Major Strike on Iraq Underway 2574
The major news sources are reporting that much larger scale attacks are now underway in Iraq. Here is CNNs story. Pentagon officials have confirmed that this is "A-day" for war, presumably the so called "Shock & Awe" mentioned by the White House earlier. In other words, it starts now. Update: 18:01 GMT by CT : Iraq has apparently ordered
CNN out of Baghdad.
Updates as events warrant.
Oh brother... (Score:4, Funny)
Or maybe "puttin' the smack down on Saddam" for the WWE fans.
Re:Oh brother... (Score:5, Insightful)
except that this is really the WWE equivalent of The Rock beating on a retarded 11 year old kid. If it has to be done, get it over with but please don't brag about it, and don't hype it up as if the outcome were in question.
Re:Oh brother... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh brother... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the war needs to be won quickly and decisively. No, we don't need to brag about it, but at the same time it's not anything to be ashamed of.
Also, if you replace "retarded 11 year old kid" with "neighborhood bully", then it might be more accurate. When I was growing up, we had a bully, too. One day he was in the midst of beating the crap out of my brother when the bully's older brother came out and beat the crap out of HIM. "How's it feel to get beat up? How's it feel to have someone bigger than YOU beat you up?" He didn't bully us for a good long while after that. (And ever notice that the people who scream and yell about the US being a big bully are the people that.. well.. we don't allow to bully their own people either? See Serbia, etc).
You know you've taken an analogy too far when... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh brother... (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree.. It sounds like a name for a japanese product with en english name to sound 'hip'. They might as weel have named it "the super terrific 100% bombing ocurrence!".
It's a fucking war, and CNN sounds like they're about to show the good part of the movie.
(and I have a new signature ;)
funny... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember...the anticipation of an event is often enough to get you completely worked up. Try being told a 20mile carravan of tanks is coming at you, and they're 50 miles away. I'd be thinking 'surrender', wouldn't you?
--trb
Re:funny... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's more exciting to see everything as the events unfold, but you'd have to be stupid to think you're going to get anything near a complete or accurate picture of what's going on.
It takes years until documents are unclassifed, interviews can be done, military personnel retire, etc. and then a few more years for a good writer to digest it and put it into a good book.
The truth will come out sooner or later, and eventually some one will put it into a coherent package. Don't look for it on live television...
Are you sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
On the TV Bagdad looks pretty quiet...
Re:Are you sure? (Score:4, Funny)
Unless the US military hired one hell of a special effects crew, I'd say they are currently pummeling the crap out of Bagdad.
Re:Are you sure? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Are you sure? (Score:4, Insightful)
"On the TV Bagdad looks pretty quiet..." (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's true. Barring some particular international treaties, the mere possession of these weapons is not illegal, and not just cause for waging war.
However, Iraq invaded Kuwait, and during the war to expel them, they fired ballistic missiles on Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. It was decided, when discussing the terms of a cease-fire that could end the war, that in order to "restore peace and security to the area" (the UN's words) Iraq would have to be disarmed of some specific classes of weapons.
It's just like losing your driver's license. If you get picked up for DUI, you might have your driver's license revoked. You did something wrong, and therefore the authority with jurisidiction over you has decided that you have to give up your license. Along comes the bailiff to take your license from you.
"But that's not fair," you respond. "The bailiff still has a driver's license! He drives even more than I do! Where does he get off trying to take my license from me?!"
It's the same situation. Iraq did something wrong (started a war), and therefore the authority with jurisdiction over Iraq (the UN) decided that Iraq had to give up its weapons. Iraq refused, for twelve long years, to give up their weapons. So along comes the bailiff (the Alliance) to take away their weapons from them.
Does that clear it up any?
Re:Are you sure? (Score:5, Insightful)
ah, the american double standard at work. when un's "authority and jurisdiction" are convenient they are quoted. when they are inconveneint, they are ignored. the war which the u.s. is engaging in right now is not sanctioned by the u.n. your "baliff" is not a cop, enforcing the law, but just a guy with a gun taking the law into his own hands. in real democracies we have a word for people like that: criminals.
the bottom line is this. you do not know that iraq has these so-called weapons of mass destruction. the inspectors found some old and empty containers. that is the extent of the proof. on the pretext of this "proof" the united states is waging a war against the wishes of the united nations and without the support of many of your so-called allies.
here's the real analogy: you got a dui 12 years ago. yesterday you were pulled over at a checkstop and blew negative - so now some guy with a gun (not a baliff or a cop, just some guy with a gun) shoots you in the stomach.
the united states is not concerned about peace int he middle east... hell they propped up hussein in the eighties to wage proxy war on iran! they are not concerned about the "people of iraq" (except when convenient for public relations). you will notice that the "people of iraq" were never mentioned until two weeks ago and the people of myanmar, east timor and zaire are never mentioned (the afformentioned countries having no resources the u.s. wants, the people are worthless). the united states is only concerned about one thing: securing iraqi oil for american capitalism.
Anything good on TV? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anything good on TV? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Anything good on TV? (Score:5, Funny)
More info at this blog... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More info at this blog... (Score:4, Informative)
http://dear_raed.blogspot.com/
apparently the "_" is taken out by
It starts NOW? (Score:5, Funny)
In other words, it starts now.
Then can someone please tell me what all that bombing we did on Weds. was for? Was that like the pregame show?
Watch it live on CNN... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Watch it live on CNN... (Score:5, Insightful)
"'It would appear that the United States has launched a military acion against Libya,' shouted Glass, trying to sound grave. But you could hear the boyish enthusiasm creeping into his voice the way it always does when a reporter manages to get himself right smack-dab in the middle of something god-awful."
Re:Wargasm... (Score:5, Informative)
It does not describe "this level of intereste bordering on the creepily ecstatic", as you describe. What you are seeing is many orders of magnitude smaller than Kahn's "wargasm".
