my president's decision. As Theodore Roosevelt once said, it is even more important for the people of America to scrutinize their leader's actions of time of war than in time of peace. I hope for the best possible outcome to be salvaged from this conflict, but I am deeply saddened that it came to this.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
I can't wait until the war is over to see the French doing their tap dance. For those who think the French, Germans, and Russians are really concerned with peace when they blast their 'no war' rhetoric, think again. They are trying their best to keep the US out of Iraq so we won't find all the French weapons and nuclear equipment. Who do you think built the Nuclear Reactor for Iraq in the 80's? The French. It's no secret that they knew it was for weapons building purposes. Now they are sh*tting bricks waiting for the US to liberate Iraq and in the process, find all the illegal technology sold to them by the lovely French.
Quote:
Granted, it's too early to be so optimistic, but surely the lack of any battlefield coordination in Iraq after an attempted hit on Hussein is a bigger story than the 4 oil wells that are on fire.
I hope the UK hasn't sent their policemen - they don't carry guns. Now, they might be very effective with those stubby little truncheons, but even Iraqi tanks will be too much for them.
The reason you keep hearing this, is that this country is still ashamed at its treatment of Vietnam War veterans. A lot of people still think of war protesters as hippies who scream accusations of "Baby killer!" at veterans.
Everyone wants to make sure that no matter how much you disagree with the politics of the administration or the military as a whole, you never turn your anger on the individual solders, sailors, airmen and marines who are out there doing their jobs.
Here's a how-to to get RealVideo going on a linux box.
The free version is known as "RealSystem Server Basic" and supports up to 25 simultaneous users and is licensed for 12 months.
Have fun.
In news stories, why is the leader of Iraq so often named just by his first name -- Saddam? I've yet to see a story in which the president is referred to as George.
Personally, I no longer know where I stand on this war. I firmly believe that Hussein is a monster, but I also believe that we (the US) made him.
Somewhere I saw a comic that said basically:
Reporter: How do you know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction?
Senator: Because we kept the receipts.
I think somebody else posted this link earlier:
http://www.sundayherald.com/27572
I hate to rain on your parade, but Iraq war news is not "news for geeks". It is news for armchair generals. If you want war news then tune in to CNN, or anything else for that matter. Check out the Drudge Report if you want constant updates. I come to /. to get away from the constant drone of war news, not to get more of the same
Personally I don't have any intrest in seeing war coverage on /. I don't go to CNN.COM for computer news and I don't come here for war news.
People want power. People will lie and steal and murder to get and keep power. Even Americans. And not everyone agrees that the US system is the best.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
CNN reported this morning that there is concern that Iraq knew our F-117 Stealths were coming and started anti-aircraft fire. This is a huge concern, as they are supposed to be undetectable (a.k.a. "stealthy").
If this is true, there is no way the technology to detect our stealths was developed in Iraq. It begs the question: did one of the countries that opposes the war pass this advanced technology, obviously developed since the 1991 Gulf War, to Iraq as an underhanded way of flipping the bird to the US and Bush?
... and let slip the dogs of war!
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
when we already know that US has 100% chance to win? During the "war" in 1991, we used to make jokes about how pathetic the whole ordeal was. Nowadays the US has an even bigger upper hand in the matter, what with all the new technology and weapons we've perfected during the past decade.
But although victory conditions are basically assured for US, the long term effects are probably going to come and bite us in the ass. Already many arabs are displeased with our initiative, and we haven't even killed (many) civilians yet. If (or should I say when) Bush decides that it's "hammer time", then the arabs will truly have something to be pissed about, and we'll see the long term effects of that in more terrorist acts on US soil.
The truth of the matter is, until the US stops supporting Israel, there will be terrorist acts directed towards us. You can't ally yourself with a bully and expect the rest of the schoolyard to be your friend.
Mu, hen ne. What's the difference between an Al-Samud and a Scud?
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
Amen, brother! How about the New IIS sploit?
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
To detect stealth, all you need to do is have some guy posed as reporter sitting at the airport that houses the stealths and to call up Saddam when you see the planes take off. Or you could watch CNN, they were reporting when the b-52 were taking off from england.
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
----------
Samuel P. Huntington
You say you want a revolution....
What the fuck is an mpa file?
If the New World Order doesn't come in plain ASCII or HTML, count me out.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Did the U.S. Set Fire to Kuwait's Oil Fields?
A popular radio program heard worldwide claims to have proof that the United States, working under the auspices of the United Nations, was responsible for igniting the massive oil field fires in Kuwait at the close of the first Iraqi war. The controversial talk show team of Joyce Riley and Dave VonKleist host the Missouri-based program "The Power Hour" which is carried mostly by independent and "patriot" radio stations. The program boasts an audience of several million listeners.
The duo has provided a transcript of an interview recently conducted with a Gulf War veteran who alleges that he participated in the covert detonation campaign of Kuwaiti oil wells, crafted to implicate Iraq, in order to "remove any doubts that Saddam Hussein and his regime were a terrible evil that had to be dealt with." This mission was allegedly necessary because "there was concern that America... might see this conflict as an unnecessary thing."
The talk show hosts, who gained notoriety for championing causes supporting Gulf War veterans, assert that this interview is bolstered by other independent testimonials they have received. "The information provided over a series of meetings with this veteran corroborates the reports from other veterans who are totally unconnected with this individual," the duo states in their press release.
...for being the self-sacrificial, benevolent, unbiased and wholeheartedly concerned neighbor who clearly stands to gain nothing significant from this deal... After US leaves Iraq, I'm sure the goodness of their hearts will compell them to step in and aid in "political restoration." Turkey, the Iraqi's friend...
Kinda OT from the above, but does anyone else notice how a large number of Americans think it's ok to set sovereign countries on fire from the air, yet as soon as a soldier overseas gets so much as athlete's foot, we all freak? And for no apparent reason, save for the "will of the Almighty" (Dubya-2003).
Right or wrong from their vantage point they are being attacked, so feigning indignation when they responds in a predictab way is kind of folly.
Help fight continental drift.
Would your leader have given up power if the Russians had threatened them? How would you have felt if they had? The Iraqi people expect the same dedication from their leaders and they do not welcome the invasion in the way your press tell you.
The US have now given Turkey the all clear to attack the Kurds in return for clearance to overfly Turkey so even those that do want Saddam gone will no longer welcome this war.
Most people can see that democracy is an illusion like communism. So what is really going to be the outcome of this conflict. Will it be like Afghanistan? One load of tin pots exchanged for another? If true democracy was the intention then we had better stop trying to kill Saddam as a lot of Iraqis would want to vote for him. I think it will be seen as just another case of imperialism when the US only allows Iraqis to vote for people that the US thinks are suitable. There is no real intention to allow the Iraqi people to decide for themselves. They want someone who will stand up to the US and fight for their freedom.
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
How do you set light to an oil well? I mean, do you just walk up to it with a match or what?
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
I would like to see efforts being made to donate food, water, clothing and basic necessities of life to the Palestineans, forced into refugee camps by the very same IDF that you want fucking pizza given to like a bunch of kids who just won their Little League baseball game.
Tool.
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
Could someone please explain to Mr Bush that he is in Washington ruling a super power state and not in Hollywood making movies.
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
Turkey just approved entrance of their own forces into the northern areas of Iraq to secure their southern flank against possible insurgents. If the Kurds and Turks start going at it we're obligated to help the Turks even though the Kurds are our key to holding Northern Iraq. We gave weapons to both Turks and Kurds and now we have to try to diffuse that front while conquering the southern front. I have to wonder if Turkey did not allow US troops into their country because they had intended to invade northern Iraq all along, with or without US permission. Syria and Jordon have already expressed conern about the possibility of "resurrection of the Ottoman Empire" and are rattling sabers about military action if they don't back off. We have a new problem...or two...or three...
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Something amusing I just overheard, and thought I'd post before all the flamage sets in here:
;-)
Two grad student TA's complaining that they need to grade a stack of midterms by themselves because the other TA has bravely walked out on grading to protest the war.
The stealth aircraft are (nearly) undetectable to radar by their very nature -- they are designed to absorb and scatter as much radar energy as possible, down to the paint used to make them black. In fact, the paint plays such an important role in the aircraft's stealth qualities, that they must be repainted whenever they've been exposed to rain.
Even if someone has given stealth technology to Iraq, that won't enable them to detect stealth aircraft. It'll just let them build stealth aircraft of their own. Which is fairly useless to them, in their current financial and strategic situation.
Remember sept 11th -- just about every news site was down, but slashdot kept right on humming.
I understand the thought you're expressing, but it's entirely possible that by tonight nothing else will be functional (we have just now started the shock-and-awe part of the war, according to CNN, MSNBC, etc)
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Heh, the Isreali people are like the white people of South Africa, their day of moral reckoning will come.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Seriously though, the military checks journalist credentials and assigns "minders" almost like Hussein does in Iraq to prevent this kind of stuff from happening.
I think there's something more to it, and the stealth technology has been cracked.
Wonder if there was a distributed computing project setup that figured it out?! That would be much cooler than cracking the XBox encryption key...
Somehow i'm thinking the whole "Stuff that matters" part applies, as a war does effect everyone like it or not. Also, who says nerds don't want the occasional update on it, with some hopefully semi inteligent conversation/debate about how its going, and what people think.
OK, I just thought that was his third forename, I'll call him by his second then: Herbert
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
Oh, but Saddam was taking care of that for us. Dropping $50K to every family of a suicide bomber.
Or, how about the other arab countries allow immigration of Palestinian refugees?
Stick it, bozo.
Its amazing that after 200 years - we still manage to offend the glorious ancient Greeks with our latest misguided interpretation of democracy - Totalitarian Democracy!
You really should have put a disclaimer on that link, IMHO, in case some 16-year-old came by and clicked it. ;)
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
Actually France will only give medical aide if Iraq uses any W.O.M.D. The countries told France they could f#$% themselves because of their attitudes. Yahoo and Google News had a couple of articles about the whole France thing. As for using SCUD missiles doesn't positively give evidence of using banned munitions (they do use conventional wareheads also). Personnaly I think we should use a couple of those new super bombs on all of SoDamns palaces and follow them up with some nice big FAE's. But that's me.
help?!? in search of sig
I ran across this blog from a resident of Baghdad. Apparently, music websites aren't scragged by Iraqi security. It's not media coverage, but it gives a certain perspective you won't find in the media.
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
I worry that I might be perhaps causing trouble for the guy, but I figure if he put it on the web he wants people to see it.
I found this speech to be very moving. I just hope the US troops are getting the same advice as the Brits. Somehow I doubt it.
-----------
UK troops told: Be just and strong
British troops waiting to attack Iraq have been told to behave like liberators rather than conquerors. But they have also been warned some of them may not return from Iraq alive. Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins gave the battlegroup of the 1st Battalion of the Royal Irish the pep talk as the US deadline for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq or face action ticked away.
Reporters said the men listened in silence to the address at Fort Blair Mayne desert camp, 20 miles from the Iraqi border.
"We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country," he said.
"We are entering Iraq to free a people and the only flag which will be flown in that ancient land is their own. Show respect for them.
"There are some who are alive at this moment who will not be alive shortly. Those who do not wish to go on that journey, we will not send.
"As for the others I expect you to rock their world. Wipe them out if that is what they choose. But if you are ferocious in battle remember to be magnanimous in victory.
"Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there.
"You will see things that no man could pay to see and you will have to go a long way to find a more decent, generous and upright people than the Iraqis.
"You will be embarrassed by their hospitality even though they have nothing.
"Don't treat them as refugees for they are in their own country. Their children will be poor, in years to come they will know that the light of liberation in their lives was brought by you.
"If there are casualties of war then remember that when they woke up and got dressed in the morning they did not plan to die this day.
"Allow them dignity in death. Bury them properly and mark their graves."
To his 800 men - an arm of the 16 Air Assault Brigade - he said: "It is my foremost intention to bring every single one of you out alive but there may be people among us who will not see the end of this campaign.
"We will put them in their sleeping bags and send them back. There will be no time for sorrow.
"The enemy should be in no doubt that we are his nemesis and that we are bringing about his rightful destruction.
"There are many regional commanders who have stains on their souls and they are stoking the fires of hell for Saddam.
"He and his forces will be destroyed by this coalition for what they have done. As they die they will know their deeds have brought them to this place. Show them no pity."
He said: "It is a big step to take another human life. It is not to be done lightly.
"I know of men who have taken life needlessly in other conflicts, I can assure you they live with the mark of Cain upon them.
"If someone surrenders to you then remember they have that right in international law and ensure that one day they go home to their family.
"The ones who wish to fight, well, we aim to please."
He warned the troops not to get carried away in the heat of battle.
"If you harm the regiment or its history by over enthusiasm in killing or in cowardice, know it is your family who will suffer.
"You will be shunned unless your conduct is of the highest for your deeds will follow you down through history. We will bring shame on neither our uniform or our nation."
Warning that the troops were very likely to face chemical or biological weapons, he said: "It is not a question of if, it's a question of when. We know he has already devolved the decision to lower commanders, and that means he has already taken the decision himself. If we survive the first strike we will survive the attack."
His closing words were resolute: "As for ourselves, let's bring everyone home and leave Iraq a better place for us having been there. Our business now is north."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2866581.stm
When violence rules the world outside / And the headlines make me want to cry / It's not the time to just keep quiet
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A488 56-2003Mar18.html
Christina! Bring me an axe!
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.
Sigh. They probably weren't Scuds. Iraq has the right to keep missiles with less than 100km range under the UN resolutions. Plus they had about 75 al-Samaud 2 missles left that were to be destroyed under inspection.
Yah wanna know how you can tell between a 100km range missile falling down on you versus a 50km one? You don't. You run for shelter.
"I may be Love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."
Hey, someone is speaking sense at last :)
1.) They show us respect in return and stop treating everyone like suspects (DMCA, Patriot act, etc).
Or
2.) When I go into boot camp and my opinion on this issue no longer matters.
"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
>Anti-aircraft going off above Saddam Hussein ;)
>International Airport now. (At least in the US we
>wait until after a president is out of office or
>dead before we name public places for him, e.g.
>Reagan National Airport in DC.)
Should be "Saddam Hussein International Terminal" - makes a nicer acronym. *g*
>CNN reported this morning that there is concern
>that Iraq knew our F-117 Stealths were coming and
>started anti-aircraft fire. This is a huge
>concern, as they are supposed to be undetectable
>(a.k.a. "stealthy").
!!!
>If this is true, there is no way the technology
>to detect our stealths was developed in Iraq. It
>begs the question: did one of the countries that
>opposes the war pass this advanced technology,
>obviously developed since the 1991 Gulf War, to
>Iraq as an underhanded way of flipping the bird
>to the US and Bush?
Could very well be...
-uso.
Dreams, dreams, don't doubt dreams, dreaming children's dreaming dreams. Sailor Moon SS
That's what I would do if someone were attacking me for my oil. It's the country's oil. Not ours.
http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_fullstory.asp?id=382 8
There's a picture of both Optimus Primes (Optimii Prime?) on the site.
