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.
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
As a aside issue, can anyone tell me why Saddam sets fire to the oil fields?
:-P
Um, he's an asshole?
My journal has hot
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?
Strategic wise, it causes a lot of smoke, attempting to make it hard for planes and ground forces to form a strike. It is far more efficient against the ground units than the planes, which use Sattelite imaging and such to target, not visual.
How Jaded Are You?
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?"
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'm just waiting for the environmental groups to step up to the plate and show their support for this war. Has anybody caused as much deliberate environmental damage as Hussein?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I don't know the reasons why, but I find it interesting that he told Dan Rather just a few weeks ago that he wouldn't set fire to the oil fields under any conditions.
Kinda like when he told us last December that he didn't have any SCUD missles and then used some yesterday, or when he told us 12 years ago that he didn't have any WMD.
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.
To make us have to slow down to out them out, but I think the real question is why so few have been set ablaze. The Iraqi military response has been so inconsistent so far (a few wells on fire, a few missles from a few sites) that I wonder if Saddam isn't dead and there's nobody really in charge.
I, too, hope for minimum casualties all around.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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.
can anyone tell me why Saddam sets fire to the oil fields?
It screws up visibility pretty badly. This matters a lot for aircraft navigation. Poor visibility also hinders laser guided bombing.
Not that it matters much now. Apparently most of the prediction ordinance uses GPS and inertial guidance now, which obviates lasers. However, I'm sure this isn't yet universal.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
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.
...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
You're probably right. However, in the eyes of the majority of moderate muslims the world over, I'm an anti-war American, doing my part to try to help stop this insane madness...
You're right, there are militant muslims out there, and many of them may indeed be terrorists. However, there are many, many more non-militant muslims. Of course, our war actions may encourage more than a few of those to become militant and possibly even become terrorists...
As 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
How about:
This post is strictly my own opinion and not necessarily that of my employer.
>Kinda like when he told us last December that he didn't >have any SCUD missles and then used some yesterday, or >when he told us 12 years ago that he didn't have any WMD.
Those were al samoud missles, not scuds------- Oh damn.... the Sigfile escaped... -Great OM
That shouldn't surprise anyone. If I was an Iraqi soldier I would be lining up to surrender. Who wants to give their life defending Saddam Hussein? Heck, If I was an Iraqi soldier I would like to think that I would have turned my gun on that regime a long time ago.
Even if Saddam is alive people that give a crap about what he has to say are almost certainly few and far between.
Oh please. There have been worse wars in the past. Get over it.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
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.
I hope the war is swift and the Iraqi people don't suffer too much.
I agree that this is the most important thing right now. Two thirds of the Iraqi
population have become dependend on the "Food for oil"-program.
Since the program can hardly run during a war, these people are likely to starve.
Current estimates are that around two millian Iraqis are likely to die of hunger.
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
stripShow - Where WordPress meets webcomics
In addition to the strategic advantage of that much smoke, it also annoys Bush. The oil fields are one of the reason he's going in.
Nothing quite ups the contempt level like watching your president on TV begging Iraqis not to set fire to the oil fields.
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"....
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.
(B-52s launched from Emgland a few hours ago.)
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
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
Fuck, we're b*mbing Iraq
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.
Nope, he said he didn't have any SCUDs, and that's what was fired (according to what Hans Blix said last night at least).
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.
I'm just waiting for the environmental groups to step up to the plate and show their support for this war. Has anybody caused as much deliberate environmental damage as Hussein?
Not to be a pain - but as an environmentalist and a proud American, I would say that we (and the war) are also to blame for his lighting the oil wells. We knew he would do this (Bush mentioned it in his address) and we still gave up on diplomatic means that were slowly proving effective (according to the people who were actually there).
That said - I hope the war now underway goes quickly, I hope Saddam's party is dethroned, and I hope we have the conviction to follow through on an effective rebuild.
It is interesting the US Army has choosen to liberate the oil wells before liberating any people. Okay neocons and dittoheads step up and let the flames begin.
