Slashdot Mirror
Web Site Hacks Rise as War Rages in Iraq
An anonymous reader noted a Reuters news story talking about Website Defacement during the war. Apparently protesters and hackers are defacing hundreds of US and UK sites, both corporate and government.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
i'm surprised reuters didn't get hit for carrying the story.
Anything you say will be held against you.
I remember this also happening during the war in Yugoslavia a few years back.
Script kiddies are now the new heroes of the left...
nobody can get to them anyway, they're too busy sucking bandwidth with Flash ads saying "WAR!" and streaming RealMedia. Heh.
At least after Sept 11, news agencies went to static HTML versions of their news sites.
The less fluff, the better. We just want the friggin news.
how many of these hack attacks are exploiting known issues?
Slashdot has found its own niche and comments on non-mainstream tech issues related to the war, instead of just parroting the regular feed. Way to go!
When men used to be men
None of these claims are true. /. and defaced index.pl to show this story!!!
/. ever been defaced by e-vandals?
Someone has just hacked into
But seriously.....has
Arc
Perhaps, if we can't explain why we're at war, we shouldn't be at war?
All this does is make other hackers/crackers/what ever look bad. It will not convert people. It will just piss them off.
Free speech is getting expensive...
See How to Overthrow a country, and do it yourself, now!
I went to 4 anti-war protests, and no one could explain why we were truely at war.
Why are you asking people who think the war is unjustified to justify the war?
The great advantage of having a reputation for being stupid: People are less suspicious of you.
Does anyone else find it offensive that the author draws a distinction between "protesters" and "patriotic" hackers? They seem to imply that protesting the war would be unpatriotic.
It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.
Why is it not the other way around?
rm -rf all Iraq government sites
It just doesnt seem like the smartest thing to do, defacing your own national websites. Hey, our troops are fighting for us across the ocean, lets not support them. You voted, your leader chose to go to war, what is your problem?
Also, hey, our economy is doing poorly, lets deface some corporate sites in a hope they lose millions to lots sales and extra security costs.
Stupid stupid stupid. If you want to protest a war, have a PEACEFUL protest. Protesting a war by doing illegal and hurtful things is the pot calling the kettle black.
These people lose all public respect and support by doing stupid, negative things.
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
I wonder if this is the new, technology-enhance democracy. Where the free flow of information and ideas occurs as grafitti on hacked sites.... Do hackers even vote?
And it's always covered up fast and never mentioned like it didn't happen.
I saw one. They didn't even use any exploit code. They got all the way in and posted a story to the front page just through configuration errors! hahah!
But unless your lucky enough to catch a glimpse of it before it disappears you will probably not hear much about it. Slashdot likes to cover these sorts of things up. Watch for this to be modded down fast or my ip banned.
Ever wonder why slashdot fucks up and no one can post or there is a static frontpage etc. ? well that what the aftermath of a defacement looks like.
These vandals are no different than the terrorist regime of Saddam Hussein or the terrorist network of Al Queda. The only difference is that they use a computer as their weapon of choice, instead of a gun. They should be jailed.
The people of Iraq want and need this war to occur. War is a necessary evil, and in this case, it is the right thing to do.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
Some l33t h4X0R says: "Ohh YeaH BabY...Ur SiTe Has BeeN DeFaceD."
Believe it or not, Mr L337 has acurately described what he is doing with this "protest". He is defacing public/private property, and that is a crime.
The protests on the Streets of San Francisco are not "Civil" though they are assuredly disobedient. Sitting outside of a lunch counter, or not taking the bus, that is civil disobedience. Dragging newspaper vending machines into the street to block trafic, or breaking into a server to alter index.htm is illegal.
Lets remember that words have meanings, and in describing these acts, "Civil" is not an accurate term.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
Bush: "I dream of a Free Iraq... That's Free as in Beer."
Yesterday, in Boston, protesters sat down and blocked the Mass Ave Bridge, a major 4 way bridge. They also blocked people from getting to work at the Boston Stock Exchange and government buildings. Why prevent people from getting into work that have nothing to do with the war? Let them earn their living. What if an ambulance or emergency crew need to get over the bridge? Why are you drawing our police away from homeland security issues?
I have also seen a lot of graffitti- notably defacing of said Mass Ave Bridge with permanent spray paint. I have also seen private business buildings hit with the "no war" graffitti. I think some protesters are just in it to get on TV and know very little about what they're protesting.
Feel free to protest, but don't infringe on my rights when doing so.
Script Kiddies like protesters have found out:
Breaking shit is a whole lot of fun! Now... If only I can find a cause to make my conscience feel good about doing it!
This is pretty much the level of sophistication of most of the antiwar protests I've seen thus far, in the streets or on the internet.
If I was a protester with genuine antiwar convictions, I'd be pretty annoyed that my credibility was being destroyed by 14 year-old script kiddies... not to mention the uninformed, loony-left, stringy-haired wannabe hippies pulling juvenile "look at me!" stunts on the streets of San Francisco.
I have to admit I can't explain why we're truly at war either, economicly it will be disasterous, it has ruined the international diplomatic ties the US once had, and it makes the citizens of the Uninted States more at risk to future terrorist attacks and in the worst case senario could start World War III
No, I can't explain why we're truly at war either, it baffles me. It is the most ill-conceived thing our government has done in my lifetime. Pray tell, why are we REALLY at war?
It isn't because Iraq has violated UN mandates, Isreal has violated more, and we still support them. It isn't because they have weapons of mass destruction, North Korea has more in that catagory, and we're trying "diplomatic means" to deal with them. It isn't because of Saddam's human rights record, or we'd be at war with China, not granting them favoured trade status. It isn't because the inspections were failing, the inspectors themselves thought the process was working, and shouldn't they know? Come, come, since you're so ready to critisize others for being unable to explain the cause of this war, explain the real reason we are at war, instead of alluding to it in an ambigious manner...
Little Brother, watching the watchers
Can you explain the current fiscal policy that the national reserve has put in place of lowering interest rates to stimulate economy growth? Do you know why they dont just set them to 0 in times of good growth? Maybe if you have studied economics.
Can the average American dictate foreign policy for the United States? Same answer, no, unless you did your doctoral in polysci and are smart++.
Can the average joe schmoe vote and decide who is best to lead them and make such decisions? Yes.
Don't hate the player, hate the game...democracy is what we stand for and seem to be criticizing lately?
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Perhaps I could explain it to you, but then I'd have to kill you?
Seriously though, I'd wager there's classified intelligence information that points to future agression by Iraq which is best handled before it becomes a significant danger.
(or at least that's the only situation that I can come up with that could even excuse the unwarranted agression )
OK. I had a hard time driving around SF yesterday because of people doing more or less the same thing. On the one hand, they are blocking access to cyber places - and on the other they are blocking access to real ones. I was wondering if anyone could explain the logic behind protesting a war that is already started? Does anyone really believe that our government is going to stop and say, "Gee, we better stop this war so that those guys from Berkley will move off the Altimont Expressway..."
All I can see here is people giving Saddam (or what's left of his regime) fuel for his fight. He can say, "Look, the American people don't believe what their government is doing. Stop surendering and kill kill kill!!!" This would cause more loss of life to american soldiers. So... Can anyone explain what the protesters are hoping to get out of this? (Other than a permanent record...)
-anocelot
This tagline brought to you by 1500 monkeys in just under 17 years.
The point is not that there is no explanation, there certainly is. The point is that the protestors don't take the time to understand what the reasons are, and instead blindly protest under the umbrella of "war is bad". If anti-war protestors can't even be bothered to understand the pro-war arguements, how can they expect to effictively counter them?
Stupid like a fox!
yep.. happened to my site last night. took me about 2 mins on the phone with my hosting company and deleting and reuploading my index file.
... the words "Al Qaida OwnZ j00!!"
I'm glad I use IIS
Get paid to code OSS
WORD! why does this guy only get 2 points for a well thought response with an ACTUAL argument? but idiots with the latest knee-slapper get 5.
Once upon a time, protest was a means of bringing attention to an idea that was either being suppressed or ignored. However, the anti-war protesters instead are just being obnoxious. Everyone, at least hear in America, has not only heard the protesters opinions over and over again, as each week's protest is carried by every major news agency in the world. America has heard the protesters' reasoning but they've rejected them to the tune of 70% or so the populace. Protesters...getting louder is just making you look obnoxious.
That's what those neo conservatives and hawks want you to believe. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq /
My spam filters are working overtime since Wednesday. An increase of about ten times as much. Fortunately, the filters are still working.
If you can't understand it from all the literature and media out there... Well, your just too stupid to understand( even if the arguemnet is not yours). Sorry.
You have the technical ability and cutting edge hacking tools to crack into a major government website and deliver the ultimate statement on the state of affairs that just might be read by millions... ...and you put "Ohh YeaH BabY...Ur SiTe Has BeeN DeFaceD."
Want to protest showing your patroitism?
No, they want to protest to show their disagreement with teh current government and it's policies. To hell with patriotism (It's a word, meaning believing in the values of the country... not the leaders). They believe in the free values of the US and the UN, they know that this war goes against everything that those values stand for.
So, sure, you can be an apathetic little patriot, and smile as the rest of the world is blown up at the hands of your leader. (Just like the good little Iraqis did when their leader decided to invade other countries.) Or you can protest this violation of international law, and let the government know that you will not stand for it.
These protestors stand for peace, not the reckless destruction of war.
Palestine is a Chapter 6 UN resolution, Iraq is a Chapter 7. They aren't in the same league. Chapter 7 is more serious while Chapter 6 is more of an recommendation.
Cool you've been modded +5 for being wrong, I love slashdot. Perhaps, if we can't explain why we're at war, we shouldn't be at war?
Anti-war protesters aren't there to explain why we're at war thats pretty much what 'anti-war' means as far as I know
He's saying they couldn't explain why we shouldn't be at war.
smart++
I think you meant 'doubleplussmart'.
...aren't there any sites that have links to hacked sites and keep archives like 2600 used to do? Has 2600 started doing that again?
Un-news
Fine, exercise your right for free speech. Protest in public areas. However you DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE ME TO LISTEN TO YOU. Get out of the fucking road and leave other people's property ALONE. It's the same pathetic justification spammers use to justify loading users inboxes with crap that these so called "protestors" are using to cause trouble.
I remember back when the internet was viewed as the new printing press. Anyone can post their views. Now it's just viewed as a big giant corporate ad. And people are too freakin lazy to exert any effort to get their views out. They'd rather sit and bitch that no one is listening to them and then cause trouble. I happen to have worked very hard building up a site that's quite popular. It makes a great forum. Nobody owed me that forum. I built it myself because I wanted it.
I got a survey ( http://www.icarusindie.com/survey ) going to see who people think the US should be attacking if anybody. I have a banter box on the front page and I have an entire section dedicated to the war.
That's my forum. Get your own. Such idiots should be arrested and fined. As of yesterday 2000 "protestors" were arrested. Good riddence.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Now, if some cracker was to break into the enviromental controls for Saddams bunker and sufficate his dumb ass, I don't the US would be that pissed about the situation, other than slapping some general around and saying "Why didn't you think of that dipshit!"
However, defacing websites only sends one message... your an idiot who can use script kiddie tools...
Why don't you do something more productive, like participate in the Democratic process and let your elected officals know how you feel about the war, what you think your country should be doing to prevent war.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
...'Nam a few more years back.
Of course, I'm also crazy.
Umm, perhaps the reason they can't explain why we're truly at war, is because they can't comprehend ANY good reason to launch a massive, unprovoked invasion, against the clear will of the international community and against international law, against a country that poses little threat to the country launching the attack?
Dude.. 45 countries have supported us. thats three TIMES the number who would have had to vote positive in the UN. Of those who dont, only a handful really matter. get the facts straight. (And realize several of them are the neighboring states..w hich brings us to... )
I have to admit I can't explain why we're truly at war either, economicly it will be disasterous, it has ruined the international diplomatic ties the US once had, and it makes the citizens of the Uninted States more at risk to future terrorist attacks and in the worst case senario could start World War III
Economically, its already helping. Looked at the stock exchange lately? The International Diplomatic Ties basically mean we are the enforcement arm of the UN when they want us, but god forbid they take our feeligns into acount when their cushy oil deals with Iraq may go up in smoke. Where were all these protestors when Clinton got us into Bosnia? For far fewer crimes against humanity than Hussein has racked up, we are over there to this day!.
Come, come, since you're so ready to critisize others for being unable to explain the cause of this war, explain the real reason we are at war, instead of alluding to it in an ambigious manner...
