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.
Are any non Allies news feeds confirming this? Also does anyone have any video feeds on it?
I think I've heard enough of the words "shock and awe". How about "big bombs and stuff blowing up?"
Or maybe "puttin' the smack down on Saddam" for the WWE fans.
I'm watching ABC and they arent saying anything like that. They're actually saying "Shock & Awe" might be delayed because of possible successes in the strikes the other night.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
As a aside issue, can anyone tell me why Saddam sets fire to the oil fields?
Sorry, but my karma just ran over your dogma.
Rather than just a "strike under way" story, why not something about the tech that's being used this time around? That would be "News for Nerds."
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
Pentagon officials have confirmed that this is "A-day" for war.
Just in case anyone is mislead. The term A-day has no relation to the term D-day. D-day actually stands for "day day", which is just part of silly military terminology. H-Hour and M-Minute are also terms sometimes used.
"Probably the toughest time in anyone's life is when you have to murder a loved one because they're the devil." -Philips
I think the US dosn't actually want to pummel Bagdad. It's just a threat to encourage the Iraqi military to come to it's senses. It's a good strategy if it works.
On the TV Bagdad looks pretty quiet...
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
Dear Raed
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!
Ask the American and British soldiers currently risking their lives if this isn't "stuff that matters."
Never underestimate the potential of Human stupidity. -Heinlein
God, I hope this is over soon. War sucks, especially when it's for no good reason (or the reasons are manufactured).
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
In other words, it starts now.
Then can someone please tell me what all that bombing we did on Weds. was for? Was that like the pregame show?
Who's voting for Bush in 2004?
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
... where can we go besides CNN and /. for frequently-updated briefs on the situation?
There's gotta be a time for a thread-of-links, and this'd be it.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
I'm really starting to hate that phrase.
:-)
CNN should implement a karma system for their reporters:
- Overused phrases (-1 Troll)
- Actual real new info (+1 Informative)
Be free to come up with better ideas.
- Baffle
To the third group: Why are you reading this, then? Nobody forced you to click on the story. Unless there's some sort of reverse-censorship software out there now. In which case, that would definitely be a good Slashdot story.
That is all.
Do not read this sig.
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.
I just whish there were an other way.
I hope the number of casualties will be minimal.
Though most people in Iraq will welcome
the change, I think...
-- (:> jms cs.vu.nl (_) --"---
The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the inequities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee.
Iraq is HOPELESSLY outclassed by the American military, the physical outcome is a foregone conclusion. "Shock and awe" is accurate, I'd hate to be an Iraqi soldier right now.
"Shock and Awe" is not going to be the outcome of the "new regime" and "friendly democracy" that will be put in place after the war (if the political side does not collapse) - more like same old same old. You can't impose American free market orthodoxy on a country in this stage of development (look at all the discussions on patents and trade abuse).
Afghanistan is now perilously close to the position it was in that led to the taliban takeover - warlords and chaos.
Johns: Well, how does it look now? Riddick: Looks clear.
It isn't clear that Saddam ordered this, or really had anything to do with the oil pumps (and it was a few pumps, not fields) being lit on fire. It was probably some scared troops, acting independantly.
Do not read this sig.
Don't you know your history. We don't find out about the really good stuff (tech and otherwise) until 10-20 years later. Look at WWII. We broke Engima, Purple, and JN25 early on in the war -- but the public didn't find out until decades after (1979 for Engima, IIRC). The atom bomb is probably the only exception, and that is a special case -- remember, we had none left when Japan surrendered
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
...or "Blitzkreig", as the Nazi party used to call it. Not a new or original tactic.
did you know : you know, some geeks are actually muslims
I'm watching live TV - it's not quite starting yet. They are apparently negotiating with two senior officials in hopes of getting them to surrender, and word is that the intensity of attack will be inversly proportional to how successful the talks go. If they surrender then maybe there will be no shock and awe attack.
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...
However, if the attack is an immoral, illegal war -- which everyone from Kofi Annan to the Pope says it is -- isn't "supporting the troops" akin to helping a murderer feel good about killing people?
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
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
Well, I have to say it's been a pretty close fight up until now. I think it's time to pull out the big guns and show them just what happens when you fight with America by putting up practically zero resistance!
Seriously, I thought the plan was to psyop them out. If the U.S. could have pulled that off without any significant casualties, it might have made the whole thing look a little less illegitimate. Dropping gigantoriffic superbombs on mostly harmless Iraqis isn't going to make world matters better.
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."
IS::
100K + of normal bombs == "wepons of mass destruction" ?
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.
Exactly. Everyone knows that going in with fat bombs that are only barely not WMD themselves is definitely going to kill loads of civilians. Nobody wants that, including Bush, Powell, et al. They want to take out as little as possible, namely the leadership. It's like people think that the goal is to kill as many people as possible. That's just sick. We'll do whatever we can to avoid all-out bombing, I'm betting.
Do not read this sig.
I've run across this little tidbit of history a couple times now. I figure those who haven't should read it now. I didn't write this, and I'm not claiming credit. Reading on BBC (a couple hours ago) that the US was using a "Shock and Awe" technique is especially disturbing.
------
Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann
The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.
It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric
offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over
><));>
Just so everyone else knows, the BBC has free feeds and news about the war in Iraq that you do *not* have to register for.
Or so the history channel claims. I have no idea what A-Day means.
SD-Day...The day Slashdot fans go to war withthe world.
There's no contradiction in this, and no helping a "murderer feel good about killing people" - which should be directed at Saddam, not the troops in the field trying to overthrow him.
The weapons you are looking for are currently unavailable. The country might be experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your weapons inspectors mandate.
Not a war crime not then not now. http://community.webshots.com/photo/17750667/17750 777KOLvpHNqRo
We're helping Osama bin Laden by taking out a non-extremist, and making the area a more fertile recruiting ground for extremist terrorist! Osama bin Laden couldn't be more pleased with this war!
Little Brother, watching the watchers
And going to the paper that seems to be the source of the Shock and Awe terminology:
Key words here: adversary's losses in both manpower and material could be relatively light
The paper is a long read, but it's extremely insightful.
The paper describes many ways of inflicting Shock and Awe on an opposing force, and they do not necessarily require the complete and utter (military) devastation of the opposing force.
(Then again, just as I was about to click "Submit", I saw most of the government buildings in Baghdad get the absolute shit blown out of 'em. Consider me shocked and awed either way. :)
Shock and Awe
The basis for Rapid Dominance rests in the ability to affect the will, perception, and understanding of the adversary through imposing sufficient Shock and Awe to achieve the necessary political, strategic, and operational goals of the conflict or crisis that led to the use of force. War, of course, in the broadest sense has been characterized by Clausewitz to include substantial elements of "fog, friction, and fear." In the Clausewitzian view, "shock and awe" were necessary effects arising from application of military power and were aimed at destroying the will of an adversary to resist. Earlier and similar observations had been made by the great Chinese military writer Sun Tzu around 500 B.C. Sun Tzu observed that disarming an adversary before battle was joined was the most effective outcome a commander could achieve. Sun Tzu was well aware of the crucial importance of achieving Shock and Awe prior to, during, and in ending battle. He also observed that "war is deception," implying that Shock and Awe were greatly leveraged through clever, if not brilliant, employment of force.
In Rapid Dominance, the aim of affecting the adversary's will, understanding, and perception through achieving Shock and Awe is multifaceted. To identify and present these facets, we need first to examine the different aspects of and mechanisms by which Shock and Awe affect an adversary. One recalls from old photographs and movie or television screens, the comatose and glazed expressions of survivors of the great bombardments of World War I and the attendant horrors and death of trench warfare. These images and expressions of shock transcend race, culture, and history. Indeed, TV coverage of Desert Storm vividly portrayed Iraqi soldiers registering these effects of battlefield Shock and Awe.
In our excursion, we seek to determine whether and how Shock and Awe can become sufficiently intimidating and compelling factors to force or otherwise convince an adversary to accept our will in the Clausewitzian sense, such that the strategic aims and military objectives of the campaign will achieve a political end. Then, Shock and Awe are linked to the four core characteristics that define Rapid Dominance: knowledge, rapidity, brilliance, and control.
The first step in this process is to establish a hierarchy of different types, models, and examples of Shock and Awe in order to identify the principal mechanisms, aims, and aspects that differentiate each model as unique or important. At this stage, historical examples are offered. However, in subsequent stages, a task will be to identify current and future examples to show the effects of Shock and Awe. From this identification, the next step in this methodology is to develop alternative mission capability packages consisting of a concept of operations doctrine, tactics, force structure, organizations, and systems to analyze and determine how best each form or variant of Shock and Awe might be achieved. To repeat, intimidation and compliance are the outputs we seek to obtain by the threat of use or by the actual application of our alternative force package. Then the mission capability package is examined in conditions of both MRCs and OOTW.
For discussion purposes, nine examples representing differing historical types, variants, and characteristics of Shock and Awe have been derived. These examples are not exclusive categories and overlap exists between and among them. The first example is "Overwhelming Force," the doctrine and concept shaping today's American force structure. The aims of this doctrine are to apply massive or overwhelming force as quickly as possible on an adversary in order to disarm, incapacitate, or render the enemy militarily impotent with as few casualties and losses to ourselves and to non-combatants as possible. The superiority of American forces, technically and operationally, is crucial to successful application.
There are several major criticisms and potential weaknesses of this approach. The first is its obvious reliance on large numbers of high
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Has anybody said yet why they've gone ahead with the plan today? They said themselves the Iraqi gov't is in chaos and disarray and it doesn't look to me like they're fighting back much at this time. CNN's talking heads are mostly discussing fluff such as "what does the A in A-day stand for"....
hope god will save those people... (and especially MCSEs)
[self dealloc];
What I'm trying to figure out is this:
if we go in through Turkey and take Iraq from behind, would Greece help?
And just remember all you anti-war types, you're still an infidel that needs to die in the eyes of a militant islamic terrorist.
Unlike you I don't conduct my actions out of fear.
You must not have checked the link before you posted, since it has been dead at least since last night. Anyone know why? What was the last update?
The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
This is what American democracy looks like !
America was the country that was the primary "sponsor" - in terms of weapons, training and funding - of Osama Bin Laden and his fighters during the 1980s.
American spokesman saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's seizure of power in Afghanistan in 1996.
America unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in December 2001.
America renounced the efforts to negotiate a verification process for the Biological Weapons Convention and brought an international conference on the matter to a halt in July 2001.
America unilaterally withdrew from the Kyoto treaty on global warming in March 2001.
America is the world's biggest polluter.
America prevented the United Nations from curbing the gun trade at a small arms conference in July 2001.
America is the world's largest exporter of arms.
America was responsible for a car bomb which killed 80 civilians in Beirut in 1985, in a botched assassination attempt, thereby making it the most lethal terrorist bombing in modern Middle East history.
American illegal bombing of Libya in 1986 was described by the UN Legal Committee as a "classic case" of terrorism.
Aside from Somalia, America is the only other country in the world to have refused to ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
America is the only country in the West which still permits the execution of children (i.e. "persons under the age of 18").
America is the only G7 country to have refused to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, forbidding the use of landmines.
Aside from China, America is the only other nuclear power to have refused to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
America rejected the order of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to terminate its "unlawful use of force" against Nicaragua in 1986, and then vetoed a UN Security Council resolution calling on all states to observe international law.
America is the only G7 country to have voted against the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 1998.
America refuses to hand over a variety of indicted war criminals, terrorists and mass murderers - all residing within its borders - to Cuba, Venezuela and Haiti.
America has provided approximately $110 billion in aid to a country [Israel] which has maintained a 34-year occupation of land in defiance of international law.
America was the only other country to join with Israel in opposing a 1987 General Assembly resolution condemning international terrorism.
America refuses to fully pay its debts to the United Nations yet reserves its right to veto United Nations resolutions.
America was the only country that ratified the Convention on the Prevention of Genocide in 1988, *40* years after its passage at the United Nations.
America was accused by a UN-sponsored truth commission of providing "direct and indirect support" for "acts of genocide" against the Mayan Indians in Guatemala during the 1980s.
America was the driving force behind the economic embargo on Iraq - responsible for the death of over half a million Iraqi children and described by one of its own legislators as "genocide masquerading as policy".
America is the only country in the world to have dropped bombs on twenty other countries since 1945.
America is the only country in the world to have used all three types of "weapons of mass destruction" (chemical, biological and nuclear).
(B-52s launched from Emgland a few hours ago.)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I've been using BBC news for a while now. They currently have 2 live feeds from Iraq; A news feed and a live camera from inside the city (like a traffic cam).
><));>
As to the "politics" part, that would be valid if he added something like "Go get'um!" or "Bush is a terrorist!" All that was published was a link to what is the BIGEST story at the time.
If you want to have coverage of the protests, post links to the topic. It's very easy to do. For Example
Deaths as anti-war protests spread
I take it that was the story you were venting about?
As far as I can tell this war is only slightly bigger then Kosovo. Why is it recieving so much attention? The protests were non existent. The media attention wasn't 1/100th this size in Kosovo or when Clinton bombed Iraq. What am I missing?
The U.N. didn't approve either action, so it doesn't seem likely. Both Saddam and Milosevic are very evil men who commited "ethnic cleansings." Why is everyone getting so angry and childish? "Bush is an evil oilman/warmonger" "I'll never buy anything from France again"
Capitalism: unequal distribution of wealth
Socialism: equal distribution of poverty
"No, Bush is Hitler"
There, we've taken care of 40% of the posts on this thread. Move along.
Try to think like a defender in this case. Would you (a) move out to engage the enemy in the open so you could be ripped apart by their superior long-range weapons and air power, or (b) let 'em come into the cities to fight, where recent history shows they're vulnerable (imagine Mogidishu with trained troops with real weapons rather than some militia with AKs)?
I'd think (b), personally -- set a few guys you don't like out in the desert to put up token resistance and place your loyal troops in areas where they can't be easily MOAB'ed.
It's too soon to call this a victory. I still think the US will win this particular battle, but it's probably not going to be as bloodless and easy as it seems so far.
But we can hope for a quick peace with minimal casualties. Hell, that's all we can do at this point.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
> WE DON'T BUY IRAQI OIL.
c tbook/geos/ iz.html
Well, at the moment surely not.
But at least until 2000 (and then Saddam was already The Bad Guy(TM)):
" Iraq's economy is dominated by the oil sector, which has traditionally provided about 95% of foreign exchange earnings."
Exports - partners:
US 46.2%, Italy 12.2%, France 9.6%, Spain 8.6% (2000)
(Source: CIA World Factbook,
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/fa
)
BTW, Saddam is not an Islamic militant.
I didn't hear Saddam going on Al Jazeera (sp) on Sept 11th, condemning the horrific attack on civilians. He would love nothing more than to see us and Isreal exterminated. If that's not an Islamic militant then I don't know what is.
I'm inclined to think that all of this discussion of "shock & awe" was all disinformation, aimed at fooling the Iraqi authorities into not responding very aggressively to the US attack. Just a hunch.
sulli
RTFJ.
1) We don't know. And we can't expect the military to reveal their knowledge of such weapons. I know this: in the arena of warfare, you first expend your general purpose arsenal in hopes of warding off the enemy. As a last ditch effort, you begin using the "hail-mary" tactic where you have to expend something of limited quantity to save the game.
It's not to say that they have missiles outfitted with chemical and/or biological warheads. It's to say that have the chemical and/or biological agents to outfit missiles to deliver said agents to a target.
The missiles that Iraq began to destroy two weeks ago were missiles that were built to deliver chemical and/or biological agents (weapons of mass destruction). They were, of course, empty - but why would a country develop and build missiles (even though they were forbidden to do so) without having the chemical or biological agents to fill them up?
2) Scud missiles are considered to be weapons of aggression that can potentially cause massive casualties (a.k.a. a weapon of mass destruction). Scud missiles were banned as a part of the resolution that ended the Gulf War - in years following, Iraq stated they had no Scud missiles; they were completely disarmed.
Ayup
The White House has now trademarked this phrase. The trademark is to help ensure that the phrase does not get diluted by careless knockoffs such as "overwhelm", "blitzkrieg", or any other competing phrases that might not fit the PR roadmap for this event. Everyone get your S&A t-shirts while they last!
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
It is interesting the US Army has choosen to liberate the oil wells before liberating any people. Okay neocons and dittoheads step up and let the flames begin.
"You don't need a weatherman/ To know which way the wind blows" -Bob Dylan: Subterranean Homesick Blues
It's no fault of your own. You just show some people a coffee mug, and they'll tell you right to your face "thats not a coffee mug".
Of course since the beginning the Admnistration has been telling us that they have a coffee cup, it's definitely a coffee cup, and we all should believe that it's a coffee cup... But no, now that you ask, you can't see the coffee cup right now. It's there though, really!
The enemies of Democracy are
Unlike you I don't conduct my actions out of fear.
So, if someone breaks into your house do you let them shoot you first before you defend yourself?
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
I guess you missed the Bin Laden tape recording last month where Osama called for the Arab world to "unite in support of Iraq" and fight against the Americans.
Its no secret that Osama thinks that Hussein is an infidel, and it is also no secret that they both have a common goal to destroy America and our way of life.
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.
Current estimates(which I pulled from my but) are that around two millian Iraqis are likely to die of hunger.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
The bad english seems to be due to the automated translation :
....
In A.D. 2003
War was beginning
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A series of large explosions rocked Iraq's capital sending plumes of smoke and fire into the skies over Baghdad as the intense coalition air assault got underway.
Saddam: What happen?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
Saddam: What!
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Saddam: It's You!!
Bush: How are you gentlemen!!
Bush: All your oil are belong to us.
Bush: You are on the way to destruction.
Saddam: What you say!!
Bush: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Bush: Ha Ha Ha Ha
Saddam: Take off every 'Scud'!!
Operator: You know what you doing.
Saddam: Move 'Scud'.
Saddam: For great justice.
My website
we've seen this before.
2 1337 4 u!
Now networks have emotions and touchy feely moments. Check in the therapists office CNN, this lingering sadness could be something more serious and need drug therapy...
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
I'm from Minnesota. There's a *really* great fishing lake named Lake Shockandawe - it's just to the north of Lake Woebegone. I'm pretty sure it's Indian for terrorist.
that the reason the US is pulling its punches is to reduce the future financial liability of restoring infrastructure in Iraq?
I'm sure that this has been discussed in the last 50 billion+ posts on the Iraq war.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
that slashdot is keeping us posted becuase I can't find TV coverege anywhere! 8^)
American Army during the war.
Otherwise, all the remaining Iraquis left alive will love democracy and freedom.
I just expect the vast majority of Iraqui people don't vote for extremist leaders right in the first free elections.
Looking at the current Iraq demographics and the meadle east social movements, I think we might risk having an elected government in Iraq worst than the present one.
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
I've seen a few listed over the past couple articles, but none of them seem to work. Anyone have one that really does have the cnn newsfeed for people like me stuck at work and tired of constantly clicking refresh? :)
News outlets have had the equivalent of a "FIRST POST" for as long as there has been competition in the media..
think of all the reporters trying to "break that big story".
The only difference is, they usually get commended for it.
In resonse, I'll give only one reason why America is awesome:
"Trogdar, the Burninator."
Completely incorrect analogy. He's not coming to our house, we're going to his. Considering how ringed in he's been by us for the past 11 years, he poses little threat.
A better analogy would be if someone tried breaking into your friend's home 11 years ago, was arrested, and thrown in jail. You're so mad still that you go to the jail, find his cell, and shoot him, then claim that he was thinking of breaking out and coming after you, so it was justified.
Patriotism:
Love of and devotion to one's country.
Nationalism:
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
I love my country which is why I oppose this war and the people who fight it - yes, that means the troops. And before you froth at the mouth and label me a troll, Check this out.
I will be happy to support the wounded on both sides when the fighting stops - but I will not support the systematic murder of thousands of people whether they be Iraqi or American. Murder is still murder whether it be on battlefield or at bus stop.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We'll just make Iraq foot the bill, after all they have the resources, all they'll need to do is just sell oil. No biggie.
After this phase, they will unleash a weapon even more heinous and powerful than Shock and Awe - Chaka Kahn!!!
Bullshit. The whole reason CNN was ousted was because AOL screwed up their internet access (thus keeping them in the stone age), and they were mad that Billionair Ted isn't in charge anymore, allowing the sale of their favorite program. That, of course, would be WCW, sold to it's rival, the WWE, who they don't like thanks to the alliance between Nikolai Volkov and the Iron Sheik, not to mention Sargent Slaughter's 1991 Iraqi Turncoat run.
Seriously though. Fox News is still going strong, along with it's affiliate, Brittain's Sky News. This is one hell of an interesting conflict. Strike, move, Strike, move, BIG FUCKING STRIKE. And all the while, they're trying to keep it so that the Iraqi people know that they are only after Saddam and his military government.
So here's how this is going to work. Saddam, if he's not dead already, will either be ousted or on the run. The opposition will be given control of Iraq, and along with it, Iraq's oil. Humanitarian aid will come in to help the Iraqi people get on their feet. Aid will rebuild Baghdad, and modernize the nation.
In short, the USA will be kissing their asses.
We've been all friendly. And look! You've got this natural resource right here to fuel your economy. And guess what? It just so happens that we'll be buying. Now, since we were so nice, how about dropping the price of that crude? Hmmm?
On Fox News at this monment, they talked about Coalition Forces and when they will be able to say they've achieved their goal. I think we know what Bush and company's goals are. How convenient. Here's some oil, we want it. Oops. It just so happens that country's leader is a flaming asshole with weapons we don't like.
One thing, though. If Dubya does get his way, we all might see a break at the pump. Wouldn't that be nice...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
If nothing else was learned before 9-11, it's that we don't need to be provoked or engaged to be targetted by a bunch of islamo-facsists.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
Yeah. He just pissed off "Papa" Bush (which seems to me to be a somewhat insulting title for the former President). He also pissed off thousands of people in Halabja when he KILLED THEM. Not to mention the UN orders to disarm that he has ignored for the last twelve years.
I've heard the view about oil stated so many times, but what do you actually mean? Do you really think that once the war is over President Bush will seize the oil fields to profit personally? Will he turn giddy just thinking of it and roll around naked in Iraqi oil? Highly unlikely, but if he did, what does that mean to you? Did you know that if Iraq stopped withholding their quota of oil, gasoline prices in the United States would run close to a dollar per gallon? I wouldn't mind that in the least. But I doubt that Bush will take over the Iraqi oil operations.
"Your oilfields are *your* greatest asset." - President George W. Bush, to the Iraqi people. This is the man we elected to do the job, and I'm content with actually supporting him. (And don't give me any of that "He didn't receive the majority of the popular vote." crap. Neither did Rutherford B. Hayes or Benjamin Harrison, and I don't see you complaining about that. The system can swing that way. Besides, with less than 50% voter turnout, not one president has ever gotten a majority of the people's support.)
