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!!
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!!!!
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
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
Dear Raed
As a aside issue, can anyone tell me why Saddam sets fire to the oil fields?
:-P
Um, he's an asshole?
My journal has hot
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!
There's so much propaganda on both sides. I think information is deliberately unreliable otherwise Saddam would know precisely what's going to happen and when.
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
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.
I'm just waiting for the environmental groups to step up to the plate and show their support for this war. Has anybody caused as much deliberate environmental damage as Hussein?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Of course, your reason makes sense too.
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.
did you know : you know, some geeks are actually muslims
And by "started", I mean it was too late to stop it from happening.
I support our troops, but question our government.
(ducks) Kidding! Kidding! Sorry!
Anyhow, I'll feel better when these guys get tossed out of the White House. This whole war was so contrived and forced down people's throats it's not even funny (okay, wars aren't funny in general, but you know what I mean).
The most depressing part for me has been that this war really points out the lack of sophistication in many Americans. First, the rational is pretty much invented and set up in a schitzo way (the lack of proof is proof!) and then repeated, basically, until people bought it. Now, we have to deal with idiots being all excited that we're going to blow stuff up and kill people.
You'd think after 9-11 we'd be a little more empathetic, but then maybe it's only human suffering if you have endless TV specials with mournful music and lingering shots of the flag to back it up.
Ignore me. I'm feeling angstful today.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
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
Or maybe "puttin' the smack down on Saddam" for the WWE fans.
except that this is really the WWE equivalent of The Rock beating on a retarded 11 year old kid. If it has to be done, get it over with but please don't brag about it, and don't hype it up as if the outcome were in question.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
The solution is not to become another christian militant crusader to tackle islamic militancy.
BTW, Saddam is not an Islamic militant. He is just a regular dictator. Iraq is also a secular nation. He just pissed off papa Bush and Dubya wants revenge (and oil).
S
>Kinda like when he told us last December that he didn't >have any SCUD missles and then used some yesterday, or >when he told us 12 years ago that he didn't have any WMD.
Those were al samoud missles, not scuds------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
That shouldn't surprise anyone. If I was an Iraqi soldier I would be lining up to surrender. Who wants to give their life defending Saddam Hussein? Heck, If I was an Iraqi soldier I would like to think that I would have turned my gun on that regime a long time ago.
Even if Saddam is alive people that give a crap about what he has to say are almost certainly few and far between.
Oh please. There have been worse wars in the past. Get over it.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
Why the hell is it that when you documented proof of torture and murder of innocent civilians nobody believes or care but when the US attacks the military structure we are automaticly killing babies and women. Please show the proof or shut the fuck up.
Not a war crime not then not now. http://community.webshots.com/photo/17750667/17750 777KOLvpHNqRo
stripShow - Where WordPress meets webcomics
I find it disappointing the way so many people deny that Saddam Hussein is responsible not only for direct attacks on America
Which attacks would these be? What attacks on America was Saddam directly the cause of?
Can you imagine a world with a peaceful Middle East? Our President can.
Anyone who thinks that taking over Iraq will cause peace in the rest of the reason is either insane or dumber than a bag of hammers.
I know what you mean about the atrocities in his own country, but as regards the part above, please could you clarify for which direct attacks on America Saddam Hussein is responsible? I'd be particularly interested to hear about ones in the past decade or so since the "first Gulf War".
This post is strictly my own opinion and not necessarily that of my employer.
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.
Agreed, but there is some reason to cheer the overwhelming might of US military. If this works out well, there will be very few casualties, military or civilian. That's what I'm rooting for - the sooner allied troops take Baghdad, the fewer innocents (or soldiers) get killed, and the less damage will be done to the country's infrastructure. It would be inexcusable if this got fucked up.
But you're point is entirely correct. If the US wanted Iraqi oil, then Bush could have just puches the UN into dropping sacntions in place since 1991. Then we;d have had lots of cheap oil.
It shouldn't be forgotten that furing the 80's Saddam was a moderating influence on OPEC, perceived as a sort of level head, kepping prices fairly low. Simple economic motivations would have led us to support Saddam in the 90's and develop a close friendship.
People who argue that this war is being fought for oil are, to be charitable, gravely misinformed.
-Matthew
When I'm singing a ballad and a pair of underwear lands on my head, I hate that. It really kills the mood.
