Open Source Code And War 923
"Should Open Source developers help the U.S. prepare for war with Iraq?" Roblimo has a piece on NewsForge which addresses that question by showing a specific way that the U.S. military is using Free and Open Source software (in simulator-based training for Blackhawk helicopters), and letting one of the developers involved speak for himself. If software is Free, doesn't that already answer the question of who can use it?
Ender's game (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ender's game (Score:5, Funny)
Pretty much the plan in ... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Pretty much the plan in ... (Score:3, Funny)
Greetings Starfighter.
You have been recruited by --George Bush-- to defend the frontier against Xur and the --Sadaam-- Armada....
Re:Drinking games (Score:4, Funny)
How dare you even suggest that! I'm a college student, and the only thing I hold higher in regard above my beer is the prospect of getting more beer!
Get some priorities! (Score:5, Funny)
Dude, your head is screwed on backwards! The prospect of getting more beer should be priority #2 after you deal with item #1 on the agenda, the beer currently in front of you.
Sheesh. Kids these days. I weep for America.
Re:Drinking games (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Drinking games (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Drinking games (Score:5, Funny)
Yup! Not good at all... (Score:4, Funny)
Now the Iraqi pilots get get up to snuff in their large fleet of Blackhawk choppers using US simulators!
Re:Yup! Not good at all... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey MODERATORS ! - CENSORSHIP? (Score:3, Flamebait)
How come every post in this thread that is sympathetic to war is modded down as flamebait?
Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War (Score:3, Informative)
and where, exactly, did the iranian "monster" come from? well, in 1941 the allies invaded iran and deposed the shah. miracle of miracles, the new power structure in iran was decided by an election. the guy they elected was a chap called Mossadegh. Mossadegh did a lot of things... most of them very popular with the iranian people (he was even time's man of the year for 1951!). unfortunately, he decided to nationalize the iranina oil reserves. such a move was not popular with the us government as it limited foreign (read: us and british) investment in/control of the oil industry in iran. the solution was for the cia to orchestrate an overthrow of Mossadegh and a re-implemnentation of the shah. this, of course, they did and gave the people of iran 26 years of murderous dictatorship.
the rule of the shah resulted in two things in iran: 1. a hatred of the shah and a desire to oust him 2. a distrust of the united states who had put him there in the first place. eventually in 1979, the shah was ousted by kohmeni and ko.
a simple formula: you subvert a nation and its people will hate you. the us continues to prop up dictators and foster bad will around the world, then to contain the situation they develop more dictators (and develop more bad will).
Oil? I wonder, why we even went to Somalia, or why we are still in South Korea
south korea was a cold-war anti-domino play. why don't you ask your government why they bombed hanoi or cambodia instead? why don't you ask your government where they were when rwanda needed help? how about east timor? why don't you ask your government why they supported burtal dictatorships in el salvador and honduras in the 80s. were all of these decisions made to help the people of these nations? the united states government is not concerned with the lives and well being of foreign civilians unless it is convenient for public relations. that's realpolitik.
Neither Pakistan, nor India, nor Israel have ever joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaties or otherwise promised not to develop WMDs...
so iraq merely has to not recommit to the nnpt andeverything is fine? unlikely. hey! you know what country is the biggest owner and producer of weapons of mass destruction? the united states. forget about nukes, there are over one million pounds of nerve gas in the pine bluff arsenal in arkansas right now. go and inspect it yourself.
The French? Oh, they just can't get over the loss of the "grand nacion" (sp?) status
so it's hubris? hm. there are some other nations that may have a little more in that department than the french...
Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War (Score:5, Insightful)
The head of a popularly elected government decided to nationationalize Iranian oil. So we assasinated him and put the Shah back in power. When the students marched, he brought in soliders with machine guns to shoot them. We put this monster into power; why should be surprised that when his government is overthrown, the resulting government doesn't like us?
I've read about the current Iranian government. It's partially democratic, with elections open to all over 15, male or female. (Kuwait, which I assume you don't consider a monster, doesn't let women vote. Saudi Arabia doesn't let anyone vote.) It's not the most nice, liberal government in the world, but the governmental failings present themselves as voter apathy, not rebellions put down at gun point. It's probably optimistic, but I've defenitely got the impression that Iran will go totally democratic in the next decade, possibly without bloodshed.
Re:C'mon - Isn't this really about the War (Score:3, Insightful)
Destroying Stalin in 1945 was hardly an option - he was America's ally at that time, and no-one of any political persuasion thought there was any chance at all of fighting Russia just as WWII finally drew to an end.
Probably the "right" thing would have been for the US to follow the British line more, and deal more harshly with the Soviets and the iron curtain. Who though can blame them for not doing so. And who's to say they were wrong anyway - somehow the world got through the next 40 years with organizations like NATO never firing a shot in anger. Sure there was a lot of tension. But maybe the outcome was the best that could be hoped for.
open (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:open (Score:5, Insightful)
Fill in the blank with:
Open Source software
Toilet paper
Footware
Small arms
Army cot
Clothing
Technology has no ethic.
Re:open (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but engineers do. This is why security people usually notify vendors in advance of the publication of a new security hole, to give them a chance to fix things.
There are also technologies that have no other purpose. You can argue that a nuclear warhead can someday deflect a meteor bound for earth, but the fact is that the Manhattan Project was launched for another specific purpose.
Advocates like to say "guns don't kill people", and they are right to that extent. However, body armor piercing bullets have no other objective, because bears don't wear body armor.
I'm not objecting to your point that many technologies are neutral. I'm also not commenting on the specific ethics of the examples I cite, rather just pointing out that they are not ethics neutral.
Re:open (Score:3, Insightful)
Even a weapon can be used in a "good" way depending on your view point. If you have a rock and the bad guy has a assault rifle to say you are in a very bad position would be an understatement. Now I am not advocating killing BUT I know for a fact that the world has bad people in it. Should we to simply stop providing the means to stop them because it involves very nasty things? To fight a devil you've got to be a devil yourself. The engineers know that a bomb can be used to both kill and protect, life is not black and white as some portray. Maybe if we could stop killing altogether it wouldn't be a problem, but that eutopian view goes upstream against the current of the primitive mind.
