Linux in Iraq

Nereus writes "The BBC News is reporting on the newfound popularity of Linux in Iraq. The article discusses how the Iraqi Linux User Group believe Linux will aid the Iraqi people in the rebuilding of their country, and the benefits of open source in Iraq."

Comments

Why not?

[FortKnox]

They already got the beards for it....

Re:Why not?

[Mr. Neutron]

Believe it or not, Saddam actually wouldn't allow people to have beards. His thugs would forcibly shave anyone who had one. This was to combat Islamist extremism, which he always found to be a threat.

The man war brutal and evil, but keeping him in power probably would have helped us in the War on Terror.

Re:Why not?

[FortKnox]

Heh, I was thinking it woulda been a better joke for afghani's, but I guess not a lot of people found it funny to begin with (already getting troll mods). Oh well, I guess I'll leave comedy to the pros.

Re:Why not?

[sfjoe]

Yes, please leave comedy to the pros.

Or at least leave it to the funny.

Re:Why not?

[bigberk]

This was to combat Islamist extremism, which he always found to be a threat.

Interesting, you're saying that Saddam was against the Islamic extremists? The same morons who cry 'jihad' and drive planes into buildings, explode car bombs, etc.?

So Saddam is against Islamist extremists, and we bomb him -- but we do business with Saudi Arabia, the country that is home to the wealthy funders of Islamic extremism, and home to all the Sept. 11 hijackers? Let's not kid ourselves, there are bad things happening in both countries but only one of those two countries was the champion of Islamic fundamentalists / extremists.

I don't get it, it's too weird!

Re:Why not?

[vanno]

I wonder if Microsoft will start a "Linux Supports Terrorism" campain?

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he was against the Islamists. He ran a mostly secular state and only superficially used religion here and there to keep face with the rest of the Arab world. It was the post Islamic revolution Iran that Saddam was waging war against, and we helped him back in the 80's for doing so.

Re:Why not?

[Rei]

Actually, that's about as true as the "Powdered milk factory being a chemical weapons plant" story and the "throwing babies from incubators" story. Have you taken the time to look at pictures taken from people in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule? Heck, even a lot of the casualty photos, such as this famous one show bearded men. Do you not even remember the shot of the bearded man in a lot of photos who, according to a popular web conspiracy, is the same person who was shown arriving with Ahmed Chalabi and as one of the "normal Iraqis" tearing down the statue in Firdos Square? Shots of bearded Iraqis are all over the place, and are even in some of the most famous shots from the war, so if this wasn't *pure* myth, it was mostly myth.

Re:Why not?

[Penguinshit]

Unfortunately for you, the Constitution specifically protects my right to burn a flag if I so wish.

Re:Why not?

[frodo from middle ea]

Adam Sandler ? hmm remind me again of the last thing he did that was funny ?
A phoney voice and acting skills that compete with keanu reeves.
Any one who mentions "happy gilmore" is funny or "punch trunk love" is good acting, really needs to evaluate their acting/humor evaluation skills.

Re:Why not?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Either that- or the Republican Guards were about as effective at stamping out beards as they were at evacuating Kuwait at the end of Gulf War I (Yeah, let's just send the whole Army down a single highway- the stupid Americans will never find us, right?)

Re:Why not?

[Rei]

What, exactly, are you questioning? The milk factory story, the incubators story, or (what I rightly referred to as a conspiracy) the Chalabi's Man/Firdos Square tie-in that's all over the net?

If you're referring to the Milk Factory story, read Wikipedia's article about Peter Arnett, which goes into a lot of detail about it. If you're referring to the incubators story, google it. The supposed witness was actually the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador, coached by a PR firm to try and make it sound convincing.

Re:Why not?

[Anonymous Coward]

The same morons who cry 'jihad' and drive planes into buildings, explode car bombs, etc.?

Likewise, would you like Americans to be called "the morons who try to impose their cultural and economical dominance to the rest of the world"? The problem is that you don't realise that you are probably more violent against the rest of the world than the rest of the world is to you -- even if it's a different form of violence.

This is not a flame. You owe respect to the other side of the conflict, otherwise you're no better than your unelected president who believes war prisoners are a subclass of the human species who do not deserve to have their rights respected. Does Guantanamo ring a bell?

Re:Why not?

[Trolling4Dollars]

Not that I'm an Adam Sandler fan... but regarding Punch Drunk Love, what movies would you recommend that fall into the "quirky love story about two weirdos meeting and falling in love complete with psychedlic visuals, uncomfortable visuals, a sense of possible dark and violent doom and tense sound and music work" genre that DOES have good acting in it? Seriously?

Re:Why not?

[Trolling4Dollars]

Hey Mr. Patriot! Great idea! In fact, I'm going to run down my street and torch all the flags on the moron-mobiles (ie. SUVs) in protest of the war. I call on others across America who agree with me to do the same. Thanks for the suggestion Mr. Patriot! :)

Re:Why not?

[cwhicks]

Peter Arnett is not a reliable source at all. Remember why he got fired? For a nutty conspiracy story about the army poisoning its own people. Lets say it was a milk factory and not a weapons place. So what. Mistakes happen in wars all the time. Suppose it wasn't a mistake and they are lying. Why? If it is a conspiracy, what is their other motive for blowing up a baby milk factory?

Chalabi/Square guy: First off, yours is the first I have hear of this. Second, there is more than one chubby, bearded, male resident of Iraq. That guy looks like 50 other people in the crowd as well. And thirdly, if he is the Chalabi guy, wouldn't you expect him to cheer at the statue coming down? I am not sure what the conspiracy is? So there is a Chalabi guy in the crowd cheering, so what.

The only valid "fake" is the incubator story. But so what again. There are always stories in war about the other buy being terrible. The Iraqi's said the US was spying on women changing with their night vision scopes to make us look bad. We say women hide guns under their burka's. We both say the other fires indiscriminantly into crowds. I am sure there some truths behind all of these, but they are exceptions. War is bad, people lie, innocent people die, but you are listing nutty conspiracies. There are a lot of valid ones like who knew what about the fake WMD intelligence, who approved the Abu Graibe prisoner treatment, etc.

Use your energies better.

Re:Why not?

[Rei]

I'm not asking you to take Arnett's word on anything. I'm asking you to read the article about him, which is mostly based on things that *others* said. The discussion of the milk factory focuses almost exclusively what the pentagon, the company who built the factory, private analysts, etc said about it, and *not* what Arnett said about it. If you don't accept it after reading over that, by all means, let me know and we'll discuss it. But we need a starting point here, which means you need to understand why one who has read over the case feels the evidence is so overwhelming that it had almost no chance of being anything but a milk factory, before we discuss.

I'm not supporting the Chalabi conspiracy theory. I was just using it as an example of a commonly pictured bearded Iraqi. As I stated, that is why I referred to it as a conspiracy theory - because I *don't* accept it. If you've never seen it before, you've never looked before. It's popped up all over indymedia, geocities pages, angelfire pages, and the other typical sources of conspiracy theories. :)

Re:Why not?

[IAR80]

Ye. Those terorists look really ruged.

Re:Why not?

[Luscious868]

It also protect my right to own a gun. Intersting little document isn't it. So, you burn your flag to piss off the right, I'll fire my gun to piss off the left and we can both hold hands and sing kumbaya around the Constitution.

On a side note, the Constitution also counted slaves as 3/5th's of a human being, so just because it's in the Constitution doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Re:Why not?

[TummyX]

No kidding. Look at the results of Aermika's evil imperalist nazi capatilist policies in post war Japan, West Germany and South Korea. Those nazi bastards!

Re:Why not?

[Mr. Neutron]

I don't get it, it's too weird!

Sometimes I scratch my head, trying to make sense of Team Bush's foriegn policy. There are some points to consider:

• There are security concerns other than Islamist extremists that might justify the war. Saddam was a security concern on his own.
• There are valid legal reasons justifying the war. Technically, Saddam was in violation of the terms of the 1991 cease-fire.
• Just because Saddam is against extremists in his own country doesn't mean he wouldn't use them against the US, given the chance.

It's not a simple matter of Team Bush having an "Iraq fixation," or greedy corporations wanting to get their hands on Iraq's oil. Nor is it a simple matter of "defending the US when we're under attack." The Administration had valid national security concerns that were the reason for this war, but the geopolitics of the whole thing is so complex that most people don't understand them.

Re:Why not?

[at_kernel_99]

You have it backwards. Saddam was a participant in the War on Terror, on the side of the terrorists.

He was paying $25,000 each to the families of suicide bombers who completed their attacks.

Families of Palestinians bombing Israel, not people threatening the US. Still not cool, but also does not justify a preventative invasion by the US.

Members of Saddam's secret police were members of Al Qaeda.

Not true. According to the Washington Post & New York Times, there may be a mixup due to name similarities between some Al Queda members & the dude in the secret police.

Remember the World Trade Center bombing? Read the previous link, it is scary has hell. Iraq apparently had a hand in it and sheltered one of the plotters.

I have a hard time believing that opinionjournal.com is a definitive source on this subject. Frankly, I'd expect that it would've been covered more in mainstream press if it were true. In any case, it does not justify the war.

And then there was Iraq's plans to attack the US:

June 19, 2004 -- Russian President Vladimir Putin yesterday buttressed President Bush's claim that Iraq posed a direct threat to America by saying Russian intelligence was tipped off that Saddam Hussein was preparing anti-American attacks after 9/11.

Putin said the warning was relayed to Bush, who personally thanked one of Russia's spy chiefs for it.

The funny thing about this one is that US intelligence officials apparently don't know a thing about it! Again, cite coverage in the Washington Post & New York Times. Maybe its the insider knowledge that Cheney has, but has neglected to share with the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks on the US.

And then there are Zarqawi and Abu Nidal , two of the most blood-thirsty savages engaging in terrorism, both of whom found a home in Iraq.

You mean the guys that moved to Iraq after the US bombed the hell out of it? I think they'd still be living elsewhere if we hadn't gone in & made a mess of things.

No, I'm afraid you have it backwards, Saddam was both a participant and an enabler of terrorism. We did the right thing just based on terrorism.

So, No, you don't have it right. The US did not do the right thing by going in there 'just based on terrorism.' I humbly suggest that you consider verifying your news sources before buying the cock and bull story put out by the people continually changing their stories trying to justify an illegal and unethical war.

That is not even considering the many banned activities going on in Iraq in defiance of the UN. Read David Kay's report sometime, or some of the other UN material. For your convenience, here is an excert from his statement:

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

And this is what its come to; an Administration that justified a war based on stockpiles of WMD has come up with vague evidence of 'WMD programs'. As I recall, the centerfuge that was found had been buried in a scientist's back yard for 12 years. Hardly a WMD program. When Colin Powell went to the UN he claimed that we had definitive proof of weapons of mass destruction. How many times have Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld & their lackeys said the same thing? Whats coming out is that our satellite pics of SCUD towers - when we shared them with the UN inspections team - turned out t

Re:Why not?

[adam1234]

Of course, these examples are from before the age of preemptive warfare based on secret evidence.

Re:Why not?

[appleLaserWriter]

Parent says: The Administration had valid national security concerns that were the reason for this war, but the geopolitics of the whole thing is so complex that most people don't understand them.

The Great Statesman Inigo Montoya says: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

You do know that Enron's busienss model involved proposing a questionable business structure and then insulting the inteligence of anyone who dared question it, don't you?

Re:Why not?

[adam1234]

It also protect my right to own a gun. Intersting little document isn't it. So, you burn your flag to piss off the right, I'll fire my gun to piss off the left and we can both hold hands and sing kumbaya around the Constitution.

On the contrary, the Constitution says that you can bear arms if you're part of a militia, since they're crucial to keeping the peace. Nowhere does it say you can sell assault rifles to convicted felons (not that you are one, or that all guns should be abolished).

Re:Why not?

[Nopal]

Likewise, would you like Americans to be called "the morons who try to impose their cultural and economical dominance to the rest of the world"? The problem is that you don't realise that you are probably more violent against the rest of the world than the rest of the world is to you -- even if it's a different form of violence.

Yes, especially since cultural_dominance == car_bombs. Oh, wait, cultural dominace IS more violent than beheadings and car bombs. My bad. Seriously, What kind of moron actually moderates the parent as insightful?

In war, as in everything else, you don't owe respect if respect is not given to you. It's as simple as that.

Re:Why not?

[mdvolm]

Oh come on, at least spell "America" correctly. And what's all this "evil imperalist nazi" crap all about?

My evidence that America does not practice imperialism is simply that they don't have an empire. Frankly there is nothing else stopping them. And no, the temporary occupation of Iraq does not qualify as such!

By the way, let's take a step back to admire how incredibly well the countries of Japan, Germany (East and West rejoined a while back, thanks in part to America), and South Korea are doing.

<sarcasm> What a tragedy!! </sarcasm>

Re:Why not?

[TummyX]

Of course, these examples are from before the age of preemptive warfare based on secret evidence.


Secret evidence? I can't event count the number of UN resolutions relating to Iraq's illegal weapons programs on my hands.

And preemptive or not, it doesn't disolve the fact that encouraging US style policies and government on Iraq and Afghanistan will lead to increased prosperity and more cultural understanding on both sides. Is it right to impose US style of governmment on other countries? Ask yourself if it was right for the Taliban Or Saddam to impose their method of government. At least the US style builds infrastructure and prosperity.

In my town, we have a Japanese restuarant called "Kamakazi". Can you imagine a shop being called that 50 years ago? My hope is that America succeeds and brings freedom, liberty and prosperity to the middle east so that in 50 years my grand children can go to a Middle Eastern restuarant named Intifada.

Re:Why not?

[TummyX]

Uh. Ironic that you should use a sarcasm tag when you can't even recognise it yourself.

Re:Why not?

[mdvolm]

Hehe. Actually, that is pretty funny, now that you mention it.

Re:Why not?

[Penguinshit]

Cool. I'll burn a flag in protest while firing my Mossberg into the air (and promptly get arrested for discharging a weapon in city limits...).

Not all "liberals" are anti-ownership of firearms.

I also don't remember the original Constitution saying anything about slavery (unless you're talking about Amendments 13-15).

But this is getting way offtopic, so I'm gonna shut down here.

Re:Why not?

[crucini]

I think I'm in general agreement with you, but there's one problem.

...encouraging US style policies and government ... will lead to increased prosperity ...

I'm not sure there is such a thing as US style policies. The phrase seems to imply that the US wants to (and can) create the same kind of government abroad that we have at home. It may have been true around WWII. I think that today the US leaders are keenly aware that the most advantageous thing for the US is to disrupt a country's economy so it becomes deeply dependent on the US. Create poverty, because that creates cheap workers. We send subsidized agricultural products to the third world, which kills the rural economy, which sends economic refugees to work in factories, which gives us cheap imports.

A democratic, strong country that accumulates capital and crafts its own trade policies is a threat to the US. A helpless, chaotic country that sells all its resources to multinationals at cheap prices and lets multinationals drain off all its hard currency with tricks like foreign-owned utilities is an asset to the US.

I'm afraid the US track record shows a desire to prevent any new US-like countries from emerging. There are other, more worthy desires there - but don't ignore this one.

Re:Why not?

[Rayonic]

I'm afraid the US track record shows a desire to prevent any new US-like countries from emerging. There are other, more worthy desires there - but don't ignore this one.

That's a very specious argument. Why on earth would the United States not want any new Capitalist Democratic Republics showing up? They're more stable, more sane, and would probably be great to do business with.

Re:Why not?

[jadavis]

"nazi capitalist" is an oxymoron.

Nazi stands for national socialist party, which is not capitalist.

Why do people associate fascists with capitalists? They're almost polar opposites.

I'm sure you can find similarities between nationalism in a fascist state and nationalism in the Republican Party, but I wouldn't necessarily call the Republican Party capitalist, either.

By the way, and this is an honest question, what does spelling America with a "K" ("Amerika") mean? I really don't understand, although it seems derrogatory.

Re:Why not?

[Trent05]

what movies would you recommend that fall into the "quirky love story about two weirdos meeting and falling in love complete with psychedlic visuals, uncomfortable visuals, a sense of possible dark and violent doom and tense sound and music work" genre that DOES have good acting in it?

Sex-Trek: The Next Penetration

Was gonna say this but I could smell my karma burning.

Re:Why not?

[darien]

Man I wish I could mod you up. That's the most clear-headed thing I've read on this subject in a long time.

Re:Why not?

[mangu]

the Constitution also counted slaves as 3/5th's of a human being

OK, so why don't you earn some (+1, Informative) karma and tell us exactly where in the Constitution is that count?

Re:Why not?

[Dr. Spork]

Gee, that all sounds pretty, well, weak - but a million times better than what they actually told us, which was that Saddam was connected to 9-11, posed an imminent threat, and has large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction.

As to your very weak points, though they are much more reasonable than the justification Bush gave, they have serious problems. The first one is an outright lie unless you mean something very special by "security concern." Could you name three military dictators (out of dozens) who are a smaller security concern than a Saddam with unimpeded weapons inspectors crawling around every Iraqi warehouse? As we now see, he was completely disarmed, unless you happen to walk into RPG range of his people, which we stupidly did, and now we're dying.

Your second point is silly, because it suggests that we have an obligation to blow up anyone who violates the letter of some international agreement. But that's stupid, because we'd be equally obligated to bomb Israel, North Korea, China and a bunch of other places (including probably ourselves). To attack someone you need a further reason, otherwise, all of these other countries would have to be bombed. And I'm still looking for a good further reason.

