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.

Comments

Where's the best info on the war?

[floppy ears]

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.

Re:Where's the best info on the war?

[OrbNobz]

BBC has the only free live feed I can find.
They have great coverage (of what can be covered anyway).

- OrbNobz
And the rockets red glare...the bombs bursting in air...

Re:Where's the best info on the war?

[Telastyn]

iirc cnn has an irc server (irc.cnn.com)? that has a bot spouting their closed caption feed.

Not exactly a great feed [or unbiased!], but a good way to keep in touch of what's going on.

Re:Where's the best info on the war?

[mrseigen]

irc.idlenet.org, channel #cnn-live

I believe CNN used to have their own server, and I believe somebody decided to steal the nick of President Clinton while there were people transcribing an interview.

Re:Where's the best info on the war?

[dj28]

CNN does have an IRC server. It's located at chat.cnn.com channel #cnn.

Re:Where's the best info on the war?

[PFAK]

irc.striked.org #livenews has a Fox Live news feed for anyone that would care to know, it seems pretty good and is only lagged a minute or so behind the actual broadcast.

Mind you discussion is available in #livenews-discuss on that network also.

Re:Where's the best info on the war?

[Snaller]

iirc cnn has an irc server (irc.cnn.com)? that has a bot spouting their closed caption feed.



Had. It seems to have been closed. (chat.cnn.com still opens up to a mostly barren chat with links to non exsisting web pages and email addresses which bounce)

but Saddam

[thammoud]

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

Re:but Saddam

[wwest4]

You know, that's funny that you say that, because they weren't scuds. Sorry.

Rest assured, whether they exist or not, the U.S. will report finding W.O.M.D. in Iraq. Convenient that the phantom "scud" just happened to be totally obliterated by a patriot missile this morning.

Also rest assured that there are plenty of people who want to believe the "coalition" is doing the right thing for the right reasons, and like the parent poster, will swallow any b.s. rumors which support that idea without bothering to verify them.

Re:but Saddam

[jeremyp]

From the BBC news web site:

According to American and British officials, Patriot missiles intercepted two Scud-type missiles over Kuwait.

"Scud" is now used (in this country, the UK) to mean any Iraqi missile capable of targetting a near by foreign country but not necessarily reliable enough to hit the city it was aimed at. In a technical sense it is a particular type of Soviet (?) missile sold to the Iraqis a long time ago.

Re:but Saddam

[gid-goo]

Well, lets start with the dossier that Powell submitted to the U.N., it's a fake.

Remember that bit of evidence linking Iraq to nuclear weapons, oh yeah, it's a fake as well.

Those "great" tips our folks have been giving the inspection team? All that cool intel we have about trucks with mobile labs and sneaky shit going down, ummmm, it's garbage.

Shit, I could spend all day doing this. Our government has been busted time after time. They are liars. Period. However, now that we're at war, I support our folks over there fighting. Our president is a complete bullshit artist and his team of jackasses will, hopefully, go far far away after the next election. But I hope the people on the ground and in the air do what they have to do and get home safely.

Re:but Saddam

[MochaMan]

Have a look at the US's track record of war crimes and see how proud you are of your country. The US government looks remarkably good in comparison to the current Iraqi regime, but pathetic when its record stands alone. CIA led assassinations and abductions in Central and South America, and in the rest of the world; several against democratically elected leaders that it considered unfavourable (see Guatemala, Iran). The armament of dictatorships (see Iraq in the '80s). Flying military troops in and out of nations in planes with Red Cross markings (see Nicaragua); another war crime. Assassinations of political leaders that are not part of the military chain of command , yet another war crime. Installation of dictators in place of US-removed dictators (see Iran). Invasion and attempted invasion of countries that do not pose an immediate threat (see Cuba, Panama, Iraq).

Yes, the best thing in a war is to get right in and win it. That should be obvious to almost anyone. But not by ignoring international law and by commiting human rights violations. While we're only two days into this mess, and there's no evidence of war crimes committed by either side yet, it should be clear why so many oppose the current US led strikes, and doubt that this will be a war without completely unnecessary atrocities. The US doesn't exactly have a clean track record here.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the current Iraqi government is brutal and repressive. That doesn't mean that war is the answer. Look how much good it's done for the Israelis and Palestinians. Look at what US regime-change did for Iran. You can see why people have so little confidence in the US government here.

As a Canadian, I'm proud that my country is refusing to take part in this war. At the same time, I'm not for a moment absolving the Canadian military of war crimes either. In Somalia the 1st Airborne was without question guilty of war crimes as well. And as much as that was an embarrassment to our country, it cannot compare to what the unarmed Somali teenager who was roasted alive over a fire had to go through as he begged for his life, screaming the only word he knew about the men who tortured and killed him: "Canada".

I don't think anyone who has seen a country in the aftermath of a war would be so quick to ignore the alternatives. When war happens, innocent civilians die. It should be an absolute last measure when everything else has failed... not in the middle of weapons inspections.

USA PR

[onthefenceman]

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?

Re:USA PR

[TopShelf]

I agree with the sentiment. While I think the war is just (Saddam was never going to disarm completely and voluntarily), the diplomatic failure lies in not having a broader base of support for military action.

If you think about it, however, there may be a silver lining to this cloud. France and others have stated that if Iraq were to use chemical/biological weapons, that would change things completely and bring them in on the side of the U.S. That provides a powerful incentive for Saddam not to use these weapons - by not doing so he keeps France, Germany and Russia on his side in calling for an end to hostilities. The bottom line, however, is that we don't need those countries' military support, but if they help prevent the use of chemical/biological weapons, that's OK by me...

Re:USA PR

[TopShelf]

Who the hell cares if he never disarms?

A lot of people, including the Security Council of the UN, which has passed over a dozen resolutions over the last decade or so demanding that Iraq disarm (to which Iraq agreed in word but not in deed).

One thing to remember is that it's not like we just whipped up a bunch of troops all of a sudden and headed over to Iraq. We've been patrolling the no-fly zones since the end of Gulf War I. Are we supposed to keep doing that indefinitely? If not, then do we just cease patrolling? Then what happens when Saddam rolls in and stamps out the Kurds - the world would chastise us for abandoning them to a brutish dictator. The problem, of course, dates back to Gulf War I and the failure to finish the job at that time. This is merely a rekindling of a long-smoldering fire.

Re:USA PR

[Xerithane]

Who the hell cares if he never disarms? It's not our damned country. We have no room to talk about nukes -- we've been the only nation thus far to ever use one in combat. It sickens me, my country's arrogance.

I do, because he promised to do so. When he invaded Kuwait, and on UN charter America stepped in and stopped Iraq. He promised to disarm, and he failed.

Make good on your word or be punished; now he is being punished.

Every person on earth knows that if a single nuke were launched from any rougue nation (like Iraq), they'd be vasprozed from the planet by every nuclear power that existed. They'd get only one shot.

Lets say you have a wife. If someone pulls a gun and aims it at her head, do you wait till he pulls the trigger until you do something? If you have the capability to stop him before he pulls the trigger, you know that you can stop him but you have to kill him. Who do you choose?

Hit them hard, and hit them fast

[Blaine Hilton]

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

Re:Hit them hard, and hit them fast

[lucabrasi999]

but now its too late for that talk

Why does it have to be too late for saying you are opposed to this war? I see this type of thinking everywhere. I don't understand why people think that now that the fighting has started, those of us that are opposed have to shut up. I don't want ANYBODY to die for no reason at all, not just *our* troops. So, I will continue to speak in opposition to this unjust war/conflict/police action.

