Strike on Iraq 4183
According to CNN and various other news sources, Iraq is now under attack by
the US. Here is a link to the current story running at CNN right now, but there's really not much except that it has started. CT Cruise missiles launched against "Target of Opportunity". The full assault has not begun. CT The attack was specifically intended to take out Saddam. CT Saddam appeared on iraqi TV to condemn the US, and Iraqi missiles have been fired at Kuwait.
PsyOps (Score:4, Informative)
The Iranian news agency is also reporting that there may be explosions on the peninsula near Basra. Tony Blair will be addressing the UK at 10:30 EST (3:30 AM GMT, I think).
Cover your ass! (Score:-1, Informative)
Just think, 3 years ago the biggest news item was that the republicans were trying to impeach Clinton because he lied about having consentual sex with his intern. Big fucking deal.
Today, we're on the verge of WWIII, by a man who wasn't elected, is doing it for the oil, and is too stupid to realize the long term consequences of his actions. And some of the men who work for Bush are the very same men who supported Saddam during his use of Chemical weapons in the 1980's.
Alliances are gone, terror is growing, and the US is isolating ourselves more every day. I once thought we had a shot at world peace, but now I know different.
Amazing how much damange can be done in such a short amount of time.
Surgical strike against iraqi leadership (Score:2, Informative)
Inside Sites/Blogs (Score:5, Informative)
-- Debka (Middle East News) [debka.com]
-- Official Iraqi News [uruklink.net]
-- Where is Read? - Iraqi Blog [blogspot.com]
-- Kuwait Blog [qhate.com]
-- Back to Iraq Blog [back-to-iraq.com]
-- Iraq today [einnews.com]
-- Warblogs.cc [warblogs.cc]
-- Kevin Sites [kevinsites.net]
-- Sky.com [sky.com]
-- BCC News Live Feed [bbc.co.uk]
-- Agonist [agonist.org]
CBSnews also has a beautiful high detail webcam without all the crap on the bottom of the screen.
God bless our soldiers.
Davak
i just heard... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Inside Sites/Blogs (Score:5, Informative)
As well as the BBC WorldService, BBC News 24 [bbc.co.uk] is broacasting a video feed live.
Al.Lyrics (Score:5, Informative)
------------------------
Generals gathered in their masses,
just like witches at black masses.
Evil minds that plot destruction,
sorcerers of death's construction.
In the fields the bodies burning,
as the war machine keeps turning.
Death and hatred to mankind,
poisoning their brainwashed minds.
Oh lord, yeah!
Politicians hide themselves away.
They only started the war.
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor, yeah.
Time will tell on their power minds,
making war just for fun.
Treating people just like pawns in chess,
wait till their judgement day comes, yeah.
Now in darkness world stops turning,
ashes where the bodies burning.
No more War Pigs have the power,
Hand of God has struck the hour.
Day of judgement, God is calling,
on their knees the war pigs crawling.
Begging mercies for their sins,
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings.
Oh lord, yeah!
Re:the draft (Score:5, Informative)
"The United States is not going to implement a military draft, because there is no need for it, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Jan. 7."
hand waving by Charlie Rangle notwithstanding
Re:Remember this day (Score:2, Informative)
NPR has live coverage (Score:3, Informative)
NPR [npr.org]. Click up top, Real, Windows Media, or Quicktime. Gotta love NPR.
More stuff on NPR about Iraq over here. [npr.org]
CSPAN is slashdotted, er, wardotted? err.. nevermind, CSPAN is dead.
And chances are, live protests in your local metro.
CBSNews [cbsnews.com] has a big "WAR" picture [cbsnews.com] that looks like an ad for a RTS. Thanks to the media for desensitizing us to war(or making it into a fun, enjoyable experience kind of like a game or a "faces of death" tv channel(gotta love duckman!) without the seriousness).
I hope this ends quick. The last thing Slashdot needs is a war vs. anti-war flamewar. We've already got BSD vs. Linux, Perl vs. Python vs. Ruby vs. Java vs. Everything Else, KDE vs. Gnome, etc... So I think we're good.