-Tom Jones
This is an interesting aspect that no corporate media outlet dares comment on.
:-(
What if the US invasion uncovers no weapons of mass destruction? That would mean that Bush's entire line of logic for the invasion is a big lie.
Of course, the US administration would quickly manufacturer some "evidence" -- and hopefully it would be a better forgery than the "Iraq is trying to buy African uranium" lies that the weapons inspectors refuted. In such a case, the rest of the world would see the truth, but the US media I'm sure would cover it up quickly as a non-story.
If you were Hussein, wouldn't you use your WMD early in the war, just in a case of "use it or lose it"?
Oh no, it's probably those sneaky Iraqi bastards -- they're hiding their WMD just to get political propaganda mileage out of the war...
Oh, I get it - there's no other reason Bush wouldn't want the oil wells intact except for his own persona enrichment? How about the environment? Or that we're trying to preserve _infrastructure_. Oil wells are one of those pieces of infrastructure. It makes a lot of sense to ask them _not_ to torch them.
The Iraqis will be far more likely to be friendly to the US if we _don't_ destroy their best income source. But they'll be pissed off even if we let Saddam do it. Thus, we ask the Iraqi troops not to torch them.
This makes a lot of sense once you get by your hatred of GWB.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Right, but ....
The 11 year old has a twenty year history of killing innocents, and stands up in the streets saying "Fuck You" to everyone who walks by.
Sometimes you've just gotta smack some people.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
I really hate signatures, but go to my website.
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.
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
Why the hell is it that when you documented proof of torture and murder of innocent civilians nobody believes or care
Are you talking about the US gov't jailing thousands of innocent Muslim people as suspected terrorists, blowing up cars full of "suspects" (including an American citizen) by remote control, and torturing Al Queda members that they've caught?
Back when the US didn't do such things, you may have had a point. Now the US has no claim to the moral high ground.
You're right; unfortunately, I think the real test of American gullibility is yet to come. Assuming that Bush actually finds WoMD in Iraq, it "justifies" whatever military action is being taken in Iraq, and it will essentially guarantee him re-election.
If not, I think the odds of him being re-elected are pretty high. Most people support the war now (according to popular polls, certainly my personal experience doesn't agree with those). Also, recall what happened after the Afganistan conflict -- nothing. We didn't take really any effort to rebuild their government, other than reinstating the Northern Alliance, who's history was even shadier than the Taliban's. Also, we never accomplished our secondary objective, which was the elimination of bin Laden. Yet, nobody really seemed to mind at all.
Both the Afganistan and Iraqi conflicts have one alarming similarity: both of these conflicts were started by Bush to eliminate one person who he believed to be a major threat to the security of the United States. For this reason, both of these conflicts have been effectively inconclusive (well, we have yet to see in Iraq, but I do not suspect a nice happy action-movie type ending here).
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
With Britian in the war too, I wouldn't trust their news sources that much either. They've already lost more people than that US has.
What?
So what's the solution? We have the most highly effective/advanced military force in the world. Bar NONE. Hearing all the whiners scream and yell about how "unfair" it is, you'd think they'd be happiest to have American soldiers go into battle on foot, armed only with a blunt stick in a leather thong.
Yes, the war needs to be won quickly and decisively. No, we don't need to brag about it, but at the same time it's not anything to be ashamed of.
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).
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
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.
thanks dumbass.
No, I got that memo, and it goes to further my main point. THIS WAR IS GOOD FOR BIN LADEN, it gives him even more of a rallying cry for those who would not otherwise follow him. It increases anti-US thoughts around the world (find a nation that has over a 60% positive view of the US). We are helping bin Laden when we should be kicking his arse! (I did not protest us going into Afganistan, although I find the results abhorent after the fact, no more civil rights for women and girls than before, bin Laden at large, more civilian casualities than military)
Little Brother, watching the watchers
cracked me up...i get back from a hockey game last night and here "We're 150 miles across the border coming from camp ". Now, I'm no genius, but given a map and knowing their source and destination, I can figure out their position. I don't think we're hiding anything in this war; in fact, I think we're purposely being pretty obvious where our troops are massed so that the Iraqis aren't surprised and can surrender accordingly.