To the inevitable flame that will come my way:

No, the troops aren't fighting for my freedom of speech. They are fighting because Dubya doesn't understand what diplomacy is for.

No, Iraq had nothing to do with September 11th. In fact, Saddam Hussein is a socialist and Islamic freaks don't like the guy.

No, Iraq is not an immediate threat to anybody. Not even it's next door neighbors.

Saddam is not the only *evil* dictator in the world. Who is next? Uzbekistan? Zimbabwe? North Korea? Saudi Arabia? Pakistan? This tyrant argument should be applied evenly, not just in this case.

Yes, in fact, I do love French wine. Burgundy actually has some pretty good Chardonnays. And Wine Spectator just said that the 2000 Bordeaux's are the best in 39 years. If I had the cash, I'd buy a few bottles today.

Whew, I feel better. Now if this war would just end....

News for nerds??? Stuff that matters???

[micahmicahmicah]

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.

What is the point of this?

[cje]

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.

Re:What is the point of this?

[s20451]

What can Slashdot possibly contribute to this other than posting an article that is going to result in a whole lot of political flaming?

You just answered your own question. The forums on CNN and the BBC are heavily moderated, to the extent that they exist at all -- /. is one of very few popular sites where people can post their thoughts, some of which are flames, but many of which lead to interesting discussion. I bet this article receives the most comments of any this week.

May free speach and free thought live on

[Ghoser777]

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

Mmmm Oceans

[Flamesplash]

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?

Re:Mmmm Oceans

[Telastyn]

eh? The US has not been isolationist since Pearl Harbor. You think they'd be busy sticking their noses/military in other people's affairs if they were?

Re:Mmmm Oceans

[malkavian]

Point being, the US sticks it's nose into things that it doesn't understand.
Those big oceans give rise to a huge amount of ignorance in the American populace about how the rest of the world works. And more so, they honestly don't care about this ignorance.
In Europe, we're all forced to understand that there are other cultures, and other ways of thinking. This expands the mind somewhat, and stops the narrow, blinkered view that your way is the only way.
Just a couple of years ago, near the whole world was behind America. It was the sole, largest chance I think that has ever been seen to rise up and start things in motion that would have helped true world peace, and formed a lasting tribute to a 'land of the free'.
However, Bush has squandered this freely, used the excuses to repress his own people, and start down the road of a police state, while giving the rest of the world the view of America as an aggressive empire builder.
A large portion of world view is now against America. The land that places so much in the law, and the freedom of a vote. The land that wouldn't let the resolution to go to war hit a vote, as it knew it would lose. And thus broke international law to go to war. Strange, American law should be worldwide (Can you say Sklyarov?), yet the views of the rest of the world mean so little.
I think that's what the parent meant by isolationist. American politicians think they're in a nice little container apart from the rest of the world. They can do what they want when the want, anywhere they want, and the rest of the world doesn't exist in their calculations of the effects.
This doesn't mean I dislike America, or it's people. It just means I have absolutely no faith in it's politicians, or their thinking.

Re:Mmmm Oceans

[gilroy]

Blockquoth the poster:

The Second World War is still alive in peoples minds today, there are still reminders everywhere about what has happend. That is something the US doesn't have, never experienced, and that is where the US arrogance comes from.

I wish people would stop acting as if Europe "learned the lessons" of World War II and the US did not. It simply isn't true. What the Iraq tussle has made evidence is that Europe learned different lessons from WW II than the US. An awful lot of American diplomacy from 1945 forward can be read as our reaction to WW II, and the failures that led to it.

It might be that Europeans, faced with constant reminders of the scourge of war, have actually risen above their bloody past. But one could equally argue that the Europeans, traumatized by the constant reminders of war, are no longer about to think rationally about force. Which view is correct? It seems to depend on which camp you fall into.
The fundamental difference seems to be this: Many Europeans feel that the use of force cannot be justified, ever. Many Americans feel that the world is not a civilized place.

There is arrogance in the European position every bit as much as in the American. That's the real failure here... neither side is listening anymore.

Re:Mmmm Oceans

[Anonymous Coward]

You ever think it could be the opposite when you said: "In Europe, we're all forced to understand that there are other cultures, and other ways of thinking."

Northern Ireland, the Turks and kurds, germany's problem with foreign employment, the jews, palenstine, and finally the muslims mixing it up with russians, chinese, indians, and americans. This is your so called social understanding? The list goes on and on forever with europe and the rest of the world not understanding but killing each other. Multiple holocausts and a world filled with poverty is the result.

Then take a look at America. A land of every person, a melting pot of every culture. A land of freedom of speech. Now maybe we don't get along (race riots) but we definitely don't ethinically cleanse people or ignore it when it happens. Which almost every country of europe is guilty for at one time. If Mexico or Canada starting wiping out one race America would lay down the law. But it happens in Europe's backyard all the time and you never see our world moral leaders like france setting up to the plate. Kosova, Rwanda, and Kuwait are all examples of France (the world's favorite country right now) of letting millions die without lifting up one gun. Whats wrong France? You can pick back up your guns you know.

"Bush has squandered this freely, used the excuses to repress his own people, and start down the road of a police state"
I don't feel part of a police state at all. Actually for me nothing has changed except a 30min delay at the airport. And yet another 9/11 hasn't happened even though we supposedly have created a 1,000 bin ladens since we have attacked afghanistan and iraq.

"They can do what they want when the want, anywhere they want, and the rest of the world doesn't exist in their calculations of the effects."

Well if Saddam can do whatever it wants then why can't the US? If a two bit tyrant can defy the UN forever then why should the USA listen to it. Is france going to start enforcing its policies because I think the US is sick of the UN. Having to look to China and Russia for moral authority makes me laugh so hard. What was the last count, 100 million dead due to bad communist governments last century. Thats our moral authority?

WELLS != FIELDS

[magarity]

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.

Short, Victorious War...

[craenor]

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

Re:Short, Victorious War...

[malkavian]

No, it was time for quiet assassination. Do you think then, if Russia, China, and a good portion of the rest of the world is really pissed at Bush causing the invasion of a soverign country (contrary to all international law. This is a BIG war crime), then that gives them the right to start bombing America?
Sadam was a nasty, spiteful perhaps evil person, yes.
But, what has war achieved, apart from splitting Europe (hey, America now has one less 'federal superpower' to contend with..), putting a good many people's lives in danger (all the troops, and Iraqi civilians, who're supposed to be being saved), and generally costing a fortune?
Not a lot that some nice covert actions couldn't have achieved at a fraction the cost, no great upheaval, and allowing the US to keep the good will it had a couple of years back. Not to mention, not getting the innocent killed.

Thoughts From An American

[spoonboy42]

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.

Re:Thoughts From An American

[blaine]

The reason NK is being treated differently is that it's a different situation entirely.

We cannot move on NK without China being OK with it. Well, we could, but then we'd have to deal with a very pissed off China. Why? Well, how do you think we'd feel if China invaded Mexico, even if it was provoked? Now, multiply that by about 10, because China does not want the U.S. installing a democracy to their south. See why we can't do jack and shit until China decides diplomacy has failed?