I stand corrected, but still oppose the war.
Little Brother, watching the watchers
Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf said earlier today:
"There is not one American soldier on Iraqi soil."
"We will not allow them to get out of this quagmire which we trapped them in. They will see their end there."
Diagnosis: Schizophrenic Pathological Liar with Grand Delusions
Perscription: 300 Cruise Missles - 10 B2 Bombers - 3 Marine Divisions and call me in the morning.
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.
Instead of using the already established "Mon" day "Tues" day system, they have to go out and create their own system for naming days.
At least my tax dollars are being used for other purposes besides just reducing a 3rd world country to a, what?, "D" country?
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
...for one person who is against the war to use anything but lies, ignorance, and oversimplification to support their viewpoint.
There are countless reasons why we _should_ remove Saddam from power, but I'll be damned if I can't find a good long term reason to leave him alone.
For those of you who think we're doing this to scare Iraqi's from joining terrorist groups, you're misinformed. For those of you who think we're doing this to get oil, you're misinformed.
Proper information is out there, but they conceal that sort of information in books.
~D
So, do you kill strangers in another part of town just in case they might eventually break into your house someday?
The article does a good job of using fear to shape public opinion. How does it feel to scare people into your belief system?
Further, I should point out that the article is quite liberal in re-interpreting and ignoring details which don't support the analogy between Bush and Hitler. For example, a detail which was left out:
"I don't have to worry about justice; my mission is only to destroy and exterminate, nothing more!" - Hermann Göring, March 3, 1933.
Fifty one anti-Nazis were murdered. The Nazis suppressed all political activity, meetings and publications of non-Nazi parties. The very act of campaigning against the Nazis was in effect made illegal.
One minute Baghdad was quiet. The next then entire southern horizon lit up. The MSNBC reporter was so shaken Tom Brokaw broke away to give him time to collect himself.
Yeah, shock and awe is an appropriate description, even when you're watching a feed on the internet at 56K.
Fox cable news is showing Al-Jazeera feeds as I speak/type.
That is because, out of consideration for viewing American audience, the stealth bombers have now been outfitted with stealth bombs.
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
This administration has some of finest strategic minds in country. Bush may be unreliable, but Colin Powell's integrity is unquestioned. even as a general, he was extremely conservative and patient. he refused to make hasty decisions on unreliable or unconfirmed information, and I can't imagine that his nature has changed since then. I think we have to have some amount of faith that the US is in possession of still-classified information that Saddam definitely has something up his sleeve.
we already know for a fact that Hussein offers large cash rewards to the families of Palestinians that act as suicide bombers in Israel. that crime alone damns the Iraqi government nearly as much as the Taliban. we demolished Afghanistan simply because they let terrorists set up training camps. if Saddam places a bounty on Israeli casualties, that's almost as bad. so that right there is a pretty strong reason to attack, and one which Bush doesn't seem to have placed enough emphasis on.
does that mean our intentions are entirely honorable? no, not at all. I'm sure Bush would love to drive oil prices back down ( and for my part, I hope he does it quickly; filling up my SUV every 2 weeks with $1.65/gal gasoline isn't cheap ). and protecting Israel always helps grease the wheels when it comes time to solicit campaign contributions. cleaning up dad's mess is a nice bonus, too. I'm sure all those factors weigh in to the equation. but even in post-9/11 america, the system still has enough checks and balances to prevent a war based SOLELY on those reasons.
let's talk about democracy's role in all this. is ignoring war protests tantamount to ignoring democracy? no, i say, democracy is still winning. current polls place opposition to the war at around 30%, maybe 40% at most. that means the majority of Americans still support getting rid of Saddam. Congress voted overwhelmingly to give Bush the power to invoke military action. that same Congress received a significant message from the people who elected a Republican majority just a few short months ago. all that adds up to representative democracy, folks.
right now it seems like we're pissing off a lot of the world, and yes, we probably are. the muslim terrorist groups are going to be especially irate, and they're going to come back swinging. very true, but frankly, they would have attacked us anyways sooner or later. unless we suddenly pulled all of our forces out of the Middle East, AND dissolved the Israeli state, Muslim fanatics are always going to hate us. the question is, do we want them to hate us with the support of a chemical- and biological-weapon producing madman, or without him? I'd say, "without him", definitely.
some people may be troubled by the way the US is so blatantly calling for a regime change in Iraq. it seems really wrong to hear that kind of talk out of an administration that won its own power in a very dubious manner. but of course the big difference is we know that our tyrant will be held accountable by the voting public in 2 years; Hussein will not. and the fact is, we've forced regime changes before. sometimes covertly with the CIA, sometimes very obviously, like the capture of Manuel Noriega in Panama. that one was just as economically motivated as this: you really think anyone wanted a madman in control of something as vital as the Panama Canal? Saddam Hussein is probably a convenient boogeyman now that Bin Laden has disappeared. but don't kid yourself, Hussein DOES deserve to b
"You want a toe? I can get you a toe by three o'clock... with nail polish."
thanks dumbass.
Actually, the "Shock & Awe" does not come until after the operation has been completed and we get the total bill.
if they feel that strongly, I hear the iraqi army is recruiting!
Of course, I don't remember those protests when Bill Clinton launched cruise missiles at Iraq. Or when he invaded Haiti, Bosnia, or Sudan, without UN approval.
Oh, that's right, They're not protesting the war, they're protesting against George Bush. You don't see Iraq citizens protesting the american invasion, do you?
Remember the Maine! Don't fight imperialist wars, fight wars against imperialism.
The coffee god lives!
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
Tune into the latest miniseries, "Harried by America", starring Dubya, the U.S. military, and the Axis of Evil. In tonight's episode, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein gets his due for becoming a perceived threat to American security. Witness firsthand the power of the U.S. military, as thousands of Tomahawk missiles and JDAM GPS-guided missiles rain down upon Baghdad, Kirkuk, and Mosul. Break out the popcorn, kick up your feet, sit back, and enjoy! This is military entertainment at its finest -- most certainly must-see TV!
Next week: All eyes turn toward North Korea and dictator Kim Jong II as George Bush announces...
1. Invade countries we don't like.
2. ?????
3. Democracy
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
Check out his weblog. It is interesting view of life in Baghdad now.
When somebody says militant islamic terrorist, they do not nesscessairly mean "every muslim in the world."
Just the ones that have declared jihad on America, blow up our boats, fly planes into our buildings etc. And we are just another infidel to them...
If they have and use bio-weapons at this time they will lose out on the opposition to war within the U.N., kind of like shooting one's self in the foot.
While listening to CNN radio yesterday, I suggested a "shock & awe" drinking game to a co-worker. Unfortunately, we realized that we'd drink ourselves blind within 10 minutes :)
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
C'mon now...People,This is not some game that is being staged for your amusement.Please,Please restrain your insensitive comments/sarcasm. New Yorkers should especially empathise with what's happening here--Is it funny when I talk about 7/11? If there is anybody who needs to be commended at this time,It has to be that ordinary Brave Baghdadi citizen,the Common Man. Atleast,try to be Human,guys!
From The Guardian:
Iraq's information minister, Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, told a news conference: "They targeted the houses of Saddam Hussein and his family, but they are safe. They are safe," he repeated, adding that the US president, George Bush, was the "leader of an international criminal gang of bastards".
When I read this, I most vividly remembered from my youth that I would resort to this kind of baseless name-calling when I was cornered by a parent who had been poked and prodded one time too many, and was comin' at me with a belt, ready to tan my hide. That's how I see Saddam right now... and it's really sad.
I think it's interesting to note that people have a hard time differentiating between American people and the American government. It's funny when I hear someone's surprise when they realize that some Americans might actually be against the war.
Believe it or not, there is just as much dissention and discussion (if not more) among the American people about the war as there is between Americans and those of other nations. Indeed, America is a free country, and they're allowed to speak up against their government. And they do.
I'm quite divided myself, and I think those that are either against or completely in bed with this war aren't looking at all sides of the issue. Strangely enough, many of those who claim that Bush is simplistic and biased don't seem to have any problems with Chirac. Additionally, "the quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than the shouts of a ruler of fools," in which case the silent majority seems to be saying a lot to me about what the real feelings of the people are. Unfortunately, the "silent majority" is not as newsworthy as the destructive protesters ("stop this war or we'll kill the ambassador!").
Please don't use these forums as a medium for bashing the US Americans.
...just my 2 gil.
Yeah, kill Saddam and all the evil Sunnis who have been torturing the Shiite majority for decades. The we can have a good old American-style one-man-one-vote election. The early favorite in that would be the spiritual leader of the Iraqi Shiites - Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, now in exile in Iran.
Great plan, George!
Unless we mean a good old American one-man-one-vote Florida style.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Mr. Secretary, Mr. Vice-President, the missiles are flying. Hallelujah! -- President Greg Stillson (Martin Sheen), The Dead Zone
A cattle prod and a puppy.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Lots of war photos from the last few days: photo link
You know, the paper US press is having in this war is really sad. It looks like US got back at Mcarthey (correct me if name is typed wrong) times, where everbody that didn't said amen was communist, just now they are called anti-american.
You know, americans that live here in Brasil are mostly agains the war, because we don't cut the news about anti-war protests or anti-war-leaders speachs.
The same, sure and more, goes for Iraq's television.
How do you guys fell that press changes peoples minds to support or not a war?
Q: Whats the difference between a weapons geek and a Nazi?
A: A Nazi knows he has no conscience.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
The problems of the metaphor is this - it not a retarded kid. Its a mad kid - he has a million personalities, most of them are good, but there's a handful of bully psychopaths in there.
Everyone agrees Saddam must go. What is in dispute is whether or not is worthwhile to kill the country in the process - even the infantrymen of Iraq should be considered innocent casualties - they are drafted and held in the war by MP's, secret police, and officers.
why not something about the tech that's being used this time around? That would be "News for Nerds."
Alright. Want to know something about the tech? Most of it is classified.
I used to work for Litton, designing radar video systems, before Northrop-Grumman bought us out. (Litton - builder of all Nimitz-class aircraft carriers and Aegis guided missile destroyers. NG - builder of stealth bomber and stealth fighter.)
Think of how radar works. A microwave radio signal is fired in a quick burst from a magnetron (just like in your microwave oven, but higher power and frequency). The signal is transmitted outward, bounces off the target, is received, heterodyned (mixed with a signal of similar frequency), and then the beat is amplified and fed to a display or other electronics (targeting computers, etc.).
If your signal isn't reflected, you don't have a target on your display. So what do stealth bombers and fighters do? Diffuse the signal, or reflect it everywhere except the direction from which it came.
It's just like a sand bar, which doesn't show up on marine radar - it absorbs the energy and/or reflects it away from the source.
And that's how radar stealth works.
Fire and Meat. Yummy.
A tape from Bin Laden asking for support of Saddam against America in no way shows a connection between Hussein and Al-Queda.
Bin Laden wants this war, he knows that anything he does to reduce the distance between him and Saddam will bring the war closer (he succeeded). Now that the US is attacking Iraq, it is a lot easier to recruit new terrorists, and popular support for existing ones is growing.
So Bin Laden has great incentive to associate him self with Hussein in the media, regardless of whether or not any factual link exists. I am not saying there is no link between the Ba'ath party and Al-Queda (I don't think there is, I have not seen the evidence), but to think that tape establishes a link is idiotic
Even if you believe this war is just, you have to acknowledge that it will strengthen Al-Queda.
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
Greetings:This is the Secretary of War at the State Department
of the United States
We have a problem.
The companies want something done about this sluggish
world economic situation
Profits have been running a little thin lately
and we need to stimulate some growth
Now we know
there's an alarmingly high number of young people roaming
around in your country with nothing to do but stir up trouble
for the police and damage private property.
It doesn't look like they'll ever get a job
It's about time we did something constructive with these people
We've got thousands of 'em here too. They're crawling all over
The companies think it's time we all sit down, have a serious get-together-
And start another war
The President?
He loves the idea! All those missiles streaming overhead to and fro
Napalm
People running down the road, skin on fire
The Soviets seem up for it:
The Kremlin's been itching for the real thing for years.
Hell, Afghanistan's no fun
So whadya say?
We don't even have to win this war.
We just want to cut down on some of this excess population
Now look. Just start up a draft; draft as many of those people as you can.
We'll call up every last youngster we can get our hands on,
hand 'em some speed, give 'em an hour or two to learn how to use
an automatic rifle and send 'em on their way
Libya? El Salvador? How 'bout Northern Ireland?
Or a "moderately repressive regime" in South America?
We'll just cook up a good Soviet threat story
in the Middle East-we need that oil
We had Libya all ready to go and Colonel Khadafy's hit squad
didn't even show up. I tell ya
That man is unreliable.
The Kremlin had their fingers on the button just like we did for that one
Now just think for a minute-We can make this war so big-so BIG
The more people we kill in this war, the more the economy will prosper
We can get rid of practically everybody on your dole queue if we plan this right.
Take every loafer on welfare right off our computer rolls
Now don't worry about demonstrations-just pump up your drug supply.
So many people have hooked themselves on heroin
and amphetamines since we took over, it's just like Vietnam.
We had everybody so busy with LSD they never got too strong.
Kept the war functioning just fine
It's easy.
We've got our college kids so interested in beer
they don't even care if we start manufacturing germ bombs again.
Put a nuclear stockpile in their back yard,
they wouldn't even know what it looked like
So how 'bout it? Look-War is money.
The arms manufacturers tell me unless
we get our bomb factories up to full production
the whole economy is going to collapse
The Soviets are in the same boat.
We all agree the time has come for the big one, so whadya say?!?
That's excellent. We knew you'd agree
The companies will be very pleased.
Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan
I understand that bin Laden intended the terrorist acts of 9/11 to "shock and awe" the Americans. Good to see that we can return the favor.
C - A language that combines the speed of assembly with the ease of use of assembly.
He's going in for the people...
Are you feeling sick? That was pretty low on the elitist scale. Is there any way you could try to be a bit more elitist? We all know you can do it and are pulling together in support of you! Thanks!
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
Link?
Besides, what's your point? Saddam has done _far_ worse to his own people. Repeatedly. For years.
Yeah, we're evil alright. Let Saddam stay in power because you perceive us as hypocrites!
Yes, exactly. Killing Arabs will make them more friendly.
Other stupid thoughts of the same nature:
1) Americans are real people, killing anyone else is just an adult video game.
2) The rich are better than you. Support their desire to make easy money in weapons and oil.
3) U.S. government violence is justified. All other violence is immoral.
True thoughts:
Killing is the least socially sophisticated way of solving problems.
What you do comes back to you. The level of fear in the U.S. has risen even higher. The quality of life has fallen to a new low. People are losing their jobs as money is sucked into the violence economy.
Throwing away resources on killing other people and destroying their property makes everyone poorer.
Tomahawk cruise missile: Rich country's car bomb.
A terrorist is someone who has a bomb but doesn't have an air force.
If you support violence, you are, at least partly, violent person.
The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries in the last 58 years:
- Afghanistan 1998
- Bosnia 1994, 1995
- Cambodia 1969-70
- China 1945-46
- Congo 1964
- Cuba 1959-1961
- El Salvador 1980s
- Grenada 1983
- Guatemala 1954, 1960, 1967-69
- Indonesia 1958
- Iran 1987
- Iraq 1991-2000
- Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
- Kuwait 1991
- Laos 1964-73
- Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
- Libya 1986
- Nicaragua 1980s
- Panama 1989
- Peru 1965
- Somalia 1993
- Sudan 1998
- Vietnam 1961-73
- Yugoslavia 1999
Source: Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpowerhttp://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.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Unlike you I don't conduct my actions out of fear.
Which is why, if you were a country, you'd have been overrun, captured and beaten to a bloody pulp countless times.
Actually, I've always been told that D-Day stood for "Demarcation Day", at least as relates to the invasion of Normandy.
.02
my
More like 'Disgust and Sicken' given the effect that it is having on the majority of people in the world. I'm ashamed to be American today.
Well, you can get updated on all civilian Iraqi casualties here.
I would expect the number to dramatically increase pretty soon.
Completely incorrect analogy. He's not coming to our house, we're going to his. Considering how ringed in he's been by us for the past 11 years, he poses little threat.
I wasn't making an analogy. I was responding to what you said. You do not act out of fear. If someone breaks into your home, you do not know if they are there to harm you or just steal your stuff. Personally, if someone breaks into my home, the fear that they would hurt me or my family would prompt me to act first.
I was just asking for clarification of your response.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
if the main server starts getting clogged up with rubberneckers.
so I wonder, do the slashdot community supports the us invation to iraq ?
So, do you kill strangers in another part of town just in case they might eventually break into your house someday?
.380.
No, only when they break into my house. I do not know if they are going to hurt me or my family. The fear that they would do something along those lines would prompt me to act first, with a
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Now the politics....Ashcroft scares me....
Quack!Quack!.....QUACK!!
I was annoyed by someone at work today telling me that whilst the British
are helping the US, the Americans have made the greater sacrifice.
I wanted to set the record straight.
100,000 US ground troops fighting - from a total of 250,000 people out there. 40,000 British ground troops fighting (I don't know the total number of Brit's out there).
So, when you look at the guys who *might* get killed - that's 0.04% of the US population and 0.06% of the British population. By that measure (and of course there are ways to look at this), the British commitment is 50% larger than the US.
Against a background where 80% of Brits are against the war and only 40% of Americans are - I sure hope the US appreciates that!
www.sjbaker.org
I was working on my PC, glanced over at the TV and saw all these orange mushroom clouds. I immediately unmuted the TV and stepped away from the PC. I support the war, but I'm not "happy" about seeing things and lives destroyed like this. I don't think many people who support the war are happy about it either. It's just that this is better than the alternative.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
I tried to post the entire text of Edna St. Vincent Millay's "Poem and Prayer for an Invading Army" on a previous Iraq thread, but the lameness filter kept rejecting it because the lines were too short. (Obviously, the lameness filter doesn't like poetry.) Anyway, here's a link to it, because I feel the sentiments expressed are as timely now as ever:
http://www.outofthecube.com/poem.shtml.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Ah yes, and who is going to get paid by the democratic Iraqi government to help rebuild it's infrastructure?
First, being paid for services is not "Stealing Iraqi Oil".
Second, if you know of any better, cheaper, faster corporations, there will be a bidding process.
When you rebuild a nation after a war, it's common for the dominant world power to provide that support. You do remember the Marshall plan, right?
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
No doubt. The morale of the Iraqi army can't be all that high, though. They lost the last one big time, and Arab armies in general haven't been too effective in this century.
My best guess is that big chunks of the army will cave fast. Rooting Saddam himself out will be a much more difficult problem. Finding him will be tough, with all the doubles and places he might be. And then busting into wherever he's holed up will be much tougher, as the Republican Guard is better-trained, better-equipped, and has a higher morale than the rest of the army.
The simple fact that the outcome of this assault is a foregone conclusion is ample evidence that Saddam Hussien doesn't pose a critical threat to the U.S.
He has been a big obstruction to our oil policy in the area, though...
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
It's not from the basis of Gladiator. It's pretty nice to see that you only reflect upon the Roman legion - which made up a segment of the Roman army - and not as a whole. I do not consider the Roman army an ancient one; their technological advances thrust them to top as the world super power.
Fact: the general with the most wealth (acquired through various means) had the ability to better equip their soldiers to acquire more wealth. For the armies that did not have much wealth (i.e. from the conquered lands to the north and west) - they did not have the fancy full bodied shields or the best long swords. Improvisation has been a feature of humanity since we could not share the shovel in the same sandbox. Archers were a commodity to most regiments serving Roman generals.
Flaming arrows were becoming a popular apparatus prior to the Roman Empire splitting up. To say they were not used - sounds a bit foolish to me. Where did they acquire the nack for such a strategy? The impending raids from the far east (i.e. the Mongols - which were quite fond of the flexible uses of arrows in military combat).
Applying fire to weaponry was not something invented in the post-Roman era. You should study about the origins of the Mongols (not Persian of the latter era - but the Chinese Mongols) and their love for distance warfare. With every acquisition of a new land, the Romans learned and acquired new methods of warfare, both offensive and defensive strategies.
Ah, but to each his own interpretation of history - but to categorize me as "everything I needed to learn, I learned from television" is a bit presumptuous. I watched Ben Hur, too, and had nothing to do with college studies, so maybe that's where I got my ideas from... *g*
Ayup
Baghdad camera of MSNBCs live stream is broadcasting test patterns and a humming sound since more than 30 minutes.
I know this could be the result of a power outage or bandwidth problems, but...
I was reading Yahoo this morning and found this quote from a Bush advisor:
I guess this means that once we beat up Iraq, we'll invade North Korea. Iran and Cuba aren't far behind.
"If that's not an Islamic militant then I don't know what is. "
h tml
If you think that you DONT know what Islamic militantism is.
look here: http://www.hf.uib.no/institutter/smi/paj/Yassine.
Or if you don't feel up to that much reading, just suffice to say that Islamic militants consider Sadam an enemy because he is secular and persecutes them.
is that the biggest pile of denial you've heard in a long time? reminds me of those that deny we landed on the moon, or that WWII had the amount of deaths that history claims.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Rita Cosby on FOX News- US Troops Have Just Discovered WMD in the Field
On the subject or Goering...
Goering: But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."
Gilbert: "There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."
Goering: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
--Nazi leader Hermann Goering, interviewed during the Easter Recess at the Nuremberg trials
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Reading the story, though, that doesn't appear to be the motivation for this latest move (the invasion is a "fabrication"? Give me a break!). Also, the coalition has enough intelligence to not need CNN pictures for targeting purposes. Still, I'm kinda surprised that they chose to let CNN stay in the first place, even if they had expected to feed them their own propoganda.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
Texas has more oil than Iraq. Heck, we could have dropped the sanctions and bought Iraqi oil for FAR less than this war is gonna cost. I'm sure saddam would love to have sold all the oil they could drill at less than OPEC prices.
This war never has been about oil, and is not currently about oil. People who spout that are simply uneducated with regard to the facts.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
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.
5 years? You are being too optimistic. America still has troops in Korea, Germany, Japan, and more recently, Bosnia.
1. burning oil is bad for the enviornment. very, very, very bad. the U.S. takes shit for the Exxon Valdez, but that was nothing compared to the burning oil fields of the first Gulf war.
2. oil is/will be the Iraqi peoples' bread n` butter.
3. Why the fuck should we let Saddam's regime successfully institue a scorched earth policy?
4. burning oil fields creates lots of smoke, enough smoke to cause confusion on a battlefield, enough smoke to kill people, etc.
Furthermore, the U.S. won't get any of that oil unless the new government chooses to sell it to us. The U.S. isn't going to "unilaterally" install a new government in Iraq. It will be a process with all the civilized nations of the world.