As an interesting note, CBSNews calls George Bush "Mr. Bush" in this article [cbsnews.com].
Re:And today (Score:2, Informative)
-Peter
Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time? (Score:5, Informative)
She was fired by the Bush administration shortly thereafter.
Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a link:
http://www.futurenet.org/iraq/morecostofwar.htm [futurenet.org]
And here's relevant text:
Approximately 3,500 civilians were killed during the U.S.-led air strike campaign in August 1990, and more than 9000 homes were destroyed. The civilian death toll rose to 110,000 after the bombing stopped, and of those 70,000 were children under the age of 15. Civilians in Iraq continue to suffer as a result of "Operation Desert Storm," despite the cessation of military attacks in 1991. Incidents with landmines and unexploded ordinance have added thousands of victims to the total. According to Unicef, the U.S.-led economic sanctions imposed on Iraq, in effect for more than a decade, have claimed over one million lives, the majority of whom are children and the elderly. In the wider "War on Terror" more civilians have now died in Afghanistan than did in the World Trade Tower and Pentagon attacks combined according to Professor Marc W. Herold at the Whittemore School of Business & Economics, in Durham, New Hampshire.
Re:And today (Score:2, Informative)
Actually, getting rid of US citizenship, without ending up banned from the US afterwards is rather tricky. Pretty much two things have to hold true:
At the start of the process, you have to be rich
At the end of the process, you have to be poor, with most of your money paid to the US government.
First, you have to buy yourself from the government. By leaving, you are depriving them of a valuable asset, and they must be compensated (It's the same reason that Soldiers who harm themselves through carelessness may be charged with damaging government property). The fee is rather high, and varies with your skills, education, etc.
Second, you have to pay an exit fee to the IRS. I think it is a one time tax of 60% or so of your total net worth.
Finally, the easy part. You have to go to a US embassy in some other nation to turn in your passport and other documents and fill out the final forms.
Re:And today (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The only thing war has ever done is... (Score:3, Informative)
One of these things is not like the other. Nazism and Communism are, respectively, political and economic ideologies. We didn't defeat these ideologies; we defeated countries that were governed by regimes who practiced these ideologies.
Terrorism is a methodology. You most certainly don't "defeat" a methodology. It's an abstraction.
Now... the West may... may be able to defeat specific militant Islamic groups. I hope so. However, please don't get wrapped up in this administration's linguistic antics.
I might argue here that Iraq doesn't fall into the category of "militant Islamic group", but I have a feeling I'll be spending a lot of time in this thread tonight, and want to survey the landscape of posts before proceeding.
Re:And today (Score:3, Informative)
You mean the piece that starts with "Dear Governor Bush"?
The piece that says "I'm glad to hear that this day has finally arrived. Because, I gotta tell ya, having survived 440 days of your lying and conniving, I wasn't sure if I could take much more."? This from a guy who predicted a Democratic blitz last November and then removed the piece from his site?
The piece that says "1. There is virtually NO ONE in America (talk radio nutters and Fox News aside) who is gung-ho to go to war."? A Gallup poll [gallup.com] says almost 70% support what the president said on Monday night.
The piece that says "4. The Pope has said this war is wrong, that it is a SIN."? Moore isn't a Christian, supports abortion, doesn't realize that Bush isn't Catholic, doesn't realize that the Pope has no authority to determine what is and is not a sin...yet he uses the Pope as support for his argument?
The piece that says "Kill Iraqis -- they got our oil!!" despite the fact the argument was defeated thoroughly months and months ago?
Michael Moore writes tripe for simple minds. The guy flunked out of the University of Michigan yets suggests Bush, who holds a degree from Yale and an MBA from Harvard, is the retarded one. Cut the crap.
Today, I'm ashamed... (Score:0, Informative)
I'm disgusted at the sheer quantity of ignorant liberal drivel that's being spouted by the
This war is one of justice and necessity, and those who think otherwise are as blind as Saddam.
