Slashdot Mirror
Major Strike on Iraq Underway
The major news sources are reporting that much larger scale attacks are now underway in Iraq. Here is CNNs story. Pentagon officials have confirmed that this is "A-day" for war, presumably the so called "Shock & Awe" mentioned by the White House earlier. In other words, it starts now. Update: 18:01 GMT by CT : Iraq has apparently ordered
CNN out of Baghdad.
Updates as events warrant.
http://www.tinfoil.net Drop the EMP bomb!!
Are any non Allies news feeds confirming this? Also does anyone have any video feeds on it?
I think I've heard enough of the words "shock and awe". How about "big bombs and stuff blowing up?"
Or maybe "puttin' the smack down on Saddam" for the WWE fans.
We had this pointless flamewar yesterday.
And the day before that.
Seriously, let us get our news somewhere else. Noone's discussing anything here, just spewing crap and insults.
I was praying the last of these would be crapflooded with Old Ike stories, I got so sick of reading the "America Sucks" tripe.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
I'm watching ABC and they arent saying anything like that. They're actually saying "Shock & Awe" might be delayed because of possible successes in the strikes the other night.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
As a aside issue, can anyone tell me why Saddam sets fire to the oil fields?
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
Rather than just a "strike under way" story, why not something about the tech that's being used this time around? That would be "News for Nerds."
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Pentagon officials have confirmed that this is "A-day" for war.
Just in case anyone is mislead. The term A-day has no relation to the term D-day. D-day actually stands for "day day", which is just part of silly military terminology. H-Hour and M-Minute are also terms sometimes used.
"Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." -Philips
I think the US dosn't actually want to pummel Bagdad. It's just a threat to encourage the Iraqi military to come to it's senses. It's a good strategy if it works.
On the TV Bagdad looks pretty quiet...
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
This is supposed to be STUFF THAT MATTERS for bobs sakes!!!!
Got my popcorn and brewski....now I hope I see some fucking human shield go flying by in peices....
Later Saddam!!!!Kiss your ass goodbye!
WTF? Over?
And just remember all you anti-war types, you're still an infidel that needs to die in the eyes of a militant islamic terrorist.
Dear Raed
"A second Marine from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force was killed during the fight for Umm Qasr." (emphasis mine) I really would expect more than this from ::snicker:: CNN. Dang, and I almost said that with a straight face.
Nothing like blowing the hell out of people's homes to make them not want to run out and join a terrorist group.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
God, I hope this is over soon. War sucks, especially when it's for no good reason (or the reasons are manufactured).
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
In other words, it starts now.
Then can someone please tell me what all that bombing we did on Weds. was for? Was that like the pregame show?
What happens when we run out of letters to precede -day? I mean we've used 'D' and 'A', so we only have 24 wars left... maybe they will go into AA-Day, AB-Day, etc. Hmmmm, makes you wonder.
I guess with salon goin down, /. feels like picking up the slack.
I can get my politics elsewhere, I come here for the TECHNOLOGY. All this thread is going to be is 1. Bush is Hitler and 2. Bush is not hitler. I subscribe to option 2 by the way.
no, this thread isnt going to have any technology talk, all just politics back and forth.... and im only submitting AC because I DONT CARE
Who's voting for Bush in 2004?
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
... where can we go besides CNN and /. for frequently-updated briefs on the situation?
There's gotta be a time for a thread-of-links, and this'd be it.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I'm really starting to hate that phrase.
:-)
CNN should implement a karma system for their reporters:
- Overused phrases (-1 Troll)
- Actual real new info (+1 Informative)
Be free to come up with better ideas.
- Baffle
To the third group: Why are you reading this, then? Nobody forced you to click on the story. Unless there's some sort of reverse-censorship software out there now. In which case, that would definitely be a good Slashdot story.
That is all.
Do not read this sig.
Even Germany, which was anti-war, is providing medical expertise, flying AWACs, allowing air space rights for bomber runs from german bases, and is providing security for the american bases in germany, freeing up americans to go to Baghdad.
I expect the UN will authorize the war once it's over and chemical weapons are found.
and the jaziera videos aremuch better.
I wonder why the media is not covering the news of Iraqi deaths. Is it some sort of a PG-13[*] coverage of the war? Or is it to make the american public believe that this is actually a sports game instead of real people getting killed?
S
[*] for non US ppl, PG-13 is a movie rating covering content appropriate for ages 13 and up.
The oil fields have been captured. The war is over ;)
I just whish there were an other way.
I hope the number of casualties will be minimal.
Though most people in Iraq will welcome
the change, I think...
-- (:> jms cs.vu.nl (_) --"---
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
Iraq is HOPELESSLY outclassed by the American military, the physical outcome is a foregone conclusion. "Shock and awe" is accurate, I'd hate to be an Iraqi soldier right now.
"Shock and Awe" is not going to be the outcome of the "new regime" and "friendly democracy" that will be put in place after the war (if the political side does not collapse) - more like same old same old. You can't impose American free market orthodoxy on a country in this stage of development (look at all the discussions on patents and trade abuse).
Afghanistan is now perilously close to the position it was in that led to the taliban takeover - warlords and chaos.
Johns: Well, how does it look now? Riddick: Looks clear.
I don't think this will be the "surprise + awe" attack we've been hearing so much of. National and International support of the war is not high enough to warrant an attack which would necessarily cause civillian casualties. Besides, the coalition has already given up the element of surprise.
We'll only see the barrage of cruise missles when Iraq gives the US a definite response to its first strike...
Blow them to hell like we did with Papa Saddam. Yeee Haah!
This is it. Thousands of innocent people will die in the next few hours. You americans must be real happy now...
A bunch of them should be getting into the vicinity out there at any moment.
So once Iraq is taken, then what? And is anyone else getting flashbacks of Desert Storm with the reporters confidently talking about all scuds being taken down by the patriots? Creepy. Probably droplets of all kinds, floating around everywhere out there.
And that chick on NBC in Kuwait. Laura something. Asian looking. Man, did she look hot after sleeping all night in her chem suit. All sweaty and disheveled. What, all the networks have supermodels working for them now. (not watched TV in awhile)
It isn't clear that Saddam ordered this, or really had anything to do with the oil pumps (and it was a few pumps, not fields) being lit on fire. It was probably some scared troops, acting independantly.
Do not read this sig.
Don't you know your history. We don't find out about the really good stuff (tech and otherwise) until 10-20 years later. Look at WWII. We broke Engima, Purple, and JN25 early on in the war -- but the public didn't find out until decades after (1979 for Engima, IIRC). The atom bomb is probably the only exception, and that is a special case -- remember, we had none left when Japan surrendered
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
...or "Blitzkreig", as the Nazi party used to call it. Not a new or original tactic.
Alot of people wonder why is there a war on Iraq. the Anti war movement say it is an unjust and illegal war, the pro war group say it a an unecessary evil.
Is it about oil, about Saddam or about Israel. We are not sure but one thing is for sure:
The Arab world has been under the control of some very corrupt governments. These governments mistreated the people of these Arab countries and mishandled the richess of these countries as well.
The Arab people (not the regimes that rule them) are in desperate need of change (to the better we all hope). They see the united states intervention into Iraq a necessary evil. Why necessary, because they are sick and tired of visiting their family memebers in jail. Evil because they know the US is looking out for its and Israel's best interest.
If we are going to talk about the war on Iraq. Let us not forget that the corrupt regimes in the Middle East are the main reason why the US and Israel can get away with doing what they have done , doing and will do.
It is time we look at these regimes and not focus all of our power on a country (US) that is simply looking out for its self.
did you know : you know, some geeks are actually muslims
what has this world come to.
this is a sad day.
-Henry
--- #@$DF@#2%@^%3^&*$%FRHG%%[NO CARRIER]
Is it just me, or is there suprisingly little Iraqi military to impress with our "Shock and Awe" campaign? What good is a 20 mile long wall of steel, Tomahawks, and MOAB bombs when negligible resistance has been encountered thus far?
Let us all hope it stays this way...
I'm watching live TV - it's not quite starting yet. They are apparently negotiating with two senior officials in hopes of getting them to surrender, and word is that the intensity of attack will be inversly proportional to how successful the talks go. If they surrender then maybe there will be no shock and awe attack.
this was posted after about 2 other replies, which state the same thing...not insightful, redundant!
You're probably right. However, in the eyes of the majority of moderate muslims the world over, I'm an anti-war American, doing my part to try to help stop this insane madness...
You're right, there are militant muslims out there, and many of them may indeed be terrorists. However, there are many, many more non-militant muslims. Of course, our war actions may encourage more than a few of those to become militant and possibly even become terrorists...
errrr....
As for right now major strikes haven't begun due to talks with high up Iraqi officials. They say they might want to surrender. If they do, then no A-Day...if they don't, then the real bombing will begin to "intice" them too. "Stormin" Norman makes an interesting point in that we seem to be talking with "Senior Iraqi Officials". Why them and not Saddam? Saddam wouldn't let them talk to us if he were alive... Wow...major anti-aircraft fire now...I might have to take back what I just said...
Unstable Apps: Our Android Apps Don't Suck
'nuff said.
Well, I have to say it's been a pretty close fight up until now. I think it's time to pull out the big guns and show them just what happens when you fight with America by putting up practically zero resistance!
Seriously, I thought the plan was to psyop them out. If the U.S. could have pulled that off without any significant casualties, it might have made the whole thing look a little less illegitimate. Dropping gigantoriffic superbombs on mostly harmless Iraqis isn't going to make world matters better.
IS::
100K + of normal bombs == "wepons of mass destruction" ?
Look like they're dropping the huge ones.
Exactly. Everyone knows that going in with fat bombs that are only barely not WMD themselves is definitely going to kill loads of civilians. Nobody wants that, including Bush, Powell, et al. They want to take out as little as possible, namely the leadership. It's like people think that the goal is to kill as many people as possible. That's just sick. We'll do whatever we can to avoid all-out bombing, I'm betting.
Do not read this sig.
I've run across this little tidbit of history a couple times now. I figure those who haven't should read it now. I didn't write this, and I'm not claiming credit. Reading on BBC (a couple hours ago) that the US was using a "Shock and Awe" technique is especially disturbing.
------
Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann
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
><));>
Just so everyone else knows, the BBC has free feeds and news about the war in Iraq that you do *not* have to register for.
Or so the history channel claims. I have no idea what A-Day means.
What goes around comes around. Remember that "fellow" Americans.
1) Where the fuck are all these chemical & biological weapons Iraq were supposed to be using?
2) What about other weapons of mass-destruction?
These were the reasons for attacking Iraq... So, where are they? Do they really exist?
D-Day stood for "decision day" there was no A...C day.
I am curious as to what the North Korean and Iranian reactions are. Especially NK. I find it easier to follow the events day to day as opposed to minute by minute.
The weapons you are looking for are currently unavailable. The country might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your weapons inspectors mandate.
Not a war crime not then not now. http://community.webshots.com/photo/17750667/17750 777KOLvpHNqRo
And going to the paper that seems to be the source of the Shock and Awe terminology:
Key words here: adversary's losses in both manpower and material could be relatively light
The paper is a long read, but it's extremely insightful.
The paper describes many ways of inflicting Shock and Awe on an opposing force, and they do not necessarily require the complete and utter (military) devastation of the opposing force.
(Then again, just as I was about to click "Submit", I saw most of the government buildings in Baghdad get the absolute shit blown out of 'em. Consider me shocked and awed either way. :)
Note the underscore.
Shock and Awe... wow. Like it's great to be masculine again for the first time since the 50's. Or are they talking about broadcasting the rape scene out of "Deliverance" to the Iraqis? Seems that would be more appropriate for demonstrating what's in store for them since Vaudville's view of rural peoples hijacked Western Civilization.
Seastead this.
Shock and Awe
The basis for Rapid Dominance rests in the ability to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary through imposing sufficient Shock and Awe to achieve the necessary political, strategic, and operational goals of the conflict or crisis that led to the use of force. War, of course, in the broadest sense has been characterized by Clausewitz to include substantial elements of "fog, friction, and fear." In the Clausewitzian view, "shock and awe" were necessary effects arising from application of military power and were aimed at destroying the will of an adversary to resist. Earlier and similar observations had been made by the great Chinese military writer Sun Tzu around 500 B.C. Sun Tzu observed that disarming an adversary before battle was joined was the most effective outcome a commander could achieve. Sun Tzu was well aware of the crucial importance of achieving Shock and Awe prior to, during, and in ending battle. He also observed that "war is deception," implying that Shock and Awe were greatly leveraged through clever, if not brilliant, employment of force.
In Rapid Dominance, the aim of affecting the adversary's will, understanding, and perception through achieving Shock and Awe is multifaceted. To identify and present these facets, we need first to examine the different aspects of and mechanisms by which Shock and Awe affect an adversary. One recalls from old photographs and movie or television screens, the comatose and glazed expressions of survivors of the great bombardments of World War I and the attendant horrors and death of trench warfare. These images and expressions of shock transcend race, culture, and history. Indeed, TV coverage of Desert Storm vividly portrayed Iraqi soldiers registering these effects of battlefield Shock and Awe.
In our excursion, we seek to determine whether and how Shock and Awe can become sufficiently intimidating and compelling factors to force or otherwise convince an adversary to accept our will in the Clausewitzian sense, such that the strategic aims and military objectives of the campaign will achieve a political end. Then, Shock and Awe are linked to the four core characteristics that define Rapid Dominance: knowledge, rapidity, brilliance, and control.
The first step in this process is to establish a hierarchy of different types, models, and examples of Shock and Awe in order to identify the principal mechanisms, aims, and aspects that differentiate each model as unique or important. At this stage, historical examples are offered. However, in subsequent stages, a task will be to identify current and future examples to show the effects of Shock and Awe. From this identification, the next step in this methodology is to develop alternative mission capability packages consisting of a concept of operations doctrine, tactics, force structure, organizations, and systems to analyze and determine how best each form or variant of Shock and Awe might be achieved. To repeat, intimidation and compliance are the outputs we seek to obtain by the threat of use or by the actual application of our alternative force package. Then the mission capability package is examined in conditions of both MRCs and OOTW.
For discussion purposes, nine examples representing differing historical types, variants, and characteristics of Shock and Awe have been derived. These examples are not exclusive categories and overlap exists between and among them. The first example is "Overwhelming Force," the doctrine and concept shaping today's American force structure. The aims of this doctrine are to apply massive or overwhelming force as quickly as possible on an adversary in order to disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy militarily impotent with as few casualties and losses to ourselves and to non-combatants as possible. The superiority of American forces, technically and operationally, is crucial to successful application.
There are several major criticisms and potential weaknesses of this approach. The first is its obvious reliance on large numbers of high
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Has anybody said yet why they've gone ahead with the plan today? They said themselves the Iraqi gov't is in chaos and disarray and it doesn't look to me like they're fighting back much at this time. CNN's talking heads are mostly discussing fluff such as "what does the A in A-day stand for"....
hope god will save those people... (and especially MCSEs)
[self dealloc];
What I'm trying to figure out is this:
if we go in through Turkey and take Iraq from behind, would Greece help?
You must not have checked the link before you posted, since it has been dead at least since last night. Anyone know why? What was the last update?
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
This is what American democracy looks like !
America was the country that was the primary "sponsor" - in terms of weapons, training and funding - of Osama Bin Laden and his fighters during the 1980s.
American spokesman saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's seizure of power in Afghanistan in 1996.
America unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in December 2001.
America renounced the efforts to negotiate a verification process for the Biological Weapons Convention and brought an international conference on the matter to a halt in July 2001.
America unilaterally withdrew from the Kyoto treaty on global warming in March 2001.
America is the world's biggest polluter.
America prevented the United Nations from curbing the gun trade at a small arms conference in July 2001.
America is the world's largest exporter of arms.
America was responsible for a car bomb which killed 80 civilians in Beirut in 1985, in a botched assassination attempt, thereby making it the most lethal terrorist bombing in modern Middle East history.
American illegal bombing of Libya in 1986 was described by the UN Legal Committee as a "classic case" of terrorism.
Aside from Somalia, America is the only other country in the world to have refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
America is the only country in the West which still permits the execution of children (i.e. "persons under the age of 18").
America is the only G7 country to have refused to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, forbidding the use of landmines.
Aside from China, America is the only other nuclear power to have refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
America rejected the order of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua in 1986, and then vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law.
America is the only G7 country to have voted against the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998.
America refuses to hand over a variety of indicted war criminals, terrorists and mass murderers - all residing within its borders - to Cuba, Venezuela and Haiti.
America has provided approximately $110 billion in aid to a country [Israel] which has maintained a 34-year occupation of land in defiance of international law.
America was the only other country to join with Israel in opposing a 1987 General Assembly resolution condemning international terrorism.
America refuses to fully pay its debts to the United Nations yet reserves its right to veto United Nations resolutions.
America was the only country that ratified the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide in 1988, *40* years after its passage at the United Nations.
America was accused by a UN-sponsored truth commission of providing "direct and indirect support" for "acts of genocide" against the Mayan Indians in Guatemala during the 1980s.
America was the driving force behind the economic embargo on Iraq - responsible for the death of over half a million Iraqi children and described by one of its own legislators as "genocide masquerading as policy".
America is the only country in the world to have dropped bombs on twenty other countries since 1945.
America is the only country in the world to have used all three types of "weapons of mass destruction" (chemical, biological and nuclear).
Why is this on Slashdot? Just curious. Oh and the USA needs to change its laws about political assassinations. They couldn't legally kill Saddam outside of war. So they have to let him know they are going to kill him 6 months in advance. Had they just planted a few subs and launched cruise missiles from them in the middle of the night, on unsuspecting Saddam's Palaces--it would be all over with no marines lost. Sure there would be a few civilian casualties in Baghdad, but that would be fast and efficient instead of long drawn out war. Saddam isn't honorable so he doesn't deserve a warning. And to this, those anti-war, sandal-wearing, greenpeace-loving, anti-SUV, tree-hugging, PETA-nogooders, commune-hokey communists could be happy (yes I'm generalizing but you know its true--they often all share the same mentality). Please don't tell me its somehow about the oil. Really. That conspiracy theory crap is all outdated. I love when people get right into it, thinking they are in the know and SUPER cool in front of their friends because the Bushies and Cheney are all about that oil...yeah yeah links to Haliburton Oil blah blah blah. It is not a war about oil whatsoever, so please, go back to saving the people of Tibet or whatever your cause of the moment is. PS how many activists does it take to change a light bulb? None, everyone knows activists can't change a thing!
(B-52s launched from Emgland a few hours ago.)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I've been using BBC news for a while now. They currently have 2 live feeds from Iraq; A news feed and a live camera from inside the city (like a traffic cam).
><));>
Question #1, qhoteth:
"So, are they destroying Sudam Husein's property, or are they returning the subjective property back to the recently liberated subjects of Sudam Husein?"
Question #2, quoteth:
"Given they are receiving little-in-comparison resistance from Sudam Husein's agents, where does Afghanistan fit into the picture and why hasn't North Vietnam [or North Vietnam, in similar regards] attacked the Americans as promised if a military confrontation with Iraq would have aroused?"
Anyone with mod points should be ashamed for modding-down that guy, or at-least mod this post up in favor of the other guy or do somthing.
As to the "politics" part, that would be valid if he added something like "Go get'um!" or "Bush is a terrorist!" All that was published was a link to what is the BIGEST story at the time.
If you want to have coverage of the protests, post links to the topic. It's very easy to do. For Example
Deaths as anti-war protests spread
I take it that was the story you were venting about?
As far as I can tell this war is only slightly bigger then Kosovo. Why is it recieving so much attention? The protests were non existent. The media attention wasn't 1/100th this size in Kosovo or when Clinton bombed Iraq. What am I missing?
The U.N. didn't approve either action, so it doesn't seem likely. Both Saddam and Milosevic are very evil men who commited "ethnic cleansings." Why is everyone getting so angry and childish? "Bush is an evil oilman/warmonger" "I'll never buy anything from France again"
Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
Along these same lines ... Whatever happened to Preparations A-G? ... whole lotta people holding their asses yelling "it doesn't work!"?
"No, Bush is Hitler"
There, we've taken care of 40% of the posts on this thread. Move along.
I'm inclined to think that all of this discussion of "shock & awe" was all disinformation, aimed at fooling the Iraqi authorities into not responding very aggressively to the US attack. Just a hunch.
sulli
RTFJ.
1) We don't know. And we can't expect the military to reveal their knowledge of such weapons. I know this: in the arena of warfare, you first expend your general purpose arsenal in hopes of warding off the enemy. As a last ditch effort, you begin using the "hail-mary" tactic where you have to expend something of limited quantity to save the game.
It's not to say that they have missiles outfitted with chemical and/or biological warheads. It's to say that have the chemical and/or biological agents to outfit missiles to deliver said agents to a target.
The missiles that Iraq began to destroy two weeks ago were missiles that were built to deliver chemical and/or biological agents (weapons of mass destruction). They were, of course, empty - but why would a country develop and build missiles (even though they were forbidden to do so) without having the chemical or biological agents to fill them up?
2) Scud missiles are considered to be weapons of aggression that can potentially cause massive casualties (a.k.a. a weapon of mass destruction). Scud missiles were banned as a part of the resolution that ended the Gulf War - in years following, Iraq stated they had no Scud missiles; they were completely disarmed.
Ayup
The White House has now trademarked this phrase. The trademark is to help ensure that the phrase does not get diluted by careless knockoffs such as "overwhelm", "blitzkrieg", or any other competing phrases that might not fit the PR roadmap for this event. Everyone get your S&A t-shirts while they last!
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
It is interesting the US Army has choosen to liberate the oil wells before liberating any people. Okay neocons and dittoheads step up and let the flames begin.
"You don't need a weatherman/ To know which way the wind blows" -Bob Dylan: Subterranean Homesick Blues
Whatever reasons the war started what is important to me is that the Iraqi people will probably be better off once all this is over. Sadaam was killing more Iraqi's every year than were killed by Amercans during the Gulf war.
Iraqi Amercans are cheering this war on. Some are planning to return to Iraq.
Sadaam should be overthrown just for setting the oil fields on fire in Kuwait 13 years ago. The environmental damage he did was a crime against nature.
And for all those protesters shoutng no blood for oil. Screw the oil there are other reasons to take Sadaam down.
But speaking of oil. France gets most of their oil from Iraq and they are against the war. DO you think they are afraid of a disruption in their oil supply?
The French would rather see the Iraqi's suffer than disrupt their oil supply? That may not be true but it might.
Here is a quote from somebody on another website I was talking too.
"I read an account of an Iraqi political dissenter who was forced to watch his 8 month old baby boy tortured. I don't care if the original reason for invasion and subsequent regime change was not for human rights issues, but if taking Saddam out for whatever reason stops the atrocious violation of human rights, I say its a good thing.
There was already footage of Iraqis cheering and waving the American flag. If the people of Iraq want to be free, and want the coalition's help, who are we to say this war is bad.
I was trying to drive through a war protest yesterday in San Francisco, and I saw protestors waving anti-war posters out of a car with a "Free-Tibet" bumper sticker on it. I yelled, "WHY FREE TIBET, AND NOT IRAQ?" They had no answer."
""--Let's recall this quotation from Dominique Dord, a deputy from French President Jacques Chirac's own party: "We would look really stupid if Iraqis applaud the arrival of Americans." Well said.--"
Iraqis in the newly liberated Souhtern Iraq are indeed cheering. "
The city is being overrun by a herd of Lucy Liu's.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_
Current estimates(which I pulled from my but) are that around two millian Iraqis are likely to die of hunger.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
$200 billion and 5 years peacekeapers
lol, this is a great plan
The bad english seems to be due to the automated translation :
....
In A.D. 2003
War was beginning
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A series of large explosions rocked Iraq's capital sending plumes of smoke and fire into the skies over Baghdad as the intense coalition air assault got underway.
Saddam: What happen?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
Saddam: What!
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Saddam: It's You!!
Bush: How are you gentlemen!!
Bush: All your oil are belong to us.
Bush: You are on the way to destruction.
Saddam: What you say!!
Bush: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Bush: Ha Ha Ha Ha
Saddam: Take off every 'Scud'!!
Operator: You know what you doing.
Saddam: Move 'Scud'.
Saddam: For great justice.
My website
we've seen this before.
2 1337 4 u!
Now networks have emotions and touchy feely moments. Check in the therapists office CNN, this lingering sadness could be something more serious and need drug therapy...
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
I'm from Minnesota. There's a *really* great fishing lake named Lake Shockandawe - it's just to the north of Lake Woebegone. I'm pretty sure it's Indian for terrorist.
Peace is the way.