Re:open (Score:5, Insightful)
You managed to completely miss the point. Once you invoke the Second Amendment as a moral justification to participate in the design of a "controversial" device, you've made an ethical decision on the technology. You've decided that ethical considerations in favor of the technology outweigh the potential abuses.
Therefore proving my point that technology is not independent of ethics. Engineers shouldn't go to work completely oblivious of the uses of the technology they develop.
As for the Second Amendment, most people don't think Iraq's armed forces stands a chance against the US. Do you think your "well-regulated militia" really stands a chance if the US Armed Forces can be turned on its citizens? (IOW, the real safeguard of your liberties comes from the Armed Forces siding with the people in such an event, not with an independent militia.)
Re:open (Score:3, Interesting)
If the US Armed Forces were a group of well trained independent militias, then we would not have that problem at all. If all the money spent on the military were spent by militia members on whatever arms they desired, we would be awful difficult for anyone to invade.
We would also lose the ability to impose our will on other nations militarily. Oh... dear.
Perhaps you think the idea is hairbrained. It might be. But that's what the gun nuts often mean when they talk about the initial goal of the second amendment. It's not the *worst* idea I've ever heard.
Re:open (Score:5, Funny)
The Right To Keep and Bear Arms is about more than target shooting or hunting...
Well, let's get the story straight mister. Either we have the right to Keep And Arm Bears, or we don't.
Re:open (Score:5, Insightful)
So, how's that working out for you?
Check the license for mention of war (Score:5, Insightful)
If a developer doesn't like war, then he better put that in the license. Short of that, he has nothing to complain about.
-B
Re:Check the license for mention of war (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I've leaned more towards a Robert Frost-ish attitude with repsect to defense and the military: good fences make good neighbors. This day and age, a good fence is a capable offensive force. Used to be big walls and a moat and protecting a landbridge. Now it's helicopter and tank simulators.
Personally, I'm all for open source being used for military, as long as the author hasn't specifically proscribed such uses.
Where I think it gets more sticky is if a country like Iraq or Libya or N. Korea (or China?) were using stuff from freshmeat to aid their military. Could the developer be tried for treason? If they didn't explicitly say "Everyone but the following countries can use this software..." or "This software not to be used for military purposes", is that an omission of action which can land them in legal trouble? Remember that in the US you can be put to death for treason during wartime, and aiding the enemy is treason. It sounds far-fetched, but it might not be all that "unpossible" (apologies to George W. on that word).
-B
Re:open (Score:3, Insightful)
1) Nobody actually submitted the story
2) Nobody is actually seriously taking the position that the military shouldn't be able to use Open Source software. The wording of the story lead me to think that's what the interview would lead, but even he doesn't take that position.
What gives?
-Bill
Re:open (Score:3, Funny)
Slow news day + Newsforge needs some traffic.
Re:open (Score:3, Insightful)
A double-edged sword... (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a completely moot issue, but it is good for discussion I suppose. The thing that should not be seen is exclusion clauses from the GPL and other open source licenses. I would hate to see "This software may not be used for military purposes" because that will lead down a path that is more counter-productive. Would you rather have the military and government using open source software or Microsoft?
Code audits are important when using software for military purposes, to ensure that everything is accurate. Whether it's personnel tracking, mission tracking, or simulation software, accuracy is important. Maybe my view is just tainted because I'm finding myself leaning more toward the pro-War campaign...
Re:A double-edged sword... (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, there's this smart bomb heading your way, and then suddenly, instead of killing you, you see the blue screen of death.
Re:A double-edged sword... (Score:3, Informative)
1. Assuming the US bombs Iraq, targeting software is such that if it misses it's target, it would probably land on top of civilians.
2. Targeting software uses neither Open Source nor Microsoft. It is generally designed for proprietary real-time OSen (VxWorks and "home-grown" come to mind).
Re:A double-edged sword... (Score:3, Funny)
I hope you don't watch professional wrestling.
-Bill
Re:A double-edged sword... (Score:4, Informative)
Gotta Love that Bill of Rights.
Secrecy orders and eminent domain (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No ... (Score:3, Insightful)
By omitting the ability for the military, and therein the government, to utilize your code you are causing more damage. The proprietary code is less easily auditable, thereby potentially more buggy causing more destruction. Also, what about the peace keeping portions of the military?
If you write something that can be used for military purposes, and forbid the government on your side from using it and gaining advantage, than what will stop the opposing force from using it without your consent? Fear of a lawsuit... don't think so
This is a bunch of crap. (Score:5, Insightful)
Software is software, open source software shouldn't try to control who uses it (other than stopping someone else for breaking the GPL) or for what purpose.
Al Qaeda is known to use PGP -- Ask Zimmerman (Score:4, Informative)
Quotes from Zimmerman regarding developing technology that might be used by criminals and terrorists: [liquidtodd.com]
By the way, the U.S. Military is not the bad guy here, and by no means do I want anyone to think that I feel that way. Should we go to war, it's our kids that will be the targets of bullets and most likely gas and bio shit, all because in the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s, our elected leaders sowed the seeds of discontent around the world, and ignored the crop.
I hope our military uses whatever they can, however they can, legally. If you have a problem with the war, run for the PTA, the local council, state government, or federal government. Did you remember to vote?
Re:This is a bunch of crap. (Score:3, Insightful)
It *would* be accurate if someone were writing open source missile guidance systems. In that case, you could agrue that you might want a missile guidance system for personal use either as a hobbiest (e.g. for model rocketry) or for hunting purposes (ok, that last one is meant to be funny, but you get the idea).
In fact, that argument currently does not fly in the U.S. You are simply not allowed to put a guidance system on any rocket without very special case permission from the military, which means that model rocketry types cannot make rockets that compensate for conditions, takeoff-and-land, etc.
However, if you're writing an OS, that's more like designing metal shop tools. Yes, those tools can be used to make guns, but I would disagree that we should restrict access to metal shop tools or that those who build them need concern themselves with how they are used. There is a level at which a tool is just a tool, and its function is not "dangerous enough" to restrict the freedom of making or using that tool.