National guardman changed his name to a toy
CUYAHOGA FALLS -- A member of Ohio's 5694th National Guard Unit in Mansfield legally changed his name to a Transformers toy.
Optimus Prime is heading out to the Middle East with his guard unit on Wednesday to provide fire protection for airfields under combat.
"On Sunday, we were awarded as the best firefighting unit in the Army National Guard in the entire country," said Prime. "That was a big moment for us."
Prime took his name from the leader of the Autobots Transformers, which were popular toys and a children's cartoon in the 1980s.
He legally changed his name on his 30th birthday and now it's on everything from his driver's licence, to his military ID, to his uniform.
"They razzed me for three months to no end," said Prime. "They really dug into me about it."
"I got a letter from a general at the Pentagon when the name change went through and he says it was great to have the employ of the commander of the Autobots in the National Guard."
Prime says the toy actually filled a void in his life when it came out.
"My dad passed away the year before and I didn't have anybody really around, so I really latched onto him when i was a kid," he said.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
I saw on another report that it was "more than 100 artillery rounds." 100 rounds is about a battalion 6, so it's 18 howitzers * 6 rounds. This could theoretically take 1 minute, probably two or three minutes.
Now, just about anything with MLRS (rockets and missles) counts as heavy, but I haven't seen much about this.
Cynthia, once the cutest little commie in Congress, got a section of GA-10 named after herself.
She was voted out of office soon afterwards.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
and
So is Rumsfeld lying?
This may imply an understanding of the stealth technology -- more than you can see on the History Channel special a couple months ago -- but it may be dumb luck, too.
We did lose an F-117 early on in Kosovo. Any chance the recovery helicopters arrived a little too late and something was reclaimed and passed to the Russians, black market, etc.?
Looks like MSNBC has the same proofreaders as Slashdot...
It seems to me that there's a huge, gaping black hole in the discussion of this war. According to the Poll du Jour, we have the choices of:
A) being all for the war, supporting the president and the troops 100%, and let's nuke Iraq 'till it glows!
or
B) War is bad. Always Bad. Never go to war. NEVER. Anybody who goes to war (i.e. members of the military) is a murder.
Unfortunately, back here in reality-land, it's not so simple....and I've heard from several personal sources, that the people who are over in the Middle East right now are being told that the Anti-war protests are against them. Personally. That's a problem!
About 10 days ago, a group of military families formed in Suburban Chicago to support each other and to remind their loved ones overseas that while many of us do not support or endorse the politics behind this war, we DO love and support the soldiers whose job it is to go fight it. Being the techy I am, I of course felt the need to help this group get online...if anyone is interested in joining this growing online community, and expressing your support, you can visit www.family-vigil.org.
And I'll brace for the /.-ing...be kind to my little server!
Amen, brother.
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Dont be stupid. When you sanction US, you are sanctioning yourself in effect. As for Bush, he has over 65% support. I'd say thats a majority. :)
As for this war, I am for it. One step at a time to make sure that nether I or my family have to be involved in anything like 9/11 again. (My father and I have worked in WTC, it was a great place to be.) Its easy to be anti-war when you and your family is safe and dont live in fear of another 9/11.
I still live in NYC and not planning to leave. Its still a great city to live in!
Peace :)
Free speech is getting expensive...
The US is very pragmatic. They would do it if they thought it would help out in the big picture (or sadly, at least in the short-term).
Everybody has known for a long time that Hussein is bad news. The US supported Hussein before and after he gassed the Kurds.
In fact the US has acted like a terrorist state itself. See Nicaragua.
I'm sorry, but that's a supremely stupid analogy. If you can't say anything intelligent about this, then please refrain from doing so altogether.
Because it's cheaper to just take it? Plus, you get a free military base and lots and lots of real-world training for your troops. After all, do you think the money spent on this war would not have been spent on the military anyway?
Having said that, I think oil is number three on the list of reasons for this war; the military base is the #1 priority.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
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.
You could argue that this is "Stuff that matters", aside from the already mentioned fact that the other sites will probably not take the pounding like slashdot will (like, say, the Washington Post Dispatch Page, which is already slowing down)
I'll see your herring and raise you a swordfish in #twoweapon combat.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
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
Sorry, dipshit, you just did. Effect on the war: goose egg. Effect on "business as usual": nil. (I telecommute, haha!)
sulli
RTFJ.
They did shoot one down once, I think. Perhaps they found a wavelength that the stealth fails at? If I were them I would have spent a lot of time trying different things on any captured F117 remains.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm guessing the cruise missiles they launched along with it. Cruise Missiles are detectable by radar and that may have started the AAA barrage.
Hans Blix is a tool.
A troll based on misinformation? THIS is scored as a 4?!
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
Hey, someone is speaking sense at last ... and instantly it get's modded Flamebait
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
In Bosnia. Why? Not because of radar, but because they got lucky with AA fire.
:p
One loss in how many bombing runs isn't that shabby for a weapon of war. It's a moot point, actually.
The Iraqis are just covering the air with AA fire, hoping that they hit something. There was a large bit o' outrage about our 'invincible' weapon being shot down back in Bosnia - Iraq's probably hoping for that to happen here, too.
Tip to military commanders: Never let the politicians insist you are undefeatable, otherwise, when your inevitable defeat happens, everyone gets whiny on your ass.
in other news...Iraqi forces have agreed to lie down and play dead if US forces agree to switch to Nurf Bombs.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Except that September 11 never happens.
Now fast forward to March, 2003.
To all you self-righteous americans who claim they're "ashamed" of being american, and to all others who think this is an agression against your beliefs or your comfortable position in the world pecking order - I say this: too fucking bad.
If the security of the United States depends on taking out Saddam Hussein, along with a few thousands of his soldiers and (regrettably) a few thousands of Iraqi civilians, too bad. Too fucking bad.
This war is not about oil, about momey or about anything else than security. If you can't see that... well, too bad. Too fucking bad.
You must be French. The real reason for the attack on Iraq, is that he has or is working on weapons of mass destruction and has worked on hiding them for the past 12 years. As for dated proof, the public would not and should not be given that information due to the fact that if there is a confilict (which there is now) he would not know that we have those sites targeted. The fact that he has them is not the threat. The fact that he may be willing to sell them is. The Presidents stance is that to protect the intrests of this country and safety of its citezens, pre-emptive action must be taken. Maybe if you had some religous zealots attack your country, your leaders would feel the same way. Apparently you must be reading to much French propoganda.
Take a look at the number of replies on this story and then see if the "Stuff that matters" part is satisfied.
If you want the occassional update, go to Google news, or other news sites. As for intelligent discussion, you must not be on Slashdot a lot :-).
Its not a war. The last declaration of war by the United States occurred December 8th, 1941.
It is a conflict!! The media is fixated on using the word "war".
I read on slate warblog that Iraq is expected to take them hostage any time soon. I am sure this is going to be a pain in the ass for US.
CNN, besides going downhill after Turner stopped running the show, has managed to prove once more that it is the network for global news. Nick Robertson deserves the "large sack of the year award" for staying in Bagdad.
I dunno about yer budgets... I think hollywood may spend more money than the military does on wars. It costs a lot to keep all those celebrities flying around in their private jets that use... oh, gasp, jet fuel, which is made from... oh my god... oil. And they get driven around in limos that consume... uh... gasoline, also made from... er... maybe... oil. And the CD's and DVD's they produce, made from plastic, packaged in plastic... which ultimately comes from... ding ding, oil. Deep down inside they probably want oil prices to come down so that the RIAA and MPAA-related companies can make a higher profit on their movies, etc, because the price of media drops. Eh, or they can just raise prices again. What a tangled web we weave.
Nobody's really for high oil prices, see. It's just what they say to make them look all concerned and better than the rest of us.
-- Liberalism is a mental disorder.
On top of that, why did it take the U.S so long to adopt democracy? The Greeks invented it more than 200 years ago, thats for damn sure!
The country is only a little over 200 years old...That's why. Geez buy a history book!!!
It turns out stealth airplanes are not that steakthy really. After the gulf war the pentagion admitted that iraq's chinese made radars could detect them, but there was not enough accuracy for their missles to lock on to them.
But then again once you have the general location you can always have your AAA gunners shoot there, and hope you get lucky.
I read in some articles, that the Ukraine may have smuggled a more modern radar into Iraq, which detects stealth planes. The fact that the ukraine even has such radar (their military R&D essentially stopped since they split from the soviet union) if true shows that those planes are not that stealthy after all, and can be detected with old soviet radar technology. But of course one does not know if that is true.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/2866547.stm
The link above, contains logs from BBC journalists that you can follow while they are walking with the troops, and in the cities.
This is
First, you're right. Pointing to Vietnam is a mistake. Just as if I would say they deserved WTC. There are people in question, so if it makes you more comfortable: "You're right:
It is so fashionable to hate America
Not at all, I just believe there could be a better choices without them (exclude people, just US and democracy with their interferring).
place run by a madman
Now you're gonna say that Bush is sane, god and new year comes on friday the 13th
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?
Point would be right, but it ain't. They weren't territorial, they were commercial.
*Bosnia
Yeah, right tell me about it. I think I know it a bit better this one than you.
I would have happily have given Saddam six more months to dis-arm
Me too
Lets hope as few people as possible die in the current conflict
If you'd read my post you'd see that I regret that war even exists. But reason that exists lies on America
Signature Pro version 1.13.2-3 release 83.5 beta3try7 after-breakfast edition
Jesus fucking christ. Do some of your own homework, moron. Gah. Do a search on French oil companies and the deals they struck with Saddam that they hope stick around after the war. After you read up on that, do the same for Russian oil companies.(google it. I hope you don't need a google link.) After that, hopefully, you'll know who's really after all that oil(estimated to be grand total of 300 billion barrels, more than Saudi Arabia.)
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)
Hey, not only did you apparently "have to read it," but something compelled you to COMMENT on it as well. Wow! You should really look into getting your computer fixed, it's begun to eat away at your free will, and that sounds serious...
Man, if MY computer made me read and comment on every story posted on SlashDot, I'd never get any work done! You must have a pretty cushy job!
He's no Texan, pal. George HW Bush bought a ranch in Texas, but the Bush family is really your standard New England whitebread, not too different from the Kennedys...
Dubya, despite his accent, ain't much of a real Texan. What real Texan would skip out on Vietnam, then skip out on National Guard duty? It ain't right, amigo...it ain't right.
How do you post with a large herring anyway? Was the herring looking over CmdrTaco's shoulder? Was the herring dead and with CmdrTaco, who was about to eat it? I just don't get it!
Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
Added bonus ...
You distract your slack-jawed populace from the real shit going on in your country. Wake the fuck up US of A.
I view this comment just like people complaining about case mod stories. If you dont like, wait until the next story is posted. No one forced you to read this story, If you dont like it ignore it.
*posting at 2 so this comment will last through a few abusive moderators*
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Why are we doing this?
1) Because we cannot continue to monitor and control nuclear weapons proliferation.
We have about another 10 or 20 years of this "control" before the technology to enrich heavy elements for use in weapons will get too small to easily find, and too technically feasible to prevent through restricted access to plans and hardware.
We need a regime change in the gulf region, not for oil*, but to:
2) Introduce Democracy in the region. Democracies do not wage wars of aggression. If you want the planet to be safe any time soon, if you want our species to aspire to something greater than self-inflicted violence, we need to be rid of fascists, isolationists and xenophobes. That starts with Saddam.
* No blood for oil is lame 20th Century rhetoric. The only possible connotation of that catch-phrase now is "No (innocent Iraqi) blood for (French) oil." If you think this war is about oil, you need to wake up.
Who says "they" want Democracy, you ask? Everyone deserves a higher quality of life. The Iraqi people will have a much higher QOL when this is over with, because they will have a Democracy. Don't they deserve it? The anti-war protest folks need to realize that they are fighting AGAINST a better life for the Iraqi people.
If not me, who?
If not now, when?
I choose LOVE
Iraqi children
50% of the population
this is the text of a sign i held this morning in my downtown intersection. the text was bordered by images of Iraqi children from here: Thomson Gallery #2
i received the peace sign from two out of three drivers, the rest gave me the finger.
A German citizen notes, "all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing" with regard to what German citizens needed to do to facilitate the rise of Nazi Germany.
peace
U.S. Defense spending is less, as a percentage of GDP, than it was in the 70s and 80s. We were able to support the higher level then, why couldn't we now, especially when the US is less dependent on natural resources, like oil.
Secondly:
Money is fluid, and interchangable. It doesn't matter if the oil countries want US Dollars, Euros, Suiss Francs, or Beanie Baby Futures, as long as it's freely exchangable, then it doesn't matter. I know it fits into some people's idea that this whole thing is "(old) Europe vs. America", but c'mon, there'd be better ways to do it than this.
:p
Of course, never mind the fact that France has, over the last 10 years, signed deals with Saddam Hussein giving them rights to 25% of Iraq's oil reserves. Or that Russia is currently owed at least $10 Billion by Iraq. That wouldn't explain those reluctance on their part to remove Saddam Hussein, would it? Of course not... Because... well... uh... George W. Bush is a Cowboy! Yeah!
A friend of mine messaged me this morning with "Happy Birthday, I had hoped to get you a war for your birthday, but looks like Mr Bush beat me to it...Hope you have a nice day anyways!"
I hereby dub this war "The Adam War", removing all crappy CNN titles from the possibility of being used...not Gulf War Redux, not Gulf War Two, not Desert Storm Again...The Adam War
"Anybody who tells me I can't use a program because it's not open source, go suck on rms. I'm not interested." (LT 2004)
Actually, I think it would be most appropriate to post a story about the technologies employed in this war - that's truly News for Nerds. Take yesterday, for example. Despite a terrific sandstorm that normally would have immobilized troops, the US forces were able to make a speedy and well-organized maneuver up to the border of Iraq thanks to GPS and other tools. It's just this sort of "we couldn't have done this a few years ago" application that makes the difference in war. Let's hear about the Nerds that will liberate Iraq!
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
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
We need to have a new moderation flag: -1, Propaganda. This post merits it.
Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
sorry, couldn't resist...
Oh, it is to save the people of Iraq... Come on, why the US did not came in a hurry when the same was happening in Timor Leste? Why US backed so many dictators in Latin America that were as bad as Saddam? Not to mention that US backed Saddam himself once. So this nullifies that excuse.
Oh, wait, Saddam has WMD (and Bush has the receipt to prove). So North Korea, Pakistan, and, well, United States. This so-called reason could justify invading US, indeed. But having WMD with intent to use is different... Well, what country is the only that has used WMD against people in the past? Ask Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Ah, the freedom. US is bringing freedom to the people of Iraq. Well, it could bring it to many other people in poor countries Africa, or even rich countries in Asia. But they have no oil, or are happy business partners, aren't they?
I have a cousin in Kwait, right now. He is an US soldier, and God help him to come back home safe, and let this war end soon.
