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.
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.
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
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?
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
did you know : you know, some geeks are actually muslims
(ducks) Kidding! Kidding! Sorry!
Anyhow, I'll feel better when these guys get tossed out of the White House. This whole war was so contrived and forced down people's throats it's not even funny (okay, wars aren't funny in general, but you know what I mean).
The most depressing part for me has been that this war really points out the lack of sophistication in many Americans. First, the rational is pretty much invented and set up in a schitzo way (the lack of proof is proof!) and then repeated, basically, until people bought it. Now, we have to deal with idiots being all excited that we're going to blow stuff up and kill people.
You'd think after 9-11 we'd be a little more empathetic, but then maybe it's only human suffering if you have endless TV specials with mournful music and lingering shots of the flag to back it up.
Ignore me. I'm feeling angstful today.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Or maybe "puttin' the smack down on Saddam" for the WWE fans.
except that this is really the WWE equivalent of The Rock beating on a retarded 11 year old kid. If it has to be done, get it over with but please don't brag about it, and don't hype it up as if the outcome were in question.
If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
How about:
This post is strictly my own opinion and not necessarily that of my employer.
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.
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. :)
What I'm trying to figure out is this:
if we go in through Turkey and take Iraq from behind, would Greece help?
I find it disappointing the way so many people deny that Saddam Hussein is responsible not only for direct attacks on America
Which attacks would these be? What attacks on America was Saddam directly the cause of?
Can you imagine a world with a peaceful Middle East? Our President can.
Anyone who thinks that taking over Iraq will cause peace in the rest of the reason is either insane or dumber than a bag of hammers.
Well, on the British side: HMS Ocean, a 21,000 tonne assault/helicopter landing platform with a complement of Commando Sea Kings and Merlins.
HMS Ark Royal, 20,000 tonne aircraft carrier with a complement of Sea Harriers and Merlins.
HMS Argus, hospital ship, with 150 surgeons of varying specialties plus support staff.
Assorted type 22 and type 23 frigates, armed with Tommahawk Cruise Missiles.
3 Commando Brigade and 35 Commando Brigade of the Royal Marines, along with a shed load of armour from the army.
There are a few other ships out there, as well as Trafalgar class submarines, but Ocean and Ark Royal are the main ships.
We might have small ships comapred to the US, but we're right there.
I saw a Nimitz class US aircraft carrier on the news this morning (these are the biggest military ships afloat, capable of deploying 200 aircraft and helicopters).
I also saw eight B52-G/H bombers take off from RAF Fairford in Oxfordshire this morning, presumably on the way to Iraq, each capable of holding 70,000 lbs of assorted ordinance. I would imagine they were carrying Tommahawk Cruise missiles though - each one can carry 20.
In the capture of Umm Kasar port in the early hours, an armour column was needed to shift a few gun positions that they weren't expected. Both American M1-A2 Abrams and British made Abbot self propelled guns were used to get through - both have the ability to fire twice as far as the Iraqi's Russian made T72 tanks, so they can park up 4km away, well out of firing rane of the Iraqis and pound away with 120mm guns until they're eliminated.
The M1-A2 can also fire that mammoth gun in the dark and in zero visibility weather since it has a very good thermal camera and a military grade GPS system with connection to the battlefield CCC, so they know exactly where they are in relation to other friendly forces and in relation to fixed enemy positions.
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
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.
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.
So what's the solution? We have the most highly effective/advanced military force in the world. Bar NONE. Hearing all the whiners scream and yell about how "unfair" it is, you'd think they'd be happiest to have American soldiers go into battle on foot, armed only with a blunt stick in a leather thong.
Yes, the war needs to be won quickly and decisively. No, we don't need to brag about it, but at the same time it's not anything to be ashamed of.
Also, if you replace "retarded 11 year old kid" with "neighborhood bully", then it might be more accurate. When I was growing up, we had a bully, too. One day he was in the midst of beating the crap out of my brother when the bully's older brother came out and beat the crap out of HIM. "How's it feel to get beat up? How's it feel to have someone bigger than YOU beat you up?" He didn't bully us for a good long while after that. (And ever notice that the people who scream and yell about the US being a big bully are the people that.. well.. we don't allow to bully their own people either? See Serbia, etc).
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
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."
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.
You said the answer to your question in your question. CLINTON bombed Kosovo. Clinton was a liberal. Liberals are protesting the war. THe only reason 99% of the protests are happening is because a Republican is in charge. Clinton had five separate military attacks without UN approval during his presidency. Not once did we hear anything like this in the media.
Sorry folks, I know you hate to hear it, but the truth speaks for itself.
The biggest thing that has been left out in the U.S. reporting is an Iraqi body count, both civilian and military. But this is standard procedure for 'media control' during any war.
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
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
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
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."
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...
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.