Speaking of "unilateral", this action is definately not unilateral, despite what the French, German, and Russian governments would have you believe. The U.S. has the support of over 40 other nations, including England. You want to see unilateral action, look up what France has done militarily in Africa this century. France can hold its own in setting up puppet governments. What we have these days is a case of the pot calling the U.S. black, and a bunch of blind people who won't even Google to find out what France, Germany and Russia's ulterior motives are.
I'll lay them out for you...
France: France has illegally been doing business with Iraq, against the U.N. sanctions, for years now.
Russia: Russia, with it's pathetic GDP, is owed roughly 8 billion dollars by Iraq, and has also illegally done business with Iraq against U.N. sanctions.
Germany: Germany gets a lot of cheap oil from Iraq through the food for oil program.
So, in short, if they just let them burn the oil fields, ignorant dicks like yourself would be complaining about the harm to the enviornment, taking away the Iraqi peoples' natural resources, etc.
FWIW, I support this war solely for giving the Iraqi people a chance to create a prosperous country, and so Iraqi refugees can go back to their own country, as they wish to do.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Could be good because if this kind of things is very sucessful the war will end sooner and will be no more life loses.
In the other hand, if the war ends, was "easy" and without a lot of lost lives, and Bush feels sucessful and invincible, what will be next? North Korea? the rest of the arab countries? China? France?
This is the second time I've seen that post modded up to 5. It deserves a response. Finding superficial similarities is completely irrelavent.
Textbooks and Open Educational Resources
Hot damn! I can start breathing air and wearing clothes again now that I know it's okay to do some things that Nazis did.
I do hate it when people say "well Hitler/Nazis did this, so if you do it, you must be eviiiiiil."
What?
The hypocrisy of these countries obviously really pisses people off.
There ya go!
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
A treaty requires at least two countries to be valid. ABM treaty was between the US and the USSR. The USSR dissolved. No treaty is needed. NEXT - 'tokyo????' I am going to have to attempt to read your little pea brain and guess that you meant KYOTO. Tokyo is the capital of Japan. Kyoto is a former capital of Japan. And I further must infer that you were referring to the ridiculous 'sky is falling' Kyoto treaty that the 'green movement' has foisted on several of the developed countries in Europe, Asia, and the Canucks. Only a fool would sign off the freedom to control his own country to a bunch of lunatics that feel the world is ending and that humans are responsible. Take your Climate Change Levies and shove them up .,.....
As for your other completely uneducated comments about the state of freedom, democracy, and liberty, in the US, I only hope that you that can look beyond the hype of the anti-war movement and allow yourself to actually see what is going on in the world today.
CNN is not the only news station with a reporter in Baghdad.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Turn on the TV: everyone is showing Donald Rumsfield and one channel has Jerry Springer. I guess I'll watch Jerry this time.
Scene from the next South Park movie:
=======
GW: Hey Saddam! Let's fuck!
SH: C'mon, W., don't you care about my feelings?
GW: Shut up, bitch! Roll over! Who's your Bagh-Daddy?
=======
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
Yesterday they fired a number of ballistic missiles into kuwait.
Reports are saying that they are Scuds and Al Samoud 2s.
Both are forbidden by the terms of the first surrender, and Saddam has been claiming for 12 years that he had no banned weapons.
A few weeks ago, he "destroyed" all of the Al Samoud 2 weapons he had, under the supervision of the UN inspectors. Obviously the inspectors missed a few.
It's clear that Saddam still had banned weapons, that the UN inspectors never could have found these weapons, and that Saddam never had any intent of fully disarming to comply with the original surrender. The first hours of this war showed that banned weapons were still in the arsenal, and that should immediately justify the war for anyone who thinks rationally about the situation.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
A long read, but well worth it if you can spare the time. And, heck, it's Friday. You're not going to get any work done anyway.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
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
so your saying the iarqi startagy is to let the US get close, then surrender some, then let them get a little closer, and surrender some more? ;)
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Am I the only one getting sick and tired of all these so-called "Reality TV" shows?
I'll have something intelligent to add one of these days...
Does anyone else find it strange that when our buildings go up in smoke, it causes "terror", but when Iraq's buildings go up in smoke, it causes "shock and awe"?
This seems double-plus ironic to me.
The TV networks needed something to put on before the real show... I am suprised you could not download the .rm file on Sunday.
Jailed, not tortured. Due process will prevail. I don't agree with this, however, but it's not as bad as you are pretending.
blowing up cars full of "suspects" (including an American citizen)
Your point? Killing enemies who would otherwise kill you is the norm in EVERY country.
and torturing Al Queda members that they've caught?
1. What kind of torture? 2. You know this, HOW?
Saddam is guilty of far, far, far worse than anything you are trying to present as worse than it actually is, even if it is as bad as you see to think.
How about grinding people up in plastic shredders? Raping women, hanging by their hair, with their husbands being forced to watch? How about killing peoples' families to keep them in line? And this done to people who have done nothing other than disagree with Saddam's regime.
No, they are simply not comparable, not by any stretch of the imagination.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Civilians...smiling, dancing, shaking hands, tearing down posters of Saddam.
It would seem they want him gone too.
Valid point.
using namespace slashdot;
troll::post();
I'm curious as to why everyone keeps bitching and moaning about how GWB wants oil from Iraq? Doesn't France and Germany have more interest there in that respect? The main reason why they didn't want the war is because they do have large oil interests in Iraq, and they don't want to lose them. I don't think the US is really in this for the oil. GWB recently put forth a bill to put money towards fuel cell vehicles (what other president has done that?) moving away from the oil that everyone says that he's after.
Dogma, Dogma, dogma. Everyone has their own and will follow that.
Perhaps the true "Shock and Awe" in this campaign lies not just with the firepower of the U.S. military, but the embedded journalists along with each of those units. Journalism can be a powerful nonlethal weapon, and there is no better way to make the Iraqis lose their will to fight then have several news reports across several news channels saying that there is an army of 250,000+ allied troops headed straight for Baghdad.
"I think it is time we demonstrated the full power of this station." -Tarkin
Or was it Rumsfeld?
I'm in complete agreement with you, and would mod you up if I wasn't already in this discussion. I would also add that doing nothing has the added cost of sanctions continueing to cripple Iraq. Here's to a quick successful war and a new president!
This sig wasn't worth reading, was it.
Seriously...
I've seen emgland and brittain.
It's Britain. The United Kingdom. The UK.
Learn to spell people!
It was important to secure the oil wells first because of the danger of them being set on fire.
A massive oil well fire would cause untold environmental damage and cost thousands of lives, both of firefighting crews and others due to pollution.
A massive oil fire would be super expensive to put out (as per the Kuwait oil fires).
A massive oil fire would be a severe military liability - the clouds of smoke they would send up would disrupt communication and air traffic. I'm sure flying through the smoke would also shorten the duty life of a lot of jets, thus weakening the ability of the coalition to conduct the air war.
I'll wait 10 mins for a nice quality picture of Baghdad in flames. I find it crazy that one should have to pay CNN and MSNBC and ABCNEWS for live video. Sorry, Ill go to bbc.com for live (as crappy as it is) and www.reuters.com for the high quality stuff after 15 mins.
Relive the BBS Past - One Byte at a Time! www.ssabbs.com
Right, and once Saddam is gone we don't have to have an embargo anymore. We can then open that market and get more oil cheaper because after all, we saved their ass, they owe us.
The US wants its share of the 3% of the world's oil that Iraq holds. I don't doubt it. I don't think it's the sole root cause of the war, but it can't be dismisssed as easily either.
Despite Jean Cretien's (our Prime Minister) decision not to support our US brothers and our commonwealth brothers in Britian and Australia, a large percentage of Canadians think we _should_ be fighting along side our allies in the Iraqi war.
12 years is more than enough time for diplomacy. Go get em boyz! Hopefully our PM will come around and realize we have a duty to our allies and world security.
If Canada does join the war, please confirm your targets pilots! Friendly fire sucks.
Hit the 'mute' button and most of the propaganda/disinfo will be cut out, and there's still some pretty smoking wreckage, stern looking generals, and maps with helpful colored arrows to look at. I haven't figured out how to get rid of that damn scrolling text at the bottom of the screen, but duct tape could be involved in the solution.
Somebody should set up a streaming audio site with insightful/humorous replacement audio, otherwise just put on some music...
Dont worry the Elves will come to Saddms help
in the last moment. Just like it was in the book, yeah. On the other hand there have been reports of a new secret WMD developed by Iraq, Saddam is going toscare the hell out of Americans by sraring at at them from the sky with a giant EYE!!!
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
http://slate.msn.com/id/27730
Any of those names sound familiar?
Any of those arguments sound familiar?
I don't believe you. Please provide evidence of this, or I may stop believing everything I read on the Internet.
Sort of like what you've been doing, apparently.
Phemur
$200 billion ? ... when the revenues from oil (/blood?) start flowing 200 billion aint no big deal.
drop bomb . start puppet government . oil deal . profit . next election campaign
d035 7hi5 100k 1ik3 4n l337 5i6 2 j00 ?
Unfortunately there may have never been a time when the US had a claim to the moral high ground. Operation Mongoose, which is well know for its attempts to assassinate Castro, turns out to pretty much be a rigorous terrorist operation against Cuba by the CIA.
f rusX /index.html
I've been picking through some documents at
http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/history/
I've been trying to verify claims I've read by Noam Chomsky. It looks like he's right, that the US is responsible for a wide range of terrorist operations in Cuba. The government documents describe them as sabotage. Targets include airliners, hotels, factories, livestock, and fuel tanks. It's depressing that there's documented proof from our own government of its terrorist actions. What's worse is nobody seems to care.
You thank God for that? Really?
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Sure -- the armed and armoured side of the US military is unstoppable, and the battle in Iraq was over before it began. Don't get too smug though, because it is equally obvious that the soft-underbelly of the American Military is the American population at large. "Evil Terrorists and Cowards!" you scream? Only true when they attack us first without any real provocation. Let's not be naive -- under the circumstances (with such a gross overmatch with the US vs any other military force in the world) I think any person that truely thinks about the moral implications has to realise that we (the American population) are legitimate military targets. If we act imperialistic, our victims thoughout the world become justified in resisting us in absolutely any way they can. Personally, I don't want America to become a country that needs to be run under police-state/siege-mentality rules just to keep it's citizens from being bombed/poisoned/plagued. September 11th has made things bad enough, and it looks like our genious President is just making things worse and worse for the future. And lets face it, even our god-damned allies don't like us very much. Christ, I mean Canada by geography, culture, and history is our closest (though militarily impotent) ally and 'friend', and even they aren't supporting us (and we don't win any general popularity contests with them either). Yes, yes, I know... who cares? Well, now that we have figured our where we stand with our best friends, imagine how our enemies feel about us....
President Bush should ponder the wisdom behind the cliche "Tread softly, and carry a big stick".
He's following long established military strategies designed to keep an enemy army from using captured resources.
These acts aren't war crimes, and if an invasion force were marching up the Mississippi river valley you can bet your ass that the retreating U.S. military would be blowing up fuel reserves instead of letting them fall under enemy control.
-dameron
Note to mention berets!
France needs someone (Iraq) to sell them to!
You do not act out of fear.
Obviously in certain situations of immediate danger I'll experience fear. But I'm not going to act preemptively like that.
For example, you asked me about whether someone broke into my house, what would I do? I would first try to leave my house through the back, then alert the police. If that was not possible, I'd alert the police, then tell the criminals I had done so.
I would not let my fear of a possible break-in dictate my actions beyond the simplest precautions (i.e. locking my door). I would not, for example, buy a gun. And if I had a gun for whatever reason, and someone broke in, I wouldn't open fire immediately.
I was wondering what has convinced fellow Slahshdoters to take the stance they have now on the state of affairs with Iraq?
g road/
For me it was the Frontline documentaries on PBS which focused on the history of Saddam. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lon
Some things that caught my attention:
1. Saddam started out as a hitman for the radical Ba'ath Party and he participated in the failed assassination attempt on the country's strong man, Gen. Kassem, in 1959.
2. The Ba'ath Party killed Gen. Kassem and staff and seized the country in a coup. Saddam became an interrogator in the Fellaheen and Muthaqafeen detention camps. In interrogating people in those camps, he used torture, and undoubtedly like everybody else involved in this activity, eliminated people to the amount of 700 documented deaths.
3. Two weeks after they took over power on the 17th of July 1968, there was what they call "the correction movement." That meant getting rid of the non-Ba'ath elements in the coup, and Saddam was prominent in that. As a matter of fact he held a gun to the head of the prime minister and said, "You're going with me to the airport because you're leaving this country." And the guy pleaded with him, said, "I have family, I have a wife and kids." And Saddam said, "Well as long as you behave, they'll be fine." He took him to the airport, he put him in a plane, he deported him, and of course years after, he assassinated him in front of the Intercontinental Hotel in London. The man couldn't escape him in the long run.
4. In 1970 Saddam was head of the Peasants Department and the Department of General Relations (security), the military, and several other departments. And of course soon enough, like all people who are dictators, who are jealous of the army, he appointed himself general and eventually like Stalin he became field marshal.
5. In 1979 he removed Bakr (the President he helped instate) rather unceremoniously and made himself president. And he reshaped the Ba'ath Party in no time at all by executing half of the command of the party.
6. During the 7 month occupation of Kuwait, Saddam ruled there as head had for years, with oppression and death. Some Kuwaitis were tortured and murdered, others lined up and shot.
6. After the Persian Gulf War Iraq had uprisings in the North and South. This is where Saddam used chemical weapons and killed over a thousand Iraqi men, women, and children. This was the second time he had used chemical weapons, the first time was in the war against Iran. Uses of chemical weapons are forbidden by UN treaties.
7. At the end of the initial round of inspections by the UN weapons teams, Saddam's brother-in-law and cousin defected to Jordan and announced that they had documents that would indicate that the inspectors had not seen all the weapons Saddam had. Saddam told his sons-in-law that, if they came back to Iraq, they would be completely safe. They foolishly believed Saddam. So, as military officers, they donned their uniforms, and they went back to Iraq. The moment they entered Iraq, they were separated from their families. Their families were taken to Baghdad, and they were taken out of the city. Like Saddam, they are very tribal, so they surrounded themselves with bodyguards, not trusting him completely. Two days later, there was an attack on the house by members of the family, to avenge the family honor. So Saddam claimed that he kept his word, as the chief of the armed forces, as the president of Iraq, that he would do nothing to them. So, when it was finally done, the attack succeeded and they were captured and killed. Saddam said, "I didn't go back on my word. This happened according to tribal tradition. The family had to avenge itself. The family had to recover its honor." That's how he explained what he did to them.
After watching this I felt awful that the people of Iraq have who have had to endure fear for so long and I felt I was fortunate to be an American.
-An American Revolutionary
Well, here is the online version of the Book were the Shock and Awe concept came from:
http://www.dodccrp.org/shockIndex.html
It does talk somewhat about tech.
Though I partly agree with you that there's no concrete evidence of torture (yet), that is the whole point of due process, the ability to prevent torture. Do you have evidence that torture is NOT being used by our government? Sure, the burden of proof lies with those saying something exists (it's harder to prove something doesn't) but more transparency would certainly help boost your argument.
The things that tend to make me believe that torture is being used by OUR government is the capture of terrorists around the world and the refusal to bring them to OUR country to be judged, look at one of the recent big guys they got in Pakistan, he sang in a hurry, does that sound like something a militant fanatic would easily do *without* torture?
I say we take terrorists and judge them in our country. Show them we are superior!
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
Please point out which of thses wars we started or wasn't provoked into? Several of those have acompanying UN mandates for US to be there.
09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0
BTW, Saddam is not an Islamic militant. He is just a regular dictator.
Well that changes EVERYTHING. I mean, if he was an ISLAMIC MILITANT dictator oppressing and killing and threatening his own people, that might be a problem. But as long as he's just a SECULAR dictator oppressing and killing and threatening his own people, well, what's the big deal?
Thanks for clarifying that.
Peace be with you,
-jimbo
XML Tools for Mac OS X
Better late than never.
You know where you are? You're in the $PATH, baby. You're gonna get executed!
No facts. Made up statements. Insightful.
In some sad way, I'm comforted by the fact that this war confirms that human nature is very consistent. Power corrupts humans, regardless of what religion, ethnicity, gender, nationality, or political leaning.
The whole situation leading up to the war is obviously complex, with all parties (eg, Iraq, US, UN, UK, France, Turkey, etc.) pushing their own agenda while claiming that they do what they do in the name of [choose one] humanity, religion, security, etc. Ultimately, though, we do what we do because it is human nature:
Despite knowing right from wrong, we will usually choose what feels good. Mostly that means the one with the biggest stick wins.
Sucks to be human sometimes...
I just see one dim bulb....
Little Brother, watching the watchers
Live war videoe edroom.com
http://reuters.feedroom.com
http://nbc4.f
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.
They never really had. I find it hard to believe that this is something new. Governments / States always used whatever things they had available in order to get what they wanted.
During the cold war it was just easier to keep secrets.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
If you're making a case for the war on the second or third day of the conflict, then you and the people with whom you agree, have clearly not made a reasonable case to the public.
Are you referring to the 70% that support the war, the 30% that do not, or the 100% that both groups comprise? As one of those who, until France, Germany, and Belgium placed Turkey's defense on hold as a political ploy, was firmly in the 30% "No War!" group, but has since moved to the (who knows what per cent) that are ambivelent at best, and truly uncertain whether or not the war is appropriate, just, much less a "good thing" in pragmatic geopolitical terms, I find his arguments to be more than reasonable.
Not that I necessarilly agree with all of them (I disagree with several, agree with several, and an uncertain on others), but they are certainly reasonable.
Unfortunately, I've yet to hear much in the way of reasonable arguments on the opposing side. Russia is perhaps the lone voice ("this is not wise because of its destabilizing aspects") that speaks at least one coherent and rational argument beyond "war=bad, Bush=oilman warmonger, America Nein!" and despite the fact that I agree with 2 out of 3 of those arguments, they do not portray a rational argument as to why this action is inappropriate.
On the moral front: Germany appears to have been selling technical support and components for WMD to Iraq for the last 10 years, at least. Their moral stance on this entire affair is dubious, at best. France has ongoing sweetheart deals with Saddam's regime personally, some in direct violation of existing UN resolutions: deals an Iraq without Saddam is unlikely to continue. Their moral stance on this is highly dubious, at best. Russia, who has by far been the most restrained and responsible of the war opponents in the security council (their rhetoric has been more restrained, their arguments more cohenerent, and perhaps most importantly they haven't put the tactical defense of their front-line allies, and with it the viability of their military alliances, in jeapardy simply to make political points. Germany and France have.), has immense outstanding debt owed to them by the Iraqi regime which may or may not be paid back under a new government.
And Bush has the oil connection, comes from a family with dubious political and economic motives, represents the worst about the conservative faction of America, and has dubious legitimacy as president given the 2000 elections. His moral stance is equally, but certainly not more, dubious than that of his opponents.
This in contrast to Tony Blair, whose ethical and moral stance appears to be above reproach (whether or not the action of supporting the United States is wise notwhithstanding).
As one who distrusts and despises Bush, who will with certainty vote against him again in the next election, and who has profound reservations about this war I have to say that the opponents have lacked in their arguments far more than its proponents. As one who until recently strongly opposed the war, and is now on the fence, I find this particularly distressing.
I think the war is probably a mistake. I think in taking Bagdad we could end up doing things that we, as Americans, like to believe we don't do (if not historically, at least not any more). I think we stand to lose a great deal of political influence in the world as a result, and that this will hurt the overt evangelism of rule of law and democracy as much, if not more, than it will our political and economic influence on world affairs once this conflict passes. This is a terrible risk, one that IMHO was probably unwise to take at this juncture. I think victory entails far graver danger in this conflict to America, and western democracy in general, than continued containment probably would have.
Nevertheless, all that aside, the Hawks appear to be offering vastly better arguments in favor of their position than the Doves are in opposing it, and with the extraordinarilly in
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
is that you should beware of historical analogies.
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
Personally, if someone breaks into my home, the fear that they would hurt me or my family would prompt me to act first.
And thus escalating the situation and most likely getting hurt.
If you would just play along (maybe trigger a silent alarm) chances are a lot higher that you get away unharmed.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Here. Its been posted before but it is still jaw-dropping stuff...
When people say "funny... That dosn't coincide with what I think". When, in fact it's because they are incorrect. Shock and awe are not something that only happens in range of the cameras on the minstry of information. Even what can be seen from those cameras are quite shocking.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Aw, you're such a nice guy. The poor people in Iraq are so grateful that people like you support the bombings in which many of them will get killed and the others will have to endure greater fear than ever.
Stupid asshole.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
Saddam doesn't need the Frenches steenking berets, he can make his own.
Hey captain geography!..try looking at a map sometime.. you Iraqi oil fields are on the Kuwaiti border, you have to go through them to get to any town. But you can't be bothered with details that interfere with your bias, can you?
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
There are only a handful of weapons and communications systems in the field that weren't used in Gulf War I, such as the JDAM and JSOW air-dropped ordnance, or the IVIS tactical display used by US and British armored vehicles.
.50 caliber machine guns mounted on tanks, APCs, and Hummers were designed right after World War One, in the early Twenties, and have been in constant use ever since. The B-52H bombers -- the last of which rolled off the assembly line in 1963 -- were first conceived in 1949. Iraqi forces are armed with AK-47s (and the later AK-74 variants) that were first adopted by Soviet forces in the late '40s. The basic Scud missile design is nearly as old, and could be considered an adaptation of the German V-2 from WWII.
Some of the weapons used by both sides are positively ancient. The M2
What I really find compelling is not these high- and low-tech implements of destruction, but the advances in communication and news-gathering that have taken place over the last 12 years. Not just the Internet, though that's certainly worthy of note, but the satellite phones and cameras used by reporters embedded with the troops and correspondents in the Al Rashid Hotel in Baghdad.
True, Peter Arnett was reporting from his room in 1991, when the 43-day air war started, but he was tied to landlines and an Iraqi-controlled dish. Now he can send realtime audio and video with gear that can fit in a briefcase. Sat phones have gotten smaller, better, clearer. Yes, the frame rate suffers when more than 10% of the picture changes, and there are visible compression artifacts, but given time I'm sure it'll be just as good (or crappy) as NTSC video.
At the risk of sounding flippant in the face of the inevitable loss of human life and injuries, military and civilian, I can't help but think that this is the first High Definition War, and that they'll have the DVD box sets on the shelves for Christmas.
k.
"In spite of everything, I still believe that people are really good at heart." - Anne Frank
The Turks have had toops in northern Iraq for a long time before the current festivities began. The northern area that boarders with Turkey is often reffered to as the "Kurdish Autonomous Zone", meaning that it is laregly self rules by the Jurds in that area. This came about post the first gulf war and I beleive was a result of the northern "no-fly zones."
If you look into this further, I think you'd realize that this Kurdish Rule issue is what's been holding up Turkey's agreements with the US on overflight and basing. Turkey has a large an somewhat discontent Kurdish population also. Their fear is that the overthrow of Saddam will result in the Kurds breaking away from Turkey.