If you can read this, thank an english teacher.
So nerds aren't supposed to care about the biggest foreign event in years?
I'd like to give us more credit.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
US is going against the UN.
This criminal act is riscing the peace in the whole world!
The nation that has the most mass destruction weapons is the US. Some of them are Pentagon eager to try in Iraq.
Please try to stop this madness!
Per
09-11-2001 -> 9+11+2+1 = 23 /. did, I have to wait another minut)
Todays date: 20-03!
Time of this post? 20:03
Wuaaaaah, somebody stop me! (Well
The site where: "I'm right, as long as you ignore the things that prove me wrong", became a valid method of debate.
That makes you a Minnovite! (Jonah Veggie Tales movie joke). Fishmonger! I'm just posting this for the halibut.
Who moved my sig?
This is probably news to you too, but there were no Iraqis in the 9/11 planes.
There were, however Saudis. Which are one of our allies against Iraq. Funny, isn't it?
Bush's War and the War Against Terror are quite different beasts.
Mind your own business and maybe the world will stop hating your guts.
Nah, we'll always have jerks like him generating hatred. Heck, it's gonna probably take a long time for us to live down *this* stupid attack.
May we never see th
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
That's a bit better.
Ok, I'm getting a little sick on the 'why is this on Slashdot?' questions. Look up in the left upper hand corner. Slashdot. News for Nerds. Stuff that matters. Dont' forget the second part.
and they delayed kickoff! I mean I NEED the Iraqi's to beat the spread by 2-1/2 SCUDS.
Vote Quimby!
Here, the war starts and we have 2 slash-dot articles. Hummf. Why not a few weeks ago during those Anti-War marches?
What about anti-aircraft weaponry going off above Saddam Hussein International Trainstation (SHIT)?
Fellowship 9/11
What the hell do troop movements in the Middle East have to do with "News for Nerds"?
If I want shoddily reported, unsubstantiated rumors about the war, I can go to CNN. I count on Slashdot to give me shoddily reported, unsubstantiated rumors about technology.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
I still haven't heard a plausible mechanism for "The US" (the government? US Oil companies? Truckloads of citizens carrying buckets?) to simply "take" Iraq's oil....
At the same time, the puffery about "Free the Iraqi People from Evil(tm)" excuse doesn't fit, either. I just can't see the federal government doing ANYTHING for simplistic reasons (be it "take their oil", "Free Iraq", "Saddam Hussein is a bad, bad man", etc.). I suspect the reason behind the hyperactive "push" to get to this point is complex and includes elements of most of the simplistic theories. Of course, trying to actually UNDERSTAND the reasons behind what's going on requires thinking, which most human beings around the world today seem to think is some sort of (metaphorically) back-breaking labor (and therefore detailed facts are seen as not being in demand, so no news media source, regardless of its individual biases, bothers to come up with any...).
Though I do have a whacky conspiracy theory to add to the list (not that I necessarily BELIEVE it, but):
If it turns out to be possible to "boil down" the impetus for this "military action" (NOTE: THERE IS NO WAR! It's only some sort of EUPHEMISM for war until the US Congress grows a spine and decides to actually DECLARE war. I predict this'll be another "undeclared war" when all is said and done...) to ONE purpose, could that purpose REALLY be:
How about this...what if the SINGLE intended goal of the conflict was....
We want the economic sanctions against Iraq lifted. (Like I said, "conspiracy theory"...).
Not that if this were the case it would be because of lofty humanitarian reasons, but rather "Enlightened Self-Interest". Now, if this was the reason, we couldn't simply start lobbying the UN to just lift all the sanctions - after all, Saddam Hussein is still in power, and his actions WERE the reasoning behind the sanctions in the first place (the "Saddam Hussein is a Bad, Bad Man" factor), so getting him and his "regime" removed is necessary before we can push to have the sanctions lifted. Once the conflict is over, Iraq will need its economy jump-started even more than the US's does, which means they'll need to be able to trade prodigiously and freely (the "Free the Iraqi People" factor), and exportation of oil is going to be a major source of income for the nation of Iraq - and the an increase in Iraqi output will drive down prices (the "'Take' Iraq's Oil" factor). Lower cost oil available to the US will be a small detriment to US oil companies' profit margins, but will drive down manufacturing and freight costs, conceivably causing a boost to the economy ("Enlightened Self Interest") both in the US and in countries that the US would like to see an increase in exportations to (giving them more money to spend on US stuff), and, of course, if all the intended positive effects actually take place, it means more credibility for the Bush fa
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
The F-117 can be seen visually. Perhaps that's how they knew to fire.
I recall during Kosovo that a F-117 was shot down. Perhaps Serbia (another enemy we have created) passed along some technology. It was theorized at the time that the Chinese may have given some technology to Serbia.
History is so yesterday!
You are so right! We do not have to, please!
Everywhere, even in MTV, there is newsflashes about this "war". Blaah.
throwing "dissidents" into commercial plastic shredders
Really? It doesn't surprise me that much, but when did that happen? Link please (to a reputable news site).
attacking Iraqi Kurds with VX Nerve Gas
Saddam doesn't have Vx. Vx is rather hard to get, and about the nastiest of the current gasses. He used tabun and something else (which I forget) against them.
think that this is all about OIL
Think? I'd say *know*. We ignore human rights violations on the part of Turkey. Hell, lots of the nations on the "30 countries list" are egregious human rights violators.
There's one reason Iraq is so interesting to us (as opposed to a nation off in the middle of nowhere to ignore). Oil.
And Rumsfield threatening Iraq *not* to light any of their oil wells just drives the point home even more.
May we never see th
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..
On top of that, why did it take the U.S so long to adopt democracy? The Greeks invented it more than 200 years ago, thats for damn sure!
If the US was a democracy, Bush wouldn't be in office at the moment -- thanks a lot, electoral college. We're a republic.
May we never see th
SF Indy Media has a very interesting live feed here . It's a nice alternative to the korporate controlled US media outlets.
Personally I think it's better than watching CNN. At least you get something other than constant towing of the Dubya line. Like links to Indian news sites from the last story, or links to the Iraqi guy's blog. Don't read if you don't want to.
Random is the New Order.
Saddam: What happen?
Uday: Someone set up us the bomb.
Saddam: Main screen turn on!
Bush: How are you gentlemen!! All your base are belong to us.
Blair: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Saddam: Ha Ha Ha Ha...
It's not ironic at all. France, Germany, Russia and China are only in the UN to protect their own self-serving interests:
1) Iraq owes France BILLIONS in financial aid THAT WAS PROHIBITED BY UN RESOLUTIONS AND SANCTIONS!
2) Germany and Russia have sold Military Equipment THAT WAS PROHIBITED BY UN RESOLUTIONS AND SANCTIONS!
3) China built a Fiber Optic network for Iraq's C3 (Command, Control & Communications) Network that cost BILLIONS
4) Russia made an "Oil Deal" with Iraq IN VIOLATION OF UN RESOLUTIONS AND SANCTIONS.
France, Germany, Russia and China - the new "GANG OF FOUR"!!!!!!
It's sad how the world forgets 60 years of history so quickly. If it wasn't for the US envolement in both World Wars, France, Russia & most of Africa would be speaking Deutche, half of China and the rest of Asia would be writing in Kanji and speaking Japanese under an Imperial Japan.
TO FREE NATIONS OF THE WORLD - YOU OWE YOUR FREEDOM, LIBERTY AND LIVES TO THE SPILT & SPENT BLOOD OF THE MILITARY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - AND NOW YOU SPIT IN OUR FACES WHEN WE PREVENT ANOTHER WORLD ATTROCITY BY REMOVING YET ANOTHER DICTATORIAL MADMAN!?!??!?!?
Here's a wonderful plan for the rest of the world:
1) US Permanently closes all borders and arms Border Patrol with Military Hardware to enforce our Soverign Territory (defense of our borders, especially against snooty Canadians and smelly Mexicans)
2) US Permanently cancels all "mutual defense" treaties, recalls ALL US Military forces from foreign soil and lets the other, so-called "Democratic" Societies beat the hell out of each other (Isolationist policy)
3) US Permanently expells and deports all Illegal Immigrants and arrests all foreigners with expired Visas under gunpoint. (defence against foreign insurgents)
4) US calls all Foreign Aid Debt given to other nations as "Immediately Due and Payabe" (Financial Independence - which would cause the financial collapse of the rest of the World)
5) US Withdraws from the UN, takes-over the UN Plaza and expells all foreign diplomats and embassy officials. (UN has become a support-system for Socialist & neo-Communist forces.)
Let's see how long the world will last without the support and aid of the USA!!!!!!!
ScottKin
I don't give a rat's behind about "karma" here or anywhere else. Don't like what I have to say here? Deal with it!
Hans Blix is a tool is my opinion. And yes, I think that the UN has become the League of Nations.
That Scuds are being launched from Iraq into Kuwait is based on what CNN and Rueters reported ealier today. I understand this fact is in now in dispute. I guess in your mind that means he poses no danger.
There are efforts underway to pinpoint the locations of his illegal munitions. If / when they are found, I suppose you will still think we are the bully.
In the end, Iraq will be liberated from the dictator, and the world will be safer for it. When Iraqi people have the right to vote, learn, travel, speak freely, and live without fear - I suppose you will not think the US has served any humanitian good. You think this is all about making money on oil, which is going down in price as I write this.
And if you think I'm a troll, I'll take that as a compliment. Flame on.
It's nice to know that lives and resources that could be used to help fight terrorism or help repair the economy are being used to fight out a Bush clan squabble.
May we never see th
I think that's XP only. It doesn't do anything for me in 2K. Or maybe it's just not working. ;)
Random is the New Order.
The blog hasn't been up that long.
Why does an action have to be popular to be right? Yes there are a lot of people against this war... but that fact doesn't make the war wrong.
Personally, I like having a leader that will do what he feels is the right thing to do, even if it isn't the popular thing to do. I hope the British feel the same way.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
I don't think the F-117 was ever intended to be completely invisible to radar. It's not as if they designed it to be able to fly down Main Street Baghdad and have people wondering what the noise was. It's not an invisible UFO.
It is, however, more difficult for radar to distinguish from background reflections, and thus more difficult for missile radar to track. It's also heat-shielded against heat-seeking missiles.
You have words from 30 countries (a few less since it actually started). You have troops from 3. That's not "support".
Aside from the numerous defectors who have told us that Iraq has been concealing things, there was that (supposedly destroyed long ago) scud missile that landed in Kuwait last night.
This sig wasn't worth reading, was it.
I mean does every single person on slashdot eat and shit US propaganda?
They don't. It's just the fifteen-year-olds who revel in the feeling of power and the veterans.
Unfortunately, they happen to be quite vocal.
May we never see th
Heheheh, I just thought it would be fun to see how many people would reply to this. I'll take my mod points any way I can get them. Yeah, I like my job, slashdot and a Cheeseburger works pretty well on a lunch break. Again thanks for all your posts. Hopefully this next topic will prompt some more replys. The only way to argue successfully with a fool is to reduce yourself to their level. :-)
The moon is virtually full. The F-117 and any other plane can be seen under such conditions. Moonlight is what allowed the Serbs to down an F-117 during that campaign several years back. They can't see it that well on radar (until it gets real close) but you can see it well in moonlight and then all it takes is a lucky shot.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
One possibility is that, in addition, we don't want to risk letting enough information out that Saddam's people can figure out where the US is getting its information on the prohibited weapons, and kill those involved...
(On an unrelated note, I'm getting utterly sick of hearing "Weapons of Mass Destruction(tm)" (which is bandied about in the press so much that everyone's been abbreviating it WMD instead...). Not because of what they're referring to or anything, but because I think the term is nonsensical and designed entirely for "marketing" reasons, much like "assault weapon" (isn't a WEAPON, by DEFINITION, for assaulting things?). How is a canister of gas capable of killing off most of a building's inhabitants more a weapon "of Mass Destruction" than a really big conventional bomb which is capable of doing the same thing, as well as destroying the building itself (which, I gather, really isn't "Mass Destruction", according to the usage of the terminology by the media)?...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Here's a link, and here's an abridged copy:
The Hitler regime was possessed of imposing military might, backed up by an advanced industrial complex that was working flat out and was a leader in various spheres, including weaponry. The Führer, who had come to power through democratic means, boasted of the superiority of his State and his model of society and did not conceal his intention to seek world control. Such was his power and arrogance, and so obvious was the fervour of his support, that he was able to cow most Western governments. In the face of their cowardice, he was able to flout international law, aided by the Western governments' approval of his ferocious antipathy to communism, whose adherents the Nazis accused of terrorism (vide the trials for the Reichstag fire).
So how does this compare with the regime of Saddam Hussein? The Iraqi dictator - whose army could not defeat Iran despite backing from the United States and Russia - is in no position to contemplate attacking anybody. Industrially, the country lacks the means even of defending itself, with an underfed population and half its territory subject to foreign-imposed no-fly zones. Indeed, Saddam for many months has resigned himself to ever-increasing humiliations as inspectors are allowed even to look under the carpets in his own home.
Valete!
Yeah... Bush may not be great but I dance in the streets every time I think about Gore not being President.
Then please explain what a recently commisioned aircraft carrier is doing with former President Bush's name.
Like eagles on pogo-sticks! -- Glottis
WE'VE put up with his shit for 12 years. This isn't like some guy rose to power last week and we decided to invade him. Everyone keeps calling this an "unwarranted initial strike"..WTF?! We've had a war with this guy once already!? Forgive us for not wanting to get shelled with some chem weapon before we make a move. Preventative strikes are much better than responsive strikes.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
I'm Jewish, It was a joke dipshit! Or couldn't you see the link to www.landofisrael.info right under my handle?
In other news:
IST 20:45 US cruise missiles slam into Baghdad, start fires Thursday night. Heavy anti-aircraft fire lights the skies as city rocked by explosions. Wave of 10 F-15 and F-16 warplanes took off from US military base in Qatar. 1st Marine Expeditionary unit crosses into Iraq from Kuwait.
Woopty Doo Basil, what does it all mean?!
In fact they belive they missiles where Al-Samoud I.
:0 031 055
US deny koweithian saying that scuds where fired.
Read it here
http://www.msnbc.com/news/870749.asp?vts=03202
Colosse.
You confuse the US with Bush and his cronies. Believe me after this war is over we (the US) will be paying for Iraqi oil.
But who will own it, now that is the trillion dollar question.
Well, who the fuck else is going to rebuild Iraq? If oil wells are broken, then you bring in an oil company to fix it. Are we going to let greenpeace put out those fires? Who would (in your eyes) be the legitimate group to fix the oil wells, if they get destroyed?
When I was in the USAF I worked with a guy who'd changed his name to "Vega Epsilon Altair." When I knew him he was a SSgt, but still living in the dorms.
An odd character, to be sure.
668: Neighbour of the Beast
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.
Steps to dealing with Stealth Technology(tm):
1) Know the air base where operations are started from.
2) Have a guy/gal near there.