U.S. just lost one friend. I'm a Finn that spent a year as an exchange student in the States. Great time and a lot of good memories.
But suddenly I find myself with others demonstrating against U.S.
Take care.
that the reason the US is pulling its punches is to reduce the future financial liability of restoring infrastructure in Iraq?
I'm sure that this has been discussed in the last 50 billion+ posts on the Iraq war.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
It is about oil, just not what you think.
h tm l
This war about keeping the world on a dollar standard. Since OPEC requires all oil sales in US dollars, foreign countries must keep huge dollar reserves to buy oil. This props up our shakey economy with so much foreign investment in US securities.
In June 2000, Saddam changed all of his oil sales to Euro's. That sealed his fate.
"The reason for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the Euro as an oil transaction currency standard. However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves."
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~pdscott/iraq.
that slashdot is keeping us posted becuase I can't find TV coverege anywhere! 8^)
American Army during the war.
Otherwise, all the remaining Iraquis left alive will love democracy and freedom.
I just expect the vast majority of Iraqui people don't vote for extremist leaders right in the first free elections.
Looking at the current Iraq demographics and the meadle east social movements, I think we might risk having an elected government in Iraq worst than the present one.
Linux is for faggots debian has 30000 obsolete packages that you can apt-get through your 2400 baud modem onto your 386. Gentoo allows your P4HT run for 2 days of compiling so you can get 1 extra fps in tux racer.
Square rootz allow lameness filters to be circumvented, better dcma me off the planet!
bc 1.06
Copyright 1991-1994, 1997, 1998, 2000 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY.
For details type `warranty'.
scale=10000
sqrt(1.01)
1.0049875621 12089027021926491275957618694502347002 637729057282829732\
84912315519703812361776924539 523523662995032652613 231881593585797869\
32490834292717229888500222730 103913878682917874654 393865340405327533\
68621572234483110731787711038 138476467651473461177 991259652893844427\
45940108905347842321088044451 894033768872657126382 753388293467687834\
74557928508494948093317954750 867826460355387575898 176836180161552064\
84303406380589117192239639600 009427946668029560693 356786151286052898\
97425543267331510372023304851 567981677528937222998 005032340805938133\
70849708945997249333630579836 284946429655237648027 554000458858233111\
56195518943320935353217432596 728846601112231611174 770410350894409319\
67380793345289649251347972367 323532321068023896720 301314369134025448\
58018498319093154500292707545 950304379294608691110 026664678253924896\
37511034398015482816264373008 511403461901832391178 181552074102935075\
79968675357664998022593836158 664281245447826641151 822006316696178064\
93575623816329818441213908645 303583990781328933755 592611786040077772\
62849390834051958306802961321 878816522477900604642 421570557271040391\
03194737310474557468884793373 007874101203813431223 747732647459558005\
88286182761574731036453003144 513397942730842227239 360556480262305909\
72419992061646673917118318645 295376112559462899120 844449875806529387\
46623658639826731383589139540 683639301048081018108 179061224454618805\
77179376241134776863348534973 870834554886263756672 011966754694276275\
12505027394868539063509676738 167913010827973164483 850547810035399072\
25207551914194493623846622718 194840356824323131171 325278467512865230\
80931975413803777861400132881 408895822495588421397 094161532829970424\
26394204973244645160208575646 411727885308008936500 728546625785971295\
95952721377778449351001330195 804122524815813580575 288997322759387292\
57979506388481532095139071412 092216323673810201571 282802779805479157\
71865580755526859954648269434 836363856266428155063 036894435258875334\
19698901133303645377528362100 386508749436066560023 757307831290226810\
38915861319569264753764549511 550981433604828524765 921725976861822682\
96374956015529823748366231654 639473578193776512307 923642642793800693\
34568834609484323375176556589 004506937584392357142 383753374473412202\
21940883719437764891542608207 997891115952700764033 645262840603013824\
66170753779560793206175004670 232509092073627821516 662919168717125463\
68279681367700967611630158882 479636933046897095578 741709975324725641\
95544014046572435264503723330 678176913900959451389 902370956068824802\
88554364660472819697389831102 714969586078557474135 562658179551228933\
56197008170442000351774495164 563300076284801454815 759149128841234550\
65073561437666203003988734209
I've seen a few listed over the past couple articles, but none of them seem to work. Anyone have one that really does have the cnn newsfeed for people like me stuck at work and tired of constantly clicking refresh? :)
News outlets have had the equivalent of a "FIRST POST" for as long as there has been competition in the media..
think of all the reporters trying to "break that big story".
The only difference is, they usually get commended for it.
In resonse, I'll give only one reason why America is awesome:
"Trogdar, the Burninator."
Patriotism:
Love of and devotion to one's country.
Nationalism:
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
I love my country which is why I oppose this war and the people who fight it - yes, that means the troops. And before you froth at the mouth and label me a troll, Check this out.
I will be happy to support the wounded on both sides when the fighting stops - but I will not support the systematic murder of thousands of people whether they be Iraqi or American. Murder is still murder whether it be on battlefield or at bus stop.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
After this phase, they will unleash a weapon even more heinous and powerful than Shock and Awe - Chaka Kahn!!!
Bullshit. The whole reason CNN was ousted was because AOL screwed up their internet access (thus keeping them in the stone age), and they were mad that Billionair Ted isn't in charge anymore, allowing the sale of their favorite program. That, of course, would be WCW, sold to it's rival, the WWE, who they don't like thanks to the alliance between Nikolai Volkov and the Iron Sheik, not to mention Sargent Slaughter's 1991 Iraqi Turncoat run.
Seriously though. Fox News is still going strong, along with it's affiliate, Brittain's Sky News. This is one hell of an interesting conflict. Strike, move, Strike, move, BIG FUCKING STRIKE. And all the while, they're trying to keep it so that the Iraqi people know that they are only after Saddam and his military government.
So here's how this is going to work. Saddam, if he's not dead already, will either be ousted or on the run. The opposition will be given control of Iraq, and along with it, Iraq's oil. Humanitarian aid will come in to help the Iraqi people get on their feet. Aid will rebuild Baghdad, and modernize the nation.
In short, the USA will be kissing their asses.
We've been all friendly. And look! You've got this natural resource right here to fuel your economy. And guess what? It just so happens that we'll be buying. Now, since we were so nice, how about dropping the price of that crude? Hmmm?
On Fox News at this monment, they talked about Coalition Forces and when they will be able to say they've achieved their goal. I think we know what Bush and company's goals are. How convenient. Here's some oil, we want it. Oops. It just so happens that country's leader is a flaming asshole with weapons we don't like.
One thing, though. If Dubya does get his way, we all might see a break at the pump. Wouldn't that be nice...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
Would you support sending US troops into any country that mistreats its citizens? If so, what's the criteria for when said mistreatment becomes cause for military intervention.
Re:So um... (Score:1)
by mosch (204) on Fri Mar 21, '03 09:57 AM (#5566473)
(http://sendbackthestatue.com/)
Bush has my full support. I find it disappointing the way so many people deny that Saddam Hussein is responsible not only for direct attacks on America, but also for atrocities in his own country that make Milosevic look like an angel.
I know the war has some costs, and we may even lose a few American lives, but we will bring freedom to Iraq, and how can you put a price on that?
I have two answers to this: 1) Its easy to put a price on lives when its not your life on the line. 2) The whole Middle East is seething with rage at America right now, and this war is doing nothing to dampen that anger. This war must be bin Laden's recruitment dream!
1. learn to spell
2. i doubt that we will be leaving unexploded munitions - we aren't launching piece of shit scuds or setting up land mines
Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf said earlier today:
"There is not one American soldier on Iraqi soil."
"We will not allow them to get out of this quagmire which we trapped them in. They will see their end there."
Diagnosis: Schizophrenic Pathological Liar with Grand Delusions
Perscription: 300 Cruise Missles - 10 B2 Bombers - 3 Marine Divisions and call me in the morning.
Instead of using the already established "Mon" day "Tues" day system, they have to go out and create their own system for naming days.
At least my tax dollars are being used for other purposes besides just reducing a 3rd world country to a, what?, "D" country?
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
...for one person who is against the war to use anything but lies, ignorance, and oversimplification to support their viewpoint.
There are countless reasons why we _should_ remove Saddam from power, but I'll be damned if I can't find a good long term reason to leave him alone.
For those of you who think we're doing this to scare Iraqi's from joining terrorist groups, you're misinformed. For those of you who think we're doing this to get oil, you're misinformed.
Proper information is out there, but they conceal that sort of information in books.
~D
The article does a good job of using fear to shape public opinion. How does it feel to scare people into your belief system?
Further, I should point out that the article is quite liberal in re-interpreting and ignoring details which don't support the analogy between Bush and Hitler. For example, a detail which was left out:
"I don't have to worry about justice; my mission is only to destroy and exterminate, nothing more!" - Hermann Göring, March 3, 1933.
Fifty one anti-Nazis were murdered. The Nazis suppressed all political activity, meetings and publications of non-Nazi parties. The very act of campaigning against the Nazis was in effect made illegal.
One minute Baghdad was quiet. The next then entire southern horizon lit up. The MSNBC reporter was so shaken Tom Brokaw broke away to give him time to collect himself.
Yeah, shock and awe is an appropriate description, even when you're watching a feed on the internet at 56K.
Fox cable news is showing Al-Jazeera feeds as I speak/type.
That is because, out of consideration for viewing American audience, the stealth bombers have now been outfitted with stealth bombs.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
This administration has some of finest strategic minds in country. Bush may be unreliable, but Colin Powell's integrity is unquestioned. even as a general, he was extremely conservative and patient. he refused to make hasty decisions on unreliable or unconfirmed information, and I can't imagine that his nature has changed since then. I think we have to have some amount of faith that the US is in possession of still-classified information that Saddam definitely has something up his sleeve.
we already know for a fact that Hussein offers large cash rewards to the families of Palestinians that act as suicide bombers in Israel. that crime alone damns the Iraqi government nearly as much as the Taliban. we demolished Afghanistan simply because they let terrorists set up training camps. if Saddam places a bounty on Israeli casualties, that's almost as bad. so that right there is a pretty strong reason to attack, and one which Bush doesn't seem to have placed enough emphasis on.
does that mean our intentions are entirely honorable? no, not at all. I'm sure Bush would love to drive oil prices back down ( and for my part, I hope he does it quickly; filling up my SUV every 2 weeks with $1.65/gal gasoline isn't cheap ). and protecting Israel always helps grease the wheels when it comes time to solicit campaign contributions. cleaning up dad's mess is a nice bonus, too. I'm sure all those factors weigh in to the equation. but even in post-9/11 america, the system still has enough checks and balances to prevent a war based SOLELY on those reasons.
let's talk about democracy's role in all this. is ignoring war protests tantamount to ignoring democracy? no, i say, democracy is still winning. current polls place opposition to the war at around 30%, maybe 40% at most. that means the majority of Americans still support getting rid of Saddam. Congress voted overwhelmingly to give Bush the power to invoke military action. that same Congress received a significant message from the people who elected a Republican majority just a few short months ago. all that adds up to representative democracy, folks.
right now it seems like we're pissing off a lot of the world, and yes, we probably are. the muslim terrorist groups are going to be especially irate, and they're going to come back swinging. very true, but frankly, they would have attacked us anyways sooner or later. unless we suddenly pulled all of our forces out of the Middle East, AND dissolved the Israeli state, Muslim fanatics are always going to hate us. the question is, do we want them to hate us with the support of a chemical- and biological-weapon producing madman, or without him? I'd say, "without him", definitely.
some people may be troubled by the way the US is so blatantly calling for a regime change in Iraq. it seems really wrong to hear that kind of talk out of an administration that won its own power in a very dubious manner. but of course the big difference is we know that our tyrant will be held accountable by the voting public in 2 years; Hussein will not. and the fact is, we've forced regime changes before. sometimes covertly with the CIA, sometimes very obviously, like the capture of Manuel Noriega in Panama. that one was just as economically motivated as this: you really think anyone wanted a madman in control of something as vital as the Panama Canal? Saddam Hussein is probably a convenient boogeyman now that Bin Laden has disappeared. but don't kid yourself, Hussein DOES deserve to b
"You want a toe? I can get you a toe by three o'clock... with nail polish."
thanks dumbass.
Actually, the "Shock & Awe" does not come until after the operation has been completed and we get the total bill.
if they feel that strongly, I hear the iraqi army is recruiting!
Of course, I don't remember those protests when Bill Clinton launched cruise missiles at Iraq. Or when he invaded Haiti, Bosnia, or Sudan, without UN approval.
Oh, that's right, They're not protesting the war, they're protesting against George Bush. You don't see Iraq citizens protesting the american invasion, do you?
Remember the Maine! Don't fight imperialist wars, fight wars against imperialism.
The coffee god lives!
In other news, the global biathalon playoff tournament tournament has begun. In a scheduling rarity, a number sixteen seed is for the first time hosting a number one seed. The sixteen seed, Iraq, a bubble team that was selected by the tournament committee despite a low CIA power ranking, is trailing early in the first quarter to the number one seed, the USA. Most see this as a mismatch, as the outside shooting and the inside power game of the larger US team will prove to be a real problem for the smaller Iraqi Fighting Sunnis.
Update: Late in the first quarter, and the Fighting Sunnis are in foul trouble. The US team has been at the line several times already with deadly results.
Update: Early in the fist quarter, the Sunnis seem to be a bit shell-shocked by the accurate long-range barrage of the US shooting. The US team has built a comfortable lead without playing any defense at all.
Tune into the latest miniseries, "Harried by America", starring Dubya, the U.S. military, and the Axis of Evil. In tonight's episode, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein gets his due for becoming a perceived threat to American security. Witness firsthand the power of the U.S. military, as thousands of Tomahawk missiles and JDAM GPS-guided missiles rain down upon Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Mosul. Break out the popcorn, kick up your feet, sit back, and enjoy! This is military entertainment at its finest -- most certainly must-see TV!
Next week: All eyes turn toward North Korea and dictator Kim Jong II as George Bush announces...
1. Invade countries we don't like.
2. ?????
3. Democracy
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Check out his weblog. It is interesting view of life in Baghdad now.
Beating-up on a retarded kid? That is sad; what'd the retarded kid do wrong, given that they simply can't be held accountable for their own actions? Yes, I spoke out of your metaphor because your metaphor is evil.
I think people who speak in metaphores should shampoo my crotch!
When somebody says militant islamic terrorist, they do not nesscessairly mean "every muslim in the world."
Just the ones that have declared jihad on America, blow up our boats, fly planes into our buildings etc. And we are just another infidel to them...
I'm sitting in fron of my TV with CNN on and a PS2 joypad in my hands.
So I can pretend I'm actually bombing Bagdad!
It's fun and makes me feel powerful!
(also, someone could suggest that this can be a way to disintermediate the horrors of war by contestualizing it in a playful way...)
While listening to CNN radio yesterday, I suggested a "shock & awe" drinking game to a co-worker. Unfortunately, we realized that we'd drink ourselves blind within 10 minutes :)
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
C'mon now...People,This is not some game that is being staged for your amusement.Please,Please restrain your insensitive comments/sarcasm. New Yorkers should especially empathise with what's happening here--Is it funny when I talk about 7/11? If there is anybody who needs to be commended at this time,It has to be that ordinary Brave Baghdadi citizen,the Common Man. Atleast,try to be Human,guys!
From The Guardian:
Iraq's information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, told a news conference: "They targeted the houses of Saddam Hussein and his family, but they are safe. They are safe," he repeated, adding that the US president, George Bush, was the "leader of an international criminal gang of bastards".
When I read this, I most vividly remembered from my youth that I would resort to this kind of baseless name-calling when I was cornered by a parent who had been poked and prodded one time too many, and was comin' at me with a belt, ready to tan my hide. That's how I see Saddam right now... and it's really sad.
I think it's interesting to note that people have a hard time differentiating between American people and the American government. It's funny when I hear someone's surprise when they realize that some Americans might actually be against the war.
Believe it or not, there is just as much dissention and discussion (if not more) among the American people about the war as there is between Americans and those of other nations. Indeed, America is a free country, and they're allowed to speak up against their government. And they do.
I'm quite divided myself, and I think those that are either against or completely in bed with this war aren't looking at all sides of the issue. Strangely enough, many of those who claim that Bush is simplistic and biased don't seem to have any problems with Chirac. Additionally, "the quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than the shouts of a ruler of fools," in which case the silent majority seems to be saying a lot to me about what the real feelings of the people are. Unfortunately, the "silent majority" is not as newsworthy as the destructive protesters ("stop this war or we'll kill the ambassador!").
Please don't use these forums as a medium for bashing the US Americans.
...just my 2 gil.
Yeah, kill Saddam and all the evil Sunnis who have been torturing the Shiite majority for decades. The we can have a good old American-style one-man-one-vote election. The early favorite in that would be the spiritual leader of the Iraqi Shiites - Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, now in exile in Iran.
Great plan, George!
Unless we mean a good old American one-man-one-vote Florida style.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Mr. Secretary, Mr. Vice-President, the missiles are flying. Hallelujah! -- President Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen), The Dead Zone
A cattle prod and a puppy.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Lots of war photos from the last few days: photo link
Beer, chips, war on the big tube. Life can't get any better than this.
Because the strike on iraq is not an unbiased view on gun crime, it isn't about the unconstituity of the pledge of alleigence, or the shuttle breaking up.
It's because kathleen fent is not worth the cost of diamonds when the us strikes afganistan with a slashdot subscription.
You know, the paper US press is having in this war is really sad. It looks like US got back at Mcarthey (correct me if name is typed wrong) times, where everbody that didn't said amen was communist, just now they are called anti-american.
You know, americans that live here in Brasil are mostly agains the war, because we don't cut the news about anti-war protests or anti-war-leaders speachs.
The same, sure and more, goes for Iraq's television.
How do you guys fell that press changes peoples minds to support or not a war?
Q: Whats the difference between a weapons geek and a Nazi?
A: A Nazi knows he has no conscience.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
Heh, actually a very insightful analogy. Nice!
why not something about the tech that's being used this time around? That would be "News for Nerds."
Alright. Want to know something about the tech? Most of it is classified.
I used to work for Litton, designing radar video systems, before Northrop-Grumman bought us out. (Litton - builder of all Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and Aegis guided missile destroyers. NG - builder of stealth bomber and stealth fighter.)
Think of how radar works. A microwave radio signal is fired in a quick burst from a magnetron (just like in your microwave oven, but higher power and frequency). The signal is transmitted outward, bounces off the target, is received, heterodyned (mixed with a signal of similar frequency), and then the beat is amplified and fed to a display or other electronics (targeting computers, etc.).
If your signal isn't reflected, you don't have a target on your display. So what do stealth bombers and fighters do? Diffuse the signal, or reflect it everywhere except the direction from which it came.
It's just like a sand bar, which doesn't show up on marine radar - it absorbs the energy and/or reflects it away from the source.
And that's how radar stealth works.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
We've had this story before. Come on editors!
A tape from Bin Laden asking for support of Saddam against America in no way shows a connection between Hussein and Al-Queda.
Bin Laden wants this war, he knows that anything he does to reduce the distance between him and Saddam will bring the war closer (he succeeded). Now that the US is attacking Iraq, it is a lot easier to recruit new terrorists, and popular support for existing ones is growing.
So Bin Laden has great incentive to associate him self with Hussein in the media, regardless of whether or not any factual link exists. I am not saying there is no link between the Ba'ath party and Al-Queda (I don't think there is, I have not seen the evidence), but to think that tape establishes a link is idiotic
Even if you believe this war is just, you have to acknowledge that it will strengthen Al-Queda.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Greetings:This is the Secretary of War at the State Department
of the United States
We have a problem.
The companies want something done about this sluggish
world economic situation
Profits have been running a little thin lately
and we need to stimulate some growth
Now we know
there's an alarmingly high number of young people roaming
around in your country with nothing to do but stir up trouble
for the police and damage private property.
It doesn't look like they'll ever get a job
It's about time we did something constructive with these people
We've got thousands of 'em here too. They're crawling all over
The companies think it's time we all sit down, have a serious get-together-
And start another war
The President?
He loves the idea! All those missiles streaming overhead to and fro
Napalm
People running down the road, skin on fire
The Soviets seem up for it:
The Kremlin's been itching for the real thing for years.
Hell, Afghanistan's no fun
So whadya say?
We don't even have to win this war.
We just want to cut down on some of this excess population
Now look. Just start up a draft; draft as many of those people as you can.
We'll call up every last youngster we can get our hands on,
hand 'em some speed, give 'em an hour or two to learn how to use
an automatic rifle and send 'em on their way
Libya? El Salvador? How 'bout Northern Ireland?
Or a "moderately repressive regime" in South America?
We'll just cook up a good Soviet threat story
in the Middle East-we need that oil
We had Libya all ready to go and Colonel Khadafy's hit squad
didn't even show up. I tell ya
That man is unreliable.
The Kremlin had their fingers on the button just like we did for that one
Now just think for a minute-We can make this war so big-so BIG
The more people we kill in this war, the more the economy will prosper
We can get rid of practically everybody on your dole queue if we plan this right.
Take every loafer on welfare right off our computer rolls
Now don't worry about demonstrations-just pump up your drug supply.
So many people have hooked themselves on heroin
and amphetamines since we took over, it's just like Vietnam.
We had everybody so busy with LSD they never got too strong.
Kept the war functioning just fine
It's easy.
We've got our college kids so interested in beer
they don't even care if we start manufacturing germ bombs again.
Put a nuclear stockpile in their back yard,
they wouldn't even know what it looked like
So how 'bout it? Look-War is money.
The arms manufacturers tell me unless
we get our bomb factories up to full production
the whole economy is going to collapse
The Soviets are in the same boat.
We all agree the time has come for the big one, so whadya say?!?
That's excellent. We knew you'd agree
The companies will be very pleased.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
I understand that bin Laden intended the terrorist acts of 9/11 to "shock and awe" the Americans. Good to see that we can return the favor.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
Good money these days.
He's going in for the people...
How about this?h p/gener al/87/
http://www.neotribalism.org/neotribalism.p
or maybe this?
http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org/
Yes, exactly. Killing Arabs will make them more friendly.
Other stupid thoughts of the same nature:
1) Americans are real people, killing anyone else is just an adult video game.
2) The rich are better than you. Support their desire to make easy money in weapons and oil.
3) U.S. government violence is justified. All other violence is immoral.
True thoughts:
Killing is the least socially sophisticated way of solving problems.
What you do comes back to you. The level of fear in the U.S. has risen even higher. The quality of life has fallen to a new low. People are losing their jobs as money is sucked into the violence economy.
Throwing away resources on killing other people and destroying their property makes everyone poorer.
Tomahawk cruise missile: Rich country's car bomb.
A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force.
If you support violence, you are, at least partly, violent person.
The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries in the last 58 years:
- Afghanistan 1998
- Bosnia 1994, 1995
- Cambodia 1969-70
- China 1945-46
- Congo 1964
- Cuba 1959-1961
- El Salvador 1980s
- Grenada 1983
- Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
- Indonesia 1958
- Iran 1987
- Iraq 1991-2000
- Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
- Kuwait 1991
- Laos 1964-73
- Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
- Libya 1986
- Nicaragua 1980s
- Panama 1989
- Peru 1965
- Somalia 1993
- Sudan 1998
- Vietnam 1961-73
- Yugoslavia 1999
Source: Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only SuperpowerAlso, the Kurds were ready to rebel, and it looked like a civil war would finish off saddam. Of course, like weapon inspectors, it didn't work. France has been arguing for endding the oil limits since day one, and Bill Clinton launched an occasional cruise missile for show, but he was too concerned about his "legacy" and getting some tail.
Enter George Bush. Why should saddam think anything would change? Liberals accuse Bush of being stupid, but he knows what he wants, and he's pretty good at getting it. Look at the tax cut he pushed through with the slimmest of majorities. He decided that Saddam must go, so Saddam must go.
http://www.madison.com/captimes/news/stories/45
The Feingold amendment is taking $100b from Bush's tax cuts over the next ten years to pay for the war.
Thank God someone in Washinton is still sane -- maybe we'll have an economic rebound in the next ten years after all...
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
...I've heard enough of the words "shock and awe".
I think the word Rumsfeld was groping for (or perhaps avoiding) was "terrorize".
I need good intel. on this
And for all we know, the first night's missile strike got him. (Which obviously does beg the question of who's fighting on if we did get him...)
I suspect we'll see several surprises in this war - both sides have probably been gaming it out for 12 years now. And neither side is really saying what's going on.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Saddam is a Monarchy-he pledged his life to Allah just as would a European monarch pledges life or lim to The Crown.