Re:Michael Moore's Letter to Governor Bush (Score:3, Informative)
Re:the ILLEGAL war has begun (Score:2, Informative)
Nor are alliances or agreements outside of the UN.
Charter of the United Nations - CHAPTER VII - Article 51
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security."
Charter of the United Nations - CHAPTER VIII - Article 52
"Nothing in the present Charter precludes the existence of regional arrangements or agencies for dealing with such matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security as are appropriate for regional action provided that such arrangements or agencies and their activities are consistent with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations."
Iraq has attacked it's own civilians with chemical weapons. It has attacked Iran with chemical weapons. It has attacked Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran with ballistic missiles. Iraq holds prisoners of war from the Kuwait Invasion in violation of it's cease-fire with the Allies in 1991.
The war is not illegal.
Re:And today (Score:3, Informative)
No actually Bush does. because of our actions all over the world Americans are no longer welcome! I know, I had plans to teach in china and korea next year. Last year those plans were solid, this year numerous natives of both countries have said I would get the shit kicked out of me daily.
So now that I am forced to stay I am forced to change things. (Starting with Anonymous Cowards who are afraid to go to bat for their country face to face).
Re:And today (Score:2, Informative)
The U.S. violates that many resolutions in a week -- and that's a good week. Does that justify war against America?
No one disputes that Iraq has violated U.N. resolutions. The question is HOW does that justify a war? Which of those 18 resolutions authorizes it? Certainly not 1441, despite Bush's claims to the contrary.
Lee Kaiwen, Taiwan, ROC
Re:And today (Score:3, Informative)
I've actually seen someone renounce citizenship in front of a US Consular Officer (a very well educated Puerto Rican guy who no longer wanted part of the US in his 'country', even had an alternate Puerto Rican passport that he said he could travel on).
There is no tax there is no wealth requirement. You just go in and say it, they ask you if you're really, really, really sure... they have you write and sign a statement (there is no form since it happens so rarely) then, done. The consular officer just writes up a report and it's done. Very easy.
Re:Not a troll: How many civilians died last time? (Score:5, Informative)
>civilian casualties resulting from this war, but
>I'm somehow not sure I should take their word for
>it. Does anyone here know the read civilian death
>toll from the last Iraqi war?
I don't know the answer to your question, and for that I apologize, but I will offer this: In 1988 President Saddam Hussein ordered the destruction of the Iraqi city of the Halabja. Chemical weapons were used to contaminate the city. It was over in 2 hours. 5000 civilians were killed in that attack.
The bleeding hearts on this blog are making me ill. Hussein did in 2 hours what the US/coalition avoided in an entire war. And this was just one chemical attack. If the war lasted an entire year it is unlikely that as many civilians would be killed as those ordered to death by Hussein. I don't care what reasons Bush has for killing Hussein, but I have my own and so I wish the American president well.
Go here:
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/09/iraq-
Read it. All of it.
Re:CNN IRC newsticker? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:WRONG! (Score:4, Informative)
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
Re:And today (Score:2, Informative)
Re:And today (Score:2, Informative)
You are so fucking stupid and naive. Bush is the best example of how ivey league schools purport elitism, and help keep the rich people on top of the nation. You really think BUSH... OF ALL PEOPLE... got his degree at Yale because he was intelligent??!?
Let me quote you some stuff he has said:
I had a cordial meeting at that meeting last night. We greeted each other, cordially.
-- Prague, Czech Republic, November 21, 2002
All of us here in America should believe, and I think we do, that we should be, as I mentioned, a nation of owners. Owning something is freedom, as far as I'm concerned. It's part of a free society... It's a part of -- it's of being a -- it's a part of -- an important part of America.
-- Washington, D.C., October 15, 2002
The list goes on, at the dubya report [thedubyareport.com]... But those words sure as hell don't strike me as coming out of a genius' mouth. Open your eyes, Daddy Bush *bought* Junior's ticket to Yale.
War on Terrorism leader resigns. (Score:3, Informative)
Anyway, check this out:
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030319-04
Briefly, the Special Assistant on Terror for our National Security Council, Rand Beers, has resigned, saying he's "tried, just tried". He will not say anymore. It is believed that this war will increase unleash more terror than it will stop.