3) Binoculars.
4) Stopwatch.
5) Radio.
6) Type of plane.
7) Average cruising speed.
8) Guess the intended target.
9) Distance to target from base/avg cruising spd = time to start shooting blindly in the air.
God, I hope you don't really believe the things You say. Democracy is not what you have, on paper and by name maybe, but reality is different
Guess you're right on that one. The US is a constitutional republic that elects its leaders using democratic means.
Who in the right mind would give America power to decide for others, I know I didn't
Hmmmm... That's a tough one.
Oh, lets try this: Europe (which had all of the undisputed SuperPowers for a couple of hundred years) totally fucked themselves in two conflicts that nearly destroyed their cultures, societies, peoples, etc.
The US took control by default. We were the last ones standing in the way of complete Soviet domination.
Now whether you think complete domination by a communist government is a good thing or not, I can't say. That is something the folks of Central Europe could answer quite well. Perhaps you should ask them whether having the US around to keep the pressure on the Soviet Union was a good thing.
And we will be glad to ask you next time we are going to kick the shit out of another country - and then ignore your advice.
Explanation
You mean rationalization for your hate, don't you?
1. Whenever US interferred in some nation they caused more pain and sorrow than it was.
A little more historical perspective on your screed would be helpful, wouldn't it?
Are you suggesting that the US had a hand in every botched exercise in nation building? Explain the problems of Palestine, India, and Indochina to us when the US was busy beating the shit out of itself while these areas were being colonized.
Oh, you mean it WASN'T the American's decision to "nation build" in these regions?
2. Whenever US calls their judgement, who the fsck gives them right, but they still do
That is what you get to do when you are the undisputed global power.
You might want to look at the record of those who preceded us.
3. Most of the last wars (10 or 20) in the world were actualy caused by US
See my response to #2. When you are the undisputed world power, every punk on the block wants a shot at you.
4. Most of the wars were longer because of US
How long should they have been?
If we were to nuke every enemy we had, they would be over quite quickly. Is that what you are suggesting?
Conclusion. I hope you'll get a new Vietnam (read as ASS KICKED)
Not likely to happen, but thanks for your warm support.
BTW, your country is next.
I guess I hate America and what it represents (or you can call it a lie), not Americans, there's many people from US whom I know who are just plain people, no politics, no bullshit.
That statement tells us a lot about you:
1. You hate America, and by extension, Americans
2. You do not understand America or its people
3. You do not understand politics.
p.s. Please, get a new sucker to be president, Bush is not sane, or get a better remote (democracy)
If it gives you any comfort, I didn't vote for Bush and I do not support much of his domestic or foreign policy. But he is the President and I do support him in this particular action.
It may come as a shock to you, but the American public is not a monolithic entity that is swayed either one way or another by the opinions of its leaders. We generally support people who take military action to defend our interests (like the French do in Algeria) and our security. This may not make everyone in the world happy, but that is the way things worked out.
When your country is the undisputed global power, you will be the one typing this reply.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
I doubt it. Assuming we do manage to kill him, we'd have to be aware of it, get the order to stop out there, and then have it relayed.
Of course, since there's more a regime change than just killing the leader, Bush won't stop with just Saddam.
This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
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
He lit up over 700 on his way out of Kuwait, and it took over 9 months to put those fires out, costing the Kuwaiti's over 50 Billion Dollars. How can you put a price on the ecological damage done?
Saddam Hussein forfiet any legitimate claim to sovereignty back on August 2nd, 1990. When he rolled over the Kuwaiti border, it was over for him, and his regime.
I find it unfortunate that he has spent the last 12 years in power. If you want to blame a Bush for this conflict, you can lay it squarely on the shoulders of the elder Bush for not having completed the job in 1991. Of course, that foray into Iraq had UN support, and the world wasn't willing to go the distance. He should have been removed from power then. Instead, he was allowed to remain, on the condition that he behave himself.
The UN reminds me of the old comedy sketch about the Unarmed English Bobby... "Stop! Or I'll have to ask you stop again!"
So here we go, undertaking a task which must be undertaken, for the benefit not only of the United States, but for the entire world. If you don't want to help out, that's perfectly fine. Just sit there, and shut the fuck up. Your regularly scheduled programming will return soon enough.
For those that would die defending it, Freedom
has a sweet taste that the protected will never know.
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
That is some good logic there 'unicorn'
I guess a North Korean preventative strike against the West Coast would make sense to you too right? (we've had a war with Korea before too you know)
In their eyes: axis of "evil" = iran, iraq and us -- time to get this ball rolling!
Well said, Robert.
Do it for da shorties
I believe it was stated in one of the media, however, that most of the Iraqi wells are not positive pressure. This significantly increases the chance the wells will be permanently destroyed by a fire, or so said a talking head.
Flawed logic? You just said some of the stupidest shit I've ever read on this page.
Solider: Sir, Saddam just launched a missle volley at one our allies, and he's developing chemical weapons at an alarming rate. We also have reason to believe that he's providing services and supplies to terrorist cells.
General: Damnit man, has he done anything to hurt Unicron in Vegas?
Solider: Well, no, but..
General: Then we wait!
WTF!? No, being in America, I haven't personally felt the sting of Saddam.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
It's actually a great place on the strategic level: in the middle east with a port and no annoying ruling family to go begging to for flying permission.
America has already spent orders of magnitudes more money trying to 'contain' Iraq than it spends on oil.
Money that would have been spent on the military anyway.
And it's not going to be America's oil, the oil belongs to the Iraqi people.
Ha ha!
The Bush administration has made that quite clear.
Yes, he's so trustworthy, insn't he!?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Only if you're the one doing the striking, with little or no risk of retribution.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
How many contractors have put in bids to rebuild Iraqi homes, hospitals and the like?
I would assume none because of the lack of money in it.
Oil on the other hand is why the US is attacking Iraq... rather that sorting out North Korea who are blatently being naughty (but luckily don't possess miles of oil miles).
Don't tell me you've forgotten that whole "Axis of Evil" propaganda? A quick war (AKA "lopsided massacre") in Iraq just means we'll be attacking Iran sooner rather than later. Or if they're smart enough to take the initiative rather than waiting for the US to prepare, they'll attack us and stand a chance. Of course then we wouldn't have to cook up an excuse for war.
Of course we may not feel like going after a country as big as Iran immediately. So we may detour to Syria first.
Fact is, Iraq will make an extremely convenient base - centrally located, shares borders with two regimes that don't do what we tell them to and two others that don't always cooperate, abundant energy resources, well developed infrastructure, weakened by years of embargo, and a major port capable of handling large ships.
Domino effect my ass. If anything is going to be turning muslim nations "democratic" (otherwise known as US proxy regimes) it'll be our overwhelmingly powerful military. It's all part of the neocon plan, which has been outlined explicitly. And once we're in Iraq it will be impossible to leave.
I was watching a call-in show on C-Span. A bunch of people called in saying that because we're at war, you have to support the President, and anything less would be traitorous. Garbage. He and his ilk have created a situation that will keep us at war for years to come. Only a fool would support a president for a crisis of his own creation. But I'm sure he thinks so. He seems like the kind of self-righteous asshole that would run for a third term - "To ensure the stability of the nation in these times of danger" of course.
(Yes, I posted this on an earlier article but that was just an hour ago, obviously I was late)
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Visit http://www.prorev.com for news from people other than CNN and Fox...you can even read an article from someone outside of the US for a change.
man rtfm
Right, just like we protected East Timor, or the Palestineans, or... wait.
Who the fuck are you kidding.
Not at all, I just believe there could be a better choices without them (exclude people, just US and democracy with their interferring).
No, you're wrong, it's fashionable to envy and hate the US. It's trendy and lets people think they're enlightened in some way.
Now you're gonna say that Bush is sane, god and new year comes on friday the 13th
What a well thought-out, lucent argument! I am now thoroughly convinced!
Yeah, right tell me about it. I think I know it a bit better this one than you.
Woah! Such a valid argument has convinced ALL of us now.
If you'd read my post you'd see that I regret that war even exists. But reason that exists lies on America
Somebody has to have the balls to enforce 12 years of broken resolutions. The UN won't do it. What ever happened to those "grave consequences" that were supposed to be part of the first resolution?
Looks like a pretty good resolution.
The antidote for misuse of freedom of speech is more freedom of speech.
-- Molly Ivins
That Slashdot not cover the war in Iraq.
Seriously.
I love Slashdot. And I feel very strongly about the war in Iraq. The thing is that for some time in the very near future there will be no shortage on the web for coverage of the war. The newsites are going to run with every damn rumor like it is fact. And I (along with many, many other people) am going to be firmly addicted to that.
It is nice to know that I can placate the geeky side of me in a politic free zone on Slashdot.
It almost seems ironic, but Slashdot offers a unique site this day in age. Slashdot can serve the slashdot community best right now by being what Slashdot is.
Maybe I didn't make that statement very well. I am just trying to say that Slashdot is the best site I know of for geeky news, and I love it.
I also take great comfort that when I am all politicd out, wether it be the war on Iraq or whatever, I can go to Slashdot and enjoy it and my politics, or anyone elses don't matter.
Your greatest service might be to stay a politic free zone.
Thanks for listening.
USA is doing this only to free the oppressed people, nobody cares about the oil...
Funny how the US Marines sitting still in the desert have already seen more banned SCUD missiles than the inspectors found in six months of active searching!
Hey! Just give peace a ch... INCOMING!!
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
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
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
Do you have any idea idea how many
100,000s of thousands died? No.
According to the first page returned by google.... (drum roll please)
The answer is only 0.02!
(0.02 x 100,000 x 1,000 = 2 million dead)
Doesn't sound so bad when we put that way, right?
This is actually my favorite argument to use against conservatives who support Bush.
Such Corporate Welfare flies in the face of "Free Market" economic theory. It's nepotism of the worst sort, and will only guarantee that the company that wins the business, is NOT the best one for the job.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Taking Iraq will be easy. It's holding on to Iraq that will be hard.
No more difficult than Afghanistan. Remember, the Iraqis aren't fighters. This is the country that the people endure oppression rather than fight with the backing of the US. The is the army where people surrender BEFORE they see combat. I would be VERY surprised to see Iraq become another Palestine, especially considering the dramatic increase in freedoms they are about to experience.
Also keep in mind that we aren't going to be installing some WASP as president of the country. There is already a group of Iraqi nationals who have been selected as the interim leadership team while we help them build a democratic political system.
Yeah, George Bush is so loved and supported by the Jews in the US you can see how much he'd want to repay them to ensure he has their vote again next go around. What planet are you from?
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
Roadmap for War on Iraq and the New American Empire brought to by:
Elliott Abrams , Gary Bauer
William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush
Dick Cheney , Eliot A. Cohen
Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky
Steve Forbes , Aaron Friedberg
Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby
Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle
Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen
Donald Rumsfeld , Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz
xyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzyxyzzy
Please don't flame me it's just a question to learn the truth if anyone knows...
On the "last two times the US has used force were" issue is it accurate to observe that the willingness, solitude in the undertaking and frequency with which the US goes to war are all increasing?
Just a few thoughts to balance things.
Might doesn't mean right...
stealth fighters (and presumably the stealth bombers).
Um, I'd like to point out something about why the stealth are called fighters. It's because at the time they were originally built, Congress wouldn't fund *another* bomber program, so they called them fighters.
The primary mission of the slowest fighters in the world (the stealth) is to BOMB, BOMB, BOMB, and COME HOME so that they can BOMB AGAIN.
Like what I said? You might like my music
There are a scary number of parallels between Saddam Hussein of today, and Hitler of the 1930s.
Uhm-hm. I came across this text from Thom Hartmann which you may find interesting. The closing pieces about federally empowered corporations are especially interesting, and may ring a bell with the Slashdot crowd.
When Democracy Failed: The warnings of history
18 Mar 2003
The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.
It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over by then, the freedoms
Oh my god we have more training, technology, and battlefield skill than the guy we're fighting! It's just not fair!
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
Did no one notice this little tidbit?
I'm not in favor of this war and I don't think that Bush has been truthful or honorable. However, for now, I am putting my distrust and belief that there are hidden agendas being perused down.
I believe that because the war has started, it is important that we support our troops. It is my hope that the war will end quickly and without massive loss of life.
There will be time later to discuss accountability.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." G. W. Bush, 2003 ...
...
No, wait.
That was Adolf Hitler in 1933.
Darn.
You'd think that 70 years of evolution would be enough.
Then again, it only takes a quick look in a history book to understand that evolution does not apply to politicians
Ofcourse the same applies to us, the people who vote for them and support them. And the way we 'educate' our children. The future politicians and leaders.
Will it ever end ?
*sighs*
-Disappeared Iraqi Persons - 250,000 to 290,000 people
-Campaigns against Kurds 100,000 killed
-Iraqis fleeing the country 3-4 million (many of which I am sure came to the US)
SOURCE: Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International
"I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX
Can Slashdot stick to jusy covering "News for Nerds" and leave the war reporting to the thousands of other news outlets at our disposal? I come here to get away form all of the other news.
The protests in NY were not actually banned. The New York City government would only allow protests in small, barracaded areas, rather than permit a march down various routes that would make the protest visible. The excuse for denying a normal protest was that the government feared terrorists would take advantage of the peaceful demonstration by attacking or detonating bombs nearby. The area allotted to the protests in the end were not nearly large enough and spilled over into the streets, which I believe then resulted in various arrests. I'm uncertain about that last part. Anyway, concentraiting a huge number of people in a smaller area is a great way to thwart terrorists, right?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's "Operation Iraqi Freedom", not "Operation Iraqi Liberation". But I would've thought it was funny.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
And you can prove the US sold them these agents, or are you just a typical bark-at-the-moon idiot on /.?
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
I agree, however, when your living under someone who would shoot you if you voted against him, this is a problem.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
I will add my voice to the growing chorus to please, for f***s sake, stop covering the war in Iraq. Yes it's news, but I don't think slashdotters are SO cloistered that they don't check other world news sites. Please keep slashdot's appeal, namely good stories (-Jonkatz) that won't really be headlines in those other news sites. The only thing more depressing than the war are the idiotic responses to it, both pro- and anti-war. Please, stop with the war coverage. Thankyew.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/history/0,12792,876 851,00.html
"A disaster
The world must be told clearly that millions of British people are deeply shocked by the aggressive policy of the Government. Its action in attacking Egypt is a disaster of the first magnitude
Thursday November 1, 1956"
no dude, lets see how long USA will stand wihtout ripping other countries
resources. not long, I bet. thats why its not gonna happen, but i would
love if that happened. at least *my* country would be free of these
ripoffs.
cheers
``If a program can't rewrite its own code, what good is it?'' - Mel
North Korea has, in the last few weeks, repeatedly threatened to do things like "Turn New York into a sea of ashes." Maybe you didn't notice because US news sources have soft-pedaled that? Do a google, man.