The real reason is threefold, at least. One) Hussein will use the weapons he is undoubtedly building against Israel soon enough. That is a doomsday scenario you dont want to see. Two) He (hussein) has been thumbing his nose at us for 12 years, ignoring our sanctions, and recently, openly mouthing off. THere is little doubt that he has ties to the terrorist activities of the last several years, at least in those who actually read the press, and dont necessarily swallow the leftist jargon hook, line, and sinker. And because we cannot continue to get black eyes and NOT retaliate. The Sept 11 attack was a black eye.. but not nearly the black eye left on us by Hussein continuing his reign of death and destruction in Iraq after we supposedly stopped him 12 years ago. Even Colin Powell says it was a mistake not to finish the job when we had the chance.
If we leave the US as a huge target that never retaliates, there is _nothing_ stopping every islamic crackpot in the world from taking a shot at us. They know we will do nothing. Bush promised to take after Afghanistan and any other country who harbors, funds, or makes possible terrorists/isms, and unlike our previous president, he is following through on his promise.
Those reasons, along with the very real threat that he has nuclear weapons, are the reasons we are at war. (And no, the nuclear weaposn are not a threat to us.. but if you pay any attention to the international politics you quote above, using them against Israel WOULD start world war 3.)
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
I love the doublethink brought out over the last few years.
Having War will give Peace
Disobeying the UN will give it purpose
Cowardice is the refusal to injure thousands of innocent civilians living in Baghdad opposing a major power's whim.
Bravery is the ability to order the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis without wincing or bringing up your Caesar salad.
Apparently, well-fed young men sitting in millions of dollars' worth of military hardware and dropping bombs from 30,000ft on impoverished people who have already had all their arms taken away are exemplars of 'bravery'.
War on Terrorism... In the words of Terry Jones: "You can wage war against another country, or on a national group within your own country, but you can't wage war on an abstract noun. How do you know when you've won?"
Geez... The doublespeak is astounding.
My favourite one was the attack of "Shock and Awe" that the US is parading, or as the CBC puts it "Anger and Confusion". No one is shocked, no one is awed, everyone is angry and everyone is confused in Iraq.
It's pretty darn hard to be in awe of a nation that is invading you.
Oh wait... we aren't invading iraq, or occupying iraq. Even though they are raising american colours over Iraqi cities that have been.. umm.. liberated...
Yeah.. that makes sense.
Stop playing word games, open your eyes, and you'll see what's happening.
Or you can just live in doublethink and apathy. That's the way a good patriotic citizen should live I guess.
Defacing web sites to protest the war is the stupidest thing I've heard of since those congress critters banned the word "french" from the capitol cafeteria menu.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Yeah, it's almost like one of the major countries with veto powers didn't want the Palestine resolution to carry.....
War puts an end to economic speculation, increases spending and generally drives the world markets up. If you've been paying attention to the business news, almost all markets are in the green, trading is good and commodity prices are down. The DOW has gained more in the past 2 days than in the past 3 years.
All at the expense of Iraq, of course.
A dreadful, evil, warped and [gasp] evil dictators is hiding weapons of mass destruction right in the heart of the United States.
We must stop Bill Gates!
"As a writer / novelist you might want to spellcheck your sig.
That's true, due to the massive recession there are unprecedented unemployment levels!
Maybe these people want money to be spent strengthening the economy instead of blowing people up?
ah so the anti-war mods show it as neutral tho? maybe you should figure out what neutral means
That's a rather debateable point. There was no clear majority in the UN - France was threatening to Veto any vote that didn't go the way they like, once again demonstrating the massive problems with the UN. In general it seems to be, at worst, a 50/50 split between nations who are pro-war and those who are against. Most of the Arab nations don't seem to be against an invasion of Iraq (*nobody* seems to like Saddam), they just don't like that the US is doing it. Blame France for that one - they made sure no other nation could have input by sabotaging the UN.
Once agian - that's not entirely true. It has certainly, for lack of a better phrase, changed the political landscape. France seems to be hell-bent on becoming a major player in the world. If they didn't oppose the US on this it would have been something else. After all - they've been profiting from the UN sanctions by selling illegal and semi-illegal supplies to Iraq. They certainly don't want to see this situation change! The same goes for Germany and Russia.
There's a difference between Israel and Iraq - diplomatic means *have worked* in Isreal. Not well, but they haven't ignored every resolution that wasn't backed up with an invading army. Iraq has and they've done so for 12 years. Don't point at Israel and cry "foul" - you're not helping anything and you're only revealing your own ignorance.
I just wish that the government wouldn't spend their lives so cheaply
Do you think that the US Gov't is spending the lives of its soldiers cheaply? I can't think of any army in history that places so much value on the lives of individual soldiers as today's US Army. To accomplish a given mission, the Army would rather spend millions of dollars on high tech surveillance and "smart" missiles than risk the life of a single US soldier in actual combat.
The soldiers may be brave and willing, but the Army is so risk-adverse they are willing to do almost anything, at any cost, to avoid American combat casualties.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that at the end of the war, more soldiers die from accidents than actual combat. Probably, the Army's mortality rate won't be much higher than it would be for a similar-sized group driving on American highways, or smoking American cigarettes.
Might be they understand them, but deem them 'not sufficient'. I have yet to hear a reasonable pro-war reason. All things considered, this is still an unnecessary war, imho.
And, your arguments may also be applied to many pro-war individuals, for that matter.
---
The combined human population is enough to feed every living tiger for app. 28000 years.
Why would Hitler be proud?
According to Internet Traffice Report, overall global traffic is down the last three days. Not that it shows the whole picture. I'm sure that the shape of that traffic in the last few days has changed dramatically.
and against international law
Just a quick nitpick...I don't believe this military action is against international law (it's not technically a war until congress declares it such.) If we're violating international law now then so did Clinton in 98 when he bypassed the UN and fired 400 cruise missles at Iraq, or when we invaded Kosovo. But we didn't then and we're not not, especially since with 18 UN resolutions backing us up. The attempt to get another one was just to get the French and Russians in line. They refused outright (without even discussing it, how's that for failed diplomacy) so we went ahead without them. Clinton at least had the foresight to know it was useless talking to them about it and didn't even bother, just started launching cruise missles.
As for the "Why Iraq?" question, I don't believe that Israel has violated more UN resolutions. Have they violated every single one passed since 91? Did they violate the agreement of some surrender accord they signed? No? Well Iraq has. North Korea deserves a diplomatic solution because every single time in the past when they've done this diplomacy has worked with them. They just want a handout because they've trashed their country. As for China we again have meaningful diplomatic relations with them. They listen to us, we listen to them. They also try to obey the UN. Finally, the inspectors...they are weak. Blix was the 2nd choice for the post (actually the 3rd, Iraq really didn't like the first one because he kept insisting they disarm.) The guy nominated before Blix had a great track record and was very obviously not going to take any crap from them. Russia and France veto'd his nomination. Blix is a sheep who just wants to keep his cushy job for as long as possible. Iraq owes Russia over $10 billion and has bought $25bil in military hardware from France over the years. France is also in line to get exclusive access to 25% of Iraq's oil once the sanctions are lifted. If Saddam's government goes away so does their supply of cheap oil. No blood for oil? How many Iraqis have died under sanctions waiting for diplomacy to work?
Where's any proof that Iraq has funded Terrorism?
What strikes me as funny with all of the liberals and peaceniks, is that they just don't get it. Maybe Saddam wouldn't use his weapons. But why take a chance? When taking a chance means thousands of dead US citizens. The other argument is that "It's for the oil". When we take take Saddam out, the people of Iraq will see more of their oil money improve their lives in the next two years, then the last 20 under Saddam.
The last dumb argument is that we need the UN. The UN has approved of two military action since 1950, Korea and Gulf 1991, I think there have been about 200 + conflicts since then. The UN has stood by while genocide was allowed to progress in Cambodia, Kosovo, Bosnia and Rwanda to name a few. Evil in Iraq could have been excised in 1991 but because of the UN it was allowed to endure. The UN simply does not have the moral courage to deal with evil.
I get worried because many ignorant people want to understand the motivation of our enemies instead of neutralizing them. Worse yet we had Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton sabotaging President Bush's diplomatic efforts, but what could you expect from our most incompetent and most disgraceful former presidents.
Sent to me by a friend....
I sat in a movie theater watching "Schindler's List," asked myself, "why didn't the Jews fight back?"
Now I know why.
I sat in a movie theater, watching "Pearl Harbor" and asked myself, "Why weren't we prepared?"
Now I know why.
Civilized people cannot fathom, much less predict, the actions of evil people.
On September 11, dozens of capable airplane passengers allowed themselves to be overpowered by a handful of poorly armed terrorists because they did not comprehend the depth of hatred that motivated their captors.
On September 11, thousands of innocent people were murdered because too many Americans naively reject the reality that some nations are dedicated to the dominance of others. Many political pundits, pacifists and media personnel want us to forget the carnage. They say we must focus on the bravery of the rescuers and ignore the cowardice of the killers. They implore us to understand the motivation of the perpetrators. Major television stations have announced they will assist the healing process by not replaying devastating footage of the planes crashing into the TwinTowers.
I will not be manipulated.
I will not pretend to understand.
I will not forget.
I will not forget the liberal media who abused freedom of the press to kick our country when it was vulnerable and hurting.
I will not forget that CBS anchor Dan Rather preceded President Bush's address to the nation with the snide remark, "No matter how you feel about him, he is still our president."
I will not forget that ABC TV anchor Peter Jennings questioned President Bush's motives for not returning immediately to Washington, DC and commented, "We're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington."
And I will not forget that ABC's Mark Halperin warned if reporters weren't informed of every little detail of this war, they aren't "likely -- nor should they be expected -- to show deference."
I will not isolate myself from my fellow Americans by pretending an attack on the USS Cole in Yemen was not an attack on the United States of America.
I will not forget the Clinton administration equipped Islamic terrorists and their supporters with the world's most sophisticated telecommunications equipment and encryption technology, thereby compromising America's ability to trace terrorist radio, cell phone, land lines, faxes and modem communications.
I will not be appeased with pointless, quick retaliatory strikes like those perfected by the previous administration.
I will not be comforted by "feel-good, do nothing" regulations like the silly, "Have your bags been under your control?" question at the airport.
I will not be influenced by so called, "antiwar demonstrators" who exploit the right of expression to c
"Science is like sex: sometimes something useful comes out, but that is not the reason we are doing it" Richard Feynman
Wired has a story on the same subject: http://wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,58143,0 0.html
FoundNews.com - get paid to blog.,
Hmm... where'd you get that?
It sounds quite plausible.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,48822,00.html
I'm not saying the protesters aren't entitled to their opinions. I'm just angry that the "hax0rz" are creating so much more work for th IT folks who have nothing to do with this war. Rallies in public places are fine. Creating gridlock and giving police a hard time is bad. Some of these people have no clue what they're protesting against and are just part of a flock rebeling against anything they deem evil. When I see these college and highschool kids protesting by blocking streets during rush hour or monopolizing the police (taking them away from REAL crimes) I just wish I could make their lives more difficult with more homework or something. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but for cryin' out loud, don't make others miserable trying to drive your point home.
So you assume that just because we don't agree with you, we must be ignoring you? Why is that? Because you think you have some kind of monopoly on The Truth or something? You're no better than you claim Bush to be, if that's really your attitude.
You have rights. I have rights. I cannot interfere with your rights, and you cannot interfere with mine. And yes, that means that if you wish to protest, you must do so in such a way that doesn't disrupt people's lives. Not only are you not attracting converts by doing so, you're in fact breeding resentment among the very people you should be courting.
Yes, the so-called PATRIOT act is a gross violation of everything this nation stands for. That's no excuse to violate people's rights even further.
Where's any proof that Iraq has funded Terrorism?
areal photos of camp
terrorist links
more ammo
washington times article
links to Al Qaeda
Is that enough? or do you need more?
maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
The problem with forums is that you usually wind up preaching to the converted. Witness Slashdot for instance. We have several groups of converted and they all preach to each other and war with their opposition. But... nothing is ever accomplished:
-Linux vs. Windows
-MP3 vs. OGG
-Corporations are good vs. Corporations are evil
-Capitalism vs. Any other viable option
-Conservative vs. Liberal
-GNOME vs. KDE
etc...
