Web Site Hacks Rise as War Rages in Iraq 728
An anonymous reader noted a Reuters news story talking about Website Defacement during the war. Apparently protesters and hackers are defacing hundreds of US and UK sites, both corporate and government.
i'm surprised (Score:4, Funny)
Re:i'm surprised (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems to follow every war... (Score:4, Insightful)
And I remember it happening during the war in... (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, I'm also crazy.
news sites are all safe (Score:5, Insightful)
At least after Sept 11, news agencies went to static HTML versions of their news sites.
The less fluff, the better. We just want the friggin news.
how many of these hack attacks are exploiting known issues?
Re:news sites are all safe (Score:5, Informative)
here you go [bbc.co.uk]
Re:news sites are all safe (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:news sites are all safe (Score:4, Interesting)
Huh?
Which news sites are you visiting? No major news outlet that I know of streams RealMedia on the front page until it's explicitly asked to do so. Both CNN and MSNBC are approximately 30k in size. Slashdot's front page is nearly double that.
Re:news sites are all safe (Score:3, Informative)
Re:news sites are all safe (Score:5, Informative)
Slashdot has found its niche :) (Score:5, Funny)
All False (Score:5, Funny)
Someone has just hacked into
But seriously.....has
Arc
Re:All False (Score:3, Informative)
IIRC it was something like:
When Slash (the code) is distributed, there are default passwords in place (so they say, I've never looked at the code b/c I don't particularly care - I don't run it anywhere).
Someone ran a check to see all of the hosts at slashdot that could be seen from the outside world.
From there, then they looked to see which of those servers was running Slash.
They found one which wasn't a production one, and they got in via the default pas
Re:All False (Score:5, Informative)
<br>
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=
Re:All False (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. Remember that story where a Linux user happily switched to XP?
Re:All False (Score:5, Funny)
I think they call those "TROLLS" around here.
And the point is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And the point is? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And the point is? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not a damn thing. 76% of Americans approve of the war, but the protesters want to make it seem like they are the majority rather than a (shrinking) minority.
Re:And the point is? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:And the point is? (Score:5, Funny)
No they don't, only 51%. Considering that 11% of Americans can't locate the U.S. on a map, that isn't too bad.
The U.S. is not a democracy, it is a republic.
Re:And the point is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do they not see the irony?
robi
Yet Another War Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Do they not see the irony?
The irony is tired and cliched, and a contains two strawmen to boot (the purpose of the war and the purpose of the 'anti-war people'). This sort of arguement dates at least to the war against Vietnam...
The fact that your country gives you a right to protest does not give it the right to invade countries that don't.
Re:And the point is? (Score:5, Insightful)
The real irony is that Saddam's bumbling invasion of Kuwait--doing the same exact thing bush is now doing--was the beginning of all this. Nations came together against Iraq because Iraq had jeapordized the sovereignty of all nations by simply deciding to invade a weaker neighbor.
All those UN resolutions that the bush administration points to as justification for their present action were retribution for Iraq's invasion of another sovereign nation.
Now that's irony.
While bush destroys decades of partnerships with other nations like France and Germany, trading those allies for countries like Ethiopia, while bush scuttles the last remaining vestige of authority that the United Nations had, the bush administration tells us that they are doing what is best for 'merika and all us 'merikans.
Now that's irony.
The "coallition of convenience" is an irony in itself because somehow the bush administration expects us to believe that a bunch of third-world nations hoping for a handout consitutes support of the international community.
The real President Bush had the support of the world to enforce the sovereignty of nations. Our bush has had to buy a band of nations to make a rubber-stamp "coallition."
No one was trying to save Saddam or the government of Iraq. They were asking for diplomacy to be given a chance.
They were asking for the bush administration to utilize the same restraint that we expect all other nations to use.
Re:And the point is? (Score:4, Interesting)
Noticing the current discontent of the people with their current goverments, the wished for change might even come earlier than expected and a different way than expected.