He was at a briefing of the Pentagon's nuclear war plan in the early days of the Cold War. Apparently the idea of a limited exchange hadn't occured to anyone yet and some of the more subtle nuclear strategies (many that Kahn himself developed or popularized) hadn't been thought of. The Pentagon's only plan was for a full nuclear exchange with the Soviets. But if the U.S. and the Soviets nuked each other (along with Europe and their other allies) out of existence, then that would leave Red China as the dominant power in the world. Since we couldn't very well have that, then we had to nuke the ChiComs, too. So the war plan Kahn was presented with basically said that regardless of who started it, we were nuking the Soviets, the Red Chinese, and all of their allies with everything we had. Empty the silos and launch all the bombers. After the briefing a shocked Herman Kahn supposedly said "Gentlemen, you don't have a 'War Plan', you have a 'Wargasm.'" Later, of course, our responses got much more sophisiticated than just All or Nothing. I highly recommend Kahn's books _Thinking_About_the_Unthinkable_ and _Thinking_About_the_Unthinkable_in_the_1980s_ on the subject.
I am amazed when various social commentators claim that kids today have so much stress and so much to worry about. I was only around for the last couple of decades of the Cold War, but I don't see how the stress of AIDS or School Violence or even Terrorists with WMDs can be worse than the idea that not just you and your family, but your entire civilization could be destroyed.
Something scary (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Watch it live on CNN... (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that the fire-fighters actually fight the fire, and the soldiers actually fight the war. The journalist is just there to take pictures and write a story about the fire or war.
Because of this, a fire-fighter hopes for a small, contained fire; a soldier hopes for a short, limited war. The journalist's interests are exactly opposite. The bigger the fire or bloodier the war, the better the story and the higher the ratings. I think Don Henley summed up this phenomenon well: "We got the bubbleheaded bleach-blonde comes on at five, She can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye, It's interesting when people die, Give us dirty laundry."
It doesn't make them bad people.
Any more than Necrotizing Fasciitis [diseaseworld.com] is a "bad" bacteria.
Shock and Awe (Score:5, Funny)
CNN should implement a karma system for their reporters:
- Overused phrases (-1 Troll)
- Actual real new info (+1 Informative)
Be free to come up with better ideas.
Before you complain about this story... (Score:4, Insightful)
To the third group: Why are you reading this, then? Nobody forced you to click on the story. Unless there's some sort of reverse-censorship software out there now. In which case, that would definitely be a good Slashdot story.
That is all.
No extensive coverage of Iraqi Deaths? (Score:5, Insightful)
S
[*] for non US ppl, PG-13 is a movie rating covering content appropriate for ages 13 and up.
Re:No extensive coverage of Iraqi Deaths? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No extensive coverage of Iraqi Deaths? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shock and Awe - A history lesson (Score:4, Informative)
------
Published on Sunday, March 16, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
When Democracy Failed: The Warnings of History
by Thom Hartmann
The 70th anniversary wasn't noticed in the United States, and was barely reported in the corporate media. But the Germans remembered well that fateful day seventy years ago - February 27, 1933. They commemorated the anniversary by joining in demonstrations for peace that mobilized citizens all across the world.
It started when the government, in the midst of a worldwide economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist; the most recent research implies they did not.)
But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation's leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted. He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn't have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world. His coarse use of language - reflecting his political roots in a southernmost state - and his simplistic and often-inflammatory nationalistic rhetoric
offended the aristocrats, foreign leaders, and the well-educated elite in the government and media. And, as a young man, he'd joined a secret society with an occult-sounding name and bizarre initiation rituals that involved skulls and human bones.
Nonetheless, he knew the terrorist was going to strike (although he didn't know where or when), and he had already considered his response. When an aide brought him word that the nation's most prestigious building was ablaze, he verified it was the terrorist who had struck and then rushed to the scene and called a press conference.
"You are now witnessing the beginning of a great epoch in history," he proclaimed, standing in front of the burned-out building, surrounded by national media. "This fire," he said, his voice trembling with emotion, "is the beginning." He used the occasion - "a sign from God," he called it - to declare an all-out war on terrorism and its ideological sponsors, a people, he said, who traced their origins to the Middle East and found motivation for their evil deeds in their religion.
Two weeks later, the first detention center for terrorists was built in Oranianberg to hold the first suspected allies of the infamous terrorist. In a national outburst of patriotism, the leader's flag was everywhere, even printed large in newspapers suitable for window display.
Within four weeks of the terrorist attack, the nation's now-popular leader had pushed through legislation - in the name of combating terrorism and fighting the philosophy he said spawned it - that suspended constitutional guarantees of free speech, privacy, and habeas corpus. Police could now intercept mail and wiretap phones; suspected terrorists could be imprisoned without specific charges and without access to their lawyers; police could sneak into people's homes without warrants if the cases involved terrorism.
To get his patriotic "Decree on the Protection of People and State" passed over the objections of concerned legislators and civil libertarians, he agreed to put a 4-year sunset provision on it: if the national emergency provoked by the terrorist attack was over
Cannot find WMD (Score:5, Funny)
Sun Tsu, on Shock and Awe (Score:5, Informative)
And going to the paper that seems to be the source of the Shock and Awe [dodccrp.org] terminology:
Key words here: adversary's losses in both manpower and material could be relatively light
The paper is a long read, but it's extremely insightful.
The paper describes many ways of inflicting Shock and Awe on an opposing force, and they do not necessarily require the complete and utter (military) devastation of the opposing force.
(Then again, just as I was about to click "Submit", I saw most of the government buildings in Baghdad get the absolute shit blown out of 'em. Consider me shocked and awed either way. :)
Re:Sun Tsu, on Shock and Awe (Score:4, Interesting)
The idea here isn't to destroy the Iraqi army; they could do that by pressing a few buttons.