It has finally got too weird for me.
"Can this dream stop?"
"Wait! There's been a slaughter here!!!"
Thankfully, we ARE! (Score:5, Informative)
Nuclear stockpiles continue to be reduced. The Treaty of Moscow, signed by Bush and Putin last summer and ratified by Congress this month, promises that another 2/3 of each nuclear stockpile be dismantled - the logical conclusion of decades of nuclear cuts.
As long as hostile nations continue to possess (or seek) nuclear arms, the rest will have several hundred as a deterrant... but we've all come a LONG way. NATO, Russia, China... none are inclined to ever use a nuke ever again. I expect to live to see the day it's down to 200 warheads or less, here...maybe I'll be very very old, but I expect it in my lifetime.
Re:the ILLEGAL war has begun (Score:2, Informative)
Clinton was on the verge of launching an attack in 1998 under the terms of previous resolutions. As usual, he waffled.
http://ods-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/682/
Re:First war post! (Score:5, Informative)
We finally get to see a few good battles without the risk of being there.
People have been trying to watch people getting killed in battles since the Civil War when some people carried picnic lunches and alcohol to watch the Union fight the Rebels at the Battle of Bull Run (Sharpsburg).
Re:And today (Score:3, Informative)
Peace treaties have been broken without resumption of war. Look at Hitler's takeover of Czechoslovakia.
Yet another blunder by American president (Score:2, Informative)
I still cannot digest the fact america has started a bloody ruthless war against the interest of the World community. Certainly not a good sign for the president and the fellow americans.
Plese remember one cannot win a war without the support of the world community.
Time and again American presidents prove that they are just a bone-headed white collar thugs.
I not against the american people nor a supporter of Iraq, i live in india and iam very proud my country is against this bloody battle.
My only request to American president is, Pls inform your slave(read Tony blair) on the war decisions, he seems to be absolutely clueless. Prabhakar
Re:prayers (Score:1, Informative)
War indeed is BAD! The US is just cleaning up the mess THEY made in order to gain more control of the region.
Re:Prayers (Score:3, Informative)
The allies admits to two strikes that killed civilians. One was a technical failure on a British RAF smart bomb that hit a market instead of a nearby bridge. Since it was a technical malfunction, and the target was legitimate no blame was assigned.
The other was an intelligence failure. An air attack on the Al-Firdus command and control bunker. It was thought to be a legitimate target. A military command and control bunker. But for reasons that as far as I know are still unknown today, there were civilians in it. Several hundred of them were killed. General Chuck Horner, the Allied Air Component Commander during the gulf war (in other words he ran the entire Air War) talks about the incident in the book he coauthored with Tom Clancy Every Man A Tiger. He goes on to say that they should have asked harder questions. It had a low enough priority that it wasn't hit until the Air War was nearly 4 weeks old. He argues that if it was that low a priority, then did they really need to hit it? He makes good arguments for *why* the mistake was made, and he admits that it was a combination of factors including an allied intel failure that led to the tragedy.
Look, nobody likes war. But sometimes it's necessary to end ongoing suffering. I hardly agree with Bush on anything. I question his motives. But I do think Hussein has had this coming. He's a tyrant, and there are more parallels between him and Hitler than most people realize. The Allies in the Gulf War took more precautions to prevent civilian casualties than any other force in any other war in history. And they were largely successful. The technology of smart bombs allows us to do that. This isn't WWII or Vietnam. There's no REASON to carpet bomb and endanger civilians. And it's just plain wrong. I hope that this war ends quickly and that casualties are kept to an absolute minimum. The Iraqi people have certain human rights. And they're not getting them living under the rule of Hussein.
I don't agree with Bush's motives. But the liberation of Iraqi people is just the right thing to do! How can we be against that?
