Google Earth and "Collateral Damage"

netbuzz writes "British news reports say insurgents are using Google Earth to pinpoint vulnerable targets within bases in Iraq. Could Google be doing more to prevent this? Should they be doing more? They certainly could explain more."

Comments

Yes Let's shut down the internet

[iminplaya]

and make the world "safe for democracy".

Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet

[sumdumass]

The Idea woudl be somewhat of an oversight in that the government cannot claim New York city is off limits because it was the target of an attack at one time. The court would say everything the the federal building could be seen as normal and the federal buiding couldn't be offered at more the 8 meeter resolution or something. Now with military bases, there wouldn't be any oversight. Just a 4 or 5 square mile black hole in the image. maybe even biger to some extent. Then with the waivor process, someoen with interest in more then "shot here fist" could actualy see some of it.

Surprisingly, just about any information you get from the government has a record of who asked for it. There are somethings that aren't watched closly but for the most part, you need to sign in or fill out a freedom of information request.

You see, the interest in what is there isn't as important as who is interested. When ever i go hunting or just out in the woods, I like to find a map of the area, maybe a topographical as well as some images. The point of the maps and pictures are so i can see obstructions like impassible rivers or ravines and cliffs that might be in my way. I was supposed to meet some people at a campsite in wayne national forest one year. They parked at the main trail head and packed 60 some pounds of equiptment for somewhere around a 6-8 hour hike. I notices a road running from the upper end of the trail with a parking area so I went there and had a 20 minute hike. This let me unload, setup and do some exploring and mushroom hunting without breaking my back. I even had a fire going by the time my friends showed up and I left town 3 hours after them.

So you can see where a map and images were usefull to me. The same could be for terrorist/insurgents caseing a target out. The different in giving the maps out free to anyone who wishes and maping them jump a little to get them is who knows who is looking for the information. If I keep asking for maps of certain areas and those areas keeping blowing up, then it might be likley i am doing something to blow them areas up. You see were this is going. A blanked out area will ether force someone who doesn't knwo the area to make a longer presence in the area or do something to draw attention to themselves when obtaining the information. It increases thier chances of getting caught and likley thier chances of not wanting to inquire too much. It isn't as much that it cannot be done as it is what is goign to happen after it gets done.

Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet

[ms1234]

Yes! Then we can have these white areas on the maps again and we can all be explorers, finding new exciting places to visit. If there is a white space on a map, it indicates that there is a potential target anyway.

Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet

[dave420]

Or maybe we just stop making enemies? No-one trying to blow up these bases, no problem.

Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet

[Fred_A]

Or maybe we just stop making enemies?

Now that's just crazy talk.

Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet

[Anonymous Coward]

While modded as insightful, your comment about not making enemies doesn't pass muster when applied. To the radicals, not being their enemy would mean converting to their specific form of Islam. Problem with that is there is a different group of people elsewhere on this planet who will then become our enemy. Case in point, who dislikes Iran more than the United States? Answer: Saudi Arabia. D'oh.

Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet

[Serengeti]

And thus continues the ass backwards belief that your enemies hate you simply because you exist. You're right, though. It's far too late for diplomacy.

Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet

[duplo1]

It sounds like you've been drinking of the state-approved coolaid. Perhaps if certain countries aborted their tried-and-failed policy of toppling home-grown, democratically elected governments and installing their own(see Iran/1953, Palestine 2006 and many others in between), curbed support for oppressive regimes that only serve their interest for a short period of time (Vietnam, Saudi Arabia (and Gulf states), and now Iraq are prime examples of this), and realized that the entire world does not want to walk in their footsteps, people might begin to stop hating us.

On a somewhat related note, the Washington Post recently published an interesting Op-Ed written by Robert Kaiser, entitled "Topped By Hubris, Again". Or wait... perhaps they really do hate us because of our freedom.

Re:Yes Let's shut down the internet

[Wandering Wombat]

Anyone remember the old Iraqi intelligence network during the 1990's?

CNN, people.

Did CNN get shut down? No, they insisted on more embedded reporters, and they got it. I think that the American Military Hydra (seven heads, one brain) is looking for pre-emptive scapegoating here.

Two points

[Scareduck]

1) The Telegraph leans to the right. This report may be nothing more than a shill to shut down Google Earth.

2) That said, it does seem reasonable that insurgents might be able to make use of Google Earth for some targeting information. Since the data is generally fairly stale, though, one wonders just how useful it would actually be.

Re:Two points

[sumdumass]

Stale? look at an arial of your home town. Then look at the courthouse. Zoom out for around three to five miles (range of a morter) and look for areas of concealment, escape routes that either let you run like hell, or easily blend in with a bunch of other people, obscure line of sight directly to the court house, or obsticles that might make someone responding from that general direction slower then from another route.

Then jump in the car and drive to those locations and see how much they have changed in the last few years of being stale. I bet not much. BTW, how often does the courthouse change?

I guess most things would be static for several years past staleness of the photos. I'm not sure that military bases change the internal design much. I doubt they move the mess hall or sleeping tents around every 3 months. (they might, I don't know. But more importantly, hills hiding your point of attack from the view of guardsmen or some other obsticles like rivers with the only bridge 5 miles down stream and you have a good change of finding a place to launch an attack with somewhat acurate results and a decent change of getting away. I guess patrols with aircraft and a no-go zone could eliminate that for some locations.

Re:Two points

[scum-e-bag]

Then jump in the car and drive to those locations and see how much they have changed in the last few years of being stale. I bet not much. BTW, how often does the courthouse change?