The idea here is that the Iraqi army blinks, and suddenly finds itself surrounded by loaded and cocked weapons. They shake their heads in bemusement, and slowly lift their hands above their heads.
Overated (Score:4, Interesting)
The U.N. didn't approve either action, so it doesn't seem likely. Both Saddam and Milosevic are very evil men who commited "ethnic cleansings." Why is everyone getting so angry and childish? "Bush is an evil oilman/warmonger" "I'll never buy anything from France again"
Re:Overated (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry folks, I know you hate to hear it, but the truth speaks for itself.
Re:Overated (Score:5, Insightful)
To imply the media is 'liberal' is absurd.
how much air time was devoted to Clinton getting a blow job? weeks, if not months
how much time was devoted to the connection between bush, and enron? hours, maybe days.
clinton cheated on his wife, then enron scandal cost many many people any hope of retiring, ever. Destroyed peoplels lives.
Where were all the protest when we liberated kawait from an aggressor(Saddam)? there were very little protesting, yet there wasn't a liberal in office.
maybe, just maybe, these people feel this offensive in unjust and thats why there protesting?
Not everybody lets there party beliefs infect there thinking.
Remember, its not about the oil (Score:4, Interesting)
It is interesting the US Army has choosen to liberate the oil wells [cnn.com] before liberating any people. Okay neocons and dittoheads step up and let the flames begin.
oil (Score:5, Insightful)
1. burning oil is bad for the enviornment. very, very, very bad. the U.S. takes shit for the Exxon Valdez, but that was nothing compared to the burning oil fields of the first Gulf war.
2. oil is/will be the Iraqi peoples' bread n` butter.
3. Why the fuck should we let Saddam's regime successfully institue a scorched earth policy?
4. burning oil fields creates lots of smoke, enough smoke to cause confusion on a battlefield, enough smoke to kill people, etc.
Furthermore, the U.S. won't get any of that oil unless the new government chooses to sell it to us. The U.S. isn't going to "unilaterally" install a new government in Iraq. It will be a process with all the civilized nations of the world.
Speaking of "unilateral", this action is definately not unilateral, despite what the French, German, and Russian governments would have you believe. The U.S. has the support of over 40 other nations, including England. You want to see unilateral action, look up what France has done militarily in Africa this century. France can hold its own in setting up puppet governments. What we have these days is a case of the pot calling the U.S. black, and a bunch of blind people who won't even Google to find out what France, Germany and Russia's ulterior motives are.
I'll lay them out for you...
France: France has illegally been doing business with Iraq, against the U.N. sanctions, for years now.
Russia: Russia, with it's pathetic GDP, is owed roughly 8 billion dollars by Iraq, and has also illegally done business with Iraq against U.N. sanctions.
Germany: Germany gets a lot of cheap oil from Iraq through the food for oil program.
So, in short, if they just let them burn the oil fields, ignorant dicks like yourself would be complaining about the harm to the enviornment, taking away the Iraqi peoples' natural resources, etc.
FWIW, I support this war solely for giving the Iraqi people a chance to create a prosperous country, and so Iraqi refugees can go back to their own country, as they wish to do.
Just intercepted in the battlefield! (Score:5, Funny)
In A.D. 2003
War was beginning
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- A series of large explosions rocked Iraq's capital sending plumes of smoke and fire into the skies over Baghdad as the intense coalition air assault got underway.
Saddam: What happen?
Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: We get signal.
Saddam: What!
Operator: Main screen turn on.
Saddam: It's You!!
Bush: How are you gentlemen!!
Bush: All your oil are belong to us.
Bush: You are on the way to destruction.
Saddam: What you say!!
Bush: You have no chance to survive make your time.
Bush: Ha Ha Ha Ha
Saddam: Take off every 'Scud'!!
Operator: You know what you doing.
Saddam: Move 'Scud'.
Saddam: For great justice.
Patriotism != Nationalism (Score:4, Insightful)
Love of and devotion to one's country.
Nationalism:
The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
I love my country which is why I oppose this war and the people who fight it - yes, that means the troops. And before you froth at the mouth and label me a troll, Check this out [capwiz.com].
I will be happy to support the wounded on both sides when the fighting stops - but I will not support the systematic murder of thousands of people whether they be Iraqi or American. Murder is still murder whether it be on battlefield or at bus stop.
Re:Patriotism != Nationalism (Score:4, Insightful)
I may or may not agree with the foreign policy of my government, but the soldier who volunteers to take a bullet for my freedom deserves my respect.
Saeed al-Sahaf - What is wrong with this guy? (Score:5, Funny)
"There is not one American soldier on Iraqi soil."
"We will not allow them to get out of this quagmire which we trapped them in. They will see their end there."
Diagnosis: Schizophrenic Pathological Liar with Grand Delusions
Perscription: 300 Cruise Missles - 10 B2 Bombers - 3 Marine Divisions and call me in the morning.