Remember...the anticipation of an event is often enough to get you completely worked up. Try being told a 20mile carravan of tanks is coming at you, and they're 50 miles away. I'd be thinking 'surrender', wouldn't you?
--trb
Well said - the other side of the link in my sig is The Art of War, which is an absolutely timeless piece of work. You have to give credit the US/UK military planners here - they seem to be making every effort to convince Iraqis that a quick surrender is their best way out of this...
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
That is true, but they aren't using laser guided bombs anymore for that reason. They use GPS now.
actualy in this case i would much rather have seen a small special ops team go in, incapacitate saddam and his sons and then go in to make sure nothing got out of hand. it would have been cheaper, put fewer lives in danger, and would have caused a lot less political bad blood. either way though we are/would be setting a bad precident for other coutries.
I never said I was smart, I just said I was smarter than you
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.
Ummm... what "direct attacks on America"?
The standard for proof has sunk really low. Repeat something often enough now and it becomes true.
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?
We will NOT bring freedom to Iraq- that much is certain. Unless you define "freedom" as "pro-American", which so many people do reflexively without a second thought. True democracy in Iraq would not give us results that we would like or tolerate. People there tend to vote for Islamist parties, and our outrageous behavior of late doesn't help. Starving people and dropping bombs on them won't make them vote for you.
The most we can hope for is something like another Saudi Arabia. Frankly one is enough.
Can you imagine a world with a peaceful Middle East? Our President can.
Wow, you've been exposed to a lot of propaganda. Are you listening to the baseless statements coming out of your mouth? A critical thinker just doesn't say things like that.
Imagining something and actually making it happen are two different things. I can imagine a world with candy cane trees, but that doesn't mean I actually have a coherent plan for making it happen! There are a lot of people with naive views that are in for a rude awakening before this is over. Wishful thinking is not good foreign policy.
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.
How about the environment?
Hahahahahahaha...yes, there's nothing Bush is more concerned about like the environment.
Or that we're trying to preserve _infrastructure_.
Then why are we blowing up everything else?
This makes a lot of sense once you get by your hatred of GWB.
He's earned my hatred and contempt, again and again.
I don't think the oil fields are the main reason he's going in, you just made that assumption. I do, however, think they factor into his decision. If he wants to convince us and the rest of the world that it has nothing to do with oil, he should make sure the Iraqis grant drilling rights to non-American companies to avoid the appearance of impropriety. What are the odds that he's going to do that?
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...
Although many of the comparisons made are superficially similar the differences are overwhelming. This might be somewhat funny as a humor column, but as a serious editorial it does nothing to usefully compare the two situations.
Um, because Clinton was president then and Bish is now? I would say that most of the peace protesters are Left Wing zelots using this as an opportunity to get press for their pet cause. The rest just hate Bush.
Kent
There's so much propaganda on both sides.
It's more exciting to see everything as the events unfold, but you'd have to be stupid to think you're going to get anything near a complete or accurate picture of what's going on.
It takes years until documents are unclassifed, interviews can be done, military personnel retire, etc. and then a few more years for a good writer to digest it and put it into a good book.
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...
You said the answer to your question in your question. CLINTON bombed Kosovo. Clinton was a liberal. Liberals are protesting the war. THe only reason 99% of the protests are happening is because a Republican is in charge. Clinton had five separate military attacks without UN approval during his presidency. Not once did we hear anything like this in the media.
Sorry folks, I know you hate to hear it, but the truth speaks for itself.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
What am I missing?
Context.
At least "unsophisticated" Americans like me can spell the word rationale.
God forbid that America might use its power to get rid of fascist dicators. Maybe the real problem is that the elitists in America have forgotten that they owe their freedom to a war against another tyrant, George III. Or maybe that war was "contrived and forced down people's throats" as well?
While we might prefer to put such a dangerous child in a place where he can do us no harm, taking pity on his inability to understand why he is a danger, our first resposnibility is to protect ourselves.
One sure fire way to do this is, yes, blow the fuck out of the threat before he can hurt us. There is no denying that this will protect us from the immediate and future related threat. Of course, there may be other repurcussions: some people might not like our use of such heavy handedness.
Fair enough.
Let them that criticize offer more humane solutions that guarantee our safety. And, let us listen when their ideas do, in fact, provide our safety in a more humane manner. But, that has not happened here: more scurrying about and talk and "inspections" might create busy-work for one Hans Blix, but it does squat for U.S. interests. The UN has failed to avert this war due to, mostly, its own inane bureaucracy that has usurped the original purpose of that organization with the need to perpetuate that same bureaucracy.
