Updates on War in Iraq 2116
New Developments on the war in Iraq:
Oil Fields ablaze in southern Iraq.
Turkey opens airspace to U.S..
US Forces 3rd Infantry Fire Heavy Artillery at Southern Iraq.
The schedule has been accelerated due to infrastructure destruction.
CT: Explosions and heavy anti aircraft fire heard in Baghdad.
We'll continue to update as new information warrants.
Where's the best info on the war? (Score:5, Interesting)
War Update (Score:2, Interesting)
Oil? (Score:1, Interesting)
Air raid sirens in Baghdad (Score:2, Interesting)
God Bless America (Score:3, Interesting)
I appreciate all they do to defend our freedoms, and save others as well.
Re:Oil? (Score:1, Interesting)
Think you'll see this reflected at the pumps?
May free speach and free thought live on (Score:5, Interesting)
May free speech continue to live, in spite of the attempts of the far right to silence it, and the far left to exploit it.
F-bacher
Re:Glorious! (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:5, Interesting)
For analysis, Strategypage.com [strategypage.com] is quite biased, but informative.
Re:Fire in the hole (Score:2, Interesting)
Oil is important for the whole world - we use it for heating, generating electricity, running automobiles and factory machinery etc etc.
Without it you would have no ambulances, no computers, no fresh daily bread at your local supermarket and most likely a very poor economic outlook for you and your family.
So stop the whining, will ya? The governments want oil for THEIR PEOPLE not for themselves.
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:2, Interesting)
We are also familiar with the study of tactics, etc. So when we get the basic info of where forces are we can kind of guess some of what will happen and reserve judgement on other reports that do not ring true for some reason.
The above is the same sort of process the real sysadmins, engineers and others use comment on computing/networking/etc.
Other people on
There are many odd twists in this world, the above are only a few.
Re:Um, is this really News for Nerds? (Score:2, Interesting)
I have to agree. Though talking politics on Slashdot is really asking to start a flame war that would put the Tastes great/Less filling or VI/Emacs wars to shame...
On a more serious note though, and the topic has already arisen, where can one get an unbiased source of information? People are already harking that this "war" will the most mediatized one in history. That's nice. But it doesn't mean that the ton of information you have access to is not pure and utter BS. Just because it's out there doesn't mean it's true (remember Wag the dog?) I don't believe CNN is unbiased, nor currently is my former staple of the BBC. So now, I'm talking everything I see big a honkin' big chunk of sodium.
Anyway, that's just the cynic in me talking.
Re:iraq (Score:1, Interesting)
GPS (Score:5, Interesting)
The political bent is amazing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Quote:
Granted, it's too early to be so optimistic, but surely the lack of any battlefield coordination in Iraq after an attempted hit on Hussein is a bigger story than the 4 oil wells that are on fire.
Re:USA PR (Score:4, Interesting)
If you think about it, however, there may be a silver lining to this cloud. France and others have stated that if Iraq were to use chemical/biological weapons, that would change things completely and bring them in on the side of the U.S. That provides a powerful incentive for Saddam not to use these weapons - by not doing so he keeps France, Germany and Russia on his side in calling for an end to hostilities. The bottom line, however, is that we don't need those countries' military support, but if they help prevent the use of chemical/biological weapons, that's OK by me...
Anti-aircraft fire & F-117 Stealth detection (Score:2, Interesting)
CNN reported this morning that there is concern that Iraq knew our F-117 Stealths were coming and started anti-aircraft fire. This is a huge concern, as they are supposed to be undetectable (a.k.a. "stealthy").
If this is true, there is no way the technology to detect our stealths was developed in Iraq. It begs the question: did one of the countries that opposes the war pass this advanced technology, obviously developed since the 1991 Gulf War, to Iraq as an underhanded way of flipping the bird to the US and Bush?
Why do they even call this a war... (Score:1, Interesting)
But although victory conditions are basically assured for US, the long term effects are probably going to come and bite us in the ass. Already many arabs are displeased with our initiative, and we haven't even killed (many) civilians yet. If (or should I say when) Bush decides that it's "hammer time", then the arabs will truly have something to be pissed about, and we'll see the long term effects of that in more terrorist acts on US soil.