...and what stops someone from doing this in the first place? I mean really, some good old fashioned recon can get you the same info needed for an attack on a courthouse. Heck, even getting military base info such as where transports/tanks/etc are parked is easy enough with a little bit of work.

Grid references, so the enemy is using GPS guided missiles now?

This is nothing more than a google bash.

Re:Two points

[Fulcrum of Evil]

War effort? Are you kidding? We aren't at war, we've invaded some random country for no good reason. If we want to avoid getting our shit blown up, why don't we just leave?

Re:Two points

[Pink Tinkletini]

Because then they'll just come blow our shit up over here. You have our administration to thank for this state of affairs, where foreigners the world over who otherwise couldn't care less about us—I mean, except for the Palestine thing—now consider us their mortal enemies. Thanks, George!

Re:Two points

[patio11]

>>
You have our administration to thank for this state of affairs, where foreigners the world over who otherwise couldn't care less about us--I mean, except for the Palestine thing--now consider us their mortal enemies.
>>

What, you mean they were peachy keen with us the FIRST time they tried to blow up the World Trade Center? And when they blew up two of our embassies in Africa, that was sort of like "Luv you guys, but please work on the Palestine thing"? And they hit the USS Cole with a missile named Studied Indifference? But then suddenly Dubya got elected and within 9 months it was "OH GREAT, THAT TEARS IT. EAT JIHAD, SATAN".

Reality check: they hate us, they've hated us for quite some time, and if Dubya died tomorrow of choking on popcorn they would celebrate and go right on hating the next guy (and if the next guy was a gal, they'd try to hate her even harder). And appeasing them is worth approximately nothing. Take a look at France or Germany -- they bend over backwards most of the time (and are bent over, forwards, on a distrubingly regular basis). Have you heard of the big waves of love coming from the Middle East or Muslims towards France, that stalwartly anti-American anti-Israel we're-not-Christian-like-Dubya-don't-make-us-laugh nation? I can't say I have, although its difficult to hear over the crackling of the 100 cars which are being burnt *every night*.

Re:Two points

[Dave Emami]

You have our administration to thank for this state of affairs, where foreigners the world over who otherwise couldn't care less about us--I mean, except for the Palestine thing--now consider us their mortal enemies.

Go read up on the ideology of those mortal enemies a bit. Their "grievances" go back well before the liberation of Iraq or any actions of President Bush 2.0. In one of his statements immediately 9/11 attacks, Bin Laden talks about the sword reaching the US "after 80 years", referring to the breakup of the Ottomon Empire after WW1, at a time when the US was barely world power. Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al Qaeda's second-in-command, more or less) frames the Israeli/Palestinian dispute in terms of the "Al Andalus tragedy", the end of Moslem rule in southern Spain -- in 14-freaking-92. And while that's probably not a majority outlook, neither is it an isolated one. If Americans thought like this, the first thing we would have done upon perfecting the atomic bomb would have been to drop one on Buckingham Palace to get back at the British for burning the White House during the War of 1812. That's one basic problem: an inability to "get over it." Japan bombed Pearl Harbor, we A-bomb'ed them, yet sixty years later we're the closest of allies. Germany conquered France, now those two nations are the core of the EU. Yet in the Middle East they're still upset about the Crusades.

This isn't a problem that started with Bush, nor will it end once he's gone. It's a war that's been going on, at a lower level of intensity, for quite a while -- the recent phase having begun in 1979. 9/11 was merely the first time something happened where people couldn't ignore it, and the Middle East military operations under Bush just the first time the US has attempted (whether you agree with how he's conducted it or not) to actually do something about it. It's going to continue, whether we try to influence the outcome or not, and the US will be a target. We're just too big to be ignored, given how ubiquitous our worldwide economic and cultural presence is.

Nor is this an exclusively a US, or even Western, problem. Or do you maintain that it's Bush's fault that Moslems are killing Buddhists in Thailand, Hindus in India, and animists in Darfur, whilst threatening to murder British authors, Danish cartoonists, and Dutch parliamentarians, and succeed in murdering a Dutch film-maker?

Now, as to the original article about Google's maps and the idea of restricting them somehow, that seems pretty useless. Anything on Goggle Maps/Earth is derived from sources which are publically (or at least commercially) available, anyway.

Finally

[EvilGoodGuy]

I wondered when someone was finally going to try to blame Google for blowing buildings up. With GPS as accurate as it is, and satallite imagery easily accessable, I don't think Google is what we need to deal with. We need to deal with the guys with the bombs.

What more could they explain?

[fabs64]

"They certainly could explain more."

And say what, exactly? Terrorists also use cars, do we ask carmakers to explain? Google earth is just a very nice fancy map, do we ask cartographers to explain?

What a pointless article.

Oh ya

[RichPowers]

Because Google is the only way to view satellite images. Shutting down Google Earth would totally solve everything! The US is ultimately responsible for concealing its assets from satellite photography. Same goes for every other country on Earth. Someone out there is always watching. PS: Must be a slow news day...

*Insurgents*

[Skiron]

If the UK was invaded by a foreign power, and the people fought back, we would be called 'the resistance', or 'freedom fighters' or what not - so why do Bliar and Bush and co. call the Iraqi people that fight back 'insurgents' ??

Re:*Insurgents*

[TWX]

Probably because there are several different groups that are fighting/targeting different other groups, and some of these groups are killing Iraqis more than they're attacking U.S. troops. Doesn't help that many of those aren't Iraqis either.