"You don't need a weatherman/ To know which way the wind blows" -Bob Dylan: Subterranean Homesick Blues
Whatever reasons the war started what is important to me is that the Iraqi people will probably be better off once all this is over. Sadaam was killing more Iraqi's every year than were killed by Amercans during the Gulf war.
Iraqi Amercans are cheering this war on. Some are planning to return to Iraq.
Sadaam should be overthrown just for setting the oil fields on fire in Kuwait 13 years ago. The environmental damage he did was a crime against nature.
And for all those protesters shoutng no blood for oil. Screw the oil there are other reasons to take Sadaam down.
But speaking of oil. France gets most of their oil from Iraq and they are against the war. DO you think they are afraid of a disruption in their oil supply?
The French would rather see the Iraqi's suffer than disrupt their oil supply? That may not be true but it might.
Here is a quote from somebody on another website I was talking too.
"I read an account of an Iraqi political dissenter who was forced to watch his 8 month old baby boy tortured. I don't care if the original reason for invasion and subsequent regime change was not for human rights issues, but if taking Saddam out for whatever reason stops the atrocious violation of human rights, I say its a good thing.
There was already footage of Iraqis cheering and waving the American flag. If the people of Iraq want to be free, and want the coalition's help, who are we to say this war is bad.
I was trying to drive through a war protest yesterday in San Francisco, and I saw protestors waving anti-war posters out of a car with a "Free-Tibet" bumper sticker on it. I yelled, "WHY FREE TIBET, AND NOT IRAQ?" They had no answer."
""--Let's recall this quotation from Dominique Dord, a deputy from French President Jacques Chirac's own party: "We would look really stupid if Iraqis applaud the arrival of Americans." Well said.--"
Iraqis in the newly liberated Souhtern Iraq are indeed cheering. "
The city is being overrun by a herd of Lucy Liu's.
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
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
Oh, I get it - there's no other reason Bush wouldn't want the oil wells intact except for his own persona enrichment? How about the environment? Or that we're trying to preserve _infrastructure_. Oil wells are one of those pieces of infrastructure. It makes a lot of sense to ask them _not_ to torch them.
The Iraqis will be far more likely to be friendly to the US if we _don't_ destroy their best income source. But they'll be pissed off even if we let Saddam do it. Thus, we ask the Iraqi troops not to torch them.
This makes a lot of sense once you get by your hatred of GWB.
-Erwos
Plausible conjecture should not be misrepresented as proof positive.
Patriotism:
Love of and devotion to one's country.
Nationalism:
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
I love my country which is why I oppose this war and the people who fight it - yes, that means the troops. And before you froth at the mouth and label me a troll, Check this out.
I will be happy to support the wounded on both sides when the fighting stops - but I will not support the systematic murder of thousands of people whether they be Iraqi or American. Murder is still murder whether it be on battlefield or at bus stop.
Bullshit. The whole reason CNN was ousted was because AOL screwed up their internet access (thus keeping them in the stone age), and they were mad that Billionair Ted isn't in charge anymore, allowing the sale of their favorite program. That, of course, would be WCW, sold to it's rival, the WWE, who they don't like thanks to the alliance between Nikolai Volkov and the Iron Sheik, not to mention Sargent Slaughter's 1991 Iraqi Turncoat run.
Seriously though. Fox News is still going strong, along with it's affiliate, Brittain's Sky News. This is one hell of an interesting conflict. Strike, move, Strike, move, BIG FUCKING STRIKE. And all the while, they're trying to keep it so that the Iraqi people know that they are only after Saddam and his military government.
So here's how this is going to work. Saddam, if he's not dead already, will either be ousted or on the run. The opposition will be given control of Iraq, and along with it, Iraq's oil. Humanitarian aid will come in to help the Iraqi people get on their feet. Aid will rebuild Baghdad, and modernize the nation.
In short, the USA will be kissing their asses.