Having failed to remove the real threat that the Iraqi leadership represents to the U.S., on the basis of unarguable prior words and deeds, in a less violent manner, on a timely schedule, the UN opens the door for, and legitimizes, all out American destruction of that same regime, complete with collateral damage.
One can therefore only hope that the war will be swift, and the same American military technological power that insipres convidence in victory will also lead to a minimization of unsavoury collateral damage (which is really the thing that makes war so reprehensable in the first place).
The analogy with the retarded child isn't even a good one: Saddam Hussain, while a masochist and suicidal, does not strike me as retarded. So, tone down the pity and compassion waves, please.
This is one Canadian that, while finding U.S. action somewhat of a distasteful business, notes that it is UN, and not American, incompetence that has led to this last refuge.
You could've hired me.
His job is to protect the US. Both Afganistan and Iraqi were given a choice to give up the people most of the World believes to be evil or we would come and get them. Unfortunalty they choose the tough path.
>Also, we never accomplished our secondary objective, which was the elimination of bin Laden.
We are still after OBL, and show no signs of letting up.
>other than reinstating the Northern Alliance
Since when is Karzi a part of the Northern Alliance.
I hear lots of people bash this war as unneeded, but I have yet to hear plausable solution to these problems from this same group.
Inspections would not work, Blix admitted that yesterday.
Containment does not work, ask the starving Iraq people or Poland.
Unfortunatly with people like this force seems to be the only option.
The biggest thing that has been left out in the U.S. reporting is an Iraqi body count, both civilian and military. But this is standard procedure for 'media control' during any war.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Now the politics....Ashcroft scares me....
Quack!Quack!.....QUACK!!
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"?
It clearly doesn't matter whether we keep secrets or give Saddam prebriefings complete with 3-D realtime moving maps and decryption codes.
He has no ability to counterattack conventionally.
Our only worry now should be toxic boobytrapping in and around Baghdad.
thats why I know many republicans who are also protesting the war.. oh wait.
To imply the media is 'liberal' is absurd.
how much air time was devoted to Clinton getting a blow job? weeks, if not months
how much time was devoted to the connection between bush, and enron? hours, maybe days.
clinton cheated on his wife, then enron scandal cost many many people any hope of retiring, ever. Destroyed peoplels lives.
Where were all the protest when we liberated kawait from an aggressor(Saddam)? there were very little protesting, yet there wasn't a liberal in office.
maybe, just maybe, these people feel this offensive in unjust and thats why there protesting?
Not everybody lets there party beliefs infect there thinking.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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?
My guess would be because in Kosovo, we were taking sides in a war already in progress. In Iraq, we are starting a war. There is a world of difference. The Bush administration's policy of "pre-emptive" war against a country which may (or may not) pose a threat to the US in the future is quite dangerous. I can guarantee that North Korea is going to begin saber rattling and saying that pre-emptive wars are legitimate because the US says so. And if you can't see any danger in that, you need to open your eyes. Most of the civilised world sees that danger, and realise that a world where it's "OK" to attack somebody because you think (but can't prove) they are going to be a threat in the future will be an unbelievably dangerous place to live. Why this is lost on most Americans I don't understand. Probably because most of us truly believe "might makes right", so as long as we are the biggest badass in the world we'll be OK.
The folks who say Bush is an evil oilman are motivated in part because even the most casual overview of American foreign policies will show that we don't give a rats ass about evil dictators. In fact, we often support them. Remember, Hussein was considered our friend the whole time he was gassing Iranian troops and the Kurds. Ethnic cleansing? We didn't even lift a finger to stop the horrors in Rwanda. Shall we talk about the many years we turned a blind eye to the Taliban? Shall we talk about the many years of support we gave to the "evil men" who ran brutal dictatorships in Latin America? Shall we talk about our support of the Shah of Iran?
Oh, and here's a fun picture. It's Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in 1983. After Iraq invaded Iran. After Iraq began using chemical weapons. But to his credit, before Iraq killed 37 Americans onboard the USS Stark in 1987. (not that that ended our support of Hussein) Rumsfeld and Hussein
Feel like backing that up with something other than non-specific assertions, Sparky? What are CNN, MSNBC, and Fox doing, exactly, that you don't approve of?
