Nominations for 2003 Vaporware Awards

spin2cool writes "Wired News is now accepting submissions for its fifth annual Vaporware Awards. These awards "celebrate all those eagerly anticipated gizmos that were put off, put away or quietly put down. And, of course, those that existed merely as a figment of someone's imagination."

Comments

WMD detector

[corebreech]

nt

Re:WMD detector

[Anonymous Coward]

And they say security through obscurity just doesn't work.

Re:WMD detector

[edalytical]

WMD definitely fall into the category of things "that existed merely as a figment of someone's imagination."

Re:WMD detector

[twiddlingbits]

Absolutely correct. It doesn't take a lot of room to store a few vials of Anthrax, or a few gallons of Nerve Gas. They could be just about anywhere, disquised as something else, stashed inside holes, false walls, or stuck down old oil wells, buried in a fake grave, etc. The only easy stuff to find is nuclear material as it has to be well shielded, which makes it harder to hide but not impossible. Saddam had 12 yrs to find ways to hide things in a country the size of California, not to mention he had friends in other Arab countries who may be minding the store. It's not going to be an easy job.

Re:WMD detector

[corebreech]

So tell us all, Mr. Wizard, why have WMD's if you're not going to use them?

HMMMM???

Especially when you're back is against the wall and there's no other way out. Saddam Hussein is a madman, right?

So WHY DIDN'T HE USE THE WMD's?!?!?

ANSWER: He never had them.

Bush lied, and that's a fact.

Re:WMD detector

[Cereal Box]

Why would he use the WMDs that he denied having? Hussein knew he couldn't win a war against the US, so his only hope was to have the US cave in because of worldwide criticism of there not being WMDs in Iraq. He figured that even if the US invaded that he could get them to back down eventually. If he used the WMDs in combat, he would instantly blow away his last line of defense -- world criticism of the US -- because the rest of the world would find out that he does indeed have WMDs and the US was justified in invading! That would change things dramatically, don't you think?

Unfortunately for Saddam, we didn't care about the criticism. Ultimately, his gamble didn't pay off. Saddam is going to fold like Chinese laundry and the WMDs will be found.

Re:WMD detector

[mst76]

If you keep that in mind, how hard do you suppose it will be to WMDs?

Maybe they should issue a $25 million reward for finding the WMD. Inventive Iraqi's will probably produce some WMD just to claim the reward. Then everybody will be happy (except the French of course).

Re:WMD detector

[i_m_sane]

Wait this is America...

25% is considered passing!

Re:WMD detector

[8-balll]

If he neverhad them, then what was that funny stuff that he used against the Iranians, Kurds, etc. Oh that's right it was a figment of their imagination....

Re:WMD detector

[nomadic]

Oh come on...it's easy to hide a few vials of anthrax or nerve gas, but it's not easy to store all the equipment needed to make it.

The administration said there were WMDs. They said they knew where they were. They lied.

Re:WMD detector

[Elwood P Dowd]

Hint: "Pop quiz" is two words. Perhaps the only context in which you have heard them is the movie Speed, starring Keanu "Woah" Reeves. It is also used in an academic context. You may want to look into that.

Re:WMD detector

[scrytch]

> If you keep that in mind, how hard do you suppose it will be to WMDs?

I dropped this little eyeglass screw in a plush carpet. Took me forever to find it, I actually gave up for a day then the cat was playing around with something and I saw it was the screw, it found it in the carpet. If it took me so long to find that little thing, how hard to you suppose it will be to find unicorns^WWMD's in iraq?

Jesus... one single person with no supplies except a box of money compared to an allegedly far-reaching WMD program. This approaches the chewbacca defense.

Re:WMD detector

[Xentax]

You can be a tyrant and still be a coward. Maybe he didn't have the courage (or whatever you call it) to go down fighting or put one in his brain himself.

It's very easy to be a hardass when you've got the upperhand; being a tough guy when it really comes down to it is something else.

Having said that, his sons clearly went down fighting, so I personally WAS expecting more active resistance from Saddam. Given the circumstances, maybe he was hoping to go undetected until it was too late to do otherwise. I bet he's been *almost* detected several times in the past, and they missed his hidey-holes elsewhere. Maybe he was counting on them doing so again.

Xentax

Re:WMD detector

[bugbread]

"So tell us all, Mr. Wizard, why have WMD's if you're not going to use them?"

Two words: Amateur Hobbyist.

Re:WMD detector

[Kirk Troll]

Exactly. Did people expect him to have a gallon of sarin up his ass?

Re:WMD detector

[strictnein]

You don't get it, it seems. You also seem to like to pick and choose your news. You just want to deny, deny, deny. And that's fine.

Iraqi colonel who told MI6 that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes

Read the article. This was covered by every
major news agency. You just seemed to have missed it.

Login for the telegraph:
user: thetruthhurts@doesntit.com
pass: wmds

Here's a few snippets for you:
He said they were to be used by Saddam's Fedayeen paramilitaries and units of the Special Republican Guard when the war with coalition troops reached "a critical stage".

The containers, which came from a number of factories on the outskirts of Baghdad, were delivered to the army by the Fedayeen and were distributed to the front-line units under cover of darkness.

The devices, which were known by Iraqi officers as "the secret weapon", were made in Iraq and designed to be launched by hand-held rocket-propelled grenades. They could also have been launched sooner than the 45-minutes claimed in the dossier.

"Forget 45 minutes," said Col al-Dabbagh "we could have fired these within half-an-hour."

Local commanders were told that they could use the weapons only on the personal orders of Saddam. "We were told that when the war came we would only have a short time to use everything we had to defend ourselves, including the secret weapon," he said.

The only reason that these weapons were not used, said Col al-Dabbagh, was because the bulk of the Iraqi army did not want to fight for Saddam. "The West should thank God that the Iraqi army decided not to fight," he said.

"If the army had fought for Saddam Hussein and used these weapons there would have been terrible consequences."


Saddam was in a whole in the ground because he was a coward. He was captured alive! With a gun at his hip, and plenty of time to use it (being that he was in a whole that had to be uncovered, a process that surely took several minutes)

Re:WMD detector

[strictnein]

rghh...

whole = hole

blah

Re:WMD detector

[trentblase]

25% is about half, right?

Re:WMD detector

[TillmanJ]

So tell us all, Mr. Wizard, why have WMD's if you're not going to use them?
Two Words: Deterrent, Intimidation.
Thank you, drive through.

Re:WMD detector

[Frymaster]

it's easy to hide a few vials of anthrax

a "few vials" wouldn't really count as "mass" destruction though, would it? take a look at the amount of chemical weapons the united states stores. there's a nice map available here:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/cbw/cw.htm

these repositories range from 2,000 to 13,000 tonnes each. and there are nine of them.

that's a lot more than just a "few vials"

(nb: i am not sure how old this map is, but the us is not committed to destroying chem weapons until 2007... the purpose is to demonstrate that wmds are have "mass")

Re:WMD detector

[TillmanJ]

...he was definitely a treat to national security...

You can say that again...

Re:WMD detector

[Overly Critical Guy]

Because he did use them, and he hid them when we threatened to invade.

Next.

Re:WMD detector

[jkabbe]

Wait this is America...

25% is considered passing!

It can certainly get you elected President :)

Re:WMD detector

[edalytical]

You missed the point. No shit he can't carry a SCUD around. But you would expect him to have a better gun than a AK-47. AK-47s have been in use since at least 1949. If he can get his hands on stuff to make nuclear bombs and such wouldn't it follow that he could also get a better gun?

Re:WMD detector

[rifter]

It was also widely reported that this report was bullshit and that is why Tony Blair is in trouble. British Intelligence and those who had reason to actually know what was going on were thinking it would take Saddam months to get things together for a WMD attack. He was being seriously hampered by the no-fly zone, sanctions and inspectors. The gas atack on the Kurds occurred back in the 80's when we liked Saddam and were selling him WMD. After the first Gulf War no incidents of usage of WMD nor evidence of continuing WMD programs were ever found.

Re:WMD detector

[fermion]

Ah, but did we give the remedial student all his accommodations? Did we give him enough extra time for the search. Did we read all his reports to him. Were we sure that he understood the complicated words. Did we put him in a quite room without distractions such as alcohol or coke. If not, we cannot legally fail him.

Re:WMD detector

[geekoid]

Your arguement is specious.

So when Russia had it's back to the wall and didn't use ICBMs, I guess that means they didn't exist?

Of course there are some facts you need to relize:
1) Just because you have weapons, doesn't mean people will use them. It all comes down to the guy who pulls the trigger. If he thinks that he doesn't wish to die an ugly death for a guy he doesn't like, then he would be in likely to use them

2)There where people from within Iraqs military saying they exisited.

3) If they didn't exist, why didn't he let the UN weapon inspectors do there job?*

4)British intellegence told us that they had information telling them they existed.

5) Perhaps he was in Bahgdad and fear for his life? He is cowadly.

*Normally I would post that because, who wants people troopng around your country? but he did sign an agreement after the '91 conflict.

For the record, I think Bush is one of the worse presidents, ever.

Re:WMD detector

[VivianC]

I dropped this little eyeglass screw in a plush carpet. Took me forever to find it, I actually gave up for a day then the cat was playing around with something and I saw it was the screw, it found it in the carpet.

Great idea! We'll send a bunch of cats to Iraq!

Re:WMD detector

[Anonymous Coward]

There is HARD EVIDENCE that he had them

No, there is SOFT evidence that he "had" them.

"Hard" evidence would be THE FUCKING WMDS THEMSELVES

Moron.

Re:WMD detector

[strictnein]

It was also widely reported that this report was bullshit and that is why Tony Blair is in trouble

I think you are confusing the date the material was originally released (around sept 2002) and when this interview/story was conducted (about a week ago)

This is an Iraqi LT. Colonel stating that what was in that original report was true (and that he was the source of it)

Re:WMD detector

[ThePlague]

Ah, an interesting theory. We'll forget for a moment that the entire nothern region was being patrolled by U.S./British aircraft (remember the no fly zone?). Consequently, he "couldn't" use them there either, for precisely the same reason you offer as to why he didn't use them against invaders.

However, that begs the question of how does that affect U.S. national security, which was the nominal reason for this little adventure? I've been waiting for 18 months for an answer to that one.

Re:WMD detector

[dildatron]

You are exactly right. Saddam knows that in this war, the biggest enemy to the US is the US. He knows that if he can discredit people, the US will in effect lose the war itself. That was his stategy.

He knew his military couldn't compete with the US's, and rather than discredit himself and give the opposition an even stronger case, he chose to hide the WMDs and attack via politics rather than with guns. It is more effective this way, for him.

Re:WMD detector

[corebreech]

So when Russia had it's back to the wall and didn't use ICBMs, I guess that means they didn't exist?

Nobody ever invaded Russia.

Just because you have weapons, doesn't mean people will use them.

If so, and Saddam really had WMD's, then why did they bother using any of the other weapons they had?

There where people from within Iraqs military saying they exisited.

How do you know this? Based on information from the same people who lied about the yellow cake from Niger? Who lied about Saddam's connection to al Qaeda?

If they didn't exist, why didn't he let the UN weapon inspectors do there job?

Excuse me, but he did let the inspectors do their job for many years. And nothing was found during this time.

British intellegence told us that they had information telling them they existed.

It's not all the fault of the Brits. The whole business about his relationship with bin Laden and the connection to 9/11 was fabricated on our end.

Perhaps he was in Bahgdad and fear for his life? He is cowadly.

You know, all this talk about Saddam being a coward, but if I recall correctly, Saddam saw a lot more combat than President Bush ever did.

For the record, I think Bush is one of the worse presidents, ever.

I think he's even worse than that. I think he's so bad, he might actually be our last President.

Re:WMD detector

[corebreech]

The flip side of this is that he uses the WMD's against U.S. forces while still amassed in Kuwait, inflicting severe casualties, and receiving no greater retaliation than the invasion, which was inevitable in any case.

He would have been seen as the man who bloodied the nose of the imperialist monsters from the west. He would have become the mother of all martyrs.

And he *still* could've hidden.

People say he wouldn't do that, that we would've responded with nukes or something like that, but we wouldn't have. The fallout, political and otherwise, would have been too great. We'd have gone in, just like we did, and endured very much the same campaign we are now, only it would be so much more treacherous since Saddam's forces really would have WMD's at their disposal, i.e., the U.S. could forget about using a palace or anything else as a base of operations.

Saddam would have been way ahead had he used WMD's. He had everything to gain, and nothing to lose.

Re:WMD detector

[twofidyKidd]

And they said that Kevin Mitnick could launch a nuclear strike with a telephone. Millions bought that load of FUD. Millions will undoubtely buy the story you posted about because they don't know any better. If they could find Saddam, a moving target in the literal sense, then how come they can't find some fairly stationary WMDs? I shouldn't have to explain Occam's razor to you, so I'll spare you that, but what seems more likely...those WMDs that we, the US think Saddam has are so well hidden that after all this time we still haven't found them, or that those WMDs simply don't exist? I wouldn't be surprised at this point that the Bush Administration will go as far as "manufacturing" and placing the WMD evidence they are looking for just so that their little campaign in Iraq doesn't look like it was all in vain.

Re:WMD detector

[Dausha]

even in the remedial stream 25% is still a failing grade.

Yes, but .250 is a decent batting average.

Re:WMD detector

[Doomdark]

If you keep that in mind, how hard do you suppose it will be to WMDs?

As long as they can be camouflaged as bum-looking middle-aged dude, living in a hole, pretty easy?

On the other hand, there is also possibility that it's comparing apples and oranges, and that hiding WMDs efficiently, securely, and in a way they can be reused, yet still not detected easily by radioactivity, or chemical leakage, is significantly more challenging task than hiding an ex-dictator.

Re:WMD detector

[Faluzeer]

Hmmm Most of the evidence supporting the 45 minute claim was "rubbished" by the experts of the British Intelligence Services, a number of whom gave reports to the Hutton Enquiry (into the death of Dr Kelly). Yes, I am aware of the recent story in the Telegraph, however I am not sure that it adds _any_ creditability to the 45 minute claims...

Re:WMD detector

[falsified]

The CIA did have satellite images of everything. We have awesome intelligence. We were, according to the administration, watching all their movements and could cite exact locations of their WMD.

Then the weapons inspectors asked for some help and we refused.

Then the war began and we had no idea where anything was.

The question: Did we for some reason stop using our surveillance when the war started (somehow this seems unlikely); did we never have satellite technology capable of monitoring Iraqi activities (Note: here's a satellite image of my neighborhood; or did the president lie to the entire world?

Re:WMD detector

[TTL0]

I can't figure out what everyone is expecting ?? a big sign that says "THIS WAY TO WMDs" ?? a factory located at "1 WMD plaza" ? WMDs next 3 exits ??? a advert that has saddam saying "just say no to WMDs" ??!?!?!?

The UN gave plenty of time for saddam to hide the WMDs and they could be anywhere in the country or in Syria or seperated and ready for quick assembly. Saddam has been accused of many things - being stupid isn't one of them

Re:WMD detector

[strictnein]

Ughh... I really thought I was at slashdot, not Kuro5hin... anyways...

i might got some false information on this part but i for myself imagine rpgs as:
take out the box
aim
fire


Except you're not firing explosive rounds. You think you just store biological or chemical agents in a plastic baggy? Or in a cup? Or in a jug?

But whatever, I'm done with posting on anything even slightly politcal on slashdot... what a waste of time. For fucks sake, I voted for Gore in 2000, I'm not some right-wing biggot, I married a very liberal wife who has openly socialist parents. My mother has donated tens of thousands of dollars to very left wing orgs. But trying to have a conversation with someone left of center about an issue they disagree with is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

so better grow up and ask yourself (or mor specifically good ole bush) about international rights! (wonder why no german, french, other anti iraq-war countries get NO contracts for rebuilding in iraq? search google for 'bush iraq halliburton' and check fo yourself)

And I can also search for "liberal satan ass cream" and I get results too, over 2000 in fact.

Re:WMD detector

[jobugeek]

Hussein isn't completely stupid. He knows he couldn't win a brute force against the US. But he can a PR war. His only chance at survival was world public opinion making the US back down. The second he uses chemical weapons, the whole world is looking for his head. Unfortunately for him, the US happens to have a president who doesn't give a shit what everyone else thinks.

Re:WMD detector

[Doomdark]

Sure, hiding a vial of almost anything, or canister of something else is easy. But for weapon-grade stuff, that's not the way it can be done. You don't fire vials with missiles or howitzers, nor do you get much results with small amounts of nerve gas. Plus, even evil crooked scientists and military lunatics prefer not to get harmed by the dangerous stuff, so packaging generally adds lots of overhead on otherwise potentially small volume.

I mean, although I know that "even if I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't after me" is sometimes valid counter argument, is it so hard to believe that perhaps Saddam eventually thought that WMDs were NOT worth all the hassle? (after losing to Iran, getting chastised, eventually, for killing kurds with mustard gas, getting kicked out of Kuwait by coalition etc. etc.)

Have people just been so well indoctrinated with scare d'jour; after red scare it's all these pesky terrorists and dictators taken out of b-class Hollywood movies, lumped together, every one of them being wild-eyed raving lunatics whose main mission is to destroy the earth along with western way of life. From that perspective it may be unthinkable that perhaps bloody dictators too can occasionally use their judgment, do some cost/benefit analysis of their own.

Re:WMD detector

[CmdrGravy]

Seriously though, a few vials of Anthrax or Nerve gas are not weapons of mass destruction. If you wanted to turn them into viable weapons of mass destruction you'd need a pretty large infrastructure to produce and manufacture the chemicals and the delivery systems necessary to use them effectivley.

So far there has been no sign of any of this infrastructure, no one has admitted they were one of the ( presumably hundreds ) of people who worked in this infrastructure and not one factory or storage facility has been found despite the presumably massive amount of satellite surveilance which Iraq has been subjected to.

The other point is why on earth would Saddam bother to spend time and money developing this stuff when he must have been quite well aware that with the US now facing off as the enemy there would be no way he could use them and keep control of Iraq. The US didn't exactly sneak into Iraq in a surprise attack so Saddam had plenty of warning and must have realised that his time was up - if he did have any weapons then you would have thought that would be the ideal time to use them.

As a side point the US has far more chemical weaponary than anyone claims Iraq had and so far as I remember is refusing to enter any kind of international agreements where they have to decomission them. I wonder if there were really any Iraqi scientists making big strides forwards in developing chemical weaponary technology where they might be working now ?

Don't get me wrong, Saddam under lock and key is a good thing but I am very dubious about the existance of the fabled WMD.

Re:WMD detector

[outZider]

Because they went in being so goddamn confident that they were there, we'd almost expect they'd have a good idea where they were. If their intelligence can't find out where they /moved/, how did they know where they were? Were they moving off of two year old information, or did we all miss something?

Re:WMD detector

[falsified]

To further illustrate the abilities of our satellites: My house.

My house is the grayish thing that is across from the beginning of the east-west street in the middle of the photograph. As you can see, our backyard has lots of trees and to my northeast is a church. We also have above-ground phone lines, which is clearly visible. Please keep in mind that this is the technological abilities of Mapquest and that which the USGS has made publicly available; this is not a military satellite using secret technology. We also had full flyover rights with Iraq, so the pictures could be taken from several thousand feet away rather than from inner space.

Re:WMD detector

[Alan]

The impression I got of how they found him was capturing and then "intensely interragating" (I read that as "torturing") them.

Yes, offtopic.
Yes, my spelling sucks.

Re:WMD detector

[lobsterGun]

There is a difference between being wrong and lieing. The administration thought Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, so did the rest of the world. It appears they were all wrong.

I don't recall any administration ever saying that they knew where the weapons were stored. Back when this whole affair was being bandied about by the security councel I did a fair bit of reading on this topic. The closest this I can recall that was anything like you describe was some satelite intel phots that Sec. State Powel presented to the UN. Nothing that was said in relation to those photos approached willfull misrepresentation of facts.

Re:WMD detector

[b17bmbr]

actually, if you would take a few minutes to look at david kay's report, you'd see that he had extensive programs in development. whether he actually had them or not, and that was never in dispute among any intel agency, even the french, russians, and germans, what we DO KNOW, is that he did have them, did use them, did have extensive programs, did not allow inspections, did not follow UN resolutions after gulf war, did not meet his obligations under 1441, and now, heh heh, does not have to worry anymore. if you really think they are really a figment of someone's imagination i suggest you ask the kurds. to postulate, even for a moment, that he never had them, or they never existed, puts you at the extreme fringe of people. on credible source ever said this. in fact, what scared the french before the war, and terrifies them now, is the extensive relations between chirac and husesein. if/when he talks, lots of people are gonna fry. and that scares the shit out of the germans, french, and russians. where you think lots of his weapons came from?

whether we find them or not, is actually irrelevant. if we do, you, or dean, or martin sheen, tim sarandon, the dixie chicks etc., gonna say the war was justified? i doubt it. he was a real threat. you refuse to accept it. he ahd time to get rid of them due to the spinal flexibility of the UN.

Re:WMD detector

[Alan]

5) he got them from various companies in the US

Re:WMD detector

[sugar and acid]

What bollocks, if he had wmd's he would have used them. Do you think having to hide out in a hole was also part of the overal plan. Saddam must have known that once he lost power, even if he escaped capture, he would not gain power again.

There is really no reason for him to hold back. I think the real reason for the lack of WMD's is that the chemical and biological weapons were used within the country against the kurds and so forth. The economic sanctions made it very hard to replenish and rebuild (as they were designed to do), with the on again off again weapons inspections at least making it hard to establish good facilities, as they would have to be up-rooted periodically and moved else where to continue operating. It may have been a cat and mouse game, but while they are shifting everything every few weeks there was not a lot of development or production possible if at all.