I don't feel like getting into the rest of your post, because I"m tired of arguing about the war. However, claiming that NK is a more pressing issue is just uninformed. It's a big deal, yes, but not one that we can do much about right now, especially given how quiet they've been since China's new leader was installed. Until China believes diplomacy has failed with NK, us moving on NK would likely cause China to move in on thier side, if only to assure that no democratic government was installed. And that is something that we really can't risk happening right now.

Re:Thoughts From An American

[NixterAg]

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.

Roosevelt also said something about carrying a big stick.

Re:Thoughts From An American

[Reality Master 101]

I have a hard time grasping why we are not dealing with a fundamentally more dangerous situation in North Korea,

Well, we are trying to deal with it, but the situation is complicated. I think the difference is that Saddam has shown no willingness to cooperate, while North Korea has at least shown a willingness in the past to cooperate. Say what you want about NK, but at least they're *openly* defying us.

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

Because sometimes you have to deal with reality, and the reality is that the middle east is not going to turn into stable western-style democracies overnight. Better to hold our nose and try to influence them toward modernity than isolate them and them let them fall toward more fundamentalism.

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).

Yes, unfortunately there are no perfect policies, and there are no crystal balls.

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.

During WW2, we basically declared war on Hitler. A lot of "innocent Germans" were killed during that war, but I think most agree that sometimes a terrible price is necessary to bring peace to the world. There are a scary number of parallels between Saddam Hussein of today, and Hitler of the 1930s. The same debates about preemptive striking took place back then, and Europe showed the same policies of appeasement back then about dealing with him.

I for one am glad that the US is taking care of Hussein now rather than later when it really would have turned into WW/III with Hussein invading the entire middle east (as he also tried to do back in 1991).

Re:Thoughts From An American

[spoonboy42]

Actually, I think you misunderstand me. I do NOT in any way approve of the US invading North Korea. The costs would simply be far too high, even if the DPRK did not possess nuclear weapons (which it might). Even now, there are North Korean artillery in place which can fire 50,000 rounds an hour into downtown Seoul. A military conflict there would be disasterous.

What I am advocating is that we step up negotiations with North Korea, which China, South Korea, and Japan are all trying to persuade us to do. If our senate would have ratified the 1994 treaty, which would have given North Korea a couple of nuclear power plants jointly run by the US and Japan, this nuclear standoff could likely have been averted. In the meantime, North Korea's goals are still basically diplomatic: the regime there wants normalization of relations with the US, a non-agression treaty, and a return of fuel and power aid.

Additionally, I would like to note that China's government does have mixed feelings about North Korea. On the one hand, China has always enjoyed having another communist state as a "buffer" in the region. On the other hand, North Korea has become an albatross about China's neck. Without assistance from the Chinese government, North Korea would essentially collapse, both politically and economically, and the cost to China of maintaining that regime keeps getting higher. Additionally, China has (albiet slowly) been making economic and political reforms aimed at democratizing Chinese society and promoting more private industry. North Korea is not making similar efforts, which has caused the two countries to be farther apart politically than ever before. If anything, China is interested in being a partner with the US in resolving the Korean crises. The PRC, like the US, realizes it is in noone's interested to have a nuclear Korean peninsula.

Re:Thoughts From An American

[halftrack]

Just want to correct a minor historical error you made:

During WW2, we basically declared war on Hitler. A lot of "innocent Germans" were killed during that war, but I think most agree that sometimes a terrible price is necessary to bring peace to the world.

The US didn't declare war on Germany. Germany was the agressor. WW2 was triggered when Hitlers took Poland. Europe was then fed up by Germanys imperialism and declared war. The US on this time stood back and watch. When they entered it was in true self defence (perl harbour) and it was allready a fullscale war where Germany couldn't complain about losses (they were the agressor, remember.)

Re:Thoughts From An American

[Anonymous Coed]

Not only that, but Germany actually made the initial declaration of war against the United States shortly after Pearl Harbor. The US responded in kind 3 days later (I believe.)

Re:Thoughts From An American

[Scrameustache]

And nevermind that Iraq supplies only 2% or so of the U.S.'s oil!

Ah, the joys of quoting irrelevant statistics...

Yeah, Iraq, with its EMBARGO THAT PREVENTS IT FROM SELLING ITS OIL is supplying less than 2% of the US's oil. But that won't be the case when the embargo is lifted after Bush's buddies take over the Iraqi oil production. Duh!

Re:Thoughts From An American

[seney]

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15359

----

Obviously Oil

By Rep. Dennis Kucinich, AlterNet March 11, 2003

Editor's Note: Although Dennis Kucinich was aggressively attacked by Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen for suggesting that the preemptive strike on Iraq was based on oil, the Post refused to print the presidential candidate and Ohio Democrat's response. This was especially frustrating, since the Post editorial stance and balance of editorial page columns have been decidedly pro-war. You can tell the Post how you feel about this ommission at ombudsman@washpost.com.

Is President Bush's war in Iraq about oil? Of course it is. Sometimes, the obvious answer is the right one: Oil is a major factor in the President's march to war, just as oil is a major factor in every aspect of U.S. policy in the Persian Gulf.

Ask yourself:

What commodity accounts for 83 percent of total exports from the Persian Gulf? What is the U.S. protecting with our permanent deployment of about 25,000 military personnel, 6 fighter squadrons, 6 bomber squadrons, 13 air control and reconnaissance squadrons, one aircraft carrier battle group, and one amphibious ready group based at 11 military installations in the countries of the Persian Gulf? (Note, the disproportionate troop deployments in the Middle East aren't there to protect the people, who constitute only 2 percent of the world population.)

What was Iraq's number one export when the U.S. made an alliance with Saddam Hussein, sold him biological and chemical weapons agents, and then did not object when he gassed his own people?

For what major Iraqi resource has Saddam Hussein denied contracts with the largest U.S. and U.K. multinational companies? (Note, those companies are the #2 (ExxonMobil), #4 (BP-Amoco), #8 (Shell) and #14 (ChevronTexaco) largest companies in the world, and the Bush Administration has been known to listen when large energy corporations speak.)

For what Iraqi resource did French and Russian multinational companies receive lucrative contracts from Saddam Hussein? What valuable commodity does one reprehensible, megalomaniacal tyrant (Saddam Hussein) control that another reprehensible, megalomaniacal tyrant (Kim Chong-il) does not?

How do the White House and State Department plan to pay for a post-Saddam occupation and reconstruction?

The answer to all of these questions is oil, of course. Oil obviously drives U.S. policy in the Middle East. So who can doubt that this war in Iraq concerns oil?

Meanwhile, the justifications the Administration has made for this war can be rather easily dismissed. Contrary to Administration assertions, a war against Iraq will not be in self-defense: Iraq does not pose an imminent threat to the United States. It doesn't have the ability, nor has it ever had the ability, to shoot a missile or send a bomber to harm America. Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons. Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that Iraq had anything to do with the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

No credible link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda has been made. Iraq did not have anything to do with the anthrax-containing letters that killed several Americans.

Contrary to the Administration's portrayal of an Iraqi threat, Iraq is hardly uniquely threatening. Sixteen other countries in the world have or might have nuclear weapons, 25 countries have or might have chemical weapons, 19 other countries have or might have biological weapons, and 16 other countries have or might have missile systems. Yet the Bush Administration is not on the verge of invading them.