Your third point reveals your ignorance about the secular nature of Saddam's government. Yes, he hated the USA, and according to documents he flirted with the idea of collaborating with Islamic extremists, but then completely rejected it, because he hates them more than the Americans (that might have changed since his capture). To speculate that he might colaborate with them is no reason to kill people, but apart from that, the speculation is based on complete bullshit. There is a far higher chance of fundamentalist Christian terrorists based in the USA cooperating with Al Quaeda than there is with Saddam ever doing so. And much more danger, btw, because these home-grown fundamentalists don't have to enter our country at an airport, and nobody looks at them with suspicion when they rent big trucks and buy lots of guns and fertilizer.

It's not because people are naturally prone to conspiracy theories that makes them think Bush is in Iraq to fill the wallets of his buddies, and for the political capital of calling himself a "wartime president". The reason why so many people think these are the reasons is because they realize there are no good reasons for this war to have been fought. Oh, and don't give me that "geopolitical" crap as a reason. The only geopolitical upshot of this is that we've made ourselves look like assholes and when we travel, waiters spit in our food. That, and Al Quaeda recruitment is through the roof, the Dollar is in the crapper, gas is expensive, we have the worst debt in world history, and foreign governments who support us are getting replaced by those who won't lift a finger to help us secure our country, making us far less safe. So I take it back, there are geopolitical implications of this war. Sorry, you're quite wrong to be an apologist for it.

Re:Why not?

[eyegone]

The word that you're looking for is Mercantilism.

Re:Why not?

[Doppler00]

This is not a flame.....you're no better than your unelected president who believes war prisoners are a subclass of the human species

Not a flame huh?

Re:Why not?

[Luscious868]

the Constitution also counted slaves as 3/5th's of a human being

OK, so why don't you earn some (+1, Informative) karma and tell us exactly where in the Constitution is that count?

Sure, from Article 1, Section 2 Paragraph 3:

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

"All other Persons" would be slaves. Although the term itself isn't used in the Constitution, that is to whom the framers were refering.

Re:Why not?

[Master of Transhuman]

"I can't event count the number of UN resolutions relating to Iraq's illegal weapons programs on my hands."

You can't count the number of "WMD's" actually FOUND on your hands either (assuming you HAVE hands, of course) - for a different reason.

Re:Why not?

[Master of Transhuman]

"They're more stable, more sane, and would probably be great to do business with."

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! You think the CEOs in THIS country are "stable", "sane" and "great to do business with"?

Jesus!

Even if they were not assholes, competitors is the LAST thing these morons want in this world.

Some people - mostly ignorant Objectivist libertarians - seem to think that being in business makes one a free market philosopher. Forget about it. The average CEO of any major corporation is an asshole who got where he is for office politics and financial connections reasons - not because he is a "capitalist statesman".

And the POLITICIANS who run this country DAMN sure don't want any free-market countries in existence - not even the US!

"Capitalism" (in the common sense of people with money running everything) and the state can work together - the true free market and the state cannot.

Re:Why not?

[darkmeridian]

It also protect my right to own a gun.

Sure, but they had muskets back then. If the Founding Fathers knew about AK-47s, M-16s, Glocks, and Magnums, perhaps they wouldn't want everyone to have the right to bear arms. So, yeah, I agree. Just because it's in the Constitution doesn't mean it's a good thing.

Freedom of unpopular speech, however, pretty much remains the same.

Re:Why not?

[Master of Transhuman]

Another clown who doesn't comprehend what a "militia" is.

Read up on it before braying. The Constitution and Federal law at the time and now define the "militia" as every able bodied man in the country (sorry, ladies, it should include you, but apparently doesn't - unfortunate historical fact that men before women's lib were assholes).

I believe it was Patrick Henry that made the specific point in a speech: "The great object is that every man be armed."

There are Web sites that provide the details about this issue - do a Google - it's quite clear that the intent was to arm the citizenry in general - not just those who were in a "National Guard" (which didn't exist at the time).

And the "selling assault rifles to convicts" is a ridiculous straw man argument. The intent was to sell "assault rifles" to the average citizen so he could both protect his family against the "land pirates" which existed in those days and especially to protect the country against both foreign invasion and specifically tyrannical government.

What, you think Jefferson and that lot meant that the only people who could own guns were members of the national army - reserve or not? Do you seriously believe that?

You'd better do a lot more research about that.

Re:Why not?

[zymurgyboy]

Think about these juxtaposed with Patriot, Stinger, F-15, F-16. It has been argued that the original intent of the ammendment was to facilitate the quick assembly of an armed force to defend the nation, or in the event of its unrecoverable corruption, overthrow the corrupt government.

Even with the stuff you enumerated, they're way ahead, anybody this ammendment makes provision to deal with is already way ahead you.

The worst thing anyone with a musket had to face down would have been a canon??? Modern military hardware like tanks, missles, jets, etc. versus modern small arms isn't even close to fair. Not that I'm advocating an AK in every pot. ;-)

Re:Why not?

[Master of Transhuman]

The "bearded guy" is irrelevant to the bottom line of the Firdos story. The US promoted the myth that "hundreds" (if not thousands) of Iraqis were in on the pulling down of Saddam's statue, and that it was a "spontaneous Iraqi celebration".

It was bullshit, is what it was. The pullback picture of the scene shows the placed sealed off by US military vehicles and damn few Iraqis. And a US military PR guy shows up with an flag all ready to drap over the statue. And I'd say it was 50-50 that the guy in the picture WAS Chalabi's man - but who knows? The point is it was a staged photo-op - nothing "spontaneous" about it at all.

It was as true as the fiction spread about Jessica Lynch's "heroic" battle before being captured - and as true as her "heroic" rescue - another fake photo-op.

You want to know how far the US will go to pull a stunt, Google for the "Northwoods documents" and read what the Joint Chiefs of Staff were prepared to do in the 1960's to justify invading Cuba. You'll find a lot of conspiracy Web sites carrying those documents, but the documents themselves are quite real - there's an ABC news story which should come up in a Google about them.

Re:Why not?

[Master of Transhuman]

You should recommend an AK in every pot - it's working well in Iraq right now.

It doesn't matter how many heavy weapons you have. They're only good for beating a bunch of guys on a straight battlefield who have heavy weapons. They're useless against an insurgency, which has been demonstrated repeatedly and is current being proven again in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A tank driver can't drive a tank with his head shot off from ambush while he's off base. A well-aimed rifle trumps a tank every time in an insurgency.

And you want a heavy weapon? Shoot the guys who have one and take it - works every time - as long as it isn't something that requires a few hundred million bucks in infrastructure to support. And if it does, you shoot up the infrastructure and the heavy weapon is useless.

And you think a Revolutionary War era cannon loaded with grapeshot wasn't bad news for somebody with a musket?

The relative difference in destructive power of modern weapons versus older weapons is irrelevant to the basic principle: an armed citizenry cannot be defeated AND HELD by an army (at least if the citizenry is motivated. Unfortunately it looks like most of the US population isn't capable of that any more - if they ever were since the 1700's.)

Re:Why not?

[Rolo Tomasi]

Reminds me of this.

Re:Why not?

[Penguinshit]

You know what? At risk of being labeled a terrorist and [further] examined by Herr Aschkropht's Gestapo, this is why I keep my firearms and why I have acquired certain skills.

I'm no compound-dweller, but I do believe in the Rousseauian ethics which helped found this nation and I'll be fucked before I just lay down and let 200 years of hard work go to waste for a bunch of goddamned thieves and villains.

Too many people I know have sacrificed blood, tears, and the better parts of their lives to let a bunch of assmonkeys piss it all away.

</rant>

Re:Why not?

[Penguinshit]

Shhhhhh.....

%-)

(goddamned idiot lameness filter...)

Re:Why not?

[Mr. Neutron]

First off, I agree that this whole situation we have gotten ourselves into was a huge mistake. Any Civilization fan will tell you that Despotism is preferable to Anarchy. And I agree that Iraq was not the ideal front to fight the "War on Terror."

That said, there are some serious flaws in your thinking:

On the first point, you are forgetting that Saddam only has to play nice with the inspectors for so long. As soon as the international community gets tired of babysitting him, Saddam will kick the inspectors out of the country and go back to Business As Usual. Sure, as a short-term solution, containment is a good policy, but the Administration is trying to forsee long-term ramifications.

On the second point, it's not just that Iraq violated some letter of some international agreement. They attempted to take over a neighboring country (and before that, tried to take over another country with the help of the U.S.), and we had every reason to believe that, left to his own devices, he'd do so again. The idea is that the mere presence of Saddam was in impeding factor to the economic and political growth and development of the entire region. Saddam can't be kept in check without constant babysitting and crippling embargoes. Iraq suffers. The rest of the Arab/Persian world has to deal with a skewed balance-of-power in the region. They suffer. It was perceived as an unsustainable arrangement.

Let's not even get into Israel... suffice it to say that when the "international community" won't allow a people to defend themselves against butchers who send teenagers to blow up civilians on buses, that people has every right to thumb their noses at them.

On the third point (and I'm not saying I agree with it this thinking, but...) the idea is that 9/11 proves that there is a means in place to attack US cities and kill vast numbers of Americans. Organized, global groups like Al Quaeda are, in and of themselves, a powerful weapon, and a great delivery system for anyone who wants to attack the U.S. Al Quaeda PLUS rouge governments developing WMDs constitute a clear and present danger to the U.S. and to the world. Personally there is no doubt in my mind that Saddam would have "made a deal with the Devil" to attack America if he thought he could get away with it.

Your speculation about "fundamentalists Christians" buying guns and fertilizer, and cooperating with Islamist terror groups betrays vast misunderstanding of the nature of the threat. You need to understand a few things:

1. Islam teaches that all the world must be converted, by force if necessary, and anyone who refuses to convert must be killed. This is not an extremist position. This is orthodox Islam.

2. Mainstream media in the Muslim world regularly gives air-time to religious leaders and professors who state that suicide bombing is justified, and that America and Israel are the enemies of the faith, and must die. This hatred is primarily a result of their doctrine. The U.S. and Israel could bend over backwards to satisfy every demand of the Arab people, and they would still be infidels that must die.

3. "Fundamentalist Christians" do not kill people for the advancement of the faith. Yes, you have the odd-ball who kills an abortion doctor. Yes, people wishing to overthrow the government are sometimes right-wing Christians. But this has more to do with them being right-wing than being Christian - really, any religion can be used as an excuse for abominable political beliefs. The case of Islamist terror is very different. The terror and hatred is a direct result of their faith, rather than their faith being used as an excuse to justify their hatred and terror.

Now, all that said, I think this Iraq invasion was a stupid idea vis-a-vis the war on terror. But then, I don't know a thing about conducting a global war against rogue criminals. Our war isn't against governments. It's against criminals. But obviously, "law enforcement" as we know it isn't going to do a damned

Re:Why not?

[anaesthetica]

It doesn't cut both ways genius. Saudi Arabia does have the most proven oil, but Iraq has the second most. Under your four-word explanation of the entire history of US Middle East foreign policy the US should have been sucking up to both Saudi Arabia and Iraq, while abusing the other less well-oil-endowed states in the region. But let's not sweat the details shall we?

Re:Why not?

[anaesthetica]

You would do well to consider that the UN Security Council made no decision on Iraq one way or the other. No resolution was adopted against war in Iraq, and no resolution was adopted authorizing war in Iraq. Legally, no decision != a decision against. The closest legal equivalent would be the UN returning a stare decisis, basically saying that previous decisions are all that apply. And the US/UK/Coalition invaded, saying that they had continuing authority on the basis of resolution 678 and material breach of resolutions 687 and 1441. Others disputed that these resolutions and their breach constituted enough to grant continuing authority to "secure international peace and security in the area."

And, at the end of the day, all UN enforcement action is taken by member states, not UN forces. There never has been UN enforcement action taken by UN forces, only peacekeeping operations. So, it was not, as you said, entirely a matter for the UN and not the US/UK/Coalition. If UN enforcement action were specifically mandated by a post-1441 resolution, it is essentially a given that the vast majority of forces involved would be US/UK.

Re:Why not?

[anaesthetica]

You are correct that Saddam was not a traditional military threat to the United States. His conventional army was obviously no match for US forces, as both the Gulf War and the Iraq War have demonstrated quite clearly.

This was not the concern of Cheney/Rumseld/Bush/Evil-Neo-Con-Cabal.

Not only were US intelligence operatives convinced that Iraq was attempting to secure or develop WMD, so were the Russian, French, British, German and Arab-state intelligence services. There was essentially no disagreement about this in the international community. The disagreement was how to deal with the threat, not whether or not there was the threat to begin with. Clearly the nations other than the US and UK favored a non-aggressive approach, at odds with the US/UK invasion plan.

There are valid legal reasons for the invasion. In fact, during the run up to the invasion, I was in the Public International Law course of Queen's Council Christopher Greenwood (the same barrister who argued the Lockerbie Bombing case, and the Pinochet Extradition Case). The British legal argument ran as follows:

• UNSCR 678 authorized coalition force to be used to secure international peace and security in the area (note that this is a broader mandate than simply repelling Iraqi forces from Kuwait, which is why it was valid for coalition forces to push into Iraq itself, and have the option of going after Saddam himself)
• UNSCR 687 was the terms of the ceasefire between Iraq and the coalition. It specifically recalls UNSCR 678 as having force in case of a material breach of UNSCR 687
• Over the next 12 years, almost a dozen UNSCRs are passed condemning various breaches of UNSCR 687
• UNSCR 1441 gives Saddam one last chance to uphold the positive obligation placed upon him by UNSCR 687 and all the subsequent UNSCRs to make a full reporting of all his weapon activities. UNSCR 1441 specifically recalls UNSCR 678, using the same language as UNSCR 687, indicating that coalition force is still the penalty for material breach
• Hans Blix returns a report indicating that Iraq remains in material breach of its obligations from UNSCRs 687 and 1441
• The US and UK invade under the continuing authority of 678, since Iraq never complied with the terms of the ceasefire set forth in 687

It is also worth noting that Saddam did employ, support and maintain active relationships with extremists and terrorists. His special forces contracted agents to attempt the assassination of President Bush Sr. (an act of war). He paid Palestinian families of suicide bombers. And the 9/11 commission report goes over the many links and contacts he had with al-Qaeda (noting, however, that Iraq and al-Qaeda did not cooperate on the 9/11 attacks).

Re:Why not?

[anaesthetica]

Playing the good little isolationist and not getting involved in regional or religious disputes halfway around the world is another great idea. We tried that around the turn of the century, but didn't work too well when a little regional European dispute got out of hand. Then right after we got back, we went back to isolationism, and lo and behold, would you believe it, another little regional European dispute got out of hand, and we got pulled in again. We've been stuck with troops in Europe ever since! What a quagmire. Only serves to show you what engagement with the outside world will get you...

Re:Why not?

[gfxguy]

Really? The polls were NOT slanted 70% against, and even if they were, the rule of law here is that only congress can declare war, and they did.

Moreover, whenever the UN does decide to do anything, who bears the brunt of the work? The U.S., and the U.S. was still in Iraq after over a decade, policing the norther no fly zone and protecting the kurds. Were we supposed to just stay there forever?

No, the grandparent was not clearheaded, it was one-sided. Valid points, but only part of the story.

Re:Why not?

[gfxguy]

I couldn't really bring myself to read your whole post after the first statement contained two blatant lies, but then I'm sure you won't lose any sleep over it.

Re:Why not?

[martyn s]

Actually Congress didn't declare war, they just gave permission to Bush to go to war whenever he chose. There's a difference.

Re:Why not?

[darien]

Oh God, I'm going to get sucked into an Iraq argument on an old thread nobody else will ever read, aren't I...

Anyway, I don't know first-hand about the polls (I wasn't there), so I won't argue that point. All I'll say is that yes, the US has done a lot of excellent work in support of UN resolutions; but I don't believe that gives it any authority to invade and occupy Iraq against the will of the UN!

Re:Why not?

[sciuro]

would like to have you to spell it out a bit better so that people don't get the wrong impression from your post:

Saudi Arabia is a more extremely Islamic country than Iraq ever was during Hussain's rule. the Wahhabi sect prevalent in Saudi Arabia is related far more closely to the Taliban and Al Qaida's Islamic ideas than the Sunni (of Hussain) or Shi'ite (of the Iraq majority).

do a little research on the nationalities of the WTC suicide bombers and count the Saudis and Iraqis...

-duncan

Re:Why not?

[adam1234]

Sorry, but there are two definitions for militia:

1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

Now, there's no way to know which in particular the founding fathers meant. But judging by context--the fact that the 2nd Amendment specifically mentions a "well-regulated" militia--I'm betting on the first definition. A mob of rabble-rousers is hardly well-regulated. The National Guard is.

I understand the need of early settlers to protect themselves against attackers. But in the 21st century, we hardly need to blow away anyone and everyone who might pose a threat to us.

Re:Why not?

[glesga_kiss]

No kidding. Look at the results of Aermika's evil imperalist nazi capatilist policies in post war Japan, West Germany and South Korea.

That was a different America. It's not America's ideals that we fear, it's the foreign policies of the past 40 years.

Re:Why not?

[gfxguy]

Well, I don't want to suck you into an argument, just making a point that the post was clearly lopsided and incomplete.

I also don't believe working for the UN gives us any special privelages that are not clearly stated (like veto power). However, I am also in the camp that believes that just because the UN doesn't approve it, it doesn't mean it's not something we ought to do. We went against the UN under Clinton, too, and while some partisan politicians raised a bit of a fuss, you hardly heard anybody complain at all. Now that Bush does it, the world is in an uproar about him not following the lead of "the international community".