Where you draw that line is, of course, a matter of debate, and you would be better off rhetorically focusing on that rather than specious search-and-replace arguments.
Re:This is a bunch of crap. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Using" a gun as intended does not require firing it in the vast majority of cases.
Is there anything to discuss. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't want to write open source code becasue somebody may use it for evil.
I won't want to work for a corporation because they may exploit someone.
I don't want to sell hammers because someone could hit someone else with it.
Let's face it. If you are doing anything at all productive in society somebody can use that to their benifit in a way that you may not agree with.
Re:Is there anything to discuss. (Score:3, Offtopic)
all or nothing is a cop out (Score:3)
I think this "all or nothing" argument is a cop out, a "reductio ad absurdum" excuse for people who can't or won't consider the potential ramifications of their actions in the world at large.
Everyone, no matter what their position in society or what work they do, has a responsibility to consider how their actions affect other people both in the short and long term. We can no longer afford short-sighted short term thinking -- the earth is too small a place these days.
Furthermore, this comment (and others) don't seem to be based on the content of the articles. (No, I am not new to slashdot! I just haven't let my standards sink to the lowest common denominator. Yet.) The anti-war link to the bluefish site in the original article is a discussion of whether or not to put an anti-war banner on the bluefish, not whether or not to develop code. Anthony L. Awtrey's remarks in the article presents his contrasting opinions in support of military action against Iraq, based in part on his wife's personal experience. Serious public discussion of these issues is what democracy is (supposed to be) all about.
Maybe the prospect of a major war in the Middle East makes you *yawn* but I'm glad to see that not everyone shares this view.
BlackHawk crashes (Score:2)
Interesting licensing idea.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Does anyone know of an OSS license that includes some statement to the effect of: "This software is free for use, redistribution, and modification by any entity for any purpose, as long as any form of it is never used for military purposes." ???
Re:Interesting licensing idea.... (Score:3, Insightful)
It will become a mess if people start adding lines that match their own agendas. "People who kill cannot use this" "People who are gay.." "People who voted bush.." and so on.
Re:Interesting licensing idea.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Does anyone know of an OSS license that includes some statement to the effect of: "This software is free for use, redistribution, and modification by any entity for any purpose, as long as any form of it is never used for military purposes."
No, and that's probably because such a clause would be impossible to define. For example, let's say such a clause was added to Apache.
Would that mean that the Army couldn't host their website on Apache? Probably. Would that mean that Boeing couldn't host their website on Apache? They make both civilian and military products. What about steel importers, who don't know where their product goes? It is reasonable to consider that their product would be used in the war machine, but has significant peacetime uses as well.
Bottom line: if you want to keep control of your code, and be able to dictate what is done with it, you need to keep it closed source. When you Open a door, you don't get to decide who walks in; that's the very reason that doors were invented in the first place.
Oh come on (Score:4, Insightful)
Non-issue ...
Anyone means anyone. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think this faults the developers at all. This is like making knives; you can eat with it or you can butcher with it. The responsibility is up to the user.
Re:Anyone means anyone. (Score:3, Insightful)
Heck, someone can take a pen and write a solution to world hunger or they can take it and jab it in someone's jugular. Everything is a tool that depends on how you're wired. The gun, pen, and knife are not going to get up and hurt someone by themselves, they're neutral, so it's the human decision that is key. The individual is ultimately responsible for itself. And just because all of the above are human manufactured doesn't mean that we wouldn't hurt each other if they did not exist. Hurting each other is what humans do best, and rocks and sticks were around a lot longer than guns.
So will you write a piece of software to wipe out records at a hospital or to revolutionize hospital record-keeping? The ones and zeroes are all alike.
Freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
You can choose not to give it to your enemies, but what's to stop you from arbitrarily dciding that your enemies are everyone except a select few.
There is always a responsibility that goes along with any project you work on - but it will get done with or without you. Ask Oppenheimer or Feynman or Einstein.
obvious response (Score:2)
Open source developper develop according to a licence. If certain uses are not ok with them, they can a licence like java, preventing usage where human life could be endangered (nuclear facilities, medical...).
If they release free software, anybody is free to use and modify it.
Now, placing restriction again use of software by some 'evil' organization, those organisations being, depending of the point of view, Osama bin Laden's crew, or Irak, or the US Army, is no longuer doing free software.
Software licenses (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS is very clear on this, and for those who don't agree with him (which seems to be the latest fad) many others have to.
You should not keep let politics like this get in the way. There was a particular project that released there code under a license that was basically GPL'ed but with a line saying that it was not to be used by terrorists and not to be used to help kill people. RMS really disliked the license, and argued that such lines are impossible to define.
On Socially Responsible Programming (Score:4, Interesting)
give me a break..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Example:
Opensource encryption software can be used to protect liberties and the prying eyes of big government. It can also be used to hide child porn or terrorist activities...
should we abolish the encryption software just because it can be used for evil?
I'd really hate to see a new modified license that restricts use of software based on political bias.
Humane Considerations (Score:5, Insightful)
The outcome of this war is certain. The only question is, how many Iraqis and how many Americans will die in the process? Good software is part of the key to preserving lives on both sides: the sooner the war ends, the fewer lives will be lost; and good software (along with good hardware and good training) will shorten the length of the war.
Finally, consider that the work on government programs won't be used only in Iraq. That's just where we need it at the moment. Should the US find itself fighting North Korea, the same software and hardware and training is going to save lives there as well.
I don't agree with the concept of invading Iraq. But I do believe in saving lives; and I think that contributing to government software efforts will help us toward that end.
Re:Humane Considerations (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't want to go completely off-topic, but I'd like to know why not. I've been looking for somebody, anybody, who could convince me that war is not the best option in this situation. What's your argument?
You don't have to respond here, but if you've got a minute, come post a reply in any of my journal articles. I'm really interested in hearing what you have to say.
Re:Humane Considerations (Score:3, Insightful)
The United States invaded a neighbor country, started a war, launched ballistic missiles in unprovoked attacks against a non-combatant neighbor, and ultimately got it's butt kicked by a coalition of allies led by the Iraq. Consequently, the United States has been ordered to disarm by the United Nations, and has spent the past twelve years refusing to do so.