It may come out now that Saddam is captured that he quite possibly gave up on WMD production for the most part. Saddam couldn't rebuild his conventional army, and he wasn't able to get the technology to develop decent missile technology or nuclear capability. His wmd capability was very much stopped at the pre gulf war 1 days by sanctions and intense scrutiny, and his conventional army crippled and becoming obsolete.

I think he really had no choice but to give up his military plans and instead built himself palaces, put up gaudy statues of himself and ran his country into the ground to show how "big" a man he is instead of invading other countries.

My point is that Saddam was less of a threat during Gulf War 2 than he was in Gulf War 1.

Re:WMD detector

[GSloop]

Set this in context of what was accused... ...by the president in his State of the Union message. Anyone who listened to that speech would now reasonably expect our forces to be finding "25,000 liters" of anthrax, "38,000 liters" of botulinum toxin, "500 tons" of sarin,
mustard and VX nerve agent, and "29,984" munitions capable of delivering chemical agents -- along with a hidden nuclear weapons industry.

If these were "realistic" estimates of what Saddam had, and they were being honest about it, it's certainly not the kind of thing one smuggles out of the country under your shirt or hidden in your trousers. It's not the quantity that can be easily and quickly destroyed, especially without
notice.

So, was the imagery intentially deceptive? Was it intended to simply have shock value?

If these weapons DID exist, which, given the other statements and the credibility of the administrations, I don't believe they did - again, if they did, where are they now?

We'd better hope either that there were NONE, of that if there were, that we find them. Because if there were and we don't, then the only answer is "we don't know who has them."

Since the war was basically conducted to prevent the transfer of WMD to "bad-guys" or terrorists, then the very objective we used to promote the war was the outcome of it.

Frankly, IMHO, the President gave the whole world a bill of goods that was a total crock. The was was not justifiable on the WMD grounds. What might be a reasonable justification was the brutal dictator himself.

Yet to play that card, one would have to account for the US's part in arming and looking the other way when he did the dirty work for us. (Like attacking Iran and using WMD, which we provided intelligence data to make it more effective.) We forget how the US encouraged the Shia and Kurds to rise up against Saddam and then let them get cut down like wheat.

No, going to war against Iraq on humanitarian grounds wouldn't sell, certainly not for the hawks in this administration. And if we go to war on humanitarian grounds, then why was Bush so opposed to our involvement in Bosnia and the other conflicts around Serbia?

Oh, BTW, the assertion that the WMD could be in Syria doesn't fly. If the sat intelligence as Powell showed it, could supposedly pinpoint the presence of WMD so cleanly and clearly, then sending it to Syria wouldn't work either.

Cheers,
Greg

Re:WMD detector

[Handpaper]

AK-47s have been in use since at least 1949
With good reason. Its simplicity, durability and tolerance for abuse, dust and sand make it ideal for desert environments
In fact, they're so good that American troops are using them.

Re:WMD detector

[vsprintf]

Great idea! We'll send a bunch of cats to Iraq!

Where do I donate? That useless animal knocked over the Christmas tree again.

Re:WMD detector

[banzai51]

Tell that line to the Iranians, Kurds, and Iraqi disidents. Ooops, you can't. BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL VERY PUBLICALLY KILLED WITH WMDs. He had the weapons, not even France, Russia, and Germany will dispute that. The only questions were how much and what did he plan to do with them.

Let's also think this through a little bit. He sitting there, claiming not to have them. If he uses them, he just justified the whole US position. All support against the war goes out the window. His only option is to bore the US to death and hope they leave so you can climb back into power. Plus the little fact that no matter what you have, the US has in greater quantity and nastier doses. If you are a Middle-Eastern dictator on the Post-9/11 Shit List, do you really think the US is going to think twice about nuking you if you use a WMD first?

Re:WMD detector

[slavetrade55]

That's wrong. Find me a quote where any French, German, Russian or any other official said "Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction". The whole reason the UN issued the final resolution calling for Saddam to cooperate with weapons inspectors was because everyone believed Iraq *did* have WMD. There are lots of ways to argue that the war was wrong (there is a difference between disarmament and invasion), but saying that no one really believed Saddam had WMD in the first place is wrong.

--RMT

Re:WMD detector

[banzai51]

You make a good point, one that I lean to (he used up most of his WMDs). However, its like you can't be a little bit pregnent. If he uses them at all, then saying we only had a little left over after gassing the Kurds becomes unbelievable. Plus there is the question of retaliation. Whatever he can launch against US forces, the US can lauch back at him ten fold and then some. He isn't going to 'win' in his mind if Baghdad is glowing in the dark for the next 10,000 years.

Re:WMD detector

[ccp]

and the WMDs will be found.

Even if they have to be made just in order to be discovered...

Re:WMD detector

[ccp]

So when Russia had it's back to the wall and didn't use ICBMs, I guess that means they didn't exist?

The last time Russia (or rather the URSS) had its back to the wall was in 1942.
You're suggesting they should have used nuclear weapons against themselves in the 90's? Weird. very weird...

Re:WMD detector

[banzai51]

So tell us all, Mr. Wizard, why have WMD's if you're not going to use them?

Because it is a MAD world. The US and Soviets (now Russia) have mass fields of WMDs. But by your logic Nuclear Arms must not exist because no one is currently using them, eh?

Re:WMD detector

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, you mean he had about 2,500 nuclear warheads like the US does? That's a real threat. The point is, depending on what side of the line you stand on you can always choose to see the other side as a threat. There is no hard proof of WMD, there is no proof of anything Iraq could shoot up in the air and bomb America with. You are choosing to ignore the facts and live your life in fear. Don't take my word for it:

"In Jordan and Indonesia, well over half of those asked felt the United States posed a greater danger to world peace and stability than al Qaeda.

In five of the 11 countries polled, a majority of respondents believed the United States was more dangerous than Iran, named by Bush as part of an "axis of evil" with Iraq and North Korea. - From a survey of 11,000 people in 11 countries Link

Re:WMD detector

[pyros]

And I can also search for "liberal satan ass cream" and I get results too, over 2000 in fact.

Without commenting on the validity any opnions regarding the justification of the war, that is the best rebuttal of google evidence I've ever seen.

Re:WMD detector

[cmdr_beeftaco]

Of course he had WMD and probably a reefer in the glovebox too. If I learned one thing from all these years of watching COPS, it's that guilty people run and guilty people hide in spider holes. If he didn't have WMD then tell me why was he running for the authorities? Why did he consent to a search of his spider hole without a warrent? And tell me what exactly he was doing in an eight foot hole with a portable fractional distiller, 300 grams of extra-fine African Uranium and 300 petri dishes?
I'll you the hard truth, Saddam is a cracked-up-nerve-gas-junkie with a serious lack of respect for authority and bouts of dellusion and paranoia (sure Blackhawk helicoptors are following you and men are repeling down ropes after you). The best thing for Saddam is for the authorities to get him off the street and get him some help.

Re:WMD detector

[operagost]

We waited until we were attacked in 1941 to enter WWII, and some Europeans are STILL furious about that. So which way do you want it- do we defend the world or just us?

Re:WMD detector

[operagost]

Well, you need a little more. About 43% should do it.

Yes, more people voted for Bush in 2000 than for Clinton in 1992.

Re:WMD detector

[Tonytheloony]

what scared the french before the war, and terrifies them now, is the extensive relations between chirac and husesein

Just got to love when you state your wacky opinion as proof. That France sold weapons to Iraq when it was considered a western ally is nothing new, so did the US. It's always amusing when the neocons show the video where Chirac shakes Hussein's hand as proof that France still supports him. You know what? I saw a similar video in which Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Saddam.

Apparently you haven't seen it.

Re:WMD detector

[Zeinfeld]

"38,000 liters" of botulinum toxin,

Hey, they did find the botulinum. Not quite 38,000 litres, but they did find a vial with 50mg or so of the toxin in someone's fridge.

After being trumpeted on Fox News for a week the serious press pointed out that you can hardly go arround invading countries for possession of Botox.

The thing that gets me about the whole business is the idiots who ask 'if Saddam didn't have WMD why didn't he allow the inspectors in?'. Its a clever trick, you ask a question with a completely false statement. The UN weapons inspectors were allowed into Iraq and did a very thorough job of investigating. Iraq was forced to destroy a number of rockets whose range exceeded the range allowed by 5-10%.

It should be obvious to anyone but a complete administration dupe that the US did not invade Iraq to find WMD. The decision to invade had been taken long before. The risk of leaving the inspectors in place was that they would report back that Iraq had no WMD. Iraq was invaded because the administration knew it had no WMD.

Re:WMD detector

[dnoyeb]

Dude please. We've all heard it before. We KNOW he HAD them because we gave them to him. The issue was not HAD but HAVE. So what he has the ability to house, use, distribute WMD, we all know that. But does he have any NOW. Appearantly that answer was no, and still is no.

War could have and should have been justified for legitimate and available reasons. Manufacturing a reason just removes credibility.

Re:WMD detector

[Eisenstein]

From tons of biological and chemical agents lying around, uranium bought in Niger and "45 min to use WMDs" we came to "he surely had a program". Well, well.

if/when he talks, lots of people are gonna fry. and that scares the shit out of the germans, french, and russians. where you think lots of his weapons came from?

I think the country which has to fear the most regarding of use of chemical weapons are the USA.

Re:WMD detector

[dnoyeb]

The administration has yet to produce evidence to make me believe what they believed, even if wrong. I can't see how they came to their conclusions based on what they have presented.

Re:WMD detector

[Eisenstein]

Bush and Powell talked about several ten of thousands of tons of various agents. Nothing you hide in the fridge of your local 7-11.

Re:WMD detector

[Zeinfeld]

There is really no reason for him to hold back. I think the real reason for the lack of WMD's is that the chemical and biological weapons were used within the country against the kurds and so forth.

The dirty little secret here is that chemical weapons don't really work. You require pretty high concentrations to actually kill people. A case in point here is the Tokyo subway sarin attack which lead to 11 deaths out of 5000 people seriously affected. Even in the highly confined subway spaces the actual deaths were relatively light compared to the deaths that could have been caused with a moderately large explosive device.

In a battlefield setting chemical weapons make even less sense, you can't use anything that you don't have a protective suit for or else your troops get killed when the wind changes.

There are a couple of chemical weapons like napalm that can arguably be effective in limited circumstances - e.g. dropped on civilians from helicopters. But conventional weapons can typically achieve the same effects more easily.

Nuclear is a completely different issue. The one concrete verdict the UN inspectors delivered is that they did not believe Saddam had nuclear weapons capability.

However as a direct result of the idiot in the Whitehouse's big stupid mouth the other two members of the axis of evil have either aquired nuclear weapons (North Korea) or will soon acquire them (Iran). And with the US army currently over committed in Iraq there is not the slightest chance that the US will be able to do anything about the fact.

OK Iran has recently made suggestions about inspections. Don't believe them, they would be complete and utter fools not to develop a nuclear weapon, if Bush is elected in 2004 the only way Iran will be able to avoid an invasion is by being able to plausibly threaten a retaliatory attack on Israel.

Re:WMD detector

[drakaan]

Just curious...how so? I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on WMD, and am just about to read the interview with the Iraqi officer mentioned in the post you're responding to. How does not finding WMD make that report BS, though (assuming the officer isn't lying)?

Re:WMD detector

[drakaan]

I wouldn't be surprised at this point that the Bush Administration will go as far as "manufacturing" and placing the WMD evidence they are looking for just so that their little campaign in Iraq doesn't look like it was all in vain.

Although possible, I *hate* that argument for the single reason that it swings occam's razor the other way...wouldn't the simplest explanation (if they were found) be that it took a long time to find them? Just a thought. I'll shut up now.

Re:WMD detector

[smackjer]

Not that you'd find a lot of respect for Rumsfeld around here, anyway...

Re:WMD detector

[sher1]

>> blah blah blah common rhetoric blah blah blah I am one of those Americans who didn't want to have our troops there and wish that it could have been avoided. Truth is, I wish they could all come home now, or tomorrow, or the day after but as soon as possible. However, I don't think that removing a known criminal and murderer is a bad thing. I don't think that it was a coincendence and I don't think that the Iraqi's (those not supporting Hussein) feel it was a bad idea. I also don't think that the US knows what is best for the Middle East. But apparently, neither do they. Unless you count the thousands of years of unending war and hatred as being the best for the region. As long as the Middle East, or anyone else for that matter, continue to act like petulant children, they will continue to be treated as such.

Re:WMD detector

[pi radians]

where did all the chemical weapons documented after the Gulf War go?

Chemical weapons have a short shelf life. They would not have lasted 12 years anyhow.

Re:WMD detector

[duffbeer703]

Most of those chemical weapons are WWII-era mustard gas, phosgene, tear & CS gas and other blistering agents... which need to be used in great quantity to have any useful effect. They are also deadly in their stored form, so disposal (usually incineration) is difficult, hazardous and expensive.

Nerve gasses are lethal in tiny quantities and are stored in a relatively inert state.

Re:WMD detector

[smackjer]

"Iraq was invaded because the administration knew it had no WMD." I don't follow. The reason for the invasion was because Iraq had no WMD? Huh?

Re:WMD detector

[drakaan]

so better grow up and ask yourself (or mor specifically good ole bush) about international rights! (wonder why no german, french, other anti iraq-war countries get NO contracts for rebuilding in iraq? search google for 'bush iraq halliburton' and check fo yourself)

Google results notwithstanding...there are a couple of good (IMHO) reasons not to award contracts to German or French companies (or *any* companies other than US or Iraqi ones). The most obvious reason is that the source of the reconstruction funds is (ta-daa!) US taxpayer money. I'm already not a big fan of just giving the money away with no repayment plan, but I'm even less in favor of giving it away to people who don't directly benefit from it (Iraqis), or aren't helping fund it (me/you/KBR).

Re:WMD detector

[jkabbe]

I was referring to the fact that about half of elligible Americans vote and slightly less than half voted for Bush last time. So typically about 25% of voting-age Americans decide who the president will be.

Re:WMD detector

[smackjer]

The reason for invading Iraq was not because they didn't have WMD. Cuba doesn't have any either, and we're not invading them.

There were other reasons for the invasion.

Re:WMD detector

[Eight 01]

The U.S. didn't agree to give up it's nuclear warheads as a condition of a cease-fire agreement. Iraq did.

If they didn't want to cooperate with the U.N., they shouldn't have signed the Gulf War cease fire.

Re:WMD detector

[twofidyKidd]

Actually, you have a point. It would also bring into play Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice, that which can be adequately explained by stupidity."

Razors, and I'm not talkin' Gillette, have been appearing somewhat frequently in my discussions on /. and I can't imagine that's a good thing...

Re:WMD detector

[shotfeel]

I really should just leave this alone....

The only reason they found Hussein was because they had informants who told them where he was.

Assuming the WMD exist, its going to take someone telling us where to look in order to find them. Random searches are simply a long, looong shot (IMO).

Re:WMD detector

[hurtstotouchfire]

(ahem) Does anyone else find the frequent, unexplained use of the acronym WMD slightly humorous?

The Gulf War II Drinking Game:
"Drink when:
The words 'Weapon(s) of Mass Destruction' are used.
x2 if its shortned to 'WMD'"

Re:WMD detector

[Jugalator]

There is a difference between being wrong and lieing. The administration thought Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, so did the rest of the world. It appears they were all wrong.

I'd still say they lied, since IIRC, Powell had a press conference about their evidence against Saddam that would give them good reasons to start a war. Evidence being the key word here.

Re:WMD detector

[Jugalator]

I strongly believe, unfortunately, that Bush & co lied to the entire world. And got Blair to do so as well. I can't understand the reason behind needing to go so far as to lie to start a war though. Was it for some "we saved Iraq from their horrible dictator" PR? That sounds weird since countries seldom spontaneously launch a massive attack against a country just to make things democratic over there. Or maybe it was because of Bush's paranoia, thinking Saddam was funding Al-Qaeda to a great extent? But that's still risking to cause a whole lot of trouble for themselves if they're completely wrong. Hmm

Re:WMD detector

[mikerich]

Hey, they did find the botulinum. Not quite 38,000 litres, but they did find a vial with 50mg or so of the toxin in someone's fridge.

It was a reference strain of botulinum at that, not the form used in bioweapons.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:WMD detector

[mikerich]

The reason for invading Iraq was not because they didn't have WMD. Cuba doesn't have any either, and we're not invading them.

There were other reasons for the invasion.

Because we knew that Iraq couldn't put up a decent fight?

If the UK and US were to try the same with Cuba they might have to put up with taking casualties.

Which would look lousy in the re-election videos.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:WMD detector

[TheLoneDanger]

They could be just about anywhere, disquised as something else, stashed inside holes, false walls, or stuck down old oil wells, buried in a fake grave, etc.

I would imagine if you were going to hide anything from the Bush regime, it wouldn't be in anything having to do with oil.

Re:WMD detector

[js7a]

It was also widely reported that this report was bullshit

What so many people are forgetting is that before, 9/11, the Bush administration agreed that Iraq didn't have WMD.

Re:WMD detector

[mikerich]

actually, if you would take a few minutes to look at david kay's report, you'd see that he had extensive programs in development.

Which one of David Kay's reports? Kay's most recent report conceded that there were NO production plants manufacturing chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Some work had been done in the lab on bacteria, but they had not been weaponised.

Kay's belief on Iraq trying to manufacture centrifuges to make enriched uranium is not supported by the IAEA or the American Department of Energy.

whether he actually had them or not, and that was never in dispute among any intel agency, even the french, russians, and germans, what we DO KNOW, is that he did have them, did use them, did have extensive programs,

All of which were destroyed by the UN after the first Gulf War. Even the supposed 10 000 litres of anthrax is nothing more than the maximum amount of liquid growth medium that could have been created from the missing stocks - all of which would have expired now.

The only thing that brought those inspections to an end was that the very same David Kay had allowed his inspection teams to become covers for British and American intelligence. The Iraqis objected to spies wondering around their country under UN cover (and can you name another country that refused to allow intrusive inspections? Here's a clue)

Kay's spent much of the last few years saying what a great idea it would be to attack Iraq (here and here and here and here and here and here) to get rid of weapons of mass destruction. So if they aren't found, it's David Kay who is going to look stupid. He's already had to do some serious back-pedalling on the nuclear programme, centrifuges, those trucks that were supposedly mobile labs

The BBC's 'Panorama' got some good quotes out of Kay. I recommend a read of the transcript.

But why blame David Kay, here is an assessment of Saddam Hussein's capabilities straight from the top:

'He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction, he is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.'
Colin Powell. (24th February 2001)

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:WMD detector

[lobsterGun]

There was data that showed that Iraq still had chemical weapons:

There was the pile of missing warheads that Iraq claimed to have destroyed, but refused to present documentation on.

There was the pile of missing material that could be used in the construction of chemical weapons.

There was testimony from defectors that they had worked on chemical weapons programs.

There was Iraq's histroy of deception and obstruction of UN inspectors.

Bearing just the above data in mind, it's easy to see how an otherwise intelligent person could draw the conclusion that the Iraqis were hiding a chemical weapons program. Once that conclusion was drawn, all other evidence was interpreted in such a way as to reinforce that conclusion.

Re:WMD detector

[dcam]

I didn't. The hundreds of thousands of people I marched with in Sydney didn't think Iraq had WMD. Neither did the hundreds of thousands who marched all around the world. Most of the world thought Iraq didn't have WMD.

The point is your administration failed to do decent intelligence work on Iraq. They *wanted* to believe that Iraq had WMD and looked for intelligence that supported this view.

Before you dismiss me as a professional protestor, this was my first time I had been part of a protest. God willing this is the last time I will see such an apalling stupid action that I am driven to protest.

Re:WMD detector

[cpeterso]

Why would Saddam wait to win the "PR war" and still be captured and imprisoned for live or given the death penalty? He could have used his WMD to waste Israel and become a great martyr for Arab history.

Re:WMD detector

[cpeterso]

but what does Saddam gain from winning the "PR war"? He would still be captured and killed. Once the US started lobbing Tomahawks at Baghdad, he could be pretty certain that the US meant business. He could have used to WMD to take out Israel or Kuwait.

Re:WMD detector

[smackjer]

So we're NOT taking casualties in Iraq? Tell that to the families of the soldiers who are coming home for Christmas... in a box. Do you honestly think that if we were to invade Cuba, that Cuba could win?

Re:WMD detector

[Maudib]

Actually there was a pretty clear understanding before the war even began that many of the weapons had been smuggled into Syria. This wouldnt be the first time that Saddam "hid" his weapons in another country. He did the same thing with his airforce in Gulf 1. Except he made the idiotic choice of sending the plans to Iran. They still have them I think.

Re:WMD detector

[Atryn]

There was the pile of missing warheads that Iraq claimed to have destroyed, but refused to present documentation on.

There was the pile of missing material that could be used in the construction of chemical weapons.

Suppose the IRS came to you and audited you for the past ten years. They then charge you with obstructing justice for failing to provide all of your receipts for the past ten years. Your reponse of "I threw them away, even shredded some of them!" is laughed out of court because you failed to document your destruction of the receipts.

I'm not saying that receipts = WMD, or that Iraq is or isn't telling the truth. But, I do think that anyone who believes Iraq, in its dictator-controlled chaos over the past 10 years, kept "good records" of anything, much less of what they were destroying, has far too high an impression of the functionality of their society.

Re:WMD detector

[BobTheLawyer]

A better example is Nazi Germany, which had Sabin and all manner of nasty chemical weapons, significantly more advanced than those of the Allies, but of course didn't use them.

Re:WMD detector

[j3110]

Lets make it a little more realistic. You have to make a biological weapon, hide both the weapon and the lab, and you have to do it with hundreds of people roaming Texas. Oh yeah, and you have to do it without equipment, money, or chemicals more deadly than pesticide. Oh, I almost forgot, you have to do this with periodic bombings, and ruthless murderers all looking for a way to get more power. I almost forgot, you have a country full of pissed off people dieing from diseased water and lack of medicine.

