Slashdot Mirror


Sysadmins Restore Iraqi ISP

Hen3ry writes "Brian McWilliams of Wired News reports on the dedicated staff of Iraq's State Company for Internet Services, or SCIS, and how they built, maintained, and rebuilt Internet access before, during, and after the war. Ba'ath Party loyalists still run SCIS but their dedicated employees continue to press on. Fascinating stuff about how one sysadmin managed to keep the country online up until a US missle struck the roof of the Ministry of Information building."

142 of 210 comments (clear)

  1. Why'd they do that? by zedmelon · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Formerly the official homepage of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's regime, the site has been scrubbed clean of any traces of the fallen dictator..."

    Why'd they do that? Saddam will only wind up beheading the sysadmins who did it when he gets back from Wal-Mart, picking up this week's armament.

    --
    Mom says my .sig can beat up your .sig.
    1. Re:Why'd they do that? by Whyrph · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why'd they do that? Saddam will only wind up beheading the sysadmins who did it when he gets back from Wal-Mart, picking up this week's armament.

      But Saddam's in Montreal, remember? Drinking martini's and laughing his arse off. Not in Good Old God Forsaken Family Values Walmart Censored America.

    2. Re:Why'd they do that? by zedmelon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hey, you gotta RELAX, guy! I'm not here to cause any trouble. I don't have any bombs; just relax!

      --
      Mom says my .sig can beat up your .sig.
    3. Re:Why'd they do that? by Spruitje · · Score: 3, Insightful


      But Saddam's in Montreal, remember? Drinking martini's and laughing his arse off. Not in Good Old God Forsaken Family Values Walmart Censored America.


      Yeah, and he just got his holiday payment from the CIA.
      Wouldn't suprise me.

    4. Re:Why'd they do that? by switched4OSX · · Score: 1

      But Saddam's in Montreal, remember?
      God, he is as stupid as I thought. I had as much money piled away as he did I would surely by my own tropical island or something.

    5. Re:Why'd they do that? by qqtortqq · · Score: 4, Funny

      I work at an airport, and we have this one employee who is constantly calling the police department for one thing or another. One day she called the police and told them that Saddam was in the airport, buying a plane ticket. They came up and of course, refused to do anything about it, because it wasn't Saddam, so she called the FBI. They had to come out and take a statement from her and the police department. 3 weeks later, did the same thing because she saw Osama. So, maybe they are all in Indiana...

    6. Re:Why'd they do that? by Theolojin · · Score: 2, Funny

      "Formerly the official homepage of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's regime, the site has been scrubbed clean of any traces of the fallen dictator..."

      there is no evidence that saddam hussein exists. if he is in iraq, we should have found him by now! i demand an investigation. the war was about oil. saddam hussein was a distraction! there was no saddam hussein!

      --
      Life is short; think quickly.
    7. Re:Why'd they do that? by rikkards · · Score: 1

      Nah he applied for refugee status in Canada and is now living off our welfare. Course he moved to Montreal as he didn't want to go to Ontario cause then he would have to work for his welfare check.

      Wow a jab at both the federal and provincial government in one easy swoop.

    8. Re:Why'd they do that? by sedawkgrep · · Score: 1

      You're pretty funny...for a conkimus maximus.

      HJ

      --
      Is that a salami in my pants or am I just happy to be me?
    9. Re:Why'd they do that? by MainframeKiller · · Score: 1

      But Saddam's in Montreal, remember?

      Wait, I'm in Montreal, how come nobody told me of this?

      Calisse de tabarnak! Toujours le dernier a savoir!!!

      --
      http://www.club977.com/ - The 80's Channel!
      Your source for commercial free 80's music!
  2. yeah by Michael's+a+Jerk! · · Score: 3, Insightful

    pity about law and order.

    Great pirorities, guys.

    --

    I'm not Seth.

    1. Re:yeah by mrbrown1602 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Uh... if you actually read the article, this wasn't sanctioned or supported by the U.S. government, who is attempting to get law and order in Baghdad. These were just a couple of sysadmins who worked for the Hussein government who have been working (sucessfully) to get the state-run ISP back online.

    2. Re:yeah by sleeper0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      am i the only one reading between the lines here?

      "To keep the service running, SCIS engineers fended off denial-of-service attacks, domain hijackings and other foreign hacker intrusions, not to mention regular investigations from suspicious Iraqi government officials. "

      then later

      "According to Harif, the delay in bringing the Uruklink website back online is due to security concerns. While the site's content has been ready for weeks, he said technicians needed extra time to harden the underlying server software against electronic attacks."

      Didn't they probably have more trouble due to internet attacks before the fall rather than after? Also doesnt this quote seem odd, if you were explaining launching internet service you wouldnt say everything was ready to go to be turned on, except that you are still working on a big part of it.

      It seems to me the article is saying that someone else like the US government is delaying the return to service based on their monitoring equipment being installed. Or am i just being paranoid? Oh well, i supose thats what they call victor's rights.

    3. Re:yeah by Kegetys · · Score: 3, Funny

      At least it will make the geeks go back inside.

    4. Re:yeah by dreadnougat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Uruklink... hmmm... uruk... uruk hai...

      orcs = evil...

      It seems Bush was right!

    5. Re:yeah by rmm4pi8 · · Score: 1

      umm, content =/= security.

      --
      U.S. War Crimes blog. Email for free Mandriva support.
    6. Re:yeah by bj8rn · · Score: 3, Informative

      Uruk was the first major city in Sumer and the home of the legendary hero Gilgamesh. Gilgamesh built the city walls and the Eanna temple complex (dedicated to Ishtar, the goddess of love). There was a ziggurat in the temple complex - I wonder if the name Uruklink has anything to do with this, as the ziggurat was considered a link between Heaven and Earth.

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    7. Re:yeah by eyeye · · Score: 1

      Yet more proof that Saddam and his people ran the country better than the occupying forces are ;-)

      Of course...the US has been busy trying to get the oil flowing again, killing democracy protestors and trying to strip the population of guns.

      --
      Bush and Blair ate my sig!
    8. Re:yeah by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      Uruk was the first major city in Sumer and the home of the legendary hero Gilgamesh.

      Gilgamesh. I heard that once on Star Trek The Next Generation so it must be true. All I learned from ancient babylonian culture I learned from Star Trek.

    9. Re:yeah by bj8rn · · Score: 1

      Most things I know about ancient Babylonian culture I learned from Viktor Pelevin's "Generation P", so I'm better than you =^_^=

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    10. Re:yeah by Alphtoo · · Score: 1

      This stuff is really hard to call. What amazes me is that we left them a damn computer! What the hell were we thinking? We should have known better than that!

  3. The Iraqi Minister of Information says by rob-fu · · Score: 5, Funny

    "the ISP has not been restored, and its owners are committing suicide on the walls of Baghdad. I will take you there to show you. In ONE HOUR."