The Case for the War (Score:5, Interesting)
This administration has some of finest strategic minds in country. Bush may be unreliable, but Colin Powell's integrity is unquestioned. even as a general, he was extremely conservative and patient. he refused to make hasty decisions on unreliable or unconfirmed information, and I can't imagine that his nature has changed since then. I think we have to have some amount of faith that the US is in possession of still-classified information that Saddam definitely has something up his sleeve.
we already know for a fact that Hussein offers large cash rewards to the families of Palestinians that act as suicide bombers in Israel. that crime alone damns the Iraqi government nearly as much as the Taliban. we demolished Afghanistan simply because they let terrorists set up training camps. if Saddam places a bounty on Israeli casualties, that's almost as bad. so that right there is a pretty strong reason to attack, and one which Bush doesn't seem to have placed enough emphasis on.
does that mean our intentions are entirely honorable? no, not at all. I'm sure Bush would love to drive oil prices back down ( and for my part, I hope he does it quickly; filling up my SUV every 2 weeks with $1.65/gal gasoline isn't cheap ). and protecting Israel always helps grease the wheels when it comes time to solicit campaign contributions. cleaning up dad's mess is a nice bonus, too. I'm sure all those factors weigh in to the equation. but even in post-9/11 america, the system still has enough checks and balances to prevent a war based SOLELY on those reasons.
let's talk about democracy's role in all this. is ignoring war protests tantamount to ignoring democracy? no, i say, democracy is still winning. current polls place opposition to the war at around 30%, maybe 40% at most. that means the majority of Americans still support getting rid of Saddam. Congress voted overwhelmingly to give Bush the power to invoke military action. that same Congress received a significant message from the people who elected a Republican majority just a few short months ago. all that adds up to representative democracy, folks.
right now it seems like we're pissing off a lot of the world, and yes, we probably are. the muslim terrorist groups are going to be especially irate, and they're going to come back swinging. very true, but frankly, they would have attacked us anyways sooner or later. unless we suddenly pulled all of our forces out of the Middle East, AND dissolved the Israeli state, Muslim fanatics are always going to hate us. the question is, do we want them to hate us with the support of a chemical- and biological-weapon producing madman, or without him? I'd say, "without him", definitely.
some people may be troubled by the way the US is so blatantly calling for a regime change in Iraq. it seems really wrong to hear that kind of talk out of an administration that won its own power in a very dubious manner. but of course the big difference is we know that our tyrant will be held accountable by the voting public in 2 years; Hussein will not. and the fact is, we've forced regime changes before. sometimes covertly with the CIA, sometimes very obviously, like the capture of Manuel Noriega in Panama. that one was just as economically motivated as this: you really think anyone wanted a madman in control of something as vital as the Panama Canal? Saddam Hussein is probably a convenient boogeyman now that Bin Laden has disappeared. but don't kid yourself, Hussein DOES deserve to b
Re:The Case for the War (Score:5, Insightful)
let's talk about democracy's role in all this. is ignoring war protests tantamount to ignoring democracy? no, i say, democracy is still winning. current polls place opposition to the war at around 30%, maybe 40% at most. that means the majority of Americans still support getting rid of Saddam.
This is troubling on so many levels. Democracy cannot be just about the majority and winning. Hitler was elected by a majority and no one had a problem with his attempted genocide. Slavery was considered ok by a majority people in the US for a very long time, and those who even thought about protesting or abolishing slavery, like Lincoln, were killed.
People risk their lives trying to bring unpopular issues to the frontline of political debates. In 1965 it was a demonstration in Selma, that results in the cold blooded murder of the minister James Reeb, presumable by a person intent on keeping black from achieving equal rights. Should Reeb have ignored Dr. Martin Luther King's plea for help in his effort to liberate the black population from oppression? Should the goverment have lables them terrorists??
In Dogma, right before Bartebly exacts holy vengeance on the boardroom of sinners, he has a speech in which he says
Fear. And therein lies the problem. None of you has anything left to fear anymore. You rest comfortably in seats of inscrutable power, hiding behind your false idol, far from judgment, lives shrouded in secrecy even from one another. But not from God.
And I think this is the issue. There are people so powerful, so spoiled, so in need of clue, that they respect and fear almost nothing. The exception are the few things demonstrable equally powerful. People this powerful feel that the world is there to service their needs. Furthermore, even if they claim to believe in God, that belief is not reflected in their actions. They do not have maturity or self control to realize that just because you can take something, doesn't mean you have to. In words from the original Star Trek, we can choose not to kill today.
As I mentioned such people will fear things or people that are equally powerful. For example, a few years ago Texas was in the midst of passing a hate crime bill. Dubya was governor. The impetus for this bill was the lynching and dragging of James Byrd, Jr in Jasper. The bill was not great, but it was needed. It was eventually supported by Dubya, after a bit of embarrassing publicity, and would have had very little trouble becoming law except for one problem. It not only wanted to protect minorities, but also homosexuals. There was a basis for this, as about 1/3 of all hate crimes are directed to homosexuals. Dubya could not afford to offend the religious right, so he fought to remove the protection for homosexuals, which killed the bill. From this we can see that those without power, homosexuals can be sacrificed, while there is genuine fear of the fundamentalist Christian right.
Start bashing the Americans... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it's interesting to note that people have a hard time differentiating between American people and the American government. It's funny when I hear someone's surprise when they realize that some Americans might actually be against the war.
Believe it or not, there is just as much dissention and discussion (if not more) among the American people about the war as there is between Americans and those of other nations. Indeed, America is a free country, and they're allowed to speak up against their government. And they do.
I'm quite divided myself, and I think those that are either against or completely in bed with this war aren't looking at all sides of the issue. Strangely enough, many of those who claim that Bush is simplistic and biased don't seem to have any problems with Chirac. Additionally, "the quiet words of the wise are more to be heeded than the shouts of a ruler of fools," in which case the silent majority seems to be saying a lot to me about what the real feelings of the people are. Unfortunately, the "silent majority" is not as newsworthy as the destructive protesters ("stop this war or we'll kill the ambassador!").
Please don't use these forums as a medium for bashing the US Americans.
Kinky Sex Still Makes the World Go Round (Score:4, Funny)
of the United States
We have a problem.
The companies want something done about this sluggish
world economic situation
Profits have been running a little thin lately
and we need to stimulate some growth
Now we know
there's an alarmingly high number of young people roaming
around in your country with nothing to do but stir up trouble
for the police and damage private property.