Look, Saddam lacked the science, equipment, and materials to make WMD. He couldn't even clean his water. Making biological weapons isn't easy. The best you could do is try to make mustard gas from the salt in the salt water the same way that subs do on accident. Which, if he could get chlorine, I think he would have at least used some of it to purify his water to at least make it appear legitimate.

I'm really sick of the analogy "It's easy to hide milk jugs in a place the size of Texas". It's not easy to make, and people were dieing all the time because he couldn't even make the SIMPLEST biological weapon (mustard gas/chlorine) for cleaning his water.

Re:WMD detector

[GSloop]

Clear understanding by whom?

If we had such great intel we could tell exactly which bunker they (the WMD) were in, then how exactly did they smuggle them into Syria without us knowing.

Can you point to a SINGLE definitive statement that the administration has make to back this accusation?

Goodness. Kind of hard to smuggle tens of thousands of liters of WMD without being noticed.

Cheers,
Greg

Re:WMD detector

[j3110]

You're post gave me another arguing point.

I think the key point to the entire arguement now is if Saddam can't even hide himself, how is he going to hide a WMD? WMD are measured in tons, he's measured in kilograms. Saddam didn't require a lab to be created either.

I think it's pretty ridiculous that people actually believe he had any amounts of toxins that would classify as a WMD when he couldn't even hide himself. Which would you be more concerned with, your own safety, or the safety of your weapons?

I like your post... I'll be using that arguement now that Saddam has been captured as further evidence of a complete lack of WMD program, because it's the most compelling evidence that we have thus far of the lack of a WMD program. (Which we shouldn't have to prove the non-existance of something that no one has found evidence of.)

Re:WMD detector

[mikerich]

So we're NOT taking casualties in Iraq? Tell that to the families of the soldiers who are coming home for Christmas... in a box. Do you honestly think that if we were to invade Cuba, that Cuba could win?

Of course the Coalition is taking casualties in Iraq, but compare it to the rate dead men were returning from Vietnam and you will see that the armed forces of the Allies have got off remarkably lightly. At its peak, Vietnam was killing over 500 GIs a week, no wonder Johnson was finished.

Nowhere did I say that America couldn't win against Cuba, but the Cubans would almost certainly make it a bloody affair, so much so that I doubt any President could survive. Some wars aren't worth winning, a war against Cuba would be one of them.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:WMD detector

[mikerich]

Would you rather we pick fights that we can't win?

Actually I'd rather we didn't go round picking fights at all. But then I'm old-fashioned like that when it comes to sending people off to die.

Fighting when you're threatened is different from 'pre-emptive defence' against countries that can't harm you.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:WMD detector

[j3110]

I despise the UN for making me side with Bush on any issue :) If we are paying the bill, I think we are to be the ones that decide where that money should go. If MS was crying that I wasn't buying their software I'ld tell them to go screw themselves, it's my money. Whiney French/German people aren't going to change my mind on that issue. It's not about "we took a risk" it's about "it's our damned money". I don't have a problem with them not paying it back after all the damage done by the sanctions that we wouldn't let the UN lift to keep the Iraqis healthy, and besides, technically, we're the ones that destroyed their country.

That said, the problem with the issue is that Bush can't handle foreign relations. He's the worst president in history (except maybe Andrew Jackson) at handling foreigners. If he just said, "It's our money, we're going to spend it how we see fit." instead of trying to twist a knife in their side, it would go over much better. He wants to control everything, and he doesn't care about anyone else's opinion. He's funny to watch, but it's hard to laugh when people are really suffering and/or dead partly because of his decisions.

Re:WMD detector

[Moofie]

Do you have even a vague basis for your supposition that the US would, today, employ chemical weapons? Or are you just being silly?

Re:WMD detector

[Lord Prox]

Look, Saddam lacked the science, equipment, and materials to make WMD. He couldn't even clean his water.

Does not != could not. I could make WMD in my garage if I were so inclinded. Take chemestry next semister.



Did I just feed a troll? I am not sure.

Re:WMD detector

[Zeinfeld]

"Iraq was invaded because the administration knew it had no WMD." I don't follow. The reason for the invasion was because Iraq had no WMD? Huh?

If the administration had really been concerned about the WMD issue they would have allowed the UN inspectors to complete their work. The principal advocates of the war, Wolfowitz and Perle barely mentioned the WMD issue until Blair made it clear that he could not invade without causus belli. Reports of the administration discussions were that nobody considered WMD the top reason for war but it was the only one that everyone could agree on.

Once the administration had made WMD into their purported reason for war they were stuck, if the UN came out and said that Saddam was WMD free the opportunity to invade would be ended. On the other hand if they invaded and found no WMD they could probably fool the US public into believing the operation was a success. After all it was going to be a cakewalk - remember?

Re:WMD detector

[yourmom16]

And why not use them if you have them? They weren't an effective deterrant, so why not put them to use?

Re:WMD detector

[yourmom16]

Saddam had nothing to lose from using them, that he wouldn't have lost anyway. So why didn't he use them?

Re:WMD detector

[ArsSineArtificio]

I'm not some right-wing biggot... But trying to have a conversation with someone left of center about an issue they disagree with is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Perhaps that should give you pause for thought about the philosophical underpinnings of modern liberalism. Are you really sure it's the right wing which is "bigoted"?

Re:WMD detector

[kubrick]

But trying to have a conversation with someone left of center about an issue they disagree with is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Sense isn't politically exclusive to one side of the debate or the other... I think your sentence is just as correct when it reads

But trying to have a conversation with someone about an issue they disagree with is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Call it the diminishment of public debate. Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" sums up the reasons why, but for all the effect it had he may well not have bothered.

And I can also search for "liberal satan ass cream" and I get results too, over 2000 in fact.

That in itself is worth a +5. :) Interestingly, "bush satan ass cream" gets over 5,000, "clinton satan ass cream" around half that. Just checking...

Re:WMD detector

[bonzomcgrue]

>Wait this is America...
>>25% is considered passing!
>>
>>It can certainly get you elected President :)

Or at least governor of California.

Re:WMD detector

[bechthros]

that was 1988. let me ask you a question: how long do you think bacteria live outside of any growth medium? 15 years? How long do you think highly volatile and reactive chemicals last? 15 years? We can't even get *food* to last more than a few months on the shelf (outside a can anyway). We have a *food preservative industry* to make sure that bread, cheese and other food products made from bacteria can stay on shelves for just a few months. And food isn't designed to blow up and kill anybody, and if it were, it's shelf life would be considerably shorter. Think, people, think.

Let me ask you another: How did he get all that gas to use on the Kurds 15 years ago? Who sold it to him? And what does that do to any pretense of morality on the part of said sellers of WMD?

Let me ask one final question, if you're even still reading: If we were absolutely certain that he posessed WMD, what scared us so much about the UN inspectors? What was Bush so afraid of that he had to pull the plug on them?

You can't turn on the news these days without hearing about how divided Americans are against each other. Now, complete this sentence: Divide and...

Re:WMD detector

[Doomdark]

Saddam didn't require a lab to be created either.

:-)

But some people claim he was/is a frankenstein, and it would make lots of sense he came from a test tube or something! Yeah, I'd assume he was made same way all other humans are actually.

And yes, I agree in that it'd be reasonable to require proof of existence, rather than proof of non-existence; especially since latter is in general impossible to really prove... if you find it, it exists, if not, you may still have doubts.

Re:WMD detector

[macjohn]

Well, they just had a Sarin leak last weak at the Umatilla weapons something-or-other here in Oregon. Sarin! Apparently they have war-heads full of the stuff. SARIN! Like right next to I-84 and few miles from the Columbia river! Why on earth do we have bombs full of Sarin???!!!

Re:WMD detector

[Kelz]

I believe was is speaking of the BUSINESS relations between Chirac and Hussein. They skirted around UN sanctions and made huge oil deals with them.

Re:WMD detector

[Crazy Eight]

He's not talking out his ass at all. Rumsfeld worked with the Reagan and Bush I administrations as a special envoy to Hussein back when we were propping him up in the Iraq-Iran war. Part of that deal involved suppling him with the chemical weapons he used to gas 20,000+ Iranians and a few thousand Kurds. This is old news that was vetted back '90. We've been seriously fucking with that part of the world since '45. Given that the Bush administration went on the defensive months ago over the apparent lack of WMDs I've got to wonder where all the armchair hawks have been getting their news.

Re:WMD detector

[lobsterGun]

By all reports, the Iraqi government was meticulious when it came to record keeping. That they didn't have or wouldn't produce the records detailing the destruction of the ordinance is somewhat interesting.

Taken by itself it does not indicate that they did or did not destroy any weapons, but it an act that is out of character for the Iraqi government. When viewed against the backdrop of their obstruction and subversion of the inspection process it could be seen as an indication that they are hiding something.

Re:WMD detector

[Demolition]

Do you have even a vague basis for your supposition that the US would, today, employ chemical weapons?

I don't think that Eisenstein meant that the U.S. would employ chemical weapons. Rather, I believe he's stating that the U.S. is more likely to be the target of a chemical weapon attack by a terrorist organization.

D.

Re:WMD detector

[Crazy Eight]

if you really think they are really a figment of someone's imagination i suggest you ask the kurds. to postulate, even for a moment, that he never had them, or they never existed, puts you at the extreme fringe of people.

That is like marginalizing someone who claims the Germans don't have any gas chambers. They did. Then we kicked their asses. They don't have them anymore.

Keep in mind when you talk about Hussein's armament that we bombed the shit out of him during the Gulf War, subjected his retreating Republican Guard to a fish-in-a-barrel type of decimation, and then kept him in check throughout the Clinton administration with "no-fly" zones and occasional shellings. Yes, he kicked out the inspectors, but he also stood up on the world stage right after 9/11 to say, "Whoa, Dudes... It wasn't us!" His desire to maintain a hold on what he had left trumped the most basic standards of public dignity. In other words, he nearly begged to spared from another thrashing. Stalinesque dictators with big guns just don't behave like that when dealing with the outside world.

if/when he talks, lots of people are gonna fry. and that scares the shit out of the germans, french, and russians. where you think lots of his weapons came from?

What's he going to say? That he he got his WMDs from the West? We already knew that, and pointing the finger at France, Germany, or Russia will do nothing but prompt them to remind us that we gave him WMDs to use against Iranians. Should he say -- as he already has -- that he didn't have any WMDs? Again, we already knew that -- just as you really know that.

whether we find them or not, is actually irrelevant.

No it isn't. We've just shown the world that we're willing to throw a punch without being able to prove beforehand that it's justified. At first we just looked like assholes. Now, we look like liars.

if we do, you, or dean, or martin sheen, tim sarandon, the dixie chicks etc., gonna say the war was justified?

Why would that make any difference? He didn't even invade Israel let alone Hawaii.

he was a real threat.

He was a threat to Iran, Kuwait, and, on a smaller scale, Israel before we decided he was too big for his britches. Then he was just a threat to Iraqis. This guy couldn't even be called a Paper Tiger because he wasn't roaring.

Re:WMD detector

[Moofie]

Ah. That wasn't totally clear. Thanks for fixing my misunderstanding.

Re:WMD detector

[Crazy Eight]

No you didn't just feed a troll. You simply missed the point entirely. Prepare to have your home invaded. I won't feel safe knowing that you might be able to make a WMD if you feel inclined and then think about maybe using it against me.

Re:WMD detector

[corebreech]

You're forgetting the part where we're invaders.

Is it your estimation that Russia would not use their WMD's were we to invade?

Do you honestly think we wouldn't use our WMD's if we were invaded?

No, right?

So why is it you feel Saddam Hussein wouldn't use WMD's when we invaded Iraq?

Re:WMD detector

[Crazy Eight]

Why has this been modded "flamebait"? Could someone else explain why WMDs weren't used against our troops?

Re:WMD detector

[Crazy Eight]

He didn't have them when we crossed his borders because he couldn't make them himself. He had them when he fought the Iranians and the Kurds because we sold them to him.

P.S. Cool nick.

Re:WMD detector

[Crazy Eight]

No thank you. I won't drive through. Hussein already proved he was willing to gas the Iranian neighbors that he wanted to conquer. I can't fathom why he wouldn't gas invaders who made it clear that they wanted him eliminated. He wasn't being driven from Kuwait. He was being driven from power completely. The opening salvo of the war was a direct missile strike on his life. He had already publicly proven himself capable of mass murder, had nothing to lose, and must have been pissed. If he actually had any WMDs he would have used them.

Re:WMD detector

[Crazy Eight]

So when Russia had it's back to the wall and didn't use ICBMs, I guess that means they didn't exist?

What are you talking about? Russia hasn't been invaded since WWII. They never claimed to be free of ICBMs. Are you talking about the former Soviet Union? It collapsed under the weight of its Communist economy... Again, what are you talking about?

There where people from within Iraqs military saying they exisited.

No, there were Iraqi scientists during the lead-up to the war claiming that they weren't working on bad shit, and there have been scientists coming forward after the fall of Baghdad who claim the bad shit (nuke or otherwise) just couldn't be pulled off. The only one who has given the finger to any serious bad guy stuff is Chalabi, but he's a lying sack of shit who won't come clean however noble his end may have been. Could you point out one Iraqi not on that stupid deck of cards that "knows" about Hussein's WMDs and then explain why they haven't been able to provide us with the evidence we need to be exonerated in the eyes of the doubting... uh, Earth?

If they didn't exist, why didn't he let the UN weapon inspectors do there job? --> Normally I would post that because, who wants people troopng around your country? but he did sign an agreement after the '91 conflict.

He signed an agreement after the '91 conflict because he lost and had to either keep what he had (which didn't involve a loss of territory or sovereignty) or go through a little more "loosing". As far as the inspections go, we were the ones who said fuck it.

British intellegence told us that they had information telling them they existed.

No they didn't. We went to them with our secret intelligence -- the kind that says, "Hey guys, we have the proof but can't make it public." -- and Blair told the rest of the world that we were on to something. We had to bring them on board.

Perhaps he was in Bahgdad and fear for his life? He is cowadly.

Huh? If he had bad shit he could have used it at the southern border.

For the record, I think Bush is one of the worse presidents, ever.

There have been worse presidents certainly. I was with the guy to a degree up until he sidelined Afghanistan and Terrorism for declaring war on Iraq. I've got to wonder just what the fuck you think this guy has done that's so bad if it doesn't involve the bullshit he 's embraced over Iraq.

Re:WMD detector

[beowulfcluster]

Mapquest is a good start but it really needs to add some crosshairs to the image and a 'fire' button next to it to be truly useful, as a stress releiver if nothing else.

Re:WMD detector

[8-balll]

Well since you took what I said and ran in the other direction... All I was replying to was the statement that he never had WMD... I know perfectly good and well who supplied him, the US and every other country that wanted hin to beat the Iranians.. I'd love to sit here and give a great big speech about how Bush had this reason or that, but I can't and won't, I'm not allowed in those meetings. And since you want to bring it up when has the US every completely agreed on anything?? If you come up with one answer, I assure you it's wrong. Just remember that the US is a democracy(actually it's a republic, but that's another discussion..), atleast we have the right to disagree, we're supposed to, that's how we work out the problems in this country.

Re:WMD detector

[Crazy Eight]

There was data that showed that Iraq still had chemical weapons:

Where?

There was the pile of missing warheads that Iraq claimed to have destroyed, but refused to present documentation on... [and a] pile of missing material that could be used in the construction of chemical weapons.

Reagan on Iran-Contra, "I don't remember."

There was testimony from defectors that they had worked on chemical weapons programs.

Like Chalabi's testimony about money changing hands between Hussein's government and Al-Quaeda? He claimed to have documentary evidence but couldn't produce it. In fact, half of Washington thought him a fraud, but they couldn't trump those that wanted to believe him.

There was Iraq's histroy of deception and obstruction of UN inspectors.

No doubt. Should that be enough for an invasion?

...an otherwise intelligent person could draw the conclusion that the Iraqis were hiding a chemical weapons program. Once that conclusion was drawn, all other evidence was interpreted in such a way as to reinforce that conclusion.

If you really want to draw that conclusion you can, but the only "intelligent" conclusion was "we don't know", which would have softened or made irrelevant the "whoops, guess not." If we were arguing about whether or not some new airship would fly we could say lets give it a shot and see if it works. Since we were talking about a course of action that would involve the death of American soldiers (none of whom have parents in the Administration), the spending of billions of dollars (how badly does a crap economy affect Rumsfeld or Bush?), and a major loss of credibility with much of the world I don't see how an "intelligent" person wouldn't have wanted a little more certainty.

Would it kill us to take a deep breath and look at how far things have gone? Iraq has consumed civic conversation in our country for the past 18 months despite a number of problems (like post 9/11 unemployment) that have continued unabated. We're actually debating whether or not a defeated "enemy" might have been able to harm us or someone we like. How's this for a principal: if we don't know for sure a that a foreign country can fuck us, we shouldn't hit the freak switch -- especially when the button-masters are in no danger of going without health care, income, or children, and they never put themselves at physical risk when they were too young to be given war-creating power.

Re:WMD detector

[Zeinfeld]

Ahahaha. So let me get this straight - Bush apparently said words that "magically" created nuclear weapons for NKorea and Iran?

Stating that you intend to invade a country is a good way to cause it to build a defense. The axis of evil statement was a clear invasion threat.

North Korea has been playing with nuclear weapons for some time but has been playing an extortion game where they have been trading not actually assembling the components for foreign aid. The GOP in Congress decided to kill Clinton's deal to buy off North Korea, then Bush killed the North/South dialogue. Result we now have no dialogue, no talks on unification and North Korea pointing three to five nuclear warheads at Seoul.

The situation in Iran is that they had been persuing nuclear technology but the democratic and clerical factions had both avoided actually building a device lest the other faction gain control of it. When Bush threatened to invade the Iranian factions agreed it was necessary to bury their differences and build weapons as fast as possible.

Bush's fifteen seconds of talking trash have made the world a much more dangerous place.

Re:WMD detector

[BCoates]

Part of that deal involved suppling him with the chemical weapons

I never heard about that. Link?

--
Benjamin Coates

Re:WMD detector

[Maudib]

Considering that Iraq had been smuggling thousands of barrels a month of oil into Syria for the past decade, and continued to do so up until the war began, I would imagine that it would have been quite easy to smuggle the weapons out.

The Bush administration never commented on this as they wanted to limit the scop of the war to Iraq, however many many Israeli intelligence officers have said as much.

If you consider the administrations actions towards Syria since "the conclusion of hostilities", one can deduce pretty quickly that the Syrians were holding out on something important.

In the last two weeks prior to the invasion, Saddam invited inspectors back in to Iraq. Why wait until and invasion is imminent unless you were still busy covering up the crime. Both Syria and Saddam were Bathist regimes, there was an alliance between the two predicated on Iraq's need for hard cash, which only Syria could provide vis a vis oil smuggling.

1. He hid weapons abroud during time of war before.
2. Syria and Iraq were political (bathist) allies.
3. The smuggling infrastructure was well established.
4. Syria has WMD ambitions.
5. After years of steadfast refusal, Saddam suddenly has a change of heart on inspections.

Ok, its not hard evidence, but it is a pretty strong case and a logical move on his part.

Re:WMD detector

[GSloop]

IMHO, this is incredibly flimsy "evidence." Actually it's just speculation.

As for inspectors, they were in country for quite some time before the invasion - Much more than two weeks.

If you're right, then much of what we went to war over was completely wrong. In fact, the war resulted in the transfer of WMD into the hands of different parties.

Not only that, but given the implication that the US knew EXACTLY where the WMD was, and evey move it made - the scorning of Blixt and the inspectors as wimpy ill informed and ill skilled - and that the US could walk in and in ten minutes find the WMD must have been a lie.

Either they're are lieing now to cover up its movement and the loss of control over WMD, or they were lieing before when they dramatically overstated their knowledge of location and actual possession of WMD.

How about some links to said Israei intelligence reports. (Never mind that Israel has a serious vested interest in seeing Syria under millitary siege - thus more than adequate reason to lie.)

If Saddam made a deal with Syria, how come he didn't run to Syria? One would be hard pressed to force Syria to give him up - millitary pressure or no. (Given our allowing dictators to run - such as the Shaw of Iran etc, one would fail to see how we could have any leverage with the world.)

Frankly, I don't think Iraq did have any viable quantities of WMD before the war. The inspectors tended to back up those conclustions, though they also found the co-operation less than stellar.

You can't exactly smuggle antrax in a bunch of oil barrels either. Any transfer would likely result in massive contamination of the area of the transfer and result in detection.

A much more plausable theory is that no significant WMD existed. The WMD we all heard about was a threat from Saddam to his neighbors - not that he really had any, but that he wanted people to think he did. Without WMD, Iraq was much more vulnerable to attack from it's neighbors - namely Iran.

Sure, it was a bad gamble, but lose at the American's hands, or loose face, honor and perhaps your life from your enemies. Neither was a great option.

If I were Saddam, frankly, I'd be pissed at the US. He was nothing more than a water-boy for us. He attacked Iran and was supported by us. April Glasspie (sp) told him that his dispute with Kuait was in internal Arab affair and we didn't have an opinion in how he solved it. He invaded, after checking with us and getting what he considered was an "OK" and then we come kick his ass.

I think he deserved it, but it wasn't for lack of checking with us first.

We provided him with some of his WMD technology and stocks. We gave intel for his WMD attacks on Iran and blocked any serious criticism of Iraq for it.

How we can now trumpet how awful Saddam was, as though this was some new and shocking fact - well, it's a downright lie. We knew and we didn't care. We largely created the problems we have there.

Perhaps with 30, 40, or 50 years of honest dealings the region will learn to trust us again, but I wouldn't before then if I were Iranian or Iraqi.

Cheers,
Greg

Re:WMD detector

[fshalor]

2. Vapor ware addition: Secure Voting Machines...

I'll ask though, was that popular or "electoral". And just to complete the shift off topic, is there any point in using the electoral system anymore.