    1. Re:The Iraqi Minister of Information says by MeanMF · · Score: 3, Funny

      committing suicide on the walls of Baghdad

      ...on the FIREWALLS of Baghdad.

    2. Re:The Iraqi Minister of Information says by Mohammed+Al-Sahaf · · Score: 4, Funny

      The infidel american lies go deeper than that, my friend. They are not in Baghdad. They are not in control of any ISP. I tell you this. It is all a lie. They lie. It is a hollywood movie. You do not believe them. But let the American infidels bask in their illusion. We will welcome them with bullets and shoes.

      --
      Former Iraqi Information Minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf
  4. Hrmm by acehole · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought it was standard sysadmin practice to stop DOS missle attacks.

    --
    Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
    1. Re:Hrmm by cybercuzco · · Score: 1

      Nope, thats a hardware problem, not a software problem. Talk to mgmt about getting more robust computers

      --

  5. News flash by neirboj · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Fascinating stuff about how one sysadmin managed to keep the country online up until a US missle struck the roof of the Ministry of Information building."

    More recent intelligence suggests that the explosion was actually the resulted of an SCIS server reacting violently to being /.'d. US military experts are now considering trying to harness the power of slashdot to use as a weapon against terrorists.

  6. Re:yeah (MOD parent UP) by zedmelon · · Score: 1
    To the only serious poster so far:

    You're absolutely right.

    --
    Mom says my .sig can beat up your .sig.
  7. 10,000 LB bombs really mess up ur Routers...etc. by atarione · · Score: 4, Funny

    ALL YOUR ISP are Belong to US. good stuff, hopefully they can stop the continued attacks on US forces and restore order in general, but it's nice that Iraqis will soon be able to surf for pr0n again.

    --
    actually I am happy to see you, however that is in fact a banana in my pocket.
  8. I know what happened! by mnewton32 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Fascinating stuff about how one sysadmin managed to keep the country online up until a US missle struck the roof of the Ministry of Information building.

    The RIAA must have found out they were pirating music...
    (come on, it was either that or a Bill Gates finding out about a Linux server)

    1. Re:I know what happened! by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I think you mean Orin Hatch, not the RIAA ...

  9. Good TLD... by evilviper · · Score: 1, Funny

    I don't know about anyone else, but I want to find out how I can get a ".iq" domain...

    If credit cards aren't accepted, I'm sure I could find a camel to trade, somewhere around here.

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    1. Re: Good TLD... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Funny


      > I don't know about anyone else, but I want to find out how I can get a ".iq" domain...

      I heard that "low.iq" can be had at a bargain price.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    2. Re: Good TLD... by ReTay · · Score: 1

      Until the Church of the sub genius hears about it.
      Heh

    3. Re: Good TLD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      I heard that "low.iq" can be had at a bargain price.

      I don't understand.

    4. Re: Good TLD... by red+floyd · · Score: 1

      You need more slack.

      --
      The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
    5. Re:Good TLD... by Alphtoo · · Score: 1

      Hell, I GOT a Camel... you got a light?

  10. How did they get the gear? by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I read the article and it said they did go around the UN embargo to get the equipment, but my question is who sold them the gear?

    I'm not trying to troll or anything, I'm really interested in this paradox.

    There were embargos put on Iraq following the war from the UN.

    Everyone violates the embargos.

    US goes around the UN.

    Everyone bitches about the US.

    No one bitches about the people who broke the UN embargo and thumbed thier noses at International Law.

    1. Re:How did they get the gear? by DrMrLordX · · Score: 1

      China, maybe? They sold the Iraqis all kinds of interesting guidance systems for their AA batteries/launchers.

    2. Re:How did they get the gear? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Living in an embargo'd country doesn't mean you can't get restricted stuff. It only means it costs more. Embargo'd countries are a seller's market.

      Same goes for illegal stuff.

    3. Re:How did they get the gear? by zakezuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      .... my question is who sold them the gear?

      I'm not trying to troll or anything, I'm really interested in this paradox


      While many nations did partisipate in a trade embargo, some nations did not.

      While I know jack squat about computer gear... there was alot of flack flying around about american ciggerettes making into iraq hands.

      [http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid =4 708]
      U.S. can't knowingly sell them in the Iraqi market -- either directly or through intermediaries -- unless they obtain a license from the U.S. government.

      It's no paradox at all. Assuming the goods were made in America they either had a license to sell to iraq, which is easy enough to believe. Alternativly good could be purchaced by nations neighboring and on good terms with iraq and taking into iraq borders.

      While computers are something listed as being a dual use item, as in could possibly be used as making weapons, the embargo in theory restricted their access. But it's not like Iraq didn't have free trade agreements with it's neighbors to import them. According to this bbc artical anyway... [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1959 481.stm]

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    4. Re:How did they get the gear? by IdleLay · · Score: 2, Informative

      "No one bitches about the people who broke the UN embargo and thumbed thier noses at International Law." You might want to try and get your news some some other sources other FOX. Lot's of people bitched about it! Companies were prosecuted for these trades. Where is this "smonking guns"? People actually died during this war from both side.

    5. Re:How did they get the gear? by Imperator · · Score: 3, Insightful

      True, but people broke the embargo because they know that an embargo almost never works against a dictator. Think about Cuba or North Korea, for example. The leadership stays strong and rich while the poor suffer. Breaking an embargo (which you have no legal necessity to follow) is hardly the same as starting a war aimed at conquering a country. I applaud the countries that shipped food, medicine, and consumer goods to Iraq. Yes, some may have been skimmed off the top by the government, but it gave to a brutally repressed people what they were too terrified to claim on their own.

      And yes, I know that in the long run most Iraqis will be better off without Hussein. That doesn't mean the method and circumstances of his removal were wise or just.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    6. Re:How did they get the gear? by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Everyone bitches about the US.

      That's because the US is everybody's favorite punching bag. There is little interest in criticizing anyone else.

    7. Re:How did they get the gear? by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It isn't too hard to do. In overly simplistic terms -- Sadam sends his nephew's wife's cousin to drive over to Saudi or Syria or Turkey or wherever is convienent enough, he goes down to the local CompuUAE and picks up equipment just like any other local buyer, puts it in the back of his truck and drives back to Iraq. Maybe be bribes the outgoing border guards, maybe he just takes a route that is unguarded. Now the equipment has been officially smuggled into Iraq and is available for resale with an extreme mark-up, much of which goes to Sadam's coffers or the equipment goes straight into Sadam's own facility.

      That scenario holds true for pretty much any physical good and it happened all the time, helping to pay for all of those new-money gaudy palaces of Sadam's. Now, the data-lines? I dunno, was data even embargoed? I bet not, I bet the framers of the embargo didn't even know what data was, much less how to ban it.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    8. Re:How did they get the gear? by y0bhgu0d · · Score: 1

      hahaha.... CompUAE. brilliant :D

    9. Re:How did they get the gear? by delong · · Score: 1

      LOL! Oh yes, it was completely out of the kindness of their hearts. Never mind that the items being sold against the embargo benefited only the elite - the Baath party and Republican Guard - not ordinary Iraqis. Let's not mention the billions of dollars of oil being illicitly traded by the regime, an open secret, with the funds going to build billion dollar palaces and Mercedes for Republican Guard commanders.