Forums are, for the most part, a waste of time. The only real way to get your message heard (especially if it is an unpopular one) is with acts that really inconvenience others. As you said, it's a lot like spam. Those folks, as much as they should be flayed alive, are smart enough to know that their method works. Even though it inconveniences others, their message gets heard.
Sometimes the only way to get a message across is to jump up and down and yell "fire" in a crowded theater while holding up a sign saying "I oppose the War in Iraq".
Un-news
if fox is really the best prove you can come up with, you really should try to stay out of arguments
for those to lazy to copy&paste
A Patriot is someone who loves their country, and works to help better it.
A Patriot is not silent on government corruption, illegal wars, or anything else that they think hurts the long-term health of the country.
A Patriot does criticize. They criticize at times of extreme political unrest. They ask questions when questions need to be asked.
And yes, a Patriot will perform acts of civil disobedience, when extreme situations warrent it.
A Patriot does not, under any circumstances, cowtow to the party line and 'fall in' as to not 'cause ripples'. A Patriot stands up and shouts to the fucking ceiling, 'something is wrong', when they feel something is wrong.
(And you know what's really funny? I'm Canadian. You know, one of those countries that's not 'the greatest nation in the whole world'. Whattajoke that phrase is. The hubris knows no bounds.)
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
1) Saddam is far more likely to use his weapons than North Korea is.
2) Isreal has violated tons of mandates, and has a particularly sinister leader right now. We don't attack them because they're simply not a threat. Though there is a good case to stop supporting them.
3) Saddam isn't linked to 9/11. But I'm sure he wouldn't mind it one bit if some Al Quaeda boys borrowed some weapons to blow up New York. Oh please, you say? Al Quaeda doesn't like the beer-drinking, cursing, sacreligious Saddam? Well guess what? They hate us more.
4) China's government is on a remarkable progression to more Democracy and free thinking. I know because I lived there (I'm not Chinese either). Their human rights records are bad, but they'll get better.
5) The majority of the world isn't ready to cut off all diplomatic ties to the US because of the war (they might disagree, but only a few countries like France and Russia are really rabidly anti-war). That would be political suicide for them. Also, let's take France for instance. I thear a lot of folks saying "it's all about the oil." It is. France gets most of their oil from Iraq. It's no wonder they don't want us in there. Do you really believe the French are so anti-us involvement because they sympathize for the people in Iraq? Come on!
6) Iraq does pose a threat. They've got the weapons, and Saddam is crazy enough to use them. Don't believe me? We gave him weapons of mass destruction in the early 80's when he was fighting Iran. He used some against Iran, but there are others that are unaccounted for. Don't blame me as an American for being a little bit worried that he could use them (or being extremely pissed off at the lack of foresight the Reagan Administration had for giving them to him). Hell he's been dodging weapons inspectors for some time.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
From the article:
Like graffiti, defaced Web sites are considered little more than a nuisance. The message tends to get wide exposure, but the damage to the victim is minimal. Web site operators typically have the site restored within a matter of hours.
Will the media ever learn that a seemingly "innocent" act of defacing a website causes a major headache for the people who have to patch the hole and make sure the rest of their systems weren't compromised? Of course, what should I expect from an article that thinks that crackers and "hackers" are the same thing.
Actually, it's 'doubleplusthinkful'. Also, any respectable Ingsoc citizen would probably say 'doubleplusgoodthinkful' because it doesn't stand to reason that ungoodful persons can be thinkful.
You've got to be kidding. The entire world has been pleading with the US to present some evidence that this war is justified, and the US keeps coming up empty. You think we have secret info that we can't share with the world that would justify it? If it existed the Bush admin would have brought it out in order to get the UN mandate it sought. In the absence of real evidence, we are just supposed to assume there is secret evidence somewhere they won't tell us about?
Wow. The people that hacked seabornes.com must be really intelligent. At the bottom it says USG (Unix Security Guards). But viewing source comes up with this:
meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document
meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 9"
meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 9"
I'm not saying people who use Unix don't use Windows, but how many use Word to write HTML pages? What ever happened to notepad?
people should keep their opinions to themselves
Fuck that. This is never true. It's the very thing America fights for. That's the Freedom that we like to spout off about.
So no, I won't keep my bloody opinion to myself, thank you. And I consider myself all the more patriotic for it.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Exactly. There are plenty of people on both sides who don't know what they're talking about. My original point was that the burden of proof should be on those who support the war rather than the other way around.
They have to get louder because they are being drowned out by all the "Go America" bullshit. The media has not given anything near equal voice to anti-war arguments as they have to pro-war rhetoric.
Indeed not. If anything, anti-war rhetoric has gotten much more voice in the media.
The "Go America" bullshit isn't drowning you out. You (the antiwar protesters) are drowning yourselves out, by means of your tactics. People don't remember the message, they remember the jerks who sat down in the middle of the road and blocked traffic for hours, making many people late for work, most of them having nothing whatsoever to do with the war. Far from spreading the message to those who disagree, it only spreads resentment among those who disagree. In other words, the exact opposite of the intended effect.
If you're going to practice civil disobedience, fine. Be civil. As the old saying goes, you attract more flies with honey than with vinegar. You want to "stop the anger" and "stop the hate"? Here's some honest advice: you could start by stopping it in yourself before going to stop it in others, because I can tell you right now, that is what the people see.
By the way, your statistics cut both ways. The very example you cite could easily be spun to say that a majority oppose the war, which is no more true than saying that a majority support it.
The reason I picked that article it the amount off cross references it makes with other news sources to back itself up.
"No, I can't explain why we're truly at war either, it baffles me."
Yahoo headline:
"Stocks Gain; Dow Has Best Week Since 1982"
Thats why. Economic kick in the pants.
It is a shame that you posted this anonymously and most people are not going to read it.
Like I said, that's what my brain does to try to 'justify' something so that it doesn't bother me so much.
Personally I think that American citizens should rise up in mass protest and remove the current administration from office. Others... disagree to say the least. In the end, the best thing for *me* to do is probably go about my business while trying to ignore something I cannot help. So that's what I do. (besides complaining about it on slashdot)
Dude.. 45 countries have supported us. thats three TIMES the number who would have had to vote positive in the UN.
45 countries' governments, not 45 countries' populations.
Of those who dont, only a handful really matter.
China matters, France matters, Germany matters, Russia matters, Canada matters, India matters. These are the big players around the world today. How much US foreign policy does Albania influence? This doesn't even take into account the fact that although many governments are with us, much of their population is against us, as is the case in Spain and Japan, and almost certainly any Arab members.
Economically, its already helping. Looked at the stock exchange lately?
a) a one-week rally does little to mark the end of a multi-year recession,
b) I think he may be referring to the record-breaking deficits we're already racking up as a result. To say that this is helping the economy and then to point at one rally is not convincing.
One) Hussein will use the weapons he is undoubtedly building against Israel soon enough. That is a doomsday scenario you dont want to see.
Since when does speculation build the foundation for unilateral military action? Even if you're right, you're assuming he could continue to develop these weapons with the entire world's eyes trained on him.
Two) He (hussein) has been thumbing his nose at us for 12 years, ignoring our sanctions, and recently, openly mouthing off. THere is little doubt that he has ties to the terrorist activities of the last several years, at least in those who actually read the press, and dont necessarily swallow the leftist jargon hook, line, and sinker.
a) Thumbing your nose at the U.S. does not justify a war.
b) Once again, linking Iraq to Al Qaeda is pure speculation until someone comes up with some real evidence. We've been pursuing this angle for almost a year now, and have yet to produce a convincing argument. If the administration had what even they considered to be a convincing argument, they would be waving it for the world to see at every single press conference.
If we leave the US as a huge target that never retaliates, there is _nothing_ stopping every islamic crackpot in the world from taking a shot at us.
There was a huge campaign in afganistan that overthrew an islamic fundamentalist regime, and I think we made our point very clearly. Attacking Iraq, which is not a fundamentalist nation (it's not even an Islamic nation), is not making a point about Sept. 11th. There are dozens of hotter terrorist spots we could be focusing on.
Those reasons, along with the very real threat that he has nuclear weapons, are the reasons we are at war.
Absolutely unfounded. Not only do we have zero evidence of any Iraqi nuclear capability (after years of searching for it), but there are dozens of other dangerous nations that DO have nuclear capabilities, and we seem to have little interest in them.
The original post was right on the money. If we take away the speculation and the emotions, it leaves us with a very weak case for going to war. The majority of people and governments of the world recognize how weak the case really is, and that is why there is very little support for this war abroad.
There was also a rumor spreading around Europe and Russia (primarily Germany and Russia) that the White House web page had been hacked. This rumor was false; the URL reported was http://www.whitehouse.net/index2.html
The rumor was enough to generate 4,600,000 hits in a 72-hour period that normally sees only 100,000.
I thought it was a DDOS until I analyzed the logs. It was about 75% folks linking from email and 25% folks linking from various web based message boards. About 60% went straight to index2.html while 40% went to the home page.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
Ah yes. Cameroon and Eritrea have provided some amazing logistical support, I'm sure. I love the spin. "Now with 30% more countries!"
Get your own 'facts' stright: It's the US, UK, Spain, and Portugal. Portugal has no troops, nor do ANY of the other signatories on that list - which is just that, a list, nothing more than PR.
The real reason is threefold, at least. One) Hussein will use the weapons he is undoubtedly building against Israel soon enough. That is a doomsday scenario you dont want to see. Two) He (hussein) has been thumbing his nose at us for 12 years, ignoring our sanctions, and recently, openly mouthing off.
So you profess to know the mind of Saddam? Has he been biding his time all these years? In case you hadn't noticed, he didn't attack the US; in fact, he's done fuck-all, other than try to rebuild his water supply in the last 12. Of course everyone knows he's a bastard - no one will argue otherwise - but there is NO PROOF. NONE. If there is, the CIA and FBI would like it, because they are still asking for it.
Besides, even if that were true, you cannot invade another nation because they will 'probably' attack. You just can't, and maintain any sort of moral high ground at all. Tell me, when North Korea invades the South for suspected terrorist weapons, what will we say?
If we leave the US as a huge target that never retaliates, there is _nothing_ stopping every islamic crackpot in the world from taking a shot at us
News flash: there's nothing stopping them NOW. Iraq likely has no real WMD (being that the only real WMD are nuclear), but Terrorists worldwide can shop elsewhere.
Invading Iraq means no one is safer today than they were yesterday. I know you think there's irrefutable proof. I don't. And millions are not convinced.
If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
Sure they can carpet bomb areas, but the B-52 can hold any number of precision guided munitions - like a large number of tomahawk-style guided missiles (larger versions though, forget the name).
In this war we do see ground forces really going in, much more so than the previous Iraq conflict which was much more an air war.
In a brief interview on CNN, a military analyst was saying that only 10% of the munitions dropped in the gulf war were precision - this time it will be about 80%.
So the introduction B-52 does not necessarily mark the end of precision targeting. Plus if they do carpet bomb, it would likely be large armor divisions somewhere in the desert... but this time around I think they'd rather not even do that, and have those soldiers give up rather than just kill them.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Saddam must of been a huge donkey pr0n consumer, this is the only rational explantation.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Maybe because despite being able to string a few sentences together, he either doesn't know hat he's talking about or is dishonest?
Not that you're bright enough to understand why.
Believe it or not, Mr L337 has acurately described what he is doing with this "protest". He is defacing public/private property, and that is a crime.
... both broke laws, and did jail time, in efforts to show such laws were unjust and should be repealed. They succeeded.
... they probably expect to commit and crime and get away with it. If so, then you are right in pointing out that what they are doing isn't civil disobedience, else they'd turn themselves in and allow themselves to be arrested to bring more attention to the issues they are protesting. Instead, they are likely just petty vandals using an opportunity to strike out at institutions they hate.
... I don't like the corporatization of America, or the corporate hijacking of the UN through the WTO and WIPO, any more than the next person. However, I cannot relate to or condone their behavior either ... unless they turn themselves in and face the music, they are merely vandals, not civilly disobedient protestors.
Very true.
The protests on the Streets of San Francisco are not "Civil" though they are assuredly disobedient.
"Civil" in civil disobedience refers not to civility (politeness), but to civilian, or disobedience to civil authority. There is a profound difference in both definition and implication.
In other words, the actions of those protestors snarling traffic in SF may not be civil (def: polite or cordial), but it most assuredly is "civil disobedience" (disobedience to civilian authority).