No where did I say we were justified or not justified, I just pointed out that the "clear headed" argument was only clear headed to that poster who agreed with it's message. Doesn't matter how clear headed an opposing argument might be, that would just be partisan propoganda, jingoism, or some other derogatory term that the far left has been using to describe anyone who thinks the war had merit.

Re:Why not?

[weierstrass]

(East and West rejoined a while back, thanks in part to America)

I thought it was more like the US and USSR kept the German people for reuniting for 50 years, because of a Cold War that they were having at the time?

Re:Why not?

[Alien Being]

"So, it was not, as you said, entirely a matter for the UN and not the US/UK/Coalition."

It has nothing to do with which Army does the fighting. It has everything to do with the justification. The war was not sanctioned by any democratic body. Furthermore, the primary reason that GW gave for going in has turned out to be bogus.

Re:Why not?

[Nopal]

A war IS an arm race, except that the arms are actually used! Geez, talk about stating the obvious.

Re:Why not?

[Nopal]

[*] That is unless this is all a clever charade.

And then we wonder why ultra-left arguments are often not taken seriously? Here's an example of why. Just listen to yourself. What convincing evidence do you have that compels you to add that otherwise irrelevant comment to your post? Or does that part just betrays your paranoid, superiority-complex, and in all likelyhood bigoted beliefs about the current decision-makers? You pretty much have to believe that the media, the US government, Al Jazeera, and even Al Qaeda are all in cohorts for you to even consider making that statement (since the videos are first aired by Al Jazeera and feature known Al Qaeda members). I think that you've forgotten to take your pills for the day, troll.

I don't have a problem with disagreement, just with blatant intellectual dishonesty such as you've displayed. What ever happened to the JFK left? It used to be a solid, valid philosophy but lately it has become the loony extreme.

Re:Why not?

[Nopal]

Above all, CEOs are greedy. Ergo, richer countries where consumers have deeper pockets and can spend more on your product are more attractive than poor countries where hardly anyone can afford your wares. You seem to focus on cheap labor, but cheap labor are just small potatoes. Think about what the CEOs would call "the big picture": Who cares if you spend twice as much on labor when you can sell ten times the volume if the world becomes richer?

Re:Why not?

[McDutchie]

So why don't you read the link, genius? Afraid to find valid arguments there?

I see the mods here can't tolerate political dissent either. Pathetic.

Re:Why not?

[Master of Transhuman]

None of which alters the bottom line:

1) The UN did NOT sanction the US invasion and international law experts with considerably more knowledge of UN law than you say it was illegal to do so.

2) Paying a few tens of thousands of dollars to Palestinian bomber families is hardly conducting terrorist acts against the US. In fact, most analysts believe this was mostly a propaganda ploy with no significance.

3) There were NO significant links with Al-Qaeda. Intelligence analysts believe that all the alleged "contacts" were little more than the routine in intelligence circles for various groups and state agencies to check each other out and gain intel.

4) ALL the evidence since the original Gulf War indicates that Saddam either abandoned most of his WMD projects or was being lied to by the heads of those projects as to any progress being made. While no doubt Saddam would have LIKED to have had WMDs, the bottom line is:

a) He had NONE.
b) The US LIED about his having ANY.
c) NONE have been found.

"Wanting WMD's" is NOT an excuse to invade another country according to international law to which the US is a signatory. Even if the US were NOT a signatory to such laws, "wanting WMD's" - indeed HAVING WMD's - would be a total excuse for invading Israel RIGHT NOW. Not to mention North Korea which is currently threatening to test a nuclear weapon. Why aren't we invading North Korea? No oil, maybe?

You mention Hans Blix - have you even read anything Blix has said in the last year? Being "in breach" of WMD *reporting* requirements did not justify war regardless of any UN declarations.

Your arguments are the same specious crap dredged up by the neocons and their Zionist allies on a daily basis. They have been refuted unambiguously a thousand times.

There was NO justification for war in Iraq. There were only lies and neocon plots - and they continue to this day. And only fools like Rush and Ann and Bill and you still believe them.

Re:Why not?

[Master of Transhuman]

Go here: http://www.free-definition.com/Militia.html and read.

While you're at it, read this one, too:
http://www.sgaus.org/secamend.htm

There are plenty more on the Net.

The fact that there is more than one definition of militia is irrelevant. The definition used by the framers of the Constitution and the language so used clearly establish the individual right of all citizens to possess firearms and for the purpose of providing for a "common defense" against state tyranny - whether that defense is composed of "everybody" or only those *capable* of serving in a militia controlled by the states and/or the Federal government.

Re:Why not?

[Master of Transhuman]

I'm not talking about "cheap labor". I'm talking about the US politicians wanting power and US CEOs wanting to strip other countries of their resources for THEIR profit, not for the CEOs - and certainly not the people - of those countries.

And there are damn few CEOs who can see any kind of "big picture" beyond next quarter's stock price. A few see a "big picture" of multinational dominance of an industry but that's as far as it goes.

Re:Why not?

[MoneyT]

If the "right of the people to bear arms" is reserved to the millitia, does that mean that the "right of the people to assemble" is reserved to the millitia? Or the "right of the people to be secure in their persons" is reserved to the militia? Or the "rights retained by the people" is relevant only to the millitia?

Re:Why not?

[MoneyT]

So... if the right to bear arms should not apply to modern day guns, should the right to free speech not apply to the internet?

Re:Why not?

[adam1234]

RTFC--that's Read the Fscking Constitution.

The Second Amendment states:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, the other amendments don't mention anything about a "well regulated militia". Hence, you have the right to assemble without being in a militia.

Re:Why not?

[buck-yar]

Unable to debate the issues, so you throw out lame insults?

1. Saddam moved them out so we wouldn't find them. If you were a dictator and had Sarin and mustard gas, wouldn't you hide or ship them outside borders if you knew someone was coming to look?

2. Well, we're finding them anyways. WMD exist in Iraq. There used to be more. Ask the people in the mass graves if they were gassed. Or ask the ones with deformities.

Or maybe you'd like to plead for Saddams release so he can go take over an island somewhere and you can go live under him.

Re:Why not?

[darien]

I guess I have to concede that I probably wouldn't have praised that comment if I didn't agree with it. But honestly, so far as I can be objective, I thought I was calling it clear-headed because I found it insightful. I didn't mean just to praise it because it supported something I'd already concluded. Though, admittedly, it did.

I don't know offhand what it was that Clinton did that defied the UN; I'd be genuinely interested to know. What I can tell you is that, being British, I knew nothing much about Bush before he came to power, and after 11th September 2001 I was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt. Since then I'm afraid his actions - rather any predisposition of mine - have led me to conclude that my faith was very much misplaced.

Re:Why not?

[gfxguy]

The Daily Utah Chronicle. It's an opinion piece, but it's got a good, factual summary of what happened. For the record, I don't dislike Clinton as much as the guy that wrote this.

In both of the Clinton cases, as with the Bush case, the UN had a "policy" or a "plan" they were unsucessfully implementing, and in all cases, the president of the U.S. decided that the U.N. was failing and something more needed to be done.

Clinton actually acted even more "unilaterally" than Bush. It's silly that I have to say that (a reasonable person might compare it to "more dead", or "more pregnant"), because in the Bush case it was only "sort of" unilateral, but since people keep claiming that (hey, another media and left wing lie!), I feel it might be necessary to point it out.

The difference between me and most screeching partisan loosers is that I supported both Clinton and Bush. I didn't vote for Clinton, but I'm reasonable enough to recognize when he did something I felt needed to be done.

Re:Why not?

[Alien Being]

"The difference between me and most screeching partisan loosers is that I supported both Clinton and Bush."

Multiple personality disorder?

Re:Why not?

[MoneyT]

LTFEL -- that's Learn the Fscking English Language

Here's a link to help you out

Incase you don't click the link:

[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.


Also note please, that the right is asserted as "the right of the people to bear arms". Had the founding fathers (all very bright men, who chose the wording of the constitution very deleiberately) have wanted the right to be restricted to the millitia, then the right would have been declared as "the right of the millitia to bear arms"

Re:Why not?

[Alien Being]

"Really? The polls were NOT slanted 70% against, and even if they were, the rule of law here is that only congress can declare war, and they did."

In other words, you're saying that I'm wrong, yet conceding that I may be correct (I am.) but that the issue of democratic process is unimportant.

In a democratic system, the people's voices are supposed to matter. Even though the U.S. system is not a pure democracy, we are allegedly represented by elected officials. There was way too large a gap between public opinion and the congressional vote to believe that democracy is working.

Re:Why not?

[Master of Transhuman]

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Talk about lame!

Oh, yeah, Saddam shipped all his WMDs to Syria - or maybe it was his old enemies, Iran!

And that fake Sarin shell the US military just HAPPENED to find right in the middle of the torture scandal!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

And the deformities were caused by DEPLETED URANIUM dropped by the US and Britain in Gulf War 1 - and more are now being made sick - including US TROOPS - as a result of the even greater tonnage dropped in the latest war.

You're a total fucking moron! You haven't the slightest pig-witless fucking clue what you're talking about. Typical rightwing moron. You probably believe Rush Limbaugh is not a pill popper, too, right?

Cretin.

Re:Why not?

[darien]

Christ, now there's an article that smothers its good points in ad hominem rhetoric. Still, I'll try to ignore all the childish demogoguery like "war and death mean nothing to these hypocritical anti-war activists" and give a measured response.

For my part, a lot of this stuff was around 10 years ago, and I wasn't really watching international politics at that time. I can't speak for other people, but I've only taken an interest in such things as I've grown older. So no, I wasn't on the streets campaigning against Clinton when Haiti was invaded. That doesn't disbar me from protesting against other things that have happened since.

I can't tell you why other people didn't campaign against the invasion of Kosovo, but I know why I didn't. My friends could tell you that I was vocally critical of the way the campaign was conducted - but I understood that this was a well-intentioned intervention with clearly-stated altruistic aims. Though the US didn't have express UN permission to invade, it was visibly acting in selfless support of a recent UN resolution. We internationalists may have complained that the US should have sought explicit authority for military action, but on balance I didn't feel it was something to take to the streets over.

Bush, on the other hand, acted from the start as if he had no interest in supporting the aims of the UN; he wanted the UN to support his aims - the motives of which remain dubious to me. Thus he dug up a decade-old resolution, spun it with misleading information about September 11th and chemical weapons and tried to use this to coerce the UN into changing its existing Iraq strategy to a far more confrontational approach. The UN met him half-way, voting to adopt Resolution 1441; but he kept on pushing for war. Finally, when the UN made clear that it wouldn't support an invasion, he invaded anyway. In short, it looked to me like, wherease Clinton's invasion had been intended in support of the international community, Bush's invasion was intended in spite of it.

The writer of that article seems to think that acquiescing in one war and opposing another is hypocritical. In his startlingly polar world, it seems that an anti-war protestor must be against all war. Does he really think that the 750,000+ protestors who marched through London in February last year - or the 100,000+ who did so again in November - believe it was wrong to liberate France in 1944? That's a ridiculous straw man. What we were protesting against was this war being fought for these reasons at this time.

Re:Why not?

[gfxguy]

I can't tell you why other people didn't campaign against the invasion of Kosovo, but I know why I didn't. My friends could tell you that I was vocally critical of the way the campaign was conducted - but I understood that this was a well-intentioned intervention with clearly-stated altruistic aims. Though the US didn't have express UN permission to invade, it was visibly acting in selfless support of a recent UN resolution.

Funny, I can say the exact same thing about Bush w.r.t. the dozen Iraq resolutions, including 1441 which clearly stated "severe consequences". When Iraq violated that resolution, that's when things got ugly... and the U.N. decided that severe consequences meant... well... they'd say bad things about Iraq.

And that you feel Bush "spinned" in 9/11 makes me think all the worse of most news outlets. There were many and varied reasons for "regime change" in Iraq, combatting global terrorism was certainly a part. But now we get back to who is spinning what - the Bush administration never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. They did link Iraq with terrorists, including Al Qaeda, and now the facts seem to support that. Even the 9/11 commission has stated there were links, even if tenuous, but it was quite clear from our findings in Iraq that there were training camps including an old grounded airplane for training exercises. Moreover, even without all that, Saddam never even hid the fact that he paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (uh huh... while people were starving and dying from lack of medical attention in his own country).

And I can agree with some of your points about the article - it was an opinion piece, after all, but like I said, it had a nice timeline and summary of the facts, which is the only reason I pointed you to it.

Re:Why not?

[gfxguy]

No, you're not correct, even the most liberal interpretation of the wikipedia article shows 69%, but that's only if you look at one number at one time based on one poll. If you want to play with numbers, according to the very same article, 62% supported it immediately after it started. What have we learned? Either the polling method sucks or we have a large number of stupid people in the middle who really don't know what they think. More than likely, it's both. Politicians should NOT VOTE BASED ON POLLS.

Moreover, the people in congress knew a hell of a lot more than either you or I did, they were in a much better position to make an informed decision, which brings us to the highlight of this conversation: we live in a democratic republic, not a democracy. Which is better? It's certainly debatable, but for now a democratic republic is what we have.

Even John Kerry voted to give Bush authorization (before he blathered on against it... perhaps he's one of those stupid people in the middle that doesn't really know what he wants and believes in polls).

Re:Why not?

[darien]

I'll try to be brief, because this is getting silly. ;)

I wouldn't argue that Saddam Hussein deserved to remain in power. But I don't believe that any single nation has the right to unilaterally depose a foreign regime. If Bush wanted to depose Saddam he should have made an honest case for that on its merits. Instead he made a case based on deceit and threats. You can say that Bush "never claimed Iraq had anything to do with 9/11", but the spin was pretty clear to me, and it had the desired effect. Even if Bush did the exact same thing as Clinton, I didn't protest against Clinton because I thought he was acting from noble motives, whereas to me Bush simply reeks of bad faith.

Re:Why not?

[gfxguy]

It is silly, and this is my problem - if people apply the same rules to everyone, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

There was no spin. I don't care whose opinion piece says there is. Bush ties Saddam to terrorists, and he wants to make it clear that it is the same terrorists, and the same kind of terrorists, that attacked the United States. I don't know how else he could make that clear without some anti-Bush columnist spinning it. It's just as bad as the "Iraq poses an imminent threat" lie.

Even if Bush did the exact same thing as Clinton, I didn't protest against Clinton because I thought he was acting from noble motives, whereas to me Bush simply reeks of bad faith.

And that's my entire point - the media spins things against Bush because they don't like him. Most journalists are liberal (it's not even open to debate, they've said as much themselves), and they spin it just like you have spun it - you agree with Clinton so it's OK to act unilaterally, you disagree with Bush so it's not.

I agreed with Clinton even though I didn't like him because I apply (as much as I try) the same rules, the same judgement, to everyone.

Re:Why not?

[darien]

There was no spin.

Hm. If we disagree on something so fundamental then perhaps we can't have a rational debate. :-/

However, I will say this: you say "you agree with Clinton so it's OK to act unilaterally; you disagree with Bush so it's not." I don't think it's hypocritical to sit quietly by when something I can tolerate is going on, and to take to the streets when something I can't tolerate is in the offing. I believed that Clinton's unilateral action was in response to the wishes of the international community; whereas Bush was forced to act unilaterally because of opposition from the international community.

In retrospect, I must admit that it would have been more consistent of me to take a more vocal stand against Clinton's by-passing of the UN. At the time it seemed like the vote would have been a foregone conclusion, and hence unnecessary. I didn't really appreciate the dangers of allowing the primacy of international law to slip. I suppose I imagined future Presidents would only act like Clinton if they had a comparable level of international support.

Re:Why not?

[gfxguy]

So... all I'd ask is that you (or anyone making the argument against Bush) leave out that he acted unilaterally or bypassed the U.N. as fodder for your arguments. If you want to merely say that you supported Clinton because you agreed with his intent, I have no problem with that.

Re:Why not?

[darien]

You know, I think you're probably the most reasonable Bush-supporter I've come across.

In future I may not leave out the argument that Bush bypassed the UN; but I will concede that I haven't always automatically condemned leaders solely on those grounds.

Obstacles

[SIGALRM]

They are united in their belief that open-source software like Linux could help their nation.

Of course, the absence of basic infrastructure (power, water, sewage) is a real obstacle to their goals; not to mention the monumental lack of security in many parts of the country.

Overall, however, a proliferation of F/OSS would be a positive step forward for Iraq, where proprietary software is very expensive. It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the population even owns a computer.

Re:Obstacles

[double-oh three]

Computers are fairly common there actually, I remember reading a story in the NYT about how a IT person for one of the army units went out to buy a bunch of 64mb flash drives and was able to find a lot of (pirated) software like Photoshop and Windows at the store.

Re:Obstacles

[bollow (a) NoLockIn]

Overall, however, a proliferation of F/OSS would be a positive step forward for Iraq, where proprietary software is very expensive.

Are you sure? How much is the price of CDs with MS software (copied without permission from MS) on the streets of Bagdad?

How does this compare to F/OSS?

Re:Obstacles

[overloadhz]

the absence of basic infrastructure (power, water, sewage) is a real obstacle to their goals

no kidding. You're right; maybe the UPS manufacturers can open up a niche market in Iraq.

Re:Obstacles

[Short Circuit]

MS software is probably extremely cheap over there right now...seeing as they don't really have anyone focusing on preventing piracy yet.

Re:Obstacles

[jedidiah]

After the latest round of power line eating thunderstorms, I went out and bought the largest UPS that a wife imposed budget would allow for. A couple of small batteries won't make that much difference in a serious outtage but the little extra juice could come in quite handy.

Re:Obstacles

[einhverfr]

Of course, the absence of basic infrastructure (power, water, sewage) is a real obstacle to their goals; not to mention the monumental lack of security in many parts of the country.