Contrary to their denials that this war has anything to do with oil, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle wanted to go to war in Iraq long before they became Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Defense Policy Board. In a 1998 letter they sent to then-President Clinton, they stated "it hardly needs to be added that i

Re:Scud Missles launched

[krumms]

This turned out to be misinformation. They weren't Scuds.

Re:Oil?

[ignoramus]

and this war isnt about oil .. is it?

Of course not.

It's not really about the oil, it's about "OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard".

The political bent is amazing...

[artemis67]

Taco posts a message about the 3 or 4 oil wells that are on fire, but the big story is here.

Quote:

A senior military official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said military intelligence was picking up signs and "circumstantial evidence" that Saddam and his senior leadership were either incapacitated or out of communication with battlefield commanders. It was too early to say if they were killed or wounded.

"We are seeing no coordinated response to our first attack," the official said. "It's little things here and there. Some individual commanders are hunkering down while others are launching small attacks and setting fires."

Military officials "believe it is significant that there is a lack of coordination and significant resistance to what we did," the official added.

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.

Re:The political bent is amazing...

[Ventriloquate]

"Granted, it's too early to be so optimistic, but surely the lack of any battlefield coordination in Iraq after an attempted hit on Hussein is a bigger story than the 4 oil wells that are on fire." Maybe to us, but to W and the people who control the Press that is a big deal. They are losing big $$.

Support the Troops!

[Gannoc]

I see a lot of people who say they are getting sick of hearing people say "Support the Troops!".

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.

War Coverage on /.

[Ken@WearableTech]

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.

Re:War Coverage on /.

[RobotRunAmok]

Dude, I'm using Mozilla 1.3 over Mandrake 9.0 on a HP Pavilion with a P3. I use a MS generic PS2 wheelmouse.

What hardware and software are you running that MAKE you click on a particular story on SlashDot?! You should consider upgrading, or something... Anything that takes away from your freedom of choice or dictates exactly what you must read on a website must be a really, really scary technology.

Human Nature.

[RatBastard]

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.

Anti-aircraft fire & F-117 Stealth detection

[cdthompso1]

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.)

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?

I know this will get me modded down, but...

[Ravenscall]

"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

Re:And it all could have been avoided...

[Zemran]

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.

We have a new problem

[Dukeofshadows]

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...

Re:Scud Missles launched

[index72]

This is just the first of the realities the Sadaam huggers will be faced with. There will be some real horrors that come to light in the next few weeks. Years from now we will have all the facts surrounding this event but some people are saying things now that they will really be sorry they said.

Ask the Iraqi's

[krysith]

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.

Re:Ask the Iraqi's

[fussman]

I am amazed at your brilliant plan to attack Iraq in another way, a good slashdotting! Just imagine if all of us slashdotted every Iraqi technological assset! This is a brilliant plan! Hats off to this guy.

Re:Ask the Iraqi's

[Anonymous Coward]

A snippet from there that I found to be pretty damn good...

No one inside Iraq is for war (note I said war not a change of regime), no human being in his right mind will ask you to give him the beating of his life, unless you are a member of fight club that is, and if you do hear Iraqi (in Iraq, not expat) saying "come on bomb us" it is the exasperation and 10 years of sanctions and hardship talking. There is no person inside Iraq (and this is a bold, blinking and underlined inside) who will be jumping up and down asking for the bombs to drop. We are not suicidal you know, not all of us in any case.
I think that the coming war is not justified (and it is very near now, we hear the war drums loud and clear if you don't then take those earplugs off!). The excuses for it have been stretched to their limits they will almost snap. A decision has been made sometime ago that "regime change" in Baghdad is needed and excuses for the forceful change have to be made. I do think war could have been avoided, not by running back and forth the last two months, that's silly. But the whole issue of Iraq should have been dealt with differently since the first day after GW I.
The entities that call themselves "the international community" should have assumed their responsibilities a long time ago, should have thought about what the sanctions they have imposed really meant, should have looked at reports about weapons and human rights abuses a long time before having them thrown in their faces as excuses for war five minutes before midnight.
What is bringing on this rant is the question that has been bugging for days now: how could "support democracy in Iraq" become to mean "bomb the hell out of Iraq"? why did it end up that democracy won't happen unless we go thru war? Nobody minded an un-democratic Iraq for a very long time, now people have decided to bomb us to democracy? Well, thank you! how thoughtful.
The situation in Iraq could have been solved in other ways than what the world will be going thru the next couple of weeks. It can't have been that impossible. Look at the northern parts of Iraq, that is a model that has worked quite well, why wasn't anybody interested in doing that in the south. Just like the US/UK UN created a protected area there why couldn't the model be tried in the south. It would have cut off the regimes arms and legs. And once the people see what they have been deprived off they will not be willing to go back, just ask any Iraqi from the Kurdish areas. Instead the world watched while after the war the Shias were crushed by Saddam's army in a manner that really didn't happen before the Gulf War. Does anyone else see the words (Iran/not in the US interest) floating or is it me hallucinating?
And there is the matter of Sanctions. Now that Iraq has been thru a decade of these sanctions I can only hope that their effects are clear enough for them not to be tried upon another nation. Sanctions which allegedly should have kept a potentially dangerous situation in Iraq in check brought a whole nation to its knees instead. And who ultimately benefited from the sanctions? Neither the international community nor the Iraqi people, he who was in power and control still is. These sanctions made the Iraqi people hostages in the hands of this regime, tightened an already tight noose around our necks. A whole nation, a proud and learned nation, was devastated not by the war but by sanctions. Our brightest and most creative minds fled the country not because of oppression alone but because no one inside Iraq could make a living, survive. And can anyone tell me what the sanctions really did about weapons? Get real, there are always willing nations who will help, there are always organizations which will find his money sweet. Oil-for-Food? Smart Sanctions? Get a clue. Who do you think is getting all those contracts to supply the people with "food"? who do you think is heaping money in bank accounts abroad? It is his people, his family and the people who play his game. Abroad and in Iraq, Iraqis and non-Iraqis.

Re:Ask the Iraqi's

[quintessent]

Looks like the RIAA learned about the music web site.

Re:Ask the Iraqi's

[shawnseat]

The countrymen should have organized a coup and oust the turd. Instead everybody knuckled under his regime. It's a real shame.

OK, asshole. Guess what? There wasn't one time a coup was organized, but TWO, right after Gulf War I. You know what happened? The air support that the US promised to provide was pulled completely. The Shi`a in the southand the Kurds in the north both tried and the good old democracy-loving, anti-despotic USA allowed Saddam's army to mow them down from the sky INSIDE THE SO-CALLED NO-FLY ZONE.

Re:Ask the Iraqi's

[KalvinB]

I've mirrored that blog at
http://www.icarusindie.com/waroniraq

in the documents folder. I'll update the mirror every day or so.

If you havn't already, please vote at

http://www.icarusindie.com/survey

You can view the current results of that poll at

http://www.icarusindie.com/survey/results.php

Thanks,

Ben

Re:Ask the Iraqi's

[EverDense]

no human being in his right mind will ask you to give him the beating of his life, unless you are a member of fight club that is

You just broke the first and second rules...
Time for pain!

Re:Ask the Iraqi's

[Procyon101]

Actually I think Canada was established without war. Not that they are good example of a country (any chance to rib a Canadian. jk)

England was not established through war, unless you count the fact that they reformed because they were scared poop-less over the French revolution.

I am sure there's lots of other examples, but there are 2 big ones.