Just my reading of the situation. Look into it more for further info.
'nuff said.
Oh wait, that wouldn't help your point. -c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
> Unlike you I don't conduct my actions out of fear.
Do you fear that innocent Iraqis will die?
Do you fear that George W Bush is making the world hate the U.S. more than it already did?
Do you fear that we are destroying the environment?
Do you fear that the statement you made isn't very well thought out?
You should.
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrap per.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-030603A
He may have held out hope for "Peace in our Time" for a while, but he eventually found the balls to declare a state of war over the invasion of Poland. I doubt many European leaders today have even that much backbone.
Check out this book titled "Shock and Awe: Achieving Rapid Dominance," published in 1996, about Hitler's Blitzkreig. Sort of an unsettling set of circumstances (as if it weren't already)
Also, check out this article, which compares the rise of Hitler to the current U.S. administration. For example, Hitler used the attack on the Reichstag as an excuse for a pre-emptive strike on Austria.
The main site of the government of Iraq, Uruklink, is down, unsurprisingly. If you do a traceroute, you can see that it connects via a satellite link, but that link is down.
"It doesn't really make sense to actually deliver on such a threat unless you really do want to destroy the place."
The ones who are to be 'shocked and awed' are the military troops and their leaders, not the general population of Bagdad. Even if we bring the volume all the way up on the shock-and-awe tactic, the targets will be Republican Guard and CCC sites, not whole cities. The kind of bombing some people imagine (like London or Berlin in WWII) is counter productive and not even contemplated today.
My sig? It's a Sig-Saur 9mm with a SWEEEET little laser sight on it!
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. - Geek's corollary to Clarke's law
Careful, you quoted fact on a forum that is overrun by people that refuse to listen to such "lies." Be ready for the hordes that will have to swear at you can call you names. After all, you asked for it by using evil quotes and documentation and stuff.
Check it out..ask taken from here
An Iraqi Exile confronts and anti-war protester.
Currently, around 53% of Britons support the war. Your U.S. numbers are pretty close, though.
Killing Arabs will make them more friendly.
Ah, yes, I've heard this one. We're actually going to war to get rid of Saddam and his regime. The fact that he's an Arab is irrelevant.
If you support violence, you are, at least partly, violent person.
Would you say that human beings are an inherently violent species? Just like any other species on the planet, the majority will defend themselves when cornered; most people have a survival instinct, and will fight for their own life (and in many cases the lives of their family). Does this make them "violent?"
The U.S. government has bombed 24 countries in the last 58 years:
Interesting list, please make a list of countries who would attack the US if they didn't think we could fight back (feel free to refer to your first list for ideas).
Killing is the least socially sophisticated way of solving problems.
Perhaps, but how do you negiotiate with extremists?
Even a pacifist will use violence when necessary (a true pacifist will save violence as the last resort, but when they hit you, they will hit you so hard you will never consider attacking them again). It shouldn't be the first option, but we can't play "hide and seek" with weapons Iraq agreed to destroy. There could have been a longer period of inspections, but don't delude yourself into thinking Saddam wants to disarm. He desires power over Iraq (and Kuwait), and has demonstrated he has no intention to disarm (12 years was more than generous), if disarmament means losing power over his means of control.
Violence works. It would be nice if we lived in a magical happy land where soldiers gave flowers to their "enemies." But we live in reality, where life is hard and tough, and despite your (and my) sheltered lives, there are people who will stop at nothing for power and/or wealth -- these people must be dealt with swiftly and forcefully. We must show them in the strongest possible terms that their behavior is not acceptable to "us."
And who are "we?" We are the most powerful nations in the world (US & Britain). If you don't like that... live with it. I think that considering the amount of power we wield, we are very responsible with it.
If you try to bring morality into it, you'll get lost in the quagmire of relativism. Don't fall for that trap... ask yourself if the US and Britian honestly think that Iraq will be a better place without Saddam Hussein at the helm.
(+1, Too Insightful For Many Americans To Handle)
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
If this war was about Iraqi civilians, that would be a different story. This war is about power and money.
Bush has continually ignored and/or downplayed resistance to his war machine using the concept of "I must defend you from the menace to freedom, Saddam Hussein."
If Hussein had any real method of retaliation at the US (WMDs), Bush would not be pulling this action.
Second, there is the money part. Iraq has recently begun to trade oil with Europe in Euros instead of Dollars. This devalues the Dollar greatly and makes our economy slow further.
And let's not forget that Halliburton has been awarded the contract to clean up the burning oil fields afterwards. Let's not fool ourselves and think that our dear VP doesn't get any kickback from that.
Jory
Really? I heard differently.
I didn't know "Great White" was playing in Bagdhad today...........
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I've seen reports repeating Iraqi claims that some 30 people or so died in the initial strikes. But how can they get that info immediately? Those cameras don't show individual bodies...
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Why is it that the nightvision shots still have the same crap quality of ten years ago? Did no one think to upgrade them?
I mean, there's stuff now that'll let you see the undergarments of people in high resolution from half a mile away, but we're stuck here with blobs of light flying across a grainy sky.
According to the Sydney Morning Herald:
Marine Cobra helicopter gunships firing Hellfire missiles swept in low from the south. Then the marine howitzers, with a range of 30 kilometres, opened a sustained barrage over the next eight hours. They were supported by US Navy aircraft which dropped 40,000 pounds of explosives and napalm, a US officer told the Herald.
"Dead Bodies Everywhere"
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/21/10477
I don't know about the rest of you, but watching the bombing of Baghdad depressed me horribly.
A dark day for the United States of America. .
$500,000,000 spent on cruise missles today alone
What have we become?
I didn't see Bush on Al Jazeera either. But we did see this. BTW what's the word from the Crusader in Chief about the thousands of innocent victims of US bombings in Afghanistan?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Even though his citizens suffer from war weariness, he can just crank up the luxeries to counter the revolt. So, no, nothing happens until his last phalanx is dead. -Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
Your statement seems to assume we have 1,000 bombers lined up in the air carpet bombing the countryside. And your hostile attitude would seem to assume you never saw the Frontline documenatries, or other ducumentaries on the history of Iraq or Saddam. Lets be realistic and try to keep it civil.
The strikes are as precise as technology allows at this point. But I doubt there will be as many casualties as Saddam himself has inflicted on the peoples of Kuwait, Iran, and Iraq over the last 35 years.
Lets try to stay on topic. What convinced slashdoters to have their current political views of the affairs towards Iraq?
-An American Revolutionary
Well, for one thing I think you're wrong. I don't think there were a half-million US and British troupes on the ground in Kosovo.
But I think the major reason that there are so many protests is for the same reason France, Germany, Russia and China are so pissed of as well. Because they don't think the war is justified. They think that we have a legitimate call to wage war there. Either we haven't given inspections enough time, or, the threat to our nation is out of proportion with the death and destruction being caused by this war.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Couple KNOWN actions by Saddam:
- Husband and wife are tortured repeatedly in front of their children. Reason? Sale of a vehicle that Iraqi's claimed was taken from oppositionists.
- Udday, Saddam's son, was known to have a torture chamber and personally executed many people and raped many many women.
- Udday had their football team all caned on the soles of their feet after losing a World Cup championship.
- Qusayy, another son, also encouraged rape and use of torture again many Iraqi citizens.
I don't even want to think about this any more. Just read the Link above.... After reading about Saddam and his family all I can say is hoorah for the USA finally removing this evil motherfucker and his well-trained bastard children from power.In a bad humor kind of vein: Bush vs. Saddam
Zero Wing once again.
I just want the war to be end.
Visit the Mother Site !
What the fuck are you smoking, and is there any chance I can get some? I mean, honestly, America has fought in many wars in the past century (WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, PG1, etc.) and we never had to worry about psychopaths coming home and murdering people for the fuck of it. So why hasn't it happened before? Fucking lunatic.
Guns are like umbrellas and condoms. Better to have one and not need it, than need it and not have one.
No, blitzkrieg was about utter destruction before the enemy could retaliate.
Actually the blitzkrieg was not about total destruction. It was about swiftly moving in and attacking(mostly using air superiority) to intimidate and scare the cicvillian masses to create a chaotic and unorganized evacuation. This in turn would bog down the transit systems, which led to the inability to move troops, armor, supplies, etc. This in turn made the invasion and occupation by the Nazi troops easier. Tactically, it was the best and most effective startegy of its time, and still can be effective today.
What scares me is the reason the Nazis lost WWII, is that Hitler did not follow his own advice. He worte in Mien Kampf that a nation could not win a 2 front war. Currently the US is in that same situation. We are invading Iraq, but don't forget, we are still activelly fighting in Afghanistan. I hope history doesn't repeat itself.
Stupid asshole
:-P
From the brainless contents of your post, I am assuming that's your John Hancock...
...I've heard enough of the words "shock and awe".
I think the word Rumsfeld was groping for (or perhaps avoiding) was "terrorize".
Ding Ding Ding...We have a winner!
It's exactly like a blurb that was run on the ticker at the bottom of one of the newscasts last night. It was waying that the survivors [or at least a significant percentage of them] were against this type of attack because "we've experienced 'shock and awe' and would not wish that upon the Iraqi people."
Now I'm not saying that what we're doing in Iraq really compares to what happened on 9/11, but the effect is the same...People afraid because bombs are going off and buildings are collapsing around them.
Ender-
Nothing to see here
This is patently false, as will be demonstrated later. As for the worldwide economic crisis, the economy of the Weimar Republic was actually improving.
Also a load. Chancellors, like Hitler, were not elected, but appointed by the Reichstag and the Weimar Republic president. And while not having a solid majority, the Nazis did hold the most seats in the Reichstag. In fact, Goering was president of that body.
Yet another error... Hitler railed against the Communist Party, which held the second greatest number of seats in the Reichstag. He declared a state of emergency and had his political opponents arrested. Not Jews.
As mentioned above, Hitler's political opponents, including the leaders of the Communist and Democratic Christian parties were the first to meet the 'police', most of whom were SA brownshirts. As for the rest, Hitler was always a brilliant orator and propagandist. How did you think he took control of the Nazi party (he didn't found it-he joined when it was an insignifigant group of about 20 persons).
Really? Are we talking about the same Germans who have always been violently xenophobic? Who have a word (auslander) in their language that means 'everyone who is not German', and is considered to be a derisive term?
The German media, with the exeption of some newspapers and magazines, was a state institution long before Hitler came onto the scene. You know, kind of like the same way it is in Europe now.
I've seen more aggressive traffic stops.
Mental age of 11.
And thus escalating the situation and most likely getting hurt.
I do not fear getting jumped because I have taken necessary precautions to largely guarantee my safety in the event. I know how to shoot a gun very well, I am also trained in hand to hand combat. I have faith in my abilities to escape a situation unharmed with anybody trained less than special forces in military. At which point, I have much worse problems than someone breaking into my house.
If you would just play along (maybe trigger a silent alarm) chances are a lot higher that you get away unharmed.
At best, wait 7 minutes for cops to arrive. I'll take my chances defending myself.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Killing enemies who would otherwise kill you is the norm in EVERY country.
True, but I always thought that the US treated people (especially our own citizens!) as innocent until proven guilty. Blowing up people half a world away based on "intelligence" is simply murder. We're supposed to be a democratic republic; we're supposed to respect the rule of law and hold ourselves to a higher standard than a run-of-the-mill dictatorship. One can argue this is no longer true.
1. What kind of torture? 2. You know this, HOW?
Check out this week's print version of The Nation magazine. It has a front-cover story, "In Torture We Trust," about how the US routinely engages in torture now, with lots of juicy quotes from various officials.
Considering that George Bush has gone so far as to joke about torture in a news conference, this should be no surprise. But seriously, read that Nation article if you're truly interested.
How about grinding people up in plastic shredders?
At no time have I ever expressed any sympathy for Saddam Hussein's regime. On the other hand, many members of the Bush administrations have supported Iraq, have used our tax dollars to guarantee loans for billions of dollars to Hussein's regime, have sold weapons to Iraq, have had business dealings with Iraq, have shaken hands with Saddam Hussein and smiled at cameras with him thereby legitimizing his rule.
Given your opposition to torture and dictatorship, I suppose that means that you are opposed to any politician which supported and supports brutality and dictatorship, correct? If not, what rationalization did you use to clear your conscience?
No, but I don't go around saying so. Also as you've mentioned, the burden of proof lies with those making those statements. I find it quite hypocritical that protestors refuse to believe the US government when it says that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, and that the US can't attack without proof, and at the same time, condemn the US for torturing captured terrorists without having proof themselves.
does that sound like something a militant fanatic would easily do *without* torture?
Torture isn't the only means of extracting information from someone. As a matter of fact, it isn't even a good method. There are far more effective ways to extract information from someone without torturing them. A skilled investigator in combination with a polygraph, drugs, can work wonders. There's also the possiblity of bugging prisoner cells, inserting undercover prisoners, making false promises, etc. The possibilities are endless.
The things that tend to make me believe that torture is being used by OUR government is the capture of terrorists around the world and the refusal to bring them to OUR country to be judged
It's definitely a possibility, but there are other reasons I can think of. For example, by keeping terrorists prisoners outside of your borders, you reduce the risk of collateral damage on civilian populations in case their "terrorist brothers" decide to attack the prison to remove them. It's also easier to protect the prisoners themselves in case the civilians decide to take matters into their own hands (which would have been likely in the weeks after 9/11).
Finally, if the US gets caught torturing *anyone*, they'd lose all support they have, both foreign and domestic. It's definitly in their interest to keep their nose cleaner than anyone else.
I have a hard time believing the US would use torture considering the cost of getting caught, the availability of alternate methods of getting information and the need for that information (they have a truckload of other methods for gathering intelligence). The price of having questionable methods exposed far outweighs the benefits of that information, considering.
Phemur
Come on... if you're going to use someone else's list, at least make sure their facts are straight. Most of these I can counter off the top of my head.
America was the country that was the primary "sponsor" - in terms of weapons, training and funding - of Osama Bin Laden and his fighters during the 1980s.
Against what at the time appeared to be a far greater threat, the USSR.
American spokesman saw "nothing objectionable" in the Taliban's seizure of power in Afghanistan in 1996.
At the time, both sides were equally bad in the eyes of the US. The Taliban hadn't started supporting OBL's terrorist activites yet.
America unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty in December 2001.
As permitted by the treaty's conditions with a required notification period.
America is the world's biggest polluter.
America is the world's biggest economy. Quelle surprise!
America was responsible for a car bomb which killed 80 civilians in Beirut in 1985, in a botched assassination attempt, thereby making it the most lethal terrorist bombing in modern Middle East history.
Uh, no - 130 Marines were killed in Beiruit by a bomb in 1983, making it a whole 50 deaths larger!
America is the only G7 country to have refused to sign the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty, forbidding the use of landmines.
Because to do so would permit North Korea to roll across into peaceful South Korea.
America refuses to hand over a variety of indicted war criminals, terrorists and mass murderers - all residing within its borders - to Cuba, Venezuela and Haiti.
When you promise immunity as a condition of exile, you can't go back on that - no one will trust you in the future.
America has provided approximately $110 billion in aid to a country [Israel] which has maintained a 34-year occupation of land in defiance of international law.
Israel's existance is perfectly legal under international law. Hell - they got those territories from two illegal wars started by the Arab nations. Spoils of war.
America was the only other country to join with Israel in opposing a 1987 General Assembly resolution condemning international terrorism.
Probably because the resolution's definition of "international terrorism" was aimed at the Israeli state.
America refuses to fully pay its debts to the United Nations yet reserves its right to veto United Nations resolutions.
The US is the UN's largest source of funding.
America was accused by a UN-sponsored truth commission of providing "direct and indirect support" for "acts of genocide" against the Mayan Indians in Guatemala during the 1980s.
Accused != guilty, at least not in a fair legal system.
America was the driving force behind the economic embargo on Iraq - responsible for the death of over half a million Iraqi children and described by one of its own legislators as "genocide masquerading as policy".
No, Iraq's violations of the terms of the 1991 peace agreement are the driving force behind the embargo. That and the fact that Saddam routes money supposedly to be used for medicine and food to weapons.
America is the only country in the world to have dropped bombs on twenty other countries since 1945.
That's what you get when Europe's inability to act makes you be world policeman.
America is the only country in the world to have used all three types of "weapons of mass destruction" (chemical, biological and nuclear).
Actually, France, Russia, and England have also done so. Perhaps you mean that the US is the only nation to use an atomic bomb on an enemy nation? If so, consider the fact that the bomb may have hastened the end of the war, saving millions of Japanese and American lives.
REmember his whole thing about how athies shouldnt really be considered citizens? THat dosent sound like a moderate to me.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
I don't smoke.
And this time it's different. There is always a first time. I'm afraid that you will see, and pretty soon.
``L'imagination au povoir.''
Reading PNAC essay on how they plan to stay the worlds dominant power which has strong connections to Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Realising that Middle East oil will become more important as places like the North Sea deplete.
Looking at Afghanistan at the moment.
Now I agree with you that freeing the iraqis is a nobel cause, I just don't trust some of your current administration to do a good job, and may cause more hatred for us (I'm from the UK) in the region. Which would be counter productive.
SJBaker, Thanks for the insiteful stats. From my perspective, I have never heard of someone stating or even implying that the UK was not holding up its end. Everyone I know views Britain as a valuable ally both politically and militarily. In fact, most I have talked to believe that the UK is one of the few countries that will "put its money where its mouth is" when it comes to military action. For these reasons, I think Americans take the UK very seriously. I hope you never get the impression otherwise. -Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
Bush did not fly planes into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
My, you're awfully certain.
I don't share your certainty. I believe that it's possible that he was at least complicit in letting the attack happen. I have no evidence for this, and know that it is or isn't true -- I simply believe it's possible.
Does that sound radical?
FDR almost certainly knew about and decided to allow the attack on Pearl Harbor. LBJ was even complicit in fabricating an attack to justify the full escalation of the Vietnam war (do a Google search on "Gulf of Tonkin").
So did Bush actually encourage, or at least complicitly allow, the attacks of 9/11? We won't know for decades. But history's lesson is that, if he is truly "presidential material", then he's capable of such a thing. Certainly, at the very least, we must admit that we don't know now what the truth is.
It's called the "BIG LIE" tactic.
:)
Still, it is better than statistics. Remeber there is a lie, big lie and statistics.
I know what you mean. I don't think it matters in America if you're a Democrat or a Republican; each administration has done questionable acts. Just because I may have been a supporter for Clinton or Bush or whoever doesn't mean I always agreed on every decision they made. And lets face it, power can corrupt and people are fallible, which is why we have to have checks and balances, of course they don't always work, but I don't know many political systems that do.
-An American Revolutionary
If the Bush administration really does use tortue, I would certainly disapprove of that, to a degree, depending on the type of torture, what was at stake, etc. I would certainly torture someone myself if millions of lives were at stake, and that was the only avenue I had to persue.
From what I understand, drugs are far more effective than torture for extracting information.
I would not, however, grind people up with plastic shredders and rape women simply for disagreeing with my rule, or for any reason at all for that matter.
In short, wake up and smell the napalm, Bush != Saddam. Bush == Any Other Leader of a Democratic Country. If you believe otherwise, you are VERY naive.
This war will destroy Saddam's regime. A free(er) Iraq will be created. There will be less suffering. That is why I support this war, not because I am a Bush "supporter". I didn't vote for him, and I probably wouldn't if the election were tomorrow.
War is hell. What many people don't understand is that peace can be hell too. Attempted peaceful diplomacy has left at least 500,000 dead in Iraq in 10 years, give war a chance.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
I am hearing your arguments over and over again, yet in the end I doubt that in a real life situation it will play out the way you expect it to.
Most people who try to rob you just want to do that, they are mostly not interrested in harming you, so why risk it?
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
I've been trying to figure out the people who think this is a war for oil? I personally think the war is over Weapons of Mass Distruction and Saddam Hussein's failure to give them up. The US is scared Saddam might use these weapons as leverage or sell these weapons to terrorist organizations. A fear I think is valid after 9/11/01.
h art.pdf
So, I did some research. I found this:
http://www.afa.org/magazine/June2002/0602c
It was the first thing that came up when I googled for "US Oil Suppliers".
I also learned that Iraq only produces 2% of the worlds oil.
I went to OPEC's website (www.opec.org) and found this on their FAQ:
Which countries produce the most oil?
Country
Crude oil production
(million barrels per day)
Saudi Arabia*
7.889
Russia
6.730
United States
5.801
Iran
3.572
China
3.297
* Including share of production from Neutral Zone.
Iraq isn't even on the list. If you don't agree with the war, that's fine, but it doesn't seem to be over oil so maybe you should have a different chant.
How about "I Don't Like War!" or "The US is being a big Bully" or "War SUCKS!". Shouting "No War for Oil!" doesn't seem to be a valid argument.
Quote from Dennis Miller:
If your only anti-war slogan is "No war for oil,"
sue your school district for allowing you to slip
through the cracks and robbing you of the
education you deserve.
I am hearing your arguments over and over again, yet in the end I doubt that in a real life situation it will play out the way you expect it to.
Nothing ever does, but I've been in some pretty tight situations and it has worked out well for me to act proactively.
Most people who try to rob you just want to do that, they are mostly not interrested in harming you, so why risk it?
If someone mugs me on the street, I'll give them the money I have. It's not worth it. If they break into my home, I don't know what they want. My aunt was murdered in her home by a burglar. His 5 year old son was waiting outside for him. My personal experience dictates it's not worth the risk to not act. By my actions, they will end up dead. I do not play around when safety is concerned, and I'm not about to cripple someone and leave them to sue me.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
I suppose we could count dead soldiers as the front line sweeps past them, but I think the people over there are way too busy.
Prediction: this information won't come out for several weeks.
Bin Laden is dead. You're kidding yourself if you believe differently.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
"But I doubt that Bush will take over the Iraqi oil operations."
The Iraqi people can only hope not. If his past failures in the oil business are any indication of future performance.
Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
Where is the proof?
How nice that this piece ignored the US support of the Iraq throughout the 1980s. Yes, he was a brutal dictator, but he was our brutal dictator.
6. After the Persian Gulf War Iraq had uprisings in the North and South. This is where Saddam used chemical weapons and killed over a thousand Iraqi men, women, and children.
The Shia majority in the south were ecouraged to rise up in early 1991 by the US government. So they did, expecting US help. Imagine their surprise when US forces allowed Iraq to use helicopters, along with elements of the Republican Guard, to surpress this rebelion. Additionaly, US forces kept the rebels from accessing weapons caches that could have helped their cause. Indeed, US military commanders wanted to help, but the civilian leadership said no.
And don't think the Shia have forgot. It would not be at all surprising to see a bit of unrest during the US occupation.
thx,
eric
The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants. - Albert Camus
The country should always support the troops. That's just good manners.