Iraq is a government that is NOT SECULAR. I repeat, Iraq is not secular; they do not recognize a separation of church and state. What is the relevance of separation of church and state, you ask? You are a State, a building is Church; as a State your legal *STATUS* changes to whatever Church you walk into. Iraq doesn't recognize this, and if you are caught believing that you will be executed for TREASON because under such a government you are PROPERTY of the MONARCH; ie you can't walk into whatever CHURCH, or change your legal *STATUS*
Does that clear things up for you?
Topices of interest on why the UNITED STATES LLC and CANADA LLC are both shitty CORPATIONS (yes, church), read:
Research Common Law
Uniform Commercial Code (aka Commercial Law)
Research "Secured Party" and "Financing Statment"
Research Corporate Law
Research UNITED STATES' (cough*IMF's) Social Security Number (your benefits are legaly their property)
Research CANADA's (cough*IMF's) Social Insurance Number (your benefits are legaly their property)
Who am I, you are wondering? I am the thorn in everyone's backside; I have been plucked out, thus nobody wants me to be their property, and Morpheus picked me up out of the sewer and I profess my worthyness unto him as a l33t cr4x1n h4x0r and we are trying to free as many minds as possible. Do not hate, hate is your mind enslaved.
BBC broadcast bush getting primped up before his attack speech. He pumps his fist and says "feels good" with a smile on his face.
Check out the clips here:
bush news feed (warning already slashdotted before slashdot)
Here's the article about it:
Bush's Groom and Gloom
NO NO NO NO!
Stop watching Gladiator and taking it for fact!
"Flaming arrows" is a contrivance of Hollywood. Very, very rarely did any military powers of ancient times use flaming arrows.
Greek fire? Sure. Lighting up artillery (ie, shot from mangonels/etc.), on occasion.
Arrows?
No. No! NO! NO!
Inaccurate pet peeve aside, Romans did coordinate all their forces to achieve superior mastery on the field. Missiles were fired over the heads of advancing infantry. The infantry, in turn, would then stop their advance, hurl javelins, and then resume.
Once the infantry engaged the enemy, they would remain in a solid wall (IE, ignore Gladiator once more), and present a thicket of stabbing steel. As the front ranks grew tired, they moved back while a new rank came forward. This change of rank occured approximately every 15-20 minutes of fighting, thus keeping the front rank fresh while the enemy grew tired.
Meanwhile, cavalry, when availible, would tend to flank and/or strike from the rear, causing further confusion. The eventual goal was to break up the enemy, surround them, and then annihilate them.
Actually, I've always been told that D-Day stood for "Demarcation Day", at least as relates to the invasion of Normandy.
.02
my
More like 'Disgust and Sicken' given the effect that it is having on the majority of people in the world. I'm ashamed to be American today.
Ah yes, and who is going to get paid by the democratic Iraqi government to help rebuild it's infrastructure?
U.S., and coalition corporations...
Well, you can get updated on all civilian Iraqi casualties here.
I would expect the number to dramatically increase pretty soon.
if the main server starts getting clogged up with rubberneckers.
Face it, war is the only reason a passivist like yourself can open your mouth. If someone had not fought for you freedom you would be a little rape toy of some dictator.
Your stupid thoughts:
1.) Only I deserve to have freedom of speech
2.) People like having there family members tortured in front of them
3.) Murderous dictators are really good at heart and can be talked out of doing bad things
4.) Holding hands and singing songs will solve all the world problems
Stock prices up, oil futures down :)
Even LNUX is up $0.3 to $.91!
so I wonder, do the slashdot community supports the us invation to iraq ?
But the majority of them are against the war. Why? Well, do you think he would have set the oil fields on fire if we hadn't attacked?
It really scares me to think that my tax dollars might have actually paid for your "education."
Love your sig! Imperialist America is down with you too.
Now the politics....Ashcroft scares me....
Quack!Quack!.....QUACK!!
Talk about uninformed.
:(
Have you lived in multiple countries? I have.
In my experience, Europe is FAR more racist than the US (especially vs. blacks and gypsies). The older generation are not all that tolerant of culture other than their own, either, FWIW.
The younger generations - those under 25 - in both the US and Europe - is where I see hope. They are well-educated in multi-culturalism and the evils of racism and have been exposed to many different cultures and skin tones over their lives.
They grew up in a multi-cultural world, so they are used to it. The older generations, by and large, did NOT grow up in a multi-cultural world and there is still some resentment that it has been "forced" upon them.
Hence, I don't see much hope for another 75 years from ANY culture - until all of us older whack-job racists have died off and the place isn't run by selfish us, but rather by the children we've raised to be tolerant. Let's face it - they're tolerant, we're not.
So which is it? Protect the oil fields in Iraq? Or allow drilling in Alaska, thus reducing depency on the oil fields in Iraq? How can liberals ever think they'll get anywhere when they oppose BOTH sides of an issue?
Or how about we convert over to 100% hydrogen power overnight. Yeah, that's definitely an option. Shut off the gas pumps tomorrow!
I was annoyed by someone at work today telling me that whilst the British
are helping the US, the Americans have made the greater sacrifice.
I wanted to set the record straight.
100,000 US ground troops fighting - from a total of 250,000 people out there. 40,000 British ground troops fighting (I don't know the total number of Brit's out there).
So, when you look at the guys who *might* get killed - that's 0.04% of the US population and 0.06% of the British population. By that measure (and of course there are ways to look at this), the British commitment is 50% larger than the US.
Against a background where 80% of Brits are against the war and only 40% of Americans are - I sure hope the US appreciates that!
www.sjbaker.org
I was working on my PC, glanced over at the TV and saw all these orange mushroom clouds. I immediately unmuted the TV and stepped away from the PC. I support the war, but I'm not "happy" about seeing things and lives destroyed like this. I don't think many people who support the war are happy about it either. It's just that this is better than the alternative.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I tried to post the entire text of Edna St. Vincent Millay's "Poem and Prayer for an Invading Army" on a previous Iraq thread, but the lameness filter kept rejecting it because the lines were too short. (Obviously, the lameness filter doesn't like poetry.) Anyway, here's a link to it, because I feel the sentiments expressed are as timely now as ever:
http://www.outofthecube.com/poem.shtml.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Once again, I must state for the record that this war is the most disgusting of wars. Wars in general are bad, slaughtering lives because of politiical differences is pathetic. But this war is a unilateral attack prompted by profits. The U.N. is a systm of checks and balances it was designed to prevent lone wolf attacks. The U.S. is acting like a bully in a playground that has just decided that they want to beat on the foreign kid. The kid may be bad but pounding him to death and stealing his stuff makes the aggressor no better, in this case it makes the U.S. Government look like a three ring circus. Viva la resistence - the protesters across the globe that realize what this war is truly about.
(Sponsored by cheeseSource for President 2012)
Baghdad camera of MSNBCs live stream is broadcasting test patterns and a humming sound since more than 30 minutes.
I know this could be the result of a power outage or bandwidth problems, but...
I was reading Yahoo this morning and found this quote from a Bush advisor:
I guess this means that once we beat up Iraq, we'll invade North Korea. Iran and Cuba aren't far behind.
is that the biggest pile of denial you've heard in a long time? reminds me of those that deny we landed on the moon, or that WWII had the amount of deaths that history claims.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Rita Cosby on FOX News- US Troops Have Just Discovered WMD in the Field
On the subject or Goering...
Goering: But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
--Nazi leader Hermann Goering, interviewed during the Easter Recess at the Nuremberg trials
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Reading the story, though, that doesn't appear to be the motivation for this latest move (the invasion is a "fabrication"? Give me a break!). Also, the coalition has enough intelligence to not need CNN pictures for targeting purposes. Still, I'm kinda surprised that they chose to let CNN stay in the first place, even if they had expected to feed them their own propoganda.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
One major raeson the leftists are so against this war is Racism. They don't want any brown people improving their lot in life.
In a single generation, the standard of living in Iraq will be higher than any of the socialistic Western nations. And they don't like it.
Someone explain to me, please, whom this attack is directed at? If, as all reports indicate, the Iraqi command structure is already isolated from local units, then what will it accomplish to "Shock and Awe" them into more confusion? They're already ineffectual.
This is meant to awe the world, not just Iraq, and it won't have the effect Rumsfeld et al want. As a demonstration of American Military Might (all in caps of course), it's going to fail if one, ONE member of the Iraqi high command survives in a bunker somewhere. You think that won't happen? It doesn't even matter if it's NOT intended to kill everyone in a bunker, either. The Arab world will see that America's thrown everything it has at Iraq, but that all America had wasn't enough to kill Saddam Hussein or whoever.
It'll backfire, like this entire arrogant foreign policy approach. True strength is more often demonstrated in restraint than in action.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
1. burning oil is bad for the enviornment. very, very, very bad. the U.S. takes shit for the Exxon Valdez, but that was nothing compared to the burning oil fields of the first Gulf war.
2. oil is/will be the Iraqi peoples' bread n` butter.
3. Why the fuck should we let Saddam's regime successfully institue a scorched earth policy?
4. burning oil fields creates lots of smoke, enough smoke to cause confusion on a battlefield, enough smoke to kill people, etc.
Furthermore, the U.S. won't get any of that oil unless the new government chooses to sell it to us. The U.S. isn't going to "unilaterally" install a new government in Iraq. It will be a process with all the civilized nations of the world.
Speaking of "unilateral", this action is definately not unilateral, despite what the French, German, and Russian governments would have you believe. The U.S. has the support of over 40 other nations, including England. You want to see unilateral action, look up what France has done militarily in Africa this century. France can hold its own in setting up puppet governments. What we have these days is a case of the pot calling the U.S. black, and a bunch of blind people who won't even Google to find out what France, Germany and Russia's ulterior motives are.
I'll lay them out for you...
France: France has illegally been doing business with Iraq, against the U.N. sanctions, for years now.
Russia: Russia, with it's pathetic GDP, is owed roughly 8 billion dollars by Iraq, and has also illegally done business with Iraq against U.N. sanctions.
Germany: Germany gets a lot of cheap oil from Iraq through the food for oil program.
So, in short, if they just let them burn the oil fields, ignorant dicks like yourself would be complaining about the harm to the enviornment, taking away the Iraqi peoples' natural resources, etc.
FWIW, I support this war solely for giving the Iraqi people a chance to create a prosperous country, and so Iraqi refugees can go back to their own country, as they wish to do.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Could be good because if this kind of things is very sucessful the war will end sooner and will be no more life loses.
In the other hand, if the war ends, was "easy" and without a lot of lost lives, and Bush feels sucessful and invincible, what will be next? North Korea? the rest of the arab countries? China? France?
This is the second time I've seen that post modded up to 5. It deserves a response. Finding superficial similarities is completely irrelavent.
Textbooks and Open Educational Resources
No, blitzkrieg was about utter destruction before the enemy could retaliate.
"shock and awe" is about a gigantic show of force, but with as little destruction as possible, to show that retaliation would be futile.
Long live Hitler, Jr
Ah, you aren't against the war, just against Bush. Don't act as though you care about Iraqi civilians, because they've been systematically tortured and murdered for 30 years.
Hot damn! I can start breathing air and wearing clothes again now that I know it's okay to do some things that Nazis did.
I do hate it when people say "well Hitler/Nazis did this, so if you do it, you must be eviiiiiil."
What?
Your side is going to get an A1 ass kicking.
The hypocrisy of these countries obviously really pisses people off.
There ya go!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
A treaty requires at least two countries to be valid. ABM treaty was between the US and the USSR. The USSR dissolved. No treaty is needed. NEXT - 'tokyo????' I am going to have to attempt to read your little pea brain and guess that you meant KYOTO. Tokyo is the capital of Japan. Kyoto is a former capital of Japan. And I further must infer that you were referring to the ridiculous 'sky is falling' Kyoto treaty that the 'green movement' has foisted on several of the developed countries in Europe, Asia, and the Canucks. Only a fool would sign off the freedom to control his own country to a bunch of lunatics that feel the world is ending and that humans are responsible. Take your Climate Change Levies and shove them up .,.....
As for your other completely uneducated comments about the state of freedom, democracy, and liberty, in the US, I only hope that you that can look beyond the hype of the anti-war movement and allow yourself to actually see what is going on in the world today.
CNN is not the only news station with a reporter in Baghdad.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Turn on the TV: everyone is showing Donald Rumsfield and one channel has Jerry Springer. I guess I'll watch Jerry this time.
Scene from the next South Park movie:
=======
GW: Hey Saddam! Let's fuck!
SH: C'mon, W., don't you care about my feelings?
GW: Shut up, bitch! Roll over! Who's your Bagh-Daddy?
=======
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
A long read, but well worth it if you can spare the time. And, heck, it's Friday. You're not going to get any work done anyway.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
Perhaps you haven't read the thread, but the higly moderated posts are actually insightful. Take care to generalize, if you don't mind me generalizing...
/.
> 3 types of comments on this thread:
> People who support the war -- "Liberate Iraq!"
> People who oppose the war -- "No blood for oil!"
> People who just oppose any news about the war being on
No, of course wars are not funny.
And wars are not wanted.
But unfortunately sometimes they are necessary. There's only so far you can get with "Stop! Or I'll say 'stop' again!"
This is a concept that many of the anti-war crowd find impossible to grasp.
No, I'm sure you are feeling pretty self-righteous typing your post from your comfy padded chair, but ever wonder how the people of Iraq would have felt about us just leaving Saddam alone?
Why don't you listen for yourself?
-CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
Am I the only one getting sick and tired of all these so-called "Reality TV" shows?
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
Does anyone else find it strange that when our buildings go up in smoke, it causes "terror", but when Iraq's buildings go up in smoke, it causes "shock and awe"?
This seems double-plus ironic to me.
The TV networks needed something to put on before the real show... I am suprised you could not download the .rm file on Sunday.
How about this?
A new web site explains part of the new technology includes small cameras are mounted on missles so their movements can be monitored to be used as feedback. This web site will allow people to watch this realtime for $2 per missle. They enter a CC# and begin watching. Of course, they don't really know it's a simulation.
By the same token, people could be charged for watching tank movements (again, in realtime) by watching Battlezone (MAME or Microsoft Arcade). The view of green machines wouldn't look odd as this is the standard view the networks show people with night vision.
yipìyaeyei mother fuckers
Civilians...smiling, dancing, shaking hands, tearing down posters of Saddam.
It would seem they want him gone too.
Valid point.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
Perhaps the true "Shock and Awe" in this campaign lies not just with the firepower of the U.S. military, but the embedded journalists along with each of those units. Journalism can be a powerful nonlethal weapon, and there is no better way to make the Iraqis lose their will to fight then have several news reports across several news channels saying that there is an army of 250,000+ allied troops headed straight for Baghdad.
"I think it is time we demonstrated the full power of this station." -Tarkin
Or was it Rumsfeld?
Notice that the Chinese are the most vociferous condemners of Americans invading Iraq. The Chinese are fearful that American actions will set a precedent for, one day, invading China.
I fully support the American invasion of Iraq and fully support imposing Western values like human rights and democracy in primitive places like Iraq and China.
I'm in complete agreement with you, and would mod you up if I wasn't already in this discussion. I would also add that doing nothing has the added cost of sanctions continueing to cripple Iraq. Here's to a quick successful war and a new president!
This sig wasn't worth reading, was it.
Seriously...
I've seen emgland and brittain.
It's Britain. The United Kingdom. The UK.
Learn to spell people!
It was important to secure the oil wells first because of the danger of them being set on fire.
A massive oil well fire would cause untold environmental damage and cost thousands of lives, both of firefighting crews and others due to pollution.
A massive oil fire would be super expensive to put out (as per the Kuwait oil fires).
A massive oil fire would be a severe military liability - the clouds of smoke they would send up would disrupt communication and air traffic. I'm sure flying through the smoke would also shorten the duty life of a lot of jets, thus weakening the ability of the coalition to conduct the air war.
I'll wait 10 mins for a nice quality picture of Baghdad in flames. I find it crazy that one should have to pay CNN and MSNBC and ABCNEWS for live video. Sorry, Ill go to bbc.com for live (as crappy as it is) and www.reuters.com for the high quality stuff after 15 mins.
Relive the BBS Past - One Byte at a Time! www.ssabbs.com
Of course! Especially because every instance of bombs being deployed from the cargo bays of B52's is an opportunity to say "You dropped something".
Right, and once Saddam is gone we don't have to have an embargo anymore. We can then open that market and get more oil cheaper because after all, we saved their ass, they owe us.
The US wants its share of the 3% of the world's oil that Iraq holds. I don't doubt it. I don't think it's the sole root cause of the war, but it can't be dismisssed as easily either.
Despite Jean Cretien's (our Prime Minister) decision not to support our US brothers and our commonwealth brothers in Britian and Australia, a large percentage of Canadians think we _should_ be fighting along side our allies in the Iraqi war.
12 years is more than enough time for diplomacy. Go get em boyz! Hopefully our PM will come around and realize we have a duty to our allies and world security.
If Canada does join the war, please confirm your targets pilots! Friendly fire sucks.
Let me get this straight. None of French or German protester have been sighted on the streets protesting when troops of Radovan Karadic were slaughtering Bosnian Muslims and Croatians Bosnia-Herzegovina. None of French or German protesters were blocking streets of Belgrade or painting Serbian embassies red when Serb Army was genociding Kosovo Albanians. None of French or German protesters took it out on streets when Russian motorized divisions and Air Force bombed cities of Grozny, Urus-Martan, Achkhai, (Chechnya) to ashes with women and children in it!!! Where were you, who are blaring out anti-US slogans now at that time to demonstrate against violence and genocide! Where were you when Dutch peacekeepers just stood there doing nothing while Serbian forces rouned up every man of ages 7 and up and shot in Srebrenica in front of their eyes ?! Speaking of dual standards, you're the ones with problem. US has come to an aid to Kosovo Albanians, as well as Bosnians. Gee, there is no oil out there, so why the hell US went there ? This goes out to all who says that US is after Iraqi oil! As a matter of fact, when US B-2 bomber flew over Germany to bomb Milosevic's forces, German air traffic controllers refused to provide logistics support to US to get rid of Milosevic! One more proof that Germany + France are pursuing dual standars and don't give a horses ass about people around them (otherwise, Bosnia, and Kosovo which is a part of Europe whould have been prevent from being slaughtered, genocided, annihilated without the US help or intervention by Europeans themselves)! Lame, very lame!
Hit the 'mute' button and most of the propaganda/disinfo will be cut out, and there's still some pretty smoking wreckage, stern looking generals, and maps with helpful colored arrows to look at. I haven't figured out how to get rid of that damn scrolling text at the bottom of the screen, but duct tape could be involved in the solution.
Somebody should set up a streaming audio site with insightful/humorous replacement audio, otherwise just put on some music...
...between a slashdot "editor" and real journalism.
http://slate.msn.com/id/27730
Any of those names sound familiar?
Any of those arguments sound familiar?
Unfortunately there may have never been a time when the US had a claim to the moral high ground. Operation Mongoose, which is well know for its attempts to assassinate Castro, turns out to pretty much be a rigorous terrorist operation against Cuba by the CIA.
f rusX /index.html
I've been picking through some documents at
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/
I've been trying to verify claims I've read by Noam Chomsky. It looks like he's right, that the US is responsible for a wide range of terrorist operations in Cuba. The government documents describe them as sabotage. Targets include airliners, hotels, factories, livestock, and fuel tanks. It's depressing that there's documented proof from our own government of its terrorist actions. What's worse is nobody seems to care.
You thank God for that? Really?
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Moderators, parent is NOT flamebait. Mod this insightful, interesting or informative at least, but not flamebait.
Sure -- the armed and armoured side of the US military is unstoppable, and the battle in Iraq was over before it began. Don't get too smug though, because it is equally obvious that the soft-underbelly of the American Military is the American population at large. "Evil Terrorists and Cowards!" you scream? Only true when they attack us first without any real provocation. Let's not be naive -- under the circumstances (with such a gross overmatch with the US vs any other military force in the world) I think any person that truely thinks about the moral implications has to realise that we (the American population) are legitimate military targets. If we act imperialistic, our victims thoughout the world become justified in resisting us in absolutely any way they can. Personally, I don't want America to become a country that needs to be run under police-state/siege-mentality rules just to keep it's citizens from being bombed/poisoned/plagued. September 11th has made things bad enough, and it looks like our genious President is just making things worse and worse for the future. And lets face it, even our god-damned allies don't like us very much. Christ, I mean Canada by geography, culture, and history is our closest (though militarily impotent) ally and 'friend', and even they aren't supporting us (and we don't win any general popularity contests with them either). Yes, yes, I know... who cares? Well, now that we have figured our where we stand with our best friends, imagine how our enemies feel about us....
President Bush should ponder the wisdom behind the cliche "Tread softly, and carry a big stick".
He's following long established military strategies designed to keep an enemy army from using captured resources.
These acts aren't war crimes, and if an invasion force were marching up the Mississippi river valley you can bet your ass that the retreating U.S. military would be blowing up fuel reserves instead of letting them fall under enemy control.
-dameron
I was wondering what has convinced fellow Slahshdoters to take the stance they have now on the state of affairs with Iraq?
g road/
For me it was the Frontline documentaries on PBS which focused on the history of Saddam. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lon
Some things that caught my attention:
1. Saddam started out as a hitman for the radical Ba'ath Party and he participated in the failed assassination attempt on the country's strong man, Gen. Kassem, in 1959.
2. The Ba'ath Party killed Gen. Kassem and staff and seized the country in a coup. Saddam became an interrogator in the Fellaheen and Muthaqafeen detention camps. In interrogating people in those camps, he used torture, and undoubtedly like everybody else involved in this activity, eliminated people to the amount of 700 documented deaths.
3. Two weeks after they took over power on the 17th of July 1968, there was what they call "the correction movement." That meant getting rid of the non-Ba'ath elements in the coup, and Saddam was prominent in that. As a matter of fact he held a gun to the head of the prime minister and said, "You're going with me to the airport because you're leaving this country." And the guy pleaded with him, said, "I have family, I have a wife and kids." And Saddam said, "Well as long as you behave, they'll be fine." He took him to the airport, he put him in a plane, he deported him, and of course years after, he assassinated him in front of the Intercontinental Hotel in London. The man couldn't escape him in the long run.
4. In 1970 Saddam was head of the Peasants Department and the Department of General Relations (security), the military, and several other departments. And of course soon enough, like all people who are dictators, who are jealous of the army, he appointed himself general and eventually like Stalin he became field marshal.
5. In 1979 he removed Bakr (the President he helped instate) rather unceremoniously and made himself president. And he reshaped the Ba'ath Party in no time at all by executing half of the command of the party.
6. During the 7 month occupation of Kuwait, Saddam ruled there as head had for years, with oppression and death. Some Kuwaitis were tortured and murdered, others lined up and shot.
6. After the Persian Gulf War Iraq had uprisings in the North and South. This is where Saddam used chemical weapons and killed over a thousand Iraqi men, women, and children. This was the second time he had used chemical weapons, the first time was in the war against Iran. Uses of chemical weapons are forbidden by UN treaties.
7. At the end of the initial round of inspections by the UN weapons teams, Saddam's brother-in-law and cousin defected to Jordan and announced that they had documents that would indicate that the inspectors had not seen all the weapons Saddam had. Saddam told his sons-in-law that, if they came back to Iraq, they would be completely safe. They foolishly believed Saddam. So, as military officers, they donned their uniforms, and they went back to Iraq. The moment they entered Iraq, they were separated from their families. Their families were taken to Baghdad, and they were taken out of the city. Like Saddam, they are very tribal, so they surrounded themselves with bodyguards, not trusting him completely. Two days later, there was an attack on the house by members of the family, to avenge the family honor. So Saddam claimed that he kept his word, as the chief of the armed forces, as the president of Iraq, that he would do nothing to them. So, when it was finally done, the attack succeeded and they were captured and killed. Saddam said, "I didn't go back on my word. This happened according to tribal tradition. The family had to avenge itself. The family had to recover its honor." That's how he explained what he did to them.
After watching this I felt awful that the people of Iraq have who have had to endure fear for so long and I felt I was fortunate to be an American.
-An American Revolutionary
Well, here is the online version of the Book were the Shock and Awe concept came from:
http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html
It does talk somewhat about tech.
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
I have been hearing some stuff on TV, it sounds like Turkey has troops in Northern Iraq. Anyone else have more information on this? Perhaps the Turks will use this opportunity to take back a piece of Iraq they have always considered theirs. What would a three way battle for the north mean for the US?
Please point out which of thses wars we started or wasn't provoked into? Several of those have acompanying UN mandates for US to be there.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
Better late than never.