Of course part of the problem is the war, power vacuum, etc. Part of it is that you can only fix all these problems by spending lots of money.

Less money spent on Microsoft software, and more spent on local services means more money in the economy which translates into a better ability to tackle these other problems.

Re:Obstacles

[Gumpmaster]

When I was in Baghdad, pirated programs were less than $10, including windows (pirated movies were $2). I don't think the everyday joe has a computer. The cost is still too much for every family to own a PC. The locals are making a bunch selling to US forces. The selection of computer components wasn't great. We made a weekly trip to the local tech store and bought thousands of dollars worth of stuff (flash drives included).

Re:Obstacles

[bretharder]

It would be interesting to find out what percentage of the population even owns a computer. According to this story. "Middle class folks (who would be desperately poor by US standards), have decent homes, cars, most likely a computer."

Re:Obstacles

[Donny Smith]

>Less money spent on Microsoft software, and more spent on local services means more money in the economy which translates into a better ability to tackle these other problems.

Well, that's your assumption - provided that the amount of work required to provide those services is more cost effective than buying commercial software and investing time in doing something more profitable (such as fixing oil pipelines or catching the remaining Saddam's lunatics)

Re:Obstacles

[jonbryce]

And remember that of course, Iraqi law didn't recognise american copyrights until a few weeks ago, so these $10 CDrs were completely legal.

Re:Obstacles

[Citizen of Earth]

Overall, however, a proliferation of F/OSS would be a positive step forward for Iraq, where proprietary software is very expensive.

Imagine Iraq being the world's software powerhouse ten years from now because it adopted Linux and it had little installed base of those other products to hamper it with hysterical raisins.

Re:Obstacles

[iabervon]

Actually, their goal is just to have all of the servers in the country running Linux. If there were few servers running in the country, it would be that much easier.

As far as the politics are concerned, I suspect that many Iraqis would be quite pleased to get rid of the products of some big American company in favor of stuff controlled locally and supported by Iraqis, whether because of opposing the American occupation or simply out of pride in Iraqi work.

Re:Obstacles

[gfxguy]

Yeah. Of course, MOST of the country has power and water, but that doesn't make good news, I suppose.

Re:Obstacles

[grozzie2]

Of course, the absence of basic infrastructure (power, water, sewage) is a real obstacle to their goals; not to mention the monumental lack of security in many parts of the country.

The lack of security is an american perception. Iraqi's themselves are pretty safe in most areas of the country, unless they stand right in front of american ground troops. American troops otoh, are not safe anywhere.

This is nothing new. German occupation forces had the same problem throughout most of continental europe during WW2.

America is in the process of forcing democracy on a country in a very non democratic part of the world. They do this because the 'believe' its better for people. Cant help but wonder, how this makes them any different than the folks the 'believe' islam is better, and want to force that on parts of the world.

Fighting for democracy, fighting for islam, same shit, different stick.

Re:Obstacles

[1u3hr]

And remember that of course, Iraqi law didn't recognise american copyrights until a few weeks ago, so these $10 CDrs were completely legal.

$10? In China about $1, in Hong Kong about $2.50. Learn to bargain.

Re:Obstacles

[vldmr_krn]

the absence of basic infrastructure (power, water, sewage) is a real obstacle to their goals; not to mention the monumental lack of security in many parts of the country.

The lack of security, which you treat as an afterthough, is actually the essential part. If people feel safe, they will build the infrastructure. It's hard to invest in the future when you know that there's a good chance of your profits being looted or destroyed.

See!

[Anonymous Coward]

See! The invasion was justified, because now more people will use Linux!

Re:See!

[Lester67]

Next Stop: Redmond. :-)

Re:See!

[Anonymous Coward]

Regime change begins at /home

How does this differ from other efforts?

[garcia]

A lot of high profile Linux users believe that Linux could be the savior to all areas of the world (developed countries as well as third world countries). How is this guy any different than the rest of those out there promoting and educating others about Linux?

"There is a shortage in power and water supplies, and sewage systems, so the last thing Iraq needs is spending billions of dollars on very expensive and overpriced products, especially software products," he said.

This enables the country to build its own infrastructure based on open source, on open ideas," Ashraf Hasson.

As of right now the "rebuilding" efforts of Iraq are in the hands of corporate contractors (from the liberating nations) who are being offered large sums of money to "help" over there. Will Linux be able to compete with the puppet-government mandated contractors who are likely more interested in filling their own coffers rather than those of the Iraqi people?

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[cheezedawg]

As of right now the "rebuilding" efforts of Iraq are in the hands of corporate contractors (from the liberating nations) who are being offered large sums of money to "help" over there. Will Linux be able to compete with the puppet-government mandated contractors who are likely more interested in filling their own coffers rather than those of the Iraqi people?

I know that "corporation" is a pseudonym for evil here on /., but just who the hell do you suggest should be doing the work in Iraq instead?

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Anonymous Coward]

The 70% of unemployed of Iraqis?

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Anonymous Coward]

Corporations who bid through an open bidding process, not due to their influence on our own, corrupt administration.

Government burns down. Corporation burns up. Profit is made. Bribes are exchanged. Cycle repeats. Meanwhile, innocent people suffer.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[TopShelf]

Obviously, send in the hippies! Once Phish wraps up their tour, I'm sure they'll need something to do.

Seriously, though, of course corporations are picking up most of the work. Don't forget, however, that federal procurement rules also carve out a portion of bids for small businesses. I saw a recent TV news story that claimed roughly $500 million in contracts have been given out already to small businesses engaged in the Iraq rebuilding effort.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Mz6]

I know that "corporation" is a pseudonym for evil here on /., but just who the hell do you suggest should be doing the work in Iraq instead?

Well definetly corporations should have a chance to help rebuilt Iraq, however, there should be more competition for it rather than a company being handed a "no-bid" contract. If the military did this instead of corportations, there really would be no spark to help the economy out.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Mr. Neutron]

It's called "Cash for Work" projects. The NGOs (non-governmental organizations) do them, and so do the private contractors. The work gets done on the cheap and the people involved have a good-paying job.

So, in a lot of cases, the Iraqis ARE doing the rebuilding work.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[garcia]

I suggest that there be an open bidding war instead of a mandate coming from one of the highest offices in the US Government because of his previous ties w/that corporation. *cough* Chaney *cough*.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Halliburton, et al, are screwing things up on the edges, but overall, there are very, very few corporations that could operate on that scale and actually get things done.

A bidding war would have resulted in A) way too many corners cut (even more than currently), and B) Nothing done yet, because the bidding process would stil be ongoing.

Sometimes you just have to cut the competitive bid process out, and say "Here, you do it!"

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Mz6]

I'm not so sure I can agree with that. How do you know that there aren't many companies that could handle it? Unfortunately, in this case, we don't because it was simply handed to them. However, what's done is done. What I think should happen now is start to bring in firms that actually want to compete for business over there. Let them compete to put their workers and equipment over there to help them rebuild.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about the people of Iraq? If they controlled thier OWN resources, then they could easily afford to REBUILD their OWN nation.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[American AC in Paris]

I know that "corporation" is a pseudonym for evil here on /., but just who the hell do you suggest should be doing the work in Iraq instead?

The US government and the local population.

Seriously--does it make sense to rely on private enterprise to tough it out in a war zone? Should taxpayers be footing the bill for security consultants--people who typically cost several times that which a soldier costs? Should taxpayers be footing the bill for multi-billion dollar cost-plus contracts--contracts which stipulate that a contractor is guaranteed a profit? Is it really all that smart for our troops to be dependent on private companies and individuals who can simply up and leave at their discretion?

Iraqis aren't knuckle-dragging cave dwellers, you know. They know how to do things, and even the ones that don't are generally capable of lifting things and following basic directions. Why are we so anxious to throw billions of dollars at American companies while there are millions of unemployed, discontented Iraqi workers already there?

How are we supposed to win hearts and minds when we're not even willing to trust Iraqis with the task of rebuilding their own country?

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[cheezedawg]

Halliburton and its KBR subsidiary are the best and most capable companies in the oil services industry in the world. It would have been a disservice to the Iraqi people to use anybody else.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Brain Stew]

I think you mean Dave Matthews Band, Phish just called it quits recently :p.

Oh my God, I can't believe I know that!

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Rei]

Iraqis have a higher concentration of PhDs per capita than the US. Education was free through grad school. They've been rather proud of their educational system, and with good cause. The big thing that's been setting them back has been the boycott; even trade publications have been barred many times under the sanctions.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Rei]

First off, you're only talking about unskilled labor. This sort of system is humiliating to the highly educated Iraqis. You know what? I would *love* to have some Iraqi artists and architects come over here to design buildings over here in the US. Have you seen the sort of beautiful bridges and monuments they've made? For a tenth the cost we're paying these US companies to do so? And the ugly-as-heck replacements that these US companies are doing?

Case and point: read

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[workindev]

Sorry, but the the federal procurement system is a highly structured process. Politicians have no access to it because these contracts are in the hands of civil servants, who would be risking their careers if they were steering contracts to big political donors.

Halliburton's KBR has always been at or near the top of the bidding process. They were even awarded so-called "no-bid" contracts during the Clinton administration to help rebuild the Balkans.

KBR did a risk assessment of potential oil fires before the invasion, which was covered by their 2001 contract. In March 2003, when the attack was unfolding, Pentagon planners issued an additional bridge contract to KBR to put out any fires that were set. KBR had the experience and their personnel were in place. It would have been crazy to open up a three-to-five-month bidding process at that time.

Even Steven Kelman, who was an administrator in the Office of Federal Procurement Policy under Bill Clinton, said this regarding the Halliburton Iraq contracts:

"One would be hard-pressed to discover anyone with a working knowledge of how federal contracts are awarded -- whether a career civil servant working on procurement or an independent academic expert -- who doesn't regard these allegations as being somewhere between highly improbable and utterly absurd"

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[TopShelf]

But they haven't quit yet - they're playing in my town tonight...

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Rei]

grr... accidentally hit submit when changing windows.

Read Riverbend's blog entry for August 28th.

Why on earth are we paying companies like Haliburton and Bechtel to charge us 10 to 50 times as much for the same job? It is completely ludicrous, and is only going to create anti-American sentiment (in addition to breaking the bank for us). It treats Iraqis like ignorant dogs who can only lift bricks and pour concrete.

Look at the sort of work Haliburton and Bechtel have been doing. Haliburton is on their, what, third or so price-gouging investigation for Iraq? Bectel isn't doing much better - you should read how their "school renovation" work turned out. These companies should not only be fired, they should be fined.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Erwos]

You're making the very weird assumption that the corporations _aren't_ trying to use the locals. If I was trying to make a profit off this, I know _I_ would be getting all the cheap local help I could get, instead of importing expensive Americans.

Another thing: the local help is somewhat unreliable due to the ongoing insurgency. Do you _really_ want to put a guy in a sensitive position who might be just looking for a great target to bomb? I'm betting that 99% of Iraqis are just fine, but it's that damned 1% that you've got to worry about. You can be pretty sure (100%) that the American you're importing isn't going to plant a mine under your chair.

So, not only I am not sure how much reality jives with your appreciation of the state of events, even if it did, there are certainly decent reasons to hire at least some Americans.

-Erwos

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[TheVidiot]

You expected the work to be done fairly, properly, cheaply?!
Bring the blame to Bush... do you not think this profiteering was forecast before the start of the war?

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

You're making the very weird assumption that the corporations _aren't_ trying to use the locals. If I was trying to make a profit off this, I know _I_ would be getting all the cheap local help I could get, instead of importing expensive Americans.

[Sarcasm On obref reports on Haliburton cheating US Government]Why would you want to hire a local at $1/day which you can only bill the US Government for $5/day, when you can hire an American at $1000/day, and bill the US Government $5000/day?[/Sarcasm]

The point being that many of the current "contractors" are being told to inflate their bills as large as possible because the no-bid contracts mean that extra cost + standard profit means more for the company that way. Hiring local would be STUPID from a Profit Motive point of view in this situation.

Another thing: the local help is somewhat unreliable due to the ongoing insurgency. Do you _really_ want to put a guy in a sensitive position who might be just looking for a great target to bomb? I'm betting that 99% of Iraqis are just fine, but it's that damned 1% that you've got to worry about. You can be pretty sure (100%) that the American you're importing isn't going to plant a mine under your chair.

Who cares? Your chair isn't in Iraq anyway, it's in the United States. You're just hiring people to SEND over there, all the stakeholders making the decisions are safely out of the war zone.

So, not only I am not sure how much reality jives with your appreciation of the state of events, even if it did, there are certainly decent reasons to hire at least some Americans.

I think you mean Iraqis- and you're forgetting that the ONLY motivation of a corporation, by law, is it's own profit. Not the lives of the workers, not efficient use of a customer's money, not even the stockholders (especially given that American companies simply don't pay large dividends anymore, because dividends are based on after-tax profits, and it's in the best interest of the company's profit margin to hide profits long before tax time). So the assumption that companies would NOT use the locals is a very easy to understand one, given the screwed up world of corporate ethics and no-bid government contracts under this administration. The best bet yet for any corporation working in the war zone is to hire as many contractors as possible and arrange somehow to get the majority of them killed off before the end of the contract so that no retirement benefits need be paid.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[jhoffoss]

How about we assist Iraqis trained in construction, etc. in doing the rebulding themselves, get their "free market" rolling, putting some wealth into the hands of the regular Iraqi, rather than to American corporations, big or small, who will go home at the end of the day, taking that money with them.

I don't believe for one second there aren't enough Iraqis who know how to build a street to rebuild their nation. If nothing else, maybe our foreign aid should be setting them up with the construction equipment we or Saddam destroyed in the last thirteen years of fighting and bombing.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm betting that 99% of Iraqis are just fine, but it's that damned 1% that you've got to worry about

And I'm betting that 75% of those 99% think that those damned 1% are heros.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[American AC in Paris]

No, I know they're trying to use the locals--what I'm saying is that we're spending exorbitant amounts of money to ship tens of thousands of private American citizens over there. We're putting American civilians directly in the line of fire, and at great cost--both in lives and in capital. If anything, it's further complicating the security situation on the ground--not only do we need to protect US soldiers, but we need to protect ordinary American citizens, too.

I'm saying that we shouldn't be using American civilians as middlemen--certainly not in the vast numbers we are now. A handful of advisors and the like, yes--but not the tens of thousands of civilians we've got running around Iraq now. Iraqis are perfectly capable of doing things like constructing buildings, repairing oil wells, running power lines, building bridges and the like--they don't need a foreigner to tell them how to do it.

Yes, there's an insurgency on right now, but this insurgency didn't really gain momentum until nearly a year after we took Baghdad. We blew our first and best opportunity to get this thing right by dragging our feet, clinging to old assumptions, and failing to secure the country early--and we're paying for that now. This aside, though, how is the risk of "the mine under your chair" significantly less? We are, after all, still trying to recruit local help, and even with the tens of thousands of American civilians we've shipped over there, we still need rely on the Iraqis to do a great deal of what needs to get done. We're so risk-averse that we're alienating thousands of "good" Iraqis in the name of doing everything possible to stop the "bad" Iraqis from killing American soldiers and civilians. This is good in the short term for protecting Americans in Iraq, but bad in the long term for winning the trust of the Iraqi people.

The message we're sending the Iraqi people is simple: "When it comes right down to it, we don't trust you Iraqis to rebuild your country the way we want you to."

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Why not the 35% of Iraqi males who are currently unemployed and have nothing better to do than listen to paid propagandists working for Islamic extremists?

Probably would cut down on the numbers of people we'll have to kill there, not to mention the number of American soldiers who don't deserve to die because their civilian leadership was completely incompetent.

Instead of busing over tons of Indian and Egyptian contractors for 'cost plus' via Halibuton, why wouldn't the invading force organize the local people and give them the resources to rebuild their own cities and infrastructure? Oh wait, that wouldn't be as profitable for Haliburton. Crap, it also would have required the administration being honest about the number of troops and money this endeavour was going to take. Oh, and Rummy wouldn't have been able to use his new "light and cheap" reorg of the military, instead he would have had to use his nemisis, Powell's, doctrine of overwhelming force.

I guess your right, war-profiteering, incompetent fools should be wasting our tax dollars and the lives of our soldiers cause those poor Iraqi's can't do anything for themselves. Quit giving these bastards the benefit of the doubt, fire their asses.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Sorry, but the the federal procurement system is a highly structured process. Politicians have no access to it because these contracts are in the hands of civil servants, who would be risking their careers if they were steering contracts to big political donors.

Your faith in the Glorious People's Contracting System is greatly appreciated, Comrade.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Rei]

If you want to ask what the coursework involved, I can give you the email address for an Iraqi college student.

Khalid Jarrar: khalid_jarrar@hotmail.com. Studying to be an engineer. He just finished his exams (and failed a couple :P), so they should be fresh on his mind. The ones he mentioned on his blog are steel structure+concrete, environmental protection, thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, hydrology, and numerical analysis. Certainly no light coursework there...

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Citizen of Earth]

As of right now the "rebuilding" efforts of Iraq are in the hands of corporate contractors (from the liberating nations) who are being offered large sums of money to "help" over there.

Since you don't like those evil corporate contractors, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go without all basic services for the next month. Just as an exercise.

--
Neoliberal (also 'neolib'), n.: A person whose dangerously foolish idealism and vacuous naivete of how the world works is surpassed only by their bitter cynical hatred of the government and all vestiges of the establishment.