      Breaking the embargo is worse than deposing the dictator, because it allowed the dictator to remain in power. Just like EU trade with Castro, or Chinese subsidies and trade with N. Korea, props up those regimes. Especially when military equipment is being sold to the regime immediately prior to the war. Just thinking of the little people. Or in the case of France and Russia, the billions in pre-negotiated oil contracts and former arms sales debt.

      Rest of the world=good
      US=bad

      Uh uh. The embargo was broken because there was a base interest to do so.

      Derek

    10. Re:How did they get the gear? by afidel · · Score: 1

      I believe Sadam's quote was that he would still be drinking Coke(TM) is 20 years. Basically if you were a top Bath party official you lived the life as elites do anywhere around the globe, if you were a middle class Iraqi you went from a fairly decent life to one of a third world subsistance existance. The problem is that this would have likely happened even without the embargo (probably to a lesser degree). Oil rich nations have some of the highest rates of destitute poverty of the developing or industrial world. Basically oil wealth is more of a curse then a great resource for the common people of those nations because it leads power hungry people to controll the resouce with an iron fist and enrich themselves and those who can keep them in power and enjoying the fruits of that "free" wealth.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    11. Re:How did they get the gear? by delong · · Score: 1

      Maybe it was the Chinese. They didn't have a problem breaking the embargo by contracting to lay miles of fiber optic cable for a state of the art air defense system in Iraq. Maybe they did a little side work for the Ministry of Information while they were in there, eh?

      Derek

    12. Re:How did they get the gear? by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

      China probably threw in a few routers along with the fiber optic communications systems they sold Saddam to link up his antiaircraft radars. The ones in the no-fly zone we kept bombing, during both the Clinton and Bush administrations.

      Really, it's not that difficult to break an embargo. We can't even keep illicit white powder out of this country. You can dramatically trim the quantity of goods traded but never stop all of them. (Especially when the target nation is friends with France.) Embargos against hostile regimes are just stopgaps until either there's an internal revolution or America decides to play Whack-a-Dictator.

      Here's hoping for an internal revolution in Iran.

    13. Re:How did they get the gear? by danila · · Score: 1

      Embrago doesn't mean you can't buy stuff, it means that noone (in the countries that support the embrago) can't sell you stuff. So Iraq is not violating any International laws.

      The US, on the other hand, did violate them in both the letter and the spirit. That's why everyone bitches about US.

      HTH.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    14. Re:How did they get the gear? by sogoodsofarsowhat · · Score: 1

      sorta like buying any illegal drug in the US.....sure its illegal but if people want it, people get it. Another fine lesson from the LAND OF REALITY!!!!

      --
      . I love the sound of burning women and screaming rubber....
    15. Re:How did they get the gear? by d3faultus3r · · Score: 1

      It was only certain items that people bothered to keep out of the country, ironically a lot of the stuff that was embargoed was medical. It was probably Syria or Jordan who sold them some of it. Probably Syria, since it was also ruled by the Baath party. I doubt that anyone thought that Iraq could turn a server and some modems into a weapon of mass destruction. Although you could use them as a guidance device.

      --
      read my blog
      musings on politics and technol
    16. Re:How did they get the gear? by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      Just because something is illegal doesn't mean you still can't get it. Cocaine is illegal in the US and there's still tons of it here. And the US border guards actually care about trying to stop it from coming in, something which I doubt the Iraqis did.

    17. Re:How did they get the gear? by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Partly that's because the sactions basically amounted to a weapon of mass destruction all by themselves; at least a million people died as a direct result of those sanctions...more than died in Hiroshima, iirc.
      Not only that, but very strange things found themselves on the 'restricted due to dual use' list...and do remember, the US killed more civilians in Iraq than died in the WTC attacks.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    18. Re:How did they get the gear? by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      If the US is so good, why does Halliburton have contract to build and exploit bases in Iraq for the next ten years? What is the US still doing in Iraq at all? Selfgovernance has to start somewhere and somewhen...

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    19. Re:How did they get the gear? by kinzillah · · Score: 1

      And had we destroyed their government and simply left without doing anything else, you would be complaining that we weren't helping the people. Why are we there? Because Iraq could use some food and some semblance of order while a new government is built. You don't go around deposing governments and then saying "Oh, hey... you guys, you there in Iraq... build a government. We'll just be on our way." The responsibility lies with us to pick up the slack until the government is in place and can fully take care of its citizens.

      --
      Douglas P. Price
    20. Re:How did they get the gear? by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      ""Oh, hey... you guys, you there in Iraq... build a government."

      Actually, that's exactly the way to do it; set up a provisional gevernment of natives of all the tribes, then set a deadline by which democratic elections should be held and then let that government sort out the country in the way it wants to be sorted out.

      What you don't do is set up a cabal led by a general with a quite shady reputation, who is part of a country that the afore mentioned government hates, then set up a string of military bases which will stay there indefinately and award all kinds of oil deals to your own companies...because then you have effectively turned that country into a vassal state.

      I mean, doesn't the US learn? It is the very fact that there are still US bases in Saudi Arabia which caused (or at the very least formed the rationale and the recruiting pitch) Bin Laden to plan 9-11.

      By staying where it's not wanted, the US is only breeding more terrorists.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    21. Re:How did they get the gear? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      Good thing we did that in Germany. Oh wait, although the military stayed there (in the democratic side) for almost 60 years, they were not running the country for any amount of time that I have heard of, and they'd been out of East Germany ever since the split. But we won't worry about little things like sovereignty when there are things like oil, I mean democracy, to worry about...

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    22. Re:How did they get the gear? by delong · · Score: 1

      Because Haliburton, specifically Kellog Brown & Root, has a LOGCAP contract with the military. It is a military outsourcer. As a result of Bush Sr. and Clinton's drawdowns on the military budgets and manpower, the military has taken advantage of private/public venture statutes enacted in the Reagan Administration to outsource menial tasks that are tangential to the military's prime mission of war fighting.

      Read:
      http://www.corpwatch.org/issues/PID.jsp?a rticleid= 6008

      We're still in Iraq because the job isn't finished yet, junior. It took Germany four years to stabilize and draw up a constitution after WWII. It took Japan a lot less time, because MacArthur wrote it for them and the country was relatively intact. A lot more so than Iraq, certainly. Countries don't magically rebound and go back to normal days or even months after being steamrolled. One of the principal stereotypes of US interventionism is the "fight and run". We do the fighting, and leave the mess to others to clean up. This stereotype isn't totally unwarranted, especially since the end of the Cold War. It certainly has been an allegation about Afghanistan, that we aren't "doing enough". Well, obviously, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

      Major fighting has been over for approximately 2 months. No reasonable person expects any sort of government to be functional in 2 months in a state that has been devoid of politics for 30 years, is shattered from decades of embargo and war, and still has armed elements of the former regime running around killing people. No one without an agenda, at least.