Re:*Insurgents*

[DaggertipX]

I hate to nitpick, but I fail to see how "indiscriminately" is the same as retaliating against what they see as(and arguably are*) foreign, hostile, and invading forces.

*Feel free to insert your own opinion here. Personally, I think if a force invaded my country to replace my way of life, I might feel the need to fight back.

Re:*Insurgents*

[Nyeerrmm]

The other difference is that, at least in theory, a 'resistance' would refer to a group trying to drive the invaders out, as is the case with the European resistances in WWII.

However in Iraq, the US and UK would like nothing better than to leave, but feel a responsibility to insure stability after the mess we caused (in one set of rhetoric), or to secure freedom for the people (in another set of rhetoric.) The insurgent forces are not fighting to remove a foreign dictatorship, or if they think they are they're doing a really bad job of it. What they're doing, at least as best as I can tell, is to insure that the new government is their groups government, or, at risk of sounding self important, to stick it to US because they don't like us and our policies on Israel and other various issues.

Obviously it's a much more complex issue, we are trying to impose our own idea of order, and put up people in power that we can at least stand. However, it seems to me, though I'm biased, that the basic differences are there and important.

Re:*Insurgents*

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems these days that they're killing us because we're getting in the way of them more efficiently killing each other. The bloodshed was pretty much bound to happen if the Shiite revolt of '92 had succeeded, so it's not really our doing, though the way we handled the security situation after invading (basically not securing the city at all) certainly made the outcome as protracted and bloody as it could possibly have been.

Re:*Insurgents*

[sumdumass]

You will fail to see lots of things. This is unfortunate for us all. I will attempt to explain it for you.

A good portion of the insurgents are not iraqi people. Notice i didn't say all. Blowing up the people you fighting for doesn't neccesarily make on thier side. The Iraqi citizens have also been given an out err a peacfull way of getting us out.

We have set up a government, elected by thier own people, charted a constitution by thier own people with the public voting and participating in the process. We have said publicly that we are leaving as soon as the new Iraq can defend itself reasonable and provide for the security of thier own people. We have ensured that there is a proccess for people to make changes to both the government and the laws. There is the out.

Now, here is why they are insurgents. We achived our goal of outing the dictator and gave Iraq back to it's people. The resistance don't want it. They refuse to stop fighting and allow us to leave. They refuse to take control of the government by the proccess put in place that represent the majority of the population. They blow up people who are doing nothing more then providing food and shelter for thier family (not even helping the "invaders") then they blow up a second device in an attempt ti kill anyone giving medical help to these inocent civilians that became wounded. They just want to kill people and blame it elswhere.

A resistance wouldn't do someting like this. the french resistance didn't go around blowing up wine shops with no german soldiers around and yell, "that will teach them germans!". They didn't goto weddings and blow up the reception knowing no one there has done anything besides get married. They didn't blow up churches just because they were a different religion then thiers (albiet a small difference). A resitance attacks military targets. Targets that have value to the oposing force. A resistance comunicates troop movement and level to others and aids those attempting to help the resitance.

What we have is a blood thirsty group of people who entire goal is to strike terror into the citizens by any means neccesary. They are killing because of some religous zealotry and a terrorist agenda. they are common criminals and nothing more. You don't kill inocent people to scare them. Thats what every evil powerr has done in war and they were labeled evil and it was deemed wrong. There is no valor in killing for fun or because you can and that what these insurgents are doing.

Re:*Insurgents*

[Lemmy Caution]

Well, they are trying to prevent the formation of a government and state that would be inimical to their interests as they see them, as well as erode the will of occupation, which is supporting that government.

A lot of occupying forces would "like nothing better than to leave" - I'm sure that's how the USSR felt about Afghanistan - but that doesn't make them any less a force of occupation.

Re:*Insurgents*

[iminplaya]

We have set up a government, elected by thier own people...

Yes only after being approved by our people. You don't think we would let just anybody win, do you? Their election was a thinly disguised fraud.

Now, here is why they are insurgents. We achived our goal of outing the dictator and gave Iraq back to it's people.

??? You actually believe that? The only "goal" we have demonstrated is that of perpetual war. Probably to keep the (American) economy going.

Maybe I'm taking you too seriously.

A logical solution...

[Venik]

A logical solution would be not to have any vulnerable targets, especially "within bases". Here's an idea: guard your bases better. I mean, what if one day you'll have to fight an enemy that has their own aerial and space recon and doesn't have to rely on Google? So blaming Google is a ridiculous excuse for the incompetence of the military commanders entrusted with the safety of these bases.

No use censoring this kind of data...

[Pavan_Gupta]

I had wondered what should be done about this when I first happened across the article on Digg and I honestly believed that that it would make sense for Google to censor sensitive regions of the world. They could do what they did for the D.C. area and beige-out some of the imagery to protect sensitive images of the country. But then the big ugly can of worms is opened as to what's sensitive to who, etc.

And honestly, all this image censorship seems like a waste of time, because this kind of information could be discovered in such a large number of ways. Imagine just floating a balloon in the air with a camera atached and some GPS equipment? I guess the US could shoot every flying object out of the sky and then censor Google, but it's probably a lame solution... it's analogous (in my mind) to application security through obscurity.

I'd imagine the betters solution for the US is to 1) place their own tents over vulnerable points (if they like the security through obscurity solution) and to 2) cut back on those points of vulnerability. What the heck did we do during the cold war -- satellite weren't only a US technology....

Google's Duty...

[akohler]

is to ensure that terrorists, insurgents, and other undesireables, shall not have access to information that is freely and publicly available through other channels anyway.