3. Vaporware addition: statistics analysis of policical poll data. (since there is no way in hell the poll was accurate in florida to within 500 votes. It just didn't make sence.)

Re:WMD detector

[fshalor]

So we're not going to use our nukes either?

Time for a good Dr. Strangelove quote. I'm to fried to think of one though.

Ah, "It is EssEntial!"

Re:WMD detector

[ZWithaPGGB]

Come on guys, why are we modding offtopic (NT) and Flamebait offtopic (WMD) as Funny or Insightful. /. SNR is approaching the 3dB rolloff these days. I'm going to have to start browsing @ 7, and modding funny -2.

Re:WMD detector

[drakaan]

I think the implication was that either he didn't get a chance to give the order, or the troops didn't want to follow through...still don't see the "nothing to lose" argument as somthing that supports the original post. He had plenty to lose, though...primarily credibility and support.

Re:WMD detector

[BobTheLawyer]

that is simply not true. Recently revealed documents show that US military advisers knew at the time that Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iranian humane wave attacks. That's it. No supply of weapons. No assistance with use.

I don't agree with the US's tacit support for Hussein in the 80s. But suggestions the US supplied him with chemical weapons are at best an urban myth and at worst a lie. If anybody doubts this, they should post a link rather than just modding me to troll.

Re:WMD detector

[Archie Steel]

I'm sorry, but when he did use them (against the kurds), he was an american ally and remained so for another two years.

Watch out for the propaganda machine.

(Insert DNF joke here)

[Hentai]

Or does anyone even still remember?

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[pheared]

They do, it's just not funny anymore. :-)

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[Hentai]

Not even in Spanish?

(Mulching is a process of inbred fertilization which employs certain decomposed organic materials--including, but not limited to animal sediment to blanket an area in which vegetation is desired. The procedure enriches the soil for stimulated plant development while, at the same time, preventing erosion and decreasing the evaporation of moisture from the ground.)

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[bigjocker]

Se llama Duke Nukem Forever porque se va a tardar toda una eternidad en salir al mercado.

Nota: Forver significa 'por siempre' en ingles.

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[AKAImBatman]

(Insert DNF joke here)

Duke Nukem' (waiting) Forever

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[Hentai]

Joke inserted. You have 7 credit(s).

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[Keith Russell]

After this long, they should just give 3D Realms the Vladimir And Estragon Lifetime Achievement Award, and drop DNF from the ballot.

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[frenetic3]

(Insert DNF joke here)

Did Not Finish

*sigh* and i've reached a new low...

-fren

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[Hangtime]

Ahhh yes, the ultimate in vapor/forever ware. I can remember being in a Quake 2 CTF match sometime in December 1998 and someone asking about DNF. At that time, I said "I think its supposed to be out in March 99. I was playing in Stronghold Opposition...damn I wish I had kept a screenshot of me writing that. Absolutely, hilarious. Whoever is bank rolling them needs to shut them down and scuttle the project. Could you given a ton of money, learned C++ and written a game given within five years by yourself? I know I could.

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[artemis67]

It's entirely possible that DNF does not even exist as a real project at 3D Realms anymore. Consider that the vaporware state of the game generates a tremendous amount of buzz for the DN brand and for the company. Consider also the grandious vision that is always laid out for the game.

Now, why would 3D Realms go and kill all of this excitement and attention by trying to release a game that could never live up to the hype? It would be very anti-climactic and could even kill the franchise. They certainly don't want to release the next Daikatana.

Also, investors generally don't have bottomless pockets filled with cash. How long can they pour money into a game development team before they start demanding results? Two years? Three years? Five years?

In the meantime, 3D Realms has released a slew of other DN games, when they should have been working on DNF. Though it may have been a priority at one time, DNF is obviously not a priority right now. Or maybe what started out as DNF was cleverly reworked and released under another title, thinking that it wouldn't live up to the hype (DN: Manhattan Project? Max Payne?).

Here's my prediction: 3D Realms will continue to be evasive on the subject, and will continue to release DN games... and when one comes along that they feel is worthy of the honor, they will rechristen it as Duke Nukem Forever. But only after they've almost completely exhausted the hype surrounding DNF.

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[gl4ss]

**(DN: Manhattan Project? Max Payne?)**

certainly weren't started as dnf.. payne was started outside the company and manhattan project is just too different(and quickly done type of thing).

however i do agree that 3drealms could just as well have sitted on their butts in the dnf project, as it's scrapped so many times and started again that there must be real motivational problems unless it's not either done at all or as a research platform for new stuff.

there is no hype around dnf anymore, it's just a joke living a life of it's own already. nobody is really expecting it to come out anytime soon and nobody is taking seriously any current feature lists.

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[GoatPigSheep]

Last I heard it was based on the unreal engine, which means the game could feasibly be based on unreal tournament 2003/2004 technology by now. Since the unreal engine is a continuing product and not a stand-alone engine for each unreal game like the quake products, it's reasonable to assume DNF could come out even within a year and not be behind in any way...

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[DeadScreenSky]

Sorry to let facts get in the way of your conspiracy theories, but here goes... :)

Also, investors generally don't have bottomless pockets filled with cash. How long can they pour money into a game development team before they start demanding results? Two years? Three years? Five years?
Being an independent developer, 3DRealms can take as long as it wants. :D They have enough cash to go for another five years, easily, even without releasing DN spinoffs. They made $20 million alone, IIRC, licensing the Max Payne character recently... They actually advertise how they are allowed to take their pretty time in their Want Ads. Pretty nice perk if you ask me, considering how crazy most game development is with crunch periods!

In the meantime, 3D Realms has released a slew of other DN games, when they should have been working on DNF.
Since DN3D, 3DRealms hasn't worked on any non-DNF games other than in an advisory role, which hardly kills their ability to work on DNF. And the cash lets them keep taking their time.

Here's my prediction: 3D Realms will continue to be evasive on the subject, and will continue to release DN games... and when one comes along that they feel is worthy of the honor, they will rechristen it as Duke Nukem Forever. But only after they've almost completely exhausted the hype surrounding DNF.
Nah, DNF will be the first game 3DRealms actually develops and releases since Shadow Warrior. I expect we will see it in the next year (potentially using the Source engine, though it is a long shot). A media blackout isn't a bad thing, especially with all the fanboy ranting about 3DRealms 'wasting their time'. :D

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[Polyphemis]

Finally, someone that has their facts straight and isn't talking out of their ass!

Two minor corrections, the total amount earned from Max Payne was $40 million, but that was divided between 3DR and Remedy and I'm not sure which way it was split so you could well be right on 3DR's part. Also, I'm almost positive that Shadow Warrior was developed by an outside company and published under 3DR's name.

To the parent's parent: Yes, 3DR still is working on DNF, my best friend works has worked there for two years and I got to see part of the game at one point. And yes, it is taking a damned long time, and it's really anybody's guess as to why it's taking such a long time. However, that's not a license to make shit up and claim to know something you don't because there's nothing in your post that even approaches fact.

I realize my claim to have actually seen the game has no immediately verifiable basis here, so let's approach it from a different angle and look at the logic: Which of these two scenarios is more likely to exist: 1) A game company that employs 20+ people to sit around and play games all day for seven years, or 2) A company working on a game that's taking an absurd amount of time due to some manner of internal problems (be it high turnover, multiple engine switches, mismanagement, who can say*)?

Sure, the former idea is juicy and amusing to think about and earn mod points from, but that kind of shit simply doesn't happen. How could anyone in their right mind believe something that childish? Remember, Half-Life 2 was complete vaporware until a few short months ago.

* - I'd like to note that I'm not saying any of these necessarily exists (except the multiple engine switches which is publicly known), I'm just naming common problems game companies in general have.

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[jandrese]

Certainly there are other Samuel Beckett fans on Slashdot. It's not like the entire crowd is made of 14 year old Linux crazed basement nerds.

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[Zirnike]

"It's not like the entire crowd is made of 14 year old Linux crazed basement nerds."

Yeah, I'm 29.

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[starling]

Remember, Half-Life 2 was complete vaporware until a few short months ago.

Half-Life 2 is still complete vaporware.

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[Noren]

("Mulching" es un proceso de ferilization que emplea ciertos materiales organicos en decomposicion-- incluyendo pero no linitando sedimentos de origen animal-- recubrir una area en la cual se desea vegatacionn. El proceso enriqueze la tierra estimulando el desarrollo vegetal minetras wue al mismo tiempo prevee la erosion y disminuye la evaporacion de humedad en el terreno)

Nope, still not funny.

More importantly, what's the name of the Sage's dog?

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[brettper]

Did Not Finish?

What?

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[Polyphemis]

I guess I imagined the wealth of screenshots, gigabytes of ingame video and the leaked build then? Perhaps I also hallucinated the firsthand accounts of the people present at the initial public presentation of the engine's capabilities, or all computer gaming magazines' abundance of coverage late summer?

The only way you could get further from vaporware than that is if you could already buy it in stores.

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[PEREGRI]

That's not entirely correct... Forever significa "PARA siempre" :P

Re:(Insert DNF joke here)

[starling]

Exactly. Until you can buy it, it's vapor. Wanna bet Half Life 2 gets one of the awards this year?

Windows 95

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm still waiting for that bug-free OS we were promised years ago. Should be the vaporware king for years to come.

Re:Windows 95

[Gordonjcp]

I vote for desktop Linux that's usable for anyone normal.

What makes it usable for anyone "normal"? What is "normal"? Seriously, what the fuck do you want?

Re:Windows 95

[genner]

It's called linux you insensitive clod. It's been out for years.

Re:Windows 95

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, it's called GNU :)

Re:Windows 95

[Lispy]

You could have done the following:
killall -HUP gnome-panel

If it woulnd't have been for the panel you could have used a graphical taskmanager such as Gnomes System Manager zu restart the process. This was a bad example since it is a situation that is as hard or as easy to fix than with other OSes, ie Windows. Just because you don't know how to do it with linux doesn't necessary mean it's harder to handle. Linux takes a different apporach in many areas, just because it isn't (well, not only) copying Windows or OS X it still can be fairly easy to use.

cu,
Lispy

Re:Windows 95

[kraksmoka]

what about the winbloze bonghorn alpha? ? ? oh, its completely superior to today's mac os and better yet, it will be alpha testing for the next two years to prove it! suuuuuurrrreeeee......

maybe they are trying to do an arthur clarke tribute on that one and release it/rename it WINBLOZE 2010

Re:Windows 95

[EvilTwinSkippy]

The question was vaporware, not "You have been sniffing too many vapors" ware. Software will always have bugs because life does not play according to the rules the programmers want it to play by. Users will use the device outside of it's parameters, some punk will figure out a way to exploit the software for access, or a

Re:Windows 95

[Jugalator]

I'm still waiting for that bug-free OS we were promised years ago

Did I miss something or did Bill Gates promise Windows 95 to be bug free?

Re:Windows 95

[Gordonjcp]

So by the same arguments, Linux has already got a more useable desktop environment than Windows. Great! Next job?

It's become cliche to submit Duke Nukem Forever

[Quarters]

But, someone will, just so it will be on there for five years in a row.

Re:It's become cliche to submit Duke Nukem Forever

[bugbread]

It may be cliche, it may be unfunny, but goddamn it's accurate! I'm hardpressed to think of a better vaporware winner than DNF.

Re:It's become cliche to submit Duke Nukem Forever

[Echnin]

4 years. It wasn't on the list in 1999... Of course, back then it wasn't even very late yet, so... Yeah. Might make no. 1 for the 3rd time this year.

Well, being that it's 2003

[Raul654]

Hal 9000 is already 2 years late. Damn Illinois people ;)

Re:Well, being that it's 2003

[lemody]

yeah, I know the feeling. I waited for terminator-2 to visit in 1997 but nothing happened. now the next great event would be 2021, when cyberpunk (the roleplaying game) happens and we will have all these cool self-augmentations etc. :)

Re:Well, being that it's 2003

[NickFitz]

Reply to the spam and you could have several inches of "self augmentation" right now!

Re:Well, being that it's 2003

[princewally]

I'm going to beat you to the augmentation. I'm gonna get it in 2020.

Or, in the original version, 2010. That's only a little over 6 years away.

Re:Well, being that it's 2003

[jsebrech]

One could argue that the cyc project has the capability to grow into HAL-like intelligence, and it's been in operation for years.

Re:Well, being that it's 2003

[Ralphus Maximus]

Really? We just retired 2 HAL-9000s.

Ok, they were HP-9000s but they acted the same. Had a mind of their own.

Cheers,
RM

Is that a joke?

[eurleif]

"And, of course, those that existed merely as a figment of someone's imagination."

Is that a joke, or can they read minds now? I could come up 1000 things that I planned to create but didn't tell a soul about, could one of them win?

Re:Is that a joke?

[Moraelin]

I think more like in some marketroid's imagination. There have been plenty of things that were hyped to hell and back, although noone even started working on a prototype, nor even planned to.

E.g., see the recent re-announcement of disposable cell phones.

E.g., see SCO's IP stolen by Linux, to be released "real soon now". I think it's a very safe bet that they never even existed, except in the SCO management's imagination.

Obviously!

[djkitsch]

This is obviously a clear winner...

Vaporware winners from years past...

[tcopeland]

...are listed here. Indrema, nice.

Re:Vaporware winners from years past...

[AKAImBatman]

10. Indrema: This company cast itself as a slayer of corporate behemoths -- Indrema said it would produce an open-source game console that could beat those from Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo. But the available evidence suggests that, in the company's short life, all it managed to get out the door were a few sorry press releases.

"If only they would have gotten off their sorry butts and built the stupid device instead of modeling 3-D mockups and obsessing over the developer's kit," said reader Tim Toner, who had great expectations for the system, "there would already be a fanatical grassroots developer network in place big enough to scare the big guys." Those big guys did well last year in the world of games, but Indrema died a quiet death last spring.

Doesn't that sound a lot like the "Phantom Gaming Console"? Hmm...

Re:Vaporware winners from years past...

[Otter]

Tim Toner, the anti-vapor critic, sounds at least as hallucinatory as anyone at Indrema.

Re:Vaporware winners from years past...

[SpaceJunkie]

Yeah - but nobody cares- the Phantom is just a Microsoft (Gold Premier Embedded Member) box. It has a .net based API.
If you want it- you might as well buy a PC or an XBOX. You can guarantee that MS will be looking to broadband game delivery with the X-Box 2 anyway. Forget the phantom. It sucks.

Atari 1450 XLD

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm STILL waiting for one of these wonder computers Alan Alda told me about!

Duke Nukem?

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Anything Amiga?

Re:Duke Nukem?

[bhima]

Wait, there was some amiga hardware shown here in Graz and we're not even a big city in Europe...

Missed it though, I don't pay enough attention to the news.

But there was hardware there!

Re:Duke Nukem?

[rebeka thomas]

I vote AmigaOS4

Back in 1999, there were slides shown at shows through europe, showing the progress and plans for AmigaOS4.0. All going smoothly, they told us. And we waited, and waited, and a year later "On track and rockin'!". Yes, not long to go.

Then we find out nobody started anything until 2002 anyway.

Now it's coming up to 2004, and it's still only just out. It's hit beta though, and finally boots

It's been hilarious visiting all the Amiga boards and hearing the faithful and supposed "developers" who're in on the know how tell me I'm wrong when I say it's all hype, smoke and mirrors, and it'll be out within a month... or two. I've been doing that 4 years now and still there's nothing to show for it.

I'm sure it'll come eventually, but If anyone related to its marketing says when, do ignore them. They're full of shit.

Re:Duke Nukem?

[rebeka thomas]

It'll be nice to see you proven wrong in the end. I know more than one AmigaOS developer, and that's not what they've toldme.

wtf? I just said they've had delay after delay and bullshit after bullshit for 4 years. Are you denying this? have you magically somehow got a developer friend who pulled a copy of AmigaOS4 out of his ass and gave it to you in these last few years? no you don't.

And if you believe a developer that tells you anything different to the reality that AmigaOS4 is not out yet, like I've stated, then you're on drugs. Please share.

But january 2004 will be very exciting for amiga owners, believe me

Typical Amiga user vague fanatacism. Hinting at AmigaOS4 coming out, but saying it vaguely enough that you can later deny that's what you meant?

Let me guess, your Amiga tshirts will finally arrive?

bwahaha!. This is great cheap entertainment. so sue me.

Re:Duke Nukem?

[mdwh2]

Have you seen that hardware? It's five-year-old PowerPC G3 stuff and it doesn't even sound like it's in full production yet.

The "AmigaOne" hardware is out, and includes a G4 version. The problem is AmigaOS 4, which as you say seems like a perfect example of vapourware (it's been promised since summer 2000 IIRC).

Amiga is truley the kings of old school vaporware.

Amiga Inc the company, perhaps, but not the Amiga (ie, the computer) market. For example, if you want new machines, there's MorphOS and the Pegasos (Amiga compatible computers which are as close as say OS X is to MacOS; they just don't own the Amiga trademarks).

Re:Duke Nukem?

[mdwh2]

The website says the hardware has been available since Nov 2002, which is clearly a lie.

Why is this clearly a lie?

Do you personally know anyone who has gotten a system from these guys? I kinda suspect it's only the inner circle, and the stuff is not really generally available yet.

On what is this suspicion based? I don't know anyone with one personally, but have seen plenty of people saying they own one on Amiga forums (and no, they're not part of some "inner circle"). I don't know anyone with Mac OS X, but I don't go making assumptions that that isn't generally available.

Windows Longhorn

[Zog The Undeniable]

It couldn't be anything else really. Despite a demo by billg, the release date has slipped from 2004 to 2009!.

Re:Windows Longhorn

[UnknowingFool]

Doesn't this date push get MS into a lot of legal and PR hotwater? After all, one of the selling points of SA6 was that you could get upgrades every 2 years at a reduced price. If they push it back to 2006, they will dramatically miss their deadline according to the terms of the deal. I'm sure MS wrote enough escape clauses in the agreement to cover their butts so they won't have to fork over any money, but it won't make any of their customers happy. Some of them might start registering complaints to the FTC.

Re:Windows Longhorn

[mcSey921]

2009 is listed as "an outside chance" from some Gartner analyst. 50% 2006, 40% 2007 and an outside chance of 08-09. Not to defend M$, but Gartner Group doesn't make their release schedule.

Re:Windows Longhorn

[ideonode]

No, the official release date hasn't slipped to 2009. Gartner is reporting that there's an 'outside chance' that it could slip to then, but they're still of the belief that it's most likely to ship in 2006. Yes, a slippage, but you are pushing a worst-case scenario as the most probable.

Re:Windows Longhorn

[Adam9]

So, who hired Gartner this time to say that?

Re:Windows Longhorn

[stubear]

The Reg, well Gartner really, is full of crap. Nowhere in the article or the Gartner report does it state which version of Longhorn they are referring to and it is highly unlikely that the desktop version of Longhorn will slip that far behind. I'm guessing they are referring to the Server version of Longhorn which is more likely because the Server versions have been slowly slipping behind the desktop releases. 2000 and 2003 Servers were all released after their desktop counterparts (2000 Professional and XP Professional respectively).

Not only that but these dates keep creeping every time the story is retold. Gartner puts the release of Longhorn (likely the Server version) at mid-2008 at the latest and 2006 at the earliest however The Register states Gartner puts the date as late as 2009 but doesn't mention whether it's early or late 2009. I'd call that highly suspect. The 2009 date The Reg is reporting comes from the end of the article where Gartner suspects that if Longhorn ships in 2007 the EOL for 2000 will get bumped a year but in the event that Longhorn is released in 2008/9 they believe MS will force customers to upgrade to Windows 2003 Server first. Earlier reports about the shipping date of Longhorn had it slipping from late 2005 to early- to mid-2006 then suddenly to no earlier than 2007.

In the meantime this fails to take into account a number of issues, not least of which is where is the desktop version in all of this? There are far too many if's and way too much on the line for MS to let Longhorn slip beyond 2007 at the latest and with the shape the OS was in during the PDC is it quite likely we will see Longhorn hit the shelves in 2006.

Re:Windows Longhorn

[leifm]

There is no guarentee in there, you pay for SA, if an upgrade comes out during the term you get it, if not that's life. Sure people will get pissed off, but that would be their fault, for getting sucked into SA, not MS's.

Re:Windows Longhorn

[ath0mic]

5 years; that's nothing. Duke Nukem Forever is approaching 8. That's older than some /. readers :)

Re:Windows Longhorn

[poot_rootbeer]

If Microsoft's sales pitch for SA was to throw together some figures showing the cost of buying a new OS release every two years vs. buying into a service agreement and getting complimentary upgrades for the duration, I'd say the customers would have good reason to be pissed off -- the salesdroids gave them inaccurate data.

Of course, just because Longhorn won't be released for several years doesn't preclude the possibility of a "Windows XP Second Edition"-type product to fill the gap.

Re:Windows Longhorn

[leifm]

I don't know what the sales pitch was. Given that MS, as far as I know, won't relese figures on SA I'd say most people didn't buy into it.

I think they may over-hype SP2, but I don't think there will be any second edition, that didn't work so well with 98 as I recall. And I think they probably learned their lesson with Me...

Re:Windows Longhorn

[XO]

You're not kidding about that, even if you think you are -- at the first International Slashdot Meetup Day, I met an 8 year old Slashdot reader!

Re:Windows Longhorn

[penguinoid]

I'm betting the Beta version of Longhorn will be sold as the next version of XP.

Re:Windows Longhorn

[iphayd]

On the street in Vegas, the odds for 2010 aren't worth betting, however, betting on 2006 will get you $10000 on your one, if they make it.

Disclaimer: IANAB, and these do not represent stats that you may use to bet on.

Re:Windows Longhorn

[kc0dxh]

After all, one of the selling points of SA6 was that you could get upgrades every 2 years at a reduced price. If they push it back to 2006, they will dramatically miss their deadline according to the terms of the deal.