Before you throw that "uninformed" brick, you might want to make sure there's no glass structure over your head.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
So let me get this straight: we're supposed to believe it 72 missles have killed only 4 soldiers. UH no buddy. Perhaps, only 4 soldiers have died but many more civilians have been murdered already.
so it would not be terrorism if the whitehouse was bombed by a foreign group?
you say this isn't terrorism, however installations such as the presidential pallaces (their equivlant of the whitehouse, only more of 'em) were bombed, but when anyone talks about attacks on the US, such as those on the pentagon, or attmpts on the whitehouse, those are terrorism? how does that work?
Well, chances are most people would look like "hammered crap" if they'd crawled out of the burned wreckage of a building... Guess we'll have to wait for the official press release on this one.
I for one am glad that the US is taking care of Hussein now
If you feel this way, why are you letting other people do your dirty work?
I agree completely with Presidential candidate Howard Dean, who says that we absolutely cannot allow North Korea to begin manufacturing nuclear weapons. The result of inaction is that North Korea will be in a position to engage in nuclear blackmail or to sell nuclear weapons to Al Qaeda or Hamas terrorists.
We absolutely can do something about it. Dean says that he would call for direct talks, contingent on the following two things:
1) U.S. guarantees not to attack North Korea during the period of the talks.
2) North Korea ceases nuclear development and allows inspectors to come in and verify.
Implicit in Dean's position is that a refusal on the part of North Korea to agree to these terms means that there is no guarantee the U.S. will not attack. And I would argue that if North Korea did not cooperate, that the United States should state unequivocally that we will attack, and we will destroy all known nuclear production facilities.
That would leave the choice for war up to North Korea. Yes, a war could cost hundreds of thousands of lives, but the risks only increase the longer Bush ignores the problem.
The idea behind holding talks is to negotiate a permanent settlement to the nuclear standoff, and perhaps formalize a peace treaty for the Korean peninsula. It might involve opening up trade relations or helping North Korea get through the famine. In exchange, we get the right to intrusive inspections to ensure that North Korea will not build anything that can be set off in one of our cities.
Guess I'm not mindlessly pro-american enough? Trying to get both sides of a story rather than believing everything the US government tells me like a sheep is apparently trolling.
Apparently the US uses force far more often than you remember. The last one was Afghanistan, which we freed from a horrible government. That government threw out a more liberal government. Prior to that, in the 80's, the United States backed a different "incredibly illiberal and un-democratic regime"
All of a sudden we're supposed to be the knights in shining armor for simply undoing what we ourselves once did to the county.
The last military action the US took part in before Afghanistan was actually with NATO against Serbia in early 1999. Technically it was Yugoslavia at the time and we were trying to stop genocide in Kosovo.
And before that? Iraq. I believe Clinton dropped more ordinance on Iraq leading up to his impeachment in late 1998 than in all of Vietnam and the Gulf War. Or maybe that was Kosovo. They were so close together.
Aside from that, I think you're right that Bosnia was the previous one.
It's interesting how people completely forget that we've been dropping and shooting weapons in Iraq with relative frequency for almost a decade.
The other thing most people forget about vietnam is that people living today are still suffering for our involvement there -- half-american kids left behind when men went home to their "real" wives, people crippled for life by crossfire or leftover bombs / land mines.
I too hope the war will be over soon, but... for starters, the US ground troops are outnumbered currently, and regardless of our technical superiority (which is being touted, but not displayed), Hussein must have something up his sleeve to be so blatantly brazen in his refusal to flee. Also, there were statements made not five minutes after the first attack saying the war would take longer than projected. I suppose that's what happens when projection include "mass enemy defections."
Bosnia and Afghanistan aside, there are some other important things to consider here:
- Iraq is in a strategically important place. It supplies 2% of the world's total oil, but the surrounding region supplies 25%. Also important to note right now is that many fuel cell projects and the electric car project have been recently abandoned.
- The current attack is unilateral, and technically still illegal. By participating in the UN the US agreed to be bound by their mandates, and the UN has as yet not agreed on the use of force. Nobody's really standing up to the US because everybody's afraid of the bully.
- America may be the "land of the free," but the President came on TV and said that he wouldn't listen to the cries of the protesters. Hmm... people speak out, and he acknowledges it and ignores it? Very democratic.
- There are a few other strange things so far. Like Bush labeling his war against Terrorism a "Crusade" and offending the Arab world. Like Bush calling this war a holy war, and praising god each time he speaks, when the US is supposed to have a distinct separation of church and state. (He also specifically started offering more money to faith-based NGO's for support in other countries, for no real reason.) Like the use of the term Blitzkrieg to describe strikes in the gulf after being compared to Hitler by that german politican.
- Cloud
In the modern world, you do not gain physical terrority, you open markets and install friendly puppet regimes.
I see what you are saying, the slavish obedience of puppet regimes in the conquered vassal states of Germany and France is truly stunning. The sense of cruel oppression by American puppet regimes in Austria, Italy, Japan, South Korea, the Philipines, Panama, and Bosnia stands in stark contrast with the freedom and prosperity enjoyed in nations like Vietnam, North Korea (and until now Iraq) where the US failed to install our oppressive puppets.
/ignore #cnn all -public
at least that works for epic
XJS*C4JDBQADN1.NSBN3*2IDNEN*GTUBE-STANDARD-ANTI-U
This is a case of one person claiming to speak for every last person "inside Iraq". But isn't that exactly what Saddam Hussein does?
Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
mind you... wouldn't the americans shoot at planes flying to patrol a "no-fly" zone covering a large portion of the states?
keep in mind that the no-fly zone wasn't approved by the UN either...
or so the news say, connections in and out have been disrupted for several days...
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Lets say you have a wife. If someone pulls a gun and aims it at her head, do you wait till he pulls the trigger until you do something? If you have the capability to stop him before he pulls the trigger, you know that you can stop him but you have to kill him. Who do you choose?
What if you were in a room with a dozen people, some which you know have guns, some which might, and others which would like to get them. One or more of them would like to shoot you. So you shoot a few which you happen to dislike just to make your odds better...
No lets make your wife be a barrel of oil, and the guy with kind eyes- he's actually the devil, and you have shot people in the head without UN sanction in the past, so what do you do when-
Fuck it.
I was watching CNN the other day prior to the beginning of the festivities last night. They mentioned that US Marines had affectionately nick-named the impending compaigne the "Bagdad Urban Renewel PRoject".
I wonder if they referred to it as Operation B.U.R.P. ?
Look here:
e ts /content.9.html
e ts /content.5.html
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0303/leafl
US government has sighted a dangerous Iraqi worker with a barrel,
obviously full of nuclear waste, maybe on his way to arm a missle.
Later the day, the same man was sighted again, but with a different
barrel. This time obviously he had no nuclear waste. Probably this
time it's just the fuel to fire the missle:
http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/0303/leafl
Or is it?
"It begs the question: did one of the countries that opposes the war pass this advanced technology, obviously developed since the 1991 Gulf War, to Iraq as an underhanded way of flipping the bird to the US and Bush?"
The original poster's point was clearly that someone may have shared stealth technology with the Iraqis, and that knowledge of how stealth works would render our technology worthless. I was simply pointing out that mere possession of the technology isn't a magic bullet that renders it ineffective.
The stealth will still do its job of being incredibly difficult -- but not impossible -- to detect. You can be damned sure that the engineers who designed it in the first place did the best job they could to render it as invisible as possible throughout as much of the spectrum as possible.
Even if Iraq or one of its allies has gotten ahold of an entire aircraft and had extensive opportunities to play with it in the lab, they're still going to have trouble detecting them. As other posters in this thread have pointed out, the stealth *can* be detected. The point is that it's hard to detect, and even when you do detect it, the returns you get will be sporadic and faint enough that you won't be able to target the aircraft with radar-guided missiles.
http://www.nationalreview.com/
a sp
and their essential blog:
http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.
Drives the Left crazy.
Consequences ensue.
Karma to burn I fear
This is an excellent example of how our 'American allies' sold us down the river in their haste to break up the British empire and curry favour with the Egyptians.
There's been much talk over recent months of the Americans comming to 'help' the British in 1943. America's lack of loyalty over Suez is never mentioned.
Why is that I wonder?
Text is downloadable in PDF from http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/2002/sc2002.htm. Have fun.
Axis of Evil Wannabes, by John Cleese
Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be more evil than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of in his State of the Union address. Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil...in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils... best at being evil...we're the best."
Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil. "They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
"An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So, you can only have three, and a secret handshake. Ours is wickedly cool."
International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.
Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the "Axis of Somewhat Evil," forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the "Axis of Occasionally Evil," while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the "Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable." With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up...Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the "Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics."
Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the "Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Some Nasty Thoughts About America," while Scotland, New Zealand and Spain established the "Axis of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick." "That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.
While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axis, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.
Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, leaders said that's only because no one asked them.
It 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
"U.S. and Kuwaiti sources initially reported all the missiles as Scuds, but the Pentagon later said it believes they were al Samouds or some other type of missile."/ 20/sprj.irq .kuwait.rockets/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03
We are not targetting civillians
I bet they don't care if you targetted them or not when you hit them
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
Given that my day job is a web designer, I put little work into my website because the last thing I want to do when I get home is deal with HTML. However, I dislike bookmarks/typing in web links so I have a small homepage I use that contains nothing but hyperlinks(sort of my own personal web portal). Ive created a small news section at http://www.tuzworld.com/news.htm in order to have an easy means to checking breaking news concerning the war with Iraq. Feel free to use it yourself. Again, not very many people will find this useful probably, but I am posting it anyway. Also, if anyone has any major news sites that I dont have listed that they would like to see posted there, just fire me an email at tuz@tuzworld.com.
A good friend of mine who is a Lt. in the 101st sent me this quote right before he shipped out. "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mills-
The first "Strike on Iraq" story from yesterday has 3700+ comments. I've never seen a count that high, not even after 9/11. This story currently has 1300+ comments and is growing like mad.
Obviously Slashdotters want to discuss it, and that's why these stories belong here.
"now I have to read about it when I want my geek fix?"
Nobody is forcing you to do anything, much less read the comments section and post one of your own. You can just skip to the next story the instant you see "Iraq" in the headline.
"Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
Great job..way to sock it to saddam.
Unfortunately, you forgot about the fact that
the US had plenty of time to deal with him
the first time.
Also there are quite a few people just doing
their duty over there that will die now because
bush has a wild hair up his ass.
..Free Live Free...
This, however, does not mean that the US shouldn't have tried harder to get UN cooperation - France's compromise seemed reasonable....
Quack!Quack!.....QUACK!!
"Perhaps they found a wavelength that the stealth fails at?"
A very Hollywood idea. Radar low-observability is designed to foil all radio frequencies. It is debatable at best that long-wave frequency radars are capable of detecting them. It's undeniable though that Iraq has neither the resources nor the expertise to construct such a radar.
The Al Samoud missiles have a range of 160km, I believe, but that is without warheads. Iraq argues that with the warheads, they fall within the limit, but agreed to destroy them anyway.
"Moonlight is what allowed the Serbs to down an F-117 during that campaign several years back."
The official explanation from the DoD was that the Serbians caught on to the route the F-117 was taking, which had been used previously in other strike missions (I think this explanation sounds quite reasonable). The whole thing is still widely debated though, and I don't see how you can state your hypothesis as fact.
I'm surprised that your post received "Insightful" and "Interesting" as its mod. I attempt to read as much as possible when it comes to opinions across the board with regards to a potentially dividing topic.
If we look at the strict "cause and effect" of the Gulf War, not the current conflict - we find that the UN resolution that ended the war in the first place explicitly stated that the loser (Iraq) had to succumb to the wishes of the winner (the United Nations). The wishes were pretty simple - I'll paraphrase for those who have forgotten:
"Dear Saddam, we, the clear winner, will discontinue kicking your ass, the clear loser, and accept your surrender if you abide by the following: completely disarm your weapons of 'mass destruction', withdraw completely and vow not to attack Kuwait again, and allow UN inspectors into your country without any stipulations to witness and categorize the complete disarmament of offensive weapons and munitions of your country. We will continue to examine your munitions manufacturing process to make sure you are in compliance with said terms."
This was the terms of the surrender. This was not forced upon Hussein. This was agreed upon by his government in order to end the conflict waged in his country. By choice, the Iraqi government chose this method to continue operating without being completely defeated and occupied by UN peacekeeper forces.
History lesson of the "democratic process of the UN" up until now:
During the beginning of the Clinton administration, our UN inspectors (comprised of a multitude of factions - including the United States) were being given the run around as to the locations of their scud missiles (banned) and their chemical agents they were so fond of using in the 80s versus the Iranians. This spurred a number of UN security council resolutions which said (paraphrase): "Dear Saddam, you are a bad boy for not being upfront with the locations of your armament. If you do not be upfront with the required resolution that ended the war, we will continue to the act of kicking your ass."
Shortly after, the Iraqi government revealed more locations of weapons. The UN inspectors seemed to be achieving success through the threat of the security council. We would continue to see the games of cloak and dagger throughout the disarmament process while the world looked on in hopes that the Iraqi government would live up to the agreement it pledged to uphold - the complete disarmament of offensive (hostile) armament.
During the latter part of the Clinton administration, we (the United States) had our men and women in uniform be fired upon while performing reconnoissance via military aircraft. This act of aggression was responded to, with the support of Congress (both democratic and republicans alike) with an order by William Jefferson Clinton to bomb the anti-aircraft sites of the Iraqi government. This was aligned with the wishes of the security council because UN inspectors did not need to die with a country that pledged to willingly disarm.
In 1998, the UN security council learned that the Iraqi government kicked out the inspectors and were told to immediately leave their sovereign terrority, completely forgetting that "all their b[ass]es belong to us." Our response? The world, including the United States, sat back and took the defiance of a dictator to reneg on its pledge.
It took a change of government in the United States and the will of the citizens of the United States to finally say enough is enough.
The democratic process of the UN? 17 complete resolutions - all of which said "disarm or else!" - were filed and agreed upon by the security council. The last resolution (the now infamous 1441) was simply restating the original resolution - disarm or else! The unanimous vote of the security council, now a complete joke or a replay of a childern's classic "Cry Wolf!", spoke once again to the Iraqi government.
The change? It had been more than
Ayup
"It's not as if they designed it to be able to fly down Main Street Baghdad and have people wondering what the noise was. It's not an invisible UFO."
The F-117 is very quiet due to the type of engines and how they're housed in the fuselage. In addition, I can't see how making it less stealthy is beneficial in any way. And why wouldn't the Skunk Works engineers have intended to make the F-117 as undetectable as possible?
"It is, however, more difficult for radar to distinguish from background reflections, and thus more difficult for missile radar to track. It's also heat-shielded against heat-seeking missiles."
Background reflections from what? Clouds produce negligible amounts of radar echoes, it would be impossible to design an aircraft, especially with the knowledge at the time of the F-117's construction, to be able to hide in those. And what use would a stealth aircraft be if it could only be stealthy when there were clouds present? Also, do you know how surface to air missiles track targets? They use either radars or infra-red emissions (i.e. heat). If a missile's radar has trouble tracking the target, so would any other radar. Judging by your lack of knowledge of this simple fact, I suggest you not inject your worthless, uninformed opinions.