Perhaps they should recruit all of the ISPs in the developed world to aid them in carrying out this grave responsibility. If will all just signed affidavits of government loyalty and agreed to undergo extensive background checking prior to using the Internet or any Net enabled tools, the problem would be solved.

In all seriousness, when did Google become charged with being the Internet Police? Isn't combating "terrorism" someone else's job, already?

Re:Treason

[mikesd81]

Why would Google be charged for treason? Courts have even been saying that it's not gun producer's fault when they're gun's are used in a crime. It's not Google's fault what people use their app for. If you wanna keep going, it's Microsoft's or a Linux distro fault because it runs Google Earth.

I call BS

[ktappe]

The article states "We believe they use Google Earth to identify the most vulnerable areas such as tents."

The satellite photos Google uses are updated every few years at best. If the UK forces had left their tents in the same place for years, it's not Google they should have been worried about, it's their commanders. But I somehow doubt those tents were left intact for such a long time, so the Telegraph is dishing out a pile of BS here.

Let's shut down the government

[Anonymous Coward]

and make the world "safe for democracy".

duh

[oman_]

The military should be using Google Earth to find weak points in their bases so they can FIX THEM.

You think if google earth didn't exist people wouldn't get this information? Well when they do you're going to be fscked and unprepared... It's like a real world analog for security through obscurity.

Is the solution not obvious?

[The Master Control P]

Step 1: If practical, all US military bases in Iraq suddenly get very fuzzy on Google Earth. Or better yet, they get photoshopped to try and screw the insurgients into planning their attack with the wrong data.

Step 2: If step 1 is not practical, just fuzz out all of Iraq. I believe they do something similiar with Israel and GPS and space photos - GPS is less accurate and public images are no better than 2M resolution, IIRC.

[The part referenced by my subject line ends here]

Step 3: Just admit that Iraq is the next Vietnam, and save a bunch of lives on both sides by leaving ASAP. The the hated government we're propping up is as useless and corrupt as the South Vietnamese government was. As in Vietnam, we've got a determined insurgiency that's being supported by outside forces (We're looking at YOU, Iran and Syria). As if to rub salt in the wound, this time they (Iran & Syria) finance their support using our own oil money. Once again, the enemy is proving that all our technology is fracking useless against them. Once again, we're spending outselves into a fiscal black hole.

And once again, we're discovering that our government lied to start this war (nit: Yeah, the Gulf of Tonkin incident was just the excuse to escalate), and frankly has been systematically lying ever since. Greeted as liberators - insurgiency in it's death throes - Don't need more troops - Pay for itself in oil exports - We don't torture - Undercounting civilian deaths - Yada yada yada. We even get our own version of Vietnamization ("We stand down as they stand up"), and we all know how well that went last time. Then again, Iraqi-ization is going nowhere because the Iraqi army will never, ever stand up (i.e. don't want to anger the insurgients that will control Iraq when we leave).

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. So the question is... How long until we leave with our tail between our legs this time? And after Bush is impeached (?), will Cheney pardon him?

Re:Why no blackout?

[bunions]

Exactly. I'm sure Google would be glad to help out with the War On Terrism and black out/blur any particular rectangles of the globe the US Gov't wants if it asked nicely.

No sarcasm, btw. I'm sure they would. I mean, as long as we're talking about sensitive locations in Iraq, not just "We don't want anyone looking at potential targets in Poughkeepsie, so just blur out all of the eastern seaboard."

Re:Google News

[Kidbro]

Source?

Google buys pictures, you can too

[MDMurphy]

It's such a shame there are so many idiots and that a good percentage of them work in the media. Google doesn't have a fleet of satellites buzzing overhead watching our every move. They buy existing satellite and aerial imagery from commercial sources. These sources are US and non-US based. Google made deals on bulk purchases of the *existing* data and make it cheaper, but they didn't create it.

Also, the same clueless people assume this is all satellite imagery. The "good stuff" is actually lower level aerial photos shot from airplanes. Yep, someone flew right over the tops of those places and were paid to do so.
So, like most of the other "secrets" Google is blamed for revealing these pictures were already out there and available.

Hmm, I wonder if anyone in charge of security for those bases ever looked on Google Earth to see just what was visible? If investigators found printouts that showed vulnerable locations then those same vulnerabilities would have been visible to the security people. By seeing what was freely available to the outside world they could have taken precautions to reduce the risk.

Unless the attacks came just hours after new imagery was posted on Google Earth, then the security people screwed up royally.

Questionable Story

[Pooua]

I saw this story about 2 days ago. It wasn't very impressive to me at the time, and still isn't. For one thing, all we know of the insurgent's use of Google Earth is that a suspected terrorist shelter had printouts and coordinates written on it. Someone assumes this means terrorists are using Google Earth to plan attacks. Maybe so, but what are they going to do? Plot in the coordinates in a cruise missile? What piece of equipment do terrorists have that use coordinates? So, the terrorists' mortor fire is becoming more accurate; after 4 years of shelling the same targets, wouldn't one expect as much? And, yes, the maps on Google Earth are a few years old. Many of the buildings where I live, even entire apartment complexes, were not built yet in the Google Earth photos.

Maps, whether Google Earth's or not, are useful for planning attacks in other ways. Maps can communicate where to meet, where to plant bombs, where convoys will travel, etc. But, Google probably does not have the only maps of Iraq that Iraqis can get. What are we supposed to do? Ban all maps from civilians?

Re:Google News

[Anonymous Coward]

we haven't lost a single engagement since the start

To this day, the U.S. military makes the same claims about Vietnam...