I write in my journal
And they're supposed to get their body count numbers from where, the Iraqi government?
Sorry, if you consider US sorces suspect, you have to consider Iraqi sources suspect too.
The truth is, there probaly is no one who knows the Iraqi body count.
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
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.
i would prefer that they say "today the government of america destroyed a city populated by over four million people"
I would prefer they didn't say that. It can't be said (yet). I don't support this war, but from what I can tell, the precision warheads have not destroyed the city. That's why the lights are still on.
When VPNs are outlawed, only outlaws have VPNs.
I agree.. It sounds like a name for a japanese product with en english name to sound 'hip'. They might as weel have named it "the super terrific 100% bombing ocurrence!".
It's a fucking war, and CNN sounds like they're about to show the good part of the movie.
(and I have a new signature ;)
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
Civilians...smiling, dancing, shaking hands, tearing down posters of Saddam.
It would seem they want him gone too.
Except for the first year of his administration (gays in the military, health care reform), Clinton was not a liberal. He was a centrist, especially after the 1994 mid-term elections that swung control of Congress to the Republicans.
This is the president who signed into law welfare reform (over the objections of the League of Women Voters), pushed NAFTA (over the objections of the Democratic Party), and who had a number of Republican holdovers in his administration (Alan Greenspan, David Gergen, etc.).
And liberals aren't the only ones opposed to intervention: remember Pat Buchanan's opposition to Gulf War I and involvement in the Balkans? For most of the last decade, conservative lawmakers and pundits advocated a neo-isolationist policy, especially where national interest were hazy at best, and other institutions (such as the European Union) might have stepped up to resolve such situations.
Opposition to involvement in Kosovo was muted (though not non-existant; there were protests, but the participants numbered in the hundreds, not thousands) because of these two words: ethnic cleansing. Bombing Serbia to halt a genocide in the making fulfilled some people's definition of a "righteous war". Not all, and not exclusively liberals, conservatives, or any of the other misnomers that cheapen political dialog in the US.
Labeling Clinton a liberal is laughable. Jacob Javits was a liberal (and a Republican). Tip O'Neill was a liberal. Clinton was not, just as Tony Blair is a departure from the Labour party socialists of the '60s and '70s.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
Or they're conservatives wondering why the hell we're spending all this blood and money to topple a fairly insignificant dictator who hasn't attacked us.
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...
Against a background where 80% of Brits are against the war and only 40% of Americans are - I sure hope the US appreciates that!
Absolutely we do. The Brits have been our staunchest allies, and its a testament to your Prime Minister's integrity that he ignored the hype and went with what he believed was the right decision.
And FYI, approximately 70+% of Americans support this war. Don't take Slashdot posters as an accurate Sampling of the American public!
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.
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.
This is troubling on so many levels. Democracy cannot be just about the majority and winning. Hitler was elected by a majority and no one had a problem with his attempted genocide. Slavery was considered ok by a majority people in the US for a very long time, and those who even thought about protesting or abolishing slavery, like Lincoln, were killed.
People risk their lives trying to bring unpopular issues to the frontline of political debates. In 1965 it was a demonstration in Selma, that results in the cold blooded murder of the minister James Reeb, presumable by a person intent on keeping black from achieving equal rights. Should Reeb have ignored Dr. Martin Luther King's plea for help in his effort to liberate the black population from oppression? Should the goverment have lables them terrorists??
In Dogma, right before Bartebly exacts holy vengeance on the boardroom of sinners, he has a speech in which he says
Fear. And therein lies the problem. None of you has anything left to fear anymore. You rest comfortably in seats of inscrutable power, hiding behind your false idol, far from judgment, lives shrouded in secrecy even from one another. But not from God.
And I think this is the issue. There are people so powerful, so spoiled, so in need of clue, that they respect and fear almost nothing. The exception are the few things demonstrable equally powerful. People this powerful feel that the world is there to service their needs. Furthermore, even if they claim to believe in God, that belief is not reflected in their actions. They do not have maturity or self control to realize that just because you can take something, doesn't mean you have to. In words from the original Star Trek, we can choose not to kill today.