It doesn't look like they'll ever get a job
It's about time we did something constructive with these people
We've got thousands of 'em here too. They're crawling all over
The companies think it's time we all sit down, have a serious get-together-
And start another war
The President?
He loves the idea! All those missiles streaming overhead to and fro
Napalm
People running down the road, skin on fire
The Soviets seem up for it:
The Kremlin's been itching for the real thing for years.
Hell, Afghanistan's no fun
So whadya say?
We don't even have to win this war.
We just want to cut down on some of this excess population
Now look. Just start up a draft; draft as many of those people as you can.
We'll call up every last youngster we can get our hands on,
hand 'em some speed, give 'em an hour or two to learn how to use
an automatic rifle and send 'em on their way
Libya? El Salvador? How 'bout Northern Ireland?
Or a "moderately repressive regime" in South America?
We'll just cook up a good Soviet threat story
in the Middle East-we need that oil
We had Libya all ready to go and Colonel Khadafy's hit squad
didn't even show up. I tell ya
That man is unreliable.
The Kremlin had their fingers on the button just like we did for that one
Now just think for a minute-We can make this war so big-so BIG
The more people we kill in this war, the more the economy will prosper
We can get rid of practically everybody on your dole queue if we plan this right.
Take every loafer on welfare right off our computer rolls
Now don't worry about demonstrations-just pump up your drug supply.
So many people have hooked themselves on heroin
and amphetamines since we took over, it's just like Vietnam.
We had everybody so busy with LSD they never got too strong.
Kept the war functioning just fine
It's easy.
We've got our college kids so interested in beer
they don't even care if we start manufacturing germ bombs again.
Put a nuclear stockpile in their back yard,
they wouldn't even know what it looked like
So how 'bout it? Look-War is money.
The arms manufacturers tell me unless
we get our bomb factories up to full production
the whole economy is going to collapse
The Soviets are in the same boat.
We all agree the time has come for the big one, so whadya say?!?
That's excellent. We knew you'd agree
The companies will be very pleased.
Paying for the war.... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.madison.com/captimes/news/stories/45
The Feingold amendment is taking $100b from Bush's tax cuts over the next ten years to pay for the war.
Thank God someone in Washinton is still sane -- maybe we'll have an economic rebound in the next ten years after all...
Troop ratio's. (Score:5, Interesting)
are helping the US, the Americans have made the greater sacrifice.
I wanted to set the record straight.
100,000 US ground troops fighting - from a total of 250,000 people out there. 40,000 British ground troops fighting (I don't know the total number of Brit's out there).
So, when you look at the guys who *might* get killed - that's 0.04% of the US population and 0.06% of the British population. By that measure (and of course there are ways to look at this), the British commitment is 50% larger than the US.
Against a background where 80% of Brits are against the war and only 40% of Americans are - I sure hope the US appreciates that!
Waiting for South Park II (Score:5, Funny)
=======
GW: Hey Saddam! Let's fuck!
SH: C'mon, W., don't you care about my feelings?
GW: Shut up, bitch! Roll over! Who's your Bagh-Daddy?
=======
GF.
FYI - Great Background Piece on Sadaam (Score:5, Informative)
A long read, but well worth it if you can spare the time. And, heck, it's Friday. You're not going to get any work done anyway.
Dancing in the streets in Safwan (Score:5, Insightful)
It would seem they want him gone too.
What brought you to your current stance on the War (Score:5, Informative)
For me it was the Frontline documentaries on PBS which focused on the history of Saddam. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/lon
Some things that caught my attention:
1. Saddam started out as a hitman for the radical Ba'ath Party and he participated in the failed assassination attempt on the country's strong man, Gen. Kassem, in 1959.
2. The Ba'ath Party killed Gen. Kassem and staff and seized the country in a coup. Saddam became an interrogator in the Fellaheen and Muthaqafeen detention camps. In interrogating people in those camps, he used torture, and undoubtedly like everybody else involved in this activity, eliminated people to the amount of 700 documented deaths.
3. Two weeks after they took over power on the 17th of July 1968, there was what they call "the correction movement." That meant getting rid of the non-Ba'ath elements in the coup, and Saddam was prominent in that. As a matter of fact he held a gun to the head of the prime minister and said, "You're going with me to the airport because you're leaving this country." And the guy pleaded with him, said, "I have family, I have a wife and kids." And Saddam said, "Well as long as you behave, they'll be fine." He took him to the airport, he put him in a plane, he deported him, and of course years after, he assassinated him in front of the Intercontinental Hotel in London. The man couldn't escape him in the long run.
4. In 1970 Saddam was head of the Peasants Department and the Department of General Relations (security), the military, and several other departments. And of course soon enough, like all people who are dictators, who are jealous of the army, he appointed himself general and eventually like Stalin he became field marshal.
5. In 1979 he removed Bakr (the President he helped instate) rather unceremoniously and made himself president. And he reshaped the Ba'ath Party in no time at all by executing half of the command of the party.
6. During the 7 month occupation of Kuwait, Saddam ruled there as head had for years, with oppression and death. Some Kuwaitis were tortured and murdered, others lined up and shot.
6. After the Persian Gulf War Iraq had uprisings in the North and South. This is where Saddam used chemical weapons and killed over a thousand Iraqi men, women, and children. This was the second time he had used chemical weapons, the first time was in the war against Iran. Uses of chemical weapons are forbidden by UN treaties.
7. At the end of the initial round of inspections by the UN weapons teams, Saddam's brother-in-law and cousin defected to Jordan and announced that they had documents that would indicate that the inspectors had not seen all the weapons Saddam had. Saddam told his sons-in-law that, if they came back to Iraq, they would be completely safe. They foolishly believed Saddam. So, as military officers, they donned their uniforms, and they went back to Iraq. The moment they entered Iraq, they were separated from their families. Their families were taken to Baghdad, and they were taken out of the city. Like Saddam, they are very tribal, so they surrounded themselves with bodyguards, not trusting him completely. Two days later, there was an attack on the house by members of the family, to avenge the family honor. So Saddam claimed that he kept his word, as the chief of the armed forces, as the president of Iraq, that he would do nothing to them. So, when it was finally done, the attack succeeded and they were captured and killed. Saddam said, "I didn't go back on my word. This happened according to tribal tradition. The family had to avenge itself. The family had to recover its honor." That's how he explained what he did to them.