You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!
Hey Ahkbarr! Get a dictionary!
No facts. Made up statements. Insightful.
In some sad way, I'm comforted by the fact that this war confirms that human nature is very consistent. Power corrupts humans, regardless of what religion, ethnicity, gender, nationality, or political leaning.
The whole situation leading up to the war is obviously complex, with all parties (eg, Iraq, US, UN, UK, France, Turkey, etc.) pushing their own agenda while claiming that they do what they do in the name of [choose one] humanity, religion, security, etc. Ultimately, though, we do what we do because it is human nature:
Despite knowing right from wrong, we will usually choose what feels good. Mostly that means the one with the biggest stick wins.
Sucks to be human sometimes...
Live war videoe edroom.com
http://reuters.feedroom.com
http://nbc4.f
If you're making a case for the war on the second or third day of the conflict, then you and the people with whom you agree, have clearly not made a reasonable case to the public.
Are you referring to the 70% that support the war, the 30% that do not, or the 100% that both groups comprise? As one of those who, until France, Germany, and Belgium placed Turkey's defense on hold as a political ploy, was firmly in the 30% "No War!" group, but has since moved to the (who knows what per cent) that are ambivelent at best, and truly uncertain whether or not the war is appropriate, just, much less a "good thing" in pragmatic geopolitical terms, I find his arguments to be more than reasonable.
Not that I necessarilly agree with all of them (I disagree with several, agree with several, and an uncertain on others), but they are certainly reasonable.
Unfortunately, I've yet to hear much in the way of reasonable arguments on the opposing side. Russia is perhaps the lone voice ("this is not wise because of its destabilizing aspects") that speaks at least one coherent and rational argument beyond "war=bad, Bush=oilman warmonger, America Nein!" and despite the fact that I agree with 2 out of 3 of those arguments, they do not portray a rational argument as to why this action is inappropriate.
On the moral front: Germany appears to have been selling technical support and components for WMD to Iraq for the last 10 years, at least. Their moral stance on this entire affair is dubious, at best. France has ongoing sweetheart deals with Saddam's regime personally, some in direct violation of existing UN resolutions: deals an Iraq without Saddam is unlikely to continue. Their moral stance on this is highly dubious, at best. Russia, who has by far been the most restrained and responsible of the war opponents in the security council (their rhetoric has been more restrained, their arguments more cohenerent, and perhaps most importantly they haven't put the tactical defense of their front-line allies, and with it the viability of their military alliances, in jeapardy simply to make political points. Germany and France have.), has immense outstanding debt owed to them by the Iraqi regime which may or may not be paid back under a new government.
And Bush has the oil connection, comes from a family with dubious political and economic motives, represents the worst about the conservative faction of America, and has dubious legitimacy as president given the 2000 elections. His moral stance is equally, but certainly not more, dubious than that of his opponents.
This in contrast to Tony Blair, whose ethical and moral stance appears to be above reproach (whether or not the action of supporting the United States is wise notwhithstanding).
As one who distrusts and despises Bush, who will with certainty vote against him again in the next election, and who has profound reservations about this war I have to say that the opponents have lacked in their arguments far more than its proponents. As one who until recently strongly opposed the war, and is now on the fence, I find this particularly distressing.
I think the war is probably a mistake. I think in taking Bagdad we could end up doing things that we, as Americans, like to believe we don't do (if not historically, at least not any more). I think we stand to lose a great deal of political influence in the world as a result, and that this will hurt the overt evangelism of rule of law and democracy as much, if not more, than it will our political and economic influence on world affairs once this conflict passes. This is a terrible risk, one that IMHO was probably unwise to take at this juncture. I think victory entails far graver danger in this conflict to America, and western democracy in general, than continued containment probably would have.
Nevertheless, all that aside, the Hawks appear to be offering vastly better arguments in favor of their position than the Doves are in opposing it, and with the extraordinarilly in
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
is that you should beware of historical analogies.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Here. Its been posted before but it is still jaw-dropping stuff...
When people say "funny... That dosn't coincide with what I think". When, in fact it's because they are incorrect. Shock and awe are not something that only happens in range of the cameras on the minstry of information. Even what can be seen from those cameras are quite shocking.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The worst part will come after this massacre, whem the thorougly dehumanized US troops (AKA ``The Uruk-hai'') are taken back to the US and set loose on the local human population. Monsters who have given away their humanity (aka ``soldiers'') with crippled minds, killers trained never to think, never to question, never to feel, able to torch babies on commnad without as much as blinking. What human being would even board a transport to go and hurt the Iraqi people? What has murdering Iraqis to do at all with defending the US people and their homes? These are killer monsters who have surrendered their reason and their very humanity---and will never get it back.
Today is the Iraqi people. Tomorrow the US.
Battle-hardened prime material for the new US SS (aka ``Homeland Security''). Again, ready to machine-gun pacific protestors with a single word from the corporatist regime---children and all---right on command and without flinching. These Uruk-hai will nuke their mothers' homes and torture babies without ever questioning anything. Mr. Chancellor Hitler would have been very happy to have these stormtroopers at his call.
Or their wrecked minds will just snap and they will `go postal'. Unthinking trained murderers. I shudder at my mental images of the carnage.
At least in Iraq people can single out the monsters. I hope they send them all back in their bodybags. For the sake of both the Iraqi and the USan people---damn, for we all!---I hope no Uruk-hai comes back alive to the USA. The USA, where they will blend with the humans and be at the call of the regime. And I know how it feels to live with genocides and torturers. I know how it feels to live under a genocidal regime. And I know how it feels never to be sure whether the guy next to you in the supermaket is a mass-murderer and torturer, and what is he going to do next...
If there is a god after all---any god---I hope it will protect the USans. I have frieds there. I hope they'll be OK.
I hope there is a god that will protect us all
``L'imagination au povoir.''
The good news is that they should be back in Iraq in about 8 hours,,,,hehehe
Aw, you're such a nice guy. The poor people in Iraq are so grateful that people like you support the bombings in which many of them will get killed and the others will have to endure greater fear than ever.
Stupid asshole.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Idiots...
Hey captain geography!..try looking at a map sometime.. you Iraqi oil fields are on the Kuwaiti border, you have to go through them to get to any town. But you can't be bothered with details that interfere with your bias, can you?
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
There are only a handful of weapons and communications systems in the field that weren't used in Gulf War I, such as the JDAM and JSOW air-dropped ordnance, or the IVIS tactical display used by US and British armored vehicles.
.50 caliber machine guns mounted on tanks, APCs, and Hummers were designed right after World War One, in the early Twenties, and have been in constant use ever since. The B-52H bombers -- the last of which rolled off the assembly line in 1963 -- were first conceived in 1949. Iraqi forces are armed with AK-47s (and the later AK-74 variants) that were first adopted by Soviet forces in the late '40s. The basic Scud missile design is nearly as old, and could be considered an adaptation of the German V-2 from WWII.
Some of the weapons used by both sides are positively ancient. The M2
What I really find compelling is not these high- and low-tech implements of destruction, but the advances in communication and news-gathering that have taken place over the last 12 years. Not just the Internet, though that's certainly worthy of note, but the satellite phones and cameras used by reporters embedded with the troops and correspondents in the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad.
True, Peter Arnett was reporting from his room in 1991, when the 43-day air war started, but he was tied to landlines and an Iraqi-controlled dish. Now he can send realtime audio and video with gear that can fit in a briefcase. Sat phones have gotten smaller, better, clearer. Yes, the frame rate suffers when more than 10% of the picture changes, and there are visible compression artifacts, but given time I'm sure it'll be just as good (or crappy) as NTSC video.
At the risk of sounding flippant in the face of the inevitable loss of human life and injuries, military and civilian, I can't help but think that this is the first High Definition War, and that they'll have the DVD box sets on the shelves for Christmas.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Oh wait, that wouldn't help your point. -c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
1337th comment!
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrap per.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-030603A
He may have held out hope for "Peace in our Time" for a while, but he eventually found the balls to declare a state of war over the invasion of Poland. I doubt many European leaders today have even that much backbone.
Check out this book titled "Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance," published in 1996, about Hitler's Blitzkreig. Sort of an unsettling set of circumstances (as if it weren't already)
Also, check out this article, which compares the rise of Hitler to the current U.S. administration. For example, Hitler used the attack on the Reichstag as an excuse for a pre-emptive strike on Austria.
This big of a thread and no talk of Beowolf Clusters!!! My goodness... What's become of Slashdot.
Certainly every man at his best state is but vapor
The main site of the government of Iraq, Uruklink, is down, unsurprisingly. If you do a traceroute, you can see that it connects via a satellite link, but that link is down.
"It doesn't really make sense to actually deliver on such a threat unless you really do want to destroy the place."
The ones who are to be 'shocked and awed' are the military troops and their leaders, not the general population of Bagdad. Even if we bring the volume all the way up on the shock-and-awe tactic, the targets will be Republican Guard and CCC sites, not whole cities. The kind of bombing some people imagine (like London or Berlin in WWII) is counter productive and not even contemplated today.
My sig? It's a Sig-Saur 9mm with a SWEEEET little laser sight on it!
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
And as we all know, preventing environmental damage has always been Bush's #1 priority.
Careful, you quoted fact on a forum that is overrun by people that refuse to listen to such "lies." Be ready for the hordes that will have to swear at you can call you names. After all, you asked for it by using evil quotes and documentation and stuff.
Weapons aren't evil. They're important and interesting. Geeks want the technical details!
If you think it's wrong to even be interested in weapons, then maybe you should rethink the whole "I'm not a pacifist" bullshit line.
Check it out..ask taken from here
An Iraqi Exile confronts and anti-war protester.
Currently, around 53% of Britons support the war. Your U.S. numbers are pretty close, though.
Killing Arabs will make them more friendly.
Ah, yes, I've heard this one. We're actually going to war to get rid of Saddam and his regime. The fact that he's an Arab is irrelevant.
If you support violence, you are, at least partly, violent person.
Would you say that human beings are an inherently violent species? Just like any other species on the planet, the majority will defend themselves when cornered; most people have a survival instinct, and will fight for their own life (and in many cases the lives of their family). Does this make them "violent?"
The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries in the last 58 years:
Interesting list, please make a list of countries who would attack the US if they didn't think we could fight back (feel free to refer to your first list for ideas).
Killing is the least socially sophisticated way of solving problems.
Perhaps, but how do you negiotiate with extremists?
Even a pacifist will use violence when necessary (a true pacifist will save violence as the last resort, but when they hit you, they will hit you so hard you will never consider attacking them again). It shouldn't be the first option, but we can't play "hide and seek" with weapons Iraq agreed to destroy. There could have been a longer period of inspections, but don't delude yourself into thinking Saddam wants to disarm. He desires power over Iraq (and Kuwait), and has demonstrated he has no intention to disarm (12 years was more than generous), if disarmament means losing power over his means of control.
Violence works. It would be nice if we lived in a magical happy land where soldiers gave flowers to their "enemies." But we live in reality, where life is hard and tough, and despite your (and my) sheltered lives, there are people who will stop at nothing for power and/or wealth -- these people must be dealt with swiftly and forcefully. We must show them in the strongest possible terms that their behavior is not acceptable to "us."
And who are "we?" We are the most powerful nations in the world (US & Britain). If you don't like that... live with it. I think that considering the amount of power we wield, we are very responsible with it.
If you try to bring morality into it, you'll get lost in the quagmire of relativism. Don't fall for that trap... ask yourself if the US and Britian honestly think that Iraq will be a better place without Saddam Hussein at the helm.
(+1, Too Insightful For Many Americans To Handle)
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
If this war was about Iraqi civilians, that would be a different story. This war is about power and money.
Bush has continually ignored and/or downplayed resistance to his war machine using the concept of "I must defend you from the menace to freedom, Saddam Hussein."
If Hussein had any real method of retaliation at the US (WMDs), Bush would not be pulling this action.
Second, there is the money part. Iraq has recently begun to trade oil with Europe in Euros instead of Dollars. This devalues the Dollar greatly and makes our economy slow further.
And let's not forget that Halliburton has been awarded the contract to clean up the burning oil fields afterwards. Let's not fool ourselves and think that our dear VP doesn't get any kickback from that.
Jory
Really? I heard differently.
I certainly hope so. It will mean the end of gasoline fueled fake explosions.
Everything so far coming out of Hollywood absolutely pales in comparison to the real thing.
(Just maybe we'll stop seeing sparking bullets)
I've seen reports repeating Iraqi claims that some 30 people or so died in the initial strikes. But how can they get that info immediately? Those cameras don't show individual bodies...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Why is it that the nightvision shots still have the same crap quality of ten years ago? Did no one think to upgrade them?
I mean, there's stuff now that'll let you see the undergarments of people in high resolution from half a mile away, but we're stuck here with blobs of light flying across a grainy sky.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald:
Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire missiles swept in low from the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald.
"Dead Bodies Everywhere"
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/10477
I don't know about the rest of you, but watching the bombing of Baghdad depressed me horribly.
A dark day for the United States of America. .
$500,000,000 spent on cruise missles today alone
What have we become?
Good old Godwin's Law. It's just eerie how true it is.
Even though his citizens suffer from war weariness, he can just crank up the luxeries to counter the revolt. So, no, nothing happens until his last phalanx is dead. -Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
Your statement seems to assume we have 1,000 bombers lined up in the air carpet bombing the countryside. And your hostile attitude would seem to assume you never saw the Frontline documenatries, or other ducumentaries on the history of Iraq or Saddam. Lets be realistic and try to keep it civil.
The strikes are as precise as technology allows at this point. But I doubt there will be as many casualties as Saddam himself has inflicted on the peoples of Kuwait, Iran, and Iraq over the last 35 years.
Lets try to stay on topic. What convinced slashdoters to have their current political views of the affairs towards Iraq?
-An American Revolutionary
Well, for one thing I think you're wrong. I don't think there were a half-million US and British troupes on the ground in Kosovo.
But I think the major reason that there are so many protests is for the same reason France, Germany, Russia and China are so pissed of as well. Because they don't think the war is justified. They think that we have a legitimate call to wage war there. Either we haven't given inspections enough time, or, the threat to our nation is out of proportion with the death and destruction being caused by this war.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Couple KNOWN actions by Saddam:
- Husband and wife are tortured repeatedly in front of their children. Reason? Sale of a vehicle that Iraqi's claimed was taken from oppositionists.
- Udday, Saddam's son, was known to have a torture chamber and personally executed many people and raped many many women.
- Udday had their football team all caned on the soles of their feet after losing a World Cup championship.
- Qusayy, another son, also encouraged rape and use of torture again many Iraqi citizens.
I don't even want to think about this any more. Just read the Link above.... After reading about Saddam and his family all I can say is hoorah for the USA finally removing this evil motherfucker and his well-trained bastard children from power.In a bad humor kind of vein: Bush vs. Saddam
Zero Wing once again.
I just want the war to be end.
Visit the Mother Site !
Desmond Tutu said "The US is setting a bad example for the world of how to use power, peaceful peoples everywhere should instead look to Sadaam Hussein as an example of the proper use of power".
No, blitzkrieg was about utter destruction before the enemy could retaliate.
Actually the blitzkrieg was not about total destruction. It was about swiftly moving in and attacking(mostly using air superiority) to intimidate and scare the cicvillian masses to create a chaotic and unorganized evacuation. This in turn would bog down the transit systems, which led to the inability to move troops, armor, supplies, etc. This in turn made the invasion and occupation by the Nazi troops easier. Tactically, it was the best and most effective startegy of its time, and still can be effective today.
What scares me is the reason the Nazis lost WWII, is that Hitler did not follow his own advice. He worte in Mien Kampf that a nation could not win a 2 front war. Currently the US is in that same situation. We are invading Iraq, but don't forget, we are still activelly fighting in Afghanistan. I hope history doesn't repeat itself.
Stupid asshole
:-P
From the brainless contents of your post, I am assuming that's your John Hancock...
And how many of these have a democratic government?
The only good Moose Limb is a dead Moose Limb.
This is patently false, as will be demonstrated later. As for the worldwide economic crisis, the economy of the Weimar Republic was actually improving.
Also a load. Chancellors, like Hitler, were not elected, but appointed by the Reichstag and the Weimar Republic president. And while not having a solid majority, the Nazis did hold the most seats in the Reichstag. In fact, Goering was president of that body.
Yet another error... Hitler railed against the Communist Party, which held the second greatest number of seats in the Reichstag. He declared a state of emergency and had his political opponents arrested. Not Jews.
As mentioned above, Hitler's political opponents, including the leaders of the Communist and Democratic Christian parties were the first to meet the 'police', most of whom were SA brownshirts. As for the rest, Hitler was always a brilliant orator and propagandist. How did you think he took control of the Nazi party (he didn't found it-he joined when it was an insignifigant group of about 20 persons).
Really? Are we talking about the same Germans who have always been violently xenophobic? Who have a word (auslander) in their language that means 'everyone who is not German', and is considered to be a derisive term?
The German media, with the exeption of some newspapers and magazines, was a state institution long before Hitler came onto the scene. You know, kind of like the same way it is in Europe now.
Mental age of 11.
The standard for proof has sunk really low. Repeat something often enough now and it becomes true.
It's called the "BIG LIE" tactic.
Invented by Stalin, I think.
The difference is that the world believes this is a war for oil. People did criticize Clinton, but he never moved in to appropriate himself Iraq`s resources.
Did you even read what he wrote?
Lets see. The "war" against Iraq might kill a couple hundred people that are civilians. However, about 10 years ago Sadam killed over a thousand of HIS OWN PEOPLE!
For a quick math lesson: 500 is LESS than 1000. So we're attempting to help give them freedom for a cheaper price than they've already paid. Not bad, if you ask me.
And something we don't know actual figures on : How many civilians get killed every year by Sadam's army? huh? I wouldn't be shocked if it was fairly often that people "disapeared" because they said "Sadam sucks!"..
We as Canadians like your money and your television. You like our oil, our softwood, our uranium, our water, our strategic position in relation to Russia, our politeness, our steel, our electricity, and our beer. In fact, you know what. Now that you've taken care of Russia, we don't need you anymore. We can still steal your TV, so all we need is your money. But you're welcome to visit. Our politeness is always free.
Come on... if you're going to use someone else's list, at least make sure their facts are straight. Most of these I can counter off the top of my head.
America was the country that was the primary "sponsor" - in terms of weapons, training and funding - of Osama Bin Laden and his fighters during the 1980s.
Against what at the time appeared to be a far greater threat, the USSR.
American spokesman saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's seizure of power in Afghanistan in 1996.
At the time, both sides were equally bad in the eyes of the US. The Taliban hadn't started supporting OBL's terrorist activites yet.
America unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in December 2001.
As permitted by the treaty's conditions with a required notification period.
America is the world's biggest polluter.
America is the world's biggest economy. Quelle surprise!
America was responsible for a car bomb which killed 80 civilians in Beirut in 1985, in a botched assassination attempt, thereby making it the most lethal terrorist bombing in modern Middle East history.
Uh, no - 130 Marines were killed in Beiruit by a bomb in 1983, making it a whole 50 deaths larger!
America is the only G7 country to have refused to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, forbidding the use of landmines.
Because to do so would permit North Korea to roll across into peaceful South Korea.
America refuses to hand over a variety of indicted war criminals, terrorists and mass murderers - all residing within its borders - to Cuba, Venezuela and Haiti.
When you promise immunity as a condition of exile, you can't go back on that - no one will trust you in the future.
America has provided approximately $110 billion in aid to a country [Israel] which has maintained a 34-year occupation of land in defiance of international law.
Israel's existance is perfectly legal under international law. Hell - they got those territories from two illegal wars started by the Arab nations. Spoils of war.
America was the only other country to join with Israel in opposing a 1987 General Assembly resolution condemning international terrorism.
Probably because the resolution's definition of "international terrorism" was aimed at the Israeli state.
America refuses to fully pay its debts to the United Nations yet reserves its right to veto United Nations resolutions.
The US is the UN's largest source of funding.
America was accused by a UN-sponsored truth commission of providing "direct and indirect support" for "acts of genocide" against the Mayan Indians in Guatemala during the 1980s.
Accused != guilty, at least not in a fair legal system.
America was the driving force behind the economic embargo on Iraq - responsible for the death of over half a million Iraqi children and described by one of its own legislators as "genocide masquerading as policy".
No, Iraq's violations of the terms of the 1991 peace agreement are the driving force behind the embargo. That and the fact that Saddam routes money supposedly to be used for medicine and food to weapons.
America is the only country in the world to have dropped bombs on twenty other countries since 1945.
That's what you get when Europe's inability to act makes you be world policeman.
America is the only country in the world to have used all three types of "weapons of mass destruction" (chemical, biological and nuclear).
Actually, France, Russia, and England have also done so. Perhaps you mean that the US is the only nation to use an atomic bomb on an enemy nation? If so, consider the fact that the bomb may have hastened the end of the war, saving millions of Japanese and American lives.
When it comes to US bombs in Baghdad - the more the merrier!
Lets kill these bastards!
REmember his whole thing about how athies shouldnt really be considered citizens? THat dosent sound like a moderate to me.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Reading PNAC essay on how they plan to stay the worlds dominant power which has strong connections to Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Realising that Middle East oil will become more important as places like the North Sea deplete.
Looking at Afghanistan at the moment.
Now I agree with you that freeing the iraqis is a nobel cause, I just don't trust some of your current administration to do a good job, and may cause more hatred for us (I'm from the UK) in the region. Which would be counter productive.
SJBaker, Thanks for the insiteful stats. From my perspective, I have never heard of someone stating or even implying that the UK was not holding up its end. Everyone I know views Britain as a valuable ally both politically and militarily. In fact, most I have talked to believe that the UK is one of the few countries that will "put its money where its mouth is" when it comes to military action. For these reasons, I think Americans take the UK very seriously. I hope you never get the impression otherwise. -Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
Nothing beats watching other peoples' suffering. My biggest disappointment on 911 was that they only showed people jumping, never anybody actually hitting the deck. Still, there'll be fun to be had when the injured return to the US. Oh the joy of taunting veterans about their missing limbs.
Bush did not fly planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
My, you're awfully certain.
I don't share your certainty. I believe that it's possible that he was at least complicit in letting the attack happen. I have no evidence for this, and know that it is or isn't true -- I simply believe it's possible.
Does that sound radical?
FDR almost certainly knew about and decided to allow the attack on Pearl Harbor. LBJ was even complicit in fabricating an attack to justify the full escalation of the Vietnam war (do a Google search on "Gulf of Tonkin").
So did Bush actually encourage, or at least complicitly allow, the attacks of 9/11? We won't know for decades. But history's lesson is that, if he is truly "presidential material", then he's capable of such a thing. Certainly, at the very least, we must admit that we don't know now what the truth is.
I know what you mean. I don't think it matters in America if you're a Democrat or a Republican; each administration has done questionable acts. Just because I may have been a supporter for Clinton or Bush or whoever doesn't mean I always agreed on every decision they made. And lets face it, power can corrupt and people are fallible, which is why we have to have checks and balances, of course they don't always work, but I don't know many political systems that do.
-An American Revolutionary
If the Bush administration really does use tortue, I would certainly disapprove of that, to a degree, depending on the type of torture, what was at stake, etc. I would certainly torture someone myself if millions of lives were at stake, and that was the only avenue I had to persue.
From what I understand, drugs are far more effective than torture for extracting information.
I would not, however, grind people up with plastic shredders and rape women simply for disagreeing with my rule, or for any reason at all for that matter.
In short, wake up and smell the napalm, Bush != Saddam. Bush == Any Other Leader of a Democratic Country. If you believe otherwise, you are VERY naive.
This war will destroy Saddam's regime. A free(er) Iraq will be created. There will be less suffering. That is why I support this war, not because I am a Bush "supporter". I didn't vote for him, and I probably wouldn't if the election were tomorrow.
War is hell. What many people don't understand is that peace can be hell too. Attempted peaceful diplomacy has left at least 500,000 dead in Iraq in 10 years, give war a chance.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Baaa! Baaa! War is Baaad!! Iraqi's can't possibly dislike Saaaadaaam!!
I've been trying to figure out the people who think this is a war for oil? I personally think the war is over Weapons of Mass Distruction and Saddam Hussein's failure to give them up. The US is scared Saddam might use these weapons as leverage or sell these weapons to terrorist organizations. A fear I think is valid after 9/11/01.
h art.pdf
So, I did some research. I found this:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2002/0602c
It was the first thing that came up when I googled for "US Oil Suppliers".
I also learned that Iraq only produces 2% of the worlds oil.
I went to OPEC's website (www.opec.org) and found this on their FAQ:
Which countries produce the most oil?