We've been all friendly. And look! You've got this natural resource right here to fuel your economy. And guess what? It just so happens that we'll be buying. Now, since we were so nice, how about dropping the price of that crude? Hmmm?
On Fox News at this monment, they talked about Coalition Forces and when they will be able to say they've achieved their goal. I think we know what Bush and company's goals are. How convenient. Here's some oil, we want it. Oops. It just so happens that country's leader is a flaming asshole with weapons we don't like.
One thing, though. If Dubya does get his way, we all might see a break at the pump. Wouldn't that be nice...
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
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.
With Britian in the war too, I wouldn't trust their news sources that much either. They've already lost more people than that US has.
What?
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.
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."
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
That is true, but they aren't using laser guided bombs anymore for that reason. They use GPS now.
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...
What these posters were probably getting at is something more like an English language version of Al-jezzera. The English language news outlets seem to be acting less as journalists and more as arms of some American propagada apparatus.
As an American, I find this insulting.
I'd love to know what the Al-Jezzera perspective was on the authenticity of Hussien's address to the nation (for example).
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
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.
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.
Lots of war photos from the last few days: photo link
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.
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
To quote what a general just said in a news conference:
"We are very close to securing the remaining oil fields. These are the property of the people of Iraq, and will be a very important asset to the Iraqi people as they build a free society."
More or less anyway, I might have got a minor word or two wrong.
_sig_ is away
http://www.madison.com/captimes/news/stories/45
The Feingold amendment is taking $100b from Bush's tax cuts over the next ten years to pay for the war.
Thank God someone in Washinton is still sane -- maybe we'll have an economic rebound in the next ten years after all...
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Actually, I've always been told that D-Day stood for "Demarcation Day", at least as relates to the invasion of Normandy.
.02
my
The biggest thing that has been left out in the U.S. reporting is an Iraqi body count, both civilian and military. But this is standard procedure for 'media control' during any war.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Ok--here's one thing. How about the initial thrust into Iraq? MSNBC and CNN did not report that the initial thrust actually had to hold their position/retreat. I found that it did not go as successfully as portrayed on washingtonpost.com and bbc.
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 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.
What about the lack attention on the fact that it's illegal for the Pres. to order the assination of a foriegn leader, unless he first revokes Carter's order making it illegal? It would be nice to hear him called on that. If you still want examples there are plenty of details missing that are important and obviously need to be investigated (revoking important presidental orders is a big deal).
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."
Someone explain to me, please, whom this attack is directed at? If, as all reports indicate, the Iraqi command structure is already isolated from local units, then what will it accomplish to "Shock and Awe" them into more confusion? They're already ineffectual.
This is meant to awe the world, not just Iraq, and it won't have the effect Rumsfeld et al want. As a demonstration of American Military Might (all in caps of course), it's going to fail if one, ONE member of the Iraqi high command survives in a bunker somewhere. You think that won't happen? It doesn't even matter if it's NOT intended to kill everyone in a bunker, either. The Arab world will see that America's thrown everything it has at Iraq, but that all America had wasn't enough to kill Saddam Hussein or whoever.
It'll backfire, like this entire arrogant foreign policy approach. True strength is more often demonstrated in restraint than in action.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
1. burning oil is bad for the enviornment. very, very, very bad. the U.S. takes shit for the Exxon Valdez, but that was nothing compared to the burning oil fields of the first Gulf war.
2. oil is/will be the Iraqi peoples' bread n` butter.
3. Why the fuck should we let Saddam's regime successfully institue a scorched earth policy?
4. burning oil fields creates lots of smoke, enough smoke to cause confusion on a battlefield, enough smoke to kill people, etc.
Furthermore, the U.S. won't get any of that oil unless the new government chooses to sell it to us. The U.S. isn't going to "unilaterally" install a new government in Iraq. It will be a process with all the civilized nations of the world.