And what the hell does "heat-shielded" mean? When I read that I thought of something like the space shuttle's heat-resistant tiles. The F-117 does has reduced infra-red emissions via wide, flat exhaust ports that cause the hot air to cool down more rapidly. There is no sort "heat-shielding" involved.
True. And how much of Afghanistan outside of Kabul is not under the control of the warlords? Hardly any.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
You can be sure about that. The Bush gang has already openly admitted that they won't stop if Saddam gets killed but they will invade Iraq anyway.
But quite probably they will *claim* the war is over as soon as possible even if military actions go on, like they still do in Afghanistan. This is because the propaganda effect is the most important reason for this war to be waged by the US.
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
I can only hope that slashdot will break away from its present path of posting frivolous news and get back to stuff that REALLY matters, like anime, futurama, and glowing cyber balls.
"After the gulf war the pentagion admitted that iraq's chinese made radars could detect them, but there was not enough accuracy for their missles to lock on to them."
Really? And every military analyst (except the almighty you), Western and others forgot or never heard about this? And I guess this fact missed every single engineer designing every single 5th generation combat aircraft, all of which involve some measure of radar stealth. Maybe you should help them out.
"CNN reported this morning that there is concern that Iraq knew our F-117 Stealths were coming and started anti-aircraft fire. This is a huge concern, as they are supposed to be undetectable (a.k.a. 'stealthy')."
Maybe they started anti-aircraft fire because they knew the aircraft were coming, which has nothing to do with being able to detect and/or track the aircraft. You can not use this to base an opinion stating that Iraq may have the capability to detect the F-117.
An interesting factoid on Channel 4 news tonight:
"The weapons used last night ( Thursday morning ) have so far cost £26million whilst the amount of money availble to the UN for work in Iraq after the war is £30million"
He finances other terrorist organizations, and there is a lot of evidence supporting this. Who is to say that the next act is not going to be by one of these groups? Terrorism is terrorism no matter what the 'cause' is.
Free speech is getting expensive...
"Average cruising speed."
Which the aircraft will not be flying at when in range of triple-A. And also, to know the average cruising speed useful to estimate ETA, you need to know the speed it's traveling at several points and the distances at which they'll be flying at those speeds. Which is kind of like begging the question.
"Distance to target from base/avg cruising spd = time to start shooting blindly in the air."
Too bad aircraft never take a direct path to a target, making the distance very difficult to estimate correctly.
so it would not be terrorism if the whitehouse was bombed by a foreign group?
If the foreign group was a national or international army? No.
I am so sick of hearing the word terrorism misapplied. A terrorist act is one meant to inspire terror in its target. The WTC attack right out of the blue was a terrorist attack. An attack on the White House by foreign agents would not be done to inspire terror, so it would not be a terrorist attack.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Though this is a troll this one must be fed:
Bush didn't win the vote, he got elected.
Bush doesn't have morals, he has moralism.
Bush doesn't have class, Blair has.
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
And why wouldn't the Skunk Works engineers have intended to make the F-117 as undetectable as possible?
They did, of course. But some people (possibly you?) seem to think that means a stealth aircraft is 100% invisible to radar and heat detection.
And what the hell does "heat-shielded" mean?
Heat shielded means that the exhaust ports are designed to avoid radiating obvious, detectable heat. Exactly what you said.
If a missile's radar has trouble tracking the target, so would any other radar. Judging by your lack of knowledge of this simple fact, I suggest you not inject your worthless, uninformed opinions.
Jesus, man, relax. I'm not an expert on this, but obviously neither are you. You claim I offered a worthless opinion, and then proceed to restate exactly what I said. The stealth fighter and bomber are designed to reduce radar reflection, heat emissions, electromagnetic radiation, and sonic signals. Reduce, not eliminate.
That's what what the menu bar looked like when I just opened it:
Updates on War in Iraq | Preferences | Top | 1441 comments | Search Discussion
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
It's what they all do, that's the trouble.
When you look at the way the US gov is acting it seems like they know something. They're like disarm... disarm NOW... DISARM RIGHT NOW... you have 48 hours to step down. It's more than possible that the government has information that they can't share without risking the lives of their informants.
Did you know that Iraq bought a lot of playstation 2's ? It seems like they've been actively developing missile technology for a while now and maybe they had finally succeeded, making the Americans antsy.
I find it hard to believe that if it was because of oil, the US gov would be so impatient. Especially when Iraq's disarmament efforts so far had been half-assed enough to warrant action eventually.
In answer to the various replies to the parent comment about the differences between British and American orators, I'd like to point out that Lieutenant Colonel Tim Collins is actually American.
The tone of the message was different though - UK troops tend to be very cynical, appeals to patriotism would just have been laughed at.
~Cederic
How could attacking Yugoslavia in 1999 hide the "embarassing fact" that US forces facilitated warcrimes by Croatians?
I don't think Clinton can be held responsible for warcrimes unless it can be demonstrated that troops guilty of committing the crimes were under his control.
I would hope that the numerous other members of NATO wouldn't have gone to war to somehow aid the United States in covering up negligent behavior. What were the lingering effects of "Monicagate" that "President Penis" was trying to smother? Events preceding and following his impeachment did not significantly affect his approval rating. The bombing of Iraq seems to me to clearly be the "Wag the Dog" event; it diverted attention from daily proceedings that addressed Clinton's misbehaviors and sought impeachment. Those acts were concurrent. Attacking Yugoslavia followed afterwards, so I don't understand your claim. US presidents probably see wars as a good way to boost approval ratings. Clinton's did not have much room for improvement, but I'd concede that it could be the motivation for American involvement anyway.
If Clinton can be held responsible for war crimes, they're certainly less hideous than any other US president in the last several decades.
No word on Megatron's whereabouts.
Is Truth. RIP.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
I state it as "fact" because it is as close to fact as you can get. It was on CNN last evening with CNN military advisors (retired military) stating point blank that it was a "golden bb" in the moonlight allowing the fighter to be visable.
Simply knowing the route of an aircraft doesn't make it very easy or likely that you will be able to shoot it down with small arms or AAA fire. SEEING a plane, whether you gained intel on its route or not increases the odds of a hit immeasureably.
Through all of Desert Storm, with the Iraqi's spraying FAR more ordinance into the air than the Serbs managed, they didn't have much luck hitting aircraft - and they had knowledge that the aircraft were there (they took looks with radar VERY briefly to get a general bead) and they could clearly hear them as well. I was there and thus have first-hand experience in that regard (Desert Storm, not Bosnia).
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
At the White House, officials said that just before Bush addressed the nation, he pumped his fist, winked, and said "I feel good." He then delivered his address, which lasted four minutes.
Sounds a whole lot like masturbation to me. Proves once and for all that it takes war to get this guy off.
Yes, They were Scuds, and yes, the UN really is blind. And no, you really don't know what you are talking about.
AP Wire
(At least in the US we wait until after a president is out of office or dead before we name public places for him, e.g. Reagan National Airport in DC.)
Not in Georgia. We have numerous highways, bridges and state roads named after SEATED members of the state board of transportation.
I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.
-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.)
Good for you! You use your spending money to purchase products you believe are better for the environment, or economy, or whatever. Other people like to put a chunk of steel between their families and a 1/2 ton object coming at them at 60 mph. We have one of the least polluted countries in the world here, and when things get bad in that manner, we will legislate solutions. until then, people like you prove that the free market is working, so don't bash the free market and the abilitity to purchase those product you think are best, lest you logic ends up legislating that you have no choice to purchase your sentra.
-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.
Lunatics shouldn't own guns. That being said, a malitia in today's society is a very nice thing to have. We may live in the most powerful country in the world, but talk to those who had guns or wish they had guns when what was the most powerful country in the world fell 15 years ago. Hopefully we never have a collapse. Hopefully we never get invaded. Hopefully we never need to overthrow our government. Just in case though, we have the 2nd ammendment.
-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.
That "hovel" is a luxury apartment in most parts of the world. Our capitalist system makes money. Period. For everyone. Because of it, we have the richest poor people on the planet. "At all costs" is not true. When things are out of hand (dangerous to human life, massive environmental decay, etc) we regulate the problems. Profit is a GOOD thing. That's what corporations are SUPPOSED to do. Corporation != Charity.
-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.
Here you demonstrate the exact behavior you condemn. You are putting down Americans in general and saying you rule, spouting opinion and only opinion. Assholes exist. In every society. In a free society with free speech rights, they are even louder. Who cares what idiots say. I would die for their right to spout drivel, because the alternatives are ugly then thier opinions.
You are correct though. The US will never be the empire that rules the world. We would have to be expansionistic in order for that to happen, and being we havn't aquired any land in god knows how many decades, at this rate we will rule the world as time approaches infinity.
The beauty of a free society is it inherently protects us from arrogant, self-centered, greedy and xenophobic people by disallowing them to enforce their views on us. I don't like them either, but I can choose not to listen to them. In Iraq, among many other places on the planet, it's manditory.
I do know my history... but agreeing to something when you have a gun to your head hardly means you like it.
a democracy. They had elections, as promised by Musharraf, in October 2002 and elected government is running the affairs of the state since then. The Prime Minister Jamali of Pakistan to expected to meet President Bush on March 28. Musharraf is still there to supervise the new government and once it is completely on its feet (might take few years), he will leave the office.
Where is the evidence thatthey have? I didn't see any 'til now except some US propaganda.
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
How did the parent ever get modded up to 5?
It's been known for most of the day that the initial reports of SCUD launches had no basis in fact - even CNN has reported that the missiles were not SCUDs (go check it out!).
Of course, the sibling post is equally incorrect - troops did _not_ don chemical gear because any chemicals were detected, but simply as a precaution, and took them off a short time later when the all-clear was sounded (about 3 times so far today).
Please, people - by lying, you make it look like there really is no justification for the war, and that, more than any Iraqi missiles, is the biggest threat to US security and interests now.
Iraqis where stunned today by the calculated release of Duke Nukem Forever. Saddam was quoted as saying, "We were expecting the unexpected! But this.. this is beyond comprehension."
After over 4 years in development, it had been assumed that DNF was vaporware. It placed in the Wired Vaporware list for 3 years running.
Word from the White House calls the attack a decapitating blow. President Bush stated, "I think the release of DNF was the most significant tactical move ever made in the history of warfare."
When asked about these developments, Duke claimed, "It's time to kick ass and chew bubble gum. And, I'm all out of gum."
More at 11:00
Str8Dog
using System.Darkside; public
parent post up please. And don't waste your valuable points modding this down, there are far more appropriate posts on this thread.
- Chris
There's also a broadband BBC News 24 feed
Where did you find that?
Al.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
Why are you Americans doing all this?
First of all it's not the Americans who wage war but the gang around Baby Bush that is the current US administration.
Secondly the head of the gang Mr. Bush was a very weak president until 9/11/2001 -- he probably could have avoided the events of 9/11 if he had wanted to, they weren't at all that surprising, but that's another story.
Like any president before who got elected with a small margin -- and noone ever had a margin as close as Baby Bush, he even got elected with less votes -- he couldn't expect to survive more than one period unless he could produce some extrordinary success. That's what is the main reason for this war.
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
No, I have more education than the _normal_ USA people.
The problem in USA is the _very low_ education.
You are sadly misinformed. The US did not give Turkey permission to invade Iraq, and they will be dealt with. The majority of Iraqui people do not support Hussein. Afghanistan, although still a problem spot, is much better off now than they were under the Taliban. The US will not pick candidates in Iraqui elections. I don't think you made one statement that stands up when looked at intelligently.
Vote for Pedro
The US ended up "storming out pissed" because several key countries said they would veto any war on iraq no matter what. Not, "we don't see a reason for war yet." Not, "We'll only go to war if the following conditions are met.", no - nothing reasonable like that. It was, "No matter what, we promise we will veto any action that has war with iraq as even a POSSIBLE consequence, even if it's predicated on some list of conditions." Once that statement is made, then why should the US ever bother trying to prove it's point to the UN - it won't matter? Why should it ever bother pursuing the diplomatic path when such a statement robs it of all possible teeth? By making that statement, France guaranteed that there would be no reason to bother with further pursuit of a UN resolution.
It was a very stupid move. If they wanted to make diplomacy work, they should have never made such a statement. I'm not saying that France was wrong to oppose war under the current conditions. I'm saying France was wrong to make a public announcement that they would oppose it under any and all circumstances. That public announcement made Bush believe that he no longer had any reason to talk with the French - no reason to bother trying to convince them (which in turn, robs them of any avenue to try to convince him to tone it down) It was a tactical blunder, unless pushing the US into making war without UN approval was part of some larger plan of theirs.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
because of this effect, its quite possible they saw "something" coming, but they would still be unable to determine exactly where the planes were. and therefore, unable to lock onto it
as one of the other posters pointed out, in serbia i think some clever people worked out that by using a huge array of sensors(mobile phone networks?) they could detect enough of the scatter (or was it the effect of the plane moving through the atmosphere my memory is faulty) to accurately pinpoint these planes.
nothing is ever totally invisible, remeber these planes are BLACK, if they fly during the day, theyll know they are coming
dms0
-= world leaders choose world leaders not us, not a democracy, not a revolution! =-
.. don't take it personally but it's incredible how many people are getting brainwashed with with this credo . It's a standard printout of the american propaganda and really it's what I would prefer to believe too. (If it would be that simple and justified though)
The real problem is that there exists something like international law and UN and many counties are trying to work together and tradeofss are being made on a daily basis. The US is already for years a part of it but isn't a real democratic player since it abuses veto all the time to promote personal interrests (and much more than the other few countries having the same right). Now while veto isn't realy democratic it has been tollerated for decenia in order "to keep the peace" (more along the line like : if you play by the rules we're maybe willing to bend them a little bit towards your comfort).
What the US however just did with much arrogance was ignoring even this and the rest of the world and doing whatever fitted them best first.
Now the real danger is not comming for a small country like iraq having limited resources. The danger is comming from a big countries like america willing to abuse it's superior military power in order to gain more economical control over other countries (e.g. control over limited resourse like oil) and thus endagering world peace.
It's not because your an important player you have the right to do anything you like. Even If you have one of worlds most powerful weapons : media control
Asshat is a more appropriate term for Bush.
What?
Where do you propose we send those 300K troops?
Vote for Pedro
Funny, because SUVs have fatality rates at or comparable to most other vehicles, and are more dangerous for the other people in the accident: http://www.aceee.org/press/t021pr.htm
What?
The free market solution would be to sell the land to the highest bidder and let them decide who to hire to repair the oil wells. I doubt this solution would go over well, however
Vote for Pedro
I just have a hard time swalloing someone, or some group of people, had such a lack of regard for human life that they could let thousands of our own people be slaughtered. I don't believe it. I can swallow us targetting oil fields, maybe, but letting our own people get hit?