Let's look at the "terrible things" that have happened to people who voiced opposition:
Dixie Chicks: They made a stupid statement. Some people got upset and called for a boycott of their records. (Strange, that seems like exercising free speach as well.) Were they arrested? Deported? Sent off to be raped and then murdered?
As far as most of the actors go I think many people are upset that these people are using the status that they have from their acting to pretend that they are enlightened people who are qualified to speak about world affairs. Additionally, free speach does not mean that everyone has to simply shut up and listen to opinions that they don't support. It just means that you get your say and others get their say.
The point about self defense is that the calculus of self defense in the 20th century does not carry itself over into the 21st. Let's look at the events of 9/11. In this case you have less than two dozen people able to massive casualties and billions of dollars of damage on the US. How exactly do you prevent this from happening? You can't promise MAD as they don't belong to a country. They don't wear uniforms so you can't meet them honorably on the field of battle.
The point is that Iraq started the ball rolling when they decided that they wanted to add Kuwait to their land. They took a gamble and lost. They then promised to do a number of things in exchange for being allowed to surrender rather than being whiped off the map. This occurred in 1991. It is now 2003 and they haven't managed to live up to their promises. Instead, they have actively worked to get out from under those promises and have continued to build and acquire illegal weapons.
So, what do we do about this?
1) Ignore it. Take all our troops home and let the rest of the world deal with their own security for once?
2) Contain them. We've maintained a military presence in and around Iraq for 12 years now. Sanctions that were put in place to get Iraq to comply are merely used by Iraq as a tool to build more unrust and hatred of the groups that are enforcing them.
3) Demand compliance. Tell Iraq that they have to live up to their commitments or face "serious consequences".
Well, we've tried 2 and we really only had 1 or 3 to chose from. The last time we tried 1 we had two little World Wars.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Let's not be naive -- under the circumstances (with such a gross overmatch with the US vs any other military force in the world) I think any person that truely thinks about the moral implications has to realise that we (the American population) are legitimate military targets.
I seem to recall a photo when the Oklahoma bombing took place of a fireman carrying out the body of a (dead?) baby. If $your_favorite_terrorist_group had commited that bombing would you like to tell the parents of that child that he was a legitimate military target? Or maybe if you are (un)lucky you can use that as your rational while you sit on the ground looking at you legs laying across the street.
Personally, I don't want America to become a country that needs to be run under police-state/siege-mentality rules just to keep it's citizens from being bombed/poisoned/plagued.
I agree, and now ther is one less regime to provide bombs/poison/plagues to $your_favorite_terrorist_group.
And did you know about that episode, when the wife of one of the ministers that was imprisoned, pleaded with Saddam to be "returned to her". Saddam obliged: he returned the poor minister, in a bag, cut into many pieces.
Saddam is a fucking sadist, nothing more, really. Not only for how he killed that minister, but also for giving the bag with the remains to the wife - a totally sick person.
That also explains the brutal methods used by his regime, to torture people: putting the hands into acid is just one of the methods in his repertoire.
Sigged!
What brought me to my opinions?
A bitter distrust of all centralizations of authority, periodically reinforced every time I thought I'd found a trustworthy one.
A realization that governments are the ultimate centralization of authority, via their claim to a monopoly on the use of force.
A further realization that sometimes it's better to just have one big bully than a whole bunch of lesser ones.
And a still dawning realization of what it means to be an ape.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
It's true no matter which country you live in as well, although America seems to get the more interesting scandals being a super power and all. Lets hope this isn't one of them.
"3,000 cruise missiles. Let's say just three dead for each missile. That's 9,000 dead. Three World Trade Centers. Impressive. None of these people attacked America." --Gwynn Dyer, CBC
"Doesn't France and Germany have more interest there in that respect?"
Sure wouldn't make any sense to replace them with American companies, would it?
"GWB recently put forth a bill to put money towards fuel cell vehicles"
Ford spent more money developing the Taurus than Bush proposes to spend on fuel cell developement over the next 5 years. Which do you think is the bigger technological leap?
Yes, it's true. This man has no dick.
American audience"...Saddam has also replaced his military with a civilian
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
Nothing ever does, but I've been in some pretty tight situations and it has worked out well for me to act proactively.
Minimising risk works, yes, I agree and that is a good tactic. Escalating the situation out of fear what might happen is stupid though.
My aunt was murdered in her home by a burglar.
Under what circumstances? Trying to resist or by playing along? Or just "because"?
My personal experience dictates it's not worth the risk to not act.
The question is how you act. By playing along you can walk away, by drawing a gun you automatically force the other person to protect themselves as well.
By my actions, they will end up dead.
They might, or you will end up dead or both.
I do not play around when safety is concerned, and I'm not about to cripple someone and leave them to sue me.
Charming, [sarcasm]I appreciate it that you value life so much.[/sarcasm]
And there we europeans are accused of being too cynical.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
and, you'd probably like to have all this referenced and footnoted. so, here ya go!
http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/ShalomIranIraq.h tml
-c
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof which this margin is too small to contain.
I remember a piece about that last night. Good example of errors in judgement.
I also remember Colin Powell and Gen. Schwarzkopf discussing whether to press on to Baghdad. Schwarzkopf said he was 24 hours away from being in the heart of Baghdad. However both Powell and Schwarzkopf felt they had achieved the military and political goals and any further fighting would result in more loss of life on both sides. They also said that the combat was starting to get very ugly. I remember pbs had a clip of a US helicopter firing on soldiers walking in the desert at night using Infrared. If they had shown that to the public, there probably would have been outrage.
Whats interesting to note is that an aide to Saddam who has defected said that at that at that time Saddam felt that his regime was over and that allied tanks would be in Baghdad in hours. He was a beat man. Then H.W. Bush announced a cease fire, and then the aide said Saddam's morale went from 0 to 100. He later said that he had a "victory" over the allies.
-An American Revolutionary
- Overused phrases (-1 Troll)
That is
- Overused phrases (-1 Redundant)
When I get modded "over-rated" for a comment that had 1 point, I'd say the moderator was pretty confused....
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
I'm talking both sides, mind you, pro-war and anti-war. Having spent my share of time up close and personal with the "shock and awe" of combat, I can say from first hand experience that war is extraordinarily serious business, business that requires extremely careful consideration before action.
And having seen, again first hand, the results of a tyrannical maniac, I have a very good understanding of the necessity of fighting from time to time.
However, I'm not going to weigh in on the pros or cons of this war in this forum simply because there are an appalling number of blithering idiots who don't seem to have a basic understanding of international (or national) political and military relationships and necessities.
Instead, I'd suggest that just about every person participating in Slashdot discussions do some studying on the real-world political and social situations that exist around us. Instead of spouting off the typical line of what we should do, perhaps it's better to consider what we can do. There is a significant difference, particularly when viewed in a global context.
Perhaps, then, a few pro-war activists will find that there is less of a need to fight and a few anti-war activists will find that sometimes it's necessary to shoot now and then.
-h-
We should have finished it during the last war with Iraq.
That would kind of go against the mandate of the coalition, wouldn't it? It was about throwing Iraq out of Kuwait.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
According to this article in the Sydney Morning Herald, Iraqi defectors have reported that Saddam's son Uday "mercilessly beats girls as young as 12 on the soles of their feet if they refuse to sleep with him, Iraqi defectors said today."
Like father like son. This just underscores how corrupt and abusive Saddam's regime is, and it shouldn't be terribly surprising. It's a pretty stomach-turning article for a major newspaper, and not for the squimish.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Good then, the propaganda works. Of course i am not saying all the above things about saddam are not true they obviously are, but the PBS documentary did not show all the suffering that the first gulf war and the years of sanctions have caused. Also they did not note that #6 happened essentially with Bush senior's ok.
Neither did they show any real indication that the iraqis actually want the americans to invade them. I have read several independant correspondants who lived in iraq and it seems the answer is definately no.
Since the Frontline documentaries were created by many journalists from many countries and from former Iraqi citizens, I fail to see how the American government is feeding me anything. These arent half truths made from conjecture, but well documented facts from publicised documents and resources. Its a factual account of history.
Before you start trying to say all the facts are falsified, why dont you read the documentaries and find out what they say and what the sources are?
A war about oil? Im sure oil is a piece of this war, along with many other things, but Ive not seen anything to convince me it is only about oil. Rather I have seen how history has shown how dangerous this regime has been to Kuwait, Iran, and the citizens of Iraq and how much of a threat it can be in the future.
I suppose next we'll be discussing how America never really went to the moon in the 60's.
-An American Revolutionary
Bearing in mind #2, #5, and #6 If I were an Iraqi under this regime, I would be burning American flags and tell any reporter that I didn't want the Americans in Iraq either.
-An American Revolutionary
Haliburton may get contracts through USAid, but Cheney won't benefit, of course, because he had to sever all financial ties before taking office.
Anyway, if enriching friends is such a high motivation for the administration, why did Haliburton stock go down today, against the best week for stocks since 1982? Seems Cheney's doing an awful job lining their pockets. Fact is, oilmen were happiest when tensions and oil prices were high the past few months. If Iraq starts pumping oil soon like they used to, prices will plummet and American oil interests will lose out 'Big time' (as Cheney would say).
It seems you need to wake up, yourself, and quit passing around hand-me-down Naderite class-warfare and conspiracy nonsense.
-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
Minimising risk works, yes, I agree and that is a good tactic. Escalating the situation out of fear what might happen is stupid though.
I don't view it as an escalation though, I view it as defense.
The question is how you act. By playing along you can walk away, by drawing a gun you automatically force the other person to protect themselves as well.
This is true, but if someone breaks into my home they wont see me draw a gun. They will just get shot. I will not intimidate, hesitate, or fire a warning shot. As soon as they are within view, they get shot. I know my house much better than they would, and know how to shoot a gun; likely better than them as well.
As for my aunt, she walked through her front door and the guy didn't want to go to jail so he stabbed her to death. He still got caught, and served 7 years. That's bullshit.
As for my cynicism and lack of value of life, it's backwards. You see, I just value other peoples lives more than someone who is breaking into my home. For instance, my family over their life. I protect my family, and my way of life above all. Especially some junky trying to break into my home.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Looks like this may be a holy war after all. "Shekinah" means the presence of God." Shock and awe? More and more, every day.
The Death Penalty: Killing people to show others that killing people is wrong.
For all of you Americans and British who disagree with the war. The fact that you can dissent publicly on this great forum (mod up) without the threat of death by your government is one great reason for you to reasses your view of the war. If you were Iraqi and you were caught dissenting with the great one (Hussein), make no mistake, you would be killed brutally. There is a possibility that your family would be killed as well. I heard an Arab saying "the enemy that you know is better than the enemy that you do not know." What this says to me is that the good people of Iraq have been petrified for so long by this tyrant that they are willing to live under all the threats of violance and misery because they cannot fathom living under a government that is based upon freedoms. They could not fathom posting dissenting views to such a public forum.
LEPP
Or otherwise, is he pretending to be dead and actually in hiding somewhere so we'll think we've won?
All you have proved is that each of these points are argueable. By all sides. But taking the list as a whole you must come to a conclusion, America is not THE moral high ground of the world. America is just as icky as any other country (except maybe, Andora? Malta?). "That's what you get when Europe's inability to act makes you be world policeman." What give us the right to be such? Our "policing" all through the Cold War consisted of us promoting some stupid pro-capitolism adgenda. We don't have the right to force our policy on anyone. We forget our own origins everytime we push our version of "what is right and just" on another country. Remember we were founded by a PEOPLES revolt. Taking that, if another country (say iraq) doesn't want its rulership, let them rebel. If they can't, they don't want freedom enough.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
This argument doesn't make much sense. It can be about oil without being about Iraqi oil.
It has been a fundamental tenet of the neocons that we shouldn't be involved in humanitarian military actions, and they all howled bitterly when Clinton wanted to remove a brutal dictator. They clearly see US interest in this action -- they are not advocating war merely for the sake of the Iraqi people (except cynically, in response to critics of the war).
What is that US interest? The WMD threat is not remotely credible as a direct threat to the US. Saddam might dream of hitting us, but he doesn't have a prayer of doing so, and he knows (as evidenced by his restraint in the first Gulf War) that if he ever did he'd be risking nuclear retaliation.
The real threat Saddam poses is to his neighbors. And we care about that because they have oil. Oil has always been our reason for getting involved in Middle Eastern governments. Do you think we staged a coup in Iran just for grins? For the warm reception we'd get from the Iranian people? Or poured money into the Iran/Iraq war because we just happened to have some cash lying around?
We've been in the Middle East for decades because of oil, and Saddam threatened that.
Why is this strike in Iraq News for Nerds?
Do they have such a booming IT-industry or something?
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
..thanks wow, a truly superior post, thanks for finding it, thanks for posting it. It's one of those things that should be printed out by the thousands and handed out all over. The parallels are amazing.
I've been watching this creeping fascism for decades now, ever since as a teen I realised that a President had gotten whacked, and that the "whomever did it's" had gotten away with it. A president who was determined to not fight illegal weird wars, who was returning the nation to honest money and getting us away from the federal reserve scam money, a president who saw the oil sisters raping everyone and getting away with it and was determined to stop it, a president who with his brother was determined to break the back of real organized crime after over 30 years of the nations federal "police" boss ignoring it and claiming it didn't even exist, and a president who was truly interested in having all people inside the nation be equal citizens. All those reasons and more, these fascists used as the excuse to whack him, and using their power inside high governmental agencies and the military and in international business, they avoided any penalty for their crime, just got away with it.
Since then, all the actions of this government point to a "shadow government" of fascists who year by year have taken over, until now they make up almost all of the "government" at any managerial and decision making level, and the people under them too scared or too brainwashed to resist this...junta is the word. It really is a junta, that's the best word that fits and what happened, a slow speed stealth junta takeover.
Soldiers used as mercenaries, rubber stamp bribed yes men play acting at being "elected representatives", so called "judges" coming from one of the two controlling organized crime ubergangs, and now an executive branch that is going for broke, no more pretenses needed, no more silly "rights" nonsense, just conmplete and total "command and control".
The bad part is, how many brainwashed sieg heilers we have now, same as "back then" when the bulk of another nation got faked out.
Learn from history or repeat, looks like we are repeating this go-around. Too bad.
No. No. I just can't do it. I thought I couldn't stoop any lower and here I am still trying.
Mod me down. I know better but can't stop myself.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
This is true, but if someone breaks into my home they wont see me draw a gun. They will just get shot. I will not intimidate, hesitate, or fire a warning shot. As soon as they are within view, they get shot. I know my house much better than they would, and know how to shoot a gun; likely better than them as well.
If we assume you hit they might not just fall over dead.
As for my aunt, she walked through her front door and the guy didn't want to go to jail so he stabbed her to death. He still got caught, and served 7 years. That's bullshit.
And you in her situation would have been able to defend yourself? Or your wife? Or your kids?
If the robber has to expect that he gets shot at, don't you think he uses the same logic and shoots first?
But I agree, 7 years for murder is not enough, lock 'em up and throw the keys away.
As for my cynicism and lack of value of life, it's backwards. You see, I just value other peoples lives more than someone who is breaking into my home. For instance, my family over their life. I protect my family, and my way of life above all. Especially some junky trying to break into my home.
If your neighbourhood is that bad maybe you should move?
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Pentagon officials have confirmed that this is "A-day" for war, presumably the so called "Shock & Awe" mentioned by the White House earlier.
I am neither shocked, nor awed, that the United States has picked a fight with the weakest opponent it could find that could be linked, even so tenuously, to the 9/11 attacks.
Watching the amazing barrage of million dollar missiles killing the enemy "army", and murdering innocent civilian women, children and elderly, I cannot help but be swept up by the majesty unfolding before us. Yes, I shall now go and affix a "Protestors Shut Up!" sign above the flag on my giant SUV.
I think it would be good if the mimes went on strike as well.
What would they do? Start yelling?
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
I hope we kill all the terrorists!
But I have a couple questions.
1. What happened to that Bin Laden guy?
2. How many innocent people were killed by US sanctions and bombing in the last war with Iraq?
Oh, and I guess I might have one more question...
What if there are 5 billion terrorists in the world?
"That's what you get when Europe's inability to act makes you be world policeman." What give us the right to be such?
What gives us the right to be world policeman? With no other superpower in the world, and Europe etc. unwilling to act, the US has a need and a responsibility to prevent the rise of Hitler v2.0 - not only to protect themselves, but to protect the world.
Remember we were founded by a PEOPLES revolt. Taking that, if another country (say iraq) doesn't want its rulership, let them rebel. If they can't, they don't want freedom enough.
Good thing the French didn't think like you during the American Revolution. Or have you forgotten your own origins, too? Just like Iraq now, the US was helped by a superpower - France - into her independence.
I mean, it's not like you elected him or anything!
At least if the mimes protested, the protestors would have shut up.
But they would be three times as annoying.
Irene KHAAAAAAN!
>> Whatever reasons the war started what is important to me is that the Iraqi people will probably be better off once all this is over. Sadaam was killing more Iraqi's every year than were killed by Amercans during the Gulf war.
ASSHOLE!
If saddam killed 150000 people per year there would not be much left.
Yes, CNN only showed NICE SURGICAL weapons, but never mentioned that the USA bombed 3 times as much people to hell then amarical soldiers died in vietnam....
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
right. just like the people who don't understand that American companies with close ties to this administration (cough)Haliburton(cough) are ready to make a shit-load of money off this, as they did after the first Gulf War.
Consipiracy theories are fun and all but there are a lot more direct, efficient and massively less risky ways to get a measily $900 million out of the government if the administration is motivated by graft. Wars are politically risky - sure there is an upside, they can be popular - but if it goes wrong you're out after only 4 years sucking at the public teat, that adds up to some big lost oppurtunity costs. And all that risk for only $900 million? It's just not worth it, it's too much trouble. If it was all about funneling contracts to Haliburton there are MUCH easier and quiter ways.
I found this from Google News on Arab News:
My Dear Americans
Tariq A. Al-Maeena, clsencounters@hotmail.com
US President Bush has declared a war on Iraq. He calls it "Operation Iraqi Freedom." In a televised address to the nation he said, "These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign." But the truth is far from it. It is not a war. It is willful and premeditated murder, and should be dubbed Operation Iraqi Slaughter.
With each weapon of mass destruction landing in Iraq, Bush is condemning thousands of innocent Iraqis to death. And his stated purpose? To set them free of tyranny. But the horrors of what Bush has unleashed on the civilians of Iraq will undoubtedly leave few of them around to enjoy the so-called freedom Bush so grandly envisages.
The preliminary missile and bombing attacks on Iraq were just a taste of what will soon be unleashed on a weary and helpless population. As the US secretary of defense grandly announced in Washington last Thursday, "What will follow will not be a repeat of any other conflict. It will be of a force and scope and scale that is beyond what has been seen before."
Hundreds of cruise missiles, to give just one example, are to be launched in the first days of the attack. Those who survive the initial onslaught will be struggling to survive in cities from which there is no escape, and in which the water supplies, the sewage systems, and the electrical grids, have been deliberately destroyed. Diseases will be rampant, and death multi-fold.
American and British forces will use thousands of depleted uranium (DU) shells -- widely regarded by 1991 veterans as the cause of Gulf War syndrome as well as thousands of child cancers in present-day Iraq -- to batter their way across the Kuwaiti-Iraqi frontier. The long-term health effects of this invasion will not be determined for decades.
And once the soldiers are in combat, you will be expected to unite behind the war. Images showing "smart bombs" exploding while Mr. Rumsfeld assures you that civilian casualties are being kept to a minimum will dominate the TV screens of a country far removed from the horrors.
You can be assured too that you will be spared the bloody realities of the dead and wounded of Iraq, as the human tragedy unfolding in Iraq will be told in numbers, in abstractions, in brief video clips, and not in the stories of real human beings, real children, real mothers and fathers. But remember that those abstractions were living flesh and blood.
And in defending their purpose to continue with this mass slaughter should any horrific incident be exposed, your government will be sure to pacify your consciences with apologies such as: "The death of this family was an accident," "We apologize for the dismemberment of this child," "This was an intelligence mistake," "A radar malfunction" -- and perhaps even some more imaginative ones.
Then the US will conveniently find the weapons of mass destruction that supposedly provoked this bloody war. In the journalistic hunt for these weapons, any old rocket will do.
Why? To get rid of Saddam, a tyrant, a threat to the world? To defend ourselves? To destroy his mighty arsenal? Then how come the rest of the world, much closer to Iraq, does not want war? If indeed he had such an arsenal under his control, shouldn't we wonder why he isn't using it now, when he risks being destroyed himself?
Why, for God's sake, this sudden urgency to create a threat where hardly any existed? Why were the inspections not allowed to continue? Was anybody being threatened during the inspection process? Were bodies being blown to bits? Just a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months.
Or is it that Bush, in pursuit of his own agenda, was afraid that a vote against war by the Security Council would have formally declared the United States
The reason the Iraqi Army has not done so well is simple. They learned all their tactics from the Russians who taught them to retreat, retreat, retreat until the snow comes, then attack.
Today's vices may be tomorrow's virtues.
Then why wern't there protests of this scale in Bush's invasion of Afghanistan? Why do people who supported GW bush's war against .af not support a similar action against .iq?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Terrorize is correct, but not in the same sense that a terrorist terrorizes. This has a much narrower definition of intentionally killing civilians to instill terror, which the coalition is not doing.
Vote for Pedro
"but the effect is the same...People afraid because bombs are going off and buildings are collapsing around them."
The effect is not quite the same, because civilians are not the target of the attacks. The shock and terror (which is a much better phrase than shock and awe) is meant for the military, which means that although the coalition is instilling terror, they are not terrorists, by the definition of a terrorist.
Vote for Pedro
If we assume you hit they might not just fall over dead.
.50, I can shoot through the wall and hit him. If I have a .380 or a 9mm, it is a different story.
If I get a chest shot, which I would aim for, likely. Otherwise they would be stunned to put a few more slugs in them. Generally people don't stand up too well after being shot in the chest, even if it is a non-fatal wound.
And you in her situation would have been able to defend yourself? Or your wife? Or your kids?
Yes, without too much detail, if someone attacks me with a knife I have a very large chance of defending myself.
If the robber has to expect that he gets shot at, don't you think he uses the same logic and shoots first?
The robber coming into the home has different things to account for. Where am I, who I am, what type of gun I have, etc. For instance, if I'm sitting there with a Desert Eagle
My neighborhood isn't that bad, not that I have to worry about this. But you never know, sometimes junkies walk to nice neighborhoods.
I personally am thankful that I know how to shoot guns, and defend myself. It does make me sleep better at night. I don't act out of irrational fear, but I will act out of fear. I'm scared of losing the people I care about, so I protect them in the best way I can. If someone dies because of it, tough shit.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
I was wondering what has convinced fellow Slahshdoters to take the stance they have now on the state of affairs with Iraq?