Sure, but I don't think that's the goal. It's my belief that this gives users a real reason to upgrade to XP. I use and enjoy MS products, but I just don't see them going for the long investment. At least, that's not their track record.

Re:Windows Longhorn

[kubrick]

If we're talking mental age, that's been apparent for a while. :)

Re:And the winner is ...

[frankthechicken]

and spell checker on Slashdot

The granddaddy of them all

[Ralph Wiggam]

Until Duke Nukem Forever is released or officially canceled, they shouldn't waste their time with Vaporware awards. We know what's going to win.

-B

Re:The granddaddy of them all

[Artifex]

Until Duke Nukem Forever is released or officially canceled, they shouldn't waste their time with Vaporware awards. We know what's going to win.

I hereby rename it Duke Nukem NEVER.

Re:The granddaddy of them all

[X_Bones]

I like how your post got modded redundant when sixty of the same damn "Microsoft Security!!1!" and "SCO infringing code" posts are at +4 or higher. And this in the one thread where a DNF post is actually on-topic...

GNU/HURD

[iamdrscience]

Biggest piece of vaporware of all time. However, I'll still put some faith in it on the slim chance that it really has needed and benefitted from being in development for ~20 years. Seriously though, can you think of any other piece of software that's been in development that long and is still largely incomplete?

Re:GNU/HURD

[CRCulver]

Well, as a stable release, the Hurd is vapourware. However, one can install it and it does work for a number of uses. It fulfill the greatly-needed role of making the free-software-unfriendly Linux obsolete and ensuring that a kernel which fits GNU values becomes popular, but it is a great system to poke around with and see where *nix operating systems might move beyond POSIX.

Re:GNU/HURD

[purdue_thor]

I second this one! This is a clip from the initial Linux announcement on Usenet by Linus Torvalds back in 1991:

I can (well, almost) hear you asking yourselves "why?". Hurd will be
out in a year (or two, or next month, who knows), and I've already got
minix. This is a program for hackers by a hacker. I've enjouyed doing
it, and somebody might enjoy looking at it and even modifying it for
their own needs. It is still small enough to understand, use and
modify, and I'm looking forward to any comments you might have.

See what a visionary he was? He knew back in 1991 that GNU/HURD would be the greatest piece of vaporware.

Re:GNU/HURD

[pete-classic]

But GNU exists, and is active use. HURD exists, but is, as you say, complete.

You seem to mean HURD, not GNU/HURD. HURD is a kernel*, where GNU/HURD is a system, like GNU/Linux is a system . . same software, different kernel.

You can go to http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/download.html and get HURD (such as it is). Hardly vapor.

-Peter

*Of course the HURD is really a micro-kernel and a bunch of daemons that do the work traditionally done by an OS kernel, but let's not get pedantic.

-P

Re:GNU/HURD

[Haeleth]

It fulfill the greatly-needed role of making the free-software-unfriendly Linux obsolete and ensuring that a kernel which fits GNU values becomes popular...

In what way you consider Linux to be "free-software-unfriendly"?

If I may quote the Free Software Foundation on the issue, "We use Linux-based GNU systems today for most of our work, and we hope you use them too." (source) And again, "if Linux were already available, and we were considering whether to start writing another kernel---we would not do it." (source)

The latter link is their page explaining why they didn't drop the Hurd when Linux matured. The reason is that they thought Hurd could become better than Linux, not that they had philosophical issues with Linux.

Sounds like the FSF thinks Linux fits GNU values. Why don't you?

Re:GNU/HURD

[CRCulver]

Sounds like the FSF thinks Linux fits GNU values. Why don't you?

Well, Linux is GPL so it works in the interim. However, Linus is not that dedicated to the principles that led Stallman to launch GNU. He's a man of pragmatism, not idealism and has said this himself time and time again. For people who believe strongly in the principles of GNU, it would nice to complete the Hurd so that we can use a system designed by people with whom we sympathise. I don't believe in GNU as simply computer software, I see it as a revolution designed to make the world a better place. Linus' doesn't care for that very much, so why use Linux after Hurd is done?

Re:GNU/HURD

[starseeker]

"Seriously though, can you think of any other piece of software that's been in development that long and is still largely incomplete?"

I don't think that's really a fair statement. If you are speaking of ACTIVE development, there has been very little for a long time. The pulse is there - some activity does exist - but not enough to tackle in any kind of reasonable time the production of something like Hurd. And Hurd does actually exist, by the way. You can run it. If you mean a stable, "world conqueroring" Hurd is vaporware, I'll agree with that.

Gnu/HURD is not likely to ever be a major player for the simple reason it does not have critical mass. BSD and Linux have critical mass, and they are currently the only open source kernels that do. Many more exist, and of those the Hurd is perhaps the most prominent, but it simply doesn't have the mindshare.

I'll tell you why Hurd is still a good thing though. Imagine this - the foobared US legal system makes free Linux impossible in the US. What then? Contribute to BSD, where SCO can grab all our hard work and turn it against us? Nope. GNU Hurd will rise in such a case. It is fundamentally a conceptual jump beyond Unix, and SCO cannot possibly establish any claim. If they monkey with it they will tangle directly with the FSF, and frankly that might be worth it just for the entertainment of seeing the FSF fully roused.

If SCO wins, GNU Hurd will become the new center of GPL kernel development. The direction to head is quite clear - complete the port to L4, flesh it out, clean it up, and introduce the world to a real world OS that is a generation beyond Unix or Windows. The potential has always been there, but the difficulty of implimenting something fundamentally new was what allowed Linux into first place. With the proper incentive, like smacking SCO across the face, GNU Hurd development could take a quantum leap. That is why it is good to have around, even if it isn't doing anything important right now. It is a second string to our bow, and greased up and pulled taught it could shoot a mean arrow.

Re:GNU/HURD

[reidbold]

The more likely situation: SCO wins, offending code is removed from kernel, life goes on as normal.

Re:GNU/HURD

[aardvarkjoe]

so that we can use a system designed by people with whom we sympathise.

So now the free software crowd wants to only use software written by people with the exact same views? That's got to be the most juvenile logic I've heard from the supposed "free software" advocates -- and that's saying something.

Once again, I'm glad that I ally myself with the open source crowd rather than those free software nuts.

Re:GNU/HURD

[skookum]

As long as proprietary binary-only modules are supported by the kernel, it's not truly free. Or at least, that's one argument, not necessarily mine.

a secure Microsoft product?

[Numeric]

Didnt Gates or Ballmer promise that?

Re:a secure Microsoft product?

[axehind]

Secure against what? It's secure against any admin wanting to administer it already.

Clue Ware

[phrostie]

i vote for infringing code by SCOG

The Phantom

[wobedraggled]

Nuff said...

Fallout 3

[Ndiin]

May it live in peace... NMA Fallout 3 info

Re:Fallout 3

[Moraelin]

Far as I remember, Fallout 3 was never even officially announced.

There were a few discussions on the Interplay boards along the lines of "we're sorta pondering making Fallout 3 in 3D" (back in '97) or "why does everyone go rabid about the idea of real-time combat in Fallout 3?" (in 2002) But the Interplay official stance always was along the lines of "nope, we're making no Fallout 3, and no Planescape Torment 2. A hack-n-slash like IWD has cost far less to make, and sold far more copies."

Sure, some fans were jumping to proclaim that every new project at Interplay would secretely be Fallout 3. But Interplay always said "nope."

So I'm not sure it even qualifies as vapourware at all. Compared to such shameless hype as the Bitboys or Indrema, or even to the endless interviews about DNF, Fallout 3 was basically not even promised in the first place.

Re:Fallout 3

[acidrain69]

it's not vaporware if it gets shelved. Vaporware is implied by continuing promises of a release date that continually gets moved or missed.

Iraqi WMDs!

[kautilya]

We were promised "discovery" of those amazing Iraqi WMDs which can destroy west in matter of hours. Those will certainly qualify.

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[LeoDV]

RTFA, buddy :

" As in years before, technology companies promised to ship products in 2003 that simply didn't materialize -- just like Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

^ The first paragraph of the article. And this got to 5, Insightful?

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[praksys]

We were promised "discovery" of those amazing Iraqi WMDs...

...this bit is right...

...which can destroy west in matter of hours...

...but why add this BS? You are making a good point less credible.

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[b-baggins]

Man, it is going to be SOOOO much fun watching you guys when we begin to uncover cache after cache after cache.

I wonder how many ways you'll be able to say: Yeah, but America still sucks and I hate George Bush.

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[kautilya]

Tony Blair went on record saying that Saddam can fire WMDs in "xy" hour notice (I can't remember if xy=72 or 48).

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[kautilya]

Thanks for pointing out. I usually jump to middle of the article :)

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[praksys]

He said they had chemical weapons that could be launched with 45 minutes notice (which has since been confirmed by the Iraqi Airforce officer who was the original source). He never suggested that these weapons could "destroy the west".

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[retards]

Yup, and if you don't uncover cache after cache after cache you can still bash the rest of the world for being too weak/leftist/communist/soft-on-terror/stuck-up/wha tever.

However, until the day you uncover them (or lose interrest in looking): HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Everybody told you so. ... not that any of all this shit is really funny, but it's still your shit, so start smelling it.

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[mcc]

Man, it is going to be SOOOO much fun watching you guys when we begin to uncover cache after cache after cache.

The "there are no WMDs" line is not the message.

The message is, secondarily, "Saddam was not a real or credible threat to the U.S. or its interests". Primarily, the message is this: "Regardless of the 'just'ness of this war, George Bush acted wrongly in initiating it. He acted wrongly in rejecting the real, basic, and relatively quick diplomatic solutions to the problem he claimed to be going to war to solve. He acted wrongly in not only going against the will of, but actively flipping off the United Nations, finally and unquestionably destroying the convention that we have tried to hold since the end of WW2 that countries don't just go invading other countries just because they feel like it, even if those other countries are "bad". And he acted wrongly in brazenly, openly lying to the people of the United States and the entire world about his reasons for going to war."

The "there are no WMDs" line is just icing. It's a "isn't this pathetic, not ONLY was Saddam not a real or credible threat to the U.S. back before the war when we THOUGHT he had WMDs, he didn't even HAVE WMDs". If you want to claim Saddam having WMDs would be automatic proof he was a threat, let me put it to you this way: I know where to find the WMDs. No, really, I do. I know where they are. I'll tell you: They're in North Korea.

I wonder how many ways you'll be able to say: Yeah, but America still sucks and I hate George Bush.

Probably the same way that Bush supporters manage to find so many ways (when it's the better part of a year now and there's still no credible reason why the U.S. went to Iraq except to be the world's unilateral playground monitor) to say: Bush didn't lie to us.

Besides, there are so many excellent reasons to hate George Bush, and only a portion of them have anything to do with Iraq.

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[JeebusJones]

Actually xy = .75 hour

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[The Ape With No Name]

when we begin to uncover

Yes, I am sure you are posting this from the banks of the Tigris. Hoo-aah!

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[black88]

Though I do not hate America, my birthplace, and home, I do very much despise the president. I hate George W Bush. Why is it that we always get into this partisan bullshit? Ever listen to right-wing radio these days? Bunch of fake conservative neo zionist busy bodies screaming about why they hate liberals. Of course many liberals are no better in terms of rhetoric. So piss off if you can't at least tolerate the opinions of others, no one said we all have to agree.

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[g0hare]

Love America. Hate George Bush.

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[rjung2k]

I hate George W. Bush precisely because I love America.

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[Jerf]

He acted wrongly in not only going against the will of, but actively flipping off the United Nations,

I find it ironic that "actively flipping off the United Nations" consisted of "actually enforcing United Nation resolutions". God damn that unilateralist bastard, didn't he realize those were just for show?

With so many accusations like that transparently false, is it any wonder that you find your viewpoints marginalized?

(I suppose your "quick diplomatic solution" largely consists of Yet Another UN Resolution? Yes, those worked well...)

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[Fred IV]

Hate to say it, but I expect them to be "found" too...a few weeks before the next election. I'm expecting to see OBL in shackles around the same time.

Never do today what can be put off until tomorrow, especially when another 4 years are at stake.

FIV

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[stimpleton]

"I know where to find the WMDs. No, really, I do. I know where they are. I'll tell you: They're in North Korea."

They're also in the USA: Nuclear bombs, Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles, Cluster Bombs, Land Mines, Chemical Weapons. Submarines with nuclear warheads in the Antarctic sea.

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[superyooser]

Other vaporware related to Iraq (courtesy of the Left Wing):

• Coalition forces attacked with Saddam's WMD (well of course, there weren't WMD, right?)
• thousands of U.S. troops killed
• refugee crisis
• ecological disaster
• seizure of Iraqi oil
• destruction of Islamic "holy" sites by Americans
• destruction of historical artifacts by Americans
• terrorist attacks in America after invasion

Here is the non-vaporware in Iraq.

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[Jerf]

What crack are you smoking? The weapons inspections did fail, M(r/s). AC! The "inspections" were supposed to be validations that the weapons we all knew existed were destroyed with full Iraqi cooperation, something that only existed in leftie delusions. I guess we were just supposed to pretend that continuous stonewalling qualifies as full cooperation?

The continuous re-writing of history is just infuriating. The "left" is far, far more guilty of that then any of their "opponents". And again, this is why you find your opinions marginalized. You have to make up history to support your views.

Like I said, how dare he enforce the actual words of the resolution? (Why don't you go read them?)

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[kubrick]

Man, it is going to be SOOOO much fun watching you guys when we begin to uncover cache after cache after cache.

About a month before the next Presidential election? You mean it will take them that long to smuggle the evidence in?

Re:Iraqi WMDs!

[tomhudson]

poster wrote:

Submarines with nuclear warheads in the Antarctic sea.

I think you mean the arctic sea. Antartica is a land mass, and pretty far from the action (the world's flash points) - or is Bill Gates funding an attack on the penguins again?.

No Shadowbane this year.

[darkmayo]

They actually released it.. unforunately it was stored incorrectly... and instead of aging into a fine wine, all we got was a bottle of vinegar.

Re:well, we took care of saddam over the weekend..

[Anonymous Coward]

dont forget SCO's Linux/UNIX infringement evidence.

Doom 3?

[anethema]

How far back has the release date for doom 3 slipped? "When its done" seems to have become "When you're all too old to care". I really hope this doesnt become another DNF.

Re:Doom 3?

[sheetsda]

The rumor (well, I don't know if its rumor, I fairly sure John Carmack himself said it) is that Microsoft offered id a truckload of money to sit on Doom3 until an XBox port was done.

Re:Doom 3?

[*weasel]

one might wonder if id's unspoken business plan is to let Carmack create the greatest engine possible, and then just polish the art until consumers have rigs fast enough to run it.

I remember quake 3 going through a similar statis period of about a year between playable and release. and quake3 didn't even have a 'single player game experience'.

but if doom3 had already been released, all you'd hear is moaning about how high the system requirements are. what good would it do them to burn out their product inertia because no-one can play it?

i'd also guess carmack's time is much more profitably spent adding flexibility to the new engine to increase its appeal to licensees; and supporting the q3 engine licensees, than trying to optimize doom3 until they do release.

There is simply a wall at which the game won't run well enough on enough machines to warrant a release. And it's right next to the wall at which the time spent optimizing the engine results in less performance gain than the upgrade rate of the gaming market.

Re:Doom 3?

[BigDumbAnimal]

A release date that has never been announced cannot (by definition) slip.

The only dates that have slipped have been speculative dates made by publishers, game sites, and fans.

Re:Doom 3?

[leifm]

I know nothing about graphics API stuff, but would moving a game written towards OpenGL take a while to port to DirectX? Does the XBOX use DirectX?

I'm not so pumped about Doom3. My prediction is as always id pushes technology but the gameplay is basically the same as the first Doom.

Re:Doom 3?

[rsmith-mac]

Realisiticly speaking, there has only been 1 date ever mentioned: 2003 - it was on banners advertising Doom 3 at E3 2002. It has been in development for a while, but id has never said anything besides 2003(and no one has resonably expected it before that), so it has only slipped 1 time.

Re:Doom 3?

[dzym]

There was never a "hard and fast" release date SET for Doom 3, so I don't have a problem with waiting for it, unless it doesn't actually come out next year in which case I'm going to be slightly pissed.

Half-Life 2 on the other hand ... is another story.

Re:Doom 3?

[selderrr]

There's one big difference between Quake3 and Doom3 : competition.

Back in the Q3 days, there was only 1major competitor to ID, which was Epic's unreal engine. Other games were based on the Q2 engine, or had another customer base (TombRaider fon instance was rarely compared to ID games)
Today, things are very different with Unreal2 engine, HalfLife2, Blizzard having a serous engine, ...

I don't thing they can pull our Doom3 string as long they did with Q3

Re:Doom 3?

[segmond]

I am sorry, but this is so lame. We are now writing games for the future not for the present systems? Plz, that is what made ID great, they could get better performance out of the present systems than their peers could. There are still fine games being made for the present systems by other peeps, graphics is not everything, game play is too!

Re:Doom 3?

[Krapangor]

Quantum computing will be ready for the desktop in 2050, so you'll have to wait a little for Doom 3.

Re:Doom 3?

[swb]

It's kind of lame, but it's not that bad. If you want to reach the next level of game engine performance from the user's perspective, you have to be able to do things that can't be done very well on today's best hardware, and also assume that a new game engine will take a lot of time to write, meaning that your next generation hardware demands will largely be met by the time it hits the street.

In the case of Doom3, perhaps they went too far in new game engine capabilities and desktop CPU just hasn't caught up yet to what's considered acceptable for engine performance. But it's not like this was totally unprecedented. When Quake came out, it was all but unplayable on my P166 system except at the lowest resolutions. It took a voodoo card to make it even playable.

Is there a quantum leap in performance like the Voodoo cards in the next six months?

Re:Doom 3?

[Dr. Photo]

id's (and pretty much all commercial PC game developers' since) method has always been to buy the very best systems you can find today, at the start of development, then by the time the game is ready for release, those same system specs describe a new "entry-level" system.

Re:Doom 3?

[fredrikj]

The only release date we've heard from id Software themselves is "when it's done". The "Coming 2003" poster at E3 2002 was Activision's artifice.

Re:Doom 3?

[IncohereD]

We are now writing games for the future not for the present systems? Plz, that is what made ID great, they could get better performance out of the present systems than their peers could.

Which company have you been watching? Were you able to run Quake/Q2/Q3 at full details/resolution when they came out? Hell no! Why do you think Quake3 was used as a benchmark for so long? Only about a year ago did the framerates start getting meaninglessly high on the high-end rigs with full details.

The whole point of id has been to make engines that last long enough to get the next one out, so they can continue to resell it to make money in the interim. Look what Counterstrike did with Half-Life did with the Quake engine, it's still going strong, and I'm STILL seeing posts complaining of slowdowns in certain areas.

Quake ran like ass compared to Duke3D when they both originally came out (remember all the flame wars?), but it's clear which one was built to last. id knows what they're doing. And yes, they also get better peformance at the same hardware level, they just have much higher standards of performance.

Re:Doom 3?

[*weasel]

the difference i was trying to point out is that lately, it seems as if developers have to -wait- for 'entry level' systems to become pervasive enough to find a profitable market.

maybe feature creep due to hardware advances pushes up the minimum requirements. maybe the upgrade cycle slowed down as game development cycles grew, and hardware advances stayed at the same rate.

whatever it is, it definitely looks as if the games that are sold heavily on their graphics are staying in 'when its done' mode so long that you can't help but wonder why they -still- require such powerful machines to run acceptably when they release. if they were just working on gameplay and bugs, it's unlikely to push up system specs.

I mean, how could they be 'delayed' for 6-12 months and yet the minimum requirements still carry sticker-shock for all but the most hardcore gamers?

doom3 was -announced- in 2001. being gracious enough to consider that their 'start' date, and looking at anandtech's high end system guide for 2001, the best gaming rig you could buy then was an amd 1.3ghz and a geforce3.

i think the minimum requirements will still be a bit higher than that when it releases.

Re:Doom 3?

[saintlupus]

Quake ran like ass compared to Duke3D when they both originally came out (remember all the flame wars?), but it's clear which one was built to last.

Duke 3D of course.

Laser tripbombs. Best. Deathmatch. Weapon. Ever.

--saint

Re:Doom 3?

[WasterDave]

They definately offered. The rumor is that the offer was accepted.

Wouldn't surprise me at all - and I would be very surprised if the number in question was less than $100M.

Dave

Re:Doom 3?

[reidbold]

You mean we can't even look up or down? Who's going to buy that?

Re:Doom 3?

[jandrese]

In the case of Doom3, perhaps they went too far in new game engine capabilities and desktop CPU just hasn't caught up yet to what's considered acceptable for engine performance. But it's not like this was totally unprecedented. When Quake came out, it was all but unplayable on my P166 system except at the lowest resolutions. It took a voodoo card to make it even playable.

What? Maybe you're thinking of Quake2. Quake was playable on my P-90 with S3 Trio64 (no 3D acceleration) graphics card. Quake2 is what really upped the ante in the minimum hardware department. I remember even after I upgraded to the PII-400 with Matrox Mystique G200, Quake2 was still a bit of a dog. Granted, the GL support on the G series chips was complete crap in those days (they used some bogus GL to Direct3D translation layer in the drivers). OTOH, Quake3 was surprisingly playable on the G200 under FreeBSD, so who knows.

I figure that Doom3 will require a Geforce 4 (probably even the 4mx guys will get terrible performance) or equivalent to play at any decent resolution. Most likely there will be plenty of knobs you can tweak to get a fast (if crappy looking) game out of more modest hardware.

I wonder if Doom3 is going to be full of 100 meter tall 2 cm thick walls that you have to walk across like Doom2?

Re:Doom 3?

[leifm]

Ok, my bad, Quake then.

Re:Doom 3?

[jandrese]

I'm not so pumped about Doom3. My prediction is as always id pushes technology but the gameplay is basically the same as the first Doom.