Jeremy
Preventive War Sets Perilous Precedent
by Helen Thomas
WASHINGTON -- President Bush is radically revolutionizing American foreign policy in a way that has changed our image -- the object of envy around the world -- and has transformed our close relations with other nations.
The president asserts that the United States has the right to preemptively attack any nation it deems a potential threat. The problem for Bush and our nation is that the United Nations authorizes such retaliatory acts only in self-defense.
The test case obviously is Iraq where the United States is embarking on an unprovoked war. In our own history, such a move would have been labeled an aggression. I'm thinking of the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941.
No one doubts that Bush can change the Iraqi regime and oust Saddam Hussein in short order. But the repercussions will be felt for decades and could justify other so-called "preventive wars" by other nations.
Do we really want that? This is a perilous precedent for our country to set.
The new Bush policy also breaks with our proven post-World War II policy of collective security. With the help of friends and allies, we were able to keep the peace during the Cold War with a containment policy toward the now-defunct Soviet Union. Likewise, Iraq has been contained since the first Gulf War 12 years ago.
In my continuing search for the logic of the new Bush policy, I went back recently to the president's speech on June 1, 2002, at West Point. Historians years from now will dredge up that text as they, too, seek the roots of Bush's war on Iraq.
In his address, the president declared: "If we wait for threats to fully materialize, we will have waited too long. We must take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans and confront the worst threats before they emerge."
His tough address stressed that "the only path to safety is action."
Delivered just months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, with a shattered America seeking revenge, that bombshell speech was not widely recognized at the time as a major turning point in American foreign policy -- nor were its pros and cons properly debated in the Senate afterward.
The nation was still in shock and ready to embrace any new measure that was billed as a step toward enhancing our security.
It paved the way for Bush and his hawkish advisers to put Iraq high on their target list.
When I measure his Iraq policy against the standards of his West Point speech, I am still puzzled about the administration's insistence that Iraq poses an imminent and direct threat to the United States. That, after all, should be the fundamental test of soundness for any decision to attack.
He has very few believers among fellow members of the U.N. Security Council or the world at large. The "coalition of the willing," as the White House calls it, consists of 30 nations that have publicly sided with the Bush administration. Only three of those have offered combat units: The United States, Britain and Australia.
There are another 15 nations that have offered their anonymous support to the U.S.-led war, according to State Department spokesman Richard Boucher. One wonders why these nations don't want to be identified publicly.
This adds up to a small percentage of the 191 nations that belong to the United Nations.
Contrast this with the 1991 Persian Gulf War, where the U.S.-led coalition -- animated by the clear and moral goal of repelling Iraqi aggression against Kuwait -- consisted of 31 member nations contributing military support. Arab nations were publicly supportive and sent their military forces to pitch in. The world at large applauded the efforts of President George H.W. Bush.
This President Bush has apparently persuaded Americans that military action is needed. Polls earlier this week showed him with a 71 percent approval rating.
After the war there will be rewards in victory. Bush will have achieved a new imper
help out.
They are ground to ground defensive missiles. They should be entitled to defend their country however it be possible.
.... regardless of what the Media is saying).
I personally hope they use whatever weaponry they can against American troops (Note: It is NOT a "coalition force"
I hope they gas as many American troops as possible and light as many oilfields they feel they need to. Its their oil, its their right to burn it!
Ever need an online dictionary?
I heard this from multiple sources, but I can't really confirm it - cell phones stop stealth. I wish I had the documentation for this (maybe someone else can help), but cell towers use a frequency that stealth aircraft have a high crossection for, and cell coverage gaps reflected down from the atmosphere can be used to track stealth aircraft. Thats why FRY managed to detect the direction to fire into - it had dense cell coverage (like the rest of Europe).
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
"How many contractors have put in bids to rebuild Iraqi homes, hospitals and the like? I would assume none because of the lack of money in it."
I wasn't aware Hussein had plans to sabotages homes and hospitals as well as the oil wells. I doubt the US is planning on bombing a lot of homes and hospitals. Your "lack of money in it" comment doesn't make sense either. Presumably, if the oil wells are repaired, there will be plenty of money to repair damaged infrastructure.
"Oil on the other hand is why the US is attacking Iraq... rather that sorting out North Korea who are blatently being naughty (but luckily don't possess miles of oil miles)."
If the US was in Iraq for oil, it would have been a lot less costly, both financially, and politically for Bush, to simply lift sanctions and buy the oil from Saddam. As far as N. Korea, the US has taken the correct 1st step. They refused bilateral talks, which N. Korea planned to use to extort oil and money from the US to promise to stop developing nuclear weapons. The 94 agreement showed how well this worked. Without outside aid, N. Korea will self destruct. This could be dangerous, but if the US sends troops in there, that action will be protested as well (and also dangerous). N. Korea is a good illustration of what the world will face with Iraq in a dew years if nothing is done now. Some people seem happy to wait until the threat has materialized however, which makes no sense to me.
Vote for Pedro
Published on Thursday, March 13, 2003 by Yahoo News
Don't Support Our Troops
Win or Lose, War on Iraq is Wrong
by Ted Rall
NEW YORK--Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential frontrunner, opposes war with Iraq. Despite this stance, he suggests that Americans should set aside their political differences once the Mother of All Bombs starts blowing up munitions dumps and babies in Baghdad.
"When the war begins, if the war begins," says Kerry, "I support the troops and I support the United States of America winning as rapidly as possible. When the troops are in the field and fighting--if they're in the field and fighting--remembering what it's like to be those troops--I think they need a unified America that is prepared to win."
Fellow presidential candidate Howard Dean, who calls Bush's foreign policy "ghastly" and "appalling," is the Democrats' most vocal opponent of a preemptive strike against Iraq. But once war breaks out, he says, "Of course I'll support the troops."
This is an understandable impulse. As patriots, we want our country to win the wars that we fight. As Americans, we want our soldiers--young men and women who risk too much for too little pay--to come home in one piece. But supporting our troops while they're fighting an immoral and illegal war is misguided and wrong.
An Unjust Cause
Iraq has never attacked, nor threatened to attack, the United States. As his 1990 invasion of Kuwait proved, Saddam is a menace to his neighbors--Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel--but he's their problem, not ours. Saddam's longest-range missiles only travel 400 miles.
Numerous countries are ruled by unstable megalomaniacs possessing scary weaponry. North Korea has an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting the western United States and, unlike Iraq, the nuke to put inside it. Pakistan, another nuclear power run by a dangerous anti-American dictator, just unveiled its new HATF-4 ballistic missile. If disarmament were Bush's goal, shouldn't those countries--both of which have threatened to use nukes--be higher-priority targets than non-nuclear Iraq?
Iraq isn't part of the war on terrorism. The only link between Iraq and Al Qaeda is the fact that they hate each other's guts. And no matter how often Bush says "9/11" and "Iraq" in the same breath, Saddam had nothing to do with the terror attacks.
That leaves freeing Iraqis from Saddam's repressive rule as the sole rationale for war. Is the U.S. in the liberation business? Will Bush spread democracy to Myamnar, Congo, Turkmenistan, Cambodia, Nigeria, Cuba, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan or Laos, just to name a few places where people can't vote, speak freely or eat much? You be the judge. I wouldn't bet on it.
Of course, it would be great if Iraqis were to overthrow Saddam (assuming that his successor would be an improvement). But regime change is up to the locals, not us. George W. Bush is leading us to commit an ignominious crime, an internationally-unsanctioned invasion of a nation that has done us no harm and presents no imminent threat.
Germans in the 1930s
We find ourselves facing the paradox of the "good German" of the '30s. We're ruled by an evil, non-elected warlord who ignores both domestic opposition and international condemnation. We don't want the soldiers fighting his unjustified wars of expansion to win--but we don't want them to lose either.
Our dilemma is rendered slightly less painful by the all-volunteer nature of our armed forces: at least we aren't being asked to cheer on reluctant draftees. Presumably everybody in uniform knew what they might be in for when they signed up.
"I'm horrified by this war," a friend tells me, "but once it starts we have to win and win quickly." For her, as for Kerry and Dean, our servicemen are people performing a job. They go where the politicians send them.
The thing is, we don't really have to win. Losing the Vietnam War sucked, but not fighting it in the first place would have been smarter
help out.
Who is lying? You mean I didn't see the guy on TV say that they detected chemical wepaons and were putting on the protective gear? Sure it was a false alarm, but that still doesn't make what I saw a lie.
We already do buy oil from Saddam. In fact, we now buy twice as much oil as we did before the Gulf war. Part of the reason for this is the Food For Oil program, which was intended to stop the sanctions from killing civilians and let it punish the leadership (because they can't get Gold Toilets and Scud Missiles). Unfortunatly the regime funneled the food and money into programs that only helped to enhance their lifestyles. Plus, no matter what friendly regime we put into power, democratic, dictator, hitler or whatever, the price of oil is set by Opec and Opec alone. And the amount of oil that Iraq accounts for (just 10% of the entire Gulf) isn't enough to raise or lower prices significantly based on how much they choose to pump.
Here is the text for all interested. It's an important read for those concerned with the international political situation.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
If my Dad wrote me something like this I'd disown his ass.
Yes. You've describe yet another reason to go into Iraq. They've abused the food for oil program by taking money meant for starving people and keeping it for themselves (Iraqi govt.). This is another violation of UN resolutions.
Vote for Pedro
40 nations is unilateral? That's more than the first Gulf War. Oh wait, this isn't about anti-war, it's just a hatred for Bush. Sorry.
Yes. They're called smart bombs. Ever heard of GPS? Of course there will be some destruction of buildings. Presumably that's where the Iraqi leaders are holed up. You might want to think twice, or just think, before calling someone an idiot.
Vote for Pedro
WTF? Iraqis are not Palestinian.
How could attacking Yugoslavia in 1999 hide the "embarassing fact" that US forces facilitated warcrimes by Croatians?
Would the fact that Croats had American air support during the operation make any difference? Clinton's hands are far from clean in any of the three conflicts there (Krajina, Bosnia, Serbia).
Sorry, a quick addendum. The Canadian division responsible for the incident in Somalia was the Canadian Airborne Regiment, not the "1st Airborne". The unit has since been disbanded.
The victim was Shidane Abukar Arone.
CBC Newsworld report
Click here for the Somalia Inquiry Report.
Canadian Airborne Regiment Unofficial Homepage To get their side of the story.
Every story has two sides, and those who are truly interested in this case should be willing to consider both of them before making up their mind.
Let me get this straight;
...
You are using a hypothetical solution to the problem of the September 11 attacks that involves a pre-emptive strike (rather than acknowledging that US foreign policy had irritated certain groups to the point where they are prepared to die and kill to express their disatisfaction) to justify the current 'pre-emptive strike'?
Firstly, even if the excuse that Hussein or his regime is planning some sort of war of terror is more than a thin fabrication, all that may be accomplished is to remove Hussein and his regime and create a couple of thousand more people so irritated with the aggression and imperialism of the US that they too are willing to kill and die. You have not solved the problem, just shifted where it lives. What next, pre-emptive strikes on Iran, the Palestine, Turkey
Secondly, trying to justify the invasion of a foreign nation to remove and (potentially) replace the government on the pretext of targetting people who _may_ take action against the US _justifies_ the actions of terrorists attacking the US by the same logic. They too are targetting a nation they deem to be harbouring those who would seek to do (or have already done) harm to their nation, home or family. They have acted with the sanction of their government (or at least that is the accusation made of Hussein).
Forget for a moment arguments of right and wrong, takelook at the potential consequences of this action. If enlightened self interest does not show that this invasion serves only a very few people and not the majority of the US (or the rest of the world) then I am truly talking to a fanatic.
Well technically the peace protesters are not the scaredy cats but the people saying we should bomb Iraq for being a threat are the scaredy cats.
The reason why the US is bombing illegitimatly Iraq is because they are scared. The peace protesters aren't and rightfully so. They are not cowards. If Iraq really threathened the American people then tell me how!
Now stop believing Big Brother without turning your brain on and start reading 1984 and Stupid White Men.
Forget for a moment arguments of right and wrong, takelook at the potential consequences of this action. If enlightened self interest does not show that this invasion serves only a very few people and not the majority of the US (or the rest of the world) then I am truly talking to a fanatic.
*bonk* You're right. What possible bad could come to to the world by letting a known mass murderer who's attempted the takeover of neighboring countries -POSSIBLY- come about? I don't know about you, but if we had never pissed Hitler off maybe WWII would never have happened. Maybe if we just let these maniacs run loose for a while they'll get their fill on their own turf and never both anybody else.
We tried that for a number of years. It failed. Miserably. Millions of lives were lost in WWI and WWII. We, and Britain, won't make that mistake again. You do realize that Saddam is a bad boy playing with toys that the UN has declared he shouldn't have right?
Then again, if you think Saddam should have all these weapons around, and it's okay for him to hang onto them and dipose of them on his own free time you're probably okay with violent convicts with felonys on their record in the US slowly disposing of their firearms for a 12 year period. After all, it's only fair. Just send a probation officer to their door every now and again to make sure that they got rid of one gun every so often.
Regarding your first setence that I quoted; forgetting the difference between "right and wrong" is the most assinine argument I could think of in this time. The difference between right and wrong is, well, central to this whole argument.
The second part of your first sentence, regarding the consequences of the US's actions, I think is a moot point. We're doing the right thing; and when you do the right think you accept the consequences of that. I'm fine with that. Many of us are. The fourth plane on Sept 11 realized quickly how to deal with terrorism. Just thank your lucky stars that there's a few of us here in the US that still know passiveness is a thing of the past.
Us fanatics keep the enemy scared and keep you safe. If you don't like that, go to Iraq.
and now you understand why the Iraqi's have never shot down a F-117...
The Fletcher Memorial Home for incurable Tyrants and Kings....
.sig is pretty obscure, but I've always liked The Final Cut.
That
Another good one from that album, and somewhat apropos:
Get your filthy hands off my desert!......(whoosh BOOM!)
I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered. My life is my own.
>Would the fact that Croats had American air support during the operation make any difference? Clinton's hands are far from clean in any of the three conflicts there (Krajina, Bosnia, Serbia).
I don't think so. We're way offtopic and it does not even really matter, but I was looking for some sort of reason or argument for how attacking Yugoslavia several years later could be thought to hide any portion of America's shameful past. I'm not sure if you think I was implying that Clinton was a swell guy. If you were, I said nothing of the sort. He is simply not legally responsible for war crimes by any definition of war crimes I've encountered. I'm not an expert on international law, but I am a bit familiar with it.
Is the argument supposed to be that America was trying to bomb the knowledge out of Yugoslavia, or divert attention from Bosnia by playing the hero?
I don't know what the argument is supposed to be. As it is, there seems to be no connection between Croats having air support in the operation and attacking Yugoslavia to years later to hide the fact.
known mass murderer who's attempted the takeover of neighboring countries
does the distance from the countries the US has invaded make them different from Hussein, or it their success?