For me it was the Frontline documentaries on PBS which focused on the history of Saddam.
Now i know why the US is going to war:
It takes only a single TV show to convince a US citizen that killing people is actually a good thing.
I do not fear getting jumped because I have taken necessary precautions to largely guarantee my safety in the event.
Nothing can guarantee your safety.
I know how to shoot a gun very well
Your assailant might be a better shot. And you might not be carrying a gun.
I am also trained in hand to hand combat.
They might be better trained. Or they might simply be bigger; as much as we all like to think skill is everything, in a physical melee the bigger/more massive guy usually wins. It's just a simple fact.
I have faith in my abilities to escape a situation unharmed with anybody trained less than special forces in military.
Alright, now that's just macho posturing. A professional, or even an amateur boxer would rip apart most soldiers pretty easily. Ditto for a professional martial artist, such as an instructor. If you're actually claiming you'd be able to take on almost anyone, then I think you're more at risk because of your overconfidence.
WTF? Can we please get a coherent statement. Now to dignify your ramblings with a response. Fair? I don't want fair. There is only one thing I want or expect from my government, and that is to know that when I am going about my business I dont have to worry about some idiot who has decided that America is the source of all his problems gassing/poisoning/bmbing me. If this means that we have to go out and bust some skulls I have no problem with that.( as Mel Brooks said "Its good to be the king" )
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.
And so would everybody else. What would be the point of that? And oil for food is not cheap? Better provide some numbers to back that up.
People who argue that this war is being fought for oil are, to be charitable, gravely misinformed.
People who argue that oil is not part of the equation are even more gravely misinformed. The issue is not cheap(er) oil. But oil itself, and control thereof is definitely part of the equation.
Nothing can guarantee your safety.
That's why I said largely guarantee, not completely guarantee. I could also trip and fall and break a hip. I've done that (minus breaking a hip) in a match before, it gets rather embarassing even if it's a "sure victory"
They might be better trained. Or they might simply be bigger; as much as we all like to think skill is everything, in a physical melee the bigger/more massive guy usually wins. It's just a simple fact.
This really isn't true, and it's because less than 5-10% of the population is truly trained to the point where it becomes instinct. The only time I've lost a fight or match against someone bigger than me was when they nearly doubled my weight and I received 3 broken ribs in one punch from the guy.
Alright, now that's just macho posturing. A professional, or even an amateur boxer would rip apart most soldiers pretty easily. Ditto for a professional martial artist, such as an instructor. If you're actually claiming you'd be able to take on almost anyone, then I think you're more at risk because of your overconfidence.
Well, you can rest easy that it isn't my over-confidence because before I got sick (read my journal for details, if you care) I was invited to a "kick-you-in-the-nuts" class for TKD blackbelts as an instructor. I don't get paid, because I prefer programming.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
weirdo ac
Answer: the U.N. is an impotent organization.
Let's get real about the oil thing; we aren't going in there to steal their oil. Did everybody catch that? I'll say it again if anybody missed that point... We could have stolen their oil after the first gulf war, but instead we sent almost everybody home.
I have NO doubt that we intend to BUY a bunch of oil from Iraq once Saddam is gone... and why not? There is no other way for the Iraqis to fund the rebuilding of their country. Also, the whole "oil embargo" thing that Saddam previously threatened is totally bogus; many of those OPEC nations depend on income from petroleum exports to run their governments. They are just as dependent on us as we are on them (speaking as an American). Oil embargo? That's mutually assured economic destruction.
I've spent a significant amount of time in the middle east; there is very little in most of those vast deserts that's worth anything, besides oil. Countries like Saudi Arabia don't even allow any sort of tourism (apart from the muslims that travel there for the Haj)... if you're not a muslim, you can't even get into the country; they simply DON'T issue tourist visas. If it wasn't for oil, many of those countries would be economic non-entities.
We're hell-bent on preserving their oil fields; that's a no-brainer. Not only does it prevent environmental catastrophe, but we can then BUY the oil from the new Iraqi government... and what's wrong with that? Commerce... they sell, we buy, everybody wins.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Everyone who is not German, who does not have a connection to German soil through blood, and who does not share in the moral and genetic superiority of the German people.
Pretty big fucking difference, if you ask me.
BTW, you might keep in mind that all of those 'irrelevant little facts' are what make up the big picture. Idiot.
And when N. Korea pulls out of the armistice as a result of Bush pre-emptively attacking Iraq, we'll be on three fronts.
And that will bring on the rest of the world, since N. Korea has a nuclear weapon.
Like I said before, is everyone ready for WW III?
Jory
Let's agree to disagree. I am currently sitting my place and the door isn't even locked, I am not in the middle of no where but in the middle of downtown Toronto.
I also don't think that if someone who wants to harm you (and breaks in the house out of that reason) is not going to be careful not to alert you or does not try to overpower you right from the start. Usually if someone wants to hurt you they tail you for quite a while to get an understanding of their "pray".
Most other home invasions tend to be on the side of property damage and I think escalating it would be the wrong thing to do, but that's me and obviously we don't see eye to eye.
Carry your gun but I think it just gives you a wrong sense of security. If someone is out to get you chances are they will.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Perhaps Saddam doesn't want to facilitate the spin being put on this illegal war? CNN cuts reports of Arab responses to the war and it shows scenes of peace and quiet in Bagdhad while buildings are burning.
... The clearly stated intention of the American government is to crush any opposing leadership, destroy the UN, and control the world through economic and military might.
An interesting discussion would be, what can/should the world do to punish America for this? They are flouting international law, they are intentionally discrediting and destroying the UN, and they are bombing a foreign country with nuclear waste with no provocation whatsoever.
In a simple world, it would be clear that we should demand that the US withdraws, destroys its weapons of mass destruction, and cease selling arms around the world. But it's not a simple world. Every member of the older generation has massive amounts of their retirement money tied up in the US, so they're not going to be inclined to do anything too disruptive. Facist America (aka Corporate America - learn) has its fingers in the industry of most nations around the world, and has always been pretty brutal about using its economic power to crush opposition. So doing something about America would require most countries to seize American ownership of business and infrastructure within their own nations and redistrbute it, while also dealing with the political and military aspects of the task... an expensive logistical nightmare.
That said, America is an ever growing threat to world peace. Take a look at www.newamericancentury.org
So what do we do? Cause it beats the hell out of me.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
To quote WRH:
" Where is this fierce and capable enemy we were all told we had to destroy before they destroyed us? Where is the terror that we were told by our leaders we had to fear? All I see are helpless men with outdated equipment being slaughtered by a supertpower that raises the flag of conquest over their graves."
What if the Iraqi people don't want to pay the price of being "liberated"? What if they just want to be left alone, just like the Vietnamese, Cambodians and Laotians did.
Does anyone here realize that a certain middle east country has just buldozzed over a US citizen, and shot another. Isn't any of you going to take a stand against a deliberate attack on one of your own people? (They ran over her, backed up, and did it again) Hint: it's not an "Islamic" country either.
What as Iraq done to you? They used to have weapons of mass destruction. Great! So does China! Not to mention that the US government has used WMD's on it's own people (Waco) does this mean Canada would be justfied in invading the States? Why not? The same logic works doesn't it?
Oh, so YOU don't think so? Well, the rest of the WORLD definitely DOES!
You call us ungrateful? Read "Oliver Twist' and you'll understand why.
Maybe Europe is too even-headed to run around installing 'regimes', only to topple them when the turn despotic, or stop doing what their told.
I'm getting bored with the Hitler/Saddam comparison, I see no simularity between them, at all. Yes, Saddam is an ass, yes, he's a bad guy, but Hitler? Appeasment didn't work ONCE, count the number if occurances carefully, once. SO STOP USING IT AS A BLOODY EXAMPLE! Saddam didn't declare war on us or our allies this time, Hitler did (after pearl harbor [the real reason we joined WWII, not the Jews]). Sadam has shown no further external hostility, meaning HE IS NOT A DIRECT THREAT.
If the world was concerned, you'd think they'd do something, no? But a majority of the world doesn't agree, hell most of our so-called allies don't agree, their only in the game for their own self-interest. And then their Britan... Ahem.
Yeah, the french HELPED, after we revolted. The Iraqi people haven't revolted, the Iraqi people will not be allowed to found their government, in their own cultural/historical image. We will force an oil exporting, capitalist economy down their throat, along with some icky democracy, which WILL NOT WORK. That region has never seen a democracy, democracy is ALIEN to that region, alien to that culture. Capitolism and Democracy is not some sociopolitical panacea.
And, I do not forget my origins, I am a son of Prussian draft dodgers. My ancestors escaped a superpower to avoid silly wars.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
The US wants a tame, US-friendly Arab client state
...to act as a regional bulwark against Islamic fundamentalism
I agree with you on this point, as well as:
However, my response was intended to mean that we are not attacking Saddam simply because he is Arab (as the Islamic fundamentalists would like many to believe). Yes, we want a "democratic" Iraq to be a moderating force in the Middle East, but achieving this goal requires removing Saddam, whether he is Arab, Anglo, Muslim, Christian, Martian, etc.
It WILL be "Shock and Awe" when we see the bill for financing this war!
Actually it is the title of a book written by a bunch of military theorists who were advocating it ias a strategy. The principle author was on one of the news channels. No I don't know which one.
Democrat delenda est
Quite how it went from 80% against war to 53% for war in a matter of days, after the parliament vote picked up a few more votes against war, and Blair and Bush effectively bypassed the UN security council to go it alone, I don't know. I do know that truth is the first casualty of war though. I still don't know a single person who supports this war.
Just been watching the TV. Lots of reports of fiarly heavy fighting. Now were are the bodies? May reports of X number of surrenders of Iraqi soldiers. Mnay reports of the two US soldiers killed. Where are the reports of the number of people they killed?
It seems that TV new coverage is not covering the story of the peeps on the other side of this conflict.
I know that this is an almost impossible task due to lack of access to these people but I would have thought that counting bodies would not be that hard.
Is it that the press do not want to depress thier viewers with such unplesent news?
matfud
Let's see. The EU, the planet's biggest aid donor, isn't going to pony up...
Iraq will be either the 1st or 2nd largest oil exporting nation. Finding money will *not* be a problem. They already have more than US$10 billion in *cash* waiting to be spent immediately.
Ethnic tensions, an artificial country composed of tribes, not nationals. Surrounded by states with an interest in a weak Iraq.
A well educated population, lots of money, occupied by the most powerful nation on Earth. How exactly is that like post-colonial Africa?
Turkey is *right now* in the process of invading North Iraq...
Turkey already invaded Iraq - what was it - five years ago? They never left. They are sending more troops, and maybe it will get messy, but I doubt it.
1000 US troops just this last day fought a pitched battle against Taliban forces in Afghanistan. That war isn't over!
"Pitched battle"? They carried out a sweep. Last I heard they arrested a few guys with guns. Big deal.
Memory in particular. I seem to remember learning a few things in history classes that have something to do with the actual effects that war has on people and politics. I seem to remember something about the rise to power of the Nazi party and the way the German people went along with it. I seem to remember something about what happens when you let a country start invading other countries preemptively, detaining people of a certain race etc. Another image from history classes which comes to mind is that of a troupe of Japanese soldiers marching towards Hiroshima with their melted eyeballs running down their faces like tears. I seem to remember a few things about the last dozen or so wars, operations and police actions the US has been involved in, images of children torn limb from limb, entire populations displaced, cities devistated, explosions and fire and blood.
War is hell. There is no such thing as a just war. There's just war. It's always hell. It always has been, and it always will be. I read somewhere that half the population of Iraq is under 16. Do you think the bombs are smart enough to tell how old their target is?
"But it's OK, see the children bleed, it'll look great on the TV." --Pink Floyd.
Others have mentioned the PNAC document which outlines the real reasons for the war, but I knew all of that before I read it. Has anyone read any history? The US has been doing this kind of shit for most of the last century. They were never even remotely justified before. Do you think they possibly could be now? Do you imagine that any of the propaganda being used to justify the war is anything but lies and spin? Sure, Saddam is an evil bastard. The world is full of them. If we went to war every time an evil basterd was in charge of a country, we'd be at war all the time... oh yeah... never mind...
One of the great lessons of WWII was, just because your enemy is evil, that doesn't mean that you are good. Evil can fight evil too.
This is not a game of Doom, kids, this is real life. People are dying, dying horrible gruesome deaths, and we sit here and discuss it like it was a football game. It's horrible. War can never be justified, never be condoned, never be allowed by people of conscience.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Most other home invasions tend to be on the side of property damage and I think escalating it would be the wrong thing to do, but that's me and obviously we don't see eye to eye.
You are right, you haven't had a family member murdered by someone just interested in "property damage." I'm not going to risk losing a family member to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Carry your gun but I think it just gives you a wrong sense of security. If someone is out to get you chances are they will.
I don't carry a gun either. Just a small pocket knife. Doesn't mean I don't own anything else, just that I don't carry it with me. I make sure to put myself in situations that don't warrant me testing my abilities.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
"Everyone who is not German, who does not have a connection to German soil through blood, and who does not share in the moral and genetic superiority of the German people."
Excuse me, but have you ever been to Germany? Or is all your knowledge about Germany from "a copy of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich"?
As a foreigner/ausländer who has been living in Germany for years I must admit that I have no idea what you're talking about. I have witnessed more racism and "fucking foreigners" in Boston, SF, or London, or most other European countries than I have ever done in Germany.
The guilt for what happened 60 years ago is still running very deep within the German people born in the forties, fifties and sixties. (Even if they had nothing to do with it.) And for them to cast stone and name anybody inferior because they are not German is not very likely. It is rather amazing to witness how many Germans are ashamed of the fact that they are German; totally ignoring the tremendous accomplishments achieved within the last 60 years.
And as for the White Rose (Die Weiße Rose), maybe it would be a good idea to check another source than "a copy of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich". Die Weiße Rose was started by Hans and Sophie Scholl, brother and sister. Sophie had just about started her University education in Munich when, some 6-8 weeks later, she, her brother and some other students (medical most of them) issued the first "White Rose Flyer" ("Flugblätter der Weißen Rose").
Not exactly "intellectuals who were, or had been, in positions of authority".
The students behind Die Wieße Rose are nowadays considered to be freedom fighters who died for their beliefs. As they should be. Especially since they were in Hitlers own backyard; Bavaria.
To claim that they were merely pissed off intellectuals is pretty pathetic.
If you would care to go beyond "a copy of the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" you can visit the remembrance site at the Ludwig-Maximilian University in Munich, Ludwigstraße. (Take the subway, parking is impossible.)
If the trip is too long, there's a couple of recommendable books about the subject:
> This nation would not even exist if not for the French
> during Revolutionary War. And they also helped out the
> Union side during the Civil War.
And you say that last part like it was a good thing. Some of us know enough of the history of the War of Northern Aggression to realize we 'owe' them for that.
Democrat delenda est
> The truth will come out sooner or later, and eventually some one will put it into a coherent package. Don't look for it on live television...
The truth will never (almost never) come out. Winners write history. So what we'll know is who's winning at the moment that the book (or online book or whatever) is published.
> Democracy cannot be just about the majority and winning.
But that is where you are wrong. Democracy is just that. Democracy is 51 people voting to piss in the corn flakes of the 49 and the 49 being expected to just sigh and say "It was the will of the majority. We got to voice our opinion and it was indeed a fair vote. Guess we just have to drink the piss now." And that is why the Founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with Democracy, which they rightly deridded as nothing less than Mob Rule. Which is why our Constituition protects (on paper at least, about as effective as a UN resolution) against it by ensuring a republican form of government.
Note small r in republican. The modern Republican Party believes in republicanism/federalism a little more than the original founders (Lincoln the Butcher and his ilk) of the party but they hold the idea in about same regard as the Democratic Party holds democracy; nice to pay lip service to but nothing to change a position over.
Democrat delenda est
> Saddam started out as a hitman for the radical Ba'ath Party and he participated in the failed assassination attempt on the country's strong man, Gen. Kassem, in 1959.
Now let's make a list of all the crimes the US government has committed since 1959. How many contries invaded, how many lawfully elected governments overthrown, how many seaports mined, how many villages burned, how many soldiers poisoned with LSD, how much Agent Orange dumped on SE Asia, how many times the National Guard has fired on our own citizens, how many "collateral" casualties in our overseas adventures, how many fabricated "incidents" to justify wars or bombing raids?
Vilifying Saddam for the asshole he is makes great propaganda for a public unsure about the rightness of this war, and the media are pumping it up our asses as fast as they can. But maybe we should insert a bit of honesty about ourselves for the sake of perspective.
Yeah, if there's a Hell then Saddam is going to rot there. But he'll have a lot of American leaders there to keep him company.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Recent polls show about 65-70% of Americans in favor of the war and 50-55% of Bris in favor of the war (significantly more than your 20% figure). Even a few weeks ago, UK support for the war was more in the 30-35% range, not 20%.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
There's a big difference between "attacking America" and attacking American fighter jets that are flying over his Iraq. It's not like he was firing missiles at Boston.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
for a plain jane no flash international news site updated several times a day from sources around the world try http:/www.newsfromtheedge.org
Don't forget Rwanda, or the millions of people with AIDS in Africa, or the suffering of the caste in India. The US is responsible for ALL the pain on the planet today. :-)
Seriously though who killed the half a million people in Iraq? Saddam killed those people. Get your facts straight. Learn who the real enemy is.
...is one that we hear very infrequently. It's that of the Iraqis who suffer under the regime. If they are pro-war, the world should be, too. Obviously you can't poll in Iraq very easily, but, still, I think figuring out what they would prefer has largely been ignored at least by the anti-war side.
Liberty uber alles.
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?
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/World/2020_ira qiwomen030321.html
They are educated. They aren't required to veil themselves. They can work. But these four women from Iraq say they were missing two crucial things in their homeland freedom and dignity
The four women Maha Hussain, Zainab al-Suwaij, Katrin Michael and Roz Rasool told ABCNEWS' Barbara Walters stories that could be punishable by death in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Even Iraqis in the United States are terrified to speak frankly about Saddam's regime, largely because they are terrified of reprisals against family members.
The women are speaking out because they feel they are speaking for the voiceless people living under Saddam's regime.
"We know how it looks like inside Iraq," al-Suwaij said on 20/20. "We saw the torture. We saw our relatives and our friends disappearing day after day."
Human rights groups estimate that at least 290,000 Iraqis have disappeared since Saddam took power 34 years ago. Hussain was just a schoolgirl in Baghdad when the reality of life under Saddam hit home. She recalls riding on a school bus at age 13 and seeing a crowd gathered in the center of the capital, around bodies of men hanging from poles. "I remember the blue faces, the long necks," she said.
Saddam's reign of terror extended far beyond public executions. He established a strategy of brutalizing women in order to control their men. Although the stories these women tell are horrific and difficult to substantiate, they are consistent with a pattern of cruelty toward women documented by various human rights groups.
Routine Rapes, Human Meat Grinders, Chemical Baths
Al-Suwaij knows firsthand how even young girls were imprisoned for what seem to be trivial offenses. Al-Suwaij says she had a 16-year-old cousin who was beaten and tortured with electrical shocks for having written something against the government in her school notebook.
And if a man is a dissident or if a man writes a letter or makes a joke about Saddam, these women said, authorities would rape his wife or female relatives in front of him.
"Rape is used as a tool to humiliate the woman, but to also bring men into submission," Hussain said. To compound the humiliation, authorities would videotape the torture and rape and send the tape to family members.
Saddam's contempt for human rights extended to his well-documented use of poison gas against his own people. The horror of one of those chemical attacks still haunts Michael 16 years later.
"Children, women, men ¦ vomiting, screaming, crying with swollen eyes. Everybody was ¦ screaming, 'We are blind. We cannot see,' " Michael said. She said she still has difficulty breathing, because of her exposure to the gas.
Al-Suwaij has seen the inside of an Iraqi prison, and she describes horrific scenes. She said she was shown "human meat grinders" in which people were shredded and disposed of in a septic tank, and chemical baths in which people were literally dissolved.
"You cannot exaggerate about these things. People were slaughtered," she said.
All four women met earlier this month with members of the Bush administration.
They raised the iss
You see - what I did was employ a touch of irony to express a point - that point being that the war in the gulf is way more important than some beowulf cluster of geeks could ever imagine.
You, and whatever SOB moderated me down, clearly missed this.
irony ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-n, r-)
n. pl. ironies
The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.
An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.
A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect. See Synonyms at wit1.
I posted this same idea a minute ago but I'm going to say it again:
The oil companies have already divied up their share of the Iraqi Oil. The Kissinger plan in the mid 70's (Completly documentable by the way) said that we should invade the middle east to secure the oil. He never went through with it because he believed in Alies, the UN and had fears of reprisal by the other super power at the time: Russia. But that idea has not gone away. We are implementing it now because we no longer need the UN and we dont have any fear of Russia.
Like I said before, the oil pipeline that was not allowed in pre war Afganistan is likely to go though now, and the leader we installed there is a former employee of the company that wanted to put it through. Coincidence?
The fact that Bush and Cheney are oil men doesnt at least set of some warnings in your head? The fact that Haliburton, Cheney's company has been fighting 18 court cases in the last 3 years for tax evasion shouold give you an idea about his character. Setting up a "OIl probing" operation in the Caymen Islands (known tax haven) is just ludacris (like they have any oil).
No this isnt just about oil, but its a factor. Global dominance is a much bigger facter. Please read the US document "Stragey to Security". Then you decide.
You are right, you haven't had a family member murdered by someone just interested in "property damage." I'm not going to risk losing a family member to give them the benefit of the doubt.
No I haven't I had someone killed by a drunk driver though, but the reality is (careful I am known to be a cynic) that things like that happen and to think that you can prevent all of it is a nice illusion, you cannot. You can take precautions but to live in fears of what might happen is IMO stupid.
I make sure to put myself in situations that don't warrant me testing my abilities.
Which is the wisest choice and I don't say: "Well walk into a crack house." But I just think that the "I first shoot because thats the only right thing to do." mentality that gets me, but then it seems a populare theme these days, (to bring it back on topic), isn't it?
M.
If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
Actually this is an estimation provided by the Internatianal Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.
You know, this is probably true. But one bad casualty of this war before it even started was that people stopped believing the US and its "coalition of willing" their facts/evidences/stories. The former faith in facts (even though people were suspicious before too) got a severe blow when it became clear that several presented facts (e.g. by Powell for god's sake, he was always seen as someone with integrity until then) were clearly wrong or misinterpreted in a very convenient way.
I'm not saying that Uday isn't a sadist and I'm not saying that this information is probably wrong, but be careful about horror stories being told when a war is going on. It's called propaganda (and it's used by all sides, but you won't hear much about the other side if you don't follow Iraqi TV).
(BTW, who is the owner of the Sydney Morning Herald? Murdoch? If yes, then chances are high that this story is pure propaganda.)