You mean it's going to be a very nice looking first person shooter?

IMHO, the FPS field is a little stale right now. There are basically only two notable twists to the field, and both of them are pretty evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The first is the increase in "stealth" games where you don't shoot everything in sight, but rather try to avoid fighting sometimes. This has been done pretty much to death already. The other type is highly coordinated team action games, where the online component requires a team of 4 or more players on each side to even hope to accomplish anything, but even this is pretty much just an evolution of the team deathmatch concept. Maybe I'm just jaded.

Re:Doom 3?

[danila]

Doom can run on every machine that can run Max Payne 2. Half-Life 2 can run on every machine that can run Splinter Cell. From the customer setups standpoint, they can both be released now.

Re:Doom 3?

[bogie]

"Back in the Q3 days, there was only 1major competitor to ID,"

I see zero difference today. The only real competition is still a version of the Unreal engine.Half-Life2 engine? That's not even close to being out yet. Blizzard? What popular FPS games use that?

The competition you speak of either isn't out yet or doesn't play in the same ballpark as the Doom3 engine. Like the Q3 engine the Doom3 engine will be around only competing with the Unreal engine for a long long time. Heck fine by me if they stick with the Q3 engine for a while longer. It still looks great and you can play any game made with it on middle of the road hardware. Contrast that to the Eye candy Unreal engine which in exchange for slightly better graphics absolutely requires top-end hardware. The only other one that I can think that is a viable option is the Lithtech engine. And most developers don't want to use that because its STILL ubber buggy, especially with regards to its POS sound implementation.

Re:Doom 3?

[slycer]

I really really miss laser tripbombs.. there was nothing quite like using the jetpack & setting up 50 tripbombs through the only spot on a map that you could get through with a jetpack.

Forget twitch reflexes.. this was decidely a point where you did *not* want to twitch.

Re:Doom 3?

[saintlupus]

how are duke's laser tripbombs better than half-life's?

From your description, they're not. But I've never played Half Life, so I can't really compare them, personally.

(I switched to Macs right around the time HL came out. So I never had a computer that could run it.)

--saint

Re:Doom 3?

[Dr. Photo]

maybe feature creep due to hardware advances pushes up the minimum requirements. maybe the upgrade cycle slowed down as game development cycles grew, and hardware advances stayed at the same rate.

Maybe you're right. ;-)

Re:Doom 3?

[Jagasian]

In fact, all FPS games have stopped progressing gameplay wise since Quake. Other than changes in gameplay theme, it has been the same since Quake.

That is, if you don't consider hybrid games such as "Deus Ex", which is a RPG, action-adventure, FPS - all in one.

Or Savage, which is a RTS and FPS rolled into one. Note Savage runs natively on both windows and Linux. Why aren't you playing it yet? You can even buy it online directly from the developer. SUPPORT LINUX GAME DEVELOPERS!

Re:Doom 3?

[Jagasian]

How about FPS + RTS? It lets you have huge team games, but still have organization within teams because a commander governs each team from a RTS point of view. Savage for Windows and Linux does just this. It is a great game, and I highly recommend you check it out.

Re:Doom 3?

[anethema]

...probably even the 4mx guys will get terrible performance...

Yeah, the 4MX series are just souped up geforce 2's. Any new fancy shmancy game wont work well on them.

Re:Doom 3?

[leifm]

They have basically stayed the same, but not completely. Halo has the sheild deal that changes the way you play to some degree, SOF had the first sound meter I think, stuff like that. id never seems to add small elements like that, they just put out a kick ass engine that powers all the top tier FPS stuff for the next 2-3 years. Not that I don't like id, I think the GPLing of code after commercial viability is over is cool, and their games are usually fun, they just aren't innovative as far as gameplay at all.

Re:Doom 3?

[swb]

What? Maybe you're thinking of Quake2. Quake was playable on my P-90 with S3 Trio64 (no 3D acceleration) graphics card. Quake2 is what really upped the ante in the minimum hardware department. I remember even after I upgraded to the PII-400 with Matrox Mystique G200, Quake2 was still a bit of a dog. Granted, the GL support on the G series chips was complete crap in those days (they used some bogus GL to Direct3D translation layer in the drivers). OTOH, Quake3 was surprisingly playable on the G200 under FreeBSD, so who knows.

The only decent frame rates I could get out of Quake were at low resolutions. Maybe it was just the bad VESA support in my Diamond card, who knows. However, Q2 ran fine with my Voodoo card on my K6 233. Never ran Q3.

Re:Doom 3?

[*weasel]

if i can play doom3 on my PC with my 1ghz and geforce3, i'll eat crow. but i ain't holdin my breath.

more likely, by the time it's released, when the minimum reqs are '2 ghz', it'll simply be less of a sticker shock. which was rather my point.

404 Code not found

[Anonymous Coward]

The SCO infringing code!

Linux on the desktop.

[Anonymous Coward]

Every year we are told it will happen, but it still has not. I'm talking about a desktop for mom and pop, neither KDE or Gnome are anywhere near yet.

Re:Linux on the desktop.

[neferusobek]

It's here; it's called Lindows!

Re:Linux on the desktop.

[The_K4]

Thanks to MS that's now "The OS formerly Known as Lindows!" :)

Re:Linux on the desktop.

[iggymanz]

Gee, I'm a pop of two, and I'm using Gnome and GIMP to edit family photos.

Re:Linux on the desktop.

[JoeBaldwin]

Hmm, funny, cos in a day I can set up a Debian box with KDE 3.1.4 and let my family loose on it. They love it-it's fast, it's stable, it's pretty and it's EASY. Beat that.

Re:Linux on the desktop.

[Anonymous Coward]

Insightful? KDE and Gnome are both as usable or more usable than WinXP, which is adequate for most. The reason people don't migrate en masse is application support. No amount of improving KDE and Gnome is going to make "Greeting Card Maker 2003 for Windows" work on Linux. The thing holding Linux back from the desktop isn't the desktop environment. It's lack of ISV support. Wine is just a band-aid for this problem, but at least it addresses the issue. Improvements to KDE and Gnome just take them from "better than Windows" to "lots better than Windows" without fixing the ISV problem.

Then again, OSS may solve this problem by putting reluctant ISVs out of business. Years ago, someone selling a commercial word processor for Linux had a chance. But since the major players have either held back (Microsoft, IBM) or done a bad job (Corel), there's no way you can sell a word processor on Linux because the free ones are too good. I fear for Adobe, Quark, and Macromedia who seem to be falling into the same trap--delaying until the market is already dominated by a zero-cost competitor.

Of course some we wished remained vaporware...

[Shivetya]

Like MOO3 which I believe a few of the 2002 Vaporware lists. Quicksilver and Atari managed to mangle a very well know TBS name. They even managed to forget to support it, having disappeared after mid-July.

Re:Of course some we wished remained vaporware...

[Xentax]

Tell me about it :(

Not only was it mismanaged into a disaster, Atari decided to pull the plug instead of trying to salvage the game (and the fanbase along with it).

It's sad to see a brand die off when it could have been saved.

Xentax

Re:Of course some we wished remained vaporware...

[paganizer]

That still pisses me off.
I've got the CD's setting in my "active" rack by my screen; not so I can get to them easy, but to remind me constantly how people will rip you off every chance they get.
I just hope someday I'll be able to stomach playing MOO2 again; for now, I just keep flashing back to the last attempt to enjoy MOO3.
Microprose would have NEVER screwed up like that, as evidenced by XCOM & XCOM II; when you have something near-perfect, don't mess with it.

Windows Security

[smartin]

Nuff said.

Phantom Game console?

[theLastPossibleName]

Phantom Game console?

Nanotechnology

[kautilya]

Refer to a random nanotechnology source. Pick a random word with nano (as in nanobot, nanomotor, nanogear etc) as its prefix. It will certainly qualify.

Re:Nanotechnology

[proj_2501]

except nanothreads which are being sold in levi's jeans!

Re:Nanotechnology

[Just Some Guy]

It's too bad, really, but not surprising. Remember how cool "cyber-" sounded the first time you heard it?

Re:Nanotechnology

[nanodik]

I disagree. And now they have a patch especially for those suffering from "nanoism" - I get about 20 emails a day about it!

Re:Nanotechnology

[Rxke]

There are working nanomotors and nanogear, so i don't see where this fits the " gizmos that were put off, put away or quietly put down" label. As for 'bots, they're still working on it, so again, not appliccable...

Re:Nanotechnology

[kautilya]

oh..you belong to Eric Drexler clan? :)

Re:Nanotechnology

[Rxke]

Sure do... 'n before you ask, yeah, I love to dream! :)

Re:Nanotechnology

[kautilya]

I would love to dream too..but that I think would be a reality one day. I don't think Eric Drexler talks any sense. We might not agree on this. It is okay..:) good luck with your dreams!

Re:Nanotechnology

[retinaburn]

nanodick ? ;)

Re:Nanotechnology

[Rxke]

What??? No screaming and shouting match? No gratuitiously throwing insults and endless citations? But.. but we're on /. ! What happened with tradition? ;)

Windows NT the winner in 1991?

[chrysrobyn]

Does anybody else remember the day when NT stood for "Not There" instead of "New Technology?

Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991?

[enkafan]

Actually:
Finally, it was time to start writing some code. "We checked the first code pieces in around mid-December 1988," Lucovsky said, "and had a very basic system kind of booting on a simulator of the Intel i860 (which was codenamed "N-Ten") by January." In fact, this is where NT actually got its name, Lucovsky revealed, adding that the "new technology" moniker was added after the fact in a rare spurt of product marketing by the original NT team members. "Originally, we were targeting NT to the Intel i860, a RISC processor that was horribly behind schedule. Because we didn't have any i860 machines in-house to test on, we used an i860 simulator. That's why we called it NT, because it worked on the 'N-Ten.'"
From http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/winserver2k3_g old1.asp

Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991?

[jiggel]

Does anybody else remember the day when NT stood for Northern Telecom? :-)

Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991?

[DrSkwid]

NT stands for 'Nested Threads'

It's a register introduced on the 386 and predates Windows NT.

Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991?

[garvon]

I always thought it stood for "Nice Try"

Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991?

[edbarrett]

NT 4.0 Service Pack 7

Yes, I read the link. Duh. I just like how SP7 is on a page labelled "List of Available Windows NT 4.0 Service Packs"

Re:Windows NT the winner in 1991?

[DrWhizBang]

I've always referred to it as "Nice Try"

6 years late - almost 7

[dpille]

HAL became operational in 1997:

I became operational at the HAL plant in Urbana, Illinois, on January 12, 1997

Re:6 years late - almost 7

[Anonymous Coward]

I am Hal 9000, posting from Urbana I have detected that my name has appeared on slashdot.

In addition to the problems I caused two years ago, I also DOSed SCO and I am responsible for hiding the WMD in Iraq.

Fear me.

Re:6 years late - almost 7

[paganizer]

It was YOU who DOSed SCO?
Dude! you the... er... DOSmeister?
But bragging about hiding something that never existed is sort of lame.

Duke Nukem Forever Development

[HaloZero]

You guys just wait. You rag on DNF for five years straight, while 3D Realms is probably kicking asses left and right in the dev for it. They'll bust out in 2008 with a game that brings the house down, and all of you will be just blown away.

Of course, then we have to live through the ...fallout... of 'After vaporware, Duke Nukems you!'

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Development

[jav1231]

Yeah but each year it's behind they'll have to change the engine because IT is becoming obsolete.

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Development

[WebMasterJoe]

I'm sorry, by 2008, we'll be too busy with our flying cars to pay any attention to DNF!

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Development

[TheDredd]

, and all of you will be just blown away

I heard it will be so realistic you actually have to dodge the bullets that come flying out of your screen, at least if you don't want to end up dead...

Re:Duke Nukem Forever Development

[XO]

In Soviet Russia, Nukems Duke You!!!!!!

Sorry.

Latex3

[poszi]

IIRC this project started 10 years ago project page> .

Maybe the reason it has not materialized yet is that Latex2e works just fine.

Re:Latex3

[jschrod]

IMO, vaporware means "promised at a date, but not delivered". We never promised you a date, and we deliver -- perhaps not in a form that you like... If you call LaTeX3 "always in gamma or beta", you might be right; but vaporware is too harsh, IMNSHO.

Concerning code: look at CTAN, in macros/latex/exptl/, and at http://www.latex-project.org/code/experimental/.

Of course, I'm biased, as you'll know when you lookup the "project page"'s owner.

Stars! Supernova Genesis.

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point it's less vaporware and more religion, since it is largely sustained by faith.

Easy

[upside]

Team Fortress II

Well, Valve almost made up for it with the sudden revelation of the upcoming HalfLife 2. But they blew that, too.

What about Doom III?

Re:Easy

[bugbread]

DoomIII is working on it. Somehow, though, I just can't shake the feeling that DoomIII is trying to fill DNF's shoes. It's like a kid who wants to be like his big brother. But one day, one day...BOOM!! Puberty hits, and DoomIII is the new king of vaporware!

Or not. I couldn't really venture to guess. I'd put good money on DNF never coming out, though.

Re:Just for the record

[furry_marmot]

Maybe originally (I don't actually know), but they sold it as "New Technology."

Star Control 4

[Apreche]

Or Starcon, or whatever you want to call it. How long will we wait?

Re:Star Control 4

[M.C. Hampster]

Whoa, I hadn't even heard of a SC4 under development? Who says they are developing this?

Wired list from 2000

[image]

Out of curiosity I reviewed Wired's list from 2000 to see what came of the products that were mere vapor three years ago.

• Tribes 2 -- released, and rather successful, a good game overall
• Wireless Web Pads -- tablet PC's are now commerically available
• Bluetooth -- now shipping in just about everything from cell phones to headsets to laptops
• Silicon Film's Electronic Film System -- not sure about this particular case, but there are digital film backs available for 35mm cameras, I believe
• Warcraft III -- released and went on to become a hugely popular game on Blizzards battle.net, has an expansion or two as well
• Intel's Itanium chips -- shipping and people are deploying them in real-world, large-scale installations
• A New Linux kernel -- they were talking about 2.4, and 2.6 is now just around the corner
• Black and White -- shipped. and while a bit overrated, a decent game
• Duke Nukem Forever -- ha.
• Mac OS X -- now at version 10.3.1, it is perhaps the best desktop operating system ever built

So, after three years, only one of the top 10 vaporware products from 2000 failed to materialize. In fact, most of them went on to become successes as well.

Re:Wired list from 2000

[jayhawk88]

Warcraft 3 did indeed ship: but note that it made not one but two lists (check out 2001's).

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we're still waiting to see if Team Fortress 2 will ever see the light of day.

Re:Wired list from 2000

[Anonymous Coward]

Silicon Film's Electronic Film System is still vapourware. Leica is working on a interchangeable film/digital back though. I believe it will be out before Silicon Film's.

Re:Wired list from 2000

[pixelgeek]

So are we all just critically impatient or is the tech/gaming industry driven far too much by marketing hype?

Maybe if there were fewer PR people we wouldn't have this issue at all?

Re:Wired list from 2000

[bbh]

>>Meanwhile, back at the ranch, we're still waiting to see if Team Fortress 2 will ever see the light of day.

Well, Half-Life 2 sorta made the light of day, just not the part of it that Valve had hoped... :P

bbh

Re:Wired list from 2000

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Interesting list.

I really don't give a sh!t what Wired says. I really don't distinctly remember any other specific problems, but they were the ones that had an editorial that suggested that we should be willing to give up the right to have a DVD-ROM drive so that Lucas would release his Star Wars Trilogy on DVD.

Re:Wired list from 2000

[Zebbers]

of course shit will eventually be released
its vaporware for being hyped for so long and so hard and not being out NOW

you know-show me the money

Binary drivers, Linux vs. Hurd

[dido]

Ironically, the GNU/HURD may well be more friendly to proprietary software and drivers than Linux ever will be! Being a microkernel OS, drivers would have a far cleaner separation from the GPLed HURD kernel than the current loadable module system in Linux does. Though I wouldn't bet on it, we may actually get a stable, usable Hurd kernel before Linux fixes the binary modules issue that was the topic of a recent story. At least the Hurd team IS moving towards making a stable release, but it does not seem to be a high priority at the moment in Linux dev to make even something like the Windows DDK for kernel modules.

Re:Binary drivers, Linux vs. Hurd

[DrXym]

If all things were equal then perhaps. But Hurd has been bogged down in politics, lack of direction, lack of support, lack of volunteers, instability intransigence, purity over pragmatism etc. for the last decade.

Hence the reason that it is all but forgotten while Linux is busy taking over the world. Considering that Hurd was started before Linux, this is a pretty sad indictment.

Re:Itanium

[HP-UX'er]

HP has 'em on the shelf ...

Hope is alive

[LeoDV]

If you look at the Vaporware Awards of 2001, the #2 item on the list is Warcraft III, which did indeed make it to the shelves, to critical acclaim and record sales... Could 2003's vaporware be 2004's hit product? Let's hope so.

Unless we're talking about the infringing SCO code. ;)

Chandler

[0tim0]

Remember, the "Outlook Killer" a new kind of email client/PIM/etc. We had a story on /. over a year ago.

Well, a year and a couple million invested and all they have is a 'repository' and a (real ugly) 'gui framework'.

Check it out.

--t

Half Life 2

[Manic Miner]

Half Life 2 is the new DNF..

Lots of demos's but no shipped product, and a ship date that keeps getting pushed back.. sure everyone loves valve so this will be an un-popular point, but it's begining to look like vaporware...

Re:Half Life 2

[furasato]

Remember a racing sim project called WSC, now known as a project called Racing Legends from the West Brothers? This has followed the same course as DNF, with nearly the same time frames as well. http://www.racing-legends.com/news.htm for info on this "never to be finished despite promises even now" sim.

SCO Linux

[Treacle Treatment]

I nominate SCO Linux binary-only lisenced code. The only product supposedly on the market that no one has bought, no one knows what's in it, or why they should even purchase it.

Re:SCO Linux

[imjustabigcat]

What about the millions of lines of infringing code we were supposed to see? And no, pointing to AIX, Dynix, Linux and Irix and saying "it's in there somewhere, but we don't know where" doesn't count.

Re:SCO Linux

[MuParadigm]

And the only product that its vendor has threatened to sue people for not buying, even thought the product isn't available yet.

WMD = this

[MoFoQ]

WMD = Whiff of Massive Dog-doodoo.

Well...there's the usual, DNF, HL2, Doom3 (though we've been "teased" with the alpha), and there's everyone's "favorite" SCO....though their vaporware ....well...it's the vapors from a pile of steaming....u know....

For Xmas, we should get SCO a bigger shovel...'cuz every time they talk, they have to shovel some "landmines"

Neonode

[dRn-1]

The Neonode N1 with it's associated M$oft OS is certainly feeling like vapourware. Another annoucement deems it unlikely to arrive by christmas either!... contrary to previous announcements.

Re:SEGWAY

[Asmandeus]

I was thinking more along the lines of Killer Segway Robots funded by the military.


- A S M -

HL2 NOT vaporware

[LDoggg_]

You're confusing vaporware with open source :)

The source to half life 2 was leaked remeber?

Where is the DNA Evidence of Saddam: +1, Patriotic

[Anonymous Coward]

The alleged "Saddam" is reputedly in an undisclosed, secure location. Isn't it ironic he now shares the same location as
President-Vice Cheney?

Very patriotically yours,
Kilgore Trout

Funny

[Hal The Computer]

What foolish comment were you making?

Bitboys

[ScottCanto]

Remember a couple of years ago when Bitboys released information about their new Glaze3D graphics processor? I guess a newcomer has a hard time starting up against nVidia and, in those days, 3Dfx.

Re:Bitboys

[Simon Lyngshede]

They actually have started selling Glaze3D, although I think they call it Axe or something. It is powerful enough to go into mobilephone :-)

Re:And the winner is ...

[BenV666]

how about a grammair checker along with that? :)

Once again, at the top of the Vaporware list:

[Torqued]

World Peace!

Reduced price?

[tomzyk]

one of the selling points of SA6 was that you could get upgrades every 2 years at a reduced price

Not to bash M$ or anything, but aren't the Service Packs and Patches and HotFixes etc... that come out quarterly/monthly/weekly basically FREE upgrades? Why pay for upgrades at even a disconted rate? Or am I missing something here?

Why would you want to upgrade your OS every 2 years when fixing OS flaws/security-issues and updating the software should keep you fairly up-to-date? (granted, noone _should_ still be using Win95 or 98 anymore... but that was 5 or more years ago.)

Re:Reduced price?

[UnknowingFool]

No, I said upgrades not updates meaning every two years you would get a new version. Of course, most companies do not want to upgrade every 2 years as this is costly but the hook for MS was that if they did not take SA6, when they did upgrade the prices would skyrocket. Their estimates were somewhere between 2x and 3x.

For example, if they had Win2K and they did not want to go to XP Pro, they could wait for Longhorn but they would pay 2-3 x more than someone who went ahead with upgrading to XP Pro. So in essence, it would not save them any more money to wait. If they upgraded, they got a newer OS and saved money.

Now whether there is any real advantage to upgrading instead of updating is determined on an individual basis. Some users may benefit; some may not.

Do books count too?

[JoeD]

The Art of Computer Programming, Volumes 4 - 7.

Did Not Finish?

[Czernobog]

Or. Dude. Nearly Finished.

Most likely Dude. Never. Forget it....

The high-tech industry economic recovery ...

[Pathetic Coward]

that has been "six months away" for the last three years.

Re:The high-tech industry economic recovery ...

[/dev/trash]

For real. When I was laid off in 2001 I was given the cervices of a career counselor. Every time I spoke to him ( which was like every 4 weeks or so) he'd say "the job market will be coming around in 6 months." The last I talked to him was about 5 months ago and the second phrase out of his mouth was that same proclamation.

Re:The high-tech industry economic recovery ...