Country
Crude oil production
(million barrels per day)
Saudi Arabia*
7.889
Russia
6.730
United States
5.801
Iran
3.572
China
3.297
* Including share of production from Neutral Zone.
Iraq isn't even on the list. If you don't agree with the war, that's fine, but it doesn't seem to be over oil so maybe you should have a different chant.
How about "I Don't Like War!" or "The US is being a big Bully" or "War SUCKS!". Shouting "No War for Oil!" doesn't seem to be a valid argument.
Quote from Dennis Miller:
If your only anti-war slogan is "No war for oil,"
sue your school district for allowing you to slip
through the cracks and robbing you of the
education you deserve.
I suppose we could count dead soldiers as the front line sweeps past them, but I think the people over there are way too busy.
Prediction: this information won't come out for several weeks.
No kidding.
Watching all the female anchors on CNN. Damn.
Hard to keep your mind on the war when all you are thinking is "facial, facial!"
Does anyone here really believe this will "improve" security for us?
Bullshit, people in the arab will rush to do something against us now, and, more important, this is what GW wants them to do
GW is a looser as president. He has killed our economy and his only chance to stay in charge is to keep up our fears and patriotism long enough to get elected again. He is even willing to kill thousands of Iraqi civilans for this
a sad day indeed
Maybe CNN should sponsor that
Where is the proof?
How nice that this piece ignored the US support of the Iraq throughout the 1980s. Yes, he was a brutal dictator, but he was our brutal dictator.
6. After the Persian Gulf War Iraq had uprisings in the North and South. This is where Saddam used chemical weapons and killed over a thousand Iraqi men, women, and children.
The Shia majority in the south were ecouraged to rise up in early 1991 by the US government. So they did, expecting US help. Imagine their surprise when US forces allowed Iraq to use helicopters, along with elements of the Republican Guard, to surpress this rebelion. Additionaly, US forces kept the rebels from accessing weapons caches that could have helped their cause. Indeed, US military commanders wanted to help, but the civilian leadership said no.
And don't think the Shia have forgot. It would not be at all surprising to see a bit of unrest during the US occupation.
thx,
eric
The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus
People like me who oppose you complaining about people who oppose any news on Slashdot.
Ouch. My head just exploded.
The country should always support the troops. That's just good manners.
Let's look at the "terrible things" that have happened to people who voiced opposition:
Dixie Chicks: They made a stupid statement. Some people got upset and called for a boycott of their records. (Strange, that seems like exercising free speach as well.) Were they arrested? Deported? Sent off to be raped and then murdered?
As far as most of the actors go I think many people are upset that these people are using the status that they have from their acting to pretend that they are enlightened people who are qualified to speak about world affairs. Additionally, free speach does not mean that everyone has to simply shut up and listen to opinions that they don't support. It just means that you get your say and others get their say.
The point about self defense is that the calculus of self defense in the 20th century does not carry itself over into the 21st. Let's look at the events of 9/11. In this case you have less than two dozen people able to massive casualties and billions of dollars of damage on the US. How exactly do you prevent this from happening? You can't promise MAD as they don't belong to a country. They don't wear uniforms so you can't meet them honorably on the field of battle.
The point is that Iraq started the ball rolling when they decided that they wanted to add Kuwait to their land. They took a gamble and lost. They then promised to do a number of things in exchange for being allowed to surrender rather than being whiped off the map. This occurred in 1991. It is now 2003 and they haven't managed to live up to their promises. Instead, they have actively worked to get out from under those promises and have continued to build and acquire illegal weapons.
So, what do we do about this?
1) Ignore it. Take all our troops home and let the rest of the world deal with their own security for once?
2) Contain them. We've maintained a military presence in and around Iraq for 12 years now. Sanctions that were put in place to get Iraq to comply are merely used by Iraq as a tool to build more unrust and hatred of the groups that are enforcing them.
3) Demand compliance. Tell Iraq that they have to live up to their commitments or face "serious consequences".
Well, we've tried 2 and we really only had 1 or 3 to chose from. The last time we tried 1 we had two little World Wars.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Let's not be naive -- under the circumstances (with such a gross overmatch with the US vs any other military force in the world) I think any person that truely thinks about the moral implications has to realise that we (the American population) are legitimate military targets.
I seem to recall a photo when the Oklahoma bombing took place of a fireman carrying out the body of a (dead?) baby. If $your_favorite_terrorist_group had commited that bombing would you like to tell the parents of that child that he was a legitimate military target? Or maybe if you are (un)lucky you can use that as your rational while you sit on the ground looking at you legs laying across the street.
Personally, I don't want America to become a country that needs to be run under police-state/siege-mentality rules just to keep it's citizens from being bombed/poisoned/plagued.
I agree, and now ther is one less regime to provide bombs/poison/plagues to $your_favorite_terrorist_group.
And did you know about that episode, when the wife of one of the ministers that was imprisoned, pleaded with Saddam to be "returned to her". Saddam obliged: he returned the poor minister, in a bag, cut into many pieces.
Saddam is a fucking sadist, nothing more, really. Not only for how he killed that minister, but also for giving the bag with the remains to the wife - a totally sick person.
That also explains the brutal methods used by his regime, to torture people: putting the hands into acid is just one of the methods in his repertoire.
Sigged!
What brought me to my opinions?
A bitter distrust of all centralizations of authority, periodically reinforced every time I thought I'd found a trustworthy one.
A realization that governments are the ultimate centralization of authority, via their claim to a monopoly on the use of force.
A further realization that sometimes it's better to just have one big bully than a whole bunch of lesser ones.
And a still dawning realization of what it means to be an ape.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It's true no matter which country you live in as well, although America seems to get the more interesting scandals being a super power and all. Lets hope this isn't one of them.
"3,000 cruise missiles. Let's say just three dead for each missile. That's 9,000 dead. Three World Trade Centers. Impressive. None of these people attacked America." --Gwynn Dyer, CBC
American audience"...Saddam has also replaced his military with a civilian
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
in spite of all that the US used to consider him an ally.
e gi me.change/
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/09/30/sproject.irq.r
and, as usual, slash has fucked up the link, take out the space in 'regime'
and, you'd probably like to have all this referenced and footnoted. so, here ya go!
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.h tml
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
You weak minded people have been easily bent by the French, German, and Chinese companies that do business in IRaq.
In the words of Don Vito Corleone, "It's not personal. It's business.
I remember a piece about that last night. Good example of errors in judgement.
I also remember Colin Powell and Gen. Schwarzkopf discussing whether to press on to Baghdad. Schwarzkopf said he was 24 hours away from being in the heart of Baghdad. However both Powell and Schwarzkopf felt they had achieved the military and political goals and any further fighting would result in more loss of life on both sides. They also said that the combat was starting to get very ugly. I remember pbs had a clip of a US helicopter firing on soldiers walking in the desert at night using Infrared. If they had shown that to the public, there probably would have been outrage.
Whats interesting to note is that an aide to Saddam who has defected said that at that at that time Saddam felt that his regime was over and that allied tanks would be in Baghdad in hours. He was a beat man. Then H.W. Bush announced a cease fire, and then the aide said Saddam's morale went from 0 to 100. He later said that he had a "victory" over the allies.
-An American Revolutionary
- Overused phrases (-1 Troll)
That is
- Overused phrases (-1 Redundant)
When I get modded "over-rated" for a comment that had 1 point, I'd say the moderator was pretty confused....
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
I find it disturbing that I have yet to see the media reporting Iraqi civillian casualties. I have heard reports of anti-Saddam protests (though I wonder if any of the country supports him?)
Perhaps the most disturbing thing I've seen from this war was the picture of the Iraq defense ministry after it had been attacked (it was the first target on Wed. night). From what was left of the building's burning skeleton, I estimated the building to be 14 stories tall, and 'cubic' in shape. When I saw those pictures, I knew nobody in that relatively large building had a chance of surviving. Many innocent people were in that building. More disturbing were the reports that 'bunker buster' bombs had been used against the target. And this was just a thumbnail on CNN.com. Not once was it shown on TV, and yet they have the audacity to (re)play the fottage of the horrible events of 9/11.
Destroying buildings so that Saddam can't use them is one thing. Killing every person inside them is another. Even at that, I don't think that destroying buildings is very effective. Unless we rebuild them, Iraq will need to rebuild many many buildings to provide shelter for its citizens.
I don't remember the war in Kosovo ever being this violent. Dropping bombs in the country's most populous city isn't exactly civillian-friendly. If the citizens hate Saddam so much, why cant we just walk in to the city? (Would certainly involve casualties on our side.... which is more important 1 American who is here volluntarily or 10 Iraqis who don't have a choice?)
I'm sad to say that there is no such thing as a perfect war. Unfortunately, that's what the media wants you to think.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
I'm talking both sides, mind you, pro-war and anti-war. Having spent my share of time up close and personal with the "shock and awe" of combat, I can say from first hand experience that war is extraordinarily serious business, business that requires extremely careful consideration before action.
And having seen, again first hand, the results of a tyrannical maniac, I have a very good understanding of the necessity of fighting from time to time.
However, I'm not going to weigh in on the pros or cons of this war in this forum simply because there are an appalling number of blithering idiots who don't seem to have a basic understanding of international (or national) political and military relationships and necessities.
Instead, I'd suggest that just about every person participating in Slashdot discussions do some studying on the real-world political and social situations that exist around us. Instead of spouting off the typical line of what we should do, perhaps it's better to consider what we can do. There is a significant difference, particularly when viewed in a global context.
Perhaps, then, a few pro-war activists will find that there is less of a need to fight and a few anti-war activists will find that sometimes it's necessary to shoot now and then.
-h-
We should have finished it during the last war with Iraq.
That would kind of go against the mandate of the coalition, wouldn't it? It was about throwing Iraq out of Kuwait.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
According to this article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Iraqi defectors have reported that Saddam's son Uday "mercilessly beats girls as young as 12 on the soles of their feet if they refuse to sleep with him, Iraqi defectors said today."
Like father like son. This just underscores how corrupt and abusive Saddam's regime is, and it shouldn't be terribly surprising. It's a pretty stomach-turning article for a major newspaper, and not for the squimish.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
After watching this I felt awful that the people of Iraq have who have had to endure fear for so long and I felt I was fortunate to be an American.
The funniest part of all this is that Americans are feeling so good about themselves for solving problems that they themselves created. Where do you think Saddam got his chemical weapons from? During the Iran and Iraq war it was US that supplied Iraq with huge quantities of chemical weapons to fight Khomeni. ("He was such a nice guy then. Dunno what happened to him after that.." Right?)
And of course everyone knows that the Taliban also were empowered by the US during the Afghanistan Soviet war. ("They were fighting the damn commies. They needed all the help they could get.")
I just wish the American politicians simply said that we are attacking Iraq for oil and to win the next elections rather than making these kind of fucked up excuses. Frankly I think it is far more understandable if the US admits that it is doing this only for self interest. The saddest part is the kind of crap that they feed their own population about these half baked altruisms and the chunk of morons like the parent-poster who believe this shit.
I come from a country where, like every where else, the politicians are full of crap. But thank God we know that they are full of it, unlike the Americans.
So What?
The people that are suffering the bombing are civillians.
Anti-war protesters don't give a shit about Saddam, it's an assassin like Bush.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One thing is exporting oil, the other is having oil resources.
Iraq is the country with more oil the sources in the World.
Go and get informed, please.
Sad...There are people on those buildings.
Sadam, and all the guilty people are in bunkers. Iraqi Civillians are poor and can't afford a bunker, so they will be who will suffer most the bombing!!
Good then, the propaganda works. Of course i am not saying all the above things about saddam are not true they obviously are, but the PBS documentary did not show all the suffering that the first gulf war and the years of sanctions have caused. Also they did not note that #6 happened essentially with Bush senior's ok.
Neither did they show any real indication that the iraqis actually want the americans to invade them. I have read several independant correspondants who lived in iraq and it seems the answer is definately no.
Since the Frontline documentaries were created by many journalists from many countries and from former Iraqi citizens, I fail to see how the American government is feeding me anything. These arent half truths made from conjecture, but well documented facts from publicised documents and resources. Its a factual account of history.
Before you start trying to say all the facts are falsified, why dont you read the documentaries and find out what they say and what the sources are?
A war about oil? Im sure oil is a piece of this war, along with many other things, but Ive not seen anything to convince me it is only about oil. Rather I have seen how history has shown how dangerous this regime has been to Kuwait, Iran, and the citizens of Iraq and how much of a threat it can be in the future.
I suppose next we'll be discussing how America never really went to the moon in the 60's.
-An American Revolutionary
Remember that McVeigh dated a woman that was killed in Waco. Chances are her two kids (also killed in Waco) were reverends but there is a slight chance that the ATF killed McVeigh's kids for no good reason. That changes attacks on the govt from 1st degree murder to simply revolt aginst an opressive goverment. The other people were just stupid for working in an office place that was shared by known target of several hundred groups that are with in a few hours drive. Some of the destruction was a result of bombs the ATF had locked up inside the building. Google for usenet for that day. There are some very intersting reports. The US has done its best to make sure that a new generator of Iraqi soldiers aren't very stong. Most of the current army were under 10 years old at the time of the last war and their growth patterns are slower than average. Also according to US rules used in Serbia, banks and finacnce centers are military targets so by the US's own rules, the WTC was a dual use target. Be careful what you ask for when you want things to be fair.
anyone who doesn't understand this action against Iraq is exactly what osama wants isn't paying attention.
America is now bin laden's bitch.
Bearing in mind #2, #5, and #6 If I were an Iraqi under this regime, I would be burning American flags and tell any reporter that I didn't want the Americans in Iraq either.
-An American Revolutionary
Like it or not,it would still be true =( I think "not like it" was the whole point. Probably wouldn't be much fun telling some Iraqi parent their child was just 'collateral damage' either, but there has been an aweful lot of them and will be more. It works both ways unfortunately....
Saw the same program and it changed my opinion.
I still don't agree with ignoring the UN but I now feel that since we are there we can make a positive change in the country and I feel alot better about the war in general.
Also I realize this is about democratizing the Middle East -- Which I'm sure is wrong on many levels - but it does play into 911 and you know you can disagree but these autocracies in the arab world are producing more fanatics than anything else and if nudging political change in those countries is going to change that -- even if its not our place -- I understand the bigger picture.
The only way bush can win my vote though is if forces an Israeli Palestine peace based on 1967 borders and deploys UN troops to keep the peace - I swear that would end terrorism as we know it - I just don't think Bush being pro-Sharon as he is will do it
Looks like this may be a holy war after all. "Shekinah" means the presence of God." Shock and awe? More and more, every day.
The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.
For all of you Americans and British who disagree with the war. The fact that you can dissent publicly on this great forum (mod up) without the threat of death by your government is one great reason for you to reasses your view of the war. If you were Iraqi and you were caught dissenting with the great one (Hussein), make no mistake, you would be killed brutally. There is a possibility that your family would be killed as well. I heard an Arab saying "the enemy that you know is better than the enemy that you do not know." What this says to me is that the good people of Iraq have been petrified for so long by this tyrant that they are willing to live under all the threats of violance and misery because they cannot fathom living under a government that is based upon freedoms. They could not fathom posting dissenting views to such a public forum.
LEPP
Or otherwise, is he pretending to be dead and actually in hiding somewhere so we'll think we've won?
All you have proved is that each of these points are argueable. By all sides. But taking the list as a whole you must come to a conclusion, America is not THE moral high ground of the world. America is just as icky as any other country (except maybe, Andora? Malta?). "That's what you get when Europe's inability to act makes you be world policeman." What give us the right to be such? Our "policing" all through the Cold War consisted of us promoting some stupid pro-capitolism adgenda. We don't have the right to force our policy on anyone. We forget our own origins everytime we push our version of "what is right and just" on another country. Remember we were founded by a PEOPLES revolt. Taking that, if another country (say iraq) doesn't want its rulership, let them rebel. If they can't, they don't want freedom enough.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Why is this strike in Iraq News for Nerds?
Do they have such a booming IT-industry or something?
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
..thanks wow, a truly superior post, thanks for finding it, thanks for posting it. It's one of those things that should be printed out by the thousands and handed out all over. The parallels are amazing.
I've been watching this creeping fascism for decades now, ever since as a teen I realised that a President had gotten whacked, and that the "whomever did it's" had gotten away with it. A president who was determined to not fight illegal weird wars, who was returning the nation to honest money and getting us away from the federal reserve scam money, a president who saw the oil sisters raping everyone and getting away with it and was determined to stop it, a president who with his brother was determined to break the back of real organized crime after over 30 years of the nations federal "police" boss ignoring it and claiming it didn't even exist, and a president who was truly interested in having all people inside the nation be equal citizens. All those reasons and more, these fascists used as the excuse to whack him, and using their power inside high governmental agencies and the military and in international business, they avoided any penalty for their crime, just got away with it.
Since then, all the actions of this government point to a "shadow government" of fascists who year by year have taken over, until now they make up almost all of the "government" at any managerial and decision making level, and the people under them too scared or too brainwashed to resist this...junta is the word. It really is a junta, that's the best word that fits and what happened, a slow speed stealth junta takeover.
Soldiers used as mercenaries, rubber stamp bribed yes men play acting at being "elected representatives", so called "judges" coming from one of the two controlling organized crime ubergangs, and now an executive branch that is going for broke, no more pretenses needed, no more silly "rights" nonsense, just conmplete and total "command and control".
The bad part is, how many brainwashed sieg heilers we have now, same as "back then" when the bulk of another nation got faked out.
Learn from history or repeat, looks like we are repeating this go-around. Too bad.
Well, let's just hope that the soldiers go on strike too......
Or how America never really imposed sanctions on Iraq in the 80's and 90's that killed over half a million innocent people. Yep, what will they think up next? Stupid kids.
No. No. I just can't do it. I thought I couldn't stoop any lower and here I am still trying.
Mod me down. I know better but can't stop myself.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
I think Microsoft has been on strike since they were founded. Or rather they have been participating in a "sit down". Or rather a "sit down and write crapware".
Pentagon officials have confirmed that this is "A-day" for war, presumably the so called "Shock & Awe" mentioned by the White House earlier.
I am neither shocked, nor awed, that the United States has picked a fight with the weakest opponent it could find that could be linked, even so tenuously, to the 9/11 attacks.
Watching the amazing barrage of million dollar missiles killing the enemy "army", and murdering innocent civilian women, children and elderly, I cannot help but be swept up by the majesty unfolding before us. Yes, I shall now go and affix a "Protestors Shut Up!" sign above the flag on my giant SUV.
I hope we kill all the terrorists!
But I have a couple questions.
1. What happened to that Bin Laden guy?
2. How many innocent people were killed by US sanctions and bombing in the last war with Iraq?
Oh, and I guess I might have one more question...
What if there are 5 billion terrorists in the world?
"That's what you get when Europe's inability to act makes you be world policeman." What give us the right to be such?
What gives us the right to be world policeman? With no other superpower in the world, and Europe etc. unwilling to act, the US has a need and a responsibility to prevent the rise of Hitler v2.0 - not only to protect themselves, but to protect the world.
Remember we were founded by a PEOPLES revolt. Taking that, if another country (say iraq) doesn't want its rulership, let them rebel. If they can't, they don't want freedom enough.
Good thing the French didn't think like you during the American Revolution. Or have you forgotten your own origins, too? Just like Iraq now, the US was helped by a superpower - France - into her independence.
I mean, it's not like you elected him or anything!
At least if the mimes protested, the protestors would have shut up.
But they would be three times as annoying.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
>> Whatever reasons the war started what is important to me is that the Iraqi people will probably be better off once all this is over. Sadaam was killing more Iraqi's every year than were killed by Amercans during the Gulf war.
ASSHOLE!
If saddam killed 150000 people per year there would not be much left.
Yes, CNN only showed NICE SURGICAL weapons, but never mentioned that the USA bombed 3 times as much people to hell then amarical soldiers died in vietnam....
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
www.masturbateforpeace.com
We are not asking for a fucking utopian environment. We just want the president to at least pretend that he gives a fuck about the majority of the people that live in his own country: the ones who don't have trust funds and rich parents.
9 years from his past life, of course.
Sincerely,
Shirley McClain
I found this from Google News on Arab News:
My Dear Americans
Tariq A. Al-Maeena, clsencounters@hotmail.com
US President Bush has declared a war on Iraq. He calls it "Operation Iraqi Freedom." In a televised address to the nation he said, "These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign." But the truth is far from it. It is not a war. It is willful and premeditated murder, and should be dubbed Operation Iraqi Slaughter.
With each weapon of mass destruction landing in Iraq, Bush is condemning thousands of innocent Iraqis to death. And his stated purpose? To set them free of tyranny. But the horrors of what Bush has unleashed on the civilians of Iraq will undoubtedly leave few of them around to enjoy the so-called freedom Bush so grandly envisages.
The preliminary missile and bombing attacks on Iraq were just a taste of what will soon be unleashed on a weary and helpless population. As the US secretary of defense grandly announced in Washington last Thursday, "What will follow will not be a repeat of any other conflict. It will be of a force and scope and scale that is beyond what has been seen before."
Hundreds of cruise missiles, to give just one example, are to be launched in the first days of the attack. Those who survive the initial onslaught will be struggling to survive in cities from which there is no escape, and in which the water supplies, the sewage systems, and the electrical grids, have been deliberately destroyed. Diseases will be rampant, and death multi-fold.
American and British forces will use thousands of depleted uranium (DU) shells -- widely regarded by 1991 veterans as the cause of Gulf War syndrome as well as thousands of child cancers in present-day Iraq -- to batter their way across the Kuwaiti-Iraqi frontier. The long-term health effects of this invasion will not be determined for decades.
And once the soldiers are in combat, you will be expected to unite behind the war. Images showing "smart bombs" exploding while Mr. Rumsfeld assures you that civilian casualties are being kept to a minimum will dominate the TV screens of a country far removed from the horrors.
You can be assured too that you will be spared the bloody realities of the dead and wounded of Iraq, as the human tragedy unfolding in Iraq will be told in numbers, in abstractions, in brief video clips, and not in the stories of real human beings, real children, real mothers and fathers. But remember that those abstractions were living flesh and blood.
And in defending their purpose to continue with this mass slaughter should any horrific incident be exposed, your government will be sure to pacify your consciences with apologies such as: "The death of this family was an accident," "We apologize for the dismemberment of this child," "This was an intelligence mistake," "A radar malfunction" -- and perhaps even some more imaginative ones.
Then the US will conveniently find the weapons of mass destruction that supposedly provoked this bloody war. In the journalistic hunt for these weapons, any old rocket will do.
Why? To get rid of Saddam, a tyrant, a threat to the world? To defend ourselves? To destroy his mighty arsenal? Then how come the rest of the world, much closer to Iraq, does not want war? If indeed he had such an arsenal under his control, shouldn't we wonder why he isn't using it now, when he risks being destroyed himself?
Why, for God's sake, this sudden urgency to create a threat where hardly any existed? Why were the inspections not allowed to continue? Was anybody being threatened during the inspection process? Were bodies being blown to bits? Just a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.
Or is it that Bush, in pursuit of his own agenda, was afraid that a vote against war by the Security Council would have formally declared the United States
Also, if you replace "retarded 11 year old kid" with "neighborhood bully", then it might be more accurate. When I was growing up, we had a bully, too. One day he was in the midst of beating the crap out of my brother when the bully's older brother came out and beat the crap out of HIM. "How's it feel to get beat up? How's it feel to have someone bigger than YOU beat you up?" He didn't bully us for a good long while after that. (And ever notice that the people who scream and yell about the US being a big bully are the people that.. well.. we don't allow to bully their own people either? See Serbia, etc).
First the critique, then I will get to my opinions. Bear with me, please.
What an idiotic analogy. These analogies never work! Why don't you go along further in your analogy and tell the story of how you got 3-4 big kids from your block, bought machine guns and went after the bully? Did your group, then, go into the bully's classroom and start firing your machine guns and throwing hand-granades while at the same time claiming you were trying to minimize collateral damage and casualties? What a bunch of crap!
Of particular importance is your last statement also:
And ever notice that the people who scream and yell about the US being a big bully are the people that.. well.. we don't allow to bully their own people either? See Serbia, etc
Huh? Have you been ignorant of world events all the time? U.S. has been bullying anybody it could during the latter half of the past century whether it was in the U.S. strategic reasons or its money interests, or both. Most of major ones have turned out to be wrong as we are finding out past few years. But that's a whole separate discussion. As far as the nations that "bully" their own people, China comes first to my mind. They openly executed demonstrators who chose to express their disagreement with the government. What did U.S. do about that? Wait, they welcomed China into the WTO? Also talk about North Korea - starving people while government takes all "humanitarian aid" and puts it into nuclear bomb research to blackmail the world. At the same time executes any defectors and holds people in concentration camps. Hell they already *have* the nuclear missile and already *are* threatening the world. Has everybody been asleep all this time? Or is it just not the priority of the propaganda?