[What irritates me the most about these people is that for all of their endless one-sided rhetorical criticism of everything, they have no credible alternative plan to change anything or prevent anything from becoming worse. Their answer is always "Let's all think happy thoughts and world peace will spontaneously break out" or "We'll find a solution tomorrow" or some empty shit like that. All the while, they're selectively oblivious that their computer, their SUV, their gasoline, their cell phone, their "Eat The Rich" T-shirt, the roof over their head, and their next meal are all supplied courtesy of 'The Machine' that they hate so much. Have I called them hypocrites yet?]

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[arudloff]

Everyone mentioning that the iraqi's should rebuild are forgetting the obligation of the "winning" side to take responsibility for the damage they've caused..

"Yeah! Your 'free' now! Get to work rebuilding everything we blew up, we aren't going to help you! Yeah!"

In this country, it just so happens that these types of activities are best left to private enterprise. We don't trust our government doing these things here, why should we there?

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Rei]

I don't complain about outsourcing. Are you done with your stereotyping?

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[SlayerofGods]

No doubt there are some Iraqis that are smart, cause lets face it someone had to build all of Saddam palaces ;)
But how do you know that their having a PhD means they know their stuff. Do Iraqi schools get accredited? Do they have strict penalties against bribery (which from what I hear is pretty common everywhere else in the country)? Is their course work even up to date?
And even then does it compare to an American Degree. Like for example an American High School Diploma isn't worth shit compared to a Japanese one.
Now truthfully, would you prefer to drive across a bridge designed by an American or an Iraqi?

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Rei]

Slayer, I just gave you his email address. Ask him yourself what they've been covering if you don't believe me. He speaks English pretty well.

And I would *definitely* prefer to drive across a bridge designed by an Iraqi; your main reason for not wanting to is stereotypes that they must be all dumb because they're middle easterners, and that there's no way a middle eastern nation could have a good educational system.

More critically, *they* would prefer to drive across an Iraqi-designed bridge, too.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Jodka]

"As of right now the "rebuilding" efforts of Iraq are in the hands of corporate contractors (from the liberating nations) who are being offered large sums of money to "help" over there. Will Linux be able to compete with the puppet-government mandated contractors who are likely more interested in filling their own coffers rather than those of the Iraqi people?"

Like others who have repsonded to that remark, I don't share your simplistic attitude that "corporate=evil". There is Enron but there is also Scaled Composites. You need to learn to evaluate corporations individually.

That said, I am skepticial about government contracting; The decisions about which rebuilding efforts to fund are not made with eyes on the ground in Iraq but from Washinton. Funding cycles are so long that specific problems may no longer exist by the time the remedy is funded.

I believe that corporate contracting is not an adequate solution to the problems of Iraq, so I did something about, I donated: www.spiritofamerica.net

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

Halliburton, et al, are screwing things up on the edges, but overall, there are very, very few corporations that could operate on that scale and actually get things done.

I suppose it is just a coincidence that Dick Cheney is a former Halliburton executive... that couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the decision. Of course not.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Noren]

You mean other corporations like Flour and Bechtel?

Heck, and that's keeping it within the realm of US companies who frequently do major government construction contracts. It is not like it would've been hard for anyone in government who had a passing knowledge of government construction contracts to think of them, or that either wouldn't have rapidly come up with bids if only they were asked.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Rei]

Here's a couple pictures of architecture from Iraq:

Shaheed Monument

Monument to the Unknown Soldier

al-Rahman Mosque (under construction)

(How many more buildings do you want? I'll get you as many Iraqi architecture pictures as you'd like.)

It's really sad to see how much of it was destroyed in the war... an awful lot. There's even a missile hole at the artful entrance to the Iraqi Museum's facade, right in the center of its arch. And after the war, the US has been tearing down all the palms that line the streets and walls that obstruct unsightful views to "increase visibility" of snipers. It's really a shame, they're tearing down a lot of Baghdad's beauty.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[TopShelf]

If you check out the Indy Star link in my post above, you'll see the review from Wednesday night's show, which says just that.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Rinikusu]

How about the Iraqis themselves? Contrary to popular belief, Iraq isn't full of a bunch of ignorant camel-fuckers who "can't find reverse in a Soviet Tank" (my apologies to the Coen Bros). Iraq has a highly technical population who is more than capable of rebuilding their infrastructure (if only the assholes would quit blowing their shit up. US and "terrorist"). Another poster pointed out that Iraq has a large PhD population, which means that there are plenty of Iraqis out there with the know-how and wherewithal to lead their workers to rebuild. Right now, all of our rebuilding efforts go towards funding US corporations rather than fomenting an environment for Iraqis to create their own companies to be used for the rebuilding process. Imagine, giving money to IRAQI companies, who then become vested in the success of their new-found democracy (they make the good money, they'll be damned before some fundamentalist comes in to take it away). Iraqis become directly involved in the rebuilding of their country (funded partially from the US, but in actuality from oil revenues from their own oil fields, ideally), they form a new business class, and if they fuck up, the Iraqi people can't say "Those stupid AMericans don't care about us" when we can point to the Iraqi companies and say "We gave them $xxx and they've yet to get anything done, blame them!" etc etc. The US should provide a basic framework, but let the Iraqi PEOPLE get the business. Hey, besides, Iraqis work for MUCH cheaper than Americans, so we'd be better off "in-sourcing" the labor and brains in-country. Odd. American contractors are "the evil outsourced labor" in Iraq..

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[RTMFD]

Yeah, because without the Marshall Plan or the efforts of the Army of Occupation, Europe would be so well off today...

Wake up to reality.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[jhoffoss]

Quote Mz6: However, what's done is done. What I think should happen now is start to bring in firms that actually want to compete for business over there. Let them compete to put their workers and equipment over there to help them rebuild.

No, the work in Iraq is not done. Far from done. And no, we should not make other Western/foreign corporations "compete" for the contracts, because, as is mentioned by someone else, corners will be cut very severely, though probably only as much as the corners are cut now, rather than more or less so.

Instead, we should give the work to Iraqis, who need the economic stimulation much more than any American corporation. Oh? They don't have the knowledge? Bullshit, they're a very well educated nation. They don't have the equipment? Of course not, we blew it all up so Iraq couldn't rebuild. So replace that; let new construction equipment be our foreign aid.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[jhoffoss]

Quote AC:Perhaps you'd just like to go back to the way things were? You seem like a tyrant yourself, maybe we should just put you in charge there and you can abuse the Iraqi people as much as you please. Then Jesus's America will come along again to take you out, because that's the reason we went there in the first place.

Finally, someone gets it! I am now the ruler of Iraq!

Think about it this way: if we didn't take out Saddam we wouldn't be able to get all of their oil to fuel the American machine. If you don't like it, go live in a cave without your pretty new car, because the industrial revolution has taken place and we need oil dammit! We deserve it too since we're doing so much work selling our brand of Democrazy and Jesus. Heretic!!

Yeah, get in the cave!

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[myside]

All Things Considered just did a story on the Iraqi educational system yesterday. I got the impression that it was pretty much devastated under the Saddam Hussein regime.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[gryphokk]

Why on earth are we paying companies like Haliburton and Bechtel to charge us 10 to 50 times as much for the same job?

Gee, I have no idea (Ducks and runs).

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Rei]

Iraq's education is generally viewed as having declined a little in the 1980s (during the Iran-Iraq war), but mainly in the 1990s (due to the sanctions). The statistics on numbers of PhDs generally comes from the 80s, as it's hard to get more recent numbers. To quote UNESCO, "The Education system in Iraq, prior to 1991, was one of the best in the region, with over 100% Gross Enrolment Rate for primary schooling and high levels of literacy, both of men and women. The Higher Education, especially the scientific and technological institutions, were of an international standard, staffed by high quality personnel.".

However, 20-30 year olds in general are not going to be heading construction companies, nor do they skew the adult population's PhD ration (or quality) very heavily. Now, when the current generation of youngsters reaches adulthood (almost half the country's population is under age 16), they will skew the ratio and quality of PhDs in the workforce pretty significantly.

I have no clue where the CIA World Factbook is getting their literacy statistics from. According to UNESCO, Iraq was a winner of their international literacy prize in 2000 for success in juvenile education during hardship. To quote the description:

To the "Juvenile Education" programme, REPUBLIC OF IRAQ; for

(1) Continuing along a path towards education for all, and particularly adult literacy, in spite of past and current difficulties resulting from the conflict situation;

(2) Focusing on learners in the 10-14 age group, which are currently under-served by the formal school system;

(3) Broadening its relationship with the International Community in the design and delivery of literacy programmes;

(4) Structuring the programme in a manner that allows learners to move on to further stages of learning.

To quote UNESCO's fact sheet from 2003:

"UNESCO's contribution to the improvement of education was greatly appreciated both by the international partners and the local authorities. As an indication of the impact of the cooperation in the North, during the period 1995/1996 to 2001/2002 the primary enrolments increased by 77%, secondary enrolments by 103% and higher education by 76%. During the same time, there was a 126% increase in the number of schools at primary level and 70% at the secondary level. Regarding quality of education, which has been one of our major concerns, we are glad to report that all primary and secondary school teachers received training in subject matter and methodology. The educational administrative staff at all levels likewise received training in management. With a view to addressing internal efficiency issues, over 41,000 students at all levels of education benefited from compensatory learning."

But yes, the current educational system is having big problems. Hopefully, if they get anything out of this, they'll get more than the Bechtel rush job, and actually get some modern equipment and books now that the sanctions are off. The next generation of Iraqis really needs some help, or Iraq's currently well educated workforce will go down the tubes.

One of my friends went to Iraq shortly before the war. He was amazed at how many people there were who had degrees in all sorts of fields - but were working menial jobs due to the economic stagnation. He even went to an archaelogical site, and the tour was guided by one of the archaeologists overseeing digs in the area who needed another job. Of course, most of the people he met were in Baghdad, so that could be a skewed viewpoint.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Rei]

Excuse me? What on earth are you talking about? They hired architects to do design and hired engineers to build, and this was the result.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[nyseal]

To the victor go the spoils. That's always been the end result of war.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[American AC in Paris]

...your comment pretty much matches what I'm recommending. The army of occupation in Europe considted of military assets, not private corporations. Similarly, the bulk of the Marshall Plan did not go towards paying American companies costs plus profit to do work abroad. Rather, it went directly to the companies and countries that needed the aid. Go read up on it at the Marshall Foundation website.

Though we may not agree on how the situation in Iraq should be handled, I wouldn't mind you granting me a modicum of respect. I'm not some starry-eyed beauty pageant contestant gushing about world peace, here. Don't be an ass and dismiss me as out of touch with reality--stick to substantive rebuttals. You'll get a lot better response from me and others.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[mOdQuArK!]

How about we assist Iraqis trained in construction, etc. in doing the rebulding themselves, get their "free market" rolling, putting some wealth into the hands of the regular Iraqi, rather than to American corporations, big or small, who will go home at the end of the day, taking that money with them.

Sorry, this violates Bush & Co's principles of trickle-down economics - giving most of the money to the rich people at the top who don't really need it, on the assumption that some of it might trickle down to the peons who really make the economy go.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[anaesthetica]

The problem with opening bids up to wide competition is that the bidding process takes a long time. Rebuilding is already going too slowly, so no-bid contracts significantly speed up the process of getting people out on the ground patching things up. Under ideal circumstances I would agree that competition is the way to go to ensure the best products at the best prices, but things work differently in a country with an active insurgency intent on blowing up anything related to reconstruction.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[RTMFD]

The American role in promoting Europe's recovery during these years extended far beyond the disbursement of aid. The ECA oversaw numerous projects, from the rebuilding of the Corinth canal by American contractors under the supervision of the Army Corps of Engineers to the modernization of mines in Turkey. In Trieste American technicians helped install U.S. equipment in an oil refinery.

Source

I also find it interesting that in the middle of the effort to rebuild Iraq, you cry "We are giving too much money to corporations!" How the hell do you know (without using hindsight like with the Marshall Plan) how the current and future expenditures will be allocated?

What disturbs me is that you are not only out of touch with reality, but willing to attempt to warp your entire worldview, contrary to what evidence and reason might say, to accomodate your personal feelings about the value of corporate help in the rebuilding of Iraq.

I might respect you when you begin to think.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[toiletmonster]

america didn't have a significantly higher standard of livinng than the rest of the world until the industrial revolution. you could even argue (probably not very well) that lincoln had already freed the slaves at that point.

i'm not defending slavery. but the greatness of america comes from its freedom -- mainly from free markets and the industrious people who created wealth in that environment. this is indeed something to applaud.

iraq, also a nation of industrious people, is finally being given that same opportunity.

"To the glory of mankind, there was for the first and only time in history, a
country of money -- and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay
to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production,
achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there
were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of
swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest
worker, the highest type of human being -- the self-made man -- the American
industrialist.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose --
because it contains the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or
nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a
static quantity -- to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted or obtained
as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be
created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

- Francisco d'Anconia

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[toiletmonster]

ctually, 25% unemployment seems more likely according to npr (http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1958 109), although some neighborhoods can have rates of 50% to 60%. (See February CPA brief). Also, this 25%--"28% late last year"--figure does not include the Kurdish areas, which have been better off for quite some time now.

these articles say iraqi unemployment during saddam's ruthless regime was roughly 50%

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-07. ht m
http://www.monitor.upeace.org/archive.cfm?id_ar tic le=99

couldn't find any more substantial references to those unemployment numbers though. but after 5 minutes on google it looks to me like america, bush and the war improved employment by 25% in iraq -- a pretty spectacular accomplishment.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[American AC in Paris]

You didn't even bother to read what I said, did you?

I said that the bulk of aid did not go to U.S. contractors. I didn't say that U.S. contractors got jack squat. I didn't say that U.S. contractors didn't do work in foreign countries.

Do you disagree with me? Do you believe that the bulk of Marshall Plan aid went to American companies working overseas?

Would you kindly do me the courtesy of arguing the points I make, not the points you expect to hear?

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[glesga_kiss]

It treats Iraqis like ignorant dogs who can only lift bricks and pour concrete.

However those beliefs were pivital to US war fever. Racism has a huge role to play in the numbers who believed the war was valid. The whole "we are better than them" brigade.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[dave420]

Here's a crazy idea - instead of disbanding the Iraqi Army (which was comprised of many thousands of Iraqis who didn't exactly like Saddam Hussein), they could have used the army to rebuild their own country! What a strange idea! Oh wait... Halliburton and the Carlyle group wouldn't get paid billions of dollars for installing draught excluders.

Short of that, most countries have decent engineers in their army (apart form the US, who just have more guys who can shoot indiscriminatly at things that move) - they could rebuild a good portion of the infrastructure.

The whole Iraq mess is exactly that - a mess. Highly predictable, and stinky. Linux isn't going to help anyone, especially as you can buy a pirated copy of windows from any computer shop for $20, which plays games and videos out of the box.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[Univac_1004]

Sorry, but IMHO you're not thinking this through. The goal is to "rebuild" the country we bombed the shit out of, and the win the "hearts and minds" of the surviving populace. Employing indigenous companies, who employ indigenous workers, who spend money in the indigenous economy, is the best way to accomplish these goals. US companies, employing US workers, who take their money back to the US accomplishes none of those goals. There is no creation of lasting social/economic structure, or transfer of skills for maintenance of any resulting physical infrastructure. You know what out-sourceing has done here; why do you want to do the same thing to such an abused populace? US companies, employing US workers, who take their money back to the US accomplishes none of those goals. There is no creation of lasting socail/economic structure, or transfer of skills for maintenance of any resulting physical infastructure. You know what out-sourcing has done here; why do you want to do the same thing to such an abused populace?

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[demachina]

"Sorry, but the the federal procurement system is a highly structured process. Politicians have no access to it because these contracts are in the hands of civil servants, who would be risking their careers if they were steering contracts to big political donors."

I don't think you need to look any further than Darleen Druyen to find an example where your statement doesn't hold water. An Air Force civil servent she steered a huge pork laden contract for tankers to Boeing and then took a high paying job at.... Boeing. The only reason she was busted was because independent watch dogs and people with integrity like John McCain hounded this deal relentlessly. The Bush administration wouldn't have said a thing.

Or you could look at the Medicare "reform" bill where the Medicare administrator was actively suppressing the bill's true cost to get it passed while at the same time he was job shopping, with Bush administration consent, with the health care companies set to make a windfall when the bill passed. As soon as it did the Bush administration had to revise steeply up the true cost by something like a hundred billion dollars.

As long as there is a revolving door between government service and government contractors the procurement system is extremely vulnerable to corruption. The obvious Halliburton example is Cheney who as Secretary of Defense, improved the procurement prospects for Halliburton and KBR and then took a job as CEO. Now he is VP and can help them some more especially by stirring up a war in Iraq where they are making windfalls on the logistics and oil field service contracts. When he retires as VP he can go back to Halliburton, or a place like it, where they will hand him a bucket full of stock options for his previous service all on the up and up. George H.W.Bush does something similar with the Carlisle Group, one of Saudi Arabia's major defense contractors. He gives short speeches in return for 6 figure paychecks.

You are correct KBR has been feeding at the Army's trough for so long that its not like Cheney started it. They were doing most of the same things in Vietnam when they were Brown and Root. They are permanently wired for all Army contracts and are so politically and militarily connected in both parties its unlikely to change, though the Democrats have developed a reason to change their support for them in the future thanks to Cheney and Iraq.

It does smack of perpetual corruption but so does most of the Federal government whether it be under Democrat or Republican control.

Re:How does this differ from other efforts?

[RTMFD]

Only when you kindly do me the courtesy of reading my full reply...

How the hell do you know (without using hindsight like with the Marshall Plan) how the current and future expenditures will be allocated?

Please address this point. It still stands. Would you mind reading it this time?

Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[bollow (a) NoLockIn]

How difficult would it be to start a successful Free Software business in Iraq? For example by selling installation/training/troubleshooting services?

If the Iraqi population is not already hooked on the MS stuff, maybe the widespread anti-American sentiments could help gain such a company an important advantage over competing companies which provide similar services for (unauthroized copies of) proprietary software?

Re:Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[nkh]

They are trying (with great difficulties) to rebuild their country (houses and stuff) and you want to sell installation/training/troubleshooting services? It's like Africa, they don't need Microsoft Windows, they need peace and food before everything else.
I agree with the OSS part, but whether we sell them Windows or Linux services doesn't matter, they won't be really happy. We should rely more on inside participation to provide free technical help.

Re:Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[Timesprout]

How difficult would it be to start a successful Free Software business in Iraq? For example by selling installation/training/troubleshooting services?

Probably very difficult. For all the talk many companies based on OSS in the West are struggling for profitability as far as I can make out, and I dont see them flooding the job markets with linux requirements. Additionally you have the 'benefactor' issue in Iraq. The US want their contracts, and to be honest many of these are huge projects. Abdul and his mate working out of their garage are just not going to be able to supply the IT requirements to them.

I suppose you might make a few bucks if you could snag some sub-contracting work, give the team a local feel, help with language/customs issues and all that.

Re:Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[Andy Mitchell]

Apart from forces of one insane religious fanatic (George Bush) trying to kill the forces of another insane religious fanatic (Bin Laden) who is trying to do the same back, with neither party trying that hard to avoid hurting anyone vaguely in the same area I don't think there are any major problems with your business plan :-)

Re:Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[Donny Smith]

>How difficult would it be to start a successful Free Software business in Iraq?

What do you think?
It's already difficult enough in the U.S.

(Not to mention that they can't run their computers 'cause there's no electricity.)

Re:Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[devphaeton]

Apart from forces of one insane religious fanatic (George Bush) trying to kill the forces of another insane religious fanatic (Bin Laden) who is trying to do the same back, with neither party trying that hard to avoid hurting anyone vaguely in the same area I don't think there are any major problems with your business plan :-)

You do have a point with the insane religious mofos.. but to iraq's credit(?) the business landscape is probably very different. I don't want to make assumptions because i've never been there, but in Iraq i doubt that they've got huge corporate conglomerates like Microsoft, Sun, HP and the like with entrenched IT solutions and spouting FUD about OSS.

From their standpoint, they've probably got nothing entrenched or installed, and probably have computers that the average fat pro-bush-consumerist American would throw away.

From there, a free, well documented and supported OS that runs on modest hardware and doesn't come with any ridiculous licensing agreements from half the world away is probably rather desireable.

And besides, as far as i can tell, aside from what the U.S. gov't tells you, i don't think that the Iraqis are overly grateful for the U.S. coming in and `rescuing' them from Saddam.

Microsoft == USA

Re:Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[Tarantolato]

Probably very difficult. For all the talk many companies based on OSS in the West are struggling for profitability as far as I can make out, and I dont see them flooding the job markets with linux requirements. Additionally you have the 'benefactor' issue in Iraq. The US want their contracts, and to be honest many of these are huge projects. Abdul and his mate working out of their garage are just not going to be able to supply the IT requirements to them.

Okay, you're talking about two things: one, running a large OSS-based development company and two, government contracting. I'd agree, those areas probably won't be easy - they're not in the US, either.

But currently in Iraq: education levels are high, labor is cheap, hardware is expensive, and network and web infrastructure is basically non-existent. If nothing else, this means a good market for freelance guys doing LAMP-based web development on the cheap for universities, political parties, and home-grown companies looking to get an internet presence. You can use cheap hardware and afford to pay someone to tinker. I'd say ditto for setting up basic lans and email systems, but the advantage of OSS over pirated MS might not be as high here.

An interesting but somewhat less certain angle would be setting up LTSP thin-client installations, since there are no doubt a lot of greying pre-embargo boxes sitting around just waiting to be turned into X terminals.

Re:Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[TheVidiot]

If they standardized on Windows, they could use the AOL disks as building materials.

Re:Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[dodongo]

Widespread anti-American sentiments have been enough to drive me to using linux and supporting F/OSS...and I'm a lifelong resident of Indiana.

Go Iraq!

Re:Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[dave420]

"I really want to play games on my computer, but because I hate America so much, I'm going to install Linux and play Tux Racer instead of GTA4, Hitman Contracts, Splinter Cell, Call of Duty, Half Life 2, etc..."

Please. Ideology doesn't count for squat outside of the linux world. People don't choose software through political preference - they want software that works for them, not against. Linux is too much hassle for most people. Windows is right there, and you know it'll do exactly what you want, with no fussing. Linux is an unknown quantity for most people, and quite rightly so.

Re:Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[Alexis de Torquemada]

white people are not the devils, savages that fire weapons in the air at weddings ... are.

Ah, ok, please put us Germans on the list of savage devils for our kids (esp. the boys) love to fire toy guns on carnival. Btw, what about (mostly white, I guess?) pilots who drop bombs and missiles on those wedding guests, killing dozens of them? Are they heroes? D'oh, I think I'll stop getting vexed about your post and just add you to the long list of stupid Americans. Ever wondered why the world hates the US? Reading your post, I certainly don't.

Re:Is a GNU/Linux biz feasible?

[Alexis de Torquemada]

A business based on hate and fear is not going to work out. If it would, people could get rich by selling, like, guns.

First things first

[L. VeGas]

Let's see if we can get the electricity working first.

Re:First things first

[timeOday]

Let's see if we can get the electricity working first.

You know, it's one thing to criticize bumbling do-gooders from rich countries when they try to misapply advanced technology. But this effort is home grown, and they're not doing it just to please us.

You are judging the facts (the existence of an Iraqi Linux users' group) based on your opinion (Iraq is a hellhole). When you instead form your opinion from the facts, you see what this story is telling us - not everybody in Iraq is barefoot and dodging bullets.

Re:First things first

[ikkonoishi]

Should be up to pre-war levels sometime in july.

Re:First things first

[SQLz]

I don't think the people doing the Linux thing are electricians. Maybe, people should do what they do best first?

Re:First things first

[cmorriss]

Uh, electricity is already above pre-war levels and with a system in place that is far superior to the system that existed before the war. Don't believe me? Check it out.

They need to tone it down

[stecoop]

And so enters a new age of a gigantic battle between vi vs emacs users in Iraq.

Re:They need to tone it down

[zoloto]

Hey, that's the last thing we need. A new version of a Linux holy war deabating Vi vs. EMacs, or Gnome vs. KDE. Thanks, but no thanks, I prefer I.T. department personnel to stay alive and not scuicide themselves because of a text editor.

(yes this was a jab at their so called "holy wars" where fanatic lunatics think killing themselves is part of "God's calling" for them - thanks but no thanks that's just not right)

Karma be damned,

Re:They need to tone it down

[Rei]

Yes, but for the vi people, the eternal question arises: how to pronounce it? In Arabic, it'll be even harder.

I had a friend once who tried to solve the problem once and for all. He entered it into one of those text to speech programs, and asked it to read it out loud.

The program said: "six".

Oh well...

...In related news...

[VinceWuzHere]

In related news CNN is reporting on the newfound popularity of the War in Iraq. The article discusses how the Iraqis believe that a war will aid their people in the rebuilding of their country, and the future benefits of an open free-market economy in Iraq.

In other news...

[baudilus]

Linux cures cancer! And makes julienne fries to boot!

Come on, if they were using Windoze no one would say 'Windows is helping to rebuild Iraq.' I love Linux as much as the next guy who is even semi-informed, but come on people. It's not the next wonder drug.

Re:In other news...

[FreeLinux]

And makes julienne fries to boot!

Is this a Grub config option or do you have to use Lilo to get the fries? I've tried everything I could find in Grub and so far no fries. :(

Re:In other news...

[errxn]

It's not the next wonder drug.

You're new here, aren't you?

Over in Fallujah...

[S. Baldrick]

...they run it headless.

/going to hell

Re:Over in Fallujah...

[alexandre]

It's never too soon for any joke! This planet would be a sad place if it was...

Re:Over in Fallujah...

[Guano_Jim]

I have to give credit to S. Baldrick to have the balls to post something that tasteless without going AC.

The f*ckers who modded it funny should be disciplined, though.

Re:Over in Fallujah...

[dangerz]

That's cruel.

Re:Over in Fallujah...

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me-when its a good friend you've known for over 10 years who is murdered like this, its way too soon for a joke about it. I still find myself breaking down over it from time to time.

Its one thing for a friend to die-in life you expect it will happen (you just hope it will happen much later in life). For him to be murdered, especially in such a public fashion...unless you've been through this, you really can't understand how much that hits you. Unless you have good, supportive friends and family (and thankfully I do), its hell to go through something like this. As for his family...its been rough on them.

You don't see many, if any, jokes about the events of 9/11 for the same reason-there really isn't anything funny about it.

Re:Over in Fallujah...

[Watcher]

Buddy, once something along these lines happens to someone you know or care about, and you won't be spouting that crap.

What does Linux give Iraq that other OS's do not?

[scumbucket]

What features does Linux offer Iraq that Windows does not? Does it offer any special advantages besides the standard ones for open source? For example, are there better translations or special software used by people in Iraq?

Iraqi Linux

[Iberian]

This is going to be a long term goal. With the current infrastructure and number of people who can actuall afford a personal computer it isn't reasonable to expect this to change anything quickly. With all respect they have much larger problems then worrying about what software the comuters they can't afford are going to run.

Haliburton's burned hallowed hurtin' ballads

[dominion]

Wait, so you're saying that Microsoft won't be getting a no-bid contract?

Riiiiiiight...

Re:Haliburton's burned hallowed hurtin' ballads

[heybo]

I would Mod you "Insightful" It doesn't matter what Linux will do or won't do. It is a matter of who is paying and who is getting the money. How can all these companies with no-bid contracts make money from free software when they make cost+30% ???? They can't so they would rather get an inflated price on paper and then an under the table kick back to them and tack 30% on the inflated paper price. You can't do that with free downloads or $40.00 a box copy of software.

How do I know this? I have work on jobs like this and have seen it time and time again. You see this is what the war is all about $$$$$ in the right peoples pocket.

Blow it all up your friends that make the bombs and the planes make BILLIONS. Then you frineds in the construction business (some are the same that helped you blow it up in the first palce) come along and rebuild it for BILLIONS. You and your friends get rich. People die and our counrty goes broke, but they get the cash!

Sounds like a winning plan if you are on the right side of the fence.

Same song and dance they did to the Indians here so long ago and the music keeps playing. Only the name of the people that we refer to as "Savages" changes.

REMEMBER IT MIGHT BE YOU NEXT!

Re:Haliburton's burned hallowed hurtin' ballads

[Rayonic]

That post isn't funny, it's a troll. Very few contracts are handed out on a no-bid basis, and that's only for certain emergency services where there is no time for a 3-4 month bidding process.

Halliburton, for instance, won their current no-bid contract years ago during the Clinton administration. Read more here: The Halliburton smear

that'll do it...

[Anonymous Coward]

get them internet access (porn) and accounts on everquest and you'll see a 95% decrease in bombings and protests...

Re:that'll do it...

[nick13245]

If the p0rn don't do it then nethack sure will....

Re:that'll do it...

[nametaken]

I'm more worried about them getting copies of "America's Army" and using it as study material.

Re:that'll do it...

[oshy]

Pr0n was used as a propaganda wepon against the Germans during WW2. Documentary about it on UK TV in a few days.

Re:What does Linux give Iraq that other OS's do no

[liphel]

Try turning it around, things don't necessarily start with Windows. What features does Windows offer Iraq that Linux doesn't?

Good thing...

[moehoward]

Good thing that Bush invaded Iraq. Now we get to have a daily Linux in Iraq Slashdot story.

If we hadn't invaded, we be stuck with all those "Windows 98 in Afganistan" success stories. And we all know how painful THAT can be.

Sounds like...

[Anonymous Coward]

...someone took the idea of a bullet-proof OS a little too literally.

--ac

Re:What does Linux give Iraq that other OS's do no

[Mz6]

I'm not really sure on features, but it's a step forward in security so long as the people setting it up can do it right. And since the country is being rebuilt, they are doing it right and not using pirated software. They also don't have to pay for Microsoft licenses.

The Vole

[drunkahol]

The article also points out that Microsoft are "helping" rebuild the country with huge discounts on licenses (i.e. free???).

How long are these licenses to be free?

It's not just drug dealers that get people hooked by supplying freebies until users get dependant.

Re:The Vole

[dazed-n-confused]

It's not just drug dealers that get people hooked by supplying freebies until users get dependant.

You're not posting from Brazil, are you...?

Just checking.

Re:The Vole

[oshy]

It will be similar to the student licence they sell. When your economy becomes more stable, you must ceese using your "poverty" licence. A discounted upgrade to a full licence will be available. By which time they are dependant on it.

OSS vs free-as-in-beer

[sczimme]

From the article:

Both of them are firm believers in open source software. Unlike expensive proprietary software, open-source software can be freely distributed and modified, as long as the modifications are shared with other users.

This happens quite often is these discussions: people like the reporter confuse/conflate (the ideals of OSS) and (getting something for free). I believe the Iraqi gentlemen - even though they are coders - are looking at the free-as-in-beer aspect as the primary benefit. This is not a Bad Thing(tm) - it's a heck of an advantage - but it is not the same as supplying the Iraqi people with OSS so they can make and distribute changes.

Also from the article:

"This enables the country to build its own infrastructure based on open source, on open ideas," Ashraf Hasson.

No, it lets the country build its infrastructure for a heck of a lot less money than it would cost to do so using commercial products. What is wrong with saying "I like to use Linux [or whatever] because it costs me very little money"?

For the record, one of the reasons I like to use Linux because it costs me very little money. (I buy commercial distros about half the time so I'm not a total leech...)

Re:OSS vs free-as-in-beer

[Jeff DeMaagd]

For the record, one of the reasons I like to use Linux because it costs me very little money. (I buy commercial distros about half the time so I'm not a total leech...)

I think that is commendable (I just paid for SuSe 9.1 Pro), but my understanding is that there are several non-commercial distribution organizations that would gladly accept cash to keep their servers up and such.

As I do hope to gain financially from Linux soon, when I do, I hope to make donations to organizations that develop the OSS software that I use in return.

Not too sure about this...

[Dr. Bent]

One of the major "selling" points of Linux is cost. Obviously there are other reasons to use it (security, flexibility, access to source code, etc.) but most laymen don't care about those reasons...they just care how much it's going to cost them.

As was mentioned in the article, most of the software in Iraq is pirated, so cost isn't really an issue since most people don't pay for software. So, in my opinion, Linux is going to have a bit of an uphill battle to gain wide acceptance among the people. Government instutions and large companies might see it a little differently since they're more likely to abide by the law, but I just don't see your average Iraqi citizen using Linux (which he's probaly has never heard of) when he can get Windows for free.

Re:Not too sure about this...

[nabil_IQ]

Time will come when copyrights are enforced and IPs are preserved (not SCO-like, none-existing IPs if you'r headign that way :P). when that time come, I'd rather have teh IT sector in Iraq hooked up on tux rather than any other OS.

we know how some big software company "give away" stuff for free to get you hocked, and why you are knee deep in mud, they start sending you multiple figures invoices and fancu EULAs and other misc. crap.

Let's get ppl. hocked on Linux, or at least wondering about it. And yes, we know it's not the cure to cancer and it won't bring my dead cat back, but it's good enough to run effceintly,both economically and technically feasable fasion.

Obligatory Gentoo

[swordboy]

emerge weaponsofmassdestruction

Re:Obligatory Gentoo

[drakaan]

but not as long as

emerge peaceonearth

Re:Obligatory Gentoo

[nametaken]

apt-get remove evil_dictator

Re:Obligatory Gentoo

[ispeters]

If you really used Gentoo (like I do--this is self-mockery here) it'd be this:

ACCEPT_KEYWORDS='~x86' emerge weapons-of-mass-destruction-0.1

Re:Obligatory Gentoo

[ortcutt]

I guess they would have to install them, because it looks like they didn't have them when the US invaded.

Re:Obligatory Gentoo

[amightywind]

$ emerge unmerge saddam

$ emerge --pretend interim-govt

$ emerge unmerge us-army

$ init 0

Re:Obligatory Gentoo

[Weird O'Puns]

If you _really_ used Gentoo you should know that it should be:

# echo "games-strategy/weapons-of-mass-destruction ~x86" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
# emerge =weapons-of-mass-destruction-0.1

Re:Obligatory Gentoo

[iwnbs]

emerge: Error No packages matching weaponsofmassdestruction were found... /$>

Re:Obligatory Gentoo

[slashjames]

and the almighty goatse shall appear!

Re:Obligatory Gentoo

[FauxPasIII]

exec /bin/laden

Re:Obligatory Gentoo

[IAR80]

Rather cat /dev/urandom > /dev/hda

Re:What does Linux give Iraq that other OS's do no

[singleantler]

Well, a lot of Linux runs better on older hardware than current versions of Windows, and I would expect most of the hardware in Iraq at the moment or in the near future is going to be older because it's either cheaper or because it's been donated from the West.

It would be great for an Iraq version of Linux to become popular over there - give the technical people of Iraq something to get behind and feel part of, with no problems with licensing once the country is back together.

Hey, it's not an obstacle for India

[melted]

No running water for 95% of the population, and look at them - they're all over the place in IT.

Certainly, this doesn't stop MSFT from building their campus there.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesste ch nology/2001941126_microindia28.html

Liberated

[burtonator]

They've only been liberated for a few months now and they're already moving towards communism!