They say the U.S. "can't be the world's police force". Maybe. But I'm not sure it's that cut and dry. It's like walking by someone who's drowning in a river and saying "I can't be the river's lifeguard". Are you responsible for saving the person? No. But I think that you're morally obligated to do everything in your power to help. I see no reason that this logic shouldn't scale up to nations. If there is suffering and one nation can help to end the suffering, they *should* take action. Using military force, economic aid, disaster relief personnel, whatever. But sort of like a Hippocratic oath, it's important that whatever actions are taken not cause more suffering than they eliminate.
General William Tecumseh Sherman said "War's Legitimate Object Is More Perfect Peace." (thanks to Wyatt Earp (1029) [slashdot.org] for the quote). It's true. That's the only legitimate reason to go to war. And hopefully that's what we'll get with as little loss of life as possible.
I only wish that our current President hadn't botched things so badly that we have virtually *no* international support. Other Presidents would have acted differently. G.H.W. Bush understood the importance of building a coalition. Clinton certainly had his finger on the pulse of the international scene and he was a competent diplomat. Reagan liked to act unilaterally, but he wasn't a bat-shit crazy cowboy when he did so. Carter would have found a diplomatic solution, or at least he would have put so much effort into finding one that nobody would ever be able to question the legitimacy of going to war. I just think that this is embarassing. Hussein definitely needs to go, but I wish there were someone else to do it other than a G.W. Bush.
Re:I could ask the same question about your post (Score:1, Informative)
There was also another document (Gulf War fact book) by the same author (Frank Chadwick). It is probably the best overview of the order of battle of both sides, although a more complete guide can be obtained by obtaining a copy of the November 1990 edition of "Middle East Notes" from the US Army Intelligence Center (Fort Huachuca; you'll probably need to do a FOIA request to get it).
In it, you will find a complete listing of ALL the Iraqi weapon inventory just before the first Gulf War. Oh, and the M-113s you mention are Egyptian surplus, and weren't supplied by the US (and, FWIW, Iraq doesn't use them operationally; relying instead upon French wheeled armored vehicles such as the Panhard series or Eastern Bloc IFVs).
Demonizing people (Score:5, Informative)
no offense intended but US perspective here... (Score:3, Informative)
umm, perhaps we should mention an earlier Civil War spectator reference, people have been doing this for a bit longer. I refer to the Civil War battle involving Boudicca and the Romans in Britain , A.D.61 :-) (not called England in those days, the Angles weren't to invade for another few hundred years).
Tacitius reported that the rebels thought this was going to be another slaughter of Romans, so they assembled as many spectators as possible. Mothers, fathers, grandparents, children, babies, livestock, etc., and wagons loaded with the material gains so far plundered were amassed behind the British. Everyone waited to see the spectacle and revel in their impending victory.
Of course things went the wrong way but that's another story. People have been doing this for a longgggg time.
Ref: http://www.romans-in-britain.org.uk/his_boudiccan_ rebellion_final_battle.htm
Re:prayers (Score:5, Informative)
US Mini-Nukes and Chemical Weapons Usage (Score:2, Informative)
The Guardian, Friday 7 March 2003 [guardian.co.uk]
The Pentagon has asked the US Congress to lift a 10-year ban on developing small nuclear warheads, or "mini-nukes", in one of the most overt steps President George Bush's administration has taken towards building a new atomic arsenal.
Buried in the defence department's 2004 budget proposals, sent to congressional committees this week, was a single-line statement that marks a sharp change in US nuclear policy.
It calls on the legislature to "rescind the prohibition on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons".
If passed by Congress, the measure would represent an important victory for radicals in the administration, who believe the US arsenal needs to be made more "usable", and therefore a more meaningful deterrent, to "rogue states" that have weapons of mass destruction, or WMD.
A Pentagon official said yesterday the research ban on smaller warheads "has negatively affected US government efforts to support the national strategy to counter WMD, and undercuts efforts that could strengthen our ability to deter or respond to new or emerging threats".
Democrats fought off earlier Republican attempts to lift the ban on researching and developing warheads under five kilotons (a third of the power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima), fearing they would lead to an end to the US moratorium on nuclear testing, and to a new arms race.