Nope. Doesn't work.
I am soooo sick... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention which this won't be a war as we are used to thinking of them. Casualties in the Gulf War were very low, and I can't imagine this being much different. As you say, the military considers minimization of collateral damage to be a top priority. The concept of there being 100,000 civilian deaths (I've heard someone say it) is FUD.
Not to mention which, programmers aren't experts on military matters. This is scarcely better than Susan Sarandon et al spouting off about the war. Yes, they have a right to free speech, but I'm not exactly going to let a moron actor change my views easily. Nor a programmer, just because he won't let the military use his crappy program.
Shifting arguments and red herrings (Score:3, Informative)
Great conspiracy theory. You chase UFO's too? There don't have to be al Queda *IN* Iraq for Iraq to *collaborate* with them toward a common end. Yes, bin Laden has condemned Iraq as a secular nation, but that doesn't mean they both don't consider us enemy #1 - and therefore willing to work together. Your assumption that "we would have already invaded" doesn't fly.
Blaming Clinton, the typical republican excuse, doesn't carry any water. Clinton inherited the situation from Bush Sr. His excuse wasn't "humanitarian," but "no UN mandate" for a regiem change. Just like we have now.
Carries a lot of water. Yeah, the UN was weak - but had Clinton done something about it in '92 when Saddaam sensed weakness and started blocking inspectors, we wouldn't have the problem we have today. At that point, the coalition was strong, he could have more easily pressured the UN, and there was more momentum toward disarming Iraq at the time. But what did he do? Jack shit. So he has to carry a lot of the weight for the problem, because he could have influenced the UN but he didn't even try. Put it this way - you can't blame Bush Jr. for not solving the problem without blaming Clinton at least as much. You could contend that neither is at fault at best an dblame the weak UN instead.
The problem [terrorism] isn't one of government, its one of culture. We do for the House of Saud what we did for Japan after WWII. We park several armored divisions in downtown Mecca and change the culture with blue jeans, VCRs and constitutional government. To that end, Hussein could be an asset, as he already oversees a secular government and a fairly westernized society.
You're being a bit generous with "fairly westernized" - they don't seem to have any of the characteristics unless you consider a military dictator as opposed to a religious dictator "western." I don't care how you define the problem, you have yet to advocate ANY solution. Unfortunately, Saddaam isn't as likely as the house of Saud to let our tanks in. And as for constitutional government in Saudi Arabia - did I miss something?
So he's used them in his own country's military actions. Big deal. To date, they havn't been used in *any* terrorist act.
And you don't have to be a damned genius to realize that if he'll use them on his own people, he'll use them on anyone else. As for whether they've been used in any terrorist act yet...do you want to wait? Want another 9/11?
Box cutters and ammonium nitrate seem to do the trick for most terrorists. We should be focusing our resources on that.
Yeah, and we are. For one, box cutters will never work again - didn't even work on the fourth plane. And there are only so many people you can kill with ammonium nitrate/diesel oil bombs, as they're pretty crude. And since Oklahoma City, ammonium nitrate (and other oxidizers) are HIGHLY controlled.
Bottom line - you criticize the planned war. OK, I wouldn't necessarily disagree with the conclusion, but your arguments against it are...what? Claims of conspiracies and fabricated evidence? That's ridiculously lame. Go with the cost, ($100b) if anything. Go with the slippery slope argument - basically, that getting rid of *just* Iraq won't work without Syria, etc. Or fear of the scorched-earth policy that Saddaam will likely follow if deposed. Or power-vacuum theory. You have so many choices, don't go with the shitty argument. Do realize, though, that an anti-war stance ultimately admits that we have effectively no hope of stopping terrorism, as its sources will go unchecked. You have no alternative solution, the UN has done *absolutely* nothing - so, again, other than *living* with terrorism, which I don't find particularly attractive, what do we do other than destroy all regimes that support it?
Re:Shifting arguments and red herrings (Score:3, Interesting)
You're describing a conspiracy between Queda and Iraq that has *zero* evidence to support it. Who's chasing UFOs?
Your assumption that "we would have already invaded" doesn't fly.
By "doesn't fly" do you mean "established a precedent in Afghanistan, Yemen and the Philipine Islands?" Did we get UN approval to destroy Queda in those areas?
So don't tell me we need it in Iraq. If Powells pictures of "Queda" bases were really bases, we would have destroyed them already. It's what we do everywhere else.
Yeah, the UN was weak - but had Clinton done something about it in '92 when Saddaam sensed weakness and started blocking inspectors, we wouldn't have the problem we have today.
What problem? The problem is terrorists flying airliners into buildings. Iraq hasn't been part of that.
Put it this way - you can't blame Bush Jr. for not solving the problem without blaming Clinton at least as much.
And we can follow that logic right up to Bush Sr.
You're being a bit generous with "fairly westernized" - they don't seem to have any of the characteristics unless you consider a military dictator as opposed to a religious dictator "western."
Besides Turkey, the most westernized nation in the region is Iraq. There is a strong seperation of church and state. They do not have the religious prohibitions that you see in the Saudi states relating to many things western. You see western style clothing, food, and entertainment.
That it's run by a military dictatorship has no bearing whatsoever on whether it is a westernized culture.
And you don't have to be a damned genius to realize that if he'll use them on his own people, he'll use them on anyone else.
This is pure bullshit. History shows otherwise. He could have used them during Gulf War I, but didn't. No terrorist attacks have used Iraqi WMD, or Iraqi's, for that matter. He's used them to suppres insurgents in Iraq, and against Iran. Iran used them too. Thats it. "He could use them anywhere" is pure conspiracy theory.
Yeah, and we are. For one, box cutters will never work again - didn't even work on the fourth plane. And there are only so many people you can kill with ammonium nitrate/diesel oil bombs, as they're pretty crude.
So show me the bodies. Show me the mountain of dead killed by terrorists using Iraqi WMD. You can't. I can show you the mountain of bodies killed with conventional explosives, though.
Want another 9/11?