If the US decided to follow the advice of the peace movement, what would happen to the Iraqi people? Would peace and love flow through the country of Iraq? Would the Iraqi people be able to return to their wonderful lives under the just rule of a benevolent ruler Saddam the Wonderful? Would the UN have the will and authority to place inspectors back in Iraq? Would inspectors be allowed to enter Iraq without the no-fly zone or the threat of force that President Bush used? What is the real agenda of the peace movement? Can the peace movement handle the truth? What was the aim of diplomacy? Disarm Saddam or build a coalition to attack Iraq? What would have happened to the Iraqi people after we disarmed Iraq, but left the murdering tyrant in power? Why did Saddam allow inspectors back into Iraq at the end of 2002? If the US pulled out of Iraq, would the 'peace movement' accept responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of people that Saddam and his minions would rape, torture, and murder?
This is, with all negative reports from the UN inspectors and the lack of convincing US/GB intelligence concerning 'his WMD', a good possibility.
Less likely. If the missiles don't work, how difficult can it be for some well-motivated suicidal Republican Guards to deliver a few buckets of lethal material in South Iraq, spread it there and killing a lot of enemy soldiers?
But that with this argument he would never use them which would make it pointless to have them at all.
Now from this simple naive considerations I would conclude that Hypothesis 1 is must most probable: it is unlikely that Saddam has any WMD.
Now I am absolutely no military expert and neither a politician (I am a scientist who thinks that scientific integrity is fundamentally incompatible with politics and diplomacy). I am very curious about other arguments about this issue.
Why shouldn't the US be able to negotiate with Saddam Hussein? They negotiated with him back in the eighties, when the issue was about supplying Iraq with biological weapons of mass destruction. The US continued selling biological weapons to Iraq, even after the Halabja massacre.
At some point Saddam began to remind me very strongly of Stalin. (This was *before* I knew that Stalin was Saddam's personal hero.) That's when I came to agree that removing Saddam was the right thing, both for Iraq and the world.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Actually, less than half of Americans who were eligible to vote did vote in the 2000 Presidential elections. Less than half of the Americans who did vote voted for George W. Bush. If you're keeping track, that means that less than 25% of Americans who were eligible to vote voted for George W. Bush.
The vote was so close that the results of a few districts in Florida would have decided the election. That's where the scandal came in - Florida's Governor is GW's brother Jeb, and there was quite a bit of doubt as to the validity of the votes in that district. In the end, the Republican-dominated US Supreme Court voted to halt a recount of the votes in Florida, making GW Bush president. There is still a dispute as to whether this was legal, but after 9/11 and all o the ultra-conservative legislation that the Bush administration has passed to fight terrorism (PATRIOT act etc.), not too many people are still arguing about the election.
That's why his opponents in the US call him "the Thief in Chief" (a play on the fact that the President of the US is also the "Commander in Chief" of the US military). Some people are angry about the fact that the US Presidential election process uses a system called the Electoral College to effectively award all the votes from a state to whoever won in just that state, so it is technically possible for the national popular vote (that is, the count of the millions of individual voters' votes) to support one candidate and the electoral college votes to support a different one. That happened in 2000 - the popular vote supported Al Gore (former VP under Bill Clinton), but
As for the war, according to this poll of American support for the war, on February 20, only 34% of Americans thought that the "US has enough international support for the war." 57% said that we should get a second U.N. resolution before taking military action. However, 30% said that we "should" get a second resolution, but if vetoed, we should go ahead with a war if we feel it's the right thing to do. That means that even with a second UN measure vetoed, 63% of Americans polled supported a war.
So, to Americans and foreigners trying to pin this war on Bush, don't. Almost 2/3 of Americans supported going to war even with a veto, even though 3/4 of eligible voters didn't vote for GW Bush.
This really isn't true, and it's because less than 5-10% of the population is truly trained to the point where it becomes instinct. The only time I've lost a fight or match against someone bigger than me was when they nearly doubled my weight and I received 3 broken ribs in one punch from the guy.
Well there you go. If a guy double your weight comes after you, the skills might not be enough.
Well, you can rest easy that it isn't my over-confidence because before I got sick (read my journal for details, if you care) I was invited to a "kick-you-in-the-nuts" class for TKD blackbelts as an instructor. I don't get paid, because I prefer programming.
Martial arts are all well and good in most situations, but real fights aren't as neat as you're trained for. In an enclosed space especially the larger combatant will try and close on you, and from there it's just wrestling.
Which is the wisest choice and I don't say: "Well walk into a crack house." But I just think that the "I first shoot because thats the only right thing to do." mentality that gets me, but then it seems a populare theme these days, (to bring it back on topic), isn't it?
I don't think it's the only right thing to do. I do however think it's the right choice for me. Many people don't think so, but it's the way I feel. I hope I never have to shoot anybody breaking into my house; it's not as if I have a desire to kill someone. But I do have a desire to protect my loved ones, and that outweighs anything.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Martial arts are all well and good in most situations, but real fights aren't as neat as you're trained for. In an enclosed space especially the larger combatant will try and close on you, and from there it's just wrestling.
It's about being prepared though. When I talk about the 5% of the population that is properly trained, size really doesn't matter. I've been in about 3 dozen "real fights" in my life, some with people that have weighed over 100lbs more than I. It's not about chest-beating, though. It's about me feeling confident in my skills for defending myself with or against weapons. Training in Kung Fu, TKD, Jiu-Jitsu, and Aikido pretty much makes someone able to take out all kinds of opponents.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Never mind the Chinese. What about the AmericanGovernment
p ?ReportID=502&L1=10&L2=10&L3=0&L4=0&L5=0
http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/report.as
You Make a Living by Getting but Get a Life by Giving
READ BLACK INNOCENCE
Care to document this completly unfounded allagation, that flies in the face of all world wide intellegnce agencies, both those with the US diplomaticly and those against it? Care to speculate on how this "dead" man is still acting to insite terrorism, including the tape sent about Iraq, calling on Arabs of the world to unite against the US? Hoffa is dead, bin Laden is either alive, or extremly recently dead.
Little Brother, watching the watchers
Little Brother, watching the watchers
Slobo may have been a 'dictator' but he was a democraticaly elected, christian fundementalist as well. In other words, they already had a healthy dose of 'american' ideals. And they were working to push out a muslim minority.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
The U.N. estimates the death toll from the bombings and their consequences to be in the order of 500.000. This is approximately the number of Iraqi children who have died because of the U.N. sanctions since 1991 (others report higher numbers. Read about it here).
So, before you attempt to justify the bombings, think again. Do you know what the main difference between the European's (esp. the Germans') and the USA's citizens attitude is? The Europeans know that in many cases, a just cause isn't as just as the leaders say and blindly obeying orders is *not* a good excuse for killing people. We learned that during WW2 and thereafter. Apparently, you guys in the U.S. have never learned that lesson.
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
We learned that you have to stop a dictator BEFORE he can take over a region, not after.
Oh, in case you where wondering the 3rd infantry of the US is known as the rock of Marne. Why during the battle of the bulge they were fighting with two FRENCH infantries. The GERMANS were sending everything they had left to break the line. The two FRENCH infantries retreated. The 3rd infantry held firm and repelled the last major battle in Europe. Europeans should be pretty darn thankful to all the AMERICANS who are buried in their soil.
One thing that most if not all war supporters seem to forget:
Every country and government wants to disarm Iraq and see Saddam go.
The UN inspectors said that they can disarm the Iraq in several months (9 months, I think). The world (about 190 countries) other than the "coalition of willing" (with only 3 countries sending fighting troops, how "willing" is that?) wants to disarm Iraq, but peacefully. No one likes Saddam Hussein and everybody wants to see him go, but that is not a very convincing reason for a war (there are much worse dictators/governments out there).
What a bizarre statement. You talk about being realistic yet you make this wild assertion. Did you not pay ANY attention in history class?
Let me remind you of when American forces invaded Panama to depose Manuel Noriega (ANOTHER american backed dictator). According to the United Nations the civilian death toll was 500; the Central American Human Rights Defense Commission (CODEHUCA) and the Peace and Justice Service of Panama both claimed between 2,000 to 3000; the Panamanian National Human Rights Commission and an independent inquiry by former Attorney- General Ramsey Clark claimed over 4,000. To you, it seems, the very likely death of 1000s of Iraqis at the hands of Americans is somehow justified but the 1000s of deaths of Iraqis by Saddam is not.
Either that or you are hopelessly and dangerously ignorant or naive.
-CreationLTD
"Our bombs are smarter than the average American. At least they can find Kuwait. "
This isn't about getting oil for America. This is about a few rich Americans gaining control over oil and rebuilding contracts. The current US admisistration doesn't care who they screw over to enrich themselves and their friends. People assume they are acting in our best interests, and make their arguments from there. But they are not, they are in it for themselves.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The drastic differences in those numbers seem to indicate confusion.
You're using examples from technology and military strategy from over 14 years ago. News agencies and documentaries have outlined how different military campaigns are today. Hundreds of planes don't line up like they did over Germany during WW2 and carpet bomb the countryside killing everything in a several mile radius. Payloads are targeted and mapped out as precise as technology today allows. It is more difficult however, and more civilian lives are put at risk, when this regime deliberately embeds its troops and weapons in its own civilian sectors.
It is tragic when any civilian in any country who never picked up a weapon is killed. It's equally as tragic when a dictator slaughters his own countries civilians and half of his political party to maintain his power. But what's would be more tragic would be to allow this regime to continue its operations, and allow it to pick the time when more will die. Whether it is the death of more Iraqis, war with neighboring countries, or the support of terrorism all over the globe.
It's horrible when civilians die; just ask the thousands of fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, brothers, sisters, sons, and daughters of the victims of the WTC.
-An American Revolutionary
The sactions were imposed and enforced by the UN (who by the way has MANY European countries represented). The reason they went on longer than the UN anticipated was that Iraq was not disarming or working with the UN and its representatives. The UN believed this saction would be months long, not years.
Journalists (not just US ones) reported that this regime was using the money it obtained from its oil sales for its own purposes (and illegal ones as the UN weapons inspectors discovered), not for the needs of its people.
Instead of pointing the finger outside of Iraq why dont we start looking at how the money, that was for the people of Iraq, was used by this regime?
-An American Revolutionary
This post points back to my parent. Read and learn about what you're commenting about.
The UN imposed and enforced the sanctions.
The UN had the US as a major enforcer because of its military capabilities. It's one of the few counties would had the resources to help the UN enforce its imposed sanctions.
The US didn't kill half a million people with sanctions, or the UN. This regime did. It had the money from oil sales which was supposed to aid the people. Instead it went into the regime and its illegal activities (as noted by the UN). Let's keep the finger of blame in Iraq, where it belongs.
-An American Revolutionary
Actually it took hundreds of journalists documenting 35 years of death and destruction by Saddam, his party, and his regime to bring me to the conclusion that in order to prevent deaths of the future and prevent mistakes of the past from rising again that we must act today.
-An American Revolutionary
I agree, the only good thing about war is the end. But not just because it means people are no longer shooting at each other, but because USUALLY the outcome has left things better than when it started for the future i.e. England and France aren't speaking German right now.
Wars of this new century will not be as defined as ones of the past. Today's wars will probably be built on perceived responsibilities and morals. Of course morals differ from one person to another, so there will always be debate there.
Do we listen to our morals if they tell us to take a stand or should we turn a blind eye and let countries take care of themselves? If countries support terrorism should we act to prevent or just do damage control? Serious questions...glad I don't have to answer them for the country!
-An American Revolutionary
I make no excuses for the American government, they have made mistakes in the past, both Democrats and Republicans, but what government has never acted unjustly?
I was referring to the government of one man, whose public history shows death and destruction for all that present a threat to his personal power. Whose power goes unchecked by his people who are ruled by fear and intimidation.
As most every man is fallible, this would most likely be the case in any goverment where one individual has all the power with no check and balance system to be held accountable to.
-An American Revolutionary
Comparing a veteran to some dickhead that thinks traveling to Iraq to stand and protest is fucking stupid. Vets that give up their lives or body parts should be honored, not lumped in with assholes who protest by getting in the way. If I had one complaint about the US it would be that we do not provide enough veteran benefits to those who have been forever affected by battle. We pinch too many pennies after asking them to sacrifice for us.
WTF? Over?
The point was that dragging Viet Nam and WW II into the argument are red herrings.
There are simply no factual parallels between the two. If you wish to try and draw some with a little more meat than simply "Remember the Gulf of Tonken resolution" or "terrorists burned the Bund" then you're going to have to do much better than that.
The history that you wish to be studying starts in 1990 with Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and continues through 12 rather unglorious years of capitulation and lack of backbone. (And yes, the original Pres. Bush started that cycle.)
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
This war isn't about buying Iraqi oil, it's about owning it in the first place. Cut the middle man.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
You can't simply say "remember this" or "look out about that" you have to show how these items fit into the context of the current issue.
It's a lot like the anti-war people ignorantly waving "No blook for oil" signs. Even the most basic factual analysis will show that it would ahve been much simpler to gain this oil by simply dropping the currently unenforced sanctions. Spending $100+ Billion doesn't gain us anything in that department.
So, I'm not saying you can't argue anything you merely have to show how the point that you are attempting to raise is relevant to the current argument rather than simple fear mongering.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
This seems highly dubious to me. Before WWII started, there were a lot more Jews, Russians, Germans, French, British, and even Americans than there were after it was over, whereas if the war had never started in the first place (which was, of course, clearly the Nazi's fault, I'm not saying it wasn't), there would be no reason to even speculate about the French and British speaking German. And if you think that American interferance in foreign affairs has, on the whole, had a positive influence, I suggest you go back and read a little more history, you will find that in the vast majority of cases, they have fucked things up royally.
Wars of this new century will not be as defined as ones of the past. Today's wars will probably be built on perceived responsibilities and morals. Of course morals differ from one person to another, so there will always be debate there.
Moral relativism once again rears its ugly head in this debate. Moral beliefs differ from one person to another, but morals themselves are absolute. There are moral facts. The vast majority of ethical philosophers and religious authorities agree on this. One of them is that WAR IS WRONG. This can be shown by the Socratic method in three easy questions:
1) Q: Is killing wrong?
A: Why, whaddaya know, KILLING IS WRONG. This one's a no-brainer. If you disagree with me on this, I hope I never meet you in a dark ally.
2) Q: Does war involve killing?
A: Why, yes indeed it does. No matter how much you try to minimize casualties, war involves killing pretty much by definition.
3) Q: Does the end justify the means?
A: This is the point in the argument where they will try to fool you. Don't buy it. The end does not justify the means for any number of reasons, not the least of which is that you cannot possibly know that the means you propose will lead to the ends you seek. The common way to put this is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. So the answer is NO.
ERGO: WAR IS WRONG. And anyone who believes otherwise is wrong too. This is not just my opinion, this is not open to debate, this is a MORAL FACT.
War mongers always use convoluted arguments, villainization, and propaganda to convince you that somehow war can be justified, mitigated, or otherwise made right, but it's not. Don't listen to them. They are wrong.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Yes faked audio tape. Before we went in, video statements, after audio where it's not clear who's talking. I'm not stupid, the U.S. government is not stupid, and it likely that two situations apply. 1) The government doesn't want to bet on the likelihood that he's dead, no matter how strong the evidence, because to be wrong would make them look foolish. 2) It's unlikely that they would release info that he had been killed even if know for certain. Dead people become martyrs and inspire retaliation. The murderous pig is dead.
I'm the big fish in the big pond bitch.
I think I should address this question as well. No, you should not turn a blind eye when something terrible is happening. You should oppose it with all your might. However, you should do so in some way which does not involve killing people. If someone tries to convince you that they should solve any problem (including terrorism) by killing people, you shouldn't listen to them. They are wrong. You should tell them to find some other way to solve the problem. And if they fail, then find some other way, and another and another, as long as they don't involve killing people or committing further atrocities. Two wrongs don't make a right. Your mother should have taught you that.
Serious questions...glad I don't have to answer them for the country!
But you do! All of us have a responsiblity to answer these questions and to speak out about them. Don't just go along with what you see on PBS. "Think for yourself, schmuck!" --Robert Anton Wilson (written in letters of fire on the wall in front of a startled Moses in a painting described in Illuminatus)
The answer is even easy, in this case. Act to prevent terrorism by removing the causes which create terrorism in the first place. If the US were not brutally oppressing and robbing these people, they would probably not be so pissed off. Work to stabilize the international political situation, rather than acting to polarize and destabilize it, the way the US is doing now.
"The simplest and most effective way for us to reduce the level of violence and terror in the world is for us to stop participating in it." --Noam Chomsky
My site: Free Nature Pictures
I say to you again, two wrongs don't make a right. All of the things you mentioned really sucked. So will this war. So will the subsequent occupation. In fact, this entire stupid game of Colonial Imperialism that we've been playing for the last 500 years sucks. Let's call it a draw, and go play something else, what do you say?
Oh, yeah, and I seem to remember seeing a few of those people out on the streets of NY the other day, carrying signs like "this 911 family member is against the war." So yes, I think you should indeed ask them.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Umm, wouldn't that be the responsibility of the people who are crying for peace right now? In fact, the "justification" provided for the 9/11 attacks was the fact that US troops were on Muslim soil (referencing the troops in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). At the time Pres. Bush had a pretty hands-off approach to the whole Iraq situation and inspectors had already been expelled.
Now, you had France and many anti-war people chanting "give the inspections a chance". Well, for the inspections to work it would have required the continued presence of 200,000 troops and even more and more inspectors (France was even hinting at UN forces backing up those inspectors) in Iraq to "get the job done." Well, since this seems to be what inflamed the extremists so much wouldn't that process have just as much if not more of a chance of leading to further terrorist attacks?
Frankly the whole terrorist attack scare is just that. Terrorists will strike the US if and when they can irregardless of what we're doing in the Middle East. If not Iraq, then it'll be the "Jewish conspiracy/Israeli treatment of Palestinians" as the "justification".
You still keep falling back on the fear mongering. You have yet to draw any fact-based conclusions. Just "50 years of imperialism" and other useless emotion-based jingoism.
Please, just start with one or two simple facts. From there try to draw a conclusion. No innuendoes, no slanders, no inferences. Facts.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
Are you confusing killing with murder? This could be read into deeply, but Ill just graze the surface here.
:D )
If I read your post correctly, than your saying no would should kill at whatever the consequences or cost are of not killing. What about the protection of human life? Is the not killing through war outweigh the threat of more killing in the future?
Were the American colonies wrong for killing for independence, fighting tyranny and oppression? (Brits need not answer
If killing and war is wrong than were all the allies wrong for rising up to protect themselves and each other against the Nazis?
Would a Jew have been wrong for killing a Nazi in self-defense, after all they were just trying to separate them right???
Is it wrong to kill a known terrorist who has killed in the past and is trying to do so again?
Is it wrong to fight a war with a dictator who does not seek peace but the death and destruction of all who are not with him, including his own civilians and party members?
Sorry but the end does USUALLY justify the means. If you think it doesn't, ask all the French who are still alive since WW2 and all the Jews who were persecuted by the Nazis, I think they would agree the ends justified the means. Or maybe the people of Kuwait? Perhaps we should of let Saddam continue to murder them and destroy their country?
Ever been to the Arabic countries? I have. Some of the Islam nations peoples have been raised to hate all non-Islamic people for hundreds of years. When I mean hate I don't mean they cut you off in traffic, they view non-Islamics as evil.
Maybe its harder for us "Westerners" to understand what "evil" is to these people but after what I have seen first-hand while there, I can tell you that they are very religiously committed and are willing to kill in order to defeat evil. They do not bargain with evil, they do not sign treaties with evil, and they do not spare evil.
It's impossible to have peace with those who don't want it. Does that mean we abandon peace? No. We should always strive for peace but we must be ready to face those who do not seek peace but seek to destroy.
-An American Revolutionary
My response is for the most part is here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=57953&cid=5585 054.
Don't just go along with what you see on PBS. "Think for yourself, schmuck!" --Robert Anton Wilson (written in letters of fire on the wall in front of a startled Moses in a painting described in Illuminatus)
HHmmm PBS presented an entire series about the last 35 years of the documented history of Saddam and Iraq which was composed by many international journalists, Iraqis, heads of state (Iraq, Jordan, UAE, US, Russia, Kuwait, etc.). That combined with all the worlds press over the last 12 years isn't good enough for someone to form an opinion on? Besides sitting next to all of the main players for the last 35 years, I don't see anything better for forming an opinion.
Just to reiterate my above linked post. The driving force behind hostile Islamic states is the hundreds of years of believing that all non-Islams are evil. And I don't mean SNL Dana Carvey evil. It is a religious conviction to destroy this evil they see. They do not barter with evil, they do not sign treaties with evil, and they will not spare evil. There god demands they destroy evil.
If you disagree try visiting the Arabic countries and then you'll realize how true these people are to their beliefs.
-An American Revolutionary
And no response to terrorist activities that kill innocents will only result in more dead innocents.
If you think that if we just say "sorry" and turn a blind eye and vow to never again prevent terrorist activities and shake hands on it, that the terrorists would just leave us alone than you don't know the religious convictions these people have. They have had these convictions since before Britian was in the Iron Age.
We are percieved as a threat beacuase we are not Islam. There religion calls all other religions false and evil. There god has demanded the destruciton of that evil. These people arent Sunday only church goers, their religion is everything to them and defines there existence.
-An American Revolutionary
This argument is untenable for many different reasons, and has been thoroughly demolished by many people from many different schools of thought. In my view, the strongest arguments against it are religious.
For instance, to take a Christian perspective (the US still claims to be a Christian nation, doesn't it?), Jesus said to turn the other cheek. Do you think he meant, "unless they hit you really hard, in which case kick their ass?" NO! If somebody else commits a sin, that is their problem, between them and God. To commit sins against them in retaliation just means that you have now sinned, and you now have a problem with God. "Vengeance is mine" saith the Lord.
I happen to be a Christian, but I am willing to entertain other points of view as well, so let's try attacking your argument from some other perspectives, shall we?
From a Buddhist/Taoist point of view, to involve yourself in someone else's bad karma just drags you down into their cycle of suffering. Then you have to suffer for their mistakes. How does that make sense? To alleviate suffering, you must act with compassion, rather than simply causing more suffering.
I don't know much about Islam, but from your straw man characterization and that of many others, I can only infer that they are the only religion in the world which believes killing is OK and justified. If so, how can we claim to be better than them, if we just follow the same logic?