      Derek

    23. Re:How did they get the gear? by DarkAce911 · · Score: 1

      It called triple A. AAA Anti-Aircraft Artillery. What about some contract jobs for techies? We have many out of work techies who would love to go to Iraq.

  11. iq by dtfinch · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As soon as they're available, I suspect that a lot of people will want to register numeric .iq domains. 180.IQ will probably be the first to go.

    1. Re:iq by Imperator · · Score: 2, Funny

      Someone should get one of {0.iq, no.iq, negative.iq low.iq} and CNAME it to whitehouse.gov.

      --

      Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
    2. Re:iq by dissy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Unfortunatly since america controls the roots, .iq will not be added back globally untill we are on better terms than currently.
      Granted they can set it up and run their top level, but every ISP that runs their own name servers would need to add the cctld to their root hints to see it :/

      But, it looks like after checking, .iq is added back to the roots and pointing somewhere.

      % dig @a.root-servers.net. iq.

      iq. 2D IN NS NS2.MYNET.NET.
      iq. 2D IN NS NS1.MYNET.NET.

      FAITH.MYNET.NET 208.21.175.13
      JAGUAR.MYNET.NET 208.21.175.12

      As to what they may be serving, nic.iq (an RFC defined standard) doesnt work, so I dunno what to think...

    3. Re:iq by blop · · Score: 1

      There's some interesting info about the .iq domain on The Register.

  12. Is it just me? by pcgamez · · Score: 1

    ...or is the acronym too close to SCSI? I read therough the article and think "that made no sense whatsoever" so I go back just to notice it sais SCIS instead of SCSI.

    1. Re:Is it just me? by Sod75 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it's just you... :)

    2. Re:Is it just me? by pcgamez · · Score: 1

      Damn, yet another justification for me to go back on Ritalin

  13. Tomahawk DoS by mikeophile · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think this might be what Sen Hatch has in mind for copyright violators.

    1. Re:Tomahawk DoS by Basehart · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if "The Worm" thought those two Tomahawk missiles that slammed into the roof of the Information Ministry and took out their satellite dishes were a little hairy just wait until Sen. Hatch finds out about their "bootlegged software" and sets his Destructo Bots on their "black market hardware".

    2. Re:Tomahawk DoS by ReTay · · Score: 1

      Not that this hasn't been mentioned all ready but.. Wouldnâ(TM)t this be like attacking localhost?

  14. Na, The Iraqi Minister of Information says by cliveholloway · · Score: 4, Funny
    "Our servers were never down. We were just on the receiving end of what you in the West call a 'Slashdotting'. Throughout this time all of our servers were responding quite accurately with the Iraqi insult '500 Server Error'. I am no master of your heathen tongue, but believe the nearest translation is 'die American scum'. A message that I'm sure we will be repeating to you very shortly."

    .02

    cLive ;-)

    --
    -- Trinity in high heels carrying a whip: The donimatrix - there is no spoonerism
  15. Re:yeah (MOD parent UP) by DMDx86 · · Score: 1

    To parent poster: RTFA.
    US officals are NOT participating.

  16. Re:yeah (MOD parent UP) by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

    It seems telling that the first serious poster ends up being clueless and making no sense.

    I guess all we can handle is jokes and idiocy.

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  17. Alas, ... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...to survive all that and then be taken out by a slashdotting.

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  18. Not to treat the story seriously, or anything... by geekwench · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It would appear that the sysadmins literally poured blood, sweat, and tears into keeping the ISP up and running under Hussein. Not to mention going way above the "call of duty" to make certain that something of the equipment survived missle attacks, fires, and looting.
    The real point here is that contact with the outside world is an extremely valuable commodity to these people, and something that we in the Western nations take horribly for granted. Think of Iraqi expatriates in other parts of the globe who don't know if relatives are alive or dead. Or, in the interest of balancing out FoxNews' reporting, a hypothetical Iraqi blogger can now give the outside world a better picture of what's going on in the country. I think that this is a positive step towards rebuilding. Yes, it's an odd, sideways step, given the other needs. But when you consider just how much emotional investment the sysadmins had in this project, their priorities are entirely understandable.

    --
    Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
  19. firewalls by rf0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well they aren't that effective against a DDOS by missiles. Prehaps they need to upgrade :)

    Rus

  20. You never know by Digital+Dharma · · Score: 1

    Maybe they're paying that admin what he's worth now! --Sigless and clueless

    --
    End of Line.
    1. Re:You never know by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 1
      Maybe they're paying that admin what he's worth now!

      No, ATTFA the Americans have just promoted the Saddam Hussein loyalist who demoted Harif.

  21. To hell with their ISP by Chromodromic · · Score: 1

    Yeah, this is what's important in Iraq today: Connectivity.

    --
    Chr0m0Dr0m!C
  22. Re:yeah (MOD parent UP) by zedmelon · · Score: 1
    sorry; when I read the post by Michael's_A_Jerk, I must have missed the part when he said "US officials ARE participating." Moreover, as I RE-read it, I still can't find it.

    I was merely assuming (blindly) that MAJ wanted to say since anarchy and rioting is still the general rule in Iraq, maybe other things might be a bit more important than restoring Joe Iraqi's ability to check his Yahoo mail.

    But that's a ridiculous idea; I'm an idiot.

    --
    Mom says my .sig can beat up your .sig.
  23. Re:10,000 LB bombs really mess up ur Routers...etc by Sod75 · · Score: 1

    nah...
    "Unlike in the past, SCIS now allows customers to use online chat services, and doesn't block any Web destinations aside from pornography sites. "

    Sorry to ruin your joke...

  24. Re:Not to treat the story seriously, or anything.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    way to never turn down a chance to show your contempt for conservatives

  25. Re:Not to treat the story seriously, or anything.. by pnatural · · Score: 1, Troll

    in the interest of balancing out FoxNews' reporting

    So if you're the balance for Fox, who is the balance for CNN?

    You see, the success of Fox is directly tied to the rise of CNN and their particular flavor of the truth. Bemoan them all you want, but when you say that Fox needs a balance, instead of realizing that they are the balance, you come across like an idealogue.

  26. The pens mightier than the plowshare. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not so much electronic connectivity, but good old human communication. Iraq needs a free press among other things as well.

    1. Re:The pens mightier than the plowshare. by saforrest · · Score: 1

      Not so much electronic connectivity, but good old human communication. Iraq needs a free press among other things as well.

      Yes, it will be interesting to see how long it will be before the Americans permit a free press in Iraq.
      They are taking definite steps in that direction: the newspaper of the Iraqi Communist party has now resumed publishing openly for the first time in 24 years. (The Ba'ath party newspaper might take a while longer to come back. ;))

  27. Re:yeah (MOD parent UP) by Spyffe · · Score: 2, Insightful
    But that's a ridiculous idea; I'm an idiot.

    Well, at least you have the courage to admit it.