Perhaps you could detail exactly what WMD and Iraqi's were involved in 9/11. The whole point is that destroying Iraq ISN'T GOING TO PREVENT ANOTHER 9/11. You don't have to be a damn genious to see that.
And since Oklahoma City, ammonium nitrate (and other oxidizers) are HIGHLY controlled.
I can walk into a feed store and buy ammonium nitrate fertilizer by the bag right now.
Claims of conspiracies and fabricated evidence?
The only claims of conspiracy are those that come from those who think Bin Laden is hiding out in Saddam's closet. This whole war is desperate dog wagging. If Queda were in Iraq, we'd be in Iraq right now. We've established that already. We did it in Afghanastan, Yemen, and we're about to do it in the PI. Those are the facts. The only conclusion we can make about our farting around with the UN regarding Iraq is that Queda isn't there.
But we knew that.
And who uses Open Source is an issue now? (Score:5, Insightful)
How many web sites are serving child porn use this as their server?
How many IRC servers have anti-abortion protesters chatting about where to bomb or shoot next?
How many emacs clients have been used to write threatening letters?
Has email ever been used to perprate a crime of any kind?
How many people point to encryption, and state that even the bad guys should be allowed to use it, so privacy is maintained?
So, you disagree witha policy of the US, and now you're thinking about dropping the whole idea of free. How pleasant.
Re:And who uses Open Source is an issue now? (Score:5, Funny)
He's right, you know. And I, for one, am 100% behind the movement to lock away all emacs users. Bloody savages...
the twist (Score:4, Funny)
Politics and OSS software (a la Iraq war) (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's keep politics out of the code. "Once you go down that dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny...." or something like that.
Re:Open now doesn't mean open forever (Score:3, Informative)
We are very careful not to incorporate GPL code into products for military use. BSD libraries get thrown into military simulators all the time. So do LGPL ones (according to normal procedures).
If someone did start pulling GPL code into military products, it's quite likely that one of the many contractors who code for the Pentagon will blow the whistle on it (particularly if the violation was committed by someone from a competing corporation).
I know I would, and many of my colleagues feel the same way. It might be only a minority that cares about this- most are happy to stick with either Microsoft.NET or 20 year old FORTRAN/Ada programs- but enough contracting coders as GPL sympathizers to make the risk of infringment too big for the Pentagon to ignore.
And yes, they have thought about these topics [egovos.org].
They keep it within their organization, it is theirs.
That might be technically true, but it's irrelevant, and easily misinterpreted as meaningful. If somehow, by random chance, it stays in the organization, then they're fine. But if they instruct any of the members of the organization not to send copies to outsiders, then they have just violated the GPL.
Now, since the Pentagon has around 1 million employees (depending on how you count), software that it owns may sometimes seem like open source, as a huge number of people are allowed to see and modify it. Sometimes this behavior is formalized (for instance, this webpage [google.com] used to collect patches for a military simulation product. But it seems to have been recently discontinued). But the Pentagon cannot just grab GPL code and wildly send modified versions to every single enlisted man. (They'd like to do this- Qt [trolltech.com] in particular has been turned down for inclusion in several military projects, because we can't get by the GPL licensing)
I have no problems... (Score:5, Funny)
as long as they...
don't call me a terrorist.
Open Source and Nations (Score:3, Insightful)
This would appear to some to make Open Source a security risk, but it isn't necessarily so. To play in the open source game, you have to be a contributor. So you need to be a nation that develops people with strong technical skills and keeps them. You also have to allow those people access to other people around the world in order to share ideas.
Saddam Hussein may get some benefit from Open Source, in that it gives him software that is free distributable. However, I would imagine it's rather difficult attracting and retaining technical talent in a regime as oppressive as his. In short, despots may be able to use Open Source software, but they'd have a hard time leveraging it fully without free and open communication with the rest of the world.
It's also further proof of the interdependence of developed countries upon each other.
A debate on this matter should happen. (Score:4, Insightful)
I have given a lot of thought about the issue of whether I want the military of any nation to use the software I create to mutilate the lives of other people. I obviously do not want this, and I would love to have a debate about having a software license that explicitly forbids this use.
As the previous poster pointed out, once you go down this path, some people might not like X, or Y, and impose further restrictions, but this is not too different from where we are today.
There is a line to be drawn, and I would very much like to hear people's opinions on what is an acceptable line to draw, and where to draw it.
As you might expect, I consider the war being promoted against Iraq to be immoral. The spin for this war has gone through a number of phases, and it has yet to click. Alarming how easily the population can be manipulated through fear.
Miguel.
open source and... (Score:5, Informative)
A related quote, on the selective enforcement of laws:
Not a free software issue (Score:3, Interesting)
The question of intellectual property is entirely beside the point. I remember that, when downloading Oracle for Linux, I was required to fill out an HTML form affirming that I would not use the product for the development of nuclear weapons. Somehow, I have a hard time picturing Saddam Hussein or Kim Jong Il saying, "Well, shit. I can't use Oracle for my clandestine nuclear program because of this license. I guess I'll have to use MySQL instead." The same is true of commercial software. Does anyone believe an export license (or for that matter, a licensing fee) would stop anyone from either purchasing a boxed copy in the US or Europe or just downloading a copy from alt.binaries.warez.ibm-pc? If you don't want your code to be misused, don't release it. If you release it, it eventually, inevitably will be misused.
Several years ago, I completed work on a library and set of tools for textual- and communication-traffic analysis. Among the things you could do with the tools was determining authority relationships between people in an organization on the basis of the patterns of their email communications. Another interesting application, which I tested with a full non-binaries Usenet feed, was a surprisingly effective system for determining the political affiliation of posters on the basis of their non-political postings. (For the curious, I used a sample group of 1,000 posters who made consistent ideological posts to political newsgroups as well as non-political posts to non-political newsgroups.) The accuracy rate over a six month period approached 95%.
Concluding that such code could be used by governments to track political dissidents, I was reluctant to release the code. Once John Ashcroft and John Poindexter appeared on the scene, I destroyed the source. This was probably pointless, as the algorithms being used are well-understood -- only the particular combination of algorithms was novel -- and the NSA probably has similar software written by much smarter guys than me, but when my own government, much less foreign tyrants, is arresting people without charges and holding them incommunicado in undisclosed locations, I didn't want to be responsible for contributing to the next round of political arrests.