The truth of the matter is, until the US stops supporting Israel, there will be terrorist acts directed towards us. You can't ally yourself with a bully and expect the rest of the schoolyard to be your friend.
Did the U.S. Set Fire to Kuwait's Oil Fields? (Score:1, Interesting)
Did the U.S. Set Fire to Kuwait's Oil Fields? [thepowerhour.com]
A popular radio program heard worldwide claims to have proof that the United States, working under the auspices of the United Nations, was responsible for igniting the massive oil field fires in Kuwait at the close of the first Iraqi war. The controversial talk show team of Joyce Riley and Dave VonKleist host the Missouri-based program "The Power Hour" which is carried mostly by independent and "patriot" radio stations. The program boasts an audience of several million listeners.
The duo has provided a transcript [thepowerhour.com] of an interview recently conducted with a Gulf War veteran who alleges that he participated in the covert detonation campaign of Kuwaiti oil wells, crafted to implicate Iraq, in order to "remove any doubts that Saddam Hussein and his regime were a terrible evil that had to be dealt with." This mission was allegedly necessary because "there was concern that America... might see this conflict as an unnecessary thing."
The talk show hosts, who gained notoriety for championing causes supporting Gulf War veterans, assert that this interview is bolstered by other independent testimonials they have received. "The information provided over a series of meetings with this veteran corroborates the reports from other veterans who are totally unconnected with this individual," the duo states in their press release.
Re:And it all could have been avoided... (Score:3, Interesting)
The US have now given Turkey the all clear to attack the Kurds in return for clearance to overfly Turkey so even those that do want Saddam gone will no longer welcome this war.
Most people can see that democracy is an illusion like communism. So what is really going to be the outcome of this conflict. Will it be like Afghanistan? One load of tin pots exchanged for another? If true democracy was the intention then we had better stop trying to kill Saddam as a lot of Iraqis would want to vote for him. I think it will be seen as just another case of imperialism when the US only allows Iraqis to vote for people that the US thinks are suitable. There is no real intention to allow the Iraqi people to decide for themselves. They want someone who will stand up to the US and fight for their freedom.
Re:Thoughts From An American (Score:1, Interesting)
We're showing the world that we're done with 'appeasement mode' and that we're actually going to do what we say we're going to do.
You think that after we stomp the shit out of Hussein that North Korea is going to keep on squealing? Hell no. And they've got far more to worry about than Saddam does.
Re:USA PR (Score:0, Interesting)
Every person on earth knows that if a single nuke were launched from any rougue nation (like Iraq), they'd be vasprozed from the planet by every nuclear power that existed. They'd get only one shot.
I'd risk a single act of random violence upon myself if it meant we lived in a freer nation (Ashcroft) and the world didn't dispise us (Bush).
Support our troops...? (Score:1, Interesting)
"But these soldiers are out there fighting for *you*! They're defending *your* freedoms!"
Maybe they're fighting for *you*, but not for *me*. I never asked them to. I never told a single soldier to go and kill in my name. If I wanted to kill, if I wanted to fight to preserve my 'freedoms', I'd go myself. But I don't beleive this war (read: international crime) is justified, I don't beleive my freedoms were in any way threatened by Iraq, and I would never lift even a moderately sharp stick in the direction of the Iraqui people. Mind that, I said 'Iraqui people', not 'Saddam Hussein'.
Here's what I see, and what I beleive. Your mileage may vary, but I at least want to be clear on my opinions and let it be known that just because I happened to be born in the US doesn't mean I feel any obligation to support the actions of its government when they're wrong. I agree with the international community in that something has to be done about Saddam and Co. Him, his cronies, and his sons, are murdering, raping, sick bastards, and they need to be dealt with. However, in a war, the leaders are rarely punished. It's always the people and the country itself which suffers. Throughout the history of the world, leaders are never truly held accountable for the actions they do. Saddam has killed, tortured, and raped. And we were willing and able to accept him simply going into exile. Polpot murdered millions, literally, and what did he get? House arrest. Gee, harsh. Meanwhile a kid on the streets who never had a break to make a clean life for himself gets put away for the rest of his life in a violent, dangerous prison.