After watching this I felt awful that the people of Iraq have who have had to endure fear for so long and I felt I was fortunate to be an American.
Human Nature... (Score:5, Insightful)
The whole situation leading up to the war is obviously complex, with all parties (eg, Iraq, US, UN, UK, France, Turkey, etc.) pushing their own agenda while claiming that they do what they do in the name of [choose one] humanity, religion, security, etc. Ultimately, though, we do what we do because it is human nature:
Despite knowing right from wrong, we will usually choose what feels good. Mostly that means the one with the biggest stick wins.
Sucks to be human sometimes...
"shock and awe" == blitzkreig (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, check out this article [indymedia.org], which compares the rise of Hitler to the current U.S. administration. For example, Hitler used the attack on the Reichstag as an excuse for a pre-emptive strike on Austria.
Slashdot War News Updates? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm talking both sides, mind you, pro-war and anti-war. Having spent my share of time up close and personal with the "shock and awe" of combat, I can say from first hand experience that war is extraordinarily serious business, business that requires extremely careful consideration before action.
And having seen, again first hand, the results of a tyrannical maniac, I have a very good understanding of the necessity of fighting from time to time.
However, I'm not going to weigh in on the pros or cons of this war in this forum simply because there are an appalling number of blithering idiots who don't seem to have a basic understanding of international (or national) political and military relationships and necessities.
Instead, I'd suggest that just about every person participating in Slashdot discussions do some studying on the real-world political and social situations that exist around us. Instead of spouting off the typical line of what we should do, perhaps it's better to consider what we can do. There is a significant difference, particularly when viewed in a global context.
Perhaps, then, a few pro-war activists will find that there is less of a need to fight and a few anti-war activists will find that sometimes it's necessary to shoot now and then.
-h-
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, he's an asshole?
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:5, Insightful)
That shouldn't surprise anyone. If I was an Iraqi soldier I would be lining up to surrender. Who wants to give their life defending Saddam Hussein? Heck, If I was an Iraqi soldier I would like to think that I would have turned my gun on that regime a long time ago.
Even if Saddam is alive people that give a crap about what he has to say are almost certainly few and far between.
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:OK folks, this is it (Score:5, Insightful)
The Iraqis will be far more likely to be friendly to the US if we _don't_ destroy their best income source. But they'll be pissed off even if we let Saddam do it. Thus, we ask the Iraqi troops not to torch them.
This makes a lot of sense once you get by your hatred of GWB.
-Erwos
Re:Come on editors, step up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Never ming the tech... (Score:5, Funny)
if we go in through Turkey and take Iraq from behind, would Greece help?
Re:Come on editors, step up! (Score:5, Informative)
HMS Ark Royal, 20,000 tonne aircraft carrier with a complement of Sea Harriers and Merlins.
HMS Argus, hospital ship, with 150 surgeons of varying specialties plus support staff.
Assorted type 22 and type 23 frigates, armed with Tommahawk Cruise Missiles.
3 Commando Brigade and 35 Commando Brigade of the Royal Marines, along with a shed load of armour from the army.
There are a few other ships out there, as well as Trafalgar class submarines, but Ocean and Ark Royal are the main ships.
We might have small ships comapred to the US, but we're right there.
I saw a Nimitz class US aircraft carrier on the news this morning (these are the biggest military ships afloat, capable of deploying 200 aircraft and helicopters).
I also saw eight B52-G/H bombers take off from RAF Fairford in Oxfordshire this morning, presumably on the way to Iraq, each capable of holding 70,000 lbs of assorted ordinance. I would imagine they were carrying Tommahawk Cruise missiles though - each one can carry 20.
In the capture of Umm Kasar port in the early hours, an armour column was needed to shift a few gun positions that they weren't expected. Both American M1-A2 Abrams and British made Abbot self propelled guns were used to get through - both have the ability to fire twice as far as the Iraqi's Russian made T72 tanks, so they can park up 4km away, well out of firing rane of the Iraqis and pound away with 120mm guns until they're eliminated.
The M1-A2 can also fire that mammoth gun in the dark and in zero visibility weather since it has a very good thermal camera and a military grade GPS system with connection to the battlefield CCC, so they know exactly where they are in relation to other friendly forces and in relation to fixed enemy positions.
Re:Come on editors, step up! (Score:5, Interesting)
A couple things that I learned: Iraq has 3 main models of tanks, T-72, T-62, and T-55. While I can only guess what the numbers represent, they do correspond to the decade that they were first built. The T-72 is a 30 year old tank design. Most of their tanks have gone through several wars and are only running buy scavanging other tanks for parts.
My brother just a few weeks ago finished his AIT for repair on track vehicles. He said that the some of the shells that the Abrams fire will penetrate a tank shoot through the tank, and exit out the otherside. It does this with so much force that just about anything not solid (i.e. human bodies) are usually sucked out of the small exit hole. Also, I read somewhere that the Abrams can/will shoot through sand dunes and still inflict serious damage to a tank. I also remember seeing once on TLC or Discovery Channel that the Abrams can track either 8 or 16 different targets at a time and fire accurately at 40 mph over bumpy terrain.
I'm not sure if you should take this all as religion, but it just sounded interesting.
Tip of the day #2 (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose you're right (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right, there are militant muslims out there, and many of them may indeed be terrorists. However, there are many, many more non-militant muslims. Of course, our war actions may encourage more than a few of those to become militant and possibly even become terrorists...