Contrary to what the above seems to imply, I don't think inventors ought to be held responsible for the misuse of their inventions. I do think that inventors ought to be held responsible for failing to consider the potential consequences of misuse, however. In my case, I decided the potential benefits were outweighed by the potential abuses and decided not to release. Ultimately, that's all you can do if you are concerned about abuses, for the simple reason that the people who are likely to abuse your code are not going to be stopped by legal fictions like the GPL, copyrights, patents, or anything less substantial than the barrel of a gun.
Source for War (Score:5, Funny)
#include
#include
#include
int main()
{
cout "Attack!" endl;
while ((War==True) && (!Over_And_We_All_Go_Home_Heros))
{
Bomb();
}
return 0;
}
Define military uses... (Score:3, Interesting)
for the sake of argument, let's say you can ban the military from using open source. what about those linux clusters that help break "bad guy" encryption, or the clusters they use to similate any number of things including nuclear weapon blasts. would you rather we go back to dropping nuks on remote south pacific islands?
how about this...i'm in the US Air Force. does that mean i can't run linux on all my machines in my dorm room? i know it's a stretch, but i do live on a military base and use my computers to contact people in my office regarding work (unclassified of course). couldn't that be taken as "use by the government"? what about a previous posters thought of saying "can't be downloaded for use by members of the military"?
-frozen
Come on guys... (Score:3, Insightful)
If on the other hand, your software is a political platform for your views and you think that's more important than Free Software (or Open Source Software, depending on your leaning), then go ahead and add the restrictions. I won't use your software since I find software that pretends to be Free while throwing in lots of additional random restrictions to be much more distasteful than straightforward, honest commercial software.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:4, Informative)
open source doesn't mean gpl (Score:4, Insightful)
i'd be vaguely disturbed if something i wrote went toward killing people, but how you deal with that as a developer would be your choice. ultimately you can't control how people use your code once you release it. after all, the government could choose to ignore his "CUL (civil use license)" and who could stop them? who's to say that windows xp doesn't contain half the linux kernel in it? theft is one advantage of having the closed end of a closed source program.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh no!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Oh crap...the thought of my software being used to kill Iraqi children is just too much to bear...[sob]
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, software under such a license would cease to be Free Software, as it would restrict Freedom 0. [gnu.org] Such a piece of software would also not be free under the DFSG [debian.org] either.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now you taint the ability for Governments to switch to linux and escape the Microsoft licenses propogating less freedom in the world.
Congratulations on helping destroy the goal of Free software. I only hope no one uses your projects anyway. Open your eyes to the big picture.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:3, Interesting)
As I read it, the GPL is politically neutral. it doesn't matter if you are a liberal, conservative, dicatator or saint, you have the same rights, and you can't take away those rights from others that use your code.
Its about bonified equality of use. It doesn't presume use, good or evil. The goal, it would seem, is to allow everyone to freely use the software to achieve their goals.
To put these "no war" use limitations is not only silly and purely politically motivated (its not anti-war, its anti-Bush. Even Sheryl Crow was doing USO tours in Bosnia when Clinton was in office, and now wears anti-military shirts. Hypocrite). Then its a matter of interpretation. What if the Govt. wanted to use it in the Bosnian conflict. Was that a war, a police action, or a rescue of Muslims from Christians? Depends on who you ask.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Next guy doesn't like the military, the government, corporations or any incorporated businesses. So he restricts usage to all of them.
The next person doesn't like homosexuals or mexicans and restricts the usage from them.
Lets not start a vicious cycle, keep free software free for everyone. Period.
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right"
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:3, Insightful)
Will you change your license if you happen to agree with a specific war? For example, what if a foreign country's military was actively killing your neighbors and/or family?
--sex [slashdot.org]
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:4, Insightful)
But wait... there is more... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hello, McFly? If you want to kill open-source, start adding weird and useless conditions until you have a EULA like Microsoft. "The military can't use it," "You can't use this software if the company produces carbon-based pollution," "You can't use this software if you are involved in cutting down rainforests," "You can't use this software if you used a car to get to work today," "You can't use this software if you |insert liberal activist agenda here|."
Free software is free software. If you're going to start putting conditions on who can and can't use it you might as well remove the word "free" and just call it "Discrimination-promoting software."
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:3, Funny)
1. You owe all of the grand technology you wrote your comment on to the US military. All of the cool stuff we work on and use personally with regards to Internet communications was developed, in part, by the military. They make good stuff.
2. So what if the military uses the code? I'm not about to sling around the T-word (begins and ends with 'T', favorite word of Ashcroft), but c'mon. Might that be a little reactionary to prohibit the group that protects our freedoms from employing your work to protect more of our freedoms? It's the politicians, not the military, that suck.
3. Two words: emminent domain.
4. If you think for a split second that some silly clause in an open software license is going to stop the US mililtary, or that if you managed to prove it, you could sue them successfully, you need to stop huffing gasoline.
I don't mean this to come off as a troll (it's a passionate disagreement), but just 'cause it's military don't mean it's bad. Lighten up, folks.
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:5, Insightful)
One might also have to define what one means by military. Do I voilate the clause by using your software while I go to college funded by my GI Bill benefits? If I work for a police station and martial law is declared, am I all of a sudden not allowed to use my software because the Army is in control? What if I develop a great software program that is then used as a weapon? Does that mean that the product is illegitmate because I used your source for a program that became a weapon somewhere down the line?
Using a military restriction seems more throuble than its worth. If your really against the military, there are other more productive things you can do.
PFC Gruhn
US Army, Fort Lewis
"Serve and Sustain"
Re:Not with my source codes! (Score:3, Insightful)
Well you are certainly within your right to do so (assuming that a parent license does not prohibit further restrictions), but is that the best thing to do?
As other posters have mentioned, not only does restricting Government/military use of Open Source software encourage them to seek out closed-source options but have you considered a scenario where your country's military might need something you have created in an operation you do support?