    So, how many sysadmins do you know that would be good riot cops?

    Sending US soldiers to put up fiber would be a little weird if crime is rampant; however, if a bunch of specialists want to do their part, let 'em - that's what your parent is saying.

    --
    Sigmentation fault - core dumped
  28. Re:Not to treat the story seriously, or anything.. by Imperator · · Score: 1
    But when you consider just how much emotional investment the sysadmins had in this project, their priorities are entirely understandable.
    Plus, what else are they going to do? I'm sure these sysadmins are glad to have real jobs where they do real work for real money. The Bush administration doesn't seem to have any more of an economic plan for Iraq than they do for the United States. Something like a third of Iraqis are unemployed and more are severely underemployed. Surely the Americans could have figured out in advance that with so many government employees in fake jobs, the destruction wreaked by war would cause a massive economic collapse. Oh right, but this is an administration that only thinks ahead when it comes to politics, but never policy.
    --

    Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
  29. Re:Not to treat the story seriously, or anything.. by Malcontent · · Score: 1

    " instead of realizing that they are the balance, you come across like an idealogue."

    Anybody who defends fox is by definition an idealogue.

    --

    War is necrophilia.

  30. Re:yeah (MOD parent UP) by zedmelon · · Score: 1
    Well, at least you have the courage to admit it.

    touche'

    So, how many sysadmins do you know that would be good riot cops?

    That's a very valid statement; I stand corrected. This is one sysadmin that won't be working anywhere near riots.

    Although if you offered

    unlimited Mountain Dew and

    dates with actual living girls,
    I'll bet you'd have plenty of volunteers from said sys admins.
    ;)

    I was only thinking--as I'm sure was Michael's_A_Jerk--that getting Internet working (sooner than cooperative civilization) is frivolous, bordering on insulting, but there's no rule dictating the sysadmin has to wait until the military has the important stuff done.

    Point taken. You're right.

    --
    Mom says my .sig can beat up your .sig.
  31. In search of a hero by slasho81 · · Score: 1

    One dedicated sysadmin holding the entire country internet access on his shoulders... before, during and after the war... under fire...

    A war hero. If the media can't find the authentic ones, it creates them.

    1. Re:In search of a hero by intnsred · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why not? The media has been a key to this whole illegal war. When the Bush regime trotted out its pack of lies about WMD to convince the American people to forget about the economy and to support the war (rah! rah! go team!), the corporate media did not question the lies and just jumped on the bandwagon. After all, who cares about truth when there's ratings to be had! (And now, given the FCC's recent ruling about monopoly ownership of media markets, the corporate mass media has been repaid for their slave-like service.)

      When Private Jessica Lynch was in the wrong place at the wrong time and got captured, the US media ignored the stories of brave Iraqi doctors and nurses donating their own blood to keep her alive, and instead printed (now proven false) stories about her fighting while shot and fighting to the death until she ran out of image.

      You'll never see stories like this in the US media.

      Since this kind of blatant propaganda was a key to the support of the war, why not some propaganda directly aimed at computer geeks?! Hey, we deserve our own lies too!!

    2. Re:In search of a hero by ErikZ · · Score: 1


      "The hospital staff also said that on the night of March 27, military officials prepared to kill Ms. Lynch by putting her in an ambulance and blowing it up with its occupants â" blaming the atrocity on the Americans. The ambulance drivers balked at that idea. Eventually, the plan was changed so that a military officer would shoot Ms. Lynch and burn the ambulance. So Sabah Khazal, an ambulance driver, loaded her in the vehicle and drove off with a military officer assigned to execute her."

      http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/20/opinion/20KRIS .h tml

      (Yeah yeah, you need to log in to see it.)

      I suppose the New York times doesn't count as the US media.

      I hated the "Fighting to the death" sory that came out too. Frankly, the US media is in sorry shape. Willing to say anything as long as it will sell papers.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
  32. bootlegged software? by MavEtJu · · Score: 4, Funny

    had put in long hours cobbling together bootlegged software and

    Someone needs to tell these guys about FreeBSD and Linux.

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    1. Re:bootlegged software? by pyrotic · · Score: 1

      According to Netcraft, they've been running (sensibly enough) Solaris/Apache on net-facing systems. For a while they also had Linux boxes there. I'm guessing the bootlegged Windows systems were probably for billing/admin use.

    2. Re:bootlegged software? by jpetts · · Score: 1

      Someone needs to tell these guys about FreeBSD and Linux.

      SCO says Linux is bootlegged software!! (And probably will for *BSD soon, too...)

      --
      Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
  33. Name it what you want. by MavEtJu · · Score: 1

    Ironically, it was Operation Iraqi Freedom that ultimately severed Iraq's residents from the Internet.

    Ironically? Not really. Knowing a little bit about history would give you a lot of examples, e.g.

    DDR - Deutsche Democratische[sp] Republik

    --
    bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    1. Re:Name it what you want. by bj8rn · · Score: 1
      Ironically, it was Operation Iraqi Freedom that ultimately severed Iraq's residents from the Internet.

      A better example about irony, from the present: People's Republic of China.

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
  34. Re:Not to treat the story seriously, or anything.. by Henry+V+.009 · · Score: 1

    http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/ Real Iraqi blogger. He's had some stuff to say about the ISPs before.

  35. We "liberated" the Iraqis... by switched4OSX · · Score: 5, Funny

    So they would be free to download pr0n. God bless America

    1. Re:We "liberated" the Iraqis... by bj8rn · · Score: 1

      Well, the "free" Iraq administration can always do the same thing the Chinese did and censor the net. Allah/Google akbar...

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    2. Re:We "liberated" the Iraqis... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you'd read the article you'd see that:

      "Unlike in the past, SCIS now allows customers to use online chat services, and doesn't block any Web destinations aside from pornography sites."

      So no pr0n for the Iraqis. They'll just have to settle for racy movies from Bollywood.

  36. the sysadmin did such a good job because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    he wasn't playing Wolfenstein:ET all the time, so he could concentrate on his sysadmining. He didn't need to play because there was plenty of real life killing and explosions to suffice...

  37. Dissapointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I find it very telling that an unprovoked attack on the USA that killed around 2,795 is a "tragedy" and a "slaughter" and justifies destroying all our rights and 2 foriegn countries. And yet, another unprovoked attack that kills at least 3,240 civilians is just a "few sandy buttholes."

    1. Re:Dissapointing... by borgasm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The main difference between Iraq and the WTC was intent.

      We have no problem with the Iraqi people...our problem was with the government...who in fact was killing its own people.

      The WTC was intended to kill as many innocents as possible. Our military develops weapons that try to minimize that casuality rate, so innocents like the people living in Iraq are spared.

      Nobody would like to use war as a tactic, but it happens....