Regan must be spinning in his grave!

hehe

Re:Liberated

[anaesthetica]

Yeah, tell me about it. We really suck at this imperialism thing. Anyone else, anyone--the Brits, the Soviets, the Mongols, whatever--they would have every damn Iraqi signing up for their fresh copy of Windows Eternal Lock-In 2004 if they were in our shoes. Frankly it's embarrassing. How will historians ever give us any respect next to the other empires when they're writing the history books a couple hundred years from now? We're just going to be weak sauce compared to everyone else!

Which languages?

[gelfling]

There are a bunch of different languages in Iraq not just Arabic, including Kurdish, Assyrian and Armenian, not the mention the bibblebabble of the coalition forces: US English, UK English, Polish, Italian etc.....

Not Spanish Not French Not German Not Russian though.

Re:Which languages?

[gelfling]

So I guess that leads you to believe they'll all change the language they speak or something?

Free at last!

[doombob]

A Free OS for a Free peoples! Can you believe it, they even hate M$ products too. Welcome to civilization ILUG.

Of course...

[bigberk]

They might have been better off before we started dropping bombs on their country. I used to receive emails from some engineering students in Iraq who enjoyed using my software. I stopped hearing from them around war time, and have no idea whether they were killed, fled the country, or what. They were around my age, early 20s.

Anyway, my point being that it seems kind of silly to 'celebrate' rebuilding Iraq when they had all kinds of existing infrastructure before the US invaded. We just, uh, BOMBED it all.

Re:Of course...

[Poseidon88]

It's entirely possible that your student friends no longer have access to computing resources. Many of the schools and government buildings were looted during the period after Saddam was driven out, and very little of value was left behind. I imagine computer equipment would be one of the first things to go.

Iraqi LUG looks like....

[Plazzma]

On the the Iraqi LUG website, http://www.iraqilinux.org, it looks like they're site was hacked a few times by a Arabic "security group" called Ashiyane, www.ashiyane.com.

Worth remembering...

[4lex]

The information may be slightly outdated, but we had an excellent, first-hand, report on tech (and general) situation in Iraq right here.

Depends On What "Rebuilding" Means.

[ericlp]

Check out the June 2004 Issue of National Geographic. In it is a story on Iraq. Shows some good pictures of what can happen to a computer user that has the wrong kind of material on their computer. You get a beating by a religious fanatic. Of course that all depends where you live. This showed one Shiite region.

I wonder what OS is the best for assisting in inspecting peoples computers so you can beat them if you don't like what is on it?

Waaaah! But the U.S Military uses Linux?!!!

[TheNarrator]

I wonder what our favorite ex-lug president would have to say about this. He would probably say that they are collaborating with the enemies of the Iraqi people by contributing to open source. Oh the contradictions! Next up... Jihadists beheading a penguin.

Re:Tux will die...

[B2382F29]

The good thing with Open Source is: you cut its head off and it will fork three new heads.

The Iraqi Information (Technology) Minister Says:

[stratjakt]

"Linux is a great and powerful Operating system! Open Source desktops are fully mature and without flaws! All hardware works perfectly with linux! Authentication with PAM/SAMBA/LDAP/nsswitch is easily configured! Printing is plug and play! BSD is dying in the street!"

Nice idea, won't work though

[PtrToNull]

Open Source would be a "real" alternative if and only if proprietery software IS expensive to obtain, which is not the case in Iraq, and in my countries in the region for that fact. CDs of the latest MS XP, Office, Photoshop..etc are sold for $1 or less. Now Iraq has a lot of infrastructure problems, I don't think "protecting intellectual property" is on their agenda yet. There is in fact very little pressure if any against piracy in the region. Where piracy thrives, open source starves.

Re:Nice idea, won't work though

[bollow (a) NoLockIn]

Open Source would be a "real" alternative if and only if proprietery software IS expensive to obtain

Price isn't everything. For example imagine what happens if Iraq's religious leaders decide to declare MS software "unclean" (so that using it is considered the moral equivalent of touching a pig).

:-)

Re:Nice idea, won't work though

[CaptainTux]

Where piracy thrives, open source starves.

While that might be true to a very small degree, you should also remember that piracy thrives in Iraq right now because there are no formal laws against it. They are, and possibly have completed, writing new copyright laws right now and you can bet that piracy will be cracked down on hard.

Linux has an excellent opportunity in Iraq (and in every developing country around the world) right now. It's of *much* more value in developing countries than it is in the USA and UK. In our countries, it's a matter of saving more money. In developing countries it often enables them to have technology at all.

BSA Iraq

[vlad_petric]

Do you really think that Iraqi people would give a sh*t about legality of pirating software? C'mon, they don't do it in Eastern Europe, China, Russia, India, countries that are much stabler and healthier than Iraq.

That said, it's probably good for them to use open-source, because there's no danger of backdoors planted in their software.

You need computers "first"

[puppetluva]

How do you think that that electricity is regulated and metered? By hand? How do you think that that the distribution points are monitored and controled? By hand? How do you think that the electric-plants run their offices. . . etc. etc. etc. You need computers to run the infrastructure they are building.

Linux isn't just something that sits on your desk at home like most Windows computers. It is actually QUITE approporiate that they are considering Linux at the same time they are building the nation's infrastructure. It's most common use these days is _as_ server infrastructure.

Iraqis?

[Zilfondel2]

Why give large rebuilding contracts out to US firms, when there are literally millions of Iraqis who are unemployed - and will work for cheap - that are already in Iraq?

Not to mention the huge Iraqi construction companies who - over the last 20 years - built all of Saddam's palaces, military bunkers, etc. They certainly have the means, techinical expertise, and manpower to do that stuff. And they are already there.

That would go far beyond any Haliburton/Bechtel efforts to rebuild Iraq, as none of the money Haliburton gets paid goes to help Iraqis.
After all, the point in rebuilding a country is to eventually restart said country's economy so people there can work.
This almost sounds like Saudi Arabia all over again, with 80% unemployment rates - sans the monthly oil checks.

Re:Iraqis?

[workindev]

Why give large rebuilding contracts out to US firms, when there are literally millions of Iraqis who are unemployed - and will work for cheap - that are already in Iraq?

Those US firms are employing Iraqis by the thousands. From security and policing, to reconstruction, the majority of the work is being done by Iraqis, under the supervision of the coalition authority.

Re:Iraqis?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

So why is Iraq's unemployment rate still hovering at around 25%- same as when Saddam was in power- if all this work is being done by Iraqis? There are some facts that just don't add up in the story.

Re:Iraqis?

[workindev]

Of the $18.4 Billion in reconstruction approved by congress last year, only about $1.9 Billion has been allocated to specific projects. These government funded projects employed an estimated 25,000 Iraqi citizens as of last May (Halliburton employed at least 6,000 of those), but President Bush was pushing to at least double that number to 50,000 by the June 30th deadline.

However, an additional 400,000 jobs have been created in Iraq since the war. These were not part of the emergency rebuilding package Congress approved last November, but are private jobs that are being funded by Iraqi funds and Oil revenues.

Granted, with a work force of ~7 Million, there is still lots of work that needs to be done to improve things, but it has been getting better.

Re:Iraqis?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Of course, if we'd just award block sums of money to city governments to hire LOCAL contracting companies, we'd cut out a layer of buracracy and accelerate the whole hiring system immensely.

But no- this is the U.S. Corporatist Government, we can't maximize efficiency, we have to maximize profits instead.

Re:Iraqis?

[Azghoul]

Add it up. The folks who were working construction under Saddam are still doing the same... the unemployment rate should be the same.

However, given your username, there's little hope of you believing whatever story is given.

Re:Iraqis?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Actually, that's exactly what I believe- that despite several billion dollars being allocated for the reconstruction of Iraq, that no more reconstruction is going on now than there was before the invasion. This might be premature, as reports of victory seem to be greatly exaggerated, but it is still a point that reconstruction is going slowly (if at all).

Just one more point that the Bush Administration is failing in Iraq, no matter what their goals actually are (and I'm not sure we've heard the end of the goal shifting yet, this war has more scope creep than a software engineering project with a social end user).

Re:Iraqis?

[toiletmonster]

these articles say iraqi unemployment during saddam's ruthless regime was roughly 50%

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1013-07. ht m
http://www.monitor.upeace.org/archive.cfm?id_ar tic le=99

couldn't find any more substantial references to those unemployment numbers though. but after 5 minutes on google it looks to me like america, bush and the war improved employment by 25% in iraq -- a pretty spectacular accomplishment.

Re:Iraqis?

[toiletmonster]

Actually, 25% unemployment seems more likely, although some neighborhoods can have rates of 50% to 60%. (See this February CPA brief). Also, this 25%--"28% late last year"--figure does not include the Kurdish areas, which have been better off for quite some time now.

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=195 81 09

not that 25% is a good thing. but it seems it was 50% under saddam. so thats a 25% decrease in unemployment. pretty spectacular.

Re:Iraqis?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

I stand corrected. And apparently, I can type "I stand corrected" in only 9 seconds, requiring me to hit back, and type it again, to be able to reply to your post. Serves me right for trusting left wing propaganda on this subject.

Thus, for the rest of those posting in this thread, apparently reconstruction IS happening. That is, when the insurgents aren't blowing up the newly reconstructed buildings and utilities that is.

Re:Iraqis?

[anaesthetica]

The problem with hiring Iraqis and Iraqi firms is twofold: regulations and security. Getting a government contract is not an easy task. There are literally thousands of restrictions on who can get a government contract, based on requirements set by US statutory law. The US government legally cannot give out contracts to certain companies if they do not or cannot meet the standards. If a majority of US and European firms are having trouble with the contracting process, you can be sure that Saddam's crony industries operating with obsolete infrastructure and standards will have an even harder time trying to compete for the contracts.

A further risk is one of security. On crucial, high-value tasks, like reconstruction of oil fields and energy plants, security takes an extremely important role. These are sectors targeted regularly by insurgents, and the CPA doesn't want to have easy access granted to these sites. An Iraqi firm's vetting process for the unemployed people it hires can't be controlled or properly confirmed by the CPA, and the risk is that insurgents would gain access to critical sites and potentially destroy or cripple them.

Finally, it's untrue that all the money assigned to Halliburton or Bechtel goes only to those companies when they receive a contract. After primary contracts are awarded, the contracted company awards subcontracts for different elements of the work that must be fulfilled. A very substantial number of these go to local Iraqi firms, as well as French, German and other firms that might have been excluded from bidding for primary contracts. So while a Halliburton may still get quite a significant tranche of money, it's not by any means keeping it all for itself.

Re:Iraqis?

[anaesthetica]

25% is only about twice that of France or Germany's rate in recent years. Not bad for a country that was just invaded by the world's most destructive military force.

Re:Iraqis?

[Azghoul]

Consider the glass half-full: Before the invasion, construction crews were working on more palaces, underground bunkers, various and sundry Saddam-aggrandizing nonsense.

Now, they can go work on better stuff.

Sounds good to me!

Re:Iraqis?

[dave420]

Because the entire army was disbanded, flooding Iraq with lots of unemployed, hungry, angry men.

Re:Iraqis?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

But no- this is the U.S. Corporatist Government, we can't maximize efficiency, we have to maximize profits instead.

Yeah, because if modern history has taught us anything, it's that just handing checks to local governments is a great way to maximize efficiency.

You're kidding, right?

Re:Iraqis?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

Yes and no. I am kidding that Corporations and the Government are so closely related that they're one and the same, they just SEEM that way at the moment. I'm not kidding that maximizing profits seems to get in the way of maximizing efficiency; it's amazing how often red tape is allowed to stop research and development cold when it would be WAY more efficient to remove the basic needs from our creative minds entirely, and reward them with additional luxuries when they do well. That way, instead of concentrating on surivival, the creative types can do what they will do anyway: create. And the rest of us can enjoy the profit from their creation.

But none of that can be done by a corporation focused on the three month bottom line; as the CEO of my last private industry job was fond of reminding us all "Any product that doesn't turn a profit within four months of being concieved is a failure". That's a good example of the way we currently finance corporations getting in the way of actually getting some real work done.

Besides- just handing checks to local governments HAS worked out quite well, that's how the Wellfare To Work program worked, states got more money by shortening the time people were on wellfare, which paid for training, which got those people jobs, eventually lessening the cost of welfare immensely. Of course, all of the savings was ruined once Bush and his Borrow & Spend neocons came into office, but it was a good idea.

As a rule though, distributionism (which is the form of economics we're talking about) should work nicely- it balances out the greed motive with the personal human relationships motive, because every descision you make affects your personal friends and neighbors, rather than some faceless consumer/citizen a thousand miles away, or some faceless worker in a factory twelve thousand miles away. One is less likely to pollute, for instance, if one's own children are going to be directly affected.

That's why I also disagree with Bush's best reason for invading Iraq: to draw the terrorists there instead of the United States. He's simply traded terror from one area of the world to another, instead of actually doing what it would take to protect this country from terrorists (likely because it would damage his own family's business interests far too much, though I don't see why Haliburton and the Carlyle group (sp?) couldn't make just as much money off of Canada's oil rich Alberta Tar Pits as they do off of the Saudis).

Enough for now- my icon is flashing, back to the requirements of my contract.

Importance of rebuilding the economy

[bollow (a) NoLockIn]

nkh wrote: They are trying (with great difficulties) to rebuild their country (houses and stuff) and you want to sell installation/training/troubleshooting services?

Of course getting the fundamental human needs (most importantly: water, food, peace, housing) met is most important. I would consider rebuilding a functional economy to be very important for getting these fundamental human needs met.

Re:Actually...

[Cruciform]

Otherwise you take a bullet to the temple.

What do the guys at the temple want with a bullet? Sounds like a wasted trip to me. Beats getting shot in the head though.

Re:And the political flamefest begins in

[Darth Maul]

What, are you trying to turn this into Fark?

They should make their own distribution

[miodekk]

If Iraqis Linux User Group is going to succeed, they should make their own localized distribution. It could be based on Knoppix or any distribution they like, but should be localized as much as possible and easy to install and use.
I think Knoppix or something similar is the easiest to start with. AFAIR from earlier slashdot articles and posts there is lack of proper localization for Iraq in Windows so it would be a great advantage for Linux.

Regards

Re:They should make their own distribution

[miodekk]

It's slow as shit.

Only if you run it from CD. I would suggest using knoppix as a linux distribution: boot from CD, install to harddrive and voila - you have linux installed. Very simple.

yes, for sure....

[scheuri]

...and someone asked where these weapons of mass destructions are? wait for MS to call in for that...;)

Better enjoy it while you can

[Ark]

Before MS goes and pulls a Halliburton on the country.

Re:And the political flamefest begins in

[WormholeFiend]

I submitted this story with a better headline... /one ticket to slashdot hell, aisle seat, please.

Free as in Beer not too useful an arguement then?

[Benanov]

Since any Iraqi government has more immediate measures to worry about, piracy is probably fairly attractive and there probably isn't much of a penalty for it in terms of the end user or even middlemen. So Free As in Beer really doesn't present much alternative to what's currently going on.

Actually...

[HarveyBirdman]

...you're probably not that far off. One of my pet theories is that terrorists are generated mostly in areas where there's simply nothing better to do, or a lack of varied sensory input, like reading the Koran 12 hours a day for 15 years under the tutelage of an extremist imam, just to toss out a completely and utterly random example.

It's not the ideo/theology, it's the brain wigging out from existential boredom.

The entertainment industry will save civilization yet.

Re:What does Linux give Iraq that other OS's do no

[Morgahastu]

People would actually be able to figure out how ot use it?

Their goal

[dcmeserve]

From the article:

Inside the country, the Iraqi Linux User Group is thinking big. Their ambitious goal is to see every server in the country running Linux a year from now.

One...

Two...

Success!

Re:michael moore called

[NiceGeek]

At least Moore's "bullshit" doesn't get people killed.

Doesn't matter

[einhverfr]

Well, that's your assumption - provided that the amount of work required to provide those services is more cost effective than buying commercial software and investing time in doing something more profitable (such as fixing oil pipelines or catching the remaining Saddam's lunatics)

Paying licensing fees to an American company means that this money is *leaving* your economy, and that there is no current expectation that it will come back. Paying it to a local contractor (especially if labor is cheap) may save you money, but it WILL certainly keep the money in the Iraqi economy, where it can be later used for these other things (fixing oil infrastructure, increasing security, building political institutions, etc).

This is not about one business's pocketbook. It is about the economy as a whole.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Donny Smith]

Francis Bacon wrote on this subject quite some time ago (the thing about Portugal focusing on wine exports, comparative advantages et cetera)

>Paying licensing fees to an American company means that this money is *leaving* your economy, and that there is no current expectation that it will come back

Buying US software also means American consumers will be able to buy more oil-guzzling SUVs, so if the Iraqies can fix their oil industry in the meantime, they will see their monies come back a runnin'!

This may not be correct, but it's a possibility just like your idea and both should be considered if the best approach is to be found.

Re:Doesn't matter

[toiletmonster]

mod parent up

Re:Doesn't matter

[grozzie2]

Buying US software also means American consumers will be able to buy more oil-guzzling SUVs, so if the Iraqies can fix their oil industry in the meantime, they will see their monies come back a runnin'!

There's no shortage of market for oil in this world. An average Iraqi would rather do business with the folks that didn't bomb thier infrastructure into oblivion, and kill anybody from the country that obliterated the infrastructure 'for the good of the population'.

It's a pretty good bet, when the news hit Bahgdad that 'the lights went out in NYC', a lot of people got a silly smile on thier face, and even had a bit of a chuckle. Those same folks would rather see all the SUV's in america stranded in the driveway with no gas, rather than actually sell oil to them. If they realize that piracy of American software is detrimental to american business, then, O/S doesn't have a chance over there. Sticking it to american business will have a much higher 'social value' than any prinicples of open source.