Point is, instead of war, let's make the leaders accountable for their actions. Every child and woman that Saddam has killed should be on his hands. Every child and woman that Bush's troops kill are on Bush's hands. Every child and woman that Blair's troops kill are on Blair's hands. And they should be sentenced and punished as mass murderers. Why do we insist on beleiving that there is a difference between killing a human being during war and killing a human being during peace? Killing is killing, and the punishment should never vary. If the people who joined up in tghe army knew that every person they kill, wether during war or peace, would be counted as murder, would they be so eager to join? Not just in the US, but across the world?
War is murder. War is killing people. War is not liberation, freedom, or defense. It is, simply, people tryign to kill other people. And this is never, ever right, no matter what started it.
Yes, Saddam needs to be dealt with. No, war is not, never has been, and never will be, the answer. There were/are other ways. Think.
And one final note to end this mostly incoherent rant, I just need to get this off my chest. If it had been any, *any* other country trying to start this war of agression without being attacked first, the US would be the *first* to condemn that country as a 'rogue state', to cry for international sanctions against them, etc. etc. But when it's the US themselves, or their allies, acting against the wishes of the UN, then it's perfectly fine, isn't it? Even if the UN's credibility has taken an almost insurmountable hit, I hope Annan takes the right road and firmly denounces USA's actions as the international crimes and terrorist acts that they
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:3, Interesting)
During the election Jon Stweart and David Letterman were the only people who did serious political interviews of the candidates.
The political pundits gave gutless, fawning and opinionated interviews which were useless to the viewers or the candidates but calculated not to offend.
In the UK politicians want to go up against the hard interviewers since holding your own against Paxman shows you are major player. it is the Gladiatorial model, not the meally mouthed genuflexion that the US press corps gives.
Ask the Iraqi's (Score:5, Interesting)
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
I worry that I might be perhaps causing trouble for the guy, but I figure if he put it on the web he wants people to see it.
Re:Where's the best info on the war? (Score:5, Interesting)
Transformer Optimus Prime is in the "war" (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a picture of both Optimus Primes (Optimii Prime?) on the site.
National guardman changed his name to a toy
CUYAHOGA FALLS -- A member of Ohio's 5694th National Guard Unit in Mansfield legally changed his name to a Transformers toy.
Optimus Prime is heading out to the Middle East with his guard unit on Wednesday to provide fire protection for airfields under combat.
"On Sunday, we were awarded as the best firefighting unit in the Army National Guard in the entire country," said Prime. "That was a big moment for us."
Prime took his name from the leader of the Autobots Transformers, which were popular toys and a children's cartoon in the 1980s.
He legally changed his name on his 30th birthday and now it's on everything from his driver's licence, to his military ID, to his uniform.
"They razzed me for three months to no end," said Prime. "They really dug into me about it."
"I got a letter from a general at the Pentagon when the name change went through and he says it was great to have the employ of the commander of the Autobots in the National Guard."
Prime says the toy actually filled a void in his life when it came out.
"My dad passed away the year before and I didn't have anybody really around, so I really latched onto him when i was a kid," he said.
Re:Advice to troops (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, the Iraqis heard this statement before [zmag.org] from the British when they took over Iraq from the Ottomans. Some Iraqis were amused at the similarity. I agree with the sentiment...I just hope we follow through.
Re:Advice to troops (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Advice to troops (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Glorious! (Score:1, Interesting)
Dubya, despite his accent, ain't much of a real Texan. What real Texan would skip out on Vietnam, then skip out on National Guard duty? It ain't right, amigo...it ain't right.
Re:but Saddam (Score:2, Interesting)
You know, that's funny that you say that, because they weren't scuds. [virtualjerusalem.com] Sorry.
Rest assured, whether they exist or not, the U.S. will report finding W.O.M.D. in Iraq. Convenient that the phantom "scud" just happened to be totally obliterated by a patriot missile this morning.
Also rest assured that there are plenty of people who want to believe the "coalition" is doing the right thing for the right reasons, and like the parent poster, will swallow any b.s. rumors which support that idea without bothering to verify them.