    2. Re:Dissapointing... by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1
      We have no problem with the Iraqi people...our problem was with the government...
      Gee, that sounds much like the reasoning for anti-US sentiment across the globe. Coincidence? Nope.
    3. Re:Dissapointing... by mqduck · · Score: 1

      According to Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/), which had been keeping very good and documented track of civilian, non-combatant deaths, the total number is a minumum of 5,567 and a maximum of 7,240 civilians killed by the US army. The higher number is probably closer to the correct one, but includes sources that aren't totally reliable.

      --
      Property is theft.
    4. Re:Dissapointing... by mqduck · · Score: 1

      Me: "According to Iraq Body Count (http://www.iraqbodycount.net/), which had been keeping very good and documented track of civilian, non-combatant deaths, the total number is a minumum of 5,567 and a maximum of 7,240 civilians killed by the US army. The higher number is probably closer to the correct one, but includes sources that aren't totally reliable." I should said "US-led military acttion," not just "the US army."

      --
      Property is theft.
    5. Re:Dissapointing... by jo42 · · Score: 1

      And the fact that the actions of the Tobacco industry kill over 400,000 people every year is just business as usual in the Democratic, special interest, capitalistic, world...

    6. Re:Dissapointing... by CentrX · · Score: 1

      Were those the Shia uprisings that happened when the U.S. encouraged them to revolt and then abandoned them?

      --

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
  38. Yeah, Yeah, Yeah... by ATAMAH · · Score: 2, Funny

    All this is really good, but what i really want to know is where can i register my pr0n.raises.your.iq ?

  39. Re:Not to treat the story seriously, or anything.. by delong · · Score: 1

    Or, in the interest of balancing out FoxNews' reporting, a hypothetical Iraqi blogger can now give the outside world a better picture of what's going on in the country.

    Or, in the interest of balancing BBC World News reporting, Where's Raed can report on stuff that is closer to reality. Like, reporting from this planet.

    Derek

  40. someone should offer the guy a job.. by deunan_k · · Score: 1

    I mean, for being able to keep the service running, amidst bullets and bombs flyng around all over the place, you can't beat that kind of dedication.. and skill too.

    Anyone here recruiting, if you can look past their so called prior political allegience (heck, most of 'em were forced to support anyway), here you guys can have some really good sysadmins, frontline tested, baptised by fire and with battle scars to show.

    How many of us can say exactly the same? Let's see.. If SCO regime are smart, they would hire these guys, at least to keep their website from being DDOS/nuked or hacked by /. ers.. :-P but they're are dumb anyway, for waging war against the USA of IT World (Yeah, I mean IBM)

    Sheesh, here I am worrying about others when I should be worrying about myself!

    --
    Will sys-admin for food
    1. Re:someone should offer the guy a job.. by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 2, Funny

      And their ability to play hardball office politics and survive could be an asset to the IT department.

  41. Law and Order... by MosesJones · · Score: 2, Insightful


    And PAYING for everything should be the responsibility of the occupying powers.

    Unfortunately US Troops are shooting civilians so its still unclear who is upholding the Law.

    I know I'm joing to take a Karma hit but honestly and moronic one-liner like that gets classified as Insightful days after US Troops fire into an unarmed crowd. If that happened in Zimbabwe everyone would condemn the goverment troops, but in Iraq its "reasonable force".

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
    1. Re:Law and Order... by donutello · · Score: 1

      No, you won't get modded down for saying that and you knew it when you posted.

      This is Slashdot. The first reaction to any problem here is "How do we blame it on Microsoft?". The second reaction is "How do we blame this on Bush?".

      Knowing what both you and I know about US troops and the training they go through, no intelligent person would believe they would shoot at an unarmed crowd without force being necessary. However, it seems like the vast majority of the worlds population on either side of the debate has permanently suspended their intelligence in this matter.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    2. Re:Law and Order... by bj8rn · · Score: 1
      Knowing what both you and I know about US troops and the training they go through, no intelligent person would believe they would shoot at an unarmed crowd without force being necessary.

      I agree with you in principle, but in some situations, when under a lot of stress, it does happen that people misjudge the situation and use force even if it's not necessary - there was an incident where US troops killed a carful of people who they thought were suicide terrorists. But anyone can lose control in such a situation, they don't have to be American or British for this.

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    3. Re:Law and Order... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      there was an incident where US troops killed a carful of people who they thought were suicide terrorists.

      You forget the other half of the story...conveniently. You know, the part about the vehicle that didn't stop on command, and was approaching a clearly marked checkpoint at high speed. You know, the one that ignored warning shots fired into the air and into the engine compartment. You know, the one that finally stopped when the driver was killed. You know, but yet you conveniently leave that part out.

      I suppose you would have handled that situation much better than they did.

    4. Re:Law and Order... by JonathanX · · Score: 1

      I think the AC here has you pegged.

    5. Re:Law and Order... by bj8rn · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't forget the other half of the story, I just didn't find it necessary to include - everybody knows it anyway. I don't think I would have handled that situation any better, and neither would have you, I guess. This kind of things can happen to anyone, even to professionals.

      --
      Hell is not other people; it is yourself. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
    6. Re:Law and Order... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow, I like your thinking. I know where I can find a crowd of a couple of thousand people and there's only one of me. If I start shooting at them I'll be 40 times more justified than even those soldiers were.

      Lets conduct a little thought experiment, shall we? And to keep it simple, lets just cut down the numbers a bit so the math doesn't trouble you. You go stand in a field, and we'll bring just 40 of those thousands you can find. You have two missions. 1. Stand where you are. 2. Keep the 40 people from crossing the line where you are standing so they don't go into the building behind you. We'll give each of those 40 people 2 rocks about the size of your fist and have them stand 30 feet away. What happens next is simple. You stand there, they throw their rocks at you. If you are still able to stand when they are done throwing, congratulations!! You've defied the odds. Now, just to liven things up a bit, lets say that they aren't just standing there throwing their peaceful rocks, but they are moving toward you. And better yet, we've given some knives or clubs to half of them, and may have randomly given some of them an AK-47 assault rifle. (Did we mention that almost all of them are former members of the Iraqi Army so they know both how to use the AK-47 and now to break your neck with their bare hands?) You still doing OK? Your body doesn't look so good. Oh, but even this is too simple. Lets also add in some agitators so that they are whipped up and chanting KILL AC! KILL AC! KILL AC! while they are coming at you. And did I mention that there is a slight possibility that one of them, but no more than one, might have 5 kilos of explosives strapped to his body so that if he can just get close enough, he can both kill you, and cause an incident when the Iraqi deaths from the bast are blamed on you? Ah, but this is still too sterile. Before they started coming at you, you've just watched them use their clubs and rocks to smash several cars and beat a driver or two. Well, that seems about right.

      Now, multiply that whole thing by 40, have the mob rush a vehicle with a soldier in it, and the soldier fires something like 3 shots in self-defense. Frankly the restraint that the soldiers showed is amazing.

      I can see how you might like my thinking since I'm not sure that you're doing any at all.