If you can read french read this: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:prayers (Score:3, Informative)
This was quoted verbatim in the press, and then made it out over the newsire with no checking by reporters.
Re:War has begun? (Score:1, Informative)
Re:WRONG! (Score:5, Informative)
But if you want to play it that way, let's have the full, accurate list shall we? And let's just see where these countries are today...
France 1942-45 Republic
Germany 1942-45 Federal republic
Belgium 1942-45 Parliamentary democracy
Netherlands - 1944-45 Free
Italy 1943-45 Republic
Japan 1942-45 constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary government
China 1945-46 Free from Japanese, conquered by communist dicatorship.
Korea 1950-53 Republic, see South Korea
China 1950-53 Communist tyranny
Guatemala 1954 Constitutional republic
Indonesia 1958 Republic
Cuba 1959-60 NO BOMBS community tyrants take over
Guatemala 1960 Constitutional republic
Congo 1964 Thank the Belgians
Peru 1965 Constitutional republic
Laos 1964-73 Communist tyrany
Vietnam 1961-73 Communist tyranny, and how about them French?
Cambodge 1969-70 Multi-party democracy
Guatemala 1967-69 Constitutional republic
Grenade 1983 Constitutional monarchy with Westminster-style parliament
Lybia 1986 - Dictatorship
El Salvador 1980s - Republic
Nicaragua 1980s -Republic
Panama 1989 - Republic
Iraq 1991-99 - Give us time
Sudan 1998 - Authoritarian regime
Afghanistan 1997-2002 - Republic
It's a pretty great list. In fact, it looks like getting bombed by the U.S. is a great way to end up with a free country.
we did in Japan (Score:2, Informative)
Sure you can. We did it in Japan.
Re:WRONG! (Score:1, Informative)
Same with Afghanistan. And when I look at Cambodge during the seventies (AFTER the bombing) - actually I wouldn't call this a republic.
If you look at the list carefully, I can't see real achievements in terms of democratic development.
Re:And today (Score:3, Informative)
No, you are wrong.
Resolution 678 says that "all necessary means" are allowed to enforce resolution 660.
Resolution 660:
Now, tell me how resolution 678 gives the US authorization to attack Iraq.
References:
678 [iraqwatch.org]
660 [iraqwatch.org]
The reason that people in the region hate America (Score:2, Informative)
On the one hand Bush condems WMDs and says that Hussein has to go because he is in violation of UN resolutions calling for his disarmament
but on the other hand
Bush does nothing about the UN resolutions that Isreal is in violation of and they sell Isreal WMDs...
How would you feel as a citizen of this regions countries at the news today (on the day of the "war") that Bush is giving Isreal ANOTHER US$ 10 Billion to bolster up their failing economy (ie buy more military products) ???
I sometimes suspect that these things happen to deliberately provoke a reaction so that the US can 'justify' overwhelming retaliation.
When will the US taxpayers wake up and realise that their money is being spent proping up represive regimes and formenting hatred, death and terror for the sake of a few infulential industrialists who have a stake in one country in the region? And that their taxes are being used to promote the very thing they smilingly claim they're fighting?
Live by the sword, die by the sword
Re:we did in Japan (Score:3, Informative)
That statement shows a complete ignorance of Japanese history. The seeds of democracy were planted in Japan at the dawn of the Meiji era in 1868, and Japan has had a national congress of legislators since that time period. Even though ultimate power rested with the Emperor the whole time, the seeds of democracy had been planted for over 80 years before the end of WWII in much the same fashion that they had been planted in Britain back in the time of the Magna Carta. Japan was primed and ready for democracy and had slowly been moving that way the whole time. It was only the belief in the divinity of the Emperor that kept the common people from demanding more of a voice faster.
I highly recommend this book [palgrave-usa.com] if you care about learning more about this time period. It was my college textbook for Modern Japanese History, and it's extremely well written. The politics of the US occupation of Japan and how the Cold War shifted us from tearing them down to building them up as an ally is an utterly fascinating read.