If you do want to discuss the actual circumstances then ditch the lame analogies, they only promote flames. I do believe that Bush Jr. had enough interests, both strategic and monetary coincide that he would try to "get" Saddam. First, there was 9-11, then the escalation of Israel-Palestine conflict, and then there's oil. It has nothing to do with the U.N. resolutions, or inspectors, or threat to the U.S. from Iraq missiles that can go 10s of miles and hit targets out of whack. As far as the U.N. resolutions go, North Korea, China, Russia, Iran, Israel, and others have pretty much at best ignored them. As far as the threat goes, North Korea is much more dangerous at this point than Iraq - they actually possess a nuclear missile that can reach the U.S. mainland, and, I repeat, are already threatening.
Back to Iraq situation - like it or not, the U.S. is the superpower, and it does act when interests such as above do come together. I didn't really expect the U.S. to beg the U.N. so much. It didn't work in 1991, didn't need it for Serbia, why would it work now? Permanent members with the power of veto have too much vested interest in Iraq. France has the oil deal and other interests in the region, and Russia makes a lot of money off of Iraq. Why would they, all of a sudden, want to give up their advantages and hand it over to the U.S.? Of course, it wouldn't have worked unless there is some hidden agenda that is being pursued that most don't see.
What I do get most mad and upset about is how this war is being marketed, at least to the U.S. population in the media. I mean all the talk about "evil man" and "good guys", and some wei
The reason the Iraqi Army has not done so well is simple. They learned all their tactics from the Russians who taught them to retreat, retreat, retreat until the snow comes, then attack.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
Then why wern't there protests of this scale in Bush's invasion of Afghanistan? Why do people who supported GW bush's war against .af not support a similar action against .iq?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I was wondering what has convinced fellow Slahshdoters to take the stance they have now on the state of affairs with Iraq?
For me it was the Frontline documentaries on PBS which focused on the history of Saddam.
Now i know why the US is going to war:
It takes only a single TV show to convince a US citizen that killing people is actually a good thing.
WTF? Can we please get a coherent statement. Now to dignify your ramblings with a response. Fair? I don't want fair. There is only one thing I want or expect from my government, and that is to know that when I am going about my business I dont have to worry about some idiot who has decided that America is the source of all his problems gassing/poisoning/bmbing me. If this means that we have to go out and bust some skulls I have no problem with that.( as Mel Brooks said "Its good to be the king" )
weirdo ac
Answer: the U.N. is an impotent organization.
Let's get real about the oil thing; we aren't going in there to steal their oil. Did everybody catch that? I'll say it again if anybody missed that point... We could have stolen their oil after the first gulf war, but instead we sent almost everybody home.
I have NO doubt that we intend to BUY a bunch of oil from Iraq once Saddam is gone... and why not? There is no other way for the Iraqis to fund the rebuilding of their country. Also, the whole "oil embargo" thing that Saddam previously threatened is totally bogus; many of those OPEC nations depend on income from petroleum exports to run their governments. They are just as dependent on us as we are on them (speaking as an American). Oil embargo? That's mutually assured economic destruction.
I've spent a significant amount of time in the middle east; there is very little in most of those vast deserts that's worth anything, besides oil. Countries like Saudi Arabia don't even allow any sort of tourism (apart from the muslims that travel there for the Haj)... if you're not a muslim, you can't even get into the country; they simply DON'T issue tourist visas. If it wasn't for oil, many of those countries would be economic non-entities.
We're hell-bent on preserving their oil fields; that's a no-brainer. Not only does it prevent environmental catastrophe, but we can then BUY the oil from the new Iraqi government... and what's wrong with that? Commerce... they sell, we buy, everybody wins.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Everyone who is not German, who does not have a connection to German soil through blood, and who does not share in the moral and genetic superiority of the German people.
Pretty big fucking difference, if you ask me.
BTW, you might keep in mind that all of those 'irrelevant little facts' are what make up the big picture. Idiot.
And when N. Korea pulls out of the armistice as a result of Bush pre-emptively attacking Iraq, we'll be on three fronts.
And that will bring on the rest of the world, since N. Korea has a nuclear weapon.
Like I said before, is everyone ready for WW III?
Jory
Ah, yes, I've heard this one. We're actually going to war to get rid of Saddam and his regime. The fact that he's an Arab is irrelevant.
Thank you for the biggest laugh I have had all day. it warms my heart to know that in this day and age, with all the info available for free, someone can be so uninformed about basic geopolitics.
The fact Saddam is an Arab is central! The US wants a tame, US-friendly Arab client state (a) to secure strategic resources (b) to act as a regional bulwark against Islamic findamentalism (c) to reduce reliance on increasingly unstable Saudi Arabia (d) to demonstrate to the world what happens to its enemies (e) to reassure US citizens the US can protect its people against crazy Arabs
That is why you why you are fighting Saddam!
Turkey is eyeing up the spoils of war. The nascent experiement in Kurdish democracy is about to be snuffed out.
But so long as (rich, oil sodden) Iraq might become democratic, it's fine to stamp on the (poor, oil-empty) Kurds.
Perhaps Saddam doesn't want to facilitate the spin being put on this illegal war? CNN cuts reports of Arab responses to the war and it shows scenes of peace and quiet in Bagdhad while buildings are burning.
... The clearly stated intention of the American government is to crush any opposing leadership, destroy the UN, and control the world through economic and military might.
An interesting discussion would be, what can/should the world do to punish America for this? They are flouting international law, they are intentionally discrediting and destroying the UN, and they are bombing a foreign country with nuclear waste with no provocation whatsoever.
In a simple world, it would be clear that we should demand that the US withdraws, destroys its weapons of mass destruction, and cease selling arms around the world. But it's not a simple world. Every member of the older generation has massive amounts of their retirement money tied up in the US, so they're not going to be inclined to do anything too disruptive. Facist America (aka Corporate America - learn) has its fingers in the industry of most nations around the world, and has always been pretty brutal about using its economic power to crush opposition. So doing something about America would require most countries to seize American ownership of business and infrastructure within their own nations and redistrbute it, while also dealing with the political and military aspects of the task... an expensive logistical nightmare.
That said, America is an ever growing threat to world peace. Take a look at www.newamericancentury.org
So what do we do? Cause it beats the hell out of me.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
To quote WRH:
" Where is this fierce and capable enemy we were all told we had to destroy before they destroyed us? Where is the terror that we were told by our leaders we had to fear? All I see are helpless men with outdated equipment being slaughtered by a supertpower that raises the flag of conquest over their graves."
What if the Iraqi people don't want to pay the price of being "liberated"? What if they just want to be left alone, just like the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians did.
Does anyone here realize that a certain middle east country has just buldozzed over a US citizen, and shot another. Isn't any of you going to take a stand against a deliberate attack on one of your own people? (They ran over her, backed up, and did it again) Hint: it's not an "Islamic" country either.
What as Iraq done to you? They used to have weapons of mass destruction. Great! So does China! Not to mention that the US government has used WMD's on it's own people (Waco) does this mean Canada would be justfied in invading the States? Why not? The same logic works doesn't it?
Oh, so YOU don't think so? Well, the rest of the WORLD definitely DOES!
You call us ungrateful? Read "Oliver Twist' and you'll understand why.
If you support violence, you are, at least partly, violent person
If you support "peace", you are, at least partly, responsible for the 2 million people killed by Saddam.
A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force.
Yep, that's the only difference, all right. Never mind the part about intentionally blowing up school buses, or hijacking planes full of grannies and 2 year old girls. Just the absence of an air force.
Another hint: Using a "source" that's a web page on AOL doesn't exactly cover you with credibility.
Re-organising the economy is not going to be a serious problem.
Let's see. The EU, the planet's biggest aid donor, isn't going to pony up, after the US practically told them to f*** off. France has almost said as much.
Iraq is one of the most corrupt countries in the world. Expect gangsterism to take fairly rapid root, as it has in Serbia.
but even here Iraq is probably a good test case to see whether democracy can work in the middle east.
Iraq is a potentially *terrible* test case! Ethnic tensions, an artificial country composed of tribes, not nationals. Surrounded by states with an interest in a weak Iraq. It's just like post-colonial Africa.
A large part of the country is already democratic (the Kurdish north), and everyone is tired of war.
Turkey is *right now* in the process of invading North Iraq, using the war against terror as a cover story. No democracy for the Kurds any more!
and the number of people being killed in any ongoing strife is now down to a few here and there, as opposed to the thousands here and there that we saw before the invasion.
1000 US troops just this last day fought a pitched battle against Taliban forces in Afghanistan. That war isn't over!
Maybe Europe is too even-headed to run around installing 'regimes', only to topple them when the turn despotic, or stop doing what their told.
I'm getting bored with the Hitler/Saddam comparison, I see no simularity between them, at all. Yes, Saddam is an ass, yes, he's a bad guy, but Hitler? Appeasment didn't work ONCE, count the number if occurances carefully, once. SO STOP USING IT AS A BLOODY EXAMPLE! Saddam didn't declare war on us or our allies this time, Hitler did (after pearl harbor [the real reason we joined WWII, not the Jews]). Sadam has shown no further external hostility, meaning HE IS NOT A DIRECT THREAT.
If the world was concerned, you'd think they'd do something, no? But a majority of the world doesn't agree, hell most of our so-called allies don't agree, their only in the game for their own self-interest. And then their Britan... Ahem.
Yeah, the french HELPED, after we revolted. The Iraqi people haven't revolted, the Iraqi people will not be allowed to found their government, in their own cultural/historical image. We will force an oil exporting, capitalist economy down their throat, along with some icky democracy, which WILL NOT WORK. That region has never seen a democracy, democracy is ALIEN to that region, alien to that culture. Capitolism and Democracy is not some sociopolitical panacea.
And, I do not forget my origins, I am a son of Prussian draft dodgers. My ancestors escaped a superpower to avoid silly wars.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
The US wants a tame, US-friendly Arab client state
...to act as a regional bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism
I agree with you on this point, as well as:
However, my response was intended to mean that we are not attacking Saddam simply because he is Arab (as the Islamic fundamentalists would like many to believe). Yes, we want a "democratic" Iraq to be a moderating force in the Middle East, but achieving this goal requires removing Saddam, whether he is Arab, Anglo, Muslim, Christian, Martian, etc.
Simple:
1. bomb
2. Invade
3. Reconstruct
4. leave the place but leave that military base in Faw Peninsula behind
5. that little military base is surprise surprise legal
There is no comparison between Bush and Hitler in that post.
There IS a description of historical similarities.
Now I don't believe for a moment that Bush is going to cancel 2004 but that is not to say SOME OTHER NEW form of nationalistic-aggressive-elitist politics isn't arising, with its OWN dangers and destructiveness.
History is a warning, not a predictor.
It WILL be "Shock and Awe" when we see the bill for financing this war!
Actually it is the title of a book written by a bunch of military theorists who were advocating it ias a strategy. The principle author was on one of the news channels. No I don't know which one.
Democrat delenda est
$$
Quite how it went from 80% against war to 53% for war in a matter of days, after the parliament vote picked up a few more votes against war, and Blair and Bush effectively bypassed the UN security council to go it alone, I don't know. I do know that truth is the first casualty of war though. I still don't know a single person who supports this war.
Just been watching the TV. Lots of reports of fiarly heavy fighting. Now were are the bodies? May reports of X number of surrenders of Iraqi soldiers. Mnay reports of the two US soldiers killed. Where are the reports of the number of people they killed?
It seems that TV new coverage is not covering the story of the peeps on the other side of this conflict.
I know that this is an almost impossible task due to lack of access to these people but I would have thought that counting bodies would not be that hard.
Is it that the press do not want to depress thier viewers with such unplesent news?
matfud
Memory in particular. I seem to remember learning a few things in history classes that have something to do with the actual effects that war has on people and politics. I seem to remember something about the rise to power of the Nazi party and the way the German people went along with it. I seem to remember something about what happens when you let a country start invading other countries preemptively, detaining people of a certain race etc. Another image from history classes which comes to mind is that of a troupe of Japanese soldiers marching towards Hiroshima with their melted eyeballs running down their faces like tears. I seem to remember a few things about the last dozen or so wars, operations and police actions the US has been involved in, images of children torn limb from limb, entire populations displaced, cities devistated, explosions and fire and blood.
War is hell. There is no such thing as a just war. There's just war. It's always hell. It always has been, and it always will be. I read somewhere that half the population of Iraq is under 16. Do you think the bombs are smart enough to tell how old their target is?
"But it's OK, see the children bleed, it'll look great on the TV." --Pink Floyd.
Others have mentioned the PNAC document which outlines the real reasons for the war, but I knew all of that before I read it. Has anyone read any history? The US has been doing this kind of shit for most of the last century. They were never even remotely justified before. Do you think they possibly could be now? Do you imagine that any of the propaganda being used to justify the war is anything but lies and spin? Sure, Saddam is an evil bastard. The world is full of them. If we went to war every time an evil basterd was in charge of a country, we'd be at war all the time... oh yeah... never mind...
One of the great lessons of WWII was, just because your enemy is evil, that doesn't mean that you are good. Evil can fight evil too.
This is not a game of Doom, kids, this is real life. People are dying, dying horrible gruesome deaths, and we sit here and discuss it like it was a football game. It's horrible. War can never be justified, never be condoned, never be allowed by people of conscience.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Of course this was back in 1983 when he was OUR ruthless murdering bastard.
'Retard you are a.' Its a riddle. See if you can figure it out jackass.
Sometimes you've just gotta smack some people.
Maybe, but you don't have to smack his mother, his cousin's whole family, his entire neighborood, a significant fraction of the architecture in his city, their power and water, and dump hundreds worth of tons of radioactive armaments into his environment. That's what the fuss is about.
"Everyone who is not German, who does not have a connection to German soil through blood, and who does not share in the moral and genetic superiority of the German people."
Excuse me, but have you ever been to Germany? Or is all your knowledge about Germany from "a copy of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"?
As a foreigner/ausländer who has been living in Germany for years I must admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. I have witnessed more racism and "fucking foreigners" in Boston, SF, or London, or most other European countries than I have ever done in Germany.
The guilt for what happened 60 years ago is still running very deep within the German people born in the forties, fifties and sixties. (Even if they had nothing to do with it.) And for them to cast stone and name anybody inferior because they are not German is not very likely. It is rather amazing to witness how many Germans are ashamed of the fact that they are German; totally ignoring the tremendous accomplishments achieved within the last 60 years.
And as for the White Rose (Die Weiße Rose), maybe it would be a good idea to check another source than "a copy of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". Die Weiße Rose was started by Hans and Sophie Scholl, brother and sister. Sophie had just about started her University education in Munich when, some 6-8 weeks later, she, her brother and some other students (medical most of them) issued the first "White Rose Flyer" ("Flugblätter der Weißen Rose").
Not exactly "intellectuals who were, or had been, in positions of authority".
The students behind Die Wieße Rose are nowadays considered to be freedom fighters who died for their beliefs. As they should be. Especially since they were in Hitlers own backyard; Bavaria.
To claim that they were merely pissed off intellectuals is pretty pathetic.
If you would care to go beyond "a copy of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" you can visit the remembrance site at the Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich, Ludwigstraße. (Take the subway, parking is impossible.)
If the trip is too long, there's a couple of recommendable books about the subject:
> This nation would not even exist if not for the French
> during Revolutionary War. And they also helped out the
> Union side during the Civil War.
And you say that last part like it was a good thing. Some of us know enough of the history of the War of Northern Aggression to realize we 'owe' them for that.
Democrat delenda est
> The truth will come out sooner or later, and eventually some one will put it into a coherent package. Don't look for it on live television...
The truth will never (almost never) come out. Winners write history. So what we'll know is who's winning at the moment that the book (or online book or whatever) is published.
This post might get deleted from the forum, or may just get moderated down to zero by american moderators. In any case, by the time you finish reading I hope you will atleast start judging this on its merits.
The reason I am posting this is because there have been so many comments here, on TV and radio about the bravery of American (and british?) men and women, who are of course the bravest in the world. But look at the facts.
The majority of iraqi soldiers fighting this war are holding on to their ordinary machine guns, with plain old fashioned bullets. No laser guided bombs will hit the advancing enemy. No cruise missiles fired from thousands of miles away. No satellite imaging. They can't radio their Air Force for help if something goes wrong, or if they think something might go wrong. Apart from their guns and bullets, they have only their blood, soul and courage.
These are the bravest men in the world. Not the americans. Not the british. But those Iraqi soldiers who will not surrender and are ready to face a certain death.
Bush has called the Iraqi soldiers cowards, becoz they are hiding behind schools and mosques. Now who are the brave ones? The Americans? Who shoot cruise missiles from 1000 miles away???
(In case you think this is propoganda, think about it again.)
From the Middle East.
> Democracy cannot be just about the majority and winning.
But that is where you are wrong. Democracy is just that. Democracy is 51 people voting to piss in the corn flakes of the 49 and the 49 being expected to just sigh and say "It was the will of the majority. We got to voice our opinion and it was indeed a fair vote. Guess we just have to drink the piss now." And that is why the Founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with Democracy, which they rightly deridded as nothing less than Mob Rule. Which is why our Constituition protects (on paper at least, about as effective as a UN resolution) against it by ensuring a republican form of government.
Note small r in republican. The modern Republican Party believes in republicanism/federalism a little more than the original founders (Lincoln the Butcher and his ilk) of the party but they hold the idea in about same regard as the Democratic Party holds democracy; nice to pay lip service to but nothing to change a position over.
Democrat delenda est
One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.
You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.
FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.
Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.
OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.
Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.
All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a miracle could save it at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.
Fact: *BSD is dying
> Saddam started out as a hitman for the radical Ba'ath Party and he participated in the failed assassination attempt on the country's strong man, Gen. Kassem, in 1959.
Now let's make a list of all the crimes the US government has committed since 1959. How many contries invaded, how many lawfully elected governments overthrown, how many seaports mined, how many villages burned, how many soldiers poisoned with LSD, how much Agent Orange dumped on SE Asia, how many times the National Guard has fired on our own citizens, how many "collateral" casualties in our overseas adventures, how many fabricated "incidents" to justify wars or bombing raids?
Vilifying Saddam for the asshole he is makes great propaganda for a public unsure about the rightness of this war, and the media are pumping it up our asses as fast as they can. But maybe we should insert a bit of honesty about ourselves for the sake of perspective.
Yeah, if there's a Hell then Saddam is going to rot there. But he'll have a lot of American leaders there to keep him company.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Sort of reminds you of Bill Clinton.
What possessed Taco to post a link to a mindless piece of propaganda from CNN? Are you so bankrupt that you look to that network for information, knowing full well that it serves the interests of the US military-industrial complex, which is now underwritten by a US foreign policy which considers nuclear weapons usable? Do you not follow that what we are witnessing is an invasion that grossly and contemptuously violates every tenet of international law, that international jurists have called illegal in every sense of the term, that has repudiated the very institutions whose mandate it is to solve international disputes? I suppose you do not, for we have posters barracking the UN for inaction, when in fact the UN weapons inspectors were interrupted in the midst of a very thorough job. Worse, that post was followed by a series of peurile, underinformed, cynical and completely disconnected comments from Slashdot members who seem either to be acolytes of Rumsfeld or enslaved by the large American news networks. What part of 'objective' and 'unbiased' do you lot not understand? I was horrified to read one poster saying "if we wanted to level the city and kill everybody, we have the capacity to do it much more efficently." What do these people think they're seeing on TV? Entertainment? A dress rehearsal for Black Hawk Down II? You have some explaining to do, Taco.
who cringes every time I hear or read that damnned "Shock and Awe" crap?
Recent polls show about 65-70% of Americans in favor of the war and 50-55% of Bris in favor of the war (significantly more than your 20% figure). Even a few weeks ago, UK support for the war was more in the 30-35% range, not 20%.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
There's a big difference between "attacking America" and attacking American fighter jets that are flying over his Iraq. It's not like he was firing missiles at Boston.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
for a plain jane no flash international news site updated several times a day from sources around the world try http:/www.newsfromtheedge.org
see subject line
Don't forget Rwanda, or the millions of people with AIDS in Africa, or the suffering of the caste in India. The US is responsible for ALL the pain on the planet today. :-)
Seriously though who killed the half a million people in Iraq? Saddam killed those people. Get your facts straight. Learn who the real enemy is.
...is one that we hear very infrequently. It's that of the Iraqis who suffer under the regime. If they are pro-war, the world should be, too. Obviously you can't poll in Iraq very easily, but, still, I think figuring out what they would prefer has largely been ignored at least by the anti-war side.
Liberty uber alles.
It's been quite some time since your post and yet oddly, there's been no further mention of it since in any other media. Staying tuned...
We had better hope that they all give up even accounting for superior weapons they have 4 times the number of soldiers we do 400,000 republican guard and professional millitary alon with 600,000 reservists. I do not care if the fighting continues we could see masive casualties on both sides. Also I think Saddam has something tricky planned I can not put my finger on it though.
If the US decided to follow the advice of the peace movement, what would happen to the Iraqi people? Would peace and love flow through the country of Iraq? Would the Iraqi people be able to return to their wonderful lives under the just rule of a benevolent ruler Saddam the Wonderful? Would the UN have the will and authority to place inspectors back in Iraq? Would inspectors be allowed to enter Iraq without the no-fly zone or the threat of force that President Bush used? What is the real agenda of the peace movement? Can the peace movement handle the truth?
It is apparent most of you have no ideas in your head about international politics, economics, business, taxes, or terrorism. Terrorism can not be stopped by kicking ass around the world, that is what causes terrorism. All I know is I fear for my safety with this war attacks will escalate and people are being caught, I am hear stories from people witnessing attempted terrorist attacks. I am from NJ, the terrorist capital of the world they all live there, on september 11 5mi from my house people were dancing in the streets.
What other countries is the Bush Regime, er, I mean Administration going to bomb Next?
And where is Dubya going to get the money for all the ammo used and still afford a Tax Break, oh, wait a second, I know the answer to that question, It's ALL going to come from social security, him and the rest of the Conservative-republicans have always wanted to get rid of social security, now, they will have that chance.
France gave up all rights to special privileges by taking part in inspections, the main oil exports come from Saudi Arabia , not Iraq. Russia opposes war because Oil prices will drop by a factor of 2 at the end of this war, Russia holding a large quantity of oil does not want their commodity devalued, it would destroy their already failing economy. Mainly it is the fear of America gaining too much power that they oppose the war along with public opinion being against the war. Once America can get bases throughout the world and has control over it own oil supply we are at a great advantage.
By the way the War is ILLEGAL under international law, it is an act of agression, which after WWII became illegal on unmotivated attack on a sovereign nation is illegal. America has no basis for war all agreements are through the UN so they are the only ones allowed to disarm because Iraq's obligation is to the UN not the United States. If it could be proven that the US acted out of self intrest and not to protect itself george bush could be prosecuted, oh wait I forgot Americans do not have to follow international law, can we say Kissinger.
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/World/2020_ira qiwomen030321.html
They are educated. They aren't required to veil themselves. They can work. But these four women from Iraq say they were missing two crucial things in their homeland freedom and dignity
The four women Maha Hussain, Zainab al-Suwaij, Katrin Michael and Roz Rasool told ABCNEWS' Barbara Walters stories that could be punishable by death in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Even Iraqis in the United States are terrified to speak frankly about Saddam's regime, largely because they are terrified of reprisals against family members.
The women are speaking out because they feel they are speaking for the voiceless people living under Saddam's regime.
"We know how it looks like inside Iraq," al-Suwaij said on 20/20. "We saw the torture. We saw our relatives and our friends disappearing day after day."
Human rights groups estimate that at least 290,000 Iraqis have disappeared since Saddam took power 34 years ago. Hussain was just a schoolgirl in Baghdad when the reality of life under Saddam hit home. She recalls riding on a school bus at age 13 and seeing a crowd gathered in the center of the capital, around bodies of men hanging from poles. "I remember the blue faces, the long necks," she said.
Saddam's reign of terror extended far beyond public executions. He established a strategy of brutalizing women in order to control their men. Although the stories these women tell are horrific and difficult to substantiate, they are consistent with a pattern of cruelty toward women documented by various human rights groups.