Re:I suppose you're right (Score:4, Interesting)
And keep in mind that though we may perceive a large majority of moderate muslims and Westerners who wish to keep the peace, live in harmony, etc, still the fundamentalists are either in a position of political power, or rich (and so ostensibly in charge), or religious zealots (and thus commanding power by way of God). Some of our "leaders" are all three.
In America, we could be said to be even more guilty, since we elected our fundamentalist and militant leaders. Whereas, in non-democratic areas, fundamentalists and militant fundamentalists have power via money or religion.
Re:Helpful tip. (Score:5, Insightful)
But you're point is entirely correct. If the US wanted Iraqi oil, then Bush could have just puches the UN into dropping sacntions in place since 1991. Then we;d have had lots of cheap oil.
It shouldn't be forgotten that furing the 80's Saddam was a moderating influence on OPEC, perceived as a sort of level head, kepping prices fairly low. Simple economic motivations would have led us to support Saddam in the 90's and develop a close friendship.
People who argue that this war is being fought for oil are, to be charitable, gravely misinformed.
-Matthew
How dumb are you? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bin Laden wants this war, he knows that anything he does to reduce the distance between him and Saddam will bring the war closer (he succeeded). Now that the US is attacking Iraq, it is a lot easier to recruit new terrorists, and popular support for existing ones is growing.
So Bin Laden has great incentive to associate him self with Hussein in the media, regardless of whether or not any factual link exists. I am not saying there is no link between the Ba'ath party and Al-Queda (I don't think there is, I have not seen the evidence), but to think that tape establishes a link is idiotic
Even if you believe this war is just, you have to acknowledge that it will strengthen Al-Queda.
Why? The answer is simple. (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the facts - if there is no elite Republican Guard to fight, the war will quickly end. Morale destruction is a classic strategy for all organized militiaries (for really awesome "shock and awe", read about the Roman armies and their tactics to draw to a quick completion to conflict).
Seeing is believing.
Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Conventionally. Carpet bombs and man-to-man combat. We loose people. They loose people. We're better trained and better equiped, so they loose more than we do.
2. Shock and Awe. Scare the living hell out of men that, for the most part, don't want to be there anyway, and tell them how to surrender. Drop smart bombs on targets that will destroy their ability to fight with as little dammage to civilian targets as possible.
People are getting bent out of shape by the number of bombs to be dropped, without realising that this tactic will save Iraqi lives, as well as American.
Re:So um... (Score:5, Insightful)
(ducks) Kidding! Kidding! Sorry!
Anyhow, I'll feel better when these guys get tossed out of the White House. This whole war was so contrived and forced down people's throats it's not even funny (okay, wars aren't funny in general, but you know what I mean).
The most depressing part for me has been that this war really points out the lack of sophistication in many Americans. First, the rational is pretty much invented and set up in a schitzo way (the lack of proof is proof!) and then repeated, basically, until people bought it. Now, we have to deal with idiots being all excited that we're going to blow stuff up and kill people.
You'd think after 9-11 we'd be a little more empathetic, but then maybe it's only human suffering if you have endless TV specials with mournful music and lingering shots of the flag to back it up.
Ignore me. I'm feeling angstful today.
Re:So um... (Score:5, Funny)
"Everyone in florida."
Whether they realise it or not. (Thanks, Jeb. Anytime, George.)
Re:So um... (Score:5, Insightful)
Which attacks would these be? What attacks on America was Saddam directly the cause of?
Can you imagine a world with a peaceful Middle East? Our President can.
Anyone who thinks that taking over Iraq will cause peace in the rest of the reason is either insane or dumber than a bag of hammers.
Re:So um... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummm... what "direct attacks on America"?
The standard for proof has sunk really low. Repeat something often enough now and it becomes true.
I know the war has some costs, and we may even lose a few American lives, but we will bring freedom to Iraq, and how can you put a price on that?
We will NOT bring freedom to Iraq- that much is certain. Unless you define "freedom" as "pro-American", which so many people do reflexively without a second thought. True democracy in Iraq would not give us results that we would like or tolerate. People there tend to vote for Islamist parties, and our outrageous behavior of late doesn't help. Starving people and dropping bombs on them won't make them vote for you.
The most we can hope for is something like another Saudi Arabia. Frankly one is enough.
Can you imagine a world with a peaceful Middle East? Our President can.
Wow, you've been exposed to a lot of propaganda. Are you listening to the baseless statements coming out of your mouth? A critical thinker just doesn't say things like that.
Imagining something and actually making it happen are two different things. I can imagine a world with candy cane trees, but that doesn't mean I actually have a coherent plan for making it happen! There are a lot of people with naive views that are in for a rude awakening before this is over. Wishful thinking is not good foreign policy.
Yes, confirmed from many sources (Score:5, Informative)
B-52 that left the U.K. lead this raid.
Also, other updates. U.S. has confirmed the death of a 2nd marine in actual combat. Umm Qasr has been captured.
The Dow explodes with Baghdad! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:4, Informative)
http://winmedia.ish.de/al-jazeera
open it using mplayer, or wind*ws mediaplayer
Re:For that matter... (Score:5, Informative)
How about:
Re:For that matter... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:For that matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For that matter... (Score:5, Informative)
That's not what's happened. We're hitting military and leadership targets, we're not destroying a city. The difference is sometimes hard to tell from the ground-- stuff blowing up is stuff blowing up-- but it's important. The city, for all intents and purposes, is and will remain totally intact.
Before this misinformation is spread any farther (Score:5, Informative)
Gerald R. Ford signed the first US Executive order, 11905 [utexas.edu], banning POLITICAL assasinations. It has been renewed and revised by every President since. Yes, Carter signed it, but right now it is George W. Bush's order.