Collateral Damage

[kbolino]

The phrase "collateral damage" refers to unintended casualties (esp. civilians) resulting from a military operation. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but the British soldiers are the intended targets--there's nothing collateral about them being killed.

Re:Google News

[finiteSet]

If Iraqi militants can do it, so can we.

Re:Easy solution

[sumdumass]

It worked with Yugoslavia too. When the americans were sending bombers over to shell his facilicities, they set carboad boxes up to look like tanks with kerosene heater inside them for a thermal signiture.

After solobo gave up and we went in, we found they didnt' didn't destroy near as many tanks as we first thought. Good thing we didn't drop to a ground invasion before convincing him to step down.

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[Anonymous Coward]

The fundamental flaw in your logic is that you think that all wars are voluntary. While the recent Iraq War was certainly a voluntary war, many others have not been. You can ask Poland, England, France, China, etc. about several wars that they didn't vote for but that still came to them.

Don't let your hatred of the Bush Administration cloud your views. You, like many people, are unable to separate people from events from ideas. It wasn't just George Bush or Saddam Hussein who started the Iraqi War, nor was it 9/11 or Iraq ignoring UN mandates. You are trying to blame people or events instead of challenging ideas. Hence, you have no understanding of the underlying conflict, albeit in 2003 or now (which are completely different things).

The death of al Zarqawi didn't stop terrorism in Iraq because he was just a person. The crushing of the city of Fallujah didn't stop terrorism in Iraq because it was just an event. Genocide or democide, an idea, very well could stop terrorism (an idea) in Iraq. There are other possibilities that may occur and hopefully we don't need to see genocide or democide implemented (such as in Cambodia) nor politicide (such as in Vietnam after 1975).

We are currently fighting a war like we are playing a game of football. Each side is scoring 'goals' and claiming to be winning. Instead, a comprehensive campaign should be run. The Allies didn't win WWII because they killed more people than the Axis Powers (in fact, they killed fewer). They won because they were able to implement an effective campaign against the Axis Powers.

Mod Parent Down

[10101001 10101001]

You don't need to shut down the internet. All [that] is required ... [is to] .. make a law.... It isn't like the military cannot start shooting down aircraft flying over bases and taking pictures.

I didn't realize there was one government body that controlled the internet. Nor did I realize that the military could retroactively shoot down satellites that have taken pictures of the Earth for years. Nor that it would suddenly be legal, under treaties most countries capable of shooting down satellites have signed, to start shooting down all satellites that "fly over" a warzone.

Re:Mod Parent Down

[WED Fan]

What the Hell? This gets modded "flamebait". You know, recently, I've noticed moderators are just mod-puking and not even reading the posts. The poster was making a sarcastic comment that the moderator obviously thought was a serious post.

NASA were giving it away long before Google...

[netadmin]

Has nobody heard of WorldWind from NASA. They were publishing similar data way before Google got on board...

http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/

First release August 2004!

Perhaps NASA could be doing more to prevent...

Dave

Then something IS wrong

[Moraelin]

Now I'm not a sniper and my service wasn't with the US army, but then it sounds to me like either that's hyperbole or the US is doing something else very wrong.

I'm one of the AA guys. You know, those who in a war would get to jam a SA missile down someone's tailpipe or put a helluva lot of 30mm holes in a helicopter or low flying plane. Specialized troops too, with specialized (big) guns, lots of electronics and radar dishes, specialized training, etc, not your average infantry grunt.

But guess what? We had assault rifles too, and we were trained to use them too. We also did our own guard duty (in a visible guard tower, too), patrols, etc.

Not only that, but it was pretty much assumed and understood that in a pinch we could and would have to fulfill other roles too. We had our own light machineguns, our own rocket launchers in case we have to deal with a mess of tanks, we were trained to chuck a grenade, storm a hill, or dig a foxhole and defend that hill.

Wars aren't neatly organized affairs, and you don't always have exactly what you need in exactly the right place. And sometimes having exactly what you need of everything in every place is a waste of manpower and material. For example, you don't dig in two brigades of infantry around your big guns brigade, just so the big guns guys can be so ultra-specialized that they never have to touch an assault rifle. It's easier to just put them somewhere where normally they won't be assaulted, but if shit hits the fan and they do, they'll have to fight like everyone else. You also don't give them a company of infantry for guard duty, they get to post their own guards.

Also war isn't so neatly organized as to always have a designated target in advance. I know I wouldn't expect a designated airplane to surgically shoot and then go home, so I'm not sure why these guys would absolutely need a strategic target designated in advance. Most of war is dealing with unplanned stuff. Some guys appear from where you didn't expect. You shoot them. If you're a sniper or designated marksman, you do your best to put a hole in someone while the other guys pin them down. And add your own suppression factor, because the fear of a sniper ranks up there with fear of heavy machineguns in a fight, when it comes to keeping people with their head down.

So if you're telling me that US snipers are so ultra-specialized that they absolutely can't function as anything else, and can't possibly shoot anyone other than as strategic target designated in advance, then methinks the USA badly needs to rethink their training and logistics. But I doubt that the US military is _that_ inept, or that indeed officers coming from a military academy and various training courses would use Hollywood action movies to learn tactics from. It's a bit like saying that programmers use Hollywood movies to learn how to use a command line.