A person engaging in civil disobedience expects to be arrested and to "pay" for their crime, but choose do break the law regardless as a political statement. Ghandi and Martin Luthar King, Jr. are two such examples
A protestor on the street of San Francisco blocking traffic is most certainly engaged in "civil disobedience" and, unless they are an imbecel (quite possible based on some of the rhetoric I've seen from that direction), they fully expect to be arrested and pay for their crime. This tradeoff is worthwhile in their view, as it gives them media exposure with which they can get their message across.
Web defacement might possibly be another such form of civil disobedience, though I suspect you're right in that those doing so don't expect to get caught
I can relate to the hatred (in part)
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I really don't think they do.
This is not directed at you BunjiX, but rather all those brainwashed protesters against the war. I just happened to relpy to your comment since you brought up the point that these people can't find a sufficient reason to go to war.
I am 100% in support of this war and I am hopeful that they destroy Saddam and his bunch. We are told that the reason we are having this war is because Saddam has weapons that he intends to use. That is a secondary issue for me. I am for this war and the removal of Saddam for the benefit of Iraqi people.
There are very evil people in this world, and Saddam is one of them. He needs to be dealt with. If you are too French to do anything about it, then get out of the way.
When I lived in Japan, I remember walking into a train station full of people, there was a large highschool student kicking and pounding a kid half his size in the face. The smaller kid's lips were both split in several places and he was missing a few teeth. His nose was bleeding and his whole face was swollen. He was not fighting back; only trying to get away. However, the bigger kid wouldn't let him. What was every last stinking coward in the train station doing? Not a damn thing.
I approached to put a stop to it, and was finally joined by 5 or 6 security people from the train station. Until then, nobody did anything. They all just sat there and watched this small kid getting beating to a bloody heap. Some of them had the intelligence and insight to comment on what a shame it all was and how it was wrong, but that was it. No action. They might as well been beating the kid themselves. Every last person in that train station was a stinking coward in my opinion.
In the case of the war, Saddam is the bully that is oppressing, and at times torturing and killing his people. All the anti-war morons act like Iraqi people enjoy the same rights and freedoms we have and we are infringing upon their peaceful way of life. Well, they don't enjoy the life we have you brainwashed idiots! If you pulled this kind of "protest"crap in Iraq YOU WOULD BE KILLED!!!
To me, anti-war folk are the same types of cowards that stood in that train station in Japan ten years ago; sharing their self-righteous, prolix commentary with each other in a state of absolute impotence while pitying the victims of the world but not doing anything about it; too worried for their own skins to do the right thing and help.
There is evil in this world, and it is up to the decent people of the world to do something about it. If you're too afraid to act, then get out of the way and let those who have some guts set things right so the people of Iraq can at long last have some peace.
It's about helping those who can't help themselves. It's about doing what's right. It's about creating eventual peace. It's not about your beloved leftist politicking and your hatred of Republicans, President Bush, oil and SUVs. You people "protesting" make me sick.
"Might is right" This is what scares me about this war!
US Might makes it right and not the UN or international law! Just US might. =(
CIA Factbook 2002 (US):"Since 1975, practically all the gains in household income have gone to the top 20% of households
Is it just me, or does it seem that we would be better off if high schools taught a class in things like well-managed protest, writing letters to representatives, contacting the media and generally affecting society without being an asshole?
By not supplying a factual reason for going to war the U.S. is set on a course which isn't the best one. Bush has single handedly set a precedent.. Presidents and PMs of the world can attack nations by saying "We have evidence which we can't share you, but trust us, this is worth it." This is dangerous.
And no, there is no link between Saddam and Bin Laden. Cheney claimed their was citing a report between Al Queda and an Iraqi officer in Prague, but that was proven to be false. Bush has said screw you to diplomacy, the UN, NATO, proving proof to wage war.. Domestically we are in a long term recession and his tax cut is bankrupting social security. Domestically and internationally bush is screwing all Americans. While he wages war spending trillions, school kids can't go to school because there's no funding for their school and their buildings aren't maintained.
Bush will go down as the worst president in history when all is said and done.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Dude.. 45 countries have supported us. thats three TIMES the number who would have had to vote positive in the UN. Of those who dont, only a handful really matter. get the facts straight. (And realize several of them are the neighboring states..w hich brings us to... )
Ok, there are 180+ countries in the UN. The last time I checked, the "Coalition of the Willing" consisted of about 30-35 countries that included Eritrea and Georgia. Have you heard of them? These are countries that "don't count," they can only offer moral support. A UN GA vote requires 50% + 1 votes (i.e. about 90). A Security Council vote requires 9 (out of 15), and the 5 permanent members may not vote no. So your 3x quote is meaningless.
Economically, its already helping. Looked at the stock exchange lately? The International Diplomatic Ties basically mean we are the enforcement arm of the UN when they want us, but god forbid they take our feeligns into acount when their cushy oil deals with Iraq may go up in smoke. Where were all these protestors when Clinton got us into Bosnia? For far fewer crimes against humanity than Hussein has racked up, we are over there to this day!.
Just because the Stock market is up doesn't mean the economy is doing well. Tell that to the 2 million people that lost their jobs over the last couple years, or the 200,000 alone in February 2003.
We are not supposed to be the "enforcement arm of the UN." We just happen to give a majority of the support. When a peacekeeping (note, this is not a peacekeeing operation) is sanctioned by the UN, there are a significant number of troops from outside the U.S. We are over in Bosnia to this day, because that was a multilateral operation with support from NATO & the UN. The US, when acting alone, is notorious for doing their operation and fleeing - leaving a country in shambles.
I certainly agree. I merely wish I were wrong.
Ther have been SEVERAL terrorist attempts, not just 9/11 (which was not just an attempt, but an attack. They were thwarted. Thanks to our officers. Have those officers not been available, we would have had more attacks.
That would REALLY annoy me. Considering how expensive movies are nowadays, I don't want to be interrupted. When things annoy me it makes me less likely to listen
Yelling "Fire" in a theater is illegal, and it is quite likely that people would end up seriously injured or dead as a result. One hundred people rushing for 1 or 2 doors IN THE DARK == people trampled to death.
People will not read the sign while fleeing for their lives, especially if it is DARK
:D
In the US, one has the right to protest PEACEFULLY, please do not forget this qualifier, as it is fairly important
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
I saw video of their so-called "anit-war protest." Is it just me, or were these people fighting more than the coalition troops in Iraq?
People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
Too French to do anything about it.. cool, so if you're too American then you chomp on a cheeseburger and get fat while you press some buttons that send missiles that do something about it?
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
ah... goat sex!
He (hussein) has been thumbing his nose at us for 12 years, ignoring our sanctions, and recently, openly mouthing off.
This is hardly a reason to go to war. There is no reason why someone is his own country should not be allowed to tell the US to 'stick it' once and a while. Additionally the demand that Hussein leave Iraq is insane.
I agree that Hussein probably has ties to what America has defined as terrorism, but so what? How many puppet regimes have we propped up? How many American dollars buy weaponry for foreign nations as we watch the bloodshed from afar. How many countries must we occupy before we can truly feel safe about the state of the world? All of them?
It saddens me that this once great nation has now become the school yard bully of our humble ball of mud.
What many people forget as well is how many Iraqi's died after the first Gulf War. They thought the US was going to topple Saddam, and started taking his pictures down. When we left him in power, everyone who showed disapproval was killed.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Are these his reasons?:
March 18, 2003
Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)
Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
Sincerely,
GEORGE W. BUSH
If so, please show evidence that Saddam was behind 9/11. Thanks in advance.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
No. Cheese is too close to the French. Perhaps a Hawaiian Burger and some Freedom Fries.
Just a minor correction. The basketball player's name is not "Rick." but Steve Nash.
link: here
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
Do these hackers honestly think they're doing something good and patriotic by doing that crap?
It won't change anything, it just shows how immature they are. Why not do something useful like put their talent to work helping the world instead of pissing people off...
You mean Georgia, the part of the former Soviet USSR closest to that whole mess? Nope, never heard of 'em.
Ok, there are 180+ countries in the UN.
How many of them are in any position to take a stand on one side or the other? Do you think that Paraguay really cares either way? What about Cambodia? Given that maybe one half of the world is even knows where Iraq is, I'd say that the support of 45 countries is rather significant.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I love (note sarcasm) how in the very country these anti-war people seek to save, they would be killed, tortured, or raped for the very actions they do to try to save it.
Do they not see the irony?
The irony is tired and cliched, and a contains two strawmen to boot (the purpose of the war and the purpose of the 'anti-war people'). This sort of arguement dates at least to the war against Vietnam...
The fact that your country gives you a right to protest does not give it the right to invade countries that don't.
Quit crapflooding!
I was trying to find a webcam located in Iraq but to no avail. Dont they have computers there??
"We value you soldiers so highly that we are going to send you physically into harms way, rather than fight the conflict from a safe distance by remote control with weapons of mass descruction."
What part of "spending lives" don't you understand as "cheaply"?
-- AC
I haven't forgotten this. I think we should have killed him 12 years ago. We were stupid not to.
I had a minor 'incident' last week with a group calling themselves "Hackers Against War." They managed to replace the most recent story on my php-nuke based website with a juvenile little message.
/me is glad he backs up regularly!
After posting a request for help in a couple of PHP-nuke support forums, I was complete underwhelmed by the response.
My site is obscure enough that they probably only found me by googling for some nuke signature and then running an exploit script.
Bill Shaw
Dedicated to Alternate Reality Gaming
Well the cheese used in cheeseburgers isn't remotely related to anything French, it's debatable whether or not it's actually cheese.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
I wish I had mod-points, subtle (well, by Slashdot standards), funny, and probably true...
Pray tell, why are we REALLY at war?
--------
a) Saddam has weapons of mass destruction
b) Saddam was ONLY allowed to stay in power at the end of Gulf War I because he promised to get rid of them
c) Saddam has not held up his end of the deal, and only _began_ doing _anything_ when 60,000 US troops lined up on the border. Even then, as is obvious now with the SCUD launchings, he is still full of B.S.
d) Saddam runs terrorist training camps in Iraq for worldwide terrorists. It even includes a 707 used to practice hijacking airplanes.
Basically, the reason we are at war is that we never ended the last one. We only stopped because Saddam agreed to play by certain rules. Since he hasn't held up his end, we are finishing the previous war.
Basically, George Bush was idiotic to think that Saddam would live up to his promises (or he was weak and bowed to pressure prematurely). Bill Clinton only cared about international affairs when it got people's minds off of he and his illegal and unethical behavior. Dubya is willing to go it alone.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Attrition did that. They stopped doing it because the script kiddies were using it to keep score, which they rather thought was encouraging them.
We never gave Iraq, weapons of Mass Destruction. Well atleast the United States didn't. We gave them to Iran since they were being invaded by Iraq. The French and Soviets gave Iraq weaponary.
What's wrong with Fox news? It appears to be the only outlet providing both conservative and liberal opinions.
Outside of fox news, you either have the liberal TV people or conservative radio.
Engineering and the Ultimate
This is hardly a reason to go to war. There is no reason why someone is his own country should not be allowed to tell the US to 'stick it' once and a while. Additionally the demand that Hussein leave Iraq is insane.
Oh great guru, I have seen the light! YOu are correct.. a man who gassed his own people, and practiced genocide against another, and has consistantly warred with his neighbors to the point of requiring coalition action should be allowed to reign unchecked. And the Holy UN, which imposed sanctions on him 12 years ago and now refuses to even honor or look at those sanctions which have been broken time and again, and refuses to take any action other than followign a rather scripted show of giving "neutral inspectors" things to see but keeping them away from certain areas. You are right.. there is no reason for war here.. let him continue beheading women on the street, and imprisoning and torturing people for 14 years because they sold a roll of film to an undercover military agent.
I agree that Hussein probably has ties to what America has defined as terrorism, but so what? How many puppet regimes have we propped up? How many American dollars buy weaponry for foreign nations as we watch the bloodshed from afar. How many countries must we occupy before we can truly feel safe about the state of the world? All of them?
You counter-argue against yourself in this statement. If we "occupy" a country, we are evil.. because we are taking them over. If we hand the country over to the best pro-tem government we can find or allow to be created from the residents, and arm them so they can _keep_ their country (which is the real issue in that part of the world) we are also evil when we find out they have gone bad. (See also, Shah, Ayatollah, Hussein, Noriega.)
Let me ask you this.. how many american dollars have gone in the last 12 years for humanitarian aid to Iraq, and oil-for-food programs, only to watch it taken by the republican guard and used to feed the military, not the people? How many
"innocent civilians" have died because he wanted to test a germ weapon on someone, and had only his own people to do it with? How many people has he run through a plastic-shredding machine designed for recycling?