Speaking of "unilateral", this action is definately not unilateral, despite what the French, German, and Russian governments would have you believe. The U.S. has the support of over 40 other nations, including England. You want to see unilateral action, look up what France has done militarily in Africa this century. France can hold its own in setting up puppet governments. What we have these days is a case of the pot calling the U.S. black, and a bunch of blind people who won't even Google to find out what France, Germany and Russia's ulterior motives are.
I'll lay them out for you...
France: France has illegally been doing business with Iraq, against the U.N. sanctions, for years now.
Russia: Russia, with it's pathetic GDP, is owed roughly 8 billion dollars by Iraq, and has also illegally done business with Iraq against U.N. sanctions.
Germany: Germany gets a lot of cheap oil from Iraq through the food for oil program.
So, in short, if they just let them burn the oil fields, ignorant dicks like yourself would be complaining about the harm to the enviornment, taking away the Iraqi peoples' natural resources, etc.
FWIW, I support this war solely for giving the Iraqi people a chance to create a prosperous country, and so Iraqi refugees can go back to their own country, as they wish to do.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
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
Feel like backing that up with something other than non-specific assertions, Sparky? What are CNN, MSNBC, and Fox doing, exactly, that you don't approve of?
I write in my journal
Turn on the TV: everyone is showing Donald Rumsfield and one channel has Jerry Springer. I guess I'll watch Jerry this time.
Scene from the next South Park movie:
=======
GW: Hey Saddam! Let's fuck!
SH: C'mon, W., don't you care about my feelings?
GW: Shut up, bitch! Roll over! Who's your Bagh-Daddy?
=======
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
A long read, but well worth it if you can spare the time. And, heck, it's Friday. You're not going to get any work done anyway.
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
And they're supposed to get their body count numbers from where, the Iraqi government?
Sorry, if you consider US sorces suspect, you have to consider Iraqi sources suspect too.
The truth is, there probaly is no one who knows the Iraqi body count.
i would prefer that they say "today the government of america destroyed a city populated by over four million people"
That's not what's happened. We're hitting military and leadership targets, we're not destroying a city. The difference is sometimes hard to tell from the ground-- stuff blowing up is stuff blowing up-- but it's important. The city, for all intents and purposes, is and will remain totally intact.
I write in my journal
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
i would prefer that they say "today the government of america destroyed a city populated by over four million people"
I would prefer they didn't say that. It can't be said (yet). I don't support this war, but from what I can tell, the precision warheads have not destroyed the city. That's why the lights are still on.
When VPNs are outlawed, only outlaws have VPNs.
Civilians...smiling, dancing, shaking hands, tearing down posters of Saddam.
It would seem they want him gone too.
"I think it is time we demonstrated the full power of this station." -Tarkin
Or was it Rumsfeld?
We are at war with Eurasia.
We have always been at war with Eurasia.
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
I believe you have just voiced the fear that underlies much of the international opposition to this war.
I am an American citizen, and I am not an imperialist. I don't know anyone who advocates American imperialism. I teach my children, as most Americans do, to mind their own damn business. So, I can tell you honestly that countries which do not threaten the U.S. need have no fear of us. Unfortunately, that still leaves three problems for the rest of the world:
1. What if I (and the U.S. government) are lying about our intentions?
2. Who decides what constitutes a threat? (apparently, we do)
3. What if our attitude becomes more imperialistic later on?
I don't know what to tell you. Direct U.S. involvement in this mess began in 1979, in Iran, and since that time there have been over 800 U.S. citizens killed in Middle East-related violence before 9/11. Many Americans think we have been patient bordering on negligent. The WTC/Pentagon attacks pushed us into action; now we all have to work to find a peace that everyone can live with. This cannot even begin until the aftermath of the current fighting, when it will be seen that (as in Afghanistan) we were as good as our word insofar as returning Iraq to the Iraqis, and helping the citizens of Iraq to rebuild their country.