As I mentioned such people will fear things or people that are equally powerful. For example, a few years ago Texas was in the midst of passing a hate crime bill. Dubya was governor. The impetus for this bill was the lynching and dragging of James Byrd, Jr in Jasper. The bill was not great, but it was needed. It was eventually supported by Dubya, after a bit of embarrassing publicity, and would have had very little trouble becoming law except for one problem. It not only wanted to protect minorities, but also homosexuals. There was a basis for this, as about 1/3 of all hate crimes are directed to homosexuals. Dubya could not afford to offend the religious right, so he fought to remove the protection for homosexuals, which killed the bill. From this we can see that those without power, homosexuals can be sacrificed, while there is genuine fear of the fundamentalist Christian right.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
It actually started twelve years ago. Iraq violated the terms of its cease-fire agreement and has been shooting at our planes for years.
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.
Sorry folks, I know you hate to hear it, but the truth speaks for itself.
That's great. Your 'truth' is obviously impervious to facts.
Kosovo had the backing of the UN, and the EU, and every single member of the security council. Including France and Germany.
The reason people have a problem, amazing that you haven't deduced this yet, is that the US is acting without any agreement in the international community. The US is jumping the gun on inspections that should hae been finished. In short, the US is acting on its own accord, citing incredibly shaky terrorist evidence.
But of course, I won't convince you. That's the amazing thing about a lot of Americans; their rights don't need defending. They are automatically self-censoring.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
That's not the point though. The point is that the initial act--no matter who actually did it--was used as an excuse to prosecute people who had nothing to do with it one way or another.
Notes From Under *nix: blas.phemo.us
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?
Personally while I despair that we're at war, I realize it's about damn time someone did something about it.
::grinz::) didn't do something. Guess he was more interested in rating for re-election rather than doing the right thing (yeah I know... I know.. Clinton.. what a joke::grinz::)
While the U.S. can't solve the worlds problems on it's own, there are times where stuff like this is required and we're more than willing to get involved.
This morning I was listening to KSL radio (www.ksl.com). They interviewed a lady who immigrated from Iraq with her family. Quite enlightening. She has the same opinion. War sucks but consiering it's So Damn Insane at the helm she's glad we're going in after him. She and all her family/friends never had enough to eat. She speaks about times where they had to dig with their hands to find water. The crap people were taking from the Dictator Government.
It goes on. Hopefully they still have it on their web sit (most article on the radio are put on the web site). Her story was agonizing to hear. It makes me wonder why the hell Clinton (don't start
Sorry to get all political on you guys but it's my heart felt believe that we're going to war not for oil. We're there because things got that bad.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
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.
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.
Well, the Taliban oppressed their own people, brutally. And they were terrible to women. While saddam has taken part in ethnic cleansing in the past, he hasn't done anything like that in over a decade. A few months ago he released almost all political prisoners in the nation. And in any event, most Iraqis have 'economic freedom' in that they, including the women, can do whatever they want as long as they don't directly oppose the government. Iraqis can even legally purchase guns, just like in the US.
Anyway, the US ads far, far more 'fuel' to the Isreal/Palistine situation with billions in aid to the Sharon government --which kills about three times more innocent civilians then suicide bombers do -- then does Saddam with a few thousand dollars to the families of suicide bombers.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
First of all this post is not flaimbait. It is an opinion of a German citizen living in the US for more then 20 years.
1 6,98.pdf ) from 1998 and in general this site (http://www.newamericancentury.org). And compare the list of people in that organization to the list of people in Bush's cabinet.
Ok now, lets get rolling:
Comparing Hitler's early years to the current situation here in the US is quite just. Lets face some facts:
* Bush is using the same populism tactics / propaganda that Hitler used (Media, Nationalism etc)
* The rights granted by US constitution are being curtailed every day more and more
* US invades other countries
* International Community objects, but doesn't do shit
Don't believe me? Look at all the calls to support 'our' troops even if you disagree with the politics behind it, look at what the media is printing/showing, look what happens to people that voice opposition (I.E Dixie Chicks, Shawn Penn etc.), but hey, perhaps they were right and we will like our new motto in the near future: "Arbeit Macht Frei"
It is really sickening to witness what is happening to this great country. (Hey at least I can go live somewhere else)
Anyhow, if you think that all this is not true, and that this war is self defense then take a look at this article (http://www.newamericancentury.org/AttackIraq-Nov
Just mark my words: this is not the last invasion under Bush's term as a president.