There are many good reasons to go to war. But one of the _most_ asinine arguments against this particular war I have seen so far is that "innocent civilians" may get hurt. As a great number of ex-pat iraqis have said, even during a war, life would be better than it was under Hussein.
It saddens me that this once great nation has now become the school yard bully of our humble ball of mud.
We arent the bully. the UN is the bully. Apparently out of its ass it pulls decisions about what countries can mass murder their citizens or other countries citizens, and who cannot. Once it has decided that, it sends in nations with their hands tied to "keep the peace". Or it refuses to enforce some embargoes
because key nations choose to get around it, but enforces others that end up destroying entire cultures and ways of life.
"we" cannot move against china. We dont have the manpower. Nor does the rest of Europe want to, due to close proximity and the chance of ass-kicking they would recieve. Of course, the way to stop it would be to bankrupt them by not buying their crappy products.. but good ole "Pro USA" Wal-Mart continues to sell crappy Chinese products at a much lower rate than comparable american products, meanwhile bemoaning the loss of jobs and manufacturing.
If 1/10th of the "protesters" realized that what they hate about this country is entirely within their control to fix (The job situation, the economy, "big business screwing the little guy") and put half as much effort into fixing it, rather than making misspelled peace signs or making themselves throw up in a federal building in California, I would have a lot more respect for their cause. But as it is, I view about half of the loudest ones as lobotomized morons who believe everything MTV has to say and could read the WSJ if they were forced to because the big words would throw them off.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
Dude.. 45 countries have supported us
I am a citizen of one of those countries. By polls 80% of our population is opposed to the war. It is not a coincidence that the supporting countries are relatively small and poor. Their governments have been easier to bribe and pressure. The only country in the worlds where the population is supporting the war is USA, and that's because of the propaganda in mainstream media (the same people who support the war, also believe that it was Saddam Hussein who organized 9/11, which is clearly a nonsense).
Even in UK, 70% of people are against the war.
Economically, its already helping. Looked at the stock exchange lately?
Wrong again. The stock market is just climbing out of the hole where it fell because of the uncertainty. Now that the end is near, we're just restoring the equilibrium.
Where were all these protestors when Clinton got us into Bosnia?
There's a huge difference between ending a war, and starting one, hence the the protests.
If we leave the US as a huge target that never retaliates, there is _nothing_ stopping every islamic crackpot in the world from taking a shot at us.
Iraq is a secular country, and Saddam Hussein is certainly not an islamic crackpot. He has done absolutely nothing to the US that would justify attacking his country and killing hundreds of thousands of people (the first Gulf war killed 100-200000 people and it was mostly in deserts, it is going to be mostly in cities this time).
When men used to be men
My favorite is that arial photo of the 707 used to train highjackers, along with the 2 Iraqi military defectors who acknowledge that that was it's use. Not just for Iraqi's, either - it was for all types of terrorists.
Engineering and the Ultimate
"Those folks, as much as they should be flayed alive, are smart enough to know that their method works."
No, it doesn't. It gets bad publicity. Bad publicity doesn't aid the cause. PETA is a joke. The more stupid stunts it pulls the more irrelavent it becomes. The more stupid stunts the protestors pull the less likely people are to care what they have to say.
If you have to shut down traffic to get your message out, it must be a pretty crappy message. There are far better ways to get people's attention without pissing them off.
Claiming forums don't work is the most ignorant thing I've heard. People change their minds all the time because of things they read. Why do you think books are so successful?
If you can't convince anyone with speech and written word it's because you either have no persuasive talent or what you're talking about is junk and no one is being fooled by it. Throwing yourself in traffic isn't going to make your message any more persuasive.
Try as you might, you're not going to convince me the sun rotates around the earth. You can call me a fascist. You can block rush hour traffic. But you're not going to change my mind.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
My web site now says stuff like "Fuck The Great Asshole Bush" and "Hitler 7 million, Bush Playing Catch Up" and "Bush Drops Bombs On Iraqi Families" and other terrible stuff like that. Those danged hackers. Not much I can do about it I guess.
I would take you much more seriously if you would learn to spell and use proper grammar.
Poor spelling and grammar *really* detract from your argument.
Unless it was your intention to make everyone who supports the war look like uneducated rednecks?
-- AC
Saved all us information security folks the grief of our non-technical managers asking if we are going to get hacked...
-Rob
Exactly when did it become cool for American's to hate their government? Ask the Iraq shiite muslims what they think of us going in there. And while I'm sure that the rest of the guys at the comic shop eat up your riveting political insight, the truth of the matter is your a hypocrit. You gorge yourself everyday on all the liberties you have in this country, knowing full well you'd wither and die in seconds if you had to live anywhere else, and you sit and bitch about something you know nothing about and couldn't comprehed in a million years even if the ritalin was working. If anything in America changed even one iota, 99% of you anti-war protestors would shit yourselfs and fall over dead. Before this all started, I wasn't even that patriotic. Thanks to comments like yours, now I am.
Oh..something interesting..when asked why Janeane Garafolo didn't protest Clinton's Iraq policies, she replied "It wasn't trendy then". I think you and her have quite a bit in common.
Finally, math books without any of that base 6 crap in them.
So the CIA is Lying...
" Radical terrorist groups-including al Qaeda-in possession of such weapons and without a home address, could get the Iraqi government, which has a known location and a leader whose primary goal is survival, into a lot of trouble with the great powers. Saddam, ever paranoid, does not even let his own regular military units have biological and chemical weapons. So it is unlikely that he would give them to terrorists.
In its analysis, the CIA has apparently discovered such disincentives for Iraqi use or transfer of superweapons. But the CIA also understands that if the United States invades Iraq, Hussein's incentives change for the worse. Hussein could become a loose cannon and do exactly what the Bush administration is trying to prevent with an invasion. Under the deterrence and containment strategy, Saddam is like a lion in a cage. The threat that he poses has been circumscribed. But the Bush administration's apparent desire for an invasion is like going into the cage with a stick and trying to kill the lion. The United States has a big stick and can probably kill the lion, but must expect to be bloodied in the process. Getting bloodied when the threat was already contained does not seem sensible.
http://www.cato.org/dailys/10-14-02.html
He wasn't asking for them to justify...he was asking for them to explain the reasons the government has given for why we are at war.
The worm spreads by sending itself to e-mail addresses on an infected machine and tries to disable anti-virus and other security software and infect certain files on the hard disk.
you could have said
The worm infects Microsoft operating systems newer than version 3.1. It mails itself to e-mail addresses it finds, tries to disable anti-virus and other security software, and infects files.
Credit should be given where credit is due. Many of those who work on software that is not so full of holes resent the popular equations PC=Microsoft and PC=buggy/insecure. Also, users of newer Microsoft operating systems should be alarmed so that they might defend themselves. Not everyone has time to look up the Symantec warning.
It would also be nice to know what kinds of servers are being defaced.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
How many of these people really feel that strongly about the issue to hack a web page, and how many of them just needed to justify an exciting but illegal activity? If you have the knowledge, you're definitely tempted to break into some systems you shouldn't be touching, but those pesky morals are in the way... until you have a noble cause of some sort, here it is baby.
I am a citizen of one of those countries. By polls 80% of our population is opposed to the war. It is not a coincidence that the supporting countries are relatively small and poor. Their governments have been easier to bribe and pressure. The only country in the worlds where the population is supporting the war is USA, and that's because of the propaganda in mainstream media (the same people who support the war, also believe that it was Saddam Hussein who organized 9/11, which is clearly a nonsense).
Even in UK, 70% of people are against the war.
Never said he was responsible.. but he is most definately involved. I have already cited the proof. And a lot of that is from the UK.. not from Pres Bush's "propaganda". (Which I take to mean any press other than leftist, which you dont agree with).
Wrong again. The stock market is just climbing out of the hole where it fell because of the uncertainty. Now that the end is near, we're just restoring the equilibrium.
With the longest sustained gain since the 80s? I dont think you understand economics as well as you think you do. Do you think the huge boom while Clinton was in office was due to Clinton?
There's a huge difference between ending a war, and starting one, hence the the protests.
By some accounts, we are ending a war that was started 12 years ago and never finished. Personally, i think the human rights violations _alone_ justify what we are doing.
Iraq is a secular country, and Saddam Hussein is certainly not an islamic crackpot. He has done absolutely nothing to the US that would justify attacking his country and killing hundreds of thousands of people (the first Gulf war killed 100-200000 people and it was mostly in deserts, it is going to be mostly in cities this time).
So the fact that his "special military" have been beheading women on the street suspected of prostitution with swords (the beheading, not the prostitution) is not a sign of an islamic crackpot? His continued railings put him right up there with Kublai Khan (no relation to Shaka or Sing Noon), except he doesnt have the force to back it up. Wanna tell me where you got the figures for "numbers dead" during the gulf war please? If you tell me they are from Iraq, I will simply laugh, and point out that this is a man who saves up dead babies for months so he can stage "funerals" for propaganda purposes, and, strangely, has all baby milk information printed in english in a country where it is hardly spoken.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
"Saddam is a bad guy." pretty much covers the pro-war position.
This document pretty well explains the real reasons behind the war. Basically, US long-range global strategic interests (i.e. world domination) demand a massively increased military presence in the Gulf. This means invasion and occupation. And they have to justify it somehow...
My site: Free Nature Pictures
So the CIA is Lying...
The Cato institute is somewhat interesting. As think tanks go, anyway. But how do you explain Saddam's chief of evil meeting with Mohammed Atta several times in Czech? Chance coincidence?
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
OMG! We can't let him get away with that! Doesn't this punk know who he's talking to?!
My site: Free Nature Pictures
War protesters trashed the grounds around a northern New Mexico home owned by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, placing "No War" stickers and throwing children's clothes around the property, authorities say.
STORY
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
The website we run at work was defaced by "Hackers Against War", they exploited a bug in the software we use (php-nuke) to replace all the stories on the front page with an inane antiwar statement and comments in French about their feelings for some girl. The pathetic thing is that our site already had a lot of antiwar articles up on it, so if their true motives were to express an antiwar opinion they failed horribly in that they obscured substantive antiwar commentary with their drivel AND forced us to take the site offline while we fixed things.
While I'm sure there are some groups out there with genuine political motives, based on this and some other things I've seen I really believe that this is just scriptkiddies looking for something trendy to do.
Dude... when someone points the big guns at you and says, "support us or else," what do you do?
One of those countries was Nicaragua, for crying out loud. Can you imagine that the population of Nicaragua actually supports the US in anything? Have you ever met any Nicaraguans? My guess is, if they were serious about opposing Iraq, Hussein would be dead by now. Those Nicos are a bunch of hard core motherf**ers.
It looks to me like those countries with the courage to speak their minds are openly against the war (the fools, they will surely be punished for this temerity), whereas those who lack it are going along.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
The internet is a media outlet, hacking a site is like taking over a broadcast radio or running a pirate radio - illegal, nuisance, and a black mark on legitimate protestors concerns. Then again hardly the crime of the century.
Blocking traffic for hours and injuring police officers in a violent protest is far more alarming.
Your points are interesting but flawed
1) Israel has made their own problems with the rest of the arab world, we prop them up so problems they make become ours. To the Arab world everything Israel does to the PAL is viewed as US government policy. So we need to either protect that or let Israel defend themselves in the doomsday scenario for the middle-east.
2) Hussein is scum - we put him there, we should deal with him. It's a good line of thought. Then again, what's to say we won't put another dictator in there to suck all the oil out again? Haliburton is in for the bid to rebuild iraq?
Osama is responsible for 9-11., and due to his heritage is likely to have no love for Iraq or being Sadaams lapdog. He is a cowardly spy trained by our government who is probably in Egypt or Syra with real terrorists who hide. Sadaam is a prideful, dictator, oil-puppet gone rogue. Don't mix up 1 war with the next.
I think most protestors see that Sadaam was A) not an immediate threat to the USA, B) Time should have been given if only to get more international support (maybe from the populace instead of just the leaders), and many believe that the rush is to line the pockets of US politicians (Dick Cheney's Haliburton to rebuild Iraq?).
We are not their for the people of Iraq, if that were so we should be prepared to occupy it for the next 20-40years as we did with Japan and Germany.
Unfortunately what will be the talk around my office is how unfortunate that these hackers can be so "anti-american".
I'm not against a war,but I don't think highly of the way we have started it. Let's just be clear why we are there.