Re:Advice to troops (Score:2, Interesting)
As my (american) wife said when she overheard me listening to Blairs speech: "Wow, he sounds much more intelligent than Bush".
Not a flambait, but compare their recent pre-invasion speeches and you'll find Blair using numbers and facts where Bush resorts to patriotism and ideals.
the UK (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Alternative Media source for US-based actions (Score:2, Interesting)
"US military sources reported that limited raids on Iraq would last for two days before
an intensive wide-range attack."
go to http://tarjim.ajeeb.com/
then put in http://aljazeera.net/
Wonder if CNN *knows* this but doesn't tell so people stay glued to TV's for 2 days?
Re:Why? - For all those who continue to ask. (Score:2, Interesting)
if you want our species to aspire to something greater than self-inflicted violence, we need to be rid of fascists, isolationists and xenophobes.
My friend, I'm terrribly sorry to let you down, but that statement must be one of the most logically self-inconsistent arguments I've ever read. What you are proposing is nothing short of genocide when applied to Iraq and the middle east! The entire Arab culture revolves around these ideas. Once upon a time they had amassed a vast, technologically rich empire based on the same sociologic and political standards that they still hold today. The "problem" is that their empire fell and the rest of the world changed around them while they've stagnated and allowed themselves to fall into an incredibly unstable state of affairs, which scares the shit out of us if they have nukes. The US is the biggest "threat" to Iraqi (and in general, Arab) pride, in that the importation of western culture and technology isn't meshing well with their old-way ideals. Naturally, to them, ours is the way of the devil, and must be kept out.
In truth, I don't believe they have nukes, or at least not powerful ones. I don't believe this is a war for oil. I don't believe this is a war purely to "establish democracy" in Iraq.
I do believe that the war is based on the "erradication of terrorism" through the removal of "rogue states", classified as I suppose any who hate us because we won't leave them alone culturally or on any other level. This reasoning has a fatal failure in the assumption that we can't leave them alone, and thus is not logically sound.
However, assuming that we can't leave them alone *and* shouldn't go to war is even more flawed, because only one can be true.
Either we can leave these people alone entirely, and leave them to die a horribly diseased and slow death on their own (or even better, but highly unlikely, for them to grow and prosper on their own), and completely cut them off from the rest of civilization, and thus avoid a war
Unfortunately, neither of these choices is right. *Both* are wrong for humanitarian reasons, but it's not like this is an issue that can be solved with diplomacy either. What we have here is a zero-sum game, and there is no way to win.
In conclusion, I don't support the war. I don't support non-war. I don't support diplomacy-only solutions. I don't support bombing-the-hell-out-of-em solutions. I don't support infiltrating their culture, but I don't support cutting them off. I don't support feeding their people (they live in a fucking desert!) or killing their people. I don't support replacing their government, but I don't support their government as it stands. I don't support any of these things because with the causes for them listed above, this can be extended ad infinitum and will never, ever produce a winning result.
Even worse than all that, besides being illogical, it would be utterly futile for me to take a position on this. The legislations and rules which have been brought about in the name of erradicating terrorism have served as the largest red flag for the erosion and eventual failure of "democracy" here in the US. I don't think I need to elaborate on what I mean here. This worries me more deeply than any war, and the similarities with *only the worst* bits of political statements made in Brazil, 1984, Brave New World, and Plato's Republic hit just a little to close for me.
I'm nowhere near the crackpot point of making aluminum hats, stockpiling assault rifles, or trying to declare myself a sovreign nation, but I am *very* deeply concerned and afraid for the future, and feel utterly helpless to the cause of it all.
Re:Quote from Nuremberg (Score:3, Interesting)
For the eigth gazillionth time, the US could not have established a client state on the USSR's southern border. Rebuilding Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion was not an option.
Please stop repeating lies, as hard as it may be to do.
The Inspections are Working! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hey! Just give peace a ch... INCOMING!!
And as the president said ... (Score:2, Interesting)
No, wait.
That was Adolf Hitler in 1933.
Darn.
You'd think that 70 years of evolution would be enough.