Personally I think the "liberate the people" reason is pure propaganda. We were Iraq's ally for many years as a tyrannical dictatorship. This war is about disarmament. We told dude: "don't make big guns." He made big guns. We squish him now. Creating a democratic republic is just a side benefit.

Re:Ask the Iraqi's

[DarkFall]

I highly suspect that without having lived under an opressive regime (which, being an America, you haven't) you have no clue what you're talking about in-so-far as saying that the people of Iraq "should have just done away with Saddam themselves" and to "stop whining". Given enough despair and helplessness the end of the rope _may_ be reached but it takes a very long time..and that time is filled with despair and helplessness in the face of the regime. Opressive regimes tend of a have a very large number of secret service informants among the population...nobody ever knows how safe or how private their conversations are. You talk to a friend one day who made a joke about the wrong person, and the next day he's hauled off to jail. I'm not telling fairytales..I speak from experience...so until you actually know what you're talking about when it comes to toppling a truly oppresive regime from the inside, stick to topics you're truly informed about.

At the same time, comparing pre-Revolutionary War American and British relations and sanctions to current day-to-day life in Iraq is one of the most ridiculous things I've heard in a long time. Fighting a foreign government is an entirely different thing than fighting your own government...

Re:Ask the Iraqi's

[RallyNick]

The US has the right to topple regimes that rule illegally through force if it is in their self-interest, i.e. for security in this case.

Care to poin out who provided the US with that right? And since when it's ok for a nation to attack another because they feel like it (read "it is in their self-interest")?

Re:Ask the Iraqi's

[pr0t3uS]

We squish him now. Creating a democratic republic is just a side benefit.

We saw you trying to create a few democratic republics by now and how do those people live now? How is Cambodia doing? Vietnam? Do i need to name more? Are they all swimming in wealth? Are they celebrating you as heroes? If USA want to eliminate unjustice regimes from this world why don't they free Tibet? Oh they would have to face someone who is at least as powerfull as they are. Better to pick on someone who they starved allready with years of sanctions.

Re:Ask the Iraqi's

[plague3106]

Claiming that govt. has the same rights as a govt. that protects the rights of its citizens is irrational.

The patriot act certianly infringes upon the rights of us citizens. Is the US suddenly illegitimate?

A person who abuses his rights is a criminal, and therefore, forfeits his rights.

thats not one of the ideals our country was founded on. rights to a fair trial, to know your accuser (even if you are guilty), etc.

but if they feel it's necessary to protect their own interests, they have the right to do so.

So the soviet union had every right to topple the us gov't, b/c it was in thier self interest?

Re:Ask the Iraqi's

[ahfoo]

That's partly true of Canada if you look at the original colonization only, but there were numerous skermishes over the borders in which many lives were lost. You will recall Polk's campaign was based on a threat of renewed war with Canada.
Vancouver was especially contentious and was originally a military fortification that included people of Chinese, Japanese, French, Russian, African and Samoan descent that fought according to varying loyalties though usually about financial affairs rather than nationalist.

Re:Ask the Iraqi's

[juhaz]

They, too, area a nation that has a right and duty to protect itself.

If it takes a van full of anthrax then so be it. After all, looks like that's the only tactic you can succesfully use against a vastly bigger and technically superior enemy who has long since destroyed your enocomics and infastructure for producing more conventional weapons and oppressed for the last ten years you so you can't even try to rebuild it.

As if that's not enough, US has been massing weapons of mass destruction for at least the last sixty years, and has been actively funding and supporting both terrorism and regimes much worse than one currently in control of Iraq. The US is also currently attacking a helpless country against UN judgment. Yeah, clearly the good guys, even the stupidest of us should see that.

Of course if Iraq did any kind of counterstrike on the US ground, even against military target, it would be immediately labeled as terrorism.

Re:Ask the Iraqi's

[TGK]

England wasn't established by a war WITHIN ENGLAND.

If you'll recall, however, the beginings of the English Parlimentry Democracy were set forth in the Magna Carta (the first step to establishing a democracy is to neuter the king).

Now the Magna Carta was signed by John the Softsword (John II? I forget) while Richard the Lionheart was off fighting a crusade (the 3rd I think).

At this point John was forced to sign the Magna Carta (Runnymede in 1215). John wasn't happy about this, and tried to go back on his word.

In 1216 he intentionaly violated the Magna Carta. His barrons declared war on him shortly thereafter.

So as you can see, it took two wars to give birth to the British Democracy. One of them involved killing Muslims. No wonder Blair thinks that's how its done.

Advice to troops

[cafebabe]

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

Re:Advice to troops

[rwiedower]

"We go to liberate not to conquer. We will not fly our flags in their country," he said.

Interestingly enough, the Iraqis heard this statement before from the British when they took over Iraq from the Ottomans. Some Iraqis were amused at the similarity. I agree with the sentiment...I just hope we follow through.

Re:Advice to troops

[TopShelf]

Whatever else you may say about the Brits, they have some awfully fine orators. Just flip back and forth between C-SPAN coverage of our Congress and the Prime Minister's question time in the House of Commons to get a comparison that puts our legislators to shame...

Re:Advice to troops

[pr0nbot]

Having just finished The Return of the King, it's funny how much of this way of speech reminds me of Aragorn et al to their troops.

Re:Advice to troops

[madro]

(Care of the Wall Street Journal ...)

In explaining the mission of our soldiers, we can't do any better than Major-General J.N. Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division now heading somewhere into Iraq. Here is what he told his troops in his "Message to All Hands" on the eve of war:

"For decades, Saddam Hussein has tortured, imprisoned, raped and murdered the Iraqi people; invaded neighboring countries without provocation; and threatened the world with weapons of mass destruction. The time has come to end his reign of terror. On your young shoulders rest the hopes of mankind.

"When I give you the word, together we will cross the Line of Departure, close with those forces that choose to fight, and destroy them. Our fight is not with the Iraqi people, nor is it with members of the Iraqi army who choose to surrender. While we will move swiftly and aggressively against those who resist, we will treat all others with decency, demonstrating chivalry and soldierly compassion for people who have endured a lifetime under Saddam's oppression.

"Chemical attack, treachery, and use of the innocent as human shields can be expected, as can other unethical tactics. Take it all in stride. Be the hunter, not the hunted: Never allow your unit to be caught with its guard down. Use good judgment and act in best interests of our Nation.

"You are part of the world's most feared and trusted force. Engage your brain before you engage your weapon. Share your courage with each other as we enter the uncertain terrain north of the Line of Departure. Keep faith in your comrades on your left and right and Marine Air overhead. Fight with a happy heart and strong spirit.

"For the mission's sake, our country's sake, and the sake of the men who carried the Division's colors in past battles -- who fought for life and never lost their nerve -- carry out your mission and keep your honor clean. Demonstrate to the world there is 'No Better Friend, No Worse Enemy' than a U.S. Marine."

Re:Advice to troops

[Iamthefallen]

As my (american) wife said when she overheard me listening to Blairs speech: "Wow, he sounds much more intelligent than Bush".
Not a flambait, but compare their recent pre-invasion speeches and you'll find Blair using numbers and facts where Bush resorts to patriotism and ideals.

Re:Advice to troops

[Drakonian]

I found that extremely interesting to compare with the British one. I'm neither British nor American but I found the British speech to be much more inspiring. I found it to be more compassionate and less filled with nationalism and self-congratulation. Very interesting.