How is it that people so often assume that brutally attacking and killing people is likely to make them less pissed off?
My site: Free Nature Pictures
How is it that people so often assume that brutally attacking and killing people is likely to make them less pissed off?
Who said anything about that? Im talkign about Egypt, Syria, other countries we know are up to their ears in terrorist activities, and who would benefit from a successful strike against the US.
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
All this does is make rogue superpowers / global leaders / world polic states / whatever look bad. It will not convert terrorists. It will just piss them off.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Not coincidence, but not proof of support either, if there were any solid evidence, why it was not presented at the UN?
Intead there were some rumors about a lider having surgical operation in Irak.
Bin ladden had surgical operation in Kuwait a month before the 11 sept attacks...
We could also see some coincidence as the Bush Family having bussines with Bin Laden,s family...?
>>THere is little doubt that he has ties to the terrorist activities of the last several
>>years, at least in those who actually read the press, and dont necessarily swallow the
>>leftist jargon hook, line, and sinker.
REAL Americans swallow BUSH'S probaganda hook, line, and sinker.
My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
"Dude.. 45 countries have supported us. thats three TIMES the number who would have had to vote positive in the UN. Of those who dont, only a handful really matter. get the facts straight. (And realize several of them are the neighboring states..w hich brings us to... )"
uhmmm I supose Canada an Mexico do not matter.
Here President Fox had a hard time deciding what to do.
By polls 75% of the populations opose the war.
All the poilitical parties oposed the war.
The congress oposed the war.
The Senate oposed the war.
Then press oposed the war
But the Canacintra (The coalition of bussines men) insist to suport USA because they fear of the economic penalties that have been warned to Mexico by the embassy of US. (The insist they were against the war, but that economic realities were more important)
Finally he decided to do what democratic contry should do... altiugh eventually Mexico did not have to cast a vote, it was no secret what it was.
So i guess that country smaller than Mexico have to face the economic realities...
Bye the way. In Japan, 70% opose the war, Spain, 69% opose, Of UK I am not shure..
>>Never said he was responsible.. but he is most definately involved. I have already cited the proof.
Have you now...
>>Personally, i think the human rights violations _alone_ justify what we are doing.
You know, I saw a report(can't remember whose it was, might be UN human rights people) of human rights ratings in various countries. There were 7 countries worse than Iraq, including Columbia, Algeria, Syria, Indonesia, and North Korea.
>>So the fact that his "special military" have been beheading women on the street suspected
>>of prostitution with swords (the beheading, not the prostitution) is not a sign of an islamic
>>crackpot?
If you listen to Saddam talking, you hear him say the rivers will run red with blood, we will crush the imperialist pig-dogs, blah blah blah. Note, however, he does not say "death to America, Allah is great."
My joke got modded as Insightful and my insight got modded as Funny.
Yes, I can see that. And what I'm talking about is, how does making war against an islamic nation make the muslims less likely to attack the US, exactly? The primary terrorist threat comes from extremists, not the mainstream of any particular country or government. The idea that violence acts as a deterrant to further violence is simply flawed. Violence begets violence, terror begets terror, war begets war. Fighting for peace is like fsking for chastity.
War increases the probability of terrorist attack from people pissed off about the war. That's what I'm saying. The message this sends to governments is not "don't engage in terrorist activity," but rather, "don't you dare defy us or attempt to oppose our will, or else."
My site: Free Nature Pictures
You want to know why you're at war? Here's the link: http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsrepo rts.htm
Go there and download the "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century," report.
Note that it's dated 2000. Note that it was written or backed by a number of people now influential in the Bush administration. Note that it calls for invading Iraq, Iran, North Korea, and possibly others, as well as greatly expanding the number and coverage of US military bases. Note at one point the open wish that some "Pearl harbor type" event would at some point take place to furnish the political will necessary to embark on this course. Honestly, we protestor types don't have to find dissidents or conspiracy theories any more. We can just take the frightening facts from government figures' own webpages.
Rufus Polson
finally got himself a login
Oh, please....
Most of the countries supported U.S. on this war only for political / economical reasons. In my country (Chile) there was a long debate if the decission of voting against the war should not hurt the economic arrangements with U.S.A. and, in fact, mos of the people were surprised that our government voted against it, even when noone here supported the war.
Frankly, now that it's on, I'm hoping the warhawks are right and the Iraqis will surrender peacefully after they're done pissing their pants. And then I'm hoping they will make good on their pledges to help create and sustain a democratic Iraq. But I don't trust any of these people as far as I can throw them. They have demonstrably lied to the American public over and over again, many in the current administration have been lying to us since Vietnam. A couple of them are convicted criminals who lied to Congress during Iran/Contra!
*Sigh* There may be a justification for a war against Iraq, but not for a war led by Bush & Co.
Yes, I can see that. And what I'm talking about is, how does making war against an islamic nation make the muslims less likely to attack the US, exactly? The primary terrorist threat comes from extremists, not the mainstream of any particular country or government. The idea that violence acts as a deterrant to further violence is simply flawed. Violence begets violence, terror begets terror, war begets war. Fighting for peace is like fsking for chastity
Just as illogical is saying that doing nothign will make them stop. They were unprovoked (as in militarily) attacks. These people are attacking us based out of a religious belief.. and they will keep doing it. The American "now now bigger faster better" way of life has made most americans not realize that terrorists will wait YEARS to make an attack. They are very patient people.
But Doing Nothing is just as bad as attacking, if not worse. At least through attacking we run the chance of making someone think twice.
and I personally, dont think "dont defy us or attempt to pose our will" is such a bad thing to broadcast. If you have the big stick, it is kind of pointless to whittle it to a toothpick!
maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
45 countries, right. and most of them are 3rd world countries hoping for a handout. i should know, i live in one of them (the Philippines)! every single person i've asked about the war thinks it's stupid, unnecessary, or possibly even illegal. but our president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo continues to support Bush all the way because she knows it'll get her ahead in the end, as almost all other neighboring countries in the area disagree with him.
It might look like I'm standing motionless, but I'm actively waiting for my problems to go away
If you listen to Saddam talking, you hear him say the rivers will run red with blood, we will crush the imperialist pig-dogs, blah blah blah. Note, however, he does not say "death to America, Allah is great."
After alldas.org and attrition.org took down their active defacement pages where are some current lists? I would like to see more of these for myself, I remember reading those daily long ago and saw many people use others pages for political speech.
But really, I just miss the script kiddie banter, im sorry I cant help it, it has always been my vice.
---- The real Slashdot is still here. You just have to browse at -1 to read the comments.
Trolling, and not well.
This is regurgitation of the current rants popular in some media channels. Not even well-considered.
Let's see: we, as a country with an obligation to many other countries, obtained a promise from a sovereign nation to stop doing what it was doing, which included murdering the people living inside that nation, attacking other nearby nations, and preparing weapons that include a weaponized version of a very potent carcinogen (as non-military as you can get - a weapon of sheer thuggery and malice).
Not saying we should have disregarded what our allies were saying, but we had a responsibility to act within a reasonable span of time. Our allies initially agreed with us, then grew reluctant to do anything but wait for some magical reversal of nature on the part of a dictator. Wasn't likely to happen based on the world's experience with him.
I'll stop troll-feeding now. Just had to get that out.
I doubt that. President Bush's approval rating has risen to 67%. He didn't even have a clear majority when elected.
But I agree with your sentiment that it is a dangerous precedent being set by current events. The whole thing reminds me about a scene in gladiator between Gaius and Gracchus: "I think he knows what Rome is. Rome is the mob. . ."
The war is going to cost at least $50 billion.
And the Dixie Chick retracted her statement about bush the very next day after she made it, because she's rather sell more albums that admit what she really believes.
Either that, or she never believed in the first place and she doesn't deserve any respect for speaking her mind.
Well, that's true, and would be a good argument for war if war and doing nothing were the only options. How about trying to address the issues which have pissed the muslims off in the first place (and yes, there are many legitimate issues, though of course they don't justify murder any more than Saddam's evil nature justifies murder)? How about trying to build a good relationship through dialogue and diplomacy? How about trying to convince them not to kill people by being reasonable and forthright and moderate, instead of by killing people?
and I personally, dont think "dont defy us or attempt to pose our will" is such a bad thing to broadcast. If you have the big stick, it is kind of pointless to whittle it to a toothpick!
Woah, I don't even know how to respond to this sort of thing. Sounds like a schoolyard bully attitude to me. If you have the big stick, does that justify gong around hitting people with it? Does might make right? Does "submit to us or else" sound like the message broadcast by a reasonable, benevolent, and peace-loving nation?
Yeah, let's kick 'em while they're down, and make everyone fear us. That will ensure peace and justice in the world for sure!
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Glad to see the REAL reason for WAR. OIL. France and Germany have Contracts with Saddam for significant percentages of oil , while the US have NOTHING!. Saddam is indeed a dictator but is not the only nor worst dictator out there. Why aren't the United states after others? As for weapons of mass destruction, well the inspectors could not find them , and so far they have not been used , so it is safe to assume the he does not have any. Still, the US govmt persists that he does. Concerning the terrorist connections of Saddam, well no proof has been found and furthermore Iraq NEVER had any link to terrorism. So the terrorist characteristic is attributed the Saddam just to make the "pill go down sweeter" for the US citizens.
I can't see ANY of US arguments concerning this war as real. Oil and geopolitical interests led the US into such a decision. (IF they wanted to have a firm grasp in the area, who would they target?)
The most important aspect of this war , however, is the US decision for unilateral action disregarding the importance of the UN. Anyone whith a small background in history (highscool stuff) would know WHY the UN was created and what it tried to avoid. Now that the UN has been "destroyed" , what is the future for relations between nations? Can anyone just take military action now? Society of Nations (i am translating from Greek so i may have the name wrong) was considered weak and was replaced by the UN. The reason for the replacement was that "Society of Nations" failed with Hitler and WWII. Being from Greece and looking at things from the non-US perspective i can say that the the US , by breaking International Law have implicitly declared that they are no longer bound by such Law s and can undertake action according to their heart's desire.
And a last observation that has me baffled. The people that travel thousands of miles to protect democracy are the same ones that won't even cross the street in order to vote. Sound's ironic doesn't it?
Slashdot Sig. version 0.1alpha. Use at your own risk.
spiegel.de is reporting one of the sites they got was the US National Security Agency's press server.
Yes my boy, I remember them Germans' Scientists defacing every British website they could find!
It was such a horrible sight...
not only did the US fail to take action against Pinochet, they um...created him in the first place. Just as they created Saddam.
---- oh no - it's the RIAA and their $100000000 fine. I'm gonna take that so seriously...
According to Internet Traffice Report [internettr...report.com], overall global traffic is down the last three days
You're mistaken. The "global traffic index" on ITR is a measure of response time, not "overall global traffic" like you claim. The number is lower meaning that the global index is down, i.e. things are going more slowly. If you would have bothered to look at the 2 graphs below the graph you reference you would have noticed the global response time has gone up and packet loss almost doubled when the war began.
Try reading the relevant portion of the FAQ
Enigma
When it sent the Army to shoot and trample with horses starving, out-of-work World War One veterans and their familes camped out in a hooverville in Washington, D.C.? When they lied to us about the Gulf of Tonkin incident? When they used unwitting military personnel for secret LSD experiments, leaving them with permanent brain damage?
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
...they get ignored. Sick ex-soldiers can't win wars or political popularity polls or elections. they'll spend millions of dollars to make humans into basically what passes for our current tech level cyborg war machines, then they might think about spending perhaps dozens of dollars or less once those machines aren't useful any longer. The nam vets were ignored,a lot of MIAs left to rot, the gulf war one vets were ignored, korean vets captured by the chinese were written off, and even in WW2 a lot of MIA went to what was ostensibly our "ally" at the time stalin's gulags, factories and mines and elsewhere, never to return, forgotten about.
Even though it was barely a decade ago, there are very few gulf war vets in this new war. There's a reason for that, google to find out. they weren't classed as "combat injuries" because it wasn't shrapnel or a bullet, but there were a lot of them, and quite a few aren't with us any more. For years as they laid in beds barfing their guts out and slowly fading they were told it was "psychological".
All that dust on the way to baghdad these guys are breathing now? Still full of radioactive particles from gulf war one and the DU rounds used. All those guys gonna get sick too, just watch, and uncle sugah will write them off, tissue paper humans to them, because they can always rah rah rah another large batch of them, especially when they tank the economy for the upper levels in the multinationals, and for thousands of young guys in podunk USA that reality becomes those seductive "service for your government" commercials that are pushed as "sign up bonus, guaranteed checks, paid for schooling, plus neato FPS video games" ads on the TV..