Being sent together with a squad of other soldiers, also isn't the end of the world like you make it sound. It's not being sent with a group of civilians, it's normal military procedure anywhere in the world. The designated marksmen, SAW guys, anti-tank guys, etc, actually train for that. Sure, a sniper rifle or designated marksman rifle isn't raw firepower, but it's not there as raw firepower in the first place. That's what the other soldiers around you are for. They'll do the spraying lead job. You do yours.

Now I'm as anti-war as it gets, and, yes, I'm against the war in Iraq. I could understand ideological or humanitarian reasons against it. But "waah, they're making me work together with a squad, like in Hollywood movies!" is just awful mis-understanding of basic military tactics.

Also, it seems to me like the apex of hypocrisy, if someone is indeed against war for oil and influence, to advocate instead being a hired assassin for some equally corrupt dictator or cocaine baron. At least the army does have some democratic checks (just vote against the guy sending them there), just taking money from the highest bidder doesn't have any

Words Have Meaning

[Shihar]

We call them 'insurgents' because that is the correct term that describes all the fighters in Iraq.

A resistance movement is seeking to oust a foreign occupying power to restore the previous ruling power. Now, it is true that Iraq has resistance movements trying to kick out Americans and restore the Baathist to power, but they do not actually make up all or even a majority of the fighters in Iraq. Shiite militias and Al-qaeda are not seeking to restore the Baathist.

Insurgent is a broader term. An insurgent on the other hand is someone who takes up arms against the current governments authority. That is a term that describes almost all of the fighters in Iraq. Iraq fighters are not just fighting occupation. They are fighting other militia groups, the government, and some times just indulging in good old fashion ethnic cleansing. Doing any of the above is defying the authority of the current government, hence they are insurgents.

As far as to why we don't call them freedom fighters, it is because Blair and Bush (and most Western folks for that matter) don't consider Baathist trying to restore an Arab fascist government, Shiites trying to ethnically cleanse the Sunnis, or Al-qaeda trying to create a theocratic state and ethnically cleanse Shiites on the side to really fall under any (western) definition of "freedom fighting".

If it makes you feel better, and I am sure it will because you are clearly suffering from a sever case of moral relativism, I imagine that if the Soviets had invaded the US or Britain, they would have called us insurgents and not freedom fighters also.

Re:Words Have Meaning

[glesga_kiss]

We call them 'insurgents' because that is the correct term that describes all the fighters in Iraq.

Agreed. It's also far better than the alternative, "terrorists", which was clearly chosen for it's propagandistic factitious links to the events in New York City in order to manipulate peoples opinions. Every time I hear it mentioned, my hope for mankind diminishes slightly.

It isn't Google that should be doing more.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Specifically, the way to combat this is to build facilities like Cheyenne Mountain -- they wouldn't sanely put Stargate Command anywhere else.

Short of that, all Google is doing is making it easier, and not significantly so. But Google also makes it easier to stalk people, it makes it easier to plan protests (peaceful or not), or to have secret societies which are completely untraceable and incredibly dangerous.

This is the price of freedom. Freedom makes it easier for everyone to do what they want, even if what they want isn't something you like. Freedom of speech means the freedom to say "Fuck you and everything you believe in." A free Internet means the freedom to use it for everything, including, say, a terrorist strike against a major ISP. Freedom of religion also means freedom from religion, and at the very least, means the freedom to be a Satanist. Freedom means you're free to marry whoever you want, and to call it "marriage", even if you both have a penis; it also means other people are free to be openly disgusted by this.

The only freedom we don't have is the freedom to restrict our freedom. You are not free to make gay marriage a huge fucking "issue" and waste everyone's time on a no-brainer like that, when it doesn't even affect you in the first place. Or rather, you're free to talk about it as much as you like, but you are not free to legislate against it.

And leftist ideals are generally in line with freedom, sorry about that -- although I will admit that not all left-wing people support left-wing ideals -- "Think of the children" is not really a leftist ideal. But seriously, if you are a neo-conservative, that's fine, just admit you are not in favor of freedom -- or go home and re-examine your ideals and ask yourself why "some freedoms are better than others" is any less hypocritical than "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."

So, back to the subject, such as it is: It's bad enough to suddenly switch from "We know they have WMDs!" to "Uh... looks like they don't, but... uhm... We're spreading freedom! That's it! That's why we invaded in the first place!"

But you do NOT get to say "We're spreading freedom!" unless you fully understand and support what freedom really means, even in the homeland.

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[dave420]

Libertarian much?

"The draft" is just slang for conscription. Attributing it to socialism only serves to make you look a bit crazy. Like if you were to claim to have invented the question mark, or that Lenin is hiding in your toilet trying to steal your butt secrets.

How is conscription the worst kind of slavery? It's not forever, you get paid, you are protected from harm by those in command of you, and in most (developed) countries if you have a good reason to not fight (ie religious), then you don't.

Emotive arguments usually work better if they even make the slightest bit of sense. But then you're a Libertarian, so sense is clearly not your forté.

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[NeutronCowboy]

You do realize that Soldier of Fortune is a mag aimed at people who dream of being Soldiers of Fortune, but have never touched a rifle, and are most likely inept worker drones with violent dreams? Quoting Soldier of Fortune to talk military strategy is like quoting Weekly World News to discuss the finer details of Israelo-Palestinian peace talks.

Quite frankly, if anyone's living in Hollywood dream world, it's you. I'd suggest enlisting in the Army to figure out how stuff really works. I'm guessing there'll be a rude awakening.

What a joke

[WindBourne]

It was shown that 9/11 terrorists trained on MS Flight Sim. But did ppl call for them to change it to prevent it? Nope. Which is the way it should be. Afterall, the terrorist are also using knives and forks for attack. Should we outlaw silverware/flatware?