Re:Advice to troops

[cafebabe]

That's exactly what I meant when I said when I said that I doubted US soldiers were getting the same pep talk as the Brits. (As opposed to the people who think I meant the US generals were telling their soldiers to go rape and pillage or that they were otherwise not being told to follow the international rules of war.) I found the British speech to be moving because it was very humbling as opposed to the American attitude which has been very self-righteous. I think this speech by the US general supports that.

Re:And it all could have been avoided...

[defeated]

I also heard that France will join the war if Iraq uses any such weapons but I can't find a link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A488 56-2003Mar18.html

Quote from Nuremberg

[MillionthMonkey]

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.

Re:Quote from Nuremberg

[MillionthMonkey]

No, you are completely right. Those moves were also completely illogical. The Taliban took over Afghanistan because we foolishly lost interest in the country once we saw the Soviets were gone. It was also stupid to sell chemical and biological agents to Iraq because we saw him fighting with Iran.

The U.S. has proven time and again its tactical incompetence in its application of foreign policy in this region. But our foreign policy expertise has suddenly gotten really bad. Never before has merely demanding a logical case for war branded one as a "traitor". This war is a huge gift to Al Quaeda, who have apparently been recruiting like mad now that the conventional wisdom across the entire Arab world is that the U.S. is fighting a "war on Islam". Unfortunately, nobody has yet come up with an excuse for the war that is believed by anybody outside our own borders. Instead, we're content to come up with excuses that play well in the "red states". U.S. foreign policy has had inconsistencies since the fifties, but never before now have we acted so violently against our own self-interest for what are looking more and more like ideological reasons. I think you agree with me and didn't realize I was being sarcastic.

"You can support our troops without supporting the President." - Trent Lott during the Kosovo crisis

Re:Quote from Nuremberg

[elefantstn]

No, you are completely right. Those moves were also completely illogical. The Taliban took over Afghanistan because we foolishly lost interest in the country once we saw the Soviets were gone. It was also stupid to sell chemical and biological agents to Iraq because we saw him fighting with Iran.

For the eigth gazillionth time, the US could not have established a client state on the USSR's southern border. Rebuilding Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion was not an option.

Please stop repeating lies, as hard as it may be to do.

On the war coverage in general...

[Mantrid]

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.

Re:Glorious!

[tuba_dude]

I'll show respect for my leaders when one of two things happens:
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.

Transformer Optimus Prime is in the "war"

[chimpo13]

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.

Re:Transformer Optimus Prime is in the "war"

[Dr. Photo]

Well, damn... nobody told me that Iraq had ties to the Decepticons!

This changes everything! :-P

Re:Transformer Optimus Prime is in the "war"

[jayspec462]

It's true! War protesters in New York were heard shouting, "No War for Energon Cubes!"

Support the troops - not the war

[Crynn]

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!

Re:Support the troops - not the war

[HiThere]

Are they draftees? Then that's unfair.
Did they kill babies? If not, then it's unfair. (But you don't get to say you didn't, just because you couldn't see who you hit.)

Otherwise ... well, spitting on them is unsanitary. And possibly dangerous. But it would take a great deal of effort to be friendly. And I'm not sure that it would be a reasonable thing to do.

I can see justifications for removing Hussein. I'm not a total isolationist. But armies are much more effective at killing other armies, and civilian populace, then they are at killing specified individuals. I still don't see any reason to believe that they ever got bin Laden, who was the supposed reason for the invasion of Afganistan. Supposed.

When people do things that are so ineffective for achieving their stated ends, but are quite effective for achieving other ends, I find myself wondering which ends they were really after.

Maybe his just likes big explosions? Maybe that's the only way he can get he rocks off.

Re:And it all could have been avoided...

[YrWrstNtmr]

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.

Re:And it all could have been avoided...

[rcs1000]

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

Re:Scud Missles launched

[sql*kitten]

This turned out to be misinformation. They weren't Scuds.

2 were Scuds, 2 were Chinese made missiles, codenamed Seersucker by the West.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Scud Missles launched

[drooling-dog]

While I believe that Saddam really ia a Bad Dude and I'll be as pleased as anyone when he's outta there, it's also true that the Bush administration has not hesitated to use lies and deception in order to justify this war to the American people and to the world.

It may be true that 70% of the American public favors the war, but I've found that most people also believe that the Iraqis were behind 9/11 and haven't heard that much of the "evidence" cited by Colin Powell in his "brilliant" speach to the UN was forged, and crudely at that. For that we can thank our free press, which feels its role is to function as publicist for the current leadership.

In short, if you're really concerned about truth, I'd be careful about believing any information disseminated by either side.

We lost a stealth already.

[Anonymous Coward]

In Bosnia. Why? Not because of radar, but because they got lucky with AA fire.

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. :p

Re:We lost a stealth already.

[xmnemonic]

We lost one in Serbia, not Bosnia. The name of the F-117 is Nighthawk. There is no aircraft with the official name of "Stealth" (the B-2 is known as the Spirit, possibly spirit as in ghost but also having patriotic connotations).

Nurf-Bombs

[N8F8]

in other news...Iraqi forces have agreed to lie down and play dead if US forces agree to switch to Nurf Bombs.

don't use the word WAR

[mrm677]

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".

Re:don't use the word WAR

[BoneFlower]

2 sovereign nations slugging it out on the battlefield. Sure sounds like war to me.

Re:Lets all applaud Turkey... naught

[mrkurt]

...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...

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.

Why? - For all those who continue to ask.

[kulakovich]

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.

Re:Why? - For all those who continue to ask.

[diggitzz]

if you want our species to aspire to something greater than self-inflicted violence, we need to be rid of fascists, isolationists and xenophobes.

My friend, I'm terrribly sorry to let you down, but that statement must be one of the most logically self-inconsistent arguments I've ever read. What you are proposing is nothing short of genocide when applied to Iraq and the middle east! The entire Arab culture revolves around these ideas. Once upon a time they had amassed a vast, technologically rich empire based on the same sociologic and political standards that they still hold today. The "problem" is that their empire fell and the rest of the world changed around them while they've stagnated and allowed themselves to fall into an incredibly unstable state of affairs, which scares the shit out of us if they have nukes. The US is the biggest "threat" to Iraqi (and in general, Arab) pride, in that the importation of western culture and technology isn't meshing well with their old-way ideals. Naturally, to them, ours is the way of the devil, and must be kept out.

In truth, I don't believe they have nukes, or at least not powerful ones. I don't believe this is a war for oil. I don't believe this is a war purely to "establish democracy" in Iraq.

I do believe that the war is based on the "erradication of terrorism" through the removal of "rogue states", classified as I suppose any who hate us because we won't leave them alone culturally or on any other level. This reasoning has a fatal failure in the assumption that we can't leave them alone, and thus is not logically sound.

However, assuming that we can't leave them alone *and* shouldn't go to war is even more flawed, because only one can be true.

Either we can leave these people alone entirely, and leave them to die a horribly diseased and slow death on their own (or even better, but highly unlikely, for them to grow and prosper on their own), and completely cut them off from the rest of civilization, and thus avoid a war ... OR we can have this war and completely annihilate them (or replace their culture, what's the difference, really?) so that no one has to worry about that annoying thorn in our side any longer.