It does not preclude the killing of a military leader in military operations. If some can't figure out the difference then too bad.
It would be nice to hear him called on that.
Well, it seems I just called you on that.
If you still want examples there are plenty of details missing that are important and obviously need to be investigated (revoking important presidental orders is a big deal).
If you want to bring forward something relevant, please do. But before you go spouting Executive Orders, please take the time to find out exactly what they are and how they work.
Re:For that matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:For that matter... (Score:5, Interesting)
scripsit Twirlip of the Mists:
I can't speak for the OP, but I can for myself. What turns my stomach about the way the media oligopolists (and even to a large extent NPR now, unfortunately) treat it as though the war is one big football match. There's endless discussion, for example, of how PFC Smith's mother misses her boy, but never a suggestion that PFC Ahmed's mother not only misses her boy, but will probably never see him again, or even have a body to bury. There's endless speculation on just what the Pentagon's plan might be, or how militarily effective ``shock and awe'' (what a stupid term) will prove, but never any indication that the talking heads have the foggiest clue that a real city is actually being destroyed.
Re:For that matter... (Score:5, Insightful)
Basically it says that the various TV news media are more likely to put administration sources on camera than so-called "grass-roots" sources or "anti-war activists." The reason for this is blindingly obvious: administration officials have facts to report, while "grass-roots" and "activist" sources have nothing but an agenda to promote.
When Ari Fleischer gives a briefing, he doesn't stand up and say, "Woo, the USA rocks, get your war on!" He stands up and says, "The president spent three hours on the phone this morning, and then he had a ham sandwich for lunch."
Compare this to your average "grass-roots" or "activist" source. Do you see now why news producers do what they do?
Re:For that matter... (Score:5, Informative)
Or http://www.aljazeera.net
with
http://tarjim.ajeeb.com/ajeeb/default.asp?lang=
to translate it
Re:For that matter... (Score:4, Informative)
They update it as things unfold and they keep it pretty fresh
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:5, Insightful)
Link:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/03/2
However, protests in Germany, Egypt and France are totally irrelevant to what the US and UK governments should do. Last I checked, it was the _citizens_ of a country that dictated what a country does. Right now 66% of Americans support the war - thus the war goes on, protests or not. I don't know how British citizens feel about this - I've heard varying numbers. It did survive a vote in their parliament, which does seem to say something.
But, in any event, protesting the war at this point is pretty much useless, since you can't really just "stop" once you've started an invasion, and it would cause a worse outcome anyways - would you prefer regime change or have Saddam become leader of the Arab world because he just "beat" the US? If faced with two bad choices, I highly recommend you take the one which is "less bad". In this case, the former is obviously better than the latter.
In other words, complaining about how the US shouldn't be in Iraq is a little useless once they're already deep inside. Make the best of a bad situation, and pressure the coalition to actually do what they claim they're trying to do: free the Iraqi people. That's a lot better plan than advocating a non-solution.
-Erwos
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you kidding? Last night was nothing but news about the local protest here. They preempted a bunch of TV shows to watch 4 hours of people sitting in an intersection.
Maybe it's different elsewhere, but the only problem with protestor coverage I'm seeing here is that the pro-troops rallies are being largely ignored. (arguably, at least here in Portland, they were a lot more polite though...)
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Newsfeeds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Believe it or not, the US has spent a good deal of monies in minimizing the inadvertent casualties that come from war. And for those that die anyway--we grieve, but our grief will not stop our country's will.
This is as just a war as any we have fought since the founding of the United Nations. Allow us to revel in the glory of our armies--for we fight not to conquer, but to liberate a people who can no longer fight for themselves.
Ok, enough PR from me. I just wanted to offer an alternate argument to your one-sided post.
Re:No relation to d-day (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't stand for anything. Much like the S in Harry S Truman.
An explanation according to Joint Chiefs [dtic.mil]
D-day. The unnamed day on which a particular operation commences or is to commence
Re:Iraqui people will love the freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good or bad news? (Score:5, Interesting)
I believe you have just voiced the fear that underlies much of the international opposition to this war.
I am an American citizen, and I am not an imperialist. I don't know anyone who advocates American imperialism. I teach my children, as most Americans do, to mind their own damn business. So, I can tell you honestly that countries which do not threaten the U.S. need have no fear of us. Unfortunately, that still leaves three problems for the rest of the world:
1. What if I (and the U.S. government) are lying about our intentions?
2. Who decides what constitutes a threat? (apparently, we do)
3. What if our attitude becomes more imperialistic later on?
I don't know what to tell you. Direct U.S. involvement in this mess began in 1979, in Iran, and since that time there have been over 800 U.S. citizens killed in Middle East-related violence before 9/11. Many Americans think we have been patient bordering on negligent. The WTC/Pentagon attacks pushed us into action; now we all have to work to find a peace that everyone can live with. This cannot even begin until the aftermath of the current fighting, when it will be seen that (as in Afghanistan) we were as good as our word insofar as returning Iraq to the Iraqis, and helping the citizens of Iraq to rebuild their country.
After that, who knows? The U.S. seems to be attempting to execute the Paul Wolfowitz plan to remake the Middle East into a region of free societies. This is a risky course which seeks to preempt an ever-increasing spiral: terrorist attacks followed by military retribution (against people who may or may not have been involved in the terror) followed by terrorist attacks... Eventually, many of us think, this would lead to World War III, especially if terrorists succeed in using a nuclear device against a U.S. city. I support the President and his advisors in this attempt. However, I know many well-intentioned people who think it's a bad idea, for reasons that range from "fuck it, just nuke 'em all now", to "Arabs can't make a free democracy work" to "we brought it all on ourselves with misguided foreign policy".
I very much hope that our course is the correct one. Only time will tell.