Lets ban maps!

[Snaller]

We all know that banning Google Earth isn't enough. They the'll just use maps! We have to ban maps as well! So that we can all feel secure!

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[EveLibertine]

What's with all the anti-Libertarian nonsense?

It would have been sufficient to point out that he looked like a fool for the socialism bit, and even more still for his nonsense solution. Yet your argument is what? He's a Libertarian and Libertarians lack sense, so he's excused from class? A few bits of advice come to mind.
1) Refrain from attacking his character; it causes your argument to lose weight, since it shows you are obviously biased against his opinions from the get go.
2) If you are going to attack someone for holding certain opinions, make it clear why you do not agree with the opinions. ("You look crazy" is grossly insufficient)

It's not that I don't agree with you; it's that I don't like people making points that I agree with making themselves look foolish in the process, as that makes them just a little bit harder to be associated with. You don't like Libertarians. That's fine. Calling someone senseless because they're a Libertarian. That's.... senseless? Modded Insightful? Try Overrated.

Re:Well stated.

[Technician]

Iraq war range from non-existent WMD to freeing

Those who fail to learn from history are condemmed to repeat it.

Can't blame George Bush for the inteligence given him by the Clinton Administration. Please review history. We knew about the WMD when Clinton was in office. Did you forget that they tossed out the inspectors? Just because we haven't found them by no means is proof they never existed. How long does it take when an attack is looming to move that stuff. I'll leave it up to you to find out how long they had between removal of the inspectors and the start of the war. They had plenty of time. While you are at it. Check out the plumbing supplies they tried to get.

We had plenty of reasons for concern. North Korea and Iran are also starting to take actions that are attracting notice.

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[tbo]

That's pretty much what he's saying - that unless you're prepared to go and fight yourself, and prove it by joining up and thus putting yourself in a position where you can fight, then you have no right to be pro-war and demand of others something you're not willing to do yourself.

Why stop with war? How about, if you're pro universal healthcare, you'd better be signing up for med school, or else you're a hypocrit. If you're not willing to become a doctor, you don't have the right to demand that doctors accept the payscale offered by the government healthcare agency. Or, even better, if you're pro-choice, you have to become an abortionist. If you think we need to do something about crime, you have to become a cop. If you want better public education, you have to become a teacher. Or maybe this whole line of reasoning is a stupid idea.

Newsflash--not everyone would make a good soldier, just like not everyone would make a good doctor, scientist, lawyer, mechanic, or whatever. Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage makes it clear it's more efficient for people to do what they're best at. We have a volunteer army, and pretty much everyone signing up knows that in doing so, there is a chance they will be sent to war (possibly even a war they don't agree with). It's their choice to join, and they do so knowing that it's civilians that decide whether they'll be sent to war or not.

Re:Well stated.

[teh kurisu]

Just because we haven't found them by no means is proof they never existed. How long does it take when an attack is looming to move that stuff.

You can't seriously use this as a valid defence of the war. We all know that strategically important non-WMD weapons caches were not secured by coalition forces at the start of the war due to poor military planning, and in the ensuing power vacuum fell into the wrong hands. Assuming that the weapons did exist, and the same thing happened, we are now in the far more dangerous position of not knowing whether they existed or not, and if they did, who has them. We've essentially substituted a 'known known' for an 'unknown unknown'.

We had plenty of reasons for concern. North Korea and Iran are also starting to take actions that are attracting notice.

And coalition troops are already overstretched in Iraq (the least dangerous of the so-called 'axis of evil'), controlled by governments that have lost the confidence of their citizens in matters of war. The end result is that because of Iraq we will be unable to commit our forces to other conflicts for the foreseeable future.

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[c6gunner]

Sure, no problem. And just to make things fair, anyone who votes not to go to war gets auto-drafted for a one-year stay in said third world nation. Help you gain a new perspective. Then we'll have a new vote a year later.

Oh, and in case you haven't noticed asshole, every person serving in the military today is a volunteer. Not a single one of them signed up without knowing for a fact that their nation was at war. We've already voted, and voted with our boots. You've just been too stoned to notice.

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[drsquare]

I say take out the vote as it is today. If you vote pro war in any issue, politician or not, you're INSTA DRAFTED.

And conversely, if you vote anti-war in any issue, any time a tyrannical regime takes over a country, you have to go and live there.

So if you voted against the war on Iraq, you have to go and be tortured by Saddam's goons, and have yourself and your family killed in his gas chambers.

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[Dun Malg]

The information Google gives out is available to everyone. Why don't the soldiers use it to plan their defense? They have a big advantage in that Google maps isn't updated that often, they could look at the images and plan how to booby trap the weak spots We can't use booby traps--- or as we military folks call them, mines. Are you seriously suggesting we set mines in all the alleyways surrounding our military installations? Yeah, that'd work fine, because it's not like any regular folks might be trying to live and work in the city.

Re:Google News

[Dun Malg]

In the last dunno how many years (circa 100+), the USA has never won a war it started. To be assured of victory, they'd have to have a civil war. I understand the point you're trying to make, but it's largely incorrect. Grenada and Panama, we won those. Given the stated objective (i.e. throw the Iraqi army out of Kuwait), we won the First Gulf War too. and Vietnam, we didn't actually start it, we just joined up with the losing side of a civil war.

Re:the WMD again?

[Technician]

The CIA director himself told Shrub Jr, and everyone else back in 2002 that tHERE WERE NO weapons of mass distractions in Iraq.