    7. Re:Law and Order... by GFish4 · · Score: 1
      You're completely correct. You should be modded up and not the parent. Unfortunately, you probably won't because slashdotters don't seem to want to hear about how they, too, are just as prone to partisan groupthink as the rest of the unwashed masses. Their superior knowledge enables them to operate on a plane of thought completely above everyone else, apparantly.

      ...At least someone can see through the bullshit.

    8. Re:Law and Order... by Mac+Degger · · Score: 1

      Your conclusion is dubious at best. I mean, if it where that simple, then friendly fire would never happen, 'cause hey, there is no good reason to bomb friendly troops, right?

      Wake up to the realities of life, the frank un-trainedness of troops being one of those. Sure, for the SAS and/or other special ops units this might be true, but the rest are 'just' grunts with guns. I dunno if you looked at cnn at the time, but I saw 18 year old girls and boys (NOT men and women) trying to subdue large crowds with only a squad at most. That is how mistakes like that are made...which means it's (in)directly the theatre commanders fault for undercommitting troops to that area.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
  42. Re:US missile struck the Ministry of Information? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

    No one will give you the satisfaction of a Troll 5. I know, I've tried and it's impossible (almost).

    --
    Life is not for the lazy.
  43. Geek kinship by bigwang · · Score: 2, Interesting
    "Insofar as it is possible to divide people into categories, the surest criterion is the deep seated desires that orient them to one or another lifelong activity. Every Frenchman is different. But all actors the world over are simila, in Paris, Prague or the back of beyond." -- Milan Kundera, The Unbearable Lightness of Being
    I love these kinds of stories. The connection between us geeks is remarkable. And I speak of real geeks, not mercenaries or perpetrators.
  44. link whoring by Stanza · · Score: 1
    a hypothetical Iraqi blogger can now give the outside world a better picture of what's going on in the country.

    Why has no one mentioned Where is Raed?

    1. Re:link whoring by ChrisCampbell47 · · Score: 1

      With a low user number like 35421, I'd figure you'd know this. Before posting a "why hasn't anyone mentioned this" post, always do a comment list at a threshold of 1 or even 0, and then search for relevant text (trivial in Mozilla). Usually someone HAS commented, it just hasn't come up in mod level yet (so go mod it up). When you posted, at least three people had already mentioned Dear Raed (among the nitwits spouting the tired and self-serving claim that Fox News is only offsetting CNN supposed liberal bias).

  45. So, I assume we can expect . . . by vegetablespork · · Score: 1

    . . . a new wave of spam for that "most wanted" deck of cards?

    --

    Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.

  46. Buy a clue by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So never mind that Saddam had WMDs, as the Kurdish and Iranian survivors of his WMD attacks will attest. Never mind that he never let your UN pals do their weapon inspections unobstructed. Sometime between the Iran-Iraq war and now those WMDs magically disappeared and we should all take Saddams word for it. After all, Iraq is only as big as California, where could he hide the things?

    And the ~300,000 Iraqis Saddam's dictatorship murdered? No mass destruction there, no sir. No need to worry about such a dictatorship developing nukes.

    I guess you Former Soviet Useful Idiots really were desperate for new employment.

    1. Re:Buy a clue by intnsred · · Score: 1

      So never mind that Saddam had WMDs, as the Kurdish and Iranian survivors of his WMD attacks will attest.

      I think from a logical perspective, Hussein's brutal treatment of others is irrelevant as to why the US went to war. The war was sold to the American public as an immediate, imminent threat to the USA by Iraq having WMD. That justification was an outright lie by the Bush regime.

      If you want to talk about Hussein's human rights abuses, that's another issue. No doubt Hussein should have been overthrown a long time ago. In fact, he would have been overthrown, except that Ronny Raygun, Rumsfeld, and others backed Hussein during the 1980s when Hussein launched an aggressive war against Iran. If we had followed a moral foreign policy, the Iranians would have defeated Hussein and would have overthrown him during the Iran-Iraq war.

      Funny how the US backing of tyrants and murderers comes back to haunt us. I mean, we backed Bin Laden in Afghanistan, we were a big reason for the rise of militant Islam, we helped arm Iraq and sold Iraq anthrax, and we helped prevent a UN investigation of Iraq following chemical attacks on civilians. A moral foreign policy would have prevented a lot of those issues.

      But to rewrite the justification for the war as "liberating" Iraq or because we now cry crocodile tears over Iraqi human rights abuses is just a way to lie our way out of the fact that the original justification for the war -- WMD -- was blatant, lying propaganda fed by a crooked administration and willing mass media to a skeptical American public.

    2. Re:Buy a clue by Brian+Stretch · · Score: 1

      The war was sold to the American public as an immediate, imminent threat to the USA by Iraq having WMD.

      Given Saddam's nuclear weapons program, how its completion would be Bad, and how we had no way of knowing when that would be due to Saddam's interference with UN weapons inspectors, it was prudent to assume an "immediate, imminent" threat level. Out of the three "Axis of Evil" nations Iraq was the easiest one to deal with and gives us a staging area to deal with Evil #2 if need be (I'm still hopeful Iran will have a revolution and save us the trouble). Plus, this gets our troops out of Saudi Arabia, since we no longer have to defend them against Iraq.

      In fact, he would have been overthrown, except that Ronny Raygun, Rumsfeld, and others backed Hussein during the 1980s when Hussein launched an aggressive war against Iran. If we had followed a moral foreign policy, the Iranians would have defeated Hussein and would have overthrown him during the Iran-Iraq war.

      So we'd have one big honkin' Evil instead of two smaller ones? We gave Saddam enough help to keep Iraq from getting overrun but not enough to win. Under the circumstances that was the practical policy. The most moral policy would have been to send in troops and liberate both countries, but we simply didn't have the ability at the time and the people in the respective countries probably wouldn't have gone along anyhow.

      I mean, we backed Bin Laden in Afghanistan

      We backed the Mujahadeen because they were defending themselves against our shared enemy that invaded them. Some of the people we helped didn't appreciate it, but they got the job done. FDR backed Stalin to defeat Hitler. Backing the Afghans doesn't come close to that on the moral ambiguity scale, and both policies were right.

      Interesting how you lefties claim to be so "sophisticated" but the complexities of world affairs sail right over your heads.

    3. Re:Buy a clue by henben · · Score: 1
      So never mind that Saddam had WMDs, as the Kurdish and Iranian survivors of his WMD attacks will attest

      Nobody disputes that Saddam used nerve gas in the 80s (although the US administration at the time initially blamed the attacks on Iran, since at that time they were rooting for the Iraqis to win the war).

      Sometime between the Iran-Iraq war and now those WMDs magically disappeared and we should all take Saddams word for it.

      These weapons are difficult to maintain in a usable state. Anthrax spores germinate within a few years. Nerve gases are corrosive and hard to store. I think Saddam lost his ability to keep these weapons due to the international community's policy of containment and inspections.

      And the ~300,000 Iraqis Saddam's dictatorship murdered?