After that, who knows? The U.S. seems to be attempting to execute the Paul Wolfowitz plan to remake the Middle East into a region of free societies. This is a risky course which seeks to preempt an ever-increasing spiral: terrorist attacks followed by military retribution (against people who may or may not have been involved in the terror) followed by terrorist attacks... Eventually, many of us think, this would lead to World War III, especially if terrorists succeed in using a nuclear device against a U.S. city. I support the President and his advisors in this attempt. However, I know many well-intentioned people who think it's a bad idea, for reasons that range from "fuck it, just nuke 'em all now", to "Arabs can't make a free democracy work" to "we brought it all on ourselves with misguided foreign policy".
I very much hope that our course is the correct one. Only time will tell.
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
If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe. -- Carl Sagan
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...
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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...
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.
Personally while I despair that we're at war, I realize it's about damn time someone did something about it.
::grinz::) didn't do something. Guess he was more interested in rating for re-election rather than doing the right thing (yeah I know... I know.. Clinton.. what a joke::grinz::)
While the U.S. can't solve the worlds problems on it's own, there are times where stuff like this is required and we're more than willing to get involved.
This morning I was listening to KSL radio (www.ksl.com). They interviewed a lady who immigrated from Iraq with her family. Quite enlightening. She has the same opinion. War sucks but consiering it's So Damn Insane at the helm she's glad we're going in after him. She and all her family/friends never had enough to eat. She speaks about times where they had to dig with their hands to find water. The crap people were taking from the Dictator Government.
It goes on. Hopefully they still have it on their web sit (most article on the radio are put on the web site). Her story was agonizing to hear. It makes me wonder why the hell Clinton (don't start
Sorry to get all political on you guys but it's my heart felt believe that we're going to war not for oil. We're there because things got that bad.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
Reading PNAC essay on how they plan to stay the worlds dominant power which has strong connections to Cheney and Rumsfeld.
Realising that Middle East oil will become more important as places like the North Sea deplete.
Looking at Afghanistan at the moment.
Now I agree with you that freeing the iraqis is a nobel cause, I just don't trust some of your current administration to do a good job, and may cause more hatred for us (I'm from the UK) in the region. Which would be counter productive.
That's the kind of reasoning that ignorantly applied moral relativism will take you to. The difference between Saddam and the others is as follows:
1. He has a recent and personal track record of using Weapons of Mass Destruction. North Korea doesn't.
2. He has not only threatened other countries in the Middle East, he has invaded them. Twice.
3. After twelve fruitless years of attempting to get him to disarm peacefully, the UN has relatively little to show for its effort.
4. He was rebuilding an arsenal of offensive weaponry.
5. He has established substantial ties to the Palestininan terrorist causes.
Now, I admit, he probably wasn't an immediate danger to the US. But he wasn't all that far from the goal. Were we to wait for him to attack on his terms, as past experience suggests he would do, or do we preempt him and attack on our terms?
In the long run, the latter is the choice which will probably be least destructive. If we had waited for him to attack, we wouldn't be able to respond with this much accuracy and finesse. Instead, we'd be looking at our arsenals of ICBMs, not cruise missiles, aircraft, armor and troops.
The other security council nations were prepared to wait. I think it was partly because they didn't think they'd be in Saddam's crosshairs, and partly because they wouldn't mind seeing the US foreign policy and influence pushed back.
Another reason I think the other security council members objected to this course of action is because they have probably been selling all sorts of interesting things to Saddam and they don't really want the rest of the world to find out what it was. In truth, I'm sure even the US and UK have sold all sorts of interesting things to this regime too. The difference is that hopefully our two countries stopped this sort of trade after 1991. The others probably didn't.
I hope "Shock & Awe" works as planned. I had hoped that the initial decapitation was 100% successful, but clearly the armed forces wouldn't have moved ahead with S&A if it had been. My condolences to the Iraqi people. I hope the damage to life and property is minimal, and we can all get this over with shortly so we can all breath easier.
Nearly fifty percent of all graduates come from the bottom half of the class!
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'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-
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/
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?
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.
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
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
It WILL be "Shock and Awe" when we see the bill for financing this war!
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.
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?