The "military" doesn't just mean the infantry, armor and artillery types...it also includes some sectors of homeland defense and disaster relief. Some aspects of military research can directly benefit the public (bioterrorism defense research, for instance). And where exactly would the Coast Guard fit in?
Software can be used for both good and bad purposes. If a tool can do more good than harm, why place restrictions on where it could possibly do good?
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:4, Funny)
It's called a hockey game
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you have it all wrong. It's not that Americans believe every muslim is a terroist, rather it's Americans believe that every terrorist is a muslim. HUGE difference there and I still can't figure out why I don't see muslim leaders around the world standing up against terrorism.
Why Iraq and not North Korea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why Iraq and not North Korea... (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Tally ho.
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:3, Interesting)
Short answer: we're still trying to end the Gulf War. The long answer is going to have to start with a history lesson. I hope you'll take the time to read it, and to understand.
On August 2, 1990, Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait. That same day, the United Nations Security Council (UNSEC) adopted resolution 660, demanding that Iraq withdraw its forces immediately and unconditionally to the positions they were in on August 1.
Between August 6 and November 28, UNSEC adopted 12 resolutions on the problem, finally adopting resolution 678 on November 29. Resolution 678 authorized UNSEC member states, in particular the US-led Allied Coalition, to use "all necessary means" to enforce the will of the Security Council if Iraq refused to comply by January 15.
Iraq didn't comply. There was a war. On February 27, 1991, the US-led Coalition announced a unilateral, temporary cease-fire to discuss with Iraq the terms of a permanent, formal cease-fire and an end to the war. On March 2, UNSEC adopted resolution 686, which recognized the temporary cease-fire and called on Iraq to accept the Coalition's terms. On March 3, Iraq agreed to the terms, and the formal cease-fire was signed on April 6. On April 8, UNSEC adopted resolution 687 which called on Iraq, as a condition of the cease-fire, to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless, under international supervision, of all chemical and biological weapons... [and] all ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 kilometres." Resolution 687 also establised a United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) and tasked them with verifying-- not enforcing, but verifying-- Iraq's compliance.
Almost immediately, Iraq began to defy the will of UNSEC and the Allied Coalition. On August 15, 1991, UNSEC adopted resolution 707 in which they "condemn[ed] Iraq's serious violation of a number of its obligations under section C of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq provide full, final and complete disclosure... of all aspects of its programmes," "allow the Special Commission, the IAEA and their Inspection Teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access," "cease immediately any attempt to conceal, or any movement or destruction of any material or equipment," and so on. If these demands sound familiar, they should. We've been making them since 1991.
For the next five years, UNSCOM tried in vain to verify Iraq's compliance. On June 12, 1996, UNSEC adopted resolution 1060, which "deplore[d] the refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On June 21, 1997, UNSEC adopted resolution 1115, which "condemn[ed] the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access," and "demand[ed] that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission." On October 23 of the same year, they did it again with resolution 1134. Then again on November 12 with resolution 1137.
On August 5, 1998, Iraq announced that they intended to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM. A month later, on September 9, UNSEC adopted resolution 1194, in which they "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq," accused Iraq of "a totally unacceptable contravention of its obligations," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind its above-mentioned decision and cooperate fully with the Special Commission."
On October 31, Iraq formally ceased cooperation with UNSCOM. On November 5, UNSEC adopted resoltuion 1205, which "condemn[ed] the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation with the Special Commission," accused Iraq once more of "a flagrant violation of resolution 687," and "demand[ed] that Iraq rescind immediately and unconditionally the decision of 31 October 1998, as well as the decision of 5 August 1998."
On November 11, the UN withdrew its staff from Iraq. The US-led Allied Coalition began planning an operation to be called "Desert Fox." The mission of the operation would be to strike Iraqi targets from the air with the goal of reducing Iraq's ability to pursue weapons of mass destruction and to threaten its neighbors, and to demonstrate to Iraq the consequences of further defiance. On November 14, with B-52 bombers in the air and within 20 minutes of striking their targets, Saddam Hussein agreed to let inspectors back in. On December 8, UNSCOM executive director Richard Butler reported that Iraq was still not complying, and ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.
On December 16, 1998, the Allied Coalition launched Operation Desert Fox. For four days, Coalition aircraft struck Iraqi military targets and targets related to Iraqi WMD programs. The strikes continued for four days, ending on the first day of the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. On the last day of the strikes, Iraq's resolve was unshaken, and they declared that UNSCOM would never be allowed back into their country.
The correct course of action at this point would have been to follow up the limited air strikes with an all-out air campaign, followed immediately by invasion from all fronts and the forced disbanding of the Baath party and government. Unfortunately, the United States and the rest of the Allied Coalition lacked the political will to carry out such a massive military campaign at that time. The events of 9/11, however, served to galvanize American and Allied political will.
In 1999, however, that was not the case. On December 17, 1999, UNSEC adopted resolution 1284 which created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC) to carry out UNSCOM's mandate, deciding that "UNMOVIC will undertake the responsibilities mandated to the Special Commission by the Council with regard to the verification of compliance by Iraq with its obligations under paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of resolution 687."
Finally, on September 16, 2002, after a series of failed negotiations, Iraq agreed to allow UNMOVIC inspectors into their country. Their goal, as stated in a letter from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, was "to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction." On October 1, 2002, Iraq and UNMOVIC/IAEA agreed on the terms for the return of the inspectors.
On November 8, 2002, UNSEC adopted resolution 1441, which declared that Iraq "has been and remains in material breach of its obligations," offered Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations," demanded that Iraq provide to UNMOVIC" a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes," declared that "false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq... shall constitute a further material breach," and, finally, stated "that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations." On November 13, 2002, Iraq agreed to accept the terms of resolution 1441, saying, "We hereby ask you to inform the Security Council that we are prepared to receive the inspectors within the assigned timetable." The letter of acceptance, from Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs Naji Sabri, was filled with paranoid ramblings of great length and creativity, accusing the United States of "the biggest and most wicked slander against Iraq," and stridently declaring that claims that Iraq has produced chemical and biological weapons were "fabrications" and "baseless." It's a fascinating read, and it's available on line here [foxnews.com].