If 5 people in other countries and the leader of Iraq claim that Iraq has WMD and some guy in the USA said they don't have WMD, would you base your belief in just one person?

There were serious doubts if they did or did not exist. We took no chances. To believe just one person would be foolish.

If the police raid a drug house and 5 neighbors say they have automatic weapons and the evidence clerk tells you they have no weapons, would you send 2 officers to secure the place with just battons and handcuffs?

We acted on the side of caution and prudence just like the swat team would do on the drug house. Remember, they sanitized places the inspectors were headed and often detained them when they wanted to see something. When that was too much trouble, they had the inspectors leave. A destination 30 minutes away often took 5 hours to get there. Think they were hiding something? Do you think because the inspectors found nothing that nothing was ever there? I still have reasonable doubts.

Re:Google News

[Dun Malg]

Vietnam wasn't lost in the jungles of southeast asia, it was lost right here in America. We weren't defeated by the VC or the NVA, but by the communists in our own back yard. Actually, it was lost the day we joined up on the side of the French colonial puppet government in the south, rather than the popular revolution led by our former ally in WW2, Ho Chi Minh. The problem there was that the French were threatening to pull out of NATO if we didn't support their presence in Vietnam in the 50's, and that we failed to understand that Ho Chi Minh was essentially a nationalist first and only a communist of convenience. The US was urging the French to grant Vietnam independence after WW2, but they strongly believed the "domino theory" of communism and managed to convince Eisenhower. It was all over after that.

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[Viper Daimao]

So I suppose you supported WWII veteran and Distinguished Flying Cross recipient George H. W. Bush in 92? And Purple Heart and Bronze Star recipient Bob Dole in 96?

Or maybe there's other reasons to vote for someone, and there's a reason there is civilian control of the military?

As an aside, is it ok to question people's patriotism now? Or is that only your political opponent who's patriotism you can question?

Re:Google News

[jsoderba]

The america I was taught of, the USA of the founding fathers wasn't the grotesque human rights violator it has become over the past century.

The America of the "founding fathers" was the results of systematic marginalization and ethnic cleansing of the native peoples, and of the enslavement of hundreds of thousands of Africans. In the historical contest these actions may be understandable, but they certainly don't allow you to hold up the early USA as a model of human rights.

"War" vs. "This War"

[Kelson]

While the recent Iraq War was certainly a voluntary war, many others have not been.

Thank you. While I personally have been opposed to the Iraq War from day one (well, before that, actually), I also get really annoyed at seeing glib statements like "War is not the answer" on bumper stickers. You know what, if a foreign power were carrying out a full-scale invasion of the US, war would be the answer.

While there are bona fide pacifists in the world (and I respect that position), it seems to me that there are a lot more people out there who cannot separate the concept of war from whatever current war we are fighting. I'm not certain if there is such a thing as a truly "just" war, but it's clear that some wars have better justification than others, and barring a genuine pacifist philosophy, they have to be evaluated differently.

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[ichigo 2.0]

The problem is, that the insurgents don't attack at targets within compounds, they attack at people who are outside and vulnerable. They're insurgents, not idiots.

Re:You miss out the main reason WHY it's different

[Overly Critical Guy]

This is where embedded reporters come in. These guys travel with the troops and if they report anything untoward, they are immediately sent home with little or no oversight from those in charge of propaganda. They know this and numerous ones who haven't toed the line have come forward as whistle blowers.

This is the point where I, again, mention that no news organization currently has any embedded reporters over there. They pay Iraqi stringers for information, which leads to controversies like the alleged burning Sunnis. As for military censorship, these "whistleblowers" of yours remain conveniently unnamed.

This is why you think that the US has won all engagements in Iraq and it is also the biggest difference between the Vietnam conflict.

The reason I think the U.S. has won every military engagement is because we have. Every scuffle with insurgents, in spite of any troop loss, has ended in a U.S. victory. The reason we had to retake Fallujah is because more insurgents returned to take their place after we left, because Iraq currently has no security force strong enough to police its own country.

Re:Irony at its best? Since we're on Iraq read thi

[bunions]

> I say take out the vote as it is today. If you vote pro war in any issue, politician or not, you're INSTA DRAFTED.

What are you, 12? What about senior citizens? What about pregnant women? Some parts of our society are simply not fit to be soldiers, yet you're completely willing to silence their opinion because they'd be incapable of fighting.

> a draft is slavery, and the worst form of it

Again, please get some perspective. Calling the draft slavery is an insult to anyone who was, you know, actually a slave. While I certainly think the draft is a bad idea, the notion that you owe some debt to your country which is repaid by a brief period of military service is not entirely misguided.

> They were meant to "protect from enemies foreign". And that is what they should do.

Sometimes the best way to protect us from something is to seek it out and destroy it. The idea that armies should only be used in a "circle the wagons" style defense is sort of ridiculous.

You owe nothing to the feds.

[DaedalusHKX]

Protecting your country is your duty. Going overseas to attack some country on whatever pretext is generally known as "adventuring".

Draft IS slavery, in slavery someone who doesn't do that work expends your lifetime and production to enrich himself, in the Draft, someone who isn't involved in FIGHTING at all, is enriching himself by expending your lifetime and LIFE (sooner or later) the same way.

"The man whose choices are made for him is a slave."
"He who produces to have his product disposed of by others without his consent is a slave." (I forgot who authored these, I think it was Thucydides, Socrates or Plato.)

If you don't believe that, spend some time in a communist country as a worker bee. Then come lecture me on the virtues of the draft.