Of course, Iraq isn't without seeds of democracy itself. While they've pretty much had only one party to vote for, the Iraqi people have had an elected congress for quite a while now. It's nothing but a big sham, but it at least gives the people familiarity with voting and a false sense of empowerment that we can use to lay the foundation for real empowerment. It shouldn't be as hard to establish democracy there if we wanted to as it might be in some of Iraq's feudal neighbors. Iran could be a good democracy too if we just deposed the autocratic Muslim judicial branch that they themselves have been agitating to remove. They pretty much already are one with the exception of that branch of the government.
Re:CNN IRC newsticker? (Score:3, Informative)
Pick an Idlenet server (http://www.idlenet.org/servers/)
and go to channel #cnn-live
Re:Please check other news sources than CNN!!! (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.guardian.co.uk
http://news.bbc.co.u
http://news.google.com
are just three options off the top of my head.
With regards to US media: ABC news has always seemed more open to "two-sided" reporting than CNN, in my experience.
CNN is the self-appointed propaganda mouthpiece of the US Government. That's fine and dandy, since someone's got to be, but you owe it to yourself to take everything they say with healty skeptisism.
Re:Typical Leftist "bovine scatology" (Score:3, Informative)
I Googled for: "Ansar al Islam" saddam link
Here's what I found, on the first page of results:
The Kurds claim there is a link between their enemy and Saddam [usatoday.com]; accusation isn't evidence. Of course they want us to link them, they want us to attack them. So, on lack of evidence and a clear motive to lie about, this has to be dismissed.
Mullah Krekar denies it [bbc.co.uk], saying "As a Kurdish man, I believe that he is our enemy, and as an Orthodox Muslim also, I believe that Saddam Hussein and his group are outside of Islam's zone." He could be lying too, but given that experts in the stories I reference here repeatedly link him with Al Qaeda, he's hardly keeping his image clean by just denying any link with Saddam. It's more likely that he is denying it in order to maintain the respect and support of other Muslim extremists who don't think Saddam is extreme enough.
Taliban-style group grows in Iraq [csmonitor.com]
Commander Qada also claims that Ansar al-Islam has ties to agents of Saddam Hussein operating in northern Iraq. "We have picked up conversations on our radios between Iraqis and [Ansar] al-Islam," he says from his military base in Halabja. "I believe that Iraq is also funding [Ansar] al-Islam. There are no hard facts as yet, but I believe that under the table they are supporting them because it will cause further instability for the Kurds."
US goes soft on Iraqi link to al-Qaeda [theage.com.au]
The intelligence shows that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a leading member of al-Qaeda, was treated in hospital in Baghdad last year but provides no evidence of any contacts with Iraqi officials.
It also shows that some members of a small Kurdish Islamic fundamentalist group, Ansar al-Islam, which controls a small area inside northern Iraq, were trained by al-Qaeda. But this also shows no credible evidence of contacts with the Iraqi regime.
It is the attempt by the White House and the Pentagon to make a definite link between al-Zarqawi, Ansar al-Islam and Saddam Hussein that has infuriated many within the US intelligence community and left British colleagues in amazement.
"The intelligence is practically non-existent," one exasperated American intelligence source said. Most of the intelligence being used to support the idea of a link between al-Qaeda and Mr Saddam comes from Kurdish groups who are the bitter enemies of Ansar al-Islam, he said.
"It is impossible to support the bald conclusions being made by the White House and the Pentagon given the poor quantity and quality of the intelligence available.
Under fire from militants US would love to link to Saddam [guardian.co.uk]
"The US has sought to link Ansar to Saddam Hussein - but so far the evidence has been only anecdotal"
Weak Link? [go.com]
The U.S. case about the terror connection was further undercut today in London. The BBC reported that British intelligence has concluded there is no evidence to support the theory that al Qaeda and Iraq are working together."
This one's from the Washington Times, which is a very right-wing-biased rag. Even they say the evidence is weak: [washtimes.com]
Analysis: Iraq al Qaida link hard to prove
the CIA is skeptical about his alleged ties to Baghdad. One U.S. official sympathetic to that view told United Press International Tuesday, "There is n