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.
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.
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...
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
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
The idea here isn't to destroy the Iraqi army; they could do that by pressing a few buttons.
The idea here is that the Iraqi army blinks, and suddenly finds itself surrounded by loaded and cocked weapons. They shake their heads in bemusement, and slowly lift their hands above their heads.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
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.
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."
What these posters were probably getting at is something more like an English language version of Al-jezzera. The English language news outlets seem to be acting less as journalists and more as arms of some American propagada apparatus.
As an American, I find this insulting.
I'd love to know what the Al-Jezzera perspective was on the authenticity of Hussien's address to the nation (for example).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
Ok--here's one thing. How about the initial thrust into Iraq? MSNBC and CNN did not report that the initial thrust actually had to hold their position/retreat. I found that it did not go as successfully as portrayed on washingtonpost.com and bbc.
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 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.
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
In addition, CNN had a very good summary of all the different weapons/forces from both sides.
A couple things that I learned: Iraq has 3 main models of tanks, T-72, T-62, and T-55. While I can only guess what the numbers represent, they do correspond to the decade that they were first built. The T-72 is a 30 year old tank design. Most of their tanks have gone through several wars and are only running buy scavanging other tanks for parts.
My brother just a few weeks ago finished his AIT for repair on track vehicles. He said that the some of the shells that the Abrams fire will penetrate a tank shoot through the tank, and exit out the otherside. It does this with so much force that just about anything not solid (i.e. human bodies) are usually sucked out of the small exit hole. Also, I read somewhere that the Abrams can/will shoot through sand dunes and still inflict serious damage to a tank. I also remember seeing once on TLC or Discovery Channel that the Abrams can track either 8 or 16 different targets at a time and fire accurately at 40 mph over bumpy terrain.
I'm not sure if you should take this all as religion, but it just sounded interesting.
I believe you have just voiced the fear that underlies much of the international opposition to this war.
I am an American citizen, and I am not an imperialist. I don't know anyone who advocates American imperialism. I teach my children, as most Americans do, to mind their own damn business. So, I can tell you honestly that countries which do not threaten the U.S. need have no fear of us. Unfortunately, that still leaves three problems for the rest of the world:
1. What if I (and the U.S. government) are lying about our intentions?
2. Who decides what constitutes a threat? (apparently, we do)
3. What if our attitude becomes more imperialistic later on?
I don't know what to tell you. Direct U.S. involvement in this mess began in 1979, in Iran, and since that time there have been over 800 U.S. citizens killed in Middle East-related violence before 9/11. Many Americans think we have been patient bordering on negligent. The WTC/Pentagon attacks pushed us into action; now we all have to work to find a peace that everyone can live with. This cannot even begin until the aftermath of the current fighting, when it will be seen that (as in Afghanistan) we were as good as our word insofar as returning Iraq to the Iraqis, and helping the citizens of Iraq to rebuild their country.
After that, who knows? The U.S. seems to be attempting to execute the Paul Wolfowitz plan to remake the Middle East into a region of free societies. This is a risky course which seeks to preempt an ever-increasing spiral: terrorist attacks followed by military retribution (against people who may or may not have been involved in the terror) followed by terrorist attacks... Eventually, many of us think, this would lead to World War III, especially if terrorists succeed in using a nuclear device against a U.S. city. I support the President and his advisors in this attempt. However, I know many well-intentioned people who think it's a bad idea, for reasons that range from "fuck it, just nuke 'em all now", to "Arabs can't make a free democracy work" to "we brought it all on ourselves with misguided foreign policy".
I very much hope that our course is the correct one. Only time will tell.