      That 300,000 figure is grossly misleading, because it includes casualties of the Iran-Iraq war. Which the US and UK were happy to go along with as a way of containing Iran.

      Don't get me wrong, the Ba'ath regime murdered and tortured thousands, and it's a good thing that Saddam is gone. But it would have been better to contain him and act with international support. The WMD pretext for the war was a lie, and the perception that this was a war for oil is going to backfire on the US and its allies. Of course, fanatics are going to be against the West no matter what, but the tacit support of the populations they live amongst is a valuable weapon for them.

      From today's UK Guardian:

      A man in Tikrit, Saddam's hometown, told the Los Angeles Times: "They are asking silly things. 'Have you seen Saddam Hussein? Where did you see him?' And the answer they get is: 'No, I haven't seen him.' And that is reality."

      He added: "If I knew where Saddam was I would never tell you because you are an American."

  47. Re:10,000 LB bombs really mess up ur Routers...etc by j_rhoden · · Score: 1

    You just posted almost the exact same message a little ways above this one. Got anything else to say besides how the troops have nothing better to do than kill innocents?

  48. Soldiers admit to killing civilians with no .... by chenGOD · · Score: 1

    hesitation

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/content_obj ec tid=13087653_method=full_siteid=50143_headline=-US %2DTROOPS%2DADMIT%2DSHOOTING%2DIRAQI%2DCIVILIANS-n ame_page.html

  49. Spying on People by twitter · · Score: 1
    When asked about widespread rumors that the Iraqi government spied on SCIS customers, Harif declined to answer.

    "It is not very safe here today to say all the information," Harif said. ... And Carnivore is Everywhere!

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  50. Looting. by twitter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    They salvaged servers and other computer hardware and moved it into the protection of their homes.

    Their foresight may have saved Iraq's only ISP. After Baghdad fell to coalition troops on April 9, the Information Ministry was vandalized and set ablaze. Internet cafes were ransacked. Looters ransacked warehouses containing millions of dollars of SCIS computer gear, according to Harif.

    Hmmm, one guy takes gear to their house and it's "foresight" while others doing the same are called looters. I suppose it helps that Harif brought enough of it back for things to work. I imagine much of the stolen warehoused computers will be working too now. All around a good deal. People making use of equipment that would have sat in a warehouse forever should not be looked at in the same light as people breaking into hospitals and stealing airconditioning equipment. The fall of a totalitarian government is not easy.

    --

    Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.

  51. Re:Not to treat the story seriously, or anything.. by Malcontent · · Score: 1

    " So Mr. Knee-Jerk, what did I say in defense of Fox?"

    You said they were a balance to CNN.

    Since fox is so right wing conservative I suppose you think this means CNN is some sort of a flaming liberal homosexual communist atheist environmentalist liberal organization.

    Did I get that right?

    --

    War is necrophilia.

  52. Re:Not to treat the story seriously, or anything.. by pnatural · · Score: 1

    What I think of CNN is irrelevant to the assertion that they are balanced by Fox. CNNs bias has been documented before, and I'm sure a new independant study will find that Fox will have the opposite bias. And that was the original point that you were unable or unwilling to grasp.

    As to your question, "I suppose you think this means CNN is some sort of a flaming liberal homosexual communist atheist environmentalist liberal organization," you forgot "America haters" and "terrorist apologists".

  53. Re:Problems with your logic by John+Bayko · · Score: 1
    I'm replying to this instead of the one above it because I think more people should read it, but I have no mod points.

    In the article I want to respond to:

    And the ~300,000 Iraqis Saddam's dictatorship murdered? No mass destruction there, no sir.
    Many of those were starved by the sanctions (directly or indirectly), but that's beside the point. It's true the government killed a lot . Exactly how many is hard to say - less than the U.S did in Vietnam, but more than Russia did in Chechnya.

    The intent is important. The society of the area is volatile and violent, and most of the area's leaders (who live in that environment) believe that it's basically a choice between using both the threat and application of cruelty against the people to control them, or allowing the people to kill each other (even escalating to civil warfare).

    In other words, the Iraqi governmnet killed enough people to prevent an even greater loss of life if people weren't controlled.

    I don't think that's true in absolute terms - but I never lived there. The only two true democracies in the region aren't really part of the Arabic culture - Turkey and Israel, and Turkey has a lot of trouble staying democratic. Factions have deep, almost irrational beliefs in their tribes/political factions/races/religions, and have certainly shown no reluctance to kill in response to a nasty look. It's entirely possible that such a society would degenerate into something like Somalia without an iron rule.

    In Iraq, life was pretty good for anyone not opposed to Saddam Hussein - they had more religious and gender freedom than almost any other country in the region, and before the sanctions, consistantly decent medical care and even recently a top-notch education system. The price for this was political obedience, and a high price for the disobedient.

    You'd think that the U.S government would have learned how hard it is to manage such an "act first (and violently), think later - if you absolutely have to" culture after the hidious mess in Lebanon. But American politicians aren't known for their ability to learn anything. The mess in Iraq has just started and seems to be getting worse - I wouldn't be surprised if within a few years, the death toll of American soldiers will be higher from the peace than the war.

    One positive thing about the common hatred of Americans in Iraq, it might unite the different factions as long as they continue to occupy the country. They might hold off massacring each other until the shared American threat is driven out.

    A that point we'll see if they can kill more of each other than the Iraqi government did.

  54. Re:Not to treat the story seriously, or anything.. by Malcontent · · Score: 1

    "you forgot "America haters" and "terrorist apologists"."

    Forgive me. I forgot that these days republicans consider people who disagree with them as terrorist and haters of america. I suppose it won't be long that liberals too will be rounded up and taken to those concentration camps that the muslims are being shipped to.

    --

    War is necrophilia.

  55. Re:Not to treat the story seriously, or anything.. by Taos · · Score: 1

    "CNNs bias has been documented before"

    In the past, your argument about CNN's bias was true. Turner made sure of that when he controlled the company. Unfortunately, since CNN is now controlled by Time Warner AOL (and whatever other subsidiary you want to throw in there) they've just become another sensationalist news outlet -- completely devoid of any real news. That also means they no longer take a side on the issues. But then again, they never cover the issues because real issues and events from around the world are bad for ratings.

    It all comes back to the fourth estate argument. Fox was a good fourth estate during the Clinton administration, but they're completely supportive of the Bush administration. Therefore, shouldn't CNN be launching large stories on the mistakes of the current government?

    As a liberal, I disagree with the vast majority of the Fox news network's views, but 1) they have every right to say it, and 2) the country needs a news outlet that will investigate the government (as was the case under the Clinton administration).

    Today, however, who will investigate Bush? None of the major networks will because they're afraid of offending viewers and losing ratings. They all forget how many newspapers and books the watergate scandal sold.

    So, in effect, no, CNN does not effectively balance out FOX news anymore because they have yet to jump on the fallacies of the Bush adminstration and expose them to the country.

    It's not a matter of balance between the two networks, but a matter of balance against the current government.