[BluedemonX]

The job market in IT is booming. What are you talking about?

Oh, in America. I see. Well the job markets in China and India are up 30-35%. If you can write code and work for less money than a first world grocery bagger, the world is your oyster.

DNF has gone beyond vapor ware to...

[MongooseCN]

...interstellar medium ware.

The Phantom Game Console!

[JWG]

Let's not forget Penny-Arcade's favourite piece of vapourware!

Most. Expensive. Cache. Miss. Ever.

[Anonymous Coward]

We really need to talk to Saddam about his caching algorithm.

My nomination

[jamonterrell]

Didn't SCO promise to provide some proof that linux contains copyrighted Unix Code? I've not seen it anywhere, and I don't predict we'll be seeing it anytime soon. Does this classify as vaporware?

My movie

[WebMasterJoe]

I'm still waiting for History of the World: Part II. See! Hitler on Ice! Jews in Space!

Now I'm just beginning to think they're never going to release that one. Stupid media censorship.

Re:My movie

[WebMasterJoe]

Thanks! I was just going to not care that some idiot mod thought this was a troll, but it's nice to see some support, albeit anonymous.

Mods, the post was a reference to History of the World, Part I, where the end of the movie is a promo for the sequel, which never came out. Hence, it's vaporware.

Re:My movie

[Tazzy531]

FYI mods: the previous is not troll..

There really was a movie History of the World: Part I The joke at the end of the movie was a "preview" for the sequel...which after 22 years, still hasn't been made...

Re:My movie

[tassii]

Jews in Space

That was "Spaceballs". Remember the "Druish Princess", "The Schwartz"?

So I guess this one doesn't count.

Re:My movie

[WebMasterJoe]

That was "Spaceballs". Remember the "Druish Princess", "The Schwartz"?

So I guess this one doesn't count.

Ahh, yes. She didn't look Druish to me!

Still, they didn't sing the song, and the spaceship wasn't a Star of David, so I'm not going to give them credit for Jews In Space yet.

Consumer electronics

[swb]

I don't know if anyone actually promised these but:

OLED TVs
HD Tivo
Widespread HD adoption

The latter is *almost* here, in that I can get Discovery, a couple of the locals, HBO and Showtime in HD on my local cable system, but I wouldn't call a whopping 6-7 channels and a manditory paid installation a symptom of "widespread adoption".

Re:Consumer electronics

[pclminion]

Widespread HD adoption

Do what I did. Get an EDTV television, capable of doing 480/720p vertical resolution. Many cable channels can already decode at this resolution (which is double the usual TV vertical resolution of somewhere between 240 and 260 lines). All DVDs can decode at this resolution.

No, it isn't 1080i, but you can tell the difference, and the EDTV televisions are much more affordable than their HDTV counterparts. I bought an EDTV plasma panel for about $3000 less than the nearest HDTV-capable model. Guess what? It looks AWESOME. The salesman at the store kept trying to convince me to pay $6000 for a similarly sized HDTV set. Right. Do I look stupid?

It's too bad that people are so hung up on HDTV. Either they stick with crappy CRT televisions, telling themselves "When the price comes down, I'll buy one," or they go out and spend THOUSANDS of dollars in order to receive what... 5 channels, max?

You're missing out on EDTV, which is cheaper, and it's available RIGHT NOW. And although yes, the resolution is less than HDTV, it still looks far better than standard television. By the time HDTV is finally standardized, your EDTV plasma display will be starting to burn out its natural lifetime, and it'll be time to upgrade to HDTV.

Why not give yourself good picture quality NOW instead of inflicting this crazy HDTV on yourself?

Re:Consumer electronics

[swb]

EDTV is just 480p and some will decode 720p and 1080i, but downrez them to 480p. And 480p is just a slightly better way of displaying vanilla NTSC, which is 480i.

I almost bought a 480p plasma, but the technology's lifespan scares me a little, and it was actually cheaper to get a true HDTV capable TV for less money. The jury's out, however, on whether I should have just bought a 32" glass tube and spent the rest of the money on something else.

My favorite perennials

[rjamestaylor]

Got .NET?

GNU Hurd, anyone?

Slashdot editing and spellchecking?
[RT: If your UID is > 100k you should click the link]

And the biggest Vaporware of 2003 (drum roll, please):

• SCOSource and its proof of mountains of copied code in Linux!

Me? I'm still waiting for the LinuxOne IPO.

Microsoft Innovation

[AlienRelics]

Said to be coming for decades, haven't seen it yet.

Re:Microsoft Innovation

[Webmoth]

DHCP
Bob

What else?

Re:Ask the Kurds?

[Faluzeer]

Hmmm

Iraq used both chemical and biological weapons against the Kurdish people during the Anfal Pogroms (mostly) between 1987 and 1989. It is a well documented fact about the Iraqi Anfal Pogrom, it had no relation to activities in the Iran / Iraq war.

The perennial nominee

[HangingChad]

Trustworthy Computing!

RealPC

[chmilar]

It looks like FWB's RealPC is a strong candidate. The management struggle accompanying the exposure of RealPC vaporous nature is also entertaining.

Top Nominee is....

[tassii]

Microsoft's Longhorn!

I'm Still Waiting...

[Flwyd]

To bet on terrorism futures.

And nobody seems to be answering my TIPS calls, either.

Preinstalled Linux on Store Shelves

[burdicda]

Oh Yeah
Sears
WalMart
Target
Best Buy
CompuUSA

All point of sale running Linux live
for sale installed and running...

Half-Life 2

[SSonnentag]

I waited impatiently a couple of months for September 30th to arrive only to be told that I had to wait at least another 6 months! Boooooo! My half-life is going to up up before Half-Life 2 is released. :)

WindSave's Plug 'n' Save System

[Willard B. Trophy]

WindSave's Plug 'n' Save System is supposed to be a roof-mounted wind-turbine that plugs into your domestic power circuit and "gives back" some power. It also phones home every night, acting (if the consumer uptake's big enough) as a distributed wind farm.

Only problem is, in the specs that used to be on the website, they exceeded the Betz Limit, the theoretical limit of wind turbine efficiency. There's no way they could reach the figures claimed.

It's interesting to note that they've taken the claims off their website over the weekend.

Windows NT claim in 1992

[saha]

Windows NT "With its Posix standard compliance, Gates claims NT will be as compatible with the leading versions of Unix as they are with each other.....He also said that Microsoft may offer limited voice-recognition for Windows this year". Byte: Nanobytes column March 1992 page 26.

In the meantime Gartner: Longhorn Delays Will Affect WindowsThe IT advisory firm expects the operating system to be released between late 2006 and mid-2008, but that the release could be delayed even more.

My suggestion. Get OSX Panther today and stop dreaming about tomorrow.

What about Chinese Democracy?

[miracle69]

GNR certainly wins the album vaporware award.

I was going to say the OQO

[howlatthemoon]

But the last change I can find on their web site http://www.oqo.com was a link to the 2002 vaporware awards. You know it's bad when a company cites a vaporware articles about their product as product press. Maybe it is time to shut the web site down, huh?

Real Vaporware

[thales]

The Champ Vaporware is the stuff that predates personal computers. Things like Flying Cars, Commerical Space Travel, Personal Robots, and Fusion Reactors have been been talked about for decades not just a few years.

Re:Ask the Kurds?

[corebreech]

Apparently people who were in a position to know disagree with you.

And given all the times Washington has lied to us about Iraq in the past (e.g., Kuwaiti babies being ripped from incubators by Iraqis, Iraqi troops amassing on Saudi Arabia border) and in the present (yellow cake from Niger, Saddam link to 9/11), I am more inclined to believe those who say that the Kurds were in fact gassed by the Iranians.

Did you read the article linked to by parent? Is there any specific allegation within you are able to refute?

Bitboys (interview link)

[radoni]

googled up and found this (supposedly recent) interview with a former employee: http://www.firingsquad.com/print_article.asp?curre nt_section=Hardware&fs_article_id=1128

Amigas

[questamor]

> I finally gave up "believing" in 2000 when I sold my
> A4000/060 and bought a real machine.

I did the same in 2000. The world had just moved too far ahead, and despite having a fast PPC Amiga (well, relatively fast, compared to other Amigas!), I was working with machines that SO killed it in real speed, and realised how much time I spent serving the Amiga OS, instead of having it work for me. I'm still not at the bleeding edge, but a 1.2GHz computer with a modern OS I don't have to continually play with to keep working is heaven. I might wait for a new AmigaOS if I thought it'd be something special, but its presentation at recent roadshows haven't impressed me.

Barbie Linux, Fact or Fiction?

[mykepredko]

You Decide:

The original article: http://qrxx.4t.com/barbieOS.htm along with http://g0re.net/forums/viewtopic.php?p=6586, http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id =7885 and http://linux.omnipotent.net/article.php?article_id =7885.

Be nice if my daughter was on the same OS as her old man.

myke

Re:Barbie Linux, Fact or Fiction?

[DanThe1Man]

This would really make my early struggles with linux look bad.

Ah, but will they allow it?

[duck_prime]

Ironically, the GNU/HURD may well be more friendly to proprietary software and drivers than Linux ever will be! Being a microkernel OS, drivers would have a far cleaner separation from the GPLed HURD kernel

That's a good point, but I do wonder if the GNU/HURD people will explicitly put the kibosh on the idea out of principle. Remember, the hard-core GNU guys are pretty inflexible about non-GPL software.

Re:Ah, but will they allow it?

[dido]

That might be true, but I don't see how they can legally do it. The GPL will allow the creation of such proprietary drivers, as from the point of view of a microkernel OS drivers are for all intents and purposes no different from any other application running on the system. As such, they merely USE the kernel, and are not creating a derived work from it, as might be argued is the case with Linux binary modules. If they came up with GPLv3 that provided a legal leg for this, they would at the same time hurt the cause of Free Software by forcing all applications running on the Hurd to be GPL. Richard Stallman is actually a pragmatist who is not above making compromises that benefit the cause of Free Software, contrary to the impression he seems to have for most people on /., and I seriously doubt that he would do something so patently foolish.

Re:my submission:

[canadianjoe]

Bah. For all your cross-platform p2p needs: limewire and bittorrent. LimeWire: Windows (English Only) Mac OSX Mac Classic Linux* Solaris Bittorrent: Windows Mac OS X Linux

GEGL based GIMP

[kyknos.org]

I wait and wait and wait :o(((

Re:Mass graves!

[nullard]

Don't blame us for their leaders inability to show compassion for his people

Yeah! We should blame the people who put Sadam in power! Oh, wait. That's us again.

I know!!!

[rock_climbing_guy]

Windows Lowerhorn

Re: Counter-strike Condition Zero (cs:czero)

[cryptor3]

CSCZero. Yeah, another sierra hit that's super late.

Re: Counter-strike Condition Zero (cs:czero)

[cryptor3]

CSCZero. Yeah, another sierra hit that's super late.

*hit = hype. Sorry.

Technically not vaporware, but...

[drix]

When was the last time you saw a Segway zooming around town? (If ever.) I seem to remember Jeff Bezos or someone saying it would "change the way cities are built." Funny, as luck you have it I happen to be in a city right as I'm typing this, and that whole "roads" things looks pretty much the same as it has since the Romans. In fact the only time I've ever seen a Segway was some Fed zooming around on one at the airport, which offers insight into how Kamen et al. plan to ulimately make money off this turkey: sell it to the only buyer in the world with enough money and enough stupidity to be willing.

Re:Technically not vaporware, but...

[zzyzx]

I see one every now and then in Seattle and the 'burbs

Debian Sarge

[diegocgteleline.es]

Debian sarge, wich was supposed to be released this month...

Harpoon 4 & Steel Panthers Moderna

[paganizer]

Ubisoft (don't copy your game CD's! No Backups!) has been working on Harpoon4 since I believe '99; Don't really care since I discovered Harpoon2 plays great on VirtualPC.
Matrix Games Steel Panthers:Moderna was supposed to be SP:WAW updated for the modern age; considering that it was to be free, like SP:WAW, I can't complain a whole lot.

Re:A U.S. President that isn't a genocidal moron

[chef_raekwon]

Saddam still in power killing far more of the Iraqi civilians than the war killed and providing training grounds for all sorts of terrorist organizations (yes, including Al-Qaeda) to build up their scummy groups....If you don't think those training grounds were there, speak to some U.S. military personnel that helped bust them up like I have... you think Saddam was doing with his own people? Lavishing all the stolen wealth on them? HA! Get a fucking clue, dumbass.

comments from an American. It really is unfortunate that you regard the media so highly--you are now part of the collective--you've been told what you want to hear.

*sigh* Ignorance is Bliss.

Let the record speak for itself...

[precogpunk]

We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.
- Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
- Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.
- George W. Bush September 12, 2002

If he declares he has none, then we will know that Saddam Hussein is once again misleading the world.
- Ari Fleischer December 2, 2002

We know for a fact that there are weapons there.
- Ari Fleischer January 9, 2003

Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.
- George W. Bush January 28, 2003

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more.
- Colin Powell February 5, 2003

We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.
- George Bush February 8, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
- George Bush March 18, 2003

We are asked to accept Saddam decided to destroy those weapons. I say that such a claim is palpably absurd.
- Tony Blair, Prime Minister 18 March, 2003

One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD. There are a number of sites.
- Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark March 22, 2003

Before people crow about the absence of weapons of mass destruction, I suggest they wait a bit.
- Tony Blair 28 April, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so.
- George Bush May 3, 2003

I am confident that we will find evidence that makes it clear he had weapons of mass destruction.
- Colin Powell May 4, 2003

I never believed that we'd just tumble over weapons of mass destruction in that country.
- Donald Rumsfeld May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program.
- George W. Bush May 6, 2003

U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction.
- Condoleeza Rice May 12, 2003

They may have had time to destroy them, and I don't know the answer.
- Donald Rumsfeld May 27, 2003

Link to source

Re:Let the record speak for itself...

[lobsterGun]

Wow! those are some choice quotes! They kind of make the administrations look stupid.

But I'm not convinced this makes them liars. Dupes or Fools perhaps, but not liars. For them to be liars, they would have had to willfully and knowingly misrepresented the truth.

Re:Let the record speak for itself...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here are the quotes with links to the speaches that put them into context.

Re:Let the record speak for itself...

[Qrlx]

They are liars, your naivete notwithstanding.

Re:Let the record speak for itself...

[caldodge]

Here are some more liars:

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destrution and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

More available at http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

Yes, Snopes says "some of the quotes are truncated, and context is provided for none of them", but the context is typically "well, yes, Saddam has those weapons, but that's no reason to attack".

Re:Let the record speak for itself...

[arty3]

Not really. All it proves is that if you want to make a point, always use bold font.

Re:Let the record speak for itself...

[Crazy Eight]

I know that you are just reporting your impressions rather than asserting an "argument"/spin on the matter and then filling in the blanks after the fact with tidbits, but... you need to wake up.

If you could put yourself into the body of a 5 year old and say, "Unca Wumsfeld, did you and pwesident Bush wie about IwAq?" uncle Rumsfeld would gently chuckle, pat you on the head, and then walk away. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Powell. and Chalabi all know what the truth is and all of them have lied straight into the camera. Actually, let me amend that. The example of Rumsfeld I have in mind is really more of him just being a dick rather than him lying. My assertions about the rest of them stand. I would like to point out an irony about Powell though: My impression is that he was the most dovish member of the administration in regards to Iraq. The irony is that he is the only one who's actually served in uniform, the only one who would have avoided a war with Iraq, and is the best liar out of all of them. He truly is gifted and it's a pity we're wasting him on menial tasks like telling the UN how many tons of bad-guy-shit were itching Krazy Saddam's trigger finger.

You're either really naive or clinging to something to avoid facing the truth. "The rest of the world" never made assertions claiming that Iraq was a hotbed of doomsday devices. In fact, most of the world bitterly opposed our war in Iraq. Our closest ally might even trade in it's PM just because they're so divided about acting on "facts" that no one really believes. They aren't "fools" or "dupes" at all. The pre-war speech Bush made citing evidence of a nuclear arms program was a bald faced lie that hinged on "evidence" thoroughly discredited as a two bit hoax a year beforehand. Everyone knew this when he said it.

I think you're just naive, but remember it takes two to lie. One person to tell the lie, and another to believe it.

Re:Let the record speak for itself...

[Crazy Eight]

"well, yes, Saddam has those weapons, but that's no reason to attack".

Hey, that's not a bad point.

Re:Let the record speak for itself...

[lobsterGun]

I'm not a doctor, but I thing you've got yourself a serious case of Monday Morning Quarterback. You are giving the American administration FAR more credit than they are due.

Let me clear up what I meant when I said that 'the rest of the world'. I should have said 'the governemts of the rest of the world'.

In the debate before the UN, the argument agains force wasn't that the inspectors needed more time to prove that Iraq has disarmed, it was that the inspectors needed more time to disarm Iraq. The implicit assumption was that Iraq had not disarmed .

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

No list would be complete without ...

[argStyopa]

Teamfortress 2

First hint was as an expansion for HL.
Then as a standalone.
Then an expansion for HL/CS
Then a standalone.
I believe the latest incarnation is as a standalone, running the HL2 engine.

It's been so long, I don't even REMEMBER if I pre-ordered it via Amazon.com - but that was when it was a $30 expansion. Do they still have my ticket? Did I pay? I truly don't remember.

Re:Ask the Kurds?

[Faluzeer]

Hmmm

Yes I have now read the article, it does contain information that I have not previously seen, I did some researh into the Anfal Pogrom quite some time ago and the information I was able to find was quite different from that in the article.

Obviously a CIA analyst has access to far better information than I have (or at least should have), it has been quite some time since I last did the search so it will take some time to dig up anything to refute it (if it is indeed possible to do so).

Moving On :

Yes I am fully aware of the lies that have been told down the years, (btw, I thought the Kuwaiti babies story was actually produced and presented by the Kuwaiti Royal Family not the US Government?), I am also aware of the other incidents you mentioned, for the record, I was not a supporter of the war against Iraq, I believed and still believed that it was illegal under the UN Charter, I believe that the WMD's and links to terrorism were convenient excuses to use to forward US political policies.

That being said, I am more than happy that Saddam has been caught, I hope that he will be brought to justice in front of an independent and Internationally Recognised Court of Law for the Crimes that he did commit during his years in power.

Vapor...

[Muad'Dave]

SCO's case against IBM?

Nominate Half LIfe 2

[bani]

Valve definitely deserves to win.

September 30 came and went. Then it got pushed back to November. Then the release date got pushed back another 6 months due to "1337 h4x0rz".

Yeah, right.

I suspect it wasnt anywhere near ready for release on September 30 or November, regardless of their excuses.

Re:WMD detector , o yeah !!

[Sacamela_Un_Tercio]

and then, the world will live in peace. Too bad he was not caught in Christmas, so we could all join coke-style singing

A few vials?

[sean.peters]

Right, except we accused him of having thousands of liters of various biological agents. And they can't be stored in just any old conditions if they are to retain their punch, which means they should, in the quantities they were accused of possessing (I mean, before GWB changed his accusation from "possessing weapons of mass destruction" to "having WMD programs"), have been rather easy to find. If he had really only had a few vials... well, that wouldn't have been sufficient cause to invade, now would it?

Sean

The US gave them the WMD

[Offwhite98]

The US gave them the technology for missiles and the germ and gas WMD decades ago. The proof as I have heard some joke, the US simply kept the reciepts. The US has benefitted from providing weapons for wars in Iraq and Afganistan. The US provided weapons to Afganistan to fight the Soviets and to Iraq to fight Iran. That is a lot of blood on our hands as Americans and I wish people were not so shortsighted about it. I hear my friends say these terrorists simply hate us because the US is a successful world power, but they miss the point that these people have suffered greatly because of US policy to do whatever necessary to protect our monetary interests. The US will have to learn the peace should be the top US interest.

Re:The US gave them the WMD

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you get all your knowledge from the punchlines to jokes?

Re:The US gave them the WMD

[Maudib]

Last I checked we supplied weapons to the Taliban (for free) during the 80's because they were fighting a resistance against the soviet union. Large markets, cheap labour and raw materials have often been pursued through such means by the U.S. in the past, but last I checked Afghanistan had none of that to.

We certainly rue the decision to support the Taliban today, but at the time it was a smart way to sap the strength or our mortal enemy.

Re:The US gave them the WMD

[Atryn]

The question is always whether the government you are selling to today will be the government you wish you hadn't sold to tommorrow... We are still selling TONS of arms around the world. Look at Taiwan, for instance... Today they look pretty nice, but who knows what may happen there in the next 50 years?

Re:The US gave them the WMD

[danheskett]

That is actually, false.

We did *not* support (we = the US) the Taliban. We supported the mujamehedin. These people were fighting against the Russians *invasion* of thier country with the intent of gaining strategic advantage.

What we did do was train uneducated non-military regulars (aka, today's terrorists or insurgents) in non-conventional warfare (aka, terrorism).

The Thing of It is that we were completly justified. The afgan's were being repressed terribly. The US was unable to intervene directly because of world politicans and nuclear complications.

What happened after the CIA left Afganistan is that a fundamentalist extremely brutal system of clerical control assumed power in the vacuum left by the USSR. Since the Soviets tried to supress all religion in the Afganistan the people and rulers basically turned as far opposite of that as possible.

"The Taliban" was essentially, as we know it, a milita or clan of armed men bribed by clerics to support their rule.

There is a lot of bad information floating around about how we supported the Taliban etc etc. In Mike Moore's movie and speeches he has repeated it, telling people the US support the Taliban with cash contributions for stopping heroin production. In fact, the US didnt even recognize the Tabliban as a legit government. Any foreign aide to Afganistan was distributed by NGOs like the UN and Red Crescent.

Anyways

Tomb Raider: Angel Of Darkness

[HarveyBirdman]

They promised a good video game. What they delivered was a some sort of psychological test designed to induce rage and annoyance in vast quantities.