Maybe if we just let these maniacs run loose for a while they'll get their fill on their own turf and never both anybody else
the alternative to doing nothing is not just war as you imply.
You do realize that Saddam is a bad boy playing with toys that the UN has declared he shouldn't have right?
so now that the US has broken a UN recommendation, is it OK for poeple to invade you?
Saddam should have all these weapons around
why is it only the US that is allowed these weapons?
forgetting the difference between "right and wrong" is the most assinine argument
oh, i am prepared to argue 'right and wrong', just not with narrow minded bigots. to them i appeal to their (demonstrated) self interest. read the original, the context matters.
when you do the right think you accept the consequences of that
which is just an 'ends justifies the means' argument.
The fourth plane on Sept 11 realized quickly how to deal with terrorism
what has that got to do with this, apart from demonstrating your inability to filter your own country's propaganda?
Us fanatics keep the enemy scared and keep you safe
no, they are singularly responsible for more death, more destabilisation and more harm than any other group. my safety has _nothing_ to do with the actions of the narrow minded fools who cannot even understand the concept of consequnce.
you have demonstrated the pointlessness of arguing with such people far more eloquently than I could have otherwise. your ignorance, coupled with your inability to conceive of it truly terrifies me.
See?
Consequences ensue.
Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start Of War
WASHINGTON, DC--Maintaining his hardline stance against Saddam Hussein, President Bush ordered Iraq to fully dismantle its military before the U.S. begins its invasion next week. "U.S. intelligence confirms that, even as we speak, Saddam is preparing tanks and guns and other weapons of deadly force for use in our upcoming war against him," Bush said Sunday during his weekly radio address. "This madman has every intention of firing back at our troops when we attack his country." Bush warned the Iraqi dictator to "lay down [his] weapons and enter battle unarmed, or suffer the consequences."
Together, we will drive the rats from the tundra.
Sorta makes sense if cell towers are close together the are effectively looking straight up at the overflying aircraft. Not sure how stealthy they are from underneath but it would be hard to avoid some signature. So if you are flying over 500km of basically radar towere every 10 km then it might very well be possible.
Please. Do you really think the American military is aiming for '. . .homes, hosiptals, and the like?' If you do, then I completely understand where you're coming from...
Oil on the other hand is why the US is attacking Iraq... rather that sorting out North Korea who are blatently being naughty (but luckily don't possess miles of oil miles).Is this a double-standard or what? NO ONE, inluding the U.N., wants to touch N. Korea. Everyone wants the U.S. to deal with them alone. Japan simply wants to ignore it. S. Korea is ho-humming around and not really doing anything. China isn't sure it wants to lose it's only Communist 'ally' in the region (even though KJI is fucking crazy and China really doesn't like dealing with NK anymore)...
The U.S. has to screw around with the U.N. when oil is concerned, but they pretty much have to go it alone when it comes to a (probably) nuclear armed N. Korea. Yep. Double standard.
3cx.org - A truly bad website.
But doesn't the aggressor (George W. Bush) claim the same for the US?
Alexander Skwar -- Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.iso-top.de iso-top.de - Die
1600 Pennsylvania Ave
Washington DC
PS pls send as many tix as possible
THX!!
Its worth remembering that the US always exagerates its successes by a factor of about 3; I doubt very much that the stealth "feature" is as good as they claim, although it is certainly good.
It's undeniable though that Iraq has neither the resources nor the expertise to construct such a radar.
Perhaps the Chinese installed one while they were putting in the fiber-optic comand and control system. Perhaps the CIA sold them one. Who knows? Nobody's going to tell us!
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
the only way oil (and other) imports can be made without causing the domestic finance system to go bankrupt is to make these transactions using the dollar as currency, so that the spendings are reinvested by the foreign exporters in the u.s. finance market.
In fact, the truth is that no matter what the currencty of exchange, foreigners are left holding U.S. dollars. Compare the purchase of German BMW in American dollars to its purchase in German marks and you find that the resulting balance of payments between nations is the same in both cases.
In dollars it goes like this:
The German seller says he will sell the car for X dollars. You give him X dollars and he gives you the car. Result: A German has X dollars and you have BMW.
In German marks it goes like this:
The German seller says he will sell the car for Y marks. A German currency dealer says that he will sell you Y marks for X dollars. You give the currency dealer X dollars and he gives you Y marks. You give Y marks to the guy with the BMW and he gives you the BMW. Result: A German has X dollars and you have BMW.
That ultimately the balance of dollars is shifted to Germany after the purchase of German goods by Americans is unavoidable and does not depend on what currency is accepted in exchange for those goods.
Otherwise u.s. importers would have to massiveley buy foreign currencies to pay the imports, which would lead to an enourmos decrease of the value of the greenback, resulting in higher inflation, less consumer spendings and thus to a decrease of the u.s. economic output over long.
That makes no sense at all. It is a nonsensical use of jargon. You thought if you used the words "inflation" "consumer spending" and "economic output" together in the same sentence that you would sound more important ? No. Words have meaning and should be used to express ideas. You sound like a Star Trek engineer, "The hyperdrive transmodulator has overloaded the intercouplers on the alphatron phase inverter, resulting in a decalibration of the transonic inductive energy couplers on the primary thrusters. We have to shut down the warp drive immediately!". It makes as much sense as what you wrote, and it is more honest about its status as fiction.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Blair doesn't have class.
He's a polo-wearing ruffled populist red neck.
If I had to vote for him, I'd expect him to be wearing decent clothes and to smell more than just cheap perfume : he's a g8 country leader, for Christ's sake !
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Apparently Marinus van der Lubbe was beheaded by the Nazis after his trial. There are rumours that he was encouraged to burn the Reichstag by Nazi agents to provde a "trigger" for a crackdown. He was also a Communist, not a Jew.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
"Just a couple of years ago, near the whole world was behind America..."
I don't mean to be a cynic, honest, but this keeps getting said all over the web. Who in their right mind, when the worlds only superpower is really pissed off and looking for someone to attack, is going to stand up against them on a matter of principal?
The 'whole world' only appeared to be behind America, the day before _that_ event, the 'whole world' was not behind America.
yup
-- No, no -- Not that one!
Thanks! I really need to go back to school... ;)
hence the "hopefully semi intelligent discussion" part :)
Those that Saddam puts there so he can show lots of civilian casualties on TV.
WIfes are not countries.
Alegories don't always work, and this one is pathetic.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
in fact stealth was a "wonder-weapon" in the 80's of the last century, but radar technology has advanced too. good radar systems have no real problem with the F117, maybe a little more with the B-2.
already in the second gulf war, french radar in saudi-arabia was able to track the F117 flights.
Short On Change
Is America Building Nations Or Tearing Them Down?
Natasha Hunter is associate editor at TomPaine.com.
One way to measure the Bush administration's commitment to building democracy in postwar Iraq might be to look at the funds we've allocated to cleaning up after our last big regime-change project.
Bush included Afghanistan in his State of the Union address, and reasserted the United States' commitment to the war-blasted nation. "In Afghanistan we helped to liberate an oppressed people," he said. "And we will continue helping them secure their country, rebuild their society and educate all their children: boys and girls."
So how much money did Bush request in the budget for all this securing and rebuilding and equal-opportunity educating? None. And it's not because Congress ignored the White House's request -- the administration simply failed to include funds for reconstruction or humanitarian aid.
Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, expressed "surprise" to the BBC that the president had overlooked Afghanistan in its budget proposals package. Kolbe says that when he questioned the administration on the oversight, it couldn't offer a satisfactory explanation.
Later in the State of the Union, Bush discussed Iraq, and compared the situation to Afghanistan: "And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military and we will prevail. And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food, and medicines and supplies and freedom."
But only if someone else foots the bill, right?
Much talk has been circulating about a Marshall Plan for the Middle East, and polling shows the American people standing solidly behind such a program. And as the only reigning superpower, the United States would have to lend its support -- and its cash -- if any such plan were to blossom. But blunders like the administration's budget omission provide a dreary if unsurprising insight into what's not motivating the White House.
And what is? Is the attack on Iraq an imperialist economic grab, an exchange of blood for oil, as the far left claims? Is it a show of overwhelming force, intended to cow our "enemies" in an increasingly fluid and unstable world? Evidence for these claims, convincing now, grows more compelling every day.
Right-wing ideologues look forward to regime change in Iraq as a stepping stone from which the Arab world can be Westernized. Liberals who believe in civil society hope that -- if war is inevitable -- Iraq and Afghanistan will create a harmonious blend of Islam and democracy. But with no money behind its words, America is nothing more than a bully that brags of building nations as it tears them down and walks away.
help out.
This should be obligatory reading, specially for all those that blindly support Bush and wonder why other people are so worried.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It's simple, there are always more uninformed or underinformed people. So, it gets modded up if it sounds good, whether it has any basis in fact or not.
__
L.
That is way the USians first instinct today was to replace Iraq's flag with their own at the first opotunity.
Class is class, USians simple lack it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... the first reaction of US troops today was to begin replacing Iraqi flags with their own in the first military outposts conquered.
Class is class, some have it, some lack it.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Who is forcing you to click in the link to this thread?
You don't like it you don't click it.
Very simple.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... you can't spell?
Hussein will be proven a liar when the arms are used or found, not when US troops done protective clothing just in case.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
How did the parent ever get modded up to 5?
...troops did _not_ don chemical gear because any chemicals were detected, but simply as a precaution...
Because I'm at the Karma cap and don't need it. I though a +3 Funny or -1 Troll.
It's been known for most of the day that the initial reports of SCUD launches had no basis in fact - even CNN has reported that the missiles were not SCUDs (go check it out!).
Still to early to say. Reports are saying a mixture of SCUDs (which Iraq doesn't have), AL SAMOUDs (which Iraq claimed to be destroying last week, having only ten left) and some type of Chinesse short range missile (which are not banned).
Correct. At this point, no chemical or biological weapons have been detected. The closest thing so far is that artillery shells that COULD be loaded with such weapons were detected, but they were not loaded. Of course, the shells are also not supposed to exist, but they are no worse right now than any other shell.
Of course, by the time I hit submit, all of these 'facts' I state could be proven wrong. No one will really know for weeks. It's called 'the fog of war'.
Viv
Gmail invites for ip
This is patently false, as will be demonstrated later. As for the worldwide economic crisis, the economy of the Weimar Republic was actually improving.
Also a load. Chancellors, like Hitler, were not elected, but appointed by the Reichstag and the Weimar Republic president. And while not having a solid majority, the Nazis did hold the most seats in the Reichstag. In fact, Goering was president of that body.
Yet another error... Hitler railed against the Communist Party, which held the second greatest number of seats in the Reichstag. He declared a state of emergency and had his political opponents arrested. Not Jews.
As mentioned above, Hitler's political opponents, including the leaders of the Communist and Democratic Christian parties were the first to meet the 'police', most of whom were SA brownshirts. As for the rest, Hitler was always a brilliant orator and propagandist. How did you think he took control of the Nazi party (he didn't found it-he joined when it was an insignifigant group of about 20 persons).
Really? Are we talking about the same Germans who have always been violently xenophobic? Who have a word (auslander) in their language that means 'everyone who is not German', and is considered to be a derisive term?
The German media, with the exeption of some newspapers and magazines, was a state institution long before Hitler came onto the scene. You know, kind of like the same way it is in Europe now.
You spout misinformation and ignorance about Palestine. Why don't you go read a little history:
http://www.palestinehistory.com/
Un-news
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What are you proposing? That I take a bus over the ocean?
Un-news
There is a difference between undetectable and stealthy (i.e. difficult to detect). There are some theories regarding "bi-static" radar systems that can be used to detect stealthy aircraft due to the fact that these aircraft are designed to reflect radar energy away from the transmitter. By using one or more remote receivers, this scattered energy can be detected> http://theregister.co.uk/content/2/19874.html
People are the problem, stop procreation now!
http://www.landfield.com/isn/mail-archive/2001/Jun /0099.html
http://www.landfield.com/isn/mail-archive/2001/Jun /0099.html
There is more information here on the Czech "Tamara" anti-stealth radar, which apparently the Iraqis were set to buy in November 1997.
People are the problem, stop procreation now!
Of course they held vigils. Just about the hole world did. Now the target has shifted to a rather lucrative customer of France. By disrupting evrything in Iraq, they stand to lose a lot of money. Lets hold vigils for the US, what a terrible loss, but wait a minute, now its going to cost us money....
The War in Iraq is most likely to reduce America's security, not increase it. The Arab world is getting the point that for the next few years, it can't hope to oppose the US in open combat. That leaves "Low Intensity Warfare", a game anybody can play.
There are kids all over the Arab world carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein. Making that scumbag into a hero is a remarkable accomplishment, but Bush has accomplished many remarkable things. Most of which no patriotic and clued American could possibly want. Only a Bush supporter could believe that making more terrorists increases American security.
If the goal of the US is to create another generation of Arab terrorists, Bush is performing well for us.
Your best possible contribution to the security of the USA would be to go to Iraq and join Saddam yourself or join al-Queda. I feel safer as an American with you on the other side. The idea of you doing your best to make a terrorist op work and fucking it up beyond all recognition amuses me.
The time to deal with bin Laden permanently was while he was still on the US payroll.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Yes and no. Dubya would never claim that every person in America is in favor of this war, but the majority is, and he is the legitimatly elected leader. On the other hand, Saddam actually expected the world to take his claims of a 100% vote for his reelection seriously because he is so damn out of touch with reality. Thats what happens when you can summarily execute anybody who disagrees with you.
Smoking is an expensive, slow, and unreliable method of suicide.
Nationalism also tends to be based on a particular personality. Using your German and Italian references, remember the "greater german" and "lesser german" ideals of unification. Gerater germans wanted to unite under the Austro-Hungarian government via the Hapsburg monarchs given their dynasty or under Frederick Wilhelm I of Prussia specifically because of the relative power and prestige. Particular rulers, and hence partcular governments, were involved in nationalist movements. In Italy we see the same idea around 1830. Some called for a republic under the Pope, most called for a federation under the Kingdom of Sardinia (since he was the only significant king to grant basic liberties to his people via a constitution) and still others wondered if the Hapsburgs could unite Italy under their control. Specific governments were used as a means to create a nation. Most of the people who saw the situation and wanted a united country with freedom ended up leaving for the USA in both cases (especially in Germany). Pan-arabian nationalism found a popular expression with the Ba'ath party starting in the late 50s and leading to the temporary unification of Egypt and Syria under the United Arab Republic. Saddam Hussein is a Ba'athist, so don't be surprised if this party fades into the twilight (at least officially) during the next few years. Again, a loyalty to a specific government being used to justify a new nation instead of vise versa. Basque nationalists tend to be largely found in Spain and are merely seeking to restore their old country of Navrone (spelling?). Like those arab who look to restore the Caliphate (not all pan-arab nationalists seek that; Bin Laden does, Hussein does not), they are trying to restore something that previously existed but is no longer present. Any questions?
As long as there is a Second Amendment, there will always be a First Amendment.
Who R U?