Unfortunately, neither of these choices is right. *Both* are wrong for humanitarian reasons, but it's not like this is an issue that can be solved with diplomacy either. What we have here is a zero-sum game, and there is no way to win.

In conclusion, I don't support the war. I don't support non-war. I don't support diplomacy-only solutions. I don't support bombing-the-hell-out-of-em solutions. I don't support infiltrating their culture, but I don't support cutting them off. I don't support feeding their people (they live in a fucking desert!) or killing their people. I don't support replacing their government, but I don't support their government as it stands. I don't support any of these things because with the causes for them listed above, this can be extended ad infinitum and will never, ever produce a winning result.

Even worse than all that, besides being illogical, it would be utterly futile for me to take a position on this. The legislations and rules which have been brought about in the name of erradicating terrorism have served as the largest red flag for the erosion and eventual failure of "democracy" here in the US. I don't think I need to elaborate on what I mean here. This worries me more deeply than any war, and the similarities with *only the worst* bits of political statements made in Brazil, 1984, Brave New World, and Plato's Republic hit just a little to close for me.

I'm nowhere near the crackpot point of making aluminum hats, stockpiling assault rifles, or trying to declare myself a sovreign nation, but I am *very* deeply concerned and afraid for the future, and feel utterly helpless to the cause of it all.

Huh?

[forii]

This has to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I've seen. First of all:

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.

Of course, never mind the fact that France has, over the last 10 years, signed deals with Saddam Hussein giving them rights to 25% of Iraq's oil reserves. Or that Russia is currently owed at least $10 Billion by Iraq. That wouldn't explain those reluctance on their part to remove Saddam Hussein, would it? Of course not... Because... well... uh... George W. Bush is a Cowboy! Yeah! :p

Re:Huh?

[Mysticalfruit]

Customer: "Yes, I'd like a cheese burger"
Cashier: "That'll be 5 beanies and a beanie leg"
Customer: "Damn, I've only got heads..."

Re:Huh?

[EvilBudMan]

--Money is fluid, and interchangable. It doesn't matter if the oil countries want US Dollars, Euros, Suiss Francs, or Beanie Baby Futures, as long as it's freely exchangable, then it doesn't matter. I know it fits into some people's idea that this whole thing is "(old) Europe vs. America", but c'mon, there'd be better ways to do it than this.--

Wrong! It DOES matter. The US dollar is currently the standard currency in the world. We make money off of this every time someone coverts their currency to dollars. If the Euro becomes the standard we (the US) loose out on the conversion. Duh! It's not completely freely interchangeable. The is a percentage on the exchange.

Re:Huh?

[Ozan]

Money is fluid, and interchangable. It doesn't matter if the oil countries want US Dollars, Euros, Suiss Francs, or Beanie Baby Futures, as long as it's freely exchangable, then it doesn't matter.

Oh and how it matters. Money is not interchangable by all means, if you buy too much of one currency you decrease the value of your own. The U.S. foreign trade deficit is so high that the only way oil (and other) imports can be made without causing the domestic finance system to go bankrupt is to make these transactions using the dollar as currency, so that the spendings are reinvested by the foreign exporters in the u.s. finance market. Otherwise u.s. importers would have to massiveley buy foreign currencies to pay the imports, which would lead to an enourmos decrease of the value of the greenback, resulting in higher inflation, less consumer spendings and thus to a decrease of the u.s. economic output over long.

Re:Huh?

[cloud8]

>Of course, never mind the fact that France has, over the last 10 years, signed deals with Saddam Hussein giving them rights to 25% of Iraq's oil reserves. Or that Russia is currently owed at least $10 Billion by Iraq. That wouldn't explain those reluctance on their part to remove Saddam Hussein, would it? Of course not... Because... well... uh... George W. Bush is a Cowboy! Yeah! :p

To put the role of oil in this conflict in perspective I think it's important to note the following quote by congressman Dennis Kucinich, which the Washington Post chose not to print:

"For what major Iraqi resource has Saddam Hussein denied contracts with the largest U.S. and U.K. multinational companies? (Note, those companies are the #2 (ExxonMobil), #4 (BP-Amoco), #8 (Shell) and #14 (ChevronTexaco) largest companies in the world, and the Bush Administration has been known to listen when large energy corporations speak.)"

Obviously the answer is oil. His full statement is available at http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15359

Re:Huh?

[lysium]

Oh, so the United States is leading this Crusade out of pure benevolence, while France and Russia are only concerned with the bottom line.
It has nothing to do with the fact that a single country can effectively destroy any other country at whim. It has nothing to do with the weakening of the UN. And, of course, it really has nothing to do with the current Administration's track record on energy concerns.

Incidentally, when countries have differing interests in a political situation, they use a technique called "Diplomacy." This technique allows opposing parties to resolve differences by equalling dissatisfaction. Please note that George Bush's poorly-worded, buzzword-laden speeches telling other nations what to do is not considered diplomacy.

And not least...
The 70s....wasn't there a few nice, fat recessions in the 70s? Remember what inner cities looked like in the 70s? Oh, but our military was big......

Re:Huh?

[camiel]

Okay, here's some explaining: The US dollar is the world's reserve currency: The US dollar is the reference currency for many export-import transactions (oil, gold and other commodities). Furthermore, the US dollar is the most widely held reserve currency by foreign central banks. 70%-80% of their foreign currency holdings are Dollars (the rest consists of Euros, Yen, Sterling, Swiss Francs etc.). By "owning" the central bank, the Federal Reserve System, that can print dollars at will, the US is in the position of having the so-called "seignorage" privilege. This is a very precious privilege as the US is able to borrow from foreigners by issuing debt in its own currency. Basically, it gives the US an unlimited line of credit with the rest of the world. It must be said that the US have been using of this line of credit to the full in the past two decades, by running (huge) current account deficits (US imports exceeding exports). The difference in imports over exports is made up by borrowing from foreigners, who are normally willing to hold debt denominated in US dollars. A real life example could be like this: US consumers buy Japanese goods like cars or television sets with dollars and the Japanese buy US assets like Treasury bills and bonds (=US federal debt) with these dollars (it's a merry go round of dollars) The question for the future will be the willingness of foreigners to hold US dollar assets and coupled with this the willingness to sustain the US dollar reserve currency standard. If they would decide to ditch the US dollar it would have very serious consequences: skyrocketing interest rates and inflation in the United States. The conclusion of all this is that the US is merely a superpower at the mercy of foreigners. For a more eloquent explanation (by Stanford economics professor Ronald McKinnon): http://www-econ.stanford.edu/faculty/workp/swp0101 3.pdf

This is not a war, yet

[ajax142]

I'm a little dissapointed in slashdot, using the word war to describe the situation in Iraq. I think someone should take another look at the good old U.S. Constitution...

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

Re:Reuters says: Burning Oil Wells unconfirmed

[RatBastard]

So is Rumsfeld lying?

Is the Pope Catholoic?

Re:Scud Missles launched

[krumms]

Further info:

In Kuwait, the four missiles fired by Iraq were not Scuds, but shorter-range weapons. Two were Ababil 100's, which were shot down by Patriots. Another was a tactical ballistic missile, but no name or type was made available. The fourth was an antiship missile, which landed near the marines at Camp Commando.

(nytimes.com)

Mutually Assured Destruction?

[niola]

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

Re:Mutually Assured Destruction?