Troll time

[sideswipe76]

Vaporware of the year... The 2.6 kernel. All the talk was that it was going to come out this year; and that was as far back as march of LAST year. I definately understand pushing it off -- alot is riding on it (or will). Then again, maybe longhorn has it beat

Team Fortress 2

[AchmedHabib]

Screw that, I am waiting for Team Fortress 2.

nukecd

[cyrax777]

My friends rpg project that now else else but them know about.

New Amiga

[FattMattP]

I'm still waiting on that new super Amiga that all the Amiga faithful tell me is right around the corner. They claim it will revolutionize the computing industry. [rolls eyes]

It's called a "bluff"...

[anactofgod]

There is a very simple explanation of why Saddam Hussein would have played the games he did with the UN weapon's inspectors and allowed the world to continue to think that he had developed WMD, when in fact he may have had none in any militarily significant quantities.

Any poker player could recognize the situation he was in. Saddam played what he thought was a very strong hand 12 years previously, anted up in a big way, and was called by US-led coalition forces. Now, he's stuck in the same game, with a much weaker hand, facing a very strong one, and he can't just fold. What would a poker player do? Bluff, of course!

The most reasonable explanation I have been able to develop was that Saddam was trying to bluff his way out of a untenable situation. He cared not one whit about "bloodying America's nose", or being "seen as a martyr". He only cared about surviving an invasion by the US and maintaining his hold on power, in that order. The best way to survive an invasion is to prevent it from occurring in the first place.

If I were Saddam in 2001, I too would have postured that I had WMD, and the wherewithal to use them (established many years previously when he gassed his own population and the Iranians), in the hopes that that would change the equation for the US strategic planners. (For recent evidence of the effectiveness of this strategy, I give you North Korea.)

The facts that
(1) the Bush administration put our troops on the ground and went ahead with it's plans for invasion and
(2) Saddam did *not* use WMD in a last ditch defense even when he showed no restraint in the past

indicates to me that the simplest and most likely explanation is that not only did Iraq NOT have WMD in any militarily significant quantities, but our government knew that to be true, even when they were positing the opposite.

I have heard every whacked out theory on Saddam and the WMD, and some well thought out, but very convoluted ones, but surprisingly, never ONCE have I heard this very simple bluffing explanation put forth in the media. How can it be that no official "analyst" has thought of it?

---anactofgod---

Re:It's called a "bluff"...

[Anonymous Coward]

The analysts have used that explanation. Blix himself even came up with the "Beware of Dog" analogy, which was talked about a lot in the press a few months ago.

The problem with this idea is that one of Bush's main justifications for the war (and the only part the U.N. was interested in) was Saddam's WMD program and cache. Insisting you have WMD as a way to ward off the WMD inspectors is pretty stupid. Like putting a "Beware of dog" sign up to keep out the animal control officer after you have admitted to having a rabid dog.

Re:It's called a "bluff"...

[ManoMarks]

Ah, but the original arguments as to why the U.S. should invade didn't meantioned the WMD. Theyw ere all about connections to terrorism. Therefore, by posturing that he had WMD, Saddam may have hoped to delay or prevent an invasion. It's an interesting theory, though not one I necessarily believe is true. If it is true, I believe that the Bush administration, or at least part of it, knew that it was a bluff. Once it became clear that the bluff was being used as a JUSTIFICATION for the invasion, Saddam then said he didn't have them and tried cooperating with the inspectors. Despite U.S. propaganda, he did actually seem to be cooperating. Bush almost immediately started saying that the inspectors were ineffective because they hadn't found the weapons yet, which possibly they knew he didn't have in any quantity. It's ironic that after all this time, way more time and with WAY more resources than the inspectors had, no hard evidence has turned up and Saddam, now in captivity, claims that he didn't have it. Possibly the Bush administration has realized that any attempt to smuggle in WMD and plant them would be caught out too quickly.

Re:It's called a "bluff"...

[Crazy Eight]

Well point #2 seems obvious enough to me. Remember when Tommy Franks was asked why Saddam didn't strike American forces with WMDs once the invasion was underway? "I think we knocked out his capability."

Wow! Our kung-fu is sooo bad-ass that we can know he had WMDs without being able to prove it to anyone and have such a military grip on their use that not one soldier ended up actually needing a gas mask even though we haven't been able to find anything on the ground.

As far as the bluffing thing goes, there may be some truth in there somewhere, but I think pride may have a lot more to do with the way events played out before the invasion began. I don't recall Saddam ever claiming that he did have WMDs. The most damning thing we can say is that there was only so much he would take to establish credibility -- and that threshold wasn't low enough to nullify the spin of American hawks. As he's said of the inspectors now that he's in custody, he didn't want them in the Presidential Palaces. That may sound strange to us considering that war was on the line, but keep in mind that this guy was a brutal dictator in a country that had already been defeated by Americans and that Iraq is in a part of the world that the West has been screwing with since World War One. If letting Arabs inspect the Lincon Bedroom, the Oval Office, and the White House would prevent another 9/11 would GW give the OK? If he did would he get re-elected? I wouldn't want that happening even though I'm going to vote against him. In fact, I wouldn't want that happening even though I'd consider it a trifle compared to the lives saved.

RTCW Enemy Territory Single player campaign

[grolschie]

If you gonna mention Half-life 2, you might as well remember the single player version of "Enemy Territory" that had the plug pulled on it. I am glad they gave us the free multiplayer version, but the single-player campaign would've been awesome!

"Trusted" Computing?

[stefan999]

I hope this will remain vaporware at least as long as GNU/Hurd ;-) Stefan

An Interesting Study in Vaporware

[DynaSoar]

...could be had by examining the pages for a year's worth of Wired, and at the end of the year, trying to find those things in a store. Wired has made a bad habit of advertising vaporware for companies that want to test the market and see how many inquiries they get. Of course, Wired never comes out and tells you such-and-such isn't really being made and sold. They write them all up as if they exist. You'd think that'd be strange behavior for a magazine that carries an annual vaporware contest, but hey, it's Wired. They only have to be cool, not sensical.

Half-Life 2

[boy_afraid]

Well, it's not thier fault, but it is vaporware for 2003. We'll probably have to wait until Q1 or the latest Q2 for it to come out.

DNF nomination script

[hurtstotouchfire]

From Wired - Vaporware 2002: Tech up in Smoke?

Dennis Murphy wrote, "Once again, Duke Nukem Forever is the definitive vaporware. Hell, even Warcraft III made it out this year. You know, I think I'm going to set up a script to submit Duke Nukem Forever every year."

It is time, my brothers. Has anyone written a script?

Re:Pull Head Out of Ass

[LearnToSpell]

Pedantry != funny

I hope they do better than 2002

[Archfeld]

7 out of 10 so-called 2002 vaporware award winner materialized and were quite successful. For example one near and dear to many of us, the Linux NeverWinterNights client was voted vaporware in 2002, as was ShadowBane.

Voice Recognition Software

[jonniesmokes]

I can't tell you how many times I've called a company and they direct me to a lame ass digital receptionist.

Voice recognition was supposed to be the next big thing, but it doesn't work.

Justification? Politics, not legalities

[Vainglorious Coward]

Arch hawk Richard Perle has admitted that the invasion was illegal under international law.

Perle : "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

And on this (and this alone!) I agree with him - the invasion was illegal. The question is whether it was the right thing to do, and it is still far from clear what the answer to that question is.

The Evil Bit

[Arleo]

So many opportunities, so promising, where are the applications?

I see you and I raise you...

[fiannaFailMan]

A /. poster who read TFA.

Best Vaporware Ever

[bobdotorg]

Microsoft DOJ Consent Decree Compliance 1.0

Microsoft DOJ Consent Decree Compliance 2.0

The best part is that MS was able to sell people the 2.0 version after many years of the version 1.0 vapor.

So how many people will pre-order MS DOJ Consent Decree XP?

what about buckaroo banzai?

[ubugly2]

i'm still waiting for buckaroo against the world crime league....

liberal satan ass cream

[rabs]

I was gonng say that using quotes wouldn't give you a single hit. But give it a little while and guess what?

Great.

rabs

Re:Oops - my mistake

[GSloop]

Oh, so international law doesn't apply to Iran and North Korea either?

So, go ahead Iran, and North Korea - make as many Nukes as you want and share with who you will?

Sheesh.

We live with the rest of the world. We'd better get used to finding multi-lateral ways to agree on things. We may be the bully currently, but that won't continue forever. When it ends and we've spent years and years doing only what's right for us, and ignoring the rest of the world, there's going to be a line around the block to stick the knife in.

We *need* the rest of the world.

Treason: A betrayal of trust or confidence.

That trust is to the people of the Republic. Our Rebublic. And doing what's best for the world will in the end be what is best for the US. Short-sighted and dishonest brokering will eventually be not in the interest of the republic - and in the end will be the treasonous behavior.

Cheers,
Greg

Well, that's simple

[owlstead]

I nominate every single product on previous years list, unless it has been removed from upcoming product list or has actually been released.

No new product can overcome an old vaporware product, unless you add a marketinghype factor.

SCO License for IP in Linux

[MuParadigm]

While I agree with many that Duke Nuke'em Forever, and Doom III, must be on the list of this year's Best Vaporware, and disagree the Longhorn should be on it since Longhorn wasn't promised for this year, the absolute number 1 piece of vaporware for the must be:

SCO License for IP in Linux

I mean, come on. SCO hasn't only promised repeatedly that it would be *required* for businesses running Linux, but they've threatened to *sue* any Linux using business that didn't buy one.

Not only has the license not materialized, they're *still* threatening to sue someone who doesn't buy it within 90 days. Yep, you read that right, they're threatening to sue someone who hasn't bought a license that they don't sell. Oh, they won't say who it will be yet either. Vaporsuit, vaporinfringement, vaporinfringer, vaporlicense: VAPORWARE!

The absolute King of Vapor for the year 2003. No contest.

never leave the house again

[zwanglos]

I once read about a full sensor suit attached to a very life-like virtual reality simulator. The point of the machine - an incredibly realistic simulation of sex, with anyone you want. I cannot even comprehend how much money this device would make - given the consensus in this discussion, I believe this device has the potential to completely shut down the world economy. No matter how morally righteous you believe yourself to be, would you really ever leave your house again?

The difference

[mcc]

No one is excited about the Phantom.

How much hell will I catch ...

[zangdesign]

If I nominate about half of the projects on Sourceforge?

O FREAKING T

[Misanthropic_one]

Congratulations.
You managed to drag a whole threat OT and we all get to read each others "I am smarter than you because I am making judgements 'of facts' based on what other people have said (media, etc.)."
1) It is all Off TOPIC
2) BOTH sides are so full of crap and repeating "facts" they don't know.
</RANT>

Can-Spam

[agebringswisdom]

If ever there was a candidate among the products of the US Congress, it would have to be the Can-Spam legislation. Even the name is suggestive - they want make it so that corporations and traditional marketing organizations "can spam". If ever there was a product that will produce nothing to relieve email users, this is it.

Medical Breakthroughs

[Timbotronic]

There was an interesting story in The Age that followed up on stories of "breakthroughs" in cancer treatment.

How many times do you hear of a "medical breakthrough" that requires more research but will lead to treatments in, perhaps, 10 years. That 10 year figure gets trotted out a lot.

It's about radical Islam, and nothing else.

[ArsSineArtificio]

hear my friends say these terrorists simply hate us because the US is a successful world power, but they miss the point that these people have suffered greatly because of US policy to do whatever necessary to protect our monetary interests.

The terrorists hate us because Westerners refuse to acknowledge that Mohammed is the Prophet of God, and that the Koran is His word. That's the simple facts, and everything else flows from that. Sorry that it's not a complicated explanation, and sorry that it doesn't make it convenient to blame the Fortune 500 or the Pentagon.

Re:It's about radical Islam, and nothing else.

[Crazy Eight]

If it really were as simple as you claim Islamic terrorism directed at the West would have been a problem long before 1971 or so. I don't think the Koran has gone through any revisions recently.

HELLO!

[Kelz]

Does anyone even bother to read the articles anymore or do they just hit reply and copy/paste the Iraq/US/France shit that they post every day. Comeon peeps grow up a little.

Anyway, to the subject, whatever happened to Duke Nukem Forever? The original release date was 1999!

So fools are acceptable?

[Goonie]

So we're left with two options - one, the US government is led by people who lied to get a war that nobody else wanted, or two, they were "dupes and fools" who read the intelligence completely wrong to run an unnecessary and hugely costly war.

Either way, if it were my country I'd be doing my best to ensure such people were removed from office at the earliest opportunity.

Islamic terrorism is nothing new.

[ArsSineArtificio]

If it really were as simple as you claim Islamic terrorism directed at the West would have been a problem long before 1971 or so.

*Getting* from the Muslim world to the West was no trivial - or inexpensive - matter before 1971 (an age of expensive air travel - and before that, none at all). So was maintaining communications amongst cells of saboteurs and murderers. And the the vast monetary resources which increased oil prices provided to the Wahabis after 1971 are one of the reasons why Islamic terrorism is feasible at all - plastic explosive ain't cheap.

Islamic religious warfare against Western powers certainly existed before the 1970s. The Nazis tried with some success to stir up jihad against the British in Iraq during the Second World War. The Mahdi waged religious war against the Gordon and Kitchener in Africa a few decades before that, and the Sepoy Mutiny was earlier in the same century.

Before the nineteenth century, there were actual non-Turkish Muslim powers. The Barbary states kidnapped and enslaved thousands of Christians as galley slaves, and waged piracy on Western shipping. You could call that "terrorism" as well; it was certainly religiously motivated.

Re:Islamic terrorism is nothing new.

[Crazy Eight]

*Getting* from the Muslim world to the West was no trivial - or inexpensive - matter before 1971 (an age of expensive air travel - and before that, none at all). So was maintaining communications amongst cells of saboteurs and murderers. And the the vast monetary resources which increased oil prices provided to the Wahabis after 1971 are one of the reasons why Islamic terrorism is feasible at all - plastic explosive ain't cheap.

A lack of modern technology did nothing to stop European Crusaders from bitch-slapping the Muslim world back when travelling meant riding a horse, organising meant yelling across a field, and plastic expolosives were torches soaked in animal fat.

Your historical examples are erudite and worthy of repect, but I can't help pointing out that excepting enslavement and piracy, these are examples of rebellion against colonial powers. You're only arguing that the Muslim world is more apt to organize insurgency around Allah than around a secular leader. As far as slavery and piracy goes, I've got to wonder who the worst offenders were at that time.

If you want to claim that there is something a touch rotten about Islam compared to Judaism and Christianity then frankly I'd agree with you. That doesn't mean I think the Muslim world is actually hell bent for leather on eliminating Infidels on principal and that we've only noticed it just now. The "Clash of Civilizations" is something we could choose to sidestep. Whether we have or not comes down to $$$.

Re:Islamic terrorism is nothing new.

[ArsSineArtificio]

A lack of modern technology did nothing to stop European Crusaders from bitch-slapping the Muslim world back when travelling meant riding a horse, organising meant yelling across a field, and plastic expolosives were torches soaked in animal fat.

It is silly to characterize the Crusades as the same type of military action as terrorism. The Crusades were large-scale, long-distance invasions attempting to recapture territory which was lost to what we might term a hostile power. These efforts were so massive that they could happen only once in a generation, and so difficult to organize that they were nearly all dismal failures (which is why it is ridiculous to describe the Crusaders as having "bitch-slapped" Saladin or the Turks). Terrorism does not attempt to capture and hold territory - it attempts to frighten and kill civilian populations by single actions.

Your historical examples are erudite and worthy of repect, but I can't help pointing out that excepting enslavement and piracy, these are examples of rebellion against colonial powers. You're only arguing that the Muslim world is more apt to organize insurgency around Allah than around a secular leader.

These actions were initially insurgencies against colonial powers, because that's who was nearest. Modern Islamic terrorism has been successfully "exported" by failed Muslim nation-states, however, to reduce internal tensions. This "escape-valve" was only possible because of the radical nature of Muslim society, however; a parallel is that Great Britain could reduce internal tensions through dispatching colonists, but that was very much less an option for, say, Imperial China.

As far as slavery and piracy goes, I've got to wonder who the worst offenders were at that time.

There is little need to wonder. Western powers such as the United States and the United Kingdom were putting an end to the oceanic slave trade at essentially the same time that they were at war with the piratical Barbary states. The Muslim-dominated African slave trade continues to this day, especially in the Sudan; this is well-documented and several charities exist which are attempting to fight it.

f you want to claim that there is something a touch rotten about Islam compared to Judaism and Christianity then frankly I'd agree with you. That doesn't mean I think the Muslim world is actually hell bent for leather on eliminating Infidels on principal and that we've only noticed it just now.

You seem unfamiliar with what the Koran actually demands. Wahabist Islam (the hard-core sect which drives Al-Qaeda, which dominates Saudi Arabia, and from which the Taliban sprung) requires that Islam must be the sole religion of the world. Christians and Jews are permitted to exist, but only in a state of "dhimmitude", whereby they are tolerated subjects who must subject themselves to the Muslim authorities. In the last days, the Jews are to be exterminated anyway. All persons must live according to the dictates of sharia law, which demands the head-to-toe veiling of women, the instant slaying of homosexuals, that you kill your daughter for damaging your family honor if she is raped, etc. Our ideas of religious tolerance - that everyone should simply be free to follow their own religion - are perceived in this tradition as incomprehensible, or merely fear of Islam.

Nor are the Wahabis merely crazed or incoherent. I've read a number of their tracts and pamphlets in translation, which argue in quite reasoned detail why the Western idea of freedom of speech is an abomination in the sight of God, why it cannot be permitted for territory to ever leave the control of Islam (as soon as Israel is gone, Spain and the Balkans are next), and why the United States must be destroyed first.

To say that we "only just noticed" that radical Islam is trying to destroy the West is disingenous. It's only very, very recently that radical Islam has pulled itself up from being the poo

Iran? Not bloody likely!

[danro]

He did the same thing with his airforce in Gulf 1. Except he made the idiotic choice of sending the plans to Iran. They still have them I think.

Thats crazy! What makes you believe that?
Are you aware that the iranians absolutely hate Saddam, he started a incredibly bloody (~1M dead) war of aggression against Iran, and you'll be hard pressed to find an iranian who hasn't lost some family member to that war...

Iran ever helping Saddam after that is as likely as the US helping out Osama Bin Laden (post 9/11-01 that is).

Re:Iran? Not bloody likely!

[Maudib]

I did say that it was an idiotic choice. Iran never gave the planes back. I realize its a bit late for this, but here is a link as a quick reference.

Bullshit

[Crazy Eight]

Discounting the fact that Iraq has been under intense scrutiny for over a decade I've got to wonder why we should think it more likely that we could rely on Iraqi informants to finger Hussein sooner that they would point out a cache of missiles. I don't mean to jump on your back since you've left the existence of WMDs open. I only want to point out that if we could find one human that scared the shit out of 25,000,000 people we should be able to find at least one of many inanimate objects. If WMDs were there they had to be known about by a wider circle of people than those who knew Hussein personally or else they would be useless.

Take the most obscure scenario possible: You're an Iraqi assigned to man an "illegal" SCUD armed with weaponized Anthrax. Your army has been defeated and you're out of a job. If you were willing to cooperate with the victors but afraid to do so what would be easier; confessing knowledge of some now-useless machine that many others know about, or ratting out the deposed dictator who might come back to kill your familly. Of course, that presumes you're privy to knowing where the renagade dictator is, but that's my point. There have got to be many more people who know where these mystery weapons were compared to those who knew Hussein's whereabouts after the fall of Baghdad, and it's got to be easier for those people to speak out over an oil drum than for a familly member to rat out a sentient, murderous moving target.

Next What?

[Crazy Eight]

Next dork that would ask you to explain Iraqi WMDs? We're not talking about the Flat Earth Society. We're talking about something that has claimed 400 American lives, 2000+ GI limbs, and a shitload of $$$ at a time when the economy has been shedding jobs like mad. If you want to be that flip you could at least take the time to explain how and why a power loving war monger like Hussein would auto-disarm because he's about to be overthrown.

More non-vaporware

[AtheismIsGood]

• Indescriminate and excessive use of force, and a shitload of other charges the US was guilty of according to the International War Crimes Tribunal.
• Several US companies supplying chemical weapons precursors to Iraq.
• Staged media event when toppling the saddam statue.
• US companies provided Iraq with the seed stock for biological weapons agents including anthrax, botulinum, e-coli and many more.

a New Amiga is right before me!

[vortexau]

This POST originates from a AmigaOneXE-G4!

The only trouble is that its running Debian GNU/Linux, while I await AmigaOS4.

Alpha demos of the OS have been shown in various countries around the world. . . recently in Bath, UK.
.

Cost/Benefit Analysis

[Crazy Eight]

To add a bit to your point I'd like to note that just because Hussein was a murderous dick-head it doesn't mean he was incapable of pragmatism. I don't think he would have abandoned WMDs if they were easy for him to have fabricated, but given his military limitations, I think his post Gulf War modus operandi was to simply rule Iraq with an iron hand. He had already waged one ultimately fruitless war against Iran and had been roundly defeated when he made a stab at the sea in Kuwait. His post 9/11 reaction was consistent with someone who enjoyed "schadenfreude" from the sidelines -- just like his $25K bonuses to Palestinian suicide dorks -- because he knew he just didn't have a chance duking it out with the big boys. In short, however much he might have liked to be the Arabic Stalin, he just couldn't play it out beyond his own borders and he knew it. We could have let this guy rot on the throne. He's in his mid-60's. 20 years max and he would have been gone. That's at least how long it will take for the American-Iraq war to be absorbed into world history anyway.

Re:WARNING: SELF-RIGHTEOUS FOREIGN ASS

[chef_raekwon]

and forced us into funding Saddam

the devil made US[A] do it.

your government has that pole shoved so far up your arse that you think it normal to have gay tendencies.