Re:Doesn't matter

[1u3hr]

If they realize that piracy of American software is detrimental to american business, then, O/S doesn't have a chance over there. Sticking it to american business will have a much higher 'social value' than any prinicples of open source.

Pirating software, in a place like Iraq, doesn't hurt American business. Nothing is lost becasue no one is going to pay for it either way. Given the choice of seeing Iraq run on pirated MS software or Linux, it's certain that MS would very much prefer they were using their software. This point is made in the original BBC article, by the way. In many developing countries when they were poor they cheerfully pirated almost all their software. As the economy grows (and with gigantic oil reserves, once Iraq starts to grow, it will be very fast) companies and governments find they are dependent on commercial software, and to get support they have to get licences. It also becomes politically necessary to "stamp out piracy", to placate the Americans. So piracy prepares the ground for proprietary software; and wipes out any chance of home-grown software of competing.

Re:Doesn't matter

[christophersaul]

I think you're overstating the issue. They don't care who buys the oil or what software they use. As long as business is running along nicely, who cares?

Taking the example of selling MSFT products, the local organisations would be selling to a local MSFT partner, who will make plenty of money in providing the licences, services, etc, etc. Buying a MSFT product does not automatically equate to every dollar going straight to the US.

Re:Doesn't matter

[einhverfr]

Buying a MSFT product does not automatically equate to every dollar going straight to the US.

No, but the licensing fees do for Windows. Microsoft does not have an Iraqi subsidiary, you know ;-)

Of course pirated software can accomplish the same thing, just not as well because sooner or later, people will find that they are, in the words of Bill Gates "addicted" to their software, and Microsoft will find a way of collecting.

Re:Doesn't matter

[christophersaul]

To a certain extent, but the licensing fee you pay includes a hefty margin going to the partner selling the licence, usually around 50% for software. The services are then provided by the local partner, who also make margin on the support contract. MSFT also have numerous partners who are active in Iraq and Iraq is managed by MSFT's HQ in the UAE.

How long...

[Penguinshit]

...until Microsoft issues a FUDrelease claiming that Linux is supporting terrorism?

When you download distros, you're downloading al-Qaeda...

Re:Four out of five terrorists prefer Linux.

[Rei]

Now, see, the reporting needs to shift *more* over to computers if we want to stop worrying about Iraq so much. Imagine the equivalent headline, and notice how much less terrifying it is:

"Wired.com is also reporting more DDOS attacks in various cities around Iraq. More than 85 dead servers and hundreds of ms lag."

Not nearly so bad. :) We need more computer-issues reporting.

The advantage here...

[Mongoose Disciple]

As far as I'm concerned, the thing to get excited about is not, exactly, Iraqis running Linux on their desktops or what have you...

Rather, it's the notion of how OSS grows. It's a good thing if geeks in the west and geeks in Iraq can collaborate on an open source project together. (And if that, or Western/Middle-Eastern OSS collaborations become a more common thing.)

Granted, I think techies tend to be a little more progressive than the general population, but still -- people in the U.S. and people in Iraq being able to work on a project together and come to understand each other better as people, in any capacity, can only be a good thing for the people of both nations, and indeed even the world.

News?

[12357bd]

A linux group in Iraq is news?
Wow!, that says a lot about world press independece.

Bombing Images in Iraq

[devphaeton]

I think i should thank you for the links to the images. Not that i enjoy looking at them, but adds some armament against some of the jingoistic pro-war folks i know.

In any event, gives a fella something to think about.

NYTIMES article: Iraq rebuffed Al Qaeda

[Zilfondel2]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Sept-1 1-Commission.html?hp

Why did Saddam not ever have any dealing with any Islamic extremists, including Al Qaeda? Because it would have challenged Saddam's rule. He was a dictator, and we helped support him because he was anti-islamic - just look at the 10 year Iraq/Iran war. We funded him because that ended up killing over 1 million Iranians (and Iraqis, too).

I don't even want to get into invading Iraq and stuff, but needless to say, we didn't find millions of pounds of weapons of mass destruction, mobile weapons labs, and missiles capable of reaching the US.

However, we have set up a lot of other tin-pot dictators that aren't in the middle east. Just look at Pakistan, Haiti (just a few weeks ago!), etc,etc, google if you want to.

Oh no!

[TheVidiot]

This is actually bad news, as Bush will have an excuse to return to Iraq in several years time in order to root out and destroy the "Open Source Threat" with the full support of Microsoft, instead of the oil industry.

iLUG?

[SmasKenS]

I hope Apple won't sue.

solar panels

[Zilfondel2]

What if we just started handing out small solar panels to all the families in Iraq? Distributed electricity generating could avoid a lot of the problems they are having with terrorists and guerillas blowing up the transmission lines. Then, if they need computers, sell 'em older refurbished laptops (somehow I think this isn't even on the US's "Iraq rebuilding list" agenda).

Maybe we should collect old junked laptops and ship 'em out to 3rd world countries. Makes a lot of sense now...

Re:solar panels

[Requiem Aristos]

Well, if we started handing out small solar panels to all the families in Iraq, they just might be able to keep a small lightbulb glowing.

Solar panels aren't exactly cheap you know, and they aren't that efficient either. One estimate a saw about a year back was 20K$ for enough panels to power a smallish suburban house, with an expected lifespan of 20 years for the panels. That's about $82 dollars a month before factoring maintenance, replacing broken panels, etc. (And don't forget the power processing and storage equipment; batteries, inverters, or whatever else you're using.) The one nice thing about oil is that for the time being, it's extremely cheap compared to solar/wind/etc.

Panis et Circenses

[WormholeFiend]

The Roman Empire had figured that out, too... though it didnt help much against the barbarians.

500 Million through Sub-contracting.

[hethatishere]

The same news program also quickly mentioned that Small Businesses only had a chance working as Sub-Contractors for the Corporate Giants. The Government Mandated that 10% of the rebuilding effort be given to Small Businesses. But Small-Businesses were unable to compete with the Cronism from the White House (Toward Halburton towards example) and the massive amounts of money for bidding.

But let's not kid ourseves, it wasn't an equal playing field for Small Businesses to get in there and do work, they are being entirely sub-contracted through the larger Corporations.

Re:500 Million through Sub-contracting.

[anaesthetica]

The problem with small businesses and government contracting is that the primary contracts deal with very large operations and have very strict requirements that must be met. A typical small business would not have nearly the manpower or logistical support to deal with the coordination of a large primary contract operation. Hence small businesses get subcontracts which deal with more specific problems within their domain of expertise and logistical capabilities. Further, to become a government contractor, a company must meet a number of very stringent restrictions. The US government is very demanding, and there is a huge amount of legalwork and paperwork that goes into submitting a bid in the first place, much less winning the bid. Again, small businesses have an exponentially harder time meeting these US government regulations (not unique to the Bush admin, these regulations have been around for a while). Again, this is why small businesses are largely relegated to sub-contractor roles. This has a lot less to do with the Bush/Cheney robber-barron conspiracy, and a lot more to do with the reality of working for a government engaged in nation-building.

Re:What does Linux give Iraq that other OS's do no

[Tarantolato]

Linux offers Robust networking and server capabilities on cheap-ass hardware.

In a country where:

* Capital is expensive,
* Knowledge and labor are cheap, and
* Network and web infrastructure are close to non-existent,

that's pretty goddamn important. May not satisfy the Slashbot Linux-on-the-desktop pro/anti monomania, but it's pretty goddamn important.

Re:Free as in Beer not too useful an arguement the

[double-oh three]

Maybe it's the "free as in not going to get your ass sued in a few years when things are better off" argument that works in that situation?

Or maybe the "it works well on a bunch of thrown together parts" argument?

Oh Dear God...

[BitHerder]

Let the Distro Jihads begin. You think your LUG has flamewars? You ain't seen nothin' yet.

Slack Ackbar!

Re:Why not? Simple answer

[javcrapa]

Simple answer, US wants petrol from Irak, this was the opportunity to fool its citizens to support an invation

Computers are everywhere

[oliverthered]

haven't you ever looked in a skip?

geek@NPR.org

[phiwum]

The Baghdad LUG was co-founded by Adam Davidson, a reporter who regularly does stories for NPR and PRI's "This American Life". Davidson is a good reporter and also entertaining on "This Life", but I was surprised to hear about his involvement with the Baghdad LUG.

Too bad that Davidson hasn't found the opportunity to report on Linux and open source on "This Life" so far. As far as I know, he hasn't really done any geek news stories on the NPR shows either. Let's hope that he finds the right topic to share with a wider audience. Nice to have a well-spoken nerd out there.

His site, www.adamdavison.com, is close to Slashdot-proof, since it has consisted of a "temporary" site down warning for months now.

Re:What does Linux give Iraq that other OS's do no

[Tarantolato]

Cobind is designed to run on slightly older machines. If you have a really archaic system, there's always Damn Small Linux. (Not to mention a custom Debian or Gentoo setup). So you can have a new distro on an old machine, you just have to bypass the more popular ones, or do some of the rolling on your own.

The ILUG guys, however, seem to have settled on Mandrake. And I guess they know their target audience better than we do.

How is Linux going to help their country?

[DroopyStonx]

How is Linux going to stablize their government?

How is Linux going to erase the terror cells trying to dismantle said government?

How is Linux going to help the fact that the entire region is unstable?

It's nice to have high hopes and all, but come on, at least be realistic with them.

Really?

[ThousandStars]

Do you have a link or any sort of data to back this assertation up? I'm intrigued, if it's true.

Give em' laptops...

[ianashley]

They like Linux? Give em' laptops... they'll spend all their time trying to get the hardware to work they'll forget all about making explosives....

Re:And the political flamefest begins in

[Mr. Neutron]

What, are you trying to turn this into Fark?"

It would be an improvement.

The reporter and Iraq LUG understand.

[twitter]

I don't understand how you could see this all as free beer. The reporter and the users both seem to understand free software and what it's good for. Sure, low costs are a nice part of software not having owners who's goal is to maximize their earnings rather than function or user satisfaction. There's much more than that, of course, and these choice quotes show that both the BBC and the Iraq LUG get it:

Quoth the article:

Both of them are firm believers in open source software. Unlike expensive proprietary software, open-source software can be freely distributed and modified, as long as the modifications are shared with other users. ... But it is about more than just cost for the Iraqi Linux User Group. The open source enthusiasts believe it could allow Iraqis to build their own home-grown technologies.

Quoth a member:

"I wanted to find people to share knowledge with," explained Hasanen Nawfal, "to learn from them, to speak with guys who share my thoughts."

Quoth another:

"This enables the country to build its own infrastructure based on open source, on open ideas," Ashraf Hasson. "That might help establish a solid base for Iraqi technology, and help not constrain the country with proprietary software and prevent monopolisation over Iraq by such major companies."

There you have it. They are going to help themselves the free software way so they don't get extorted from time to time. Saving their country billions of dollars is a noble goal, but information exchange looks like it's taking precedence. The idea is not to demand that other people do your work without cost, it's to co-operate to get the job done and who cares if others benefit? If only more people here in the US got it.

Thank you Mr Bush!

[xmorg]

Thank you Mr Bush for liberating the people of Iraq from windows hell. Its obvious that Saddam suppressed open source.

Its good to see user groups popping up in Iraq that are not MSbaath-based.

The first open source crusade of of the new millennium.

Mission accomplished.

Re:What does Linux give Iraq that other OS's do no

[hackstraw]

What features does Windows offer Iraq that Linux doesn't?

Easily downloading and installing software, maybe? (Maybe, its too easy on windows)

Re:Free as in Beer not too useful an arguement the

[blockhouse]

Given the fact that good Muslims should not drink beer, and the vast majority of Iraq's population is Muslim, I don't think that Free-As-In-Beer would be a particularly good slogan from a marketing perspective. Perhaps Free-As-In-Water instead? Free water is probably as rare and desirable an occurrence over there as free beer is over here, and it won't carry the culturally negative connotations.

in other news

[ShadowRage]

Tux, the friendly linux mascot was kidnapped and beheaded by Militants, Microsoft treats the Militants to lunch afterwards.

*note, this is a joke*

Someone's ported Linux to the iRaq?

[meowsqueak]

Wow - I knew it would happen sooner or later. Is it pretty stable or does it tend to blow up now and again?

The Baghdad Linux Usergroup was shelled today

[stgabriel]

Check out the top headline www.brainsnap.com Freaky coincidence -or not?

It's too late for that

[mangu]

The Middle East has been screwed since before 1920, when British and French diplomats divided the Ottoman Empire. Unfortunately, they did that in Paris, withou ever having set their feet in the sand. They weren't aware of the existence of whole nations, like Kurdistan, for instance. To correct those mistakes now would mean to commit other wrongs. It's almost like trying now to revert the injustice done by the Romans in the year 70 A.D., when they expelled the jews from their homeland.

Al-Qaeda

[craXORjack]

If al-Qaeda really wanted to hurt american business then instead of ramming planes into buildings they should have just endorsed Microsoft. I can see it now...

Hello my name is Osama bil Laden and I pronounce Windows as 'Wonder-ows'. It is a simply marvelous product and allows my organization to operate at 100% efficiency! Praise Allah that He gave unto us the one called Bill Gates. He has truly earned his place in Paradise. No longer must I jihad with a difficult command line interface. Now I order executions with a simple point and click! Is so easy! Now I pray toward Washington five times each day but the state not the district of Columbia. Curse the D.C.! And look how it is loved by everyone, even my enemies. (holding up a severed head and throwing voice) Yes I love it too because it helped me get ahead in business. I fell head over heels for Microsoft Windows! So you see that Allah is pleased for you to use the Microsoft windows and will set aside many virgins for you if you do. So come down to Crazy Mohammeds House of Goats and Software and license your copy today. This week only we have special price for window server 2003, only two camels and a goat. Get one year on MSN for only three drums of oil. Buy now or risk displeasing Allah!

come on

[cookiepus]

I understand we had to bomb these people for their own good, we made them sacrifice their security for a potential freedom down the road, but why the FUCK are we going to make them use software that's not ready for the desktop? Haven't they suffered enough?

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

3/5ths

[M. Baranczak]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constituti on.overview.html

Article I, section 2. That bit was later superseded by the 14th Amendment.

Re:Free as in Beer not too useful an arguement the

[Master of Transhuman]

Given the fact that we're trucking in gasoline to the country with supposedly huge oil reserves, maybe "free as in gas" would be a good slogan.

Probably the most important thing is to make sure everybody knows Linus is Finnish, not American.

You Want To Know What Iraq Is Like

[Master of Transhuman]

from an Iraqi IT worker perspective, read Riverbend's blog. She's an Iraqi programmer. Out of a job last I read, though - apparently because she's female and things are getting hard for females over there these days as far as civil rights.

Lets clear a couple things up

[buck-yar]

Ya, Saddam was against some islamic extremist.

An important point here is that there are quite a few groups of people out there that hate the United States and their allies. These groups, these people, are consumed by their hate. They are hate. So it stands to reason, at least some, hate each other.

Proof of the Al-Qaeda / Saddam relationship.

Still hungry? Iraq is a refuge to terrorists now. Infact, its their staging point. Al-Qaeda associate Zarqawi did a little damage today in Baghdad.

And remember, theres a little difference between map geography and ideology. In the middle east, as we all know, polar opposites sit in close proximity (so don't blame the country of Saudi Arabia). Although I think the kind of policies they institute foster the environment that breeds terrorism and western hate.

Don't take our countries word against Saddam. Putin warned us of Saddam's regime planning (terrorism? This would be a declared war i'd think) attacks against us.

Was he trying to grow a bigger mustache than Hitler? Lets not forget what an evil man he was, and how the media quickly forgets the attrocities and in some cases, covering up for him.CNN Exec Admits Covering Up 'Maniac' Saddam's Atrocities / Access of Evil. READ THIS ARTICLE. Be thankful we are in a country of freedom.

We are only scratching the surface of this demon. Remember, not much was known about the gassing of the Jews until well after it happened (and they didn't have CNN burying it)

Linux installed everywhere in Iraq!

[draggy]

beware of ILDs! Improvised Linux Devices!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Losing your shirt

[anaesthetica]

If you can understand the logic of kidnapping, blowing up, and beheading contractors working on reconstruction indiscriminately (the overwhelming majority of whom are not fixing US military hardware, but instead rebuilding power plants and other public infrastructure), then it must be easy for you to understand the logic of invading an entire country just to kill its leadership.

You are no better than Bush & Co.

Re:Actually...

[HarveyBirdman]

they want freedom.

Well, for *themselves* under an oppressive theofacistic paradigm, anyway.

Re:What does Linux give Iraq that other OS's do no

[singleantler]

I've got Mandrake 9 on my K2-400, which is just over four years old, it seems to run fine. Admittedly, it's got more RAM than a lot of PCs of that vintage: 256Mb.

Re:What does Linux give Iraq that other OS's do no

[dave420]

You can play games right out of the box? Excellent driver support? Great multimedia support? The list goes on, you know...

Re:Why not? Simple answer

[buck-yar]

How is freeing a people from a hitler-ish dictator "fooling" them? I'd love to hear your cacamamy answer (at least it'll be entertaining).

Your right, the US does want oil from Iraq. If you'd remember to turn your brain on, you'd realize that guess who would be selling the oil.... the Iraqis. Guess who will profit from the gas-hungry US?? The Iraqis. Rising tides lifts all boats.

Please, take a little time to investigate those beliefs you form. They do, kind of, run your brain.