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.
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
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 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
(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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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...
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.
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!
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
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
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
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.
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...
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
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.
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?
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-