Routine Rapes, Human Meat Grinders, Chemical Baths
Al-Suwaij knows firsthand how even young girls were imprisoned for what seem to be trivial offenses. Al-Suwaij says she had a 16-year-old cousin who was beaten and tortured with electrical shocks for having written something against the government in her school notebook.
And if a man is a dissident or if a man writes a letter or makes a joke about Saddam, these women said, authorities would rape his wife or female relatives in front of him.
"Rape is used as a tool to humiliate the woman, but to also bring men into submission," Hussain said. To compound the humiliation, authorities would videotape the torture and rape and send the tape to family members.
Saddam's contempt for human rights extended to his well-documented use of poison gas against his own people. The horror of one of those chemical attacks still haunts Michael 16 years later.
"Children, women, men ¦ vomiting, screaming, crying with swollen eyes. Everybody was ¦ screaming, 'We are blind. We cannot see,' " Michael said. She said she still has difficulty breathing, because of her exposure to the gas.
Al-Suwaij has seen the inside of an Iraqi prison, and she describes horrific scenes. She said she was shown "human meat grinders" in which people were shredded and disposed of in a septic tank, and chemical baths in which people were literally dissolved.
"You cannot exaggerate about these things. People were slaughtered," she said.
All four women met earlier this month with members of the Bush administration.
They raised the iss
Most Chinese do not care about human rights. They support Beijing committing the same human-rights atrocities that Baghdad has committed in the last 20 years. The Chinese have killed more than 1 million Tibetans. Chinese soldiers have brutally raped Tibetan nuns.
The American invasion of Iraq should be a precursor to the American invasion of Manchuria. I condemn both the Iraqis and the Chinese.
These pages have been very useful for providing a large # of sources to read about the Iraq war::
Iraq News Sources & Search Iraq new
Actually this is an estimation provided by the Internatianal Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.
You know, this is probably true. But one bad casualty of this war before it even started was that people stopped believing the US and its "coalition of willing" their facts/evidences/stories. The former faith in facts (even though people were suspicious before too) got a severe blow when it became clear that several presented facts (e.g. by Powell for god's sake, he was always seen as someone with integrity until then) were clearly wrong or misinterpreted in a very convenient way.
I'm not saying that Uday isn't a sadist and I'm not saying that this information is probably wrong, but be careful about horror stories being told when a war is going on. It's called propaganda (and it's used by all sides, but you won't hear much about the other side if you don't follow Iraqi TV).
(BTW, who is the owner of the Sydney Morning Herald? Murdoch? If yes, then chances are high that this story is pure propaganda.)
You love the Polish Women.
POLSKA #1!!!!!@!@!@!@!!!!!!!!!!
If the US decided to follow the advice of the peace movement, what would happen to the Iraqi people? Would peace and love flow through the country of Iraq? Would the Iraqi people be able to return to their wonderful lives under the just rule of a benevolent ruler Saddam the Wonderful? Would the UN have the will and authority to place inspectors back in Iraq? Would inspectors be allowed to enter Iraq without the no-fly zone or the threat of force that President Bush used? What is the real agenda of the peace movement? Can the peace movement handle the truth? What was the aim of diplomacy? Disarm Saddam or build a coalition to attack Iraq? What would have happened to the Iraqi people after we disarmed Iraq, but left the murdering tyrant in power? Why did Saddam allow inspectors back into Iraq at the end of 2002? If the US pulled out of Iraq, would the 'peace movement' accept responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of people that Saddam and his minions would rape, torture, and murder?
This is, with all negative reports from the UN inspectors and the lack of convincing US/GB intelligence concerning 'his WMD', a good possibility.
Less likely. If the missiles don't work, how difficult can it be for some well-motivated suicidal Republican Guards to deliver a few buckets of lethal material in South Iraq, spread it there and killing a lot of enemy soldiers?
But that with this argument he would never use them which would make it pointless to have them at all.
Now from this simple naive considerations I would conclude that Hypothesis 1 is must most probable: it is unlikely that Saddam has any WMD.
Now I am absolutely no military expert and neither a politician (I am a scientist who thinks that scientific integrity is fundamentally incompatible with politics and diplomacy). I am very curious about other arguments about this issue.
Why shouldn't the US be able to negotiate with Saddam Hussein? They negotiated with him back in the eighties, when the issue was about supplying Iraq with biological weapons of mass destruction. The US continued selling biological weapons to Iraq, even after the Halabja massacre.
At some point Saddam began to remind me very strongly of Stalin. (This was *before* I knew that Stalin was Saddam's personal hero.) That's when I came to agree that removing Saddam was the right thing, both for Iraq and the world.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Actually, less than half of Americans who were eligible to vote did vote in the 2000 Presidential elections. Less than half of the Americans who did vote voted for George W. Bush. If you're keeping track, that means that less than 25% of Americans who were eligible to vote voted for George W. Bush.
The vote was so close that the results of a few districts in Florida would have decided the election. That's where the scandal came in - Florida's Governor is GW's brother Jeb, and there was quite a bit of doubt as to the validity of the votes in that district. In the end, the Republican-dominated US Supreme Court voted to halt a recount of the votes in Florida, making GW Bush president. There is still a dispute as to whether this was legal, but after 9/11 and all o the ultra-conservative legislation that the Bush administration has passed to fight terrorism (PATRIOT act etc.), not too many people are still arguing about the election.
That's why his opponents in the US call him "the Thief in Chief" (a play on the fact that the President of the US is also the "Commander in Chief" of the US military). Some people are angry about the fact that the US Presidential election process uses a system called the Electoral College to effectively award all the votes from a state to whoever won in just that state, so it is technically possible for the national popular vote (that is, the count of the millions of individual voters' votes) to support one candidate and the electoral college votes to support a different one. That happened in 2000 - the popular vote supported Al Gore (former VP under Bill Clinton), but
As for the war, according to this poll of American support for the war, on February 20, only 34% of Americans thought that the "US has enough international support for the war." 57% said that we should get a second U.N. resolution before taking military action. However, 30% said that we "should" get a second resolution, but if vetoed, we should go ahead with a war if we feel it's the right thing to do. That means that even with a second UN measure vetoed, 63% of Americans polled supported a war.
So, to Americans and foreigners trying to pin this war on Bush, don't. Almost 2/3 of Americans supported going to war even with a veto, even though 3/4 of eligible voters didn't vote for GW Bush.
No you're the ASSHOLE..
FACT: Iraqi civilians will die in this war.
FACT: ORDERS OF MAGINTUDE more civilians have and will continue to die at the hands of Saddam Husein. He's a madman, and apparently your an idiot...
how exactly does one *SHOCK* a neo-stalinist who is content to use US supplied nerve gas "on his own people", has survived multiple assassination attempts ( and the injury he suffered in an assassination he himself attempted early in life ), and that recent unpleasantness in Kuwait?
As for awe, the fireworks display on CNN is pretty lackluster compared to last 4th of July...
Slobo may have been a 'dictator' but he was a democraticaly elected, christian fundementalist as well. In other words, they already had a healthy dose of 'american' ideals. And they were working to push out a muslim minority.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I went to DC with the YAF organization to a conservative conference, who are big Bush supporters, a radical student organization. After being in a room with these people for 10 minutes my first thought was hitler youth. After then visiting the holocaust museum it became more apparent as you went through and saw hitlers propaganda I was correct in my theory. They kept talking about "exterminating" the liberal influences on society by any means necessary, getting rid of undesirables such as homosexuals and feminazis as they were calling them. They also stressed their feelings on gun control and how they should own unregistered guns of the automatic persuasion. I asked them what YAF meant and they jokingly said Young Aryans for Facism, then said young americans for freedom. Oh yeah they like to beat liberals. Many people in the BUSH presidency are involved with this group they were MEMBERS, Dick Cheney was speaking at this event. ZGo check them out at YAF.com I was scared to be in the same room with these people.
The U.N. estimates the death toll from the bombings and their consequences to be in the order of 500.000. This is approximately the number of Iraqi children who have died because of the U.N. sanctions since 1991 (others report higher numbers. Read about it here).
So, before you attempt to justify the bombings, think again. Do you know what the main difference between the European's (esp. the Germans') and the USA's citizens attitude is? The Europeans know that in many cases, a just cause isn't as just as the leaders say and blindly obeying orders is *not* a good excuse for killing people. We learned that during WW2 and thereafter. Apparently, you guys in the U.S. have never learned that lesson.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
We learned that you have to stop a dictator BEFORE he can take over a region, not after.
Oh, in case you where wondering the 3rd infantry of the US is known as the rock of Marne. Why during the battle of the bulge they were fighting with two FRENCH infantries. The GERMANS were sending everything they had left to break the line. The two FRENCH infantries retreated. The 3rd infantry held firm and repelled the last major battle in Europe. Europeans should be pretty darn thankful to all the AMERICANS who are buried in their soil.
One thing that most if not all war supporters seem to forget:
Every country and government wants to disarm Iraq and see Saddam go.
The UN inspectors said that they can disarm the Iraq in several months (9 months, I think). The world (about 190 countries) other than the "coalition of willing" (with only 3 countries sending fighting troops, how "willing" is that?) wants to disarm Iraq, but peacefully. No one likes Saddam Hussein and everybody wants to see him go, but that is not a very convincing reason for a war (there are much worse dictators/governments out there).
What a bizarre statement. You talk about being realistic yet you make this wild assertion. Did you not pay ANY attention in history class?
Let me remind you of when American forces invaded Panama to depose Manuel Noriega (ANOTHER american backed dictator). According to the United Nations the civilian death toll was 500; the Central American Human Rights Defense Commission (CODEHUCA) and the Peace and Justice Service of Panama both claimed between 2,000 to 3000; the Panamanian National Human Rights Commission and an independent inquiry by former Attorney- General Ramsey Clark claimed over 4,000. To you, it seems, the very likely death of 1000s of Iraqis at the hands of Americans is somehow justified but the 1000s of deaths of Iraqis by Saddam is not.
Either that or you are hopelessly and dangerously ignorant or naive.
-CreationLTD
"Our bombs are smarter than the average American. At least they can find Kuwait. "
Boy, that there is one clever sig. Did you have to use a translator to get that together? Or are you naturally that lame?
The drastic differences in those numbers seem to indicate confusion.
You're using examples from technology and military strategy from over 14 years ago. News agencies and documentaries have outlined how different military campaigns are today. Hundreds of planes don't line up like they did over Germany during WW2 and carpet bomb the countryside killing everything in a several mile radius. Payloads are targeted and mapped out as precise as technology today allows. It is more difficult however, and more civilian lives are put at risk, when this regime deliberately embeds its troops and weapons in its own civilian sectors.
It is tragic when any civilian in any country who never picked up a weapon is killed. It's equally as tragic when a dictator slaughters his own countries civilians and half of his political party to maintain his power. But what's would be more tragic would be to allow this regime to continue its operations, and allow it to pick the time when more will die. Whether it is the death of more Iraqis, war with neighboring countries, or the support of terrorism all over the globe.
It's horrible when civilians die; just ask the thousands of fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters of the victims of the WTC.
-An American Revolutionary
The sactions were imposed and enforced by the UN (who by the way has MANY European countries represented). The reason they went on longer than the UN anticipated was that Iraq was not disarming or working with the UN and its representatives. The UN believed this saction would be months long, not years.
Journalists (not just US ones) reported that this regime was using the money it obtained from its oil sales for its own purposes (and illegal ones as the UN weapons inspectors discovered), not for the needs of its people.
Instead of pointing the finger outside of Iraq why dont we start looking at how the money, that was for the people of Iraq, was used by this regime?
-An American Revolutionary
This post points back to my parent. Read and learn about what you're commenting about.
The UN imposed and enforced the sanctions.
The UN had the US as a major enforcer because of its military capabilities. It's one of the few counties would had the resources to help the UN enforce its imposed sanctions.
The US didn't kill half a million people with sanctions, or the UN. This regime did. It had the money from oil sales which was supposed to aid the people. Instead it went into the regime and its illegal activities (as noted by the UN). Let's keep the finger of blame in Iraq, where it belongs.
-An American Revolutionary
Actually it took hundreds of journalists documenting 35 years of death and destruction by Saddam, his party, and his regime to bring me to the conclusion that in order to prevent deaths of the future and prevent mistakes of the past from rising again that we must act today.
-An American Revolutionary
I agree, the only good thing about war is the end. But not just because it means people are no longer shooting at each other, but because USUALLY the outcome has left things better than when it started for the future i.e. England and France aren't speaking German right now.
Wars of this new century will not be as defined as ones of the past. Today's wars will probably be built on perceived responsibilities and morals. Of course morals differ from one person to another, so there will always be debate there.
Do we listen to our morals if they tell us to take a stand or should we turn a blind eye and let countries take care of themselves? If countries support terrorism should we act to prevent or just do damage control? Serious questions...glad I don't have to answer them for the country!
-An American Revolutionary
i know sadam hussen is a world class nightmare. it's not his religon, it's him. i also know that his biggest weapon of mass destruction is his ability to persuade.
but what if the weapons of mass distruction aren't found?
hmmm, i have this image of bush junior being lead away by interpol in handcuffs screaming the same thing over and over again, "sad-ham DOES have weapons of mass destruction!!!".
I make no excuses for the American government, they have made mistakes in the past, both Democrats and Republicans, but what government has never acted unjustly?
I was referring to the government of one man, whose public history shows death and destruction for all that present a threat to his personal power. Whose power goes unchecked by his people who are ruled by fear and intimidation.
As most every man is fallible, this would most likely be the case in any goverment where one individual has all the power with no check and balance system to be held accountable to.
-An American Revolutionary
The point was that dragging Viet Nam and WW II into the argument are red herrings.
There are simply no factual parallels between the two. If you wish to try and draw some with a little more meat than simply "Remember the Gulf of Tonken resolution" or "terrorists burned the Bund" then you're going to have to do much better than that.
The history that you wish to be studying starts in 1990 with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and continues through 12 rather unglorious years of capitulation and lack of backbone. (And yes, the original Pres. Bush started that cycle.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
You can't simply say "remember this" or "look out about that" you have to show how these items fit into the context of the current issue.
It's a lot like the anti-war people ignorantly waving "No blook for oil" signs. Even the most basic factual analysis will show that it would ahve been much simpler to gain this oil by simply dropping the currently unenforced sanctions. Spending $100+ Billion doesn't gain us anything in that department.
So, I'm not saying you can't argue anything you merely have to show how the point that you are attempting to raise is relevant to the current argument rather than simple fear mongering.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
This seems highly dubious to me. Before WWII started, there were a lot more Jews, Russians, Germans, French, British, and even Americans than there were after it was over, whereas if the war had never started in the first place (which was, of course, clearly the Nazi's fault, I'm not saying it wasn't), there would be no reason to even speculate about the French and British speaking German. And if you think that American interferance in foreign affairs has, on the whole, had a positive influence, I suggest you go back and read a little more history, you will find that in the vast majority of cases, they have fucked things up royally.
Wars of this new century will not be as defined as ones of the past. Today's wars will probably be built on perceived responsibilities and morals. Of course morals differ from one person to another, so there will always be debate there.
Moral relativism once again rears its ugly head in this debate. Moral beliefs differ from one person to another, but morals themselves are absolute. There are moral facts. The vast majority of ethical philosophers and religious authorities agree on this. One of them is that WAR IS WRONG. This can be shown by the Socratic method in three easy questions:
1) Q: Is killing wrong?
A: Why, whaddaya know, KILLING IS WRONG. This one's a no-brainer. If you disagree with me on this, I hope I never meet you in a dark ally.
2) Q: Does war involve killing?
A: Why, yes indeed it does. No matter how much you try to minimize casualties, war involves killing pretty much by definition.
3) Q: Does the end justify the means?
A: This is the point in the argument where they will try to fool you. Don't buy it. The end does not justify the means for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that you cannot possibly know that the means you propose will lead to the ends you seek. The common way to put this is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So the answer is NO.
ERGO: WAR IS WRONG. And anyone who believes otherwise is wrong too. This is not just my opinion, this is not open to debate, this is a MORAL FACT.
War mongers always use convoluted arguments, villainization, and propaganda to convince you that somehow war can be justified, mitigated, or otherwise made right, but it's not. Don't listen to them. They are wrong.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
"... Just look at FOX, they are the pinnacle of non-biased journalism. "
Yes, they are the most balanced: keeping to the center while the others go left-wing.
"The US media *NEVER* lies and never provides only a one-sided view of an issue."
As a whole, the media cannot present a one-sided view: there is always an alternative view to whatever view is presented. That is what you get when you have such increasing de-centralization with thousands of voices involved.
I think I should address this question as well. No, you should not turn a blind eye when something terrible is happening. You should oppose it with all your might. However, you should do so in some way which does not involve killing people. If someone tries to convince you that they should solve any problem (including terrorism) by killing people, you shouldn't listen to them. They are wrong. You should tell them to find some other way to solve the problem. And if they fail, then find some other way, and another and another, as long as they don't involve killing people or committing further atrocities. Two wrongs don't make a right. Your mother should have taught you that.
Serious questions...glad I don't have to answer them for the country!
But you do! All of us have a responsiblity to answer these questions and to speak out about them. Don't just go along with what you see on PBS. "Think for yourself, schmuck!" --Robert Anton Wilson (written in letters of fire on the wall in front of a startled Moses in a painting described in Illuminatus)
The answer is even easy, in this case. Act to prevent terrorism by removing the causes which create terrorism in the first place. If the US were not brutally oppressing and robbing these people, they would probably not be so pissed off. Work to stabilize the international political situation, rather than acting to polarize and destabilize it, the way the US is doing now.
"The simplest and most effective way for us to reduce the level of violence and terror in the world is for us to stop participating in it." --Noam Chomsky
My site: Free Nature Pictures
I say to you again, two wrongs don't make a right. All of the things you mentioned really sucked. So will this war. So will the subsequent occupation. In fact, this entire stupid game of Colonial Imperialism that we've been playing for the last 500 years sucks. Let's call it a draw, and go play something else, what do you say?
Oh, yeah, and I seem to remember seeing a few of those people out on the streets of NY the other day, carrying signs like "this 911 family member is against the war." So yes, I think you should indeed ask them.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Umm, wouldn't that be the responsibility of the people who are crying for peace right now? In fact, the "justification" provided for the 9/11 attacks was the fact that US troops were on Muslim soil (referencing the troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). At the time Pres. Bush had a pretty hands-off approach to the whole Iraq situation and inspectors had already been expelled.
Now, you had France and many anti-war people chanting "give the inspections a chance". Well, for the inspections to work it would have required the continued presence of 200,000 troops and even more and more inspectors (France was even hinting at UN forces backing up those inspectors) in Iraq to "get the job done." Well, since this seems to be what inflamed the extremists so much wouldn't that process have just as much if not more of a chance of leading to further terrorist attacks?
Frankly the whole terrorist attack scare is just that. Terrorists will strike the US if and when they can irregardless of what we're doing in the Middle East. If not Iraq, then it'll be the "Jewish conspiracy/Israeli treatment of Palestinians" as the "justification".
You still keep falling back on the fear mongering. You have yet to draw any fact-based conclusions. Just "50 years of imperialism" and other useless emotion-based jingoism.
Please, just start with one or two simple facts. From there try to draw a conclusion. No innuendoes, no slanders, no inferences. Facts.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Are you confusing killing with murder? This could be read into deeply, but Ill just graze the surface here.
:D )
If I read your post correctly, than your saying no would should kill at whatever the consequences or cost are of not killing. What about the protection of human life? Is the not killing through war outweigh the threat of more killing in the future?
Were the American colonies wrong for killing for independence, fighting tyranny and oppression? (Brits need not answer
If killing and war is wrong than were all the allies wrong for rising up to protect themselves and each other against the Nazis?
Would a Jew have been wrong for killing a Nazi in self-defense, after all they were just trying to separate them right???
Is it wrong to kill a known terrorist who has killed in the past and is trying to do so again?
Is it wrong to fight a war with a dictator who does not seek peace but the death and destruction of all who are not with him, including his own civilians and party members?
Sorry but the end does USUALLY justify the means. If you think it doesn't, ask all the French who are still alive since WW2 and all the Jews who were persecuted by the Nazis, I think they would agree the ends justified the means. Or maybe the people of Kuwait? Perhaps we should of let Saddam continue to murder them and destroy their country?
Ever been to the Arabic countries? I have. Some of the Islam nations peoples have been raised to hate all non-Islamic people for hundreds of years. When I mean hate I don't mean they cut you off in traffic, they view non-Islamics as evil.
Maybe its harder for us "Westerners" to understand what "evil" is to these people but after what I have seen first-hand while there, I can tell you that they are very religiously committed and are willing to kill in order to defeat evil. They do not bargain with evil, they do not sign treaties with evil, and they do not spare evil.
It's impossible to have peace with those who don't want it. Does that mean we abandon peace? No. We should always strive for peace but we must be ready to face those who do not seek peace but seek to destroy.
-An American Revolutionary
My response is for the most part is here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=57953&cid=5585 054.
Don't just go along with what you see on PBS. "Think for yourself, schmuck!" --Robert Anton Wilson (written in letters of fire on the wall in front of a startled Moses in a painting described in Illuminatus)
HHmmm PBS presented an entire series about the last 35 years of the documented history of Saddam and Iraq which was composed by many international journalists, Iraqis, heads of state (Iraq, Jordan, UAE, US, Russia, Kuwait, etc.). That combined with all the worlds press over the last 12 years isn't good enough for someone to form an opinion on? Besides sitting next to all of the main players for the last 35 years, I don't see anything better for forming an opinion.
Just to reiterate my above linked post. The driving force behind hostile Islamic states is the hundreds of years of believing that all non-Islams are evil. And I don't mean SNL Dana Carvey evil. It is a religious conviction to destroy this evil they see. They do not barter with evil, they do not sign treaties with evil, and they will not spare evil. There god demands they destroy evil.
If you disagree try visiting the Arabic countries and then you'll realize how true these people are to their beliefs.
-An American Revolutionary
And no response to terrorist activities that kill innocents will only result in more dead innocents.
If you think that if we just say "sorry" and turn a blind eye and vow to never again prevent terrorist activities and shake hands on it, that the terrorists would just leave us alone than you don't know the religious convictions these people have. They have had these convictions since before Britian was in the Iron Age.
We are percieved as a threat beacuase we are not Islam. There religion calls all other religions false and evil. There god has demanded the destruciton of that evil. These people arent Sunday only church goers, their religion is everything to them and defines there existence.
-An American Revolutionary
This argument is untenable for many different reasons, and has been thoroughly demolished by many people from many different schools of thought. In my view, the strongest arguments against it are religious.
For instance, to take a Christian perspective (the US still claims to be a Christian nation, doesn't it?), Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Do you think he meant, "unless they hit you really hard, in which case kick their ass?" NO! If somebody else commits a sin, that is their problem, between them and God. To commit sins against them in retaliation just means that you have now sinned, and you now have a problem with God. "Vengeance is mine" saith the Lord.
I happen to be a Christian, but I am willing to entertain other points of view as well, so let's try attacking your argument from some other perspectives, shall we?
From a Buddhist/Taoist point of view, to involve yourself in someone else's bad karma just drags you down into their cycle of suffering. Then you have to suffer for their mistakes. How does that make sense? To alleviate suffering, you must act with compassion, rather than simply causing more suffering.
I don't know much about Islam, but from your straw man characterization and that of many others, I can only infer that they are the only religion in the world which believes killing is OK and justified. If so, how can we claim to be better than them, if we just follow the same logic?
Or, if you're not a religious person, there are plenty of secular humanist arguments to demolish the "end justifies the means" fallacy as well. For instance, from a Utilitarian perspective, the means may have unintended consequences, and ususally they do, and they are often worse than the original problem. Kant says that you should "act on that maxim which you can consistently will become universal law." This means that you should do what is ethically right, regardless of the consequences. From an Aristotelian perspective, performing wrong (unvirtuous) actions damages your character, it makes you a bad person, and then you continue to perform wrong actions ad infinitum. I could go on. As I've said elsewhere, the statement that "the end does not justify the means" is fairly uncontroversial among ethical philosophers and religious scholars.
your saying no would should kill at whatever the consequences or cost are of not killing
You got that right Bubba, that's exactly what I'm saying. Killing is wrong. Therefore you should not do it. If your back is to a wall and you really have no choice, I can see killing to defend yourself from direct attack, but even then, you better spend a lot of time on your knees afterwards, or you're going to end up having a little chat with the man downstairs. The moral worth of an action cannot be judged by its consequences, nor by its intended consequences, because the actor cannot possibly know what the consequences of the action will be. The moral worth of an action must be judged on its own merits, and killing is a wrong action however you slice it. It should be avoided whenever possible, and I do not remotely buy that there was no choice in this case.