On December 7, 2002, Iraq delivered a 12,000 page dossier on its weapons programs in which it declared that it has no weapons of masss destruction at all. On December 19, Dr. Hans Blix, head of UNMOVIC, reported that the declaration was incomplete, and left many questions unanswered. Since that time, it has been determined that the declaration was not merely incomplete, but inaccurate as well. On January 27, 2003, Dr. Blix said in his report to UNSEC, "Regrettably, the 12,000 page declaration, most of which is a reprint of earlier documents, does not seem to contain any new evidence that would eliminate the questions or reduce their number. Even Iraq?s letter sent in response to our recent discussions in Baghdad to the President of the Security Council on 24 January does not lead us to the resolution of these issues." He then went on to give some examples: Iraq has claimed that they only produced VX nerve agent on a pilot scale. UNMOVIC has information, including documents produced by Iraq, that contradicts this claim. Iraq declared that 19,500 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988. An Iraqi Air Force document uncovered by UNMOVIC indicates that the correct number is 13,000. Iraq has refused to reconcile this difference of 6,500 chemical weapons. The list goes on and on.
That brings us, more or less, up to the present date. For the past twelve years, Iraq has been repeatedly reminded that they are required, under the terms of the 1991 cease-fire agreement, to voluntarily and unilaterally disarm. They have refused to do so.
Acting under the mandate of resolution 678 of November 29, 1991, the US, as a member of UNSEC, has the legal authority to use "all necessary means" to force Iraq to comply with UN resolutions. The Allied Coalition attempted to do so in 1998 with limited strikes on military targets, but to no avail. Iraq continues, even in the face of further military action, to defy the Coalition and the Security Council. We have reached the point where we can no longer hold onto the hope that sanctions, strongly worded resolutions, or limited military strikes might convince Iraq to comply. We have reached the point where the only realistic hope for an end to this conflict lies in the destruction of the Baath government and the establishment of a democratic regime.
I hope this answers your question.
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:3, Insightful)
No - That's the way their manipulative rulers have caused it to evolve.
One cannot judge a culture qualitatively or through comparisons. More often than not , cultures are there in the first place because they serve the needs of the society in that area - the needs differ from place to place.
True, however do you not believe that humans everywhere should have certain fundamental rights? Such as the freedom of speech, the freedom to assemble peacefully, or the freedom to elect their own leaders? I think they should.
Re:muslims are all evil! (Score:4, Insightful)
Agreed, seeing every city in the world with the same ideals that we honour in democratic nations would be nice. But we should also understand that Any change should come from within the country - not forced upon externally.
I would be the happiest to see American Culture as a whole being adopted throughout the world through its inherent power and influence (which is happening to a lots of places in the world btw) - not because of its military muscle.
Re:Typical OSS mushy thinking (Score:3, Insightful)
Funny. I didn't get my business going and manage to create something successful until I told everyone else I wasn't going to keep doing everything the way everybody else was going to do it and that I was going to to it my way and the way I thought it should be done.
Within a year I had a steady income where the checks (and the dates they came in) was more reliable than some jobs I've had.
Sometimes the only way you can succeed is to do things exactly your way. I've never found success when I didn't put those two paths together.
Re:Because if the US military... (Score:5, Informative)
Now, I know the use of "unilateral war" is a great rhetoric-filled way to drum up opposition for the action, but, well... it's a falsehood. Try again?
Re:I guess I'm slow (Score:3, Insightful)
If the US does have *proof* of what the US alleges, it should be brought to the attention of the allies. If whatever evidence the US can present isn't convincing enough to sway allies, then it isn't enough to go to war. Going to war without the support of the allies and against the desires of the allies is bad. *If* Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction, they sure as hell can't do anything with them right now under the scrutiny of the world. The US can afford to be patient in this matter.
It is *really* hard to believe anything the US government puts out about this issue. It is clear, the US are going to attack very soon, disregarding the position of all of its allies, disregarding the protests of the people. Iraq *knows* this, and is now faced with two options:
1) Destroy the missles, make themselves look good and appease most of the U.N. In doing so, making themselves weaker, and the US will attack anyway, because they don't give a damn.
2) Keep the missles. Piss off more of UN. Face more opponents in a war. Come out looking bad and beaten.
They cannot win in this situation. Hussein requests a internationally televised debate between him and Bush. Bush refuses to take it seriously. Why the hell not? No matter what Bush thinks, he should at least give the *appearance* he is interested in letting both sides be known and letting the people see them. If Bush's convicitons are right, why should he fear a debate? He certainly cannot claim the matter is too insignificant, it is a very critical issue for the whole world.
Also, saying explicitly that no matter how many protest in the US, he will not be swayed is boneheaded. The president is supposed to represent and accomodate the will of the people. If 60% of the people protested and he refuses to be swayed, he wouldn't be fulfilling his duty.
And if it is truly about getting rid of a dangerous tyrant, why the *hell* are they ignoring N. Korea, saying they are innocuous? Even if Iraq has weapons, they lack the delivery capability. N. Korea seems to have the capability to strike US Soil, and they make it public knowledge and make repeated threats. The US response comes off as 'Oh that silly N. Korea, they're harmless, ignore their nukes and delivery capacity, now Iraq, they are dangerous, they *might* have a warhead.. somewhere.... maybe... let's go attack iraq and liberate the iraqi oil... err people!'
*Maybe* the US military has good reason and evidence for an assault, I wouldn't doubt it. But even if they do have right on their side, they sure as hell are not handling it in a manner that looks good in the eyes of the world. Don't withold evidence. At least *pretend* to participate some in peaceful approaches to the issue (i.e. debate). Act consistantly towards threats (don't ignore N. Korea if your sole justification for war is to pre-empt aggressive nations.)
I know, Saddam and his regime isn't good. I know they are likely lying about a lot of things. But the US *cannot* just pretend the rest of the world's opinion and view does not matter. Everyone knows that ultimately this is about getting oil so those SUVs can keep on wasting that gas. If they treated N. Korea the same way and at least appeared to participate in peaceful, diplomatic approaches, the US would look a lot better.