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.
This story has 1000 comments and climbing, so I don't expect that anyone will read this reply except for the reply-poster (Fermion.) Forgive me that I'm not taking all that much time to craft it, but I wanted to quickly refute some of your logic.
With his democracy comment, the original poster was working to support his argument that the War in Iraq is just, regardless of what one thinks of the President. He needed to point this out because some of the less serious people on this forum have suggested that the War is unnecessary except for the personal hatred and ignorance of President Bush. In pointing out that the decision is ultimately the president's, but that it was arrived at by a general concensus of a representive government, he is refuting the claim that the war is an atypical travesty of one man's ambition and spite.
Your argument was a rather banal observation that sometimes a decision made democraticly looks shabby in hindsite. Of course it may, but that doesn't mean the democratic process is to blame. What would you replace it with?
You're right that democracy isn't about winning. It is about short-circuiting some of the nastier parts of human nature to the benefit of a larger group. (In your case, I'm guessing you're being saved from self-deception.)
Thanks to democracy, the minority of people who hate the President to such a degree that they can't see the common good that is being done, aren't impacting the safety and well being of the rest of us.
"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
There are people so powerful, so spoiled, so in need of clue, that they respect and fear almost nothing.
This is a paranoid observation, and its success depends on tapping into the psychology of class warfare and racism by identifying and then villifying another group. In this case, the Bush Administration.
Let me re-phrase what you said:
There are people so powerful, so spoiled, so in need of clue, that they'll sneak into your house at night and eat your babies.
After depicting the administration as an unstoppable uncontrollable group, you can then tack any terrible and sinful intent to them. There's no justification behind your words; just the action of fear.
For that matter, I thought you were were arguing with the last guy by saying that democracy doesn't work. I think what you mean is that democracy worked well enough that you didn't get what you wanted. And now from your perspective the boogie man is coming to get us all.
Just because you're dim enough to fall for the fear mongering, doesn't mean that all of us are going to. Bush is right, and you are very very wrong.
You've just noticed? His selection of who is a villian ("terrorists") worthy of war is sufficiently broad and vague that it could eventually be expanded to include every nation on earth. But is that his real purpose? If the wars ever ended, his power would significantly decrease.
... well, Russia would be a problem and he's been having a few problems with Venezuala, but that can be contained. He controls Kuwait. So which county would logically be next?
However, if the primary rationale is merely a justification for his oil interests gaining economic monopoly
We won't really know until we see how this plays out. And by the time we do, it will be too late. Or we will have been quite fortunate.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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-
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?
Well, yes, if by "failing in every respect to disarm Saddam" you mean, "failing in every respect to 'disarm' the fifty totalitarian regimes that happen to occupy the planet. We're not the world's fucking policeman, okay? US-led coups have really really bad histories of backfiring on us. (see Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, most of Latin America, Cuba...)
Y'see, civilized people don't "disarm" countries who aren't a threat to us or to our friends. Clinton had a plan to invade Iraq, just he was never forced to use it, and he *certainly* didn't *make* the opportunity to use it.
Oh yeah, and he allowed Israel and India and Pakistan to develop nukes too. What, we have some monopoly on intelligence? Obviously not.
Clinton also worked to unify the Koreas, something we've wanted to do since the 50s, tried and failed to do by force, and *almost* managed to do with diplomacy before Bush FUBARed things with his "Axis of Evil" speech. Seriously, that impromptu poll the reporter took before the elections where Bush couldn't name one major world leader was prescient -- the man is a foriegn policy nightmare.
You do realize that when Clinton handed Bush the reigns of the US, the world *wasn't* rapidly spiralling into the maw of its destruction? If Bush really wanted peace, he would've prosecuted this war very differently than he has.
Think about it -- Bush hasn't even said "it's a step in the right direction" whenever Saddam makes a move to let inspectors back in or destroys missles or whatever. Always Bush is saying, "he's lying, he's a scumbag SOB and we need to kill him now". So, if you're Saddam, you think, "He wants me to destroy my weapons so he can invade. Like Hell." Which isn't an unreasonable position to take.
Ever since Bush started talking war in February of 2002, he has *made* *sure* that there would be no other possible outcome.
Regime change begins at home!
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?