Are you confusing killing with murder?
I am aware that some people make this silly (and arbitrary) distinction as a justification for war, saying that God didn't mean, "thou shalt not kill," he meant "thou shalt not murder," and this makes all the difference, and says that it's OK to kill if your government tells you to. In my view, this argument is not worth a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. Killing is killing. It's always wrong. When faced with a choice between evils, you may have to choose the lesser, and it may be killing, but that doesn't make it right. It just makes it less wrong. It's still wrong, and should be avoided if at all possible.
You assume that in this situation there were only two options, doing nothing and going to war. But there are always many options in a
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Yes, these issues are more complex than my simplistic ethical arguments admit. I'm trying to make the bare bones of an argument which has been made extensively by pacifists throughout the ages, and I hope I have done it some justice.
I think that war is wrong, and I am opposed to it on general principle. I think that in this particular instance, the US has made a very weak case that war is necessary, and that there were many other avenues of approach which would have worked much better. This seems to be the point that the leaders of many other major nations were trying to make as well. There is a big difference between defending yourself against direct attack and invading a sovereign nation. This sets a bad precedent, and will probably go down in history as a Big Mistake.
But I acknowledge and respect the strength of your resolve to help the Iraqi people, and I encourage you to continue to debate and think about these issues. Please try to keep an open mind to other possiblities for conflict-resolution besides war.
Well fought, my Lord, and may we someday meet again upon the field of honor.
Peace out...
My site: Free Nature Pictures
I'm not arguing with the accuracy of the facts they presented. I don't care about that. The question is, what did they leave out? And the other question is, how did they choose to arrange their facts so as to manipulate your opinion? And yet another question is, can any of these facts, no matter how accurate, provide justification for doing something which is still wrong no matter how you look at it?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
And again I say, I am not advocating no response, I am advocating a different response. Please read the following article, which makes this point far better than I ever could. Noam Chomsky is a prof. at MIT and knows what he's talking about, and is further a brilliant essayist.
"Drain the swamp and there will be no more mosquitoes -- Noam Chomsky
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Saddam Hussein has been singled out for the cause of the world terror, and the war on Iraq started. Why don't look at the rest of the world and the effect of the war instead of just look at the Iraq situation?
Because of this war, EU has been divided seriously. This is catastrophic to say the least.
The next target perhaps will be North Korea and its nuclear threat. However, is US going to attack NK unilaterally again leaving UN dysfunctional?
How about South America? The region and its political and economical situation seems to be unrelated to this war, but they will play a big part in near future. They have been in economical crisis for years and years. Argentine was completely collapsed. Brazil was saved, but next time, is EU going to tip in? After this war and unilateral action by US?
How about the state of Israel? The war clearly created a big tension between US, its allied countries and the Arab world. Can US provide a diplomatic solution? How about UN (being dysfunctional more than ever)?
These are just a few of consequences of this war. It appears that we have a tough century ahead.
Are you confusing killing with murder?
I have to admit, I am a little confused about the difference between "killing" and "murder." Perhaps you can explain it to me. I am also a little confused about the difference between "shock and awe" and "terror", the difference between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist", the difference between "collateral damage" and "dead babies", the difference between "liberation" and "conquest", the difference between "humanitarian aid" and "occupation", the difference between "police action" and "war", and indeed the difference between the principles held by the current US and Iraqi regimes.
I am confused about a number of arbitrary and blatantly doublethink distinctions which people make when talking about war. It seems to me that the only real difference between these terms is that one is what we call it when we do it to other people, and the other is what we call it when they do it to us.
The manipulation of language is one of the primary tools of propaganda. And what is the difference between "news" and "propaganda" anyway? Oh yeah...
My site: Free Nature Pictures
If you are Christian than this forum should interest you.
I know many Slashdotter's may not want to listen to religious lectures so fair warning to readers.
As you will note in the forums, probably the two most important things discussed are 1)God is always in control 2)God does not contradict himself.
So if God is always in control and always shaping the world and events towards his plan for the future than there is no need for debate, he is in control. If God doesnt contradict himself than all the times it is documented in the Bible when God told the Hebrews to wage war and not leave one enemey alive than why would war be wrong now, considering God is always in control?
It would probably be best to move this discussion to the forum I linked to above as others can help with your issues.
BTW, the commandment from the OT in the original Greek was "Thou shalt not murder", which is given its on definition seperate from kill.
-An American Revolutionary
I appreciate the points of view you brought up, perhaps we can both learn more here.
-An American Revolutionary
Is this the slashdot equivalent of "you wanna step outside?"
OK, I'm game, though I should warn you that my religion is somewhat unorthodox, perhaps even heretical. But I doubt I am the only Christian who's a pacifist!
Before we take this outside as it were, I just want to thank you again for a great debate, AR, I enjoyed it thoroughly. I have some work to do today, but I'll meet you over at prospero when I have time.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Hey, wait a second, that's a paid subscriber forum! Sorry, interesting but I can't afford it. Have to say, I disagree with the post you linked to, sounds like rampant Crusaderism to me, there are very few things which have caused more and more horrible atrocities than making war in the name of God. I find this whole line of reasoning highly disturbing, and am frankly horrified by the tone of the post you linked to. Maybe we could move this onto my side's turf instead?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
I don't see any reason to engage in that discussion anyway, mhazboun_cfl has already made all of my essential points. Jesus said to turn the other cheek and love your enemy. This seems pretty incompatible with war to me, and Jesus was the Man, was he not?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
It wasnt a "turf" of any kind. It was an open forum where I noticed that people had the same questions you had, so I thought you would take interest in it. I wasnt trying to corner you in a room with 800 lb gorillas or Saddam's Republican Guard:)
-An American Revolutionary
If you disregard the two points above than you disregard a good portion of the foundation of Christianity.
-An American Revolutionary
I know that, I was just joking! Besides, there were others on that forum who feel the same way I do, and if there weren't, I'm not too worried about it anyway.
"If 1000 men disagree with me, then the odds are 1000 to one that they are wrong." --Robert Heinlein
AR, I'm just messing with you at this point. As, I suspect, you are just messing with me. I'm glad that such a heated issue can be lightened with a little humor! Trouble is, I actually rather like you, and I was hoping that I could talk you around... oh well, another one lost to the propaganda wars. I am very interested in the prospero forum, it looks really cool, but I just can't afford to join right now, maybe if this stupid war ends soon and we get some business this will change ;-).
I think that there's not much point in continuing this debate in earnest at this point. I think time will tell, sadly enough. Let's call it a draw, shall we?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
I guess Lord Vader at this point would say to us "If you only knew the power of the dark side" LOL.
We both think we already know the outcome, God just has to reveal it to everyone else.
-An American Revolutionary
Does it matter what we do at all? Shall we just say, "fuck it, it doesn't matter what we do or say, God is in control anyway, so let's just sit back and watch it happen?" Well, no, that's not what Jesus said. But he did say something very specific about resisting evil. Don't have my bible on me, but this is from Matthew, from the Sermon on the Mount, and the phrasing may not be perfect but I know I have the idea right:
"So I say to you, resist not evil. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. And if someone takes from you your shirt, give to them your coat as well. And if someone compells you to walk a mile, walk with them two."
Sounds pretty clear and uncomplicated to me, I don't see why this passage is so hard for Christians to understand and implement.
WWJD? as they say. This disagreement is characteristic of the split running through modern Christianity, which I've heard described as the "Love Side" and the "Law Side". Basically, the Law Side wants to continue to follow the OT to the letter, whereas the Love Side wants to focus more on the message of Jesus, in particular the part where Jesus said that the supreme commandment in the Law is to "love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart and all thy mind and all thy soul, and to love thy neighbor as thyself." I think the OT needs to be reinterpreted in light of this statement, which is pretty clear and unambiguous, and is clearly meant to be Jesus summary of the take-home message from the entire OT. Anything you say or quote or interpret which contradicts this statement, contradicts Jesus and is therefore clearly wrong. Or, to put it another way, I think a single direct quote from Jesus trumps any number of quotes from the OT, and Jesus was not at all unclear about these issues.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Of course God does not contradict himself. He's God. However, you must admit that there are many apparent contradictions in the Bible. When you encounter one of these, I think the only thing to do is go back to Jesus. What did Jesus say about the issue? What would Jesus probably say about the issue? How can the direct statements of Jesus be used to resolve the apparent contradiction? A great example of this is the issue of divorce. Jesus came out at one point against divorce (another point modern Christians are in the habit of ignoring), and said that a man who lies with a divorced woman commits adultery. His audience questioned him about this, saying something like, "but wait, doesn't the Law say that if you have good cause, you can give your wife a writ of divorce?" Jesus said, "it was for the hardness of your hearts that your Father gave you the writ of divorce."
To me this sheds a great deal of light on many issues of divergence between the OT and NT. My take on this is that Jesus was saying that God decided to cut the Jews some slack, as it were, because of the "hardness of their hearts", presumably because they had not heard the words of Jesus yet and therefore could not be expected to know any better. To me this means that we, as Christians who have heard and accepted the word of Jesus, are held to a higher standard of behavior than the pre-Christian Jews were. That some things which were premitted to them because they had not heard the word of Jesus, such as divorce, war, religious bigotry etc, are no longer to be tolerated, because now that we have heard Jesus' word and seen the example of his life, we should know better. There are other cases where this is upheld, such as when Jesus said, "you have heard it said of old that you should love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you to love your enemy, and do good to those who hate and persecute you. Then you will truely be sons of the Most High, who makes the rain fall upon the just and the unjust." Jesus is saying, the new Covenant is a little stricter, in some sense, than the old Covenant. You have to do all that, and then go the extra mile, be even more tolerant, even more loving, even more pure, now that you have heard me speak. The new Covenant extends and strengthens the old Covenant, takes it to the next level, as it were.
So maybe for the Jews of the OT, making war on their neighboring tribes was OK. Maybe it was even necessary. But for us Christians, it's clearly unacceptable behavior, just as divorce, violence, intolerance, hatred, and vengeance are clearly unacceptable to Jesus. It's kind of a tall order, kind of a high standard, but that's what He requires of us. "Be you therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect."
I think it was for the hardness of their hearts that God permitted the Jews to make war. I think that in every case, when asked about the rules of the OT, Jesus said, "yeah, do that, and then some." In fact, on the issue of murder, he said that not only should you not kill, you shouldn't even think negative thoughts about your brother, for that is committing murder of the heart. I think Jesus would say something like, "yeah, you shouldn't murder. In fact, you shouldn't kill anybody under any circumstances, and not only that, but you shouldn't even say or even think bad things about them! And if somebody else commits murder or says or thinks bad things about you, you should give back nothing but love and respect and tolerance, and you should not even speak a word against them." And when he was asked, "how many times shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him", he said "I say to you, not seven times, but seven times seven."
This is all very clear stuff, very easy to unders
My site: Free Nature Pictures
"The Force is strong with you, young Jedi, but beware the dark side. Fear, anger, hatred, the dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny!"
Seriously, man, think about what I've said, and talk to Jesus about it, and search your heart and your soul. Hatred and anger and vengeance and violence and war are not the answer. Love is the only answer. May God bless you, man, and keep you safe in the troubled times ahead.
Peace out...
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Your concept stems from the assumption that no one is under the influence of God's plan. If you are under the influence of God's plan (and let's face it, many think they aren't but we know they are) if you kick back and do nothing then you are executing God's plan. That's the way it has to be if God is always in control, there can be no exceptions, especially when you consider that God already knows what is to happen. How does he know? It's his plan, he is omnipotent.
Do you not think that Christ will kill and destroy? Ever read the book of Revelation? God's wrath pours out over the Earth and millions are killed. Christ himself will destroy the armies against him at Armageddon and destroy the city of Babylon once and for all. Sounds like Christ is going to bust some heads. Why? To destroy evil. Period.
-An American Revolutionary
See my above post.
-An American Revolutionary
BTW, the commandment from the OT in the original Greek was "Thou shalt not murder", which is given its on definition seperate from kill.
Except that the OT wasn't originally written in Greek. I have no idea what the original Hebrew should best be translated as. And personally I'm rather of the opinion that the OT is best treated as a history of a previous covenant between humanity and God, rendered obsolete by the NT.
Gallup Poll: 70% of Americans support the death penalty.
The vast majority of Americans feel that, at least in some cases, killing is not wrong. What's that you say, the beliefs of Americans don't determine morality? Why then, should your "ethical philosophers" (do you mean philosophers of ethics?) and religious authorities (we'll come back to this one) be the ones who decide what's right and wrong? Because they've studied it? They sat on a mountain somewhere with their legs crossed, and thirty-six minutes later knew all that which is Good and Just?
On to the religious folks. Now, if anyone is going to know what's right and what's not, it should be these people, no, for here we have some folks that god has chosen to enlighten. I'm not sure if you're familiar with most versions of god, but in general god's pretty old, and its opinion on various matters hasn't changed to much, certainly in the last couple of years. But since that's the case, how do you explain it being okay for missionaries to go slaughter people they couldn't convert, just a few centuries ago. Certainly god's thoughts on the matter haven't changed since then, which must mean man's understanding has. If man was wrong then, who's to say he's right now?
In conclusion, bite me you hippy.
If it were rendered obsolete, we would lose much in the study and pursuit of Christianity. The OT is not obsolete. God has never changed and never will. He is the same God in the NT as in the OT.
-An American Revolutionary
Motive. Murder essentially is the subset of killing which is wrong: an execution, a fatal shooting in self-defence and an enemy soldier being shot on a battlefield are all killing, but none is a murder.
Perhaps you can explain it to me. I am also a little confused about the difference between "shock and awe" and "terror",
The target and intentions. "Shock and awe", in this case, is intended to demonstrate to the Iraqi regime the overwhelming technical superiority of our forces, by destroying legitimate military targets, in the hope this will dissuade [some of] them from fighting. Terrorism is when you target civilians, to intimidate the general population. The attacks of 9/11 were terrorism; Al Queda firing a missile at the Pentagon would not have been.
the difference between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist",
Again, target: terrorists target civilians, undefended targets - a "freedom fighter" would attack the enemy military, just as an army would. The old claim "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter", that is not the case.
the difference between "collateral damage" and "dead babies",
There, there is an intersection of the two. Collateral damage is essentially any unintentional damage, from knocking out a bridge you didn't want damaged, to a stray bomb hitting someone's home. "Dead babies" caused by an attack are indeed collateral damage, but then many of the 1.7m deaths Hussein's regime has caused so far are also "dead babies"...
the difference between "liberation" and "conquest",
The result afterwards. D-day, and for that matter the whole Allied side of WWII, was liberation: the British and American forces invaded France and Germany, but left them under the rule of French and German governments rather than making them British or American territory. The German invasion of Poland (and other countries) was a conquest: they took Polish territory for their own.
the difference between "humanitarian aid" and "occupation",
Duh. Humanitarian aid is what we have been providing for Iraq for over a decade now, mostly via "Oil For Food": Hussein's brutal regime feeds only the people it wishes, and starves opponents as a means of control. An occupation would be a matter of control, nothing to do with feeding the population.
the difference between "police action" and "war",
Difficult. This is mostly a diplomatic piece of BS; in practice, they are both a conflict between two or more entities.
and indeed the difference between the principles held by the current US and Iraqi regimes.
First, the Iraqi regime has killed around 1.7m people, between the two failed conquests (of Iran and Kuwait) and suppression of internal dissent. You are free to disagree with Bush; criticise Hussein in Iraq, and you and your family will be tortured to death. If an Iraqi town opposes Hussein, they'll be gassed or attacked with gunships.
Hussein's older son, Uday, deliberately killed more Iraqi civilians in one day (2000) in revenge for an attempted coup than the Allies have accidentally killed so far in both Gulf Wars combined. He now has the endearing habit of dropping prisoners into a plastic shredder designed for bulk waste disposal; the lucky ones go in head-first, and die quickly. (This comes from witness affidavits gathered as evidence in the hope of bringing Hussein's regime to trial for his crimes against humanity, as Hitler's was at Nuremberg.)
Even attempting to equate the two in the way you do suggests you are either a troll, or deranged; there have been individual days on which Hussein's regime has deliberately killed more of his own civilians than the Allies have accidentally killed in both wars combined. That, to me, is a pretty big distinction.
Motive. Murder essentially is the subset of killing which is wrong: an execution, a fatal shooting in self-defence and an enemy soldier being shot on a battlefield are all killing, but none is a murder.
If motive is the difference then please explain the associated motives behind these acts. It seems all the motives are similar in that wish to kill a human being and killing is morally wrong as freejung has so eloquently explained.
The target and intentions. "Shock and awe", in this case, is intended to demonstrate to the Iraqi regime the overwhelming technical superiority of our forces, by destroying legitimate military targets, in the hope this will dissuade [some of] them from fighting. Terrorism is when you target civilians, to intimidate the general population. The attacks of 9/11 were terrorism; Al Queda firing a missile at the Pentagon would not have been.
Ah, but this is not how the term 'terrorism' is commonly used. The term 'terrorism' has been used to describe the attack on the US Cole and the attack on the Pentagon which were both primarily military targets. It was also used to describe the recent attack on the military barracks in Qatar which has killed two US soldiers and injured many others. Before the media learned that a US soldier was responsible they labeled it a 'terrorist' act.
Again, target: terrorists target civilians, undefended targets - a "freedom fighter" would attack the enemy military, just as an army would. The old claim "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter", that is not the case. "
Then the attack on the US Cole was an attack by 'freedom fighters'. I doubt that many would agree with this including Donald Rumsfeld, John Ashcroft, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz and George W. Bush.
"There, there is an intersection of the two. Collateral damage is essentially any unintentional damage, from knocking out a bridge you didn't want damaged, to a stray bomb hitting someone's home. "Dead babies" caused by an attack are indeed collateral damage, but then many of the 1.7m deaths Hussein's regime has caused so far are also "dead babies"... "
You missed one other important distinction. 'Collateral damage' is used by those as a tool to lesson the culpability and mental anguish by those who seek to justify the pre-meditated killing of babies to achieve an end.
Even attempting to equate the two in the way you do suggests you are either a troll, or deranged; there have been individual days on which Hussein's regime has deliberately killed more of his own civilians than the Allies have accidentally killed in both wars combined. That, to me, is a pretty big distinction.
The current administration will be responsible for the killing of countless human beings in this Iraq war and Afghanistan. As we've seen the killing of our neighbors and enemies is the second greatest sin we can commit. It is in direct contradiction to the law of God:
I'm afraid I don't regard "because God said so, apparently, in another language, to some guy a few thousand years ago" as outweighing the conclusions of hundreds of millions of intelligent human beings here and now. In every case, there is a perfectly good justification for believing that the killing in question is not in any way evil. As another poster pointed out earlier, there is even some doubt over the translation freejung is using: the term may well have been "murder", not "kill", at which point not even the quotation of God is on freejung's side. I would also point out the Bible contains wars, in which God even intervened on one side to ensure their victory over the other...
Ah, but this is not how the term 'terrorism' is commonly used. The term 'terrorism' has been used to describe the attack on the US Cole and the attack on the Pentagon which were both primarily military targets. It was also used to describe the recent attack on the military barracks in Qatar which has killed two US soldiers and injured many others. Before the media learned that a US soldier was responsible they labeled it a 'terrorist' act.
Technically, the Cole attack wasn't terrorism; the Pentagon one was, since it deliberately killed a plane full of unarmed civilians. They certainly weren't "freedom fighters", since they weren't fighting for freedom of anybody. The closest term is probably "war crime", since they were conducting a false-flag pseudo-military operation in violation of the Geneva Convention, although it resembles terrorism closely enough to satisfy the media. "Terrorist-style" would be quite accurate, since the Cole attack used terrorist methods with a military target. As for the botched grenade attack in Kuwait, "murder" or "treason" would be the correct term.
You missed one other important distinction. 'Collateral damage' is used by those as a tool to lesson the culpability and mental anguish by those who seek to justify the pre-meditated killing of babies to achieve an end.
The "killing of babies" is not in any way pre-meditated; the Allies go to enormous lengths to avoid killing any civilians. Likewise, drivers take great care to avoid running people over - but sometimes, it fails, and people die accidentally. Would you consider that a "pre-meditated" killing? In neither case is the killing intended, by anybody. Collateral damage is simply the correct term, just as "traffic accident victim" is for the latter. There is nothing euphemistic about either: they simply describe the truth about it, unlike your reference to "pre-meditated killing", which is factually incorrect.
The current administration will be responsible for the killing of countless human beings in this Iraq war and Afghanistan.
Hardly "countless"; as I pointed out, by Iraq's own figures this conflict has accidentally killed about one-sixth the number of Iraqi civilians Uday Hussein personally murdered in a single day. Over the course of this year, the war will have saved many thousands of Iraqi civilian lives overall.
As we've seen the killing of our neighbors and enemies is the second greatest sin we can commit.
As we've seen, it is sometimes necessary to kill one person to save a dozen more.
It is in direct contradiction to the law of God:
Killing is *not* the 'wrong' thing; it depends on the circumstances. Which makes me laugh at your 'dark alley' reference... Are you saying you don't want to meet me in a dark alley, because you are afraid I will kill you? OR that you will kill me? Either way, you're an idiot.
I have a friend who is a cop. He was involved in a shooting once, which saved his life so he could go back to his wife and kids. Was he wrong? Should police departments fire all cops involved in shootings, simply because panty-waisted lily-livered pansies don't want to 'meet them in a dark alley' now? Shit, you'd better hope you meet my friend, if you're in some dark alleys I've seen. It might keep you from getting dead.
It is difficult to argue with someone who has such a warped sense of his own personal insignificance in the world, but I'll try anyway.War is not wrong; it is a terrible concept, that of killing people and breaking things. But wrong? That depends on the side you're on, doesn't it? If you and your country decide to invade a country, murder its citizens, rape its women, and burn its land, then you are waging war, and are wrong, in my view. If the country being invaded rallies its army, who bring arms and fight the invaders, thereby (hopefully) killing them and driving them off, you are saying that these people are WRONG.
This is why pacifism is such a stupid concept. THere can be no such thing, even in a peaceful society. You are relying on force or the threat of force to keep people from robbing you and killing your wife after raping her. Otherwise, why else would we have police, courts, prisons? Why am I arguing with a rutebega?
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
Thank you for watching my back, I was indeed occupied elsewhere. :-)
I see no reason for me to refute the grandparent post, as the parent has done a very good job of it and besides, all the arguments of the grandparent amount to "the intended end justifies the means", which is clearly incorrect and I have refuted it elsewhere.
Nobody knows what is going to come of this war, and saying that it is right just because the actors claim to have good intentions is silly. The intentions of the actors are also highly suspect. Never believe anyone when they tell you they are going to do something wrong because of their supposedly good intentions. Actions speak louder than words.
I think the parent's quote from Matthew (which is Jesus Himself speaking in the Sermon on the Mount) is a clear representation of God's views on the subject, and is probably the most important quote in the whole Bible, as the quote itself clearly states is the case. You can argue with it if you like, but it is still Right.
I am done with this debate. I have taken a firm position on what is known as the Moral High Ground and defended it. The opposition claims the moral high ground in its propaganda and rhetoric, but they clearly have no legitimate claim to it. Pacifism is firmly positioned on the moral high ground and will continue to be so. Others can lay claim to it, but they cannot take it, as one person of conscience can defend the moral high ground against billions.
For a much more detailed defense of this position, and a great perspective on the situation surrounding this war, please see the text of this talk by Prof. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT, and also the Bad News Noam Chomsky Archive which has many of his recent articles. Prof. Chomsky knows way more about all this than I do, and is a brilliant speaker and essayist. If you are interested in this debate, no matter what your political or philosophical beliefs, you might find what he has to say interesting as well.
I want to thank everyone involved for a great debate, it has been enjoyable and highly instructive. I have nothing but the highest respect and love for all of you (on all sides of the debate), and consider you heroes for standing up for your beliefs.
I call upon all parties in this conflict to listen to reason, and to stop all killing and atrocities at once, and to try to settle your disputes like decent human beings. I have little reason to hope for this, but hope and pray for it I shall.
Peace out...
My site: Free Nature Pictures
"You mean, if you allow the master to be uncivil, to treat you
any old way he likes, and to insult your dignity, then he may deem you
fit to hear his view of things?"
"Quite the contrary. You must defend your integrity, assuming
you have integrity to defend. But you must defend it nobly, not by
imitating his own low behavior. If you are gentle where he is rough,
if you are polite where he is uncouth, then he will recognize you as
potentially worthy. If he does not, then he is not a master, after all,
and you may feel free to kick his ass."
-- Tom Robbins, "Jitterbug Perfume"
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...