Then again, it only takes a quick look in a history book to understand that evolution does not apply to politicians
Ofcourse the same applies to us, the people who vote for them and support them. And the way we 'educate' our children. The future politicians and leaders.
Will it ever end ?
*sighs*
Re:Hussein- a monster we created? (Score:2, Interesting)
Take a look at what's happening in Afghanistan right now. Where do you find freedom there? Where are the (human) rights you mentioned? Where is basic democracy? The country is in a most desolate state, the world has simply forgotten the country. The warlords previously ruling the country are gaining power again and it's just a matter of time until the old conditions - or worse - will be restored, because the US simply doesn't care any more.
There is certainly no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a tyrannic dictator who is willing to kill his own people. But there is also little doubt that the US government won't ignore the UN security council and international agreements and the law of nations just out of sheer humanity reasons. Take a look at the bigger picture. There are so many connections between Bush & friends and big oil companies, it's really hard to ignore. Iraq is the country with the second most oil resources in the middle east. Those resources can't be extracted right now because of the UN embargo empowered in 1991. On the other hand, known experts say that global oil resources will be depleted in the next 40 years. funny coincidence, isn't it?
Re:but Saddam (Score:5, Interesting)
Remember that bit of evidence linking Iraq to nuclear weapons, oh yeah, it's a fake [washingtonpost.com] as well.
Those "great" tips our folks have been giving the inspection team? All that cool intel we have about trucks with mobile labs and sneaky shit going down, ummmm, it's garbage [cbsnews.com].
Shit, I could spend all day doing this. Our government has been busted time after time. They are liars. Period. However, now that we're at war, I support our folks over there fighting. Our president is a complete bullshit artist and his team of jackasses will, hopefully, go far far away after the next election. But I hope the people on the ground and in the air do what they have to do and get home safely.
Re:And it all could have been avoided... (Score:2, Interesting)
The Al Samoud missiles have a range of 160km, I believe, but that is without warheads. Iraq argues that with the warheads, they fall within the limit, but agreed to destroy them anyway.
cost of war vs cost of peace (Score:1, Interesting)
"The weapons used last night ( Thursday morning ) have so far cost £26million whilst the amount of money availble to the UN for work in Iraq after the war is £30million"
Re:Mmmm Oceans (Score:2, Interesting)
Northern Ireland, the Turks and kurds, germany's problem with foreign employment, the jews, palenstine, and finally the muslims mixing it up with russians, chinese, indians, and americans. This is your so called social understanding? The list goes on and on forever with europe and the rest of the world not understanding but killing each other. Multiple holocausts and a world filled with poverty is the result.
Then take a look at America. A land of every person, a melting pot of every culture. A land of freedom of speech. Now maybe we don't get along (race riots) but we definitely don't ethinically cleanse people or ignore it when it happens. Which almost every country of europe is guilty for at one time. If Mexico or Canada starting wiping out one race America would lay down the law. But it happens in Europe's backyard all the time and you never see our world moral leaders like france setting up to the plate. Kosova, Rwanda, and Kuwait are all examples of France (the world's favorite country right now) of letting millions die without lifting up one gun. Whats wrong France? You can pick back up your guns you know.
"Bush has squandered this freely, used the excuses to repress his own people, and start down the road of a police state"
I don't feel part of a police state at all. Actually for me nothing has changed except a 30min delay at the airport. And yet another 9/11 hasn't happened even though we supposedly have created a 1,000 bin ladens since we have attacked afghanistan and iraq.
"They can do what they want when the want, anywhere they want, and the rest of the world doesn't exist in their calculations of the effects."
Well if Saddam can do whatever it wants then why can't the US? If a two bit tyrant can defy the UN forever then why should the USA listen to it. Is france going to start enforcing its policies because I think the US is sick of the UN. Having to look to China and Russia for moral authority makes me laugh so hard. What was the last count, 100 million dead due to bad communist governments last century. Thats our moral authority?
Re:Ask the Iraqi's (Score:3, Interesting)
Vancouver was especially contentious and was originally a military fortification that included people of Chinese, Japanese, French, Russian, African and Samoan descent that fought according to varying loyalties though usually about financial affairs rather than nationalist.