Couple months ago, bush signed a law severely limiting medical aid to vets 65 and older, right when they might really be needing it. That didn't get even a fraction of one percent of one days current "war" coverage, even though it was fairly important "news", but you see news like that isn't sexy and bloody and exciting whizzbang stuff. just like dragging out all that old news about who really set up and profited from saddam in the first place, where his WMD came from., the real names, the real bosses, the real companies involved. Ya, some french, some german, some this some that, but the bio stuff he's got came from new jersey, and the chems came from various places around the US. the reason why we know he's got WMD? Saw it written as a joke but it's true-we kept the receipts.
Rewarding the high level guys who cause the problems in the first place by electing them to office and allowing them to stay as top dogs in corporations and not sending them to prison instead is the same thing as hiring burglars and rapists and murders to be cops, firemen and EMT guys-you don't do that on a small scale, but for some reason in the US right now a lot of people seem to think it's OK to do that on a very large scale, just "forget about all that embarassing stuff in the past".
They spend the million bucks a soldier, yep. The reasons are they can make more money with less resources that way, the soldier part is just a piece of the machine, they are expendable and upgradeable in the next war.
It don't never change man. It's the bang for the buck. Notice the bang part and the buck part got nothing to do with that part in the middle,it's not even mentioned in that old phrase,there's no word in the phrase for it, the "human" part, that part is still cheap, always been cheap.
Thanks. I'm an idoit.
That makes much more sense. My mistaken reading of it was quite a surprise to me.
Help disrupt CNN! http://nowar.julez-edward.be refreshes CNN every 10 seconds., they're up to 242 hits per minute!
This has got to be the most intelligent Slashdot post I've ever read on this topic.
Everybody knows hackers don't live in real life anyway, so why should weapons of mass destruction, 12 years of negotiation and mass murders influence their reality? Kinda like most Hollywood stars...
You need a FREE iPod Nano
fuck yeah, I'll be back out in the streets tomorrow. NET STRIKE ON CNN PROTEST SWARMS
A blog about stuff.
For example, my Mom sent me a link to www.iraqinews.com, run by a local student. He was compiling information that was *not* just the sanitized stuff put out by the US government.
By the time I got to it, it was gone.
Then today, it was reporting that it had undergone a DOS attack, and would be back up as soon as they could shake free.
I think that it really is a weapons STRIKE, not TEST. It's too bad, really, because I think that we are going to win this war, and I see no reason for truth to be a casualty. Oh well.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
There's a lot of good reasons Vietnam protestors weren't dismissed as quickly as these protestors. The biggest one is probably the duration and deadliness of the war; if the current war in Iraq drags on for the next three years, with thousands of soldiers being killed, you can bet that the American public's support for the war will significantly decrease. Similarly, if you had told people in the 1960s that the Vietnam war could be taken care of in 6 months with fewer than 1,000 casualties, support for it would likely have increased significantly.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Hmm, I thought that's what the current Iraqi government was taking from them... (according to expat Iraqi's and the ones we've "liberated" so far) ... oh wait, those are all "corporate media plants" arent they...
found these pages useful:
Iraq News - http://www.HavenWorks.com/world/iraq
& Search Iraq new
http://www.fuckfrance.com/
http://www.boycottf
http://www.frogweenies.com/
http://ww
http://www.fuckfrance.com/n ce.com/f rancesucks.com/
http://www.boycottfra
http://www.frogweenies.com/
http://www.
Then today, it was reporting that it had undergone a DOS attack, and would be back up as soon as they could shake free.
That's gotta be embarrasing when someone using a *really* old MS OS can attack your website and tear it down.
Or did I read that wrong? ;)
Like what I said? You might like my music
These website defacements aren't about protesting the war. They're about feeding the ego, to find any excuse to justify the FUN of defacing a website without having the bear the moral consequences. Truth is, these script kiddies would probably have done the same thing no matter what the controversial topic at hand was.
eTrade SUCKS
it's clear to me why america is rushing into a war with iraq. some strategist made president bush aware that their economy is very dependant on oil. the future of the economy is pretty bleak, and more us citizens will be unemployed and hence unhappy with their government. being a net importer of this comodity, they need to secure future supply.
... laws were adjusted to deny locals a livlihood, forcing them to seek employment in the mines.)
... apparently their people and intellectuals are not happy with the royal family. most of the 911 terrorists are from this country. they currently support the americans by allowing us to use their territory to launch attacks on iraq. i wouldn't be supprised if they were next.
... but they are not poor. also, who's to say that they will be pleased with the system that us and it's allies will impose on iraq. terrorism may be better tackled by addressing poverty in pakistan and indonesia.
iraq on the other hand, is an exporter of oil, had no issues with deficits if their economy is well run . With the oil reserves that they posess, they essentially are in a very secure position. however, this kind of wealth in the wrong hands is a scary affair. iraq with this secure source of wealth has the potential to be a great military threat. that said, if iraq is disarming, as they seem to be, this is not an issue.
given that usa is so dependant on oil, as a nation, they can be likened to a drug addict dependant on their drugs. so much so, that any economist can theorize that in a few years, usa, as an economy will spend much of their productivity on importing oil. it is very important to them that oil is kept very cheap.
so, iraq has something that usa needs. america need access to iraqi oil but iraq don't need any american product or service as much. also, iraqis and americans are not friendly with each other. americans also don't want to enrich iraqi leaders. and, it seems their plan to rectify this lack of balance is to create a need for the americans within iraq.
well, for one, america are creating a perception that democracy is needed in iraq. america plan on exporting this. nooone can prove that an average iraqui's quality of life will improve significantly inder a democratic dispensation. also, there are many countries that get along well without democracy, including iraq's saudi neighbours. they also will create a need for their expertise in creating infrastructure and government systems. this need will easily be achieved by destroying the existing infrastructure and systems. (south africa has seen this technique applied when the mining industry needed cheap labour
america and their allies will sell this to the iraquis who will need to export oil to provide for this. this will help increase the supply, helping to keep prices lower.
proof of america's oil interest can be seen in venesuela, where soon after a coup, america went on air to say they accepted the new government. but the old and current government was democratically elected. so why this inconsistancy ? well, venesuela is a member of opec, an organisation that for the most part reduces the ammount of oil produced : this reduces supply and keeps oil prices up. so, the leaders of the coup may have gained favour of the us by promising to increase oil production.
so, the supply from iraq will be secure when they have control of the country. but, oil is a finite resource. i hope that by the time america finishes it's exploitation of iraqi oil, their dependancy on oil would have reduced. otherwise, some other nation will be labled as a terrorist supported and the same treatment will be applied. it's unlikely though, that their dependancy would reduce as a cheap source over many years will only increase the dependancy.
saudi arabia is not a democracy
britan it seems is a foolish follower in this scheme. somehow, the leaders of this country were duped into thinking that it is in their best interest to support this attack. they are an exporter of oil and can only benefit if iraq supplies little oil. also the idea that terrorists will breed in iraq is laughable: poverty and anger at the system is a main reason for terrorism. iraquis may not like their system
What's wrong with Fox news? It appears to be the only outlet providing both conservative and liberal opinions.
You just answered your own question. As far as the left leaners are concerned, anything smacking of "world news" Is simply Bush propaganda. They prefer to watch the pablum that is sanitized to make them feel justified in their wrath.
(This is why I tend to read BBC _first_ and read US news second..)
Maeryk
Feminine Protection? What is that? A chartreuse flame thrower?
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
Saddam must of been a huge donkey pr0n consumer, this is the only rational explantation.
Donkey Pron, I remember that game! That's the one with the little fat naked Italian running around the construction site trying to rescue his ape from a giant woman throwing barrels at him, right? Wasn't it originally supposed to be called Monkey Pron, but the first 100 machines got mislabelled?
Like what I said? You might like my music
/Mikael
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
HEAR ME OUT I'm not saying that we should all just hold hands and give peace a chance. I'm saying that this time there could have been other options, and that as charter members of the UN, we've just done something stupid, glabally speaking, which will affect our shot at diplomacy for years to come. I support our troops. I do not support this war.
"I'd say 'Have a good time,' but arson is still illegal.
Besides, even if that were true, you cannot invade another nation because they will 'probably' attack. You just can't, and maintain any sort of moral high ground at all. Tell me, when North Korea invades the South for suspected terrorist weapons, what will we say?
Actually, it's a different world than it used to be. If a country's first attack will wipe out half your population and leave the other half glowing in the dark, wouldn't it be wise to invade them first?
Now, before you get off on this, I don't know that Iraq has that capability, or that they will ever have it. I can't say this threat is justification for going into Iraq *now*, but I can say that in a general situation, it is justification when the target nation actually has that capability.
Now, this is where the matter gets muddy and everyone wants proof. If you wait until the nation has the capability to do your first strike, then you risk them doing their first strike anyway. While you go in with so-called conventional weapons, they hit up your continent with nukes. So you have to get them before they have the weapons in the first place.
With that basic understanding (at least, that's what dubya's been spilling, and I agree with the reasoning), now you need to prove that the nation in question (Iraq) is attempting to acquire these weapons.
That being where we stand with Iraq, and leaving the debate for a moment, how about the other nations? You didn't mention this, but others in the thread have, so I'll mention it and talk about it. :)
North Korea has nukes. But it's not quite so simple. If we go into North Korea, we can expect China to retaliate. OTOH, if we have China's backing, we can expect them to go in with us. We may not want to, since we'll be trying not to hit civilians, and they only know how to shoot civilians.
India and Pakistan both have nukes. In my opinion, they both need to be disarmed. India's easy enough, just quit sending them food. ;) Pakistan should be easy enough as well. I don't know the full political implications there, though. I suspect there would be a lot of trouble if we started targetting India, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were terrorist groups in India practicing. There's some pretty remote areas there. Of course, so far as I know the Indian government wouldn't support them (it *is* against their religion, theoretically). Anyway, India is always a tricky political situation. On the one hand we send them food, and in return they bash the shit out of us everytime we open our mouths. Pakistan might be easier politically, but probably won't be easier than Iraq was.
Iran is known to have chemical weapons, or once had them anyway. So far as I know they haven't sponsored any terrorism for awhile.
And there's still a certain situation in Israel to deal with. Plenty of people are mentioning Israel having more UN resolutions against them and so forth. now, I don't feel like arguing about why Israel was created in the first place (doesn't make sense to go build your house knowing your neighbors want to slaughter you, but hey, I wasn't there). However, for them it's a matter of survival. Worry about the UN resolutions? Hm, should I comply with this document, or LIVE. That's why Israel is such a tricky problem for us, we want them to live, but their neighbors don't. Sooner or later, though, we'll go in and try to stabilize the area immediately aroud Israel in the name of terrorism. There's always some sort of terrorist attack in Israel from one of their neighbors, that won't be too hard to justify in relation to how we're already justifying shit.
Point is, you can't solve all of your problems at once. You have to take them one at a time.
Anyways, keep in mind that I haven't expressed any opinions, just trying to point out some stuff that keep falling through the cracks. Hope it helps! :)
Like what I said? You might like my music
Does "submit to us or else" sound like the message broadcast by a reasonable, benevolent, and peace-loving nation?
In the studies of American history that I got at the hand of public school I had to take on faith that we are a reasonable, benevolent, and peace-loving nation. The only times in our history that can be said to be peace-loving was when our foreign policy was "isolationist", and that policy is cited as a contributing factor to two world wars.
I still have to take it on faith. Too bad I don't take anything on faith.
Like what I said? You might like my music
In Soviet Russia, BUSH'S propaganda swallows YOU.
Like what I said? You might like my music
I have an idea, let's found a nation on the principles of being unreasonable, malevolent, and war-loving! That should be a hoot!
My site: Free Nature Pictures
I favor the formation of a coalition of the willing to carry out a regime change.
Military force, however, should only be used as a last resort.
give me a
I agree...and I thought we were past that point in American history where we blindly trusted our representatives to do the right thing in our best interest. I thought the time was passed when we trusted the arrogant "Trust us, we know things that you don't" rhettoric. It seems as though people have forgotten about Watergate. It seems as though people have forgotten about decades of systematic FBI surveilence of innocent citizens for political gain. It seems as though people have forgotten the backroom deals and country road politics that got Bush in office in the first place.