[5KVGhost]

Ok, the inspectors can't find weapons of mass destruction. The US accuses Saddam of hiding them. Now in early phases of the war special ops have been going on to find and disable weapons of mass destruction. If we truly knew where they were, why the hell did we not share the intelligence with the inspectors?

Because the UN inspectors were a very bad security risk. Their communications were monitored by the Iraqi government, they were driven around by Iraqi informants, and it's quite likely that their movements and plans were often known well in advance. We shared a great deal with them, but you don't give your most sensitive intelligence data to people who can't keep secrets. (All assuming that we actually had the current data then, anyway.)

Re:Mutually Assured Destruction?

[sql*kitten]

If we truly knew where they were, why the hell did we not share the intelligence with the inspectors?

Read the articles of the UN resolutions again. The inspectors were not there to find weapons, but to be shown weapons. It's a subtle but important difference. The UN made it quite clear that Iraq had to tell the inspectors where the weapons were, not lead them on a wild goose chase.

He has body doubles, food tasters, a plethora of bodyguards

Yes, Saddam is a very different threat from Osama. Saddam loves living in palaces, he loves having his portrait on billboards, he loves hearing the crowds chanting his name. Saddam's objective is to maintain his lifestyle, he's not an ideological obsessive like Osama. I don't think he ever believed seriously that the West would actually attack him, just like he was surprised that the West cared when he invaded Kuwait.

Why didn't it start at 8? I had chips and beer...

[g0hare]

and they delayed kickoff! I mean I NEED the Iraqi's to beat the spread by 2-1/2 SCUDS.

How 'bout some focus?

[Angst Badger]

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.

PEACE vs. PROTECTION

[xetaprag]

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..

Re:PEACE vs. PROTECTION

[puppetman]

That's an interesting point.

Of course, one might say that it's the job of the intelligence community to pre-empt, not the army. There have been several critiques that have shown an inter-agency breakdown was a key factor in the 9/11 attacks.

There used to be collection boxes for the IRA in the North East (Boston, etc). The US has supported terrorism in the past, and will no doubt support it in the future.

#iraq

[Anonymous Coward]

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...

Re:Scud Missles launched

[Picass0]

Iraq is spelled with a Q. You did know that, didn't you?

Good reply on Zmag

[blissful ignorant]

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.

Re:Who really set the wells on fire?

[ktambascio]

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?

Re:Alternative Media source for US-based actions

[vannevar]

Using a web translater to read AlJazeera, found this:

"US military sources reported that limited raids on Iraq would last for two days before
an intensive wide-range attack."

go to http://tarjim.ajeeb.com/
then put in http://aljazeera.net/

Wonder if CNN *knows* this but doesn't tell so people stay glued to TV's for 2 days?

Re:YES SCUDS

[krumms]

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.

Isn't this kinda dubble morale?

[zyxmaw]

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...

Island Life

[Tiger Smile]

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.

Re:Island Life

[RobinH]

If we make them worry about the gun we have, they will find unity in taking it away.

There are many people all over the world who are even more likely to look for an opportunity to strike the U.S. now that America has basically decreed that they are above the law.

I grew up in a world where the U.S. was the good guys, and we were happy to be good guys too. Now this war has proven that America is a bully. Funny how sometimes the bullied kids fight back. Does the word 'Columbine' mean anything to you?

But what the hell, you've got God on your side, right?

I'd give the Major-General's Speach a D

[ClarkEvans]

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.

My Score... D ... 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.

Re:Who really set the wells on fire?

[rastachops]

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).

May I make a proprosal...

[sllim]

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.

The Inspections are Working!

[VivianC]

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!!

Re:Wrong, I say

[JahToasted]

This is a case of one person claiming to speak for every last person "inside Iraq".

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

On the Bosnia thing...

[rcs1000]

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.

Re:Is he really an Iraqi?

[JahToasted]

Most people beleive so. He has psoted information about the statellite feeds not going down hours before mainstream media said so. He said to have smelled the sandstorm coming before the media reported it. If he's not legit then at the very least he's psychic.

Just read the blog... its much too detailed to be faked... nervousness of Iraqis at the market, what pattern to use when taping up the windows... I'm pretty sure this is authentic. I got it bookmarked and printed out here beside me.

Roadmap for War on Iraq

[ajedgar]

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

Say again?

[CrystalFalcon]

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

And as the president said ...

[alofron]

"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*

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Hussein- a monster we created?

[logic7]

The people in Iraq have none of these freedoms. We are fighting to give them the same rights we have. Certainly civilians will die, but Saddam has murdered thousands of his own citizens.

Take a look at what's happening in Afghanistan right now. Where do you find freedom there? Where are the (human) rights you mentioned? Where is basic democracy? The country is in a most desolate state, the world has simply forgotten the country. The warlords previously ruling the country are gaining power again and it's just a matter of time until the old conditions - or worse - will be restored, because the US simply doesn't care any more.

There is certainly no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a tyrannic dictator who is willing to kill his own people. But there is also little doubt that the US government won't ignore the UN security council and international agreements and the law of nations just out of sheer humanity reasons. Take a look at the bigger picture. There are so many connections between Bush & friends and big oil companies, it's really hard to ignore. Iraq is the country with the second most oil resources in the middle east. Those resources can't be extracted right now because of the UN embargo empowered in 1991. On the other hand, known experts say that global oil resources will be depleted in the next 40 years. funny coincidence, isn't it?

evil ./ers succeed when good /. readers do nothing

[bob dobalina]

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.

Puppet regimes

[overunderunderdone]

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.

Axis of Evil (by John Clease)

[cmason32]

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.

Re:Sad to see so many anti-american people here

[Trolling4Dollars]

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.

Thoughts of a soldier

[konrd]

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-

Re:Thoughts of a soldier

[squared99]

yes, all those protestors who put themselves in harms way 'fighting', for what they believe in, without the aid of latest in weapon technologies are truly miserable creatures.

Not like dropping MOAB's on innocent civilians, now that is truly heroic.

According to the quote above we should all admire Hitler.

"Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal"
Martin Luther King

Re:What about the 200 odd journalists in Baghdad?

[Procyon101]

We have freedom of the press in this country. This includes freedom of the press to put themselves in the middle of a war zone and get blown up. If these people end up casualties it is sad, but it is a choice they made to put themselves in a dangerous situation. Personally, I like the fact that as an American I can do something so dangerous as to place myself in a position that means very possible death or capture. THAT is freedom and I don't expect the military or government to clean up any mess I might make by making such a decision.

POWs are a different story. Soldiers don't go into dangerous situations by choice, rather, they avail themselves to our orders and we put them into those situations. I am much more in favor of rescue missions for soldiers then I am for reporters.

Re:And it all could have been avoided...

[John Bayko]

"His missiles are limited (by UN mandate) to have a range of no more than 150km."

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.

Ignorance is no excuse for criticism...

[aksansai]

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

Iraq's in trouble now

[BlackjackGuy]

According to this article, Optimus Prime is fighting for the United States now.

No word on Megatron's whereabouts.

Re:Anti-aircraft fire & F-117 Stealth detectio

[praedor]

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).

Parent Incorrect (Re:The Inspections are Working!)

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Shock and Awe Attack == DNF Release

[Str8Dog]

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

Re:Who cares?

[IXI]

Ooops, seems you swapped two words, shouldn't it read
"USA is doing this only to free the oppressed oil, nobody cares about the people..."?

Bush Orders Iraq To Disarm Before Start of War

[lysium]

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."