Slashdot Mirror
How Technology Failed in Iraq
synthespian writes "US troops in Iraq were supposed to have a clear superiority in the battlefield because of sensors and networking devices such as aircraft- and satellite-mounted motion sensors, heat detectors, as well as image and communications eavesdroppers. On April 3, 2003, the task to take over a key Euphrates River bridge about 30 kilometers southwest of Baghdad turned into a bloody hell as 'between 25 and 30 tanks, plus 70 to 80 armored personnel carriers, artillery, and between 5,000 and 10,000 Iraqi soldiers coming from three directions. This mass of firepower and soldiers attacked a U.S. force of 1,000 soldiers supported by just 30 tanks and 14 Bradley fighting vehicles. (...) "'We got nothing until they slammed into us"''(...). Read more about this story and the troubles and challenges the US military is experiencing in networking troops from Technology Review."
The Slashdot story shows a lack of appreciation of the reality. Those who presently control the U.S. government think that it doesn't matter if the weapons work. In fact, it is more profitable for them if they don't. The weapons makers and those who profit from government oil contracts want all war, all the time.
--
Government data compares Democrat and Republican economics.
I've become convinced that people who vote Republican overwhelmingly fall into three categories: single issue voters who would vote for anyone who claims to be anti-choice, callous blood sucking bastards who care for nothing but the size of their wallets and dicks, and the woefully ignorant and uniformed. Which one are you?
The single greatest political achievement of the modern era is how the Republican party has convinced so many people to consistently vote against their own best interests.
Objectively speaking you can definately say that the world was a better place with Saddam in power. Just in the last month there have been bombings in ...
The world is much worse off since Saddam has been removed from power no matter how you measure it.
Bull. Saddam will killing about 30,000 people / year. Those bombings have killed, what, 500 people? 1,000? Since Saddam went down there have been far fewer people killed by terrorism than by Saddam. And you are making the gross mistake of falsely attributing terrorism around the world to US involvement in Iraq. Somehow you overlook all of the Muslim terrorist organizations that were active before 9/11, and are still active.
And please don't start with that tired old "the US made them angry" BS. Did the US make the Muslim extremists in the Phillipines so angry at the US that they are blowing up Americans? No, they are blowing up Phillipinos. Did the US make Hamas so angry at the US that they are blowing up Americans? No. They are blowing up Egyptions (including trying to kill Mubarak's son) and Jews. Did the US make the French Muslims so angry at the US that they are blowing up Americans? Mmmmmm, no. They are blowing up other Frenchmen. Spain? Again, no. Apparently that was in planning for a very long time and is unrelated to the US or Iraq. India? No. Practically everywhere you look it is Muslim extremists lashing out at the society they live in. That trend is continuing in Iraq where ordinary Iraqis have been the primary target for the terrorists for some time now.
The simple fact is that Islam has a problem with violent radicals that it isn't facing in an effective way. That problem will be made worse as long as people like you can't see the real problem (hint: It isn't the United States, or Israel.) you will try to obstruct or disuade the victims of that terror from taking effective action to defend themselves and help the Islamic countries to reform. You are part of the problem Killjoe. You are clueless. Passionate, but clueless.
If you look at history and read medal of honor award packages, I think that you'll find that there are soldiers out there that would, given a serious enough need. But like you said, when artillery and air support is there, why do it?
I find the terrorist's ultimate goal of a worldwide muslim theocracy and the deliberate targeting of civilians over military targets abhorant. That is something we must fight.
I don't read AC A human right
That wasn't even true in Bosnia under Clinton, when just like in Iraq, the early stages of the conflict saw U.S. cluster antipersonnel bombs dropped from high, indiscriminate altitudes ("carpet bombing.")
Cluster bombs have never been used by the US against civilian populations - only against military targets. Since WWII, the US has never intentionally targetted civilians (with perhaps some disgusting exceptions). I agree that cluster bombs are terrible, mainly for their post-war concequences, but there is still a big moral difference between the collatoral damage of a weapon aimed at military targets and intentionally targeting civilians.
I am not arguing that what the US {does , is doing} is right - just that it is clearly not as wrong as what some terrorists do. It is important to understand how morality is not a yes/no question. Just like George Bush was wrong to declare "you are either with us or against us", it is wrong of the anti-war types to declare "you are either against all war, or you are evil". War, just like anything else in the world, can fall various places on the moral scale depending on circumstances and how it is conducted.
Oh, and a side note - just because Shock and Awe are synonyms for Terror doesn't make them morally equivalent. Stop can be a synonym for kill - does that mean that every time I stop at a stop sign, I am no better than a murderer?
he US carpet bombed North Vietnam, including Hanoi, for the best part of 2 years during the Vietnam war.
Yea, I am an idiot. In Vietnam, the US was no different than terrorists. I agree.
That said, the same is not true for Iraq, where the US has attempted to avoid civilian casualties as much as possible.
The most significant criticism against the "Shock and Awe" concept is the high tendency for civilians and civilian structures to become targets in the effort to break the enemy's will. So was that terrorism?
I don't think that Shock and Awe had anthing to do with targeting civilians and civilian structures. If it did, then you are right again. How about some links?
And don't forget, carpet bombing was *the* major component of the US campaign against the Taliban.
In this case, the carpet bombing was limited to caves and other remote location where it was thought that Al Qaeda were hiding. It was never intended to kill civilians.
I'll add some more data for the "one who studies histroy".
The mass graves in Iraq? I'll give you three guesses who helped that one out. Actually, I'll make it easier, multiple choice:
a. The United States
b. Al Queda
c. The Boston Redsox
Give up? If you guessed "a", then you are 100% correct. Back during th Iran-Iraq war, the US was laying praise, money, and weapons at Iraq's feet. You may also notice the great photo-op that shows Rummy buddying up to good ol' Saddam.
And when the chemical weapons started flying in Iraq, who did absolutely nothing? Why, that would be the United States again!
And who pledged their support to the rebels who wanted to oust Saddam after the original Gulf War and then left them to be utterly crushed? You're on a role today! That would be the good ol' US.
Yeah, we're the shining beacon alright. Breaking treaties, encouraging nuclear proliferation, bringing terrorism to an all time world high, wrecking the environment, flagrant discrimination, trashing individual rights, denying due process, flagrantly breaking Geneva conventions, record deficits, unprovoked war.....and thats just modern day.
For a historian, you certainly don't know much about the atrocities your country has performed over the years.
~X~
George W. Bush: The ends justifies the means.
Read the PIPA report and find out just how deluded Bush supporters are!
~X~