Or, if you're not a religious person, there are plenty of secular humanist arguments to demolish the "end justifies the means" fallacy as well. For instance, from a Utilitarian perspective, the means may have unintended consequences, and ususally they do, and they are often worse than the original problem. Kant says that you should "act on that maxim which you can consistently will become universal law." This means that you should do what is ethically right, regardless of the consequences. From an Aristotelian perspective, performing wrong (unvirtuous) actions damages your character, it makes you a bad person, and then you continue to perform wrong actions ad infinitum. I could go on. As I've said elsewhere, the statement that "the end does not justify the means" is fairly uncontroversial among ethical philosophers and religious scholars.
your saying no would should kill at whatever the consequences or cost are of not killing
You got that right Bubba, that's exactly what I'm saying. Killing is wrong. Therefore you should not do it. If your back is to a wall and you really have no choice, I can see killing to defend yourself from direct attack, but even then, you better spend a lot of time on your knees afterwards, or you're going to end up having a little chat with the man downstairs. The moral worth of an action cannot be judged by its consequences, nor by its intended consequences, because the actor cannot possibly know what the consequences of the action will be. The moral worth of an action must be judged on its own merits, and killing is a wrong action however you slice it. It should be avoided whenever possible, and I do not remotely buy that there was no choice in this case.
Are you confusing killing with murder?
I am aware that some people make this silly (and arbitrary) distinction as a justification for war, saying that God didn't mean, "thou shalt not kill," he meant "thou shalt not murder," and this makes all the difference, and says that it's OK to kill if your government tells you to. In my view, this argument is not worth a load of fetid dingo's kidneys. Killing is killing. It's always wrong. When faced with a choice between evils, you may have to choose the lesser, and it may be killing, but that doesn't make it right. It just makes it less wrong. It's still wrong, and should be avoided if at all possible.
You assume that in this situation there were only two options, doing nothing and going to war. But there are always many options in a
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Yes, these issues are more complex than my simplistic ethical arguments admit. I'm trying to make the bare bones of an argument which has been made extensively by pacifists throughout the ages, and I hope I have done it some justice.
I think that war is wrong, and I am opposed to it on general principle. I think that in this particular instance, the US has made a very weak case that war is necessary, and that there were many other avenues of approach which would have worked much better. This seems to be the point that the leaders of many other major nations were trying to make as well. There is a big difference between defending yourself against direct attack and invading a sovereign nation. This sets a bad precedent, and will probably go down in history as a Big Mistake.
But I acknowledge and respect the strength of your resolve to help the Iraqi people, and I encourage you to continue to debate and think about these issues. Please try to keep an open mind to other possiblities for conflict-resolution besides war.
Well fought, my Lord, and may we someday meet again upon the field of honor.
Peace out...
My site: Free Nature Pictures
I'm not arguing with the accuracy of the facts they presented. I don't care about that. The question is, what did they leave out? And the other question is, how did they choose to arrange their facts so as to manipulate your opinion? And yet another question is, can any of these facts, no matter how accurate, provide justification for doing something which is still wrong no matter how you look at it?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
And again I say, I am not advocating no response, I am advocating a different response. Please read the following article, which makes this point far better than I ever could. Noam Chomsky is a prof. at MIT and knows what he's talking about, and is further a brilliant essayist.
"Drain the swamp and there will be no more mosquitoes -- Noam Chomsky
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Saddam Hussein has been singled out for the cause of the world terror, and the war on Iraq started. Why don't look at the rest of the world and the effect of the war instead of just look at the Iraq situation?
Because of this war, EU has been divided seriously. This is catastrophic to say the least.
The next target perhaps will be North Korea and its nuclear threat. However, is US going to attack NK unilaterally again leaving UN dysfunctional?
How about South America? The region and its political and economical situation seems to be unrelated to this war, but they will play a big part in near future. They have been in economical crisis for years and years. Argentine was completely collapsed. Brazil was saved, but next time, is EU going to tip in? After this war and unilateral action by US?
How about the state of Israel? The war clearly created a big tension between US, its allied countries and the Arab world. Can US provide a diplomatic solution? How about UN (being dysfunctional more than ever)?
These are just a few of consequences of this war. It appears that we have a tough century ahead.
Are you confusing killing with murder?
I have to admit, I am a little confused about the difference between "killing" and "murder." Perhaps you can explain it to me. I am also a little confused about the difference between "shock and awe" and "terror", the difference between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist", the difference between "collateral damage" and "dead babies", the difference between "liberation" and "conquest", the difference between "humanitarian aid" and "occupation", the difference between "police action" and "war", and indeed the difference between the principles held by the current US and Iraqi regimes.
I am confused about a number of arbitrary and blatantly doublethink distinctions which people make when talking about war. It seems to me that the only real difference between these terms is that one is what we call it when we do it to other people, and the other is what we call it when they do it to us.
The manipulation of language is one of the primary tools of propaganda. And what is the difference between "news" and "propaganda" anyway? Oh yeah...
My site: Free Nature Pictures
If you are Christian than this forum should interest you.
I know many Slashdotter's may not want to listen to religious lectures so fair warning to readers.
As you will note in the forums, probably the two most important things discussed are 1)God is always in control 2)God does not contradict himself.
So if God is always in control and always shaping the world and events towards his plan for the future than there is no need for debate, he is in control. If God doesnt contradict himself than all the times it is documented in the Bible when God told the Hebrews to wage war and not leave one enemey alive than why would war be wrong now, considering God is always in control?
It would probably be best to move this discussion to the forum I linked to above as others can help with your issues.
BTW, the commandment from the OT in the original Greek was "Thou shalt not murder", which is given its on definition seperate from kill.
-An American Revolutionary
I appreciate the points of view you brought up, perhaps we can both learn more here.
-An American Revolutionary
Is this the slashdot equivalent of "you wanna step outside?"
OK, I'm game, though I should warn you that my religion is somewhat unorthodox, perhaps even heretical. But I doubt I am the only Christian who's a pacifist!
Before we take this outside as it were, I just want to thank you again for a great debate, AR, I enjoyed it thoroughly. I have some work to do today, but I'll meet you over at prospero when I have time.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Hey, wait a second, that's a paid subscriber forum! Sorry, interesting but I can't afford it. Have to say, I disagree with the post you linked to, sounds like rampant Crusaderism to me, there are very few things which have caused more and more horrible atrocities than making war in the name of God. I find this whole line of reasoning highly disturbing, and am frankly horrified by the tone of the post you linked to. Maybe we could move this onto my side's turf instead?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
I don't see any reason to engage in that discussion anyway, mhazboun_cfl has already made all of my essential points. Jesus said to turn the other cheek and love your enemy. This seems pretty incompatible with war to me, and Jesus was the Man, was he not?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
It wasnt a "turf" of any kind. It was an open forum where I noticed that people had the same questions you had, so I thought you would take interest in it. I wasnt trying to corner you in a room with 800 lb gorillas or Saddam's Republican Guard:)
-An American Revolutionary
If you disregard the two points above than you disregard a good portion of the foundation of Christianity.
-An American Revolutionary
I know that, I was just joking! Besides, there were others on that forum who feel the same way I do, and if there weren't, I'm not too worried about it anyway.
"If 1000 men disagree with me, then the odds are 1000 to one that they are wrong." --Robert Heinlein
AR, I'm just messing with you at this point. As, I suspect, you are just messing with me. I'm glad that such a heated issue can be lightened with a little humor! Trouble is, I actually rather like you, and I was hoping that I could talk you around... oh well, another one lost to the propaganda wars. I am very interested in the prospero forum, it looks really cool, but I just can't afford to join right now, maybe if this stupid war ends soon and we get some business this will change ;-).
I think that there's not much point in continuing this debate in earnest at this point. I think time will tell, sadly enough. Let's call it a draw, shall we?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
I guess Lord Vader at this point would say to us "If you only knew the power of the dark side" LOL.
We both think we already know the outcome, God just has to reveal it to everyone else.
-An American Revolutionary
Does it matter what we do at all? Shall we just say, "fuck it, it doesn't matter what we do or say, God is in control anyway, so let's just sit back and watch it happen?" Well, no, that's not what Jesus said. But he did say something very specific about resisting evil. Don't have my bible on me, but this is from Matthew, from the Sermon on the Mount, and the phrasing may not be perfect but I know I have the idea right:
"So I say to you, resist not evil. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. And if someone takes from you your shirt, give to them your coat as well. And if someone compells you to walk a mile, walk with them two."
Sounds pretty clear and uncomplicated to me, I don't see why this passage is so hard for Christians to understand and implement.
WWJD? as they say. This disagreement is characteristic of the split running through modern Christianity, which I've heard described as the "Love Side" and the "Law Side". Basically, the Law Side wants to continue to follow the OT to the letter, whereas the Love Side wants to focus more on the message of Jesus, in particular the part where Jesus said that the supreme commandment in the Law is to "love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart and all thy mind and all thy soul, and to love thy neighbor as thyself." I think the OT needs to be reinterpreted in light of this statement, which is pretty clear and unambiguous, and is clearly meant to be Jesus summary of the take-home message from the entire OT. Anything you say or quote or interpret which contradicts this statement, contradicts Jesus and is therefore clearly wrong. Or, to put it another way, I think a single direct quote from Jesus trumps any number of quotes from the OT, and Jesus was not at all unclear about these issues.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Of course God does not contradict himself. He's God. However, you must admit that there are many apparent contradictions in the Bible. When you encounter one of these, I think the only thing to do is go back to Jesus. What did Jesus say about the issue? What would Jesus probably say about the issue? How can the direct statements of Jesus be used to resolve the apparent contradiction? A great example of this is the issue of divorce. Jesus came out at one point against divorce (another point modern Christians are in the habit of ignoring), and said that a man who lies with a divorced woman commits adultery. His audience questioned him about this, saying something like, "but wait, doesn't the Law say that if you have good cause, you can give your wife a writ of divorce?" Jesus said, "it was for the hardness of your hearts that your Father gave you the writ of divorce."
To me this sheds a great deal of light on many issues of divergence between the OT and NT. My take on this is that Jesus was saying that God decided to cut the Jews some slack, as it were, because of the "hardness of their hearts", presumably because they had not heard the words of Jesus yet and therefore could not be expected to know any better. To me this means that we, as Christians who have heard and accepted the word of Jesus, are held to a higher standard of behavior than the pre-Christian Jews were. That some things which were premitted to them because they had not heard the word of Jesus, such as divorce, war, religious bigotry etc, are no longer to be tolerated, because now that we have heard Jesus' word and seen the example of his life, we should know better. There are other cases where this is upheld, such as when Jesus said, "you have heard it said of old that you should love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you to love your enemy, and do good to those who hate and persecute you. Then you will truely be sons of the Most High, who makes the rain fall upon the just and the unjust." Jesus is saying, the new Covenant is a little stricter, in some sense, than the old Covenant. You have to do all that, and then go the extra mile, be even more tolerant, even more loving, even more pure, now that you have heard me speak. The new Covenant extends and strengthens the old Covenant, takes it to the next level, as it were.
So maybe for the Jews of the OT, making war on their neighboring tribes was OK. Maybe it was even necessary. But for us Christians, it's clearly unacceptable behavior, just as divorce, violence, intolerance, hatred, and vengeance are clearly unacceptable to Jesus. It's kind of a tall order, kind of a high standard, but that's what He requires of us. "Be you therefore perfect, as your Father in heaven is perfect."
I think it was for the hardness of their hearts that God permitted the Jews to make war. I think that in every case, when asked about the rules of the OT, Jesus said, "yeah, do that, and then some." In fact, on the issue of murder, he said that not only should you not kill, you shouldn't even think negative thoughts about your brother, for that is committing murder of the heart. I think Jesus would say something like, "yeah, you shouldn't murder. In fact, you shouldn't kill anybody under any circumstances, and not only that, but you shouldn't even say or even think bad things about them! And if somebody else commits murder or says or thinks bad things about you, you should give back nothing but love and respect and tolerance, and you should not even speak a word against them." And when he was asked, "how many times shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him", he said "I say to you, not seven times, but seven times seven."
This is all very clear stuff, very easy to unders
My site: Free Nature Pictures
"The Force is strong with you, young Jedi, but beware the dark side. Fear, anger, hatred, the dark side are they. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny!"
Seriously, man, think about what I've said, and talk to Jesus about it, and search your heart and your soul. Hatred and anger and vengeance and violence and war are not the answer. Love is the only answer. May God bless you, man, and keep you safe in the troubled times ahead.
Peace out...
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Your concept stems from the assumption that no one is under the influence of God's plan. If you are under the influence of God's plan (and let's face it, many think they aren't but we know they are) if you kick back and do nothing then you are executing God's plan. That's the way it has to be if God is always in control, there can be no exceptions, especially when you consider that God already knows what is to happen. How does he know? It's his plan, he is omnipotent.
Do you not think that Christ will kill and destroy? Ever read the book of Revelation? God's wrath pours out over the Earth and millions are killed. Christ himself will destroy the armies against him at Armageddon and destroy the city of Babylon once and for all. Sounds like Christ is going to bust some heads. Why? To destroy evil. Period.
-An American Revolutionary
See my above post.
-An American Revolutionary
BTW, the commandment from the OT in the original Greek was "Thou shalt not murder", which is given its on definition seperate from kill.
Except that the OT wasn't originally written in Greek. I have no idea what the original Hebrew should best be translated as. And personally I'm rather of the opinion that the OT is best treated as a history of a previous covenant between humanity and God, rendered obsolete by the NT.
Gallup Poll: 70% of Americans support the death penalty.
The vast majority of Americans feel that, at least in some cases, killing is not wrong. What's that you say, the beliefs of Americans don't determine morality? Why then, should your "ethical philosophers" (do you mean philosophers of ethics?) and religious authorities (we'll come back to this one) be the ones who decide what's right and wrong? Because they've studied it? They sat on a mountain somewhere with their legs crossed, and thirty-six minutes later knew all that which is Good and Just?
On to the religious folks. Now, if anyone is going to know what's right and what's not, it should be these people, no, for here we have some folks that god has chosen to enlighten. I'm not sure if you're familiar with most versions of god, but in general god's pretty old, and its opinion on various matters hasn't changed to much, certainly in the last couple of years. But since that's the case, how do you explain it being okay for missionaries to go slaughter people they couldn't convert, just a few centuries ago. Certainly god's thoughts on the matter haven't changed since then, which must mean man's understanding has. If man was wrong then, who's to say he's right now?
In conclusion, bite me you hippy.
If it were rendered obsolete, we would lose much in the study and pursuit of Christianity. The OT is not obsolete. God has never changed and never will. He is the same God in the NT as in the OT.
-An American Revolutionary
Motive. Murder essentially is the subset of killing which is wrong: an execution, a fatal shooting in self-defence and an enemy soldier being shot on a battlefield are all killing, but none is a murder.
Perhaps you can explain it to me. I am also a little confused about the difference between "shock and awe" and "terror",
The target and intentions. "Shock and awe", in this case, is intended to demonstrate to the Iraqi regime the overwhelming technical superiority of our forces, by destroying legitimate military targets, in the hope this will dissuade [some of] them from fighting. Terrorism is when you target civilians, to intimidate the general population. The attacks of 9/11 were terrorism; Al Queda firing a missile at the Pentagon would not have been.
the difference between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist",
Again, target: terrorists target civilians, undefended targets - a "freedom fighter" would attack the enemy military, just as an army would. The old claim "one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter", that is not the case.
the difference between "collateral damage" and "dead babies",
There, there is an intersection of the two. Collateral damage is essentially any unintentional damage, from knocking out a bridge you didn't want damaged, to a stray bomb hitting someone's home. "Dead babies" caused by an attack are indeed collateral damage, but then many of the 1.7m deaths Hussein's regime has caused so far are also "dead babies"...
the difference between "liberation" and "conquest",
The result afterwards. D-day, and for that matter the whole Allied side of WWII, was liberation: the British and American forces invaded France and Germany, but left them under the rule of French and German governments rather than making them British or American territory. The German invasion of Poland (and other countries) was a conquest: they took Polish territory for their own.
the difference between "humanitarian aid" and "occupation",
Duh. Humanitarian aid is what we have been providing for Iraq for over a decade now, mostly via "Oil For Food": Hussein's brutal regime feeds only the people it wishes, and starves opponents as a means of control. An occupation would be a matter of control, nothing to do with feeding the population.
the difference between "police action" and "war",
Difficult. This is mostly a diplomatic piece of BS; in practice, they are both a conflict between two or more entities.
and indeed the difference between the principles held by the current US and Iraqi regimes.
First, the Iraqi regime has killed around 1.7m people, between the two failed conquests (of Iran and Kuwait) and suppression of internal dissent. You are free to disagree with Bush; criticise Hussein in Iraq, and you and your family will be tortured to death. If an Iraqi town opposes Hussein, they'll be gassed or attacked with gunships.
Hussein's older son, Uday, deliberately killed more Iraqi civilians in one day (2000) in revenge for an attempted coup than the Allies have accidentally killed so far in both Gulf Wars combined. He now has the endearing habit of dropping prisoners into a plastic shredder designed for bulk waste disposal; the lucky ones go in head-first, and die quickly. (This comes from witness affidavits gathered as evidence in the hope of bringing Hussein's regime to trial for his crimes against humanity, as Hitler's was at Nuremberg.)
Even attempting to equate the two in the way you do suggests you are either a troll, or deranged; there have been individual days on which Hussein's regime has deliberately killed more of his own civilians than the Allies have accidentally killed in both wars combined. That, to me, is a pretty big distinction.
I'm afraid I don't regard "because God said so, apparently, in another language, to some guy a few thousand years ago" as outweighing the conclusions of hundreds of millions of intelligent human beings here and now. In every case, there is a perfectly good justification for believing that the killing in question is not in any way evil. As another poster pointed out earlier, there is even some doubt over the translation freejung is using: the term may well have been "murder", not "kill", at which point not even the quotation of God is on freejung's side. I would also point out the Bible contains wars, in which God even intervened on one side to ensure their victory over the other...
Ah, but this is not how the term 'terrorism' is commonly used. The term 'terrorism' has been used to describe the attack on the US Cole and the attack on the Pentagon which were both primarily military targets. It was also used to describe the recent attack on the military barracks in Qatar which has killed two US soldiers and injured many others. Before the media learned that a US soldier was responsible they labeled it a 'terrorist' act.
Technically, the Cole attack wasn't terrorism; the Pentagon one was, since it deliberately killed a plane full of unarmed civilians. They certainly weren't "freedom fighters", since they weren't fighting for freedom of anybody. The closest term is probably "war crime", since they were conducting a false-flag pseudo-military operation in violation of the Geneva Convention, although it resembles terrorism closely enough to satisfy the media. "Terrorist-style" would be quite accurate, since the Cole attack used terrorist methods with a military target. As for the botched grenade attack in Kuwait, "murder" or "treason" would be the correct term.
You missed one other important distinction. 'Collateral damage' is used by those as a tool to lesson the culpability and mental anguish by those who seek to justify the pre-meditated killing of babies to achieve an end.
The "killing of babies" is not in any way pre-meditated; the Allies go to enormous lengths to avoid killing any civilians. Likewise, drivers take great care to avoid running people over - but sometimes, it fails, and people die accidentally. Would you consider that a "pre-meditated" killing? In neither case is the killing intended, by anybody. Collateral damage is simply the correct term, just as "traffic accident victim" is for the latter. There is nothing euphemistic about either: they simply describe the truth about it, unlike your reference to "pre-meditated killing", which is factually incorrect.
The current administration will be responsible for the killing of countless human beings in this Iraq war and Afghanistan.
Hardly "countless"; as I pointed out, by Iraq's own figures this conflict has accidentally killed about one-sixth the number of Iraqi civilians Uday Hussein personally murdered in a single day. Over the course of this year, the war will have saved many thousands of Iraqi civilian lives overall.
As we've seen the killing of our neighbors and enemies is the second greatest sin we can commit.
As we've seen, it is sometimes necessary to kill one person to save a dozen more.
It is in direct contradiction to the law of God:
Killing is *not* the 'wrong' thing; it depends on the circumstances. Which makes me laugh at your 'dark alley' reference... Are you saying you don't want to meet me in a dark alley, because you are afraid I will kill you? OR that you will kill me? Either way, you're an idiot.
I have a friend who is a cop. He was involved in a shooting once, which saved his life so he could go back to his wife and kids. Was he wrong? Should police departments fire all cops involved in shootings, simply because panty-waisted lily-livered pansies don't want to 'meet them in a dark alley' now? Shit, you'd better hope you meet my friend, if you're in some dark alleys I've seen. It might keep you from getting dead.
It is difficult to argue with someone who has such a warped sense of his own personal insignificance in the world, but I'll try anyway.War is not wrong; it is a terrible concept, that of killing people and breaking things. But wrong? That depends on the side you're on, doesn't it? If you and your country decide to invade a country, murder its citizens, rape its women, and burn its land, then you are waging war, and are wrong, in my view. If the country being invaded rallies its army, who bring arms and fight the invaders, thereby (hopefully) killing them and driving them off, you are saying that these people are WRONG.
This is why pacifism is such a stupid concept. THere can be no such thing, even in a peaceful society. You are relying on force or the threat of force to keep people from robbing you and killing your wife after raping her. Otherwise, why else would we have police, courts, prisons? Why am I arguing with a rutebega?
The Democratic Party: We've been pussies since 1968!
Thank you for watching my back, I was indeed occupied elsewhere. :-)
I see no reason for me to refute the grandparent post, as the parent has done a very good job of it and besides, all the arguments of the grandparent amount to "the intended end justifies the means", which is clearly incorrect and I have refuted it elsewhere.
Nobody knows what is going to come of this war, and saying that it is right just because the actors claim to have good intentions is silly. The intentions of the actors are also highly suspect. Never believe anyone when they tell you they are going to do something wrong because of their supposedly good intentions. Actions speak louder than words.
I think the parent's quote from Matthew (which is Jesus Himself speaking in the Sermon on the Mount) is a clear representation of God's views on the subject, and is probably the most important quote in the whole Bible, as the quote itself clearly states is the case. You can argue with it if you like, but it is still Right.
I am done with this debate. I have taken a firm position on what is known as the Moral High Ground and defended it. The opposition claims the moral high ground in its propaganda and rhetoric, but they clearly have no legitimate claim to it. Pacifism is firmly positioned on the moral high ground and will continue to be so. Others can lay claim to it, but they cannot take it, as one person of conscience can defend the moral high ground against billions.
For a much more detailed defense of this position, and a great perspective on the situation surrounding this war, please see the text of this talk by Prof. Noam Chomsky, professor of linguistics at MIT, and also the Bad News Noam Chomsky Archive which has many of his recent articles. Prof. Chomsky knows way more about all this than I do, and is a brilliant speaker and essayist. If you are interested in this debate, no matter what your political or philosophical beliefs, you might find what he has to say interesting as well.
I want to thank everyone involved for a great debate, it has been enjoyable and highly instructive. I have nothing but the highest respect and love for all of you (on all sides of the debate), and consider you heroes for standing up for your beliefs.
I call upon all parties in this conflict to listen to reason, and to stop all killing and atrocities at once, and to try to settle your disputes like decent human beings. I have little reason to hope for this, but hope and pray for it I shall.
Peace out...
My site: Free Nature Pictures