Frankly, the only thing that will help us save face in this case, is if we actually do find banned weapons in Iraq, and a lot of them.
http://www.JournalOfTheRandom.com
had undergone a DOS attack
How do they know it wasn't just high traffic? If even your mom is forwarding the link, then it seems likely that the link was getting passed around to a lot of people.
I just wanted to say that I <3 Gentoo!! Try it now! =D =D =D
Even in the countries that officialy support us, the populace is almost unamiously against the war. I for one think the people's voice is more important than their government's.
Little Brother, watching the watchers
So, are you actually saying that being reasonable, benevolent, and peace-loving are bad things?
No, I'm saying that our country is none of these.
Like what I said? You might like my music
It isn't because they have weapons of mass destruction, North Korea has more in that catagory, and we're trying "diplomatic means" to deal with them. It isn't because of Saddam's human rights record, or we'd be at war with China, not granting them favoured trade status.
This assumes that every situation should be dealt with in the exact same way. Which, of course, is ludicrous.
It isn't because the inspections were failing, the inspectors themselves thought the process was working, and shouldn't they know?
Well, since Hans Blix is quoted as saying that if the Iraqis are using SCUDs, then they are in clear violation of the UN mandates and that the Iraqis said they didn't HAVE any SCUDs, if anything, there is already evidence that the inspections were not working. The inspectors, apparently, were taking the Iraqi regime at their word on at least some things. Incidentally, the inspectors were NEVER supposed to have to seek out any weapons. The Iraqis were supposed to give them an accurate inventory and take them to the sites so that the inspectors could verify their disposal. Iraq had not complied with this in 12 years. The inspections, by definition, were not working. Regardless of what the inspectors said.
Since when does speculation build the foundation for unilateral military action?
Does EVERYONE need an english refresher class? Unilateral would be if the only nation involved in the action was the US. That is not the case. If even one other country (but there are many more) were involved, it could not, by definition, be classified as a unilateral action. Which brings me to an even bigger gripe that I have. What's with the people that oppose the action unless it's backed by the UN? Either the war is correct or it is incorrect. It shouldn't matter whether the UN approves or disapproves. The UN would have disapproved of the action in Bosnia, but no one was pointing out that we didn't have "international support." If the UN passed a resolution authorizing sinking Australia into the sea, would these people support it? Sheesh, people, get a brain of your own!
The only country in the worlds where the population is supporting the war is USA, and that's because of the propaganda in mainstream media (the same people who support the war, also believe that it was Saddam Hussein who organized 9/11, which is clearly a nonsense).
Speaking of propaganda - hello, pot, this is kettle, you're black. While there may be those that believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11 (though there may be some confusion between 9/11 and the first WTC bombing, for which there is ample evidence connecting it with Saddam Hussein), I doubt they number any more than the anti-war protesters that don't have a clue about what's going on either. I, personally, and for several different reasons, support the current military action. Saddam Hussein having a connection to 9/11 is NOT one of them. I don't even think there's sufficient evidence to connect Hussein to Al Queada to even mention said supposed link. So, to say that the only people that support the continuation of hostilities (from '91) are people that believe that Saddam sent the planes to the WTC is as much propaganda as anything being broadcast on Fox News Channel, if not more.
Iraq is a secular country, and Saddam Hussein is certainly not an islamic crackpot.
He's certainly gone out of his way to portray himself as such in recent months.
That is absolutely correct. This is technically not unilateral because of the 45 or so nations who have come on board.
However, in every sense *other* than purely technical, I think this is (and many see it as) a unilateral military action. That's because even if every single one of these 45 nations had stood against the US, it would not have changed a single thing. The decision to go to war was made regardless of the participation of other nations, and even the UK, which in my understanding is the only other nation contributing forces to the war, was on the brink of saying no to this war right up until the day it started. Had the UK voted the other way, would it have kept the US from attacking? According to everything we've heard coming out of Washington, not a chance.
Unilateral and multilateral only matter with regard to their application to how policy is made. In this case, the policy was made unilaterally, and other nations came on board after the fact. They were convenient, but entirely unnecessary as far as the US was concerned. So while you are correct that by definition, this is a multilateral action, I think that in every sense that matters, the world will (correctly) view it as a US action.
As for why UN backing matters, I think many people feel that we're going to need the support of other nations to pursue our own global interests in the future. It's getting to be a much smaller world, and we can't afford to act as though the input of other powerful nations is meaningless or that our actions have no diplomatic consequences. Clearly the US can't tie themselves down to acting only at the discretion of the UN, but in all but the most dire of circumstances, global policy ought to be driven by the global community.
Not true. There are forces from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Australia at least. I think there are actually more, but those are the ones that I know of (See General Frank's press conference from yesterday).
As for why UN backing matters, I think many people feel that we're going to need the support of other nations to pursue our own global interests in the future. It's getting to be a much smaller world, and we can't afford to act as though the input of other powerful nations is meaningless or that our actions have no diplomatic consequences. Clearly the US can't tie themselves down to acting only at the discretion of the UN, but in all but the most dire of circumstances, global policy ought to be driven by the global community.
By the same token, US policy should not be held hostage by a single foreign power. France is the only permanent member of the Security Council that consistantly threatened a veto, even including a threat of veto of ANY resolution that authorized the use of force under ANY circumstances. By the reasoning of the French, the Iraqis could have launched a risen attack againt Saudi Arabia and they would still have vetoed a resolution authorizing the use of force. The Russians, Germans, and Chinese all had at one point or another said that they would have abstained from such a vote rather than vetoed (granted they wavered back and forth on the issue). The French are really what was keeping this from passing the SC. It is clear that the US had made the decision that regime change was necessary for the disarmament of Iraq. The only options that France left open would have left Hussein in power. Spain and the UK were of like mind with the US. The UN security council is an incredibly ineffective body. it has had over 200 resolutions vetoed since the 1960s. If France were to invade all of her neighbors and sink Europe into a nuclear winter, a resolution to invoke force to stop her would never pass due to France's position as a permanent member of the SC. Of course, the same goes for all other members of the SC. The idea that the SC represents the will of the international community is laughable. And now, it has proven itself to be ineffective as well.
Not true. There are forces from the Netherlands, Denmark, and Australia at least. I think there are actually more, but those are the ones that I know of (See General Frank's press conference from yesterday).
Again, you are correct. There are several other nations participating in combat based on that. However, ask yourself if US action was every really contingent upon their cooperation. Even though they did come on board, and they did commit troops, it is still only a matter of convenience as far as US policy-making is concerned. The decision to go to war was not made collectively with these nations, they just happened to support the decision after it was made.
By the same token, US policy should not be held hostage by a single foreign power. France is the only permanent member of the Security Council that consistantly threatened a veto, even including a threat of veto of ANY resolution that authorized the use of force under ANY circumstances. By the reasoning of the French, the Iraqis could have launched a risen attack againt Saudi Arabia and they would still have vetoed a resolution authorizing the use of force.
The French threat of veto was not quite that broad, in my opinion. Yes, they did say they would veto any resolution that authorized the use of force against Iraq, but they said that in the context of a US push to begin operations immediately. Even before the US decided not to pursue a UN vote, France was pushing a longer timeline (3 months) that would ultimately end in the use of force if Iraq failed to comply. France did come off sounding stubborn, but only because they felt that they were defending the popular position and because the US was being equally stubborn in its push to go to war.
The UN security council is an incredibly ineffective body. it has had over 200 resolutions vetoed since the 1960s.
You could use the same argument to say that US lawmaking is inefficient because the president holds veto power and uses it at will. This veto power is important, because it (ideally) forces a nation like the US to make an overwhelming case for the invasion of a country like Iraq. Had the US been able to put rock-solid evidence on the table, France would have had little choice but to agree to a new resolution (or face significant diplomatic pressure in the future). They were only able to wield their veto power so effectively because to most of the world, they seemed justified in doing it based on the available evidence. Just like the US system, veto power may unfortunately lead to inaction in some cases, but its contributions in checking the legislative (or resolution-building, in the UN case) process is so important that it outweighs.
If France were to invade all of her neighbors and sink Europe into a nuclear winter, a resolution to invoke force to stop her would never pass due to France's position as a permanent member of the SC.
The permanent members of the security council are permanent members because they are stable, responsible nations that generally have little to gain by doing something as destabilizing as invading Europe. However, if for some reason that were to occur, I'm comfortable that the security council (which would be crippled at that point anyway) would adjust appropriately, if for no other reason than the fact that other global agreements (NATO, for example) would absolutely demand the use of force in a situation like that.
The UN is frequently frustrating because it requires us to give up a piece of our sovereignty to the will of the global community. But we should consider that in the future, as the world becomes a smaller and smaller place, this type of international body may become more and more necessary, and we will undoubtably have to ask other nations to consider our needs when making their foreign policy. Often, individual US states experience this same frustration when being forced to yield to federal law which may not align with their own interests. That is the price we pay to have a unifying government for all fifty states.
Oh, well then, we are in total agreement. That's what I'm saying too. Sorry to get on your case like that.
My site: Free Nature Pictures
Oh great guru, I have seen the light! YOu are correct.. a man who gassed his own people, and practiced genocide against another, and has consistantly warred with his neighbors to the point of requiring coalition action should be allowed to reign unchecked.
I appreciate your sarcasm, but I think my point remains valid. We are not the international police and by acting as such we will only further complicate our weakening foreign relations
"we" cannot move against china. We dont have the manpower. Nor does the rest of Europe want to, due to close proximity and the chance of ass-kicking they would recieve. Of course, the way to stop it would be to bankrupt them by not buying their crappy products.. but good ole "Pro USA" Wal-Mart continues to sell crappy Chinese products at a much lower rate than comparable american products, meanwhile bemoaning the loss of jobs and manufacturing.
My vote is for good old fashioned isolationism. As Americans we have our silly little borders, let's guard them and solve the civil and economic problems here and now.
As for Iraq, China, and any other nation for that matter, let the leaders do as they will. I don't care to know the various attrocities that occur within their country. We are hardly free of sin ourselves. It is assinine to assume we can make other countries as "Civilized" as we are through military action, occupation, and forced democracy.
We should be watching from a distance, solving disputes between countries via the UN and casting a blind eye to anything that doesn't directly affect us.
I realize my beliefs may be considered inhumane, and I'm advocating allowing people to suffer. Yet won't their freedom taste all the sweeter when it is gained first hand rather than having it forced down their throat?
In the UK anti-war protesters have been defacing public building by spay-painting outlines resembling toy soliders.
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:15:45 GMT
Server: Apache/1.3.27 (Win32)
Connection: close
Transfer-Encoding: chunked
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
I doubt that. President Bush's approval rating has risen to 67% [fox21.com]. He didn't even have a clear majority when elected.
;)
I said "when all is said and done".. Not everything's been said and we're certainly not done
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
I read through the document, searching on terms "pearl harbor" and "korea" that you reference. You lied.
It does not wish for a "Pearl Harbor" type event, nor does it call for invading North Korea.
.signature: No such file or directory
Beers Steers and Queers
or this from Big Black;
Texas
This is Texas
This is redneck
This is Lone Star
This is wetback
I am Texas, I am Texas, I am Texas, I am Texas
This is Texas
This is badass
This is chain-gang
This is mustache
I am Texas, I am Texas, I am Texas, I am Texas
I am Texas, I am Texas, I am Texas, I am Texas
Didn't they sort of do that in Summer School?
I think one of the guys wrote a letter complaining that his sunglasses had broken, and I don't remember what the rest of 'em wrote about.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
You are transported to a room where you are faced by a wizard who
points to you and says, "Them's fighting words!" You immediately get
attacked by all sorts of denizens of the museum: there is a cobra
chewing on your leg, a troglodyte is bashing your brains out with a
gold nugget, a crocodile is removing large chunks of flesh from you, a
rhinoceros is goring you with his horn, a sabre-tooth cat is busy
trying to disembowel you, you are being trampled by a large mammoth, a
vampire is sucking you dry, a Tyranosaurus Rex is sinking his six inch
long fangs into various parts of your anatomy, a large bear is
dismembering your body, a gargoyle is bouncing up and down on your
head, a burly troll is tearing you limb from limb, several dire wolves
are making mince meat out of your torso, and the wizard is about to
transport you to the corner of Westwood and Broxton. Oh dear, you seem
to have gotten yourself killed, as well.
You scored 0 out of 250 possible points.
That gives you a ranking of junior beginning adventurer.
To achieve the next higher rating, you need to score 32 more points.
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...