Oh, and the Palestinian situtation will be much easier to solve, after removing the dictator, who spend a good fortune on their "freedom fighters" (Well, we would call them terrorists, but still it strengthened his support among them)
What will the Kurds do when Turkey [bbc.co.uk] will invade in northern Iraq, or how Turkey will react, when the Kurds should found an independent state.
One thing to add:
The dictatorship actually owning a fully functionally nuclear program, quite possibly two or three nuclear bombs, rockets with enough range to strike the U.S. and also distinguished member of the Axis of Evil.
Which features a starving and supressed people, partly fleeing to its neighbouring dictatorship, which most people in our situation would think people would flee from and a dictator, who is also not a very pleasent person, to say the least.
A nation, whose corporation with the UN-inspectors culminated quite recently in kicking them out.
This esteemed nation is quite alive and kicking.
Not that I suggest waging a war with it, but one has to wonder, what consequences a dictator has to draw in having WMDs.
Of course, it is a totally different situation than Iraq, but one has always has to keep an eye what kind of impression one might make.
Re:And the point is? (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that a diplomatic solution was underway. Until diplomacy fails, there is absolutely no reason to use force.
The point is that force should be the last resort, not the first.
The point is that you can't expect your neighbors to live by any other standards than the ones you hold for yourself.
The point is that there are obligations that the United States has to other countries that the bush administration has thumbed its nose at.
The point is, the UN is the body which has charge in these affaris, not the bush administration. The bush administration has made itself a threat to every other nation on earth.
Finally, as to your assumption that I'm some kind of French/German/Russian/EU citizen: don't kid yourself. I was born in the US, am a Veteran and am still in the US. I think you might give a second thought to that assumption; to me your anti-otherism is simply rebranded racism/hate.
Re:And the point is? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, they want to be noticed. This is a little bit complicated, sitting at home, while the news sources are busy reporting on govermental press releases, interviewing military personal, sending live and directly from the front, and showing the bombing of Baghdad.
They hope, that likeminded people will follow their steps.
I don't want to escelate the discussion about the justness of the various wars, but
Re:And the point is? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you have a credible source that claims the numbers are lower?
Re:And the point is? (Score:5, Insightful)
You could do it too! (Score:3, Interesting)
"from the dept.?" (Score:5, Funny)
-Mr. Fusion
Golly, (Score:5, Funny)
I'd hack some Iraqi pages (Score:5, Funny)
U.S. Military (Score:5, Funny)
I imagine Bush shouting "w00t! j00 g0t 0\/\/n3D 8y |\/|y 133t
(my hacker-speak isn't that good)
Protesting on the internet... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Protesting on the internet... (Score:5, Funny)
Smart... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Smart... (Score:3, Interesting)
One idiot made a particular nuisance of himself. He'd TCP flood for hours and hours and hours on end (though oddly enough, never manage to knock off my bad ass 28.8k modem)
Anyhow, eventually he was stationed in Haiti, on some warship. He would come chat from a computer room they had set up via satellite access, fo
Re:Smart... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
US isn't spending the lives of soldiers cheaply (Score:5, Insightful)
I just wish that the government wouldn't spend their lives so cheaply
Do you think that the US Gov't is spending the lives of its soldiers cheaply? I can't think of any army in history that places so much value on the lives of individual soldiers as today's US Army. To accomplish a given mission, the Army would rather spend millions of dollars on high tech surveillance and "smart" missiles than risk the life of a single US soldier in actual combat.
The soldiers may be brave and willing, but the Army is so risk-adverse they are willing to do almost anything, at any cost, to avoid American combat casualties.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that at the end of the war, more soldiers die from accidents than actual combat. Probably, the Army's mortality rate won't be much higher than it would be for a similar-sized group driving on American highways, or smoking American cigarettes.
Re:US isn't spending the lives of soldiers cheaply (Score:4, Insightful)
Each foot soldier has several $THOUSAND (or more) dollars of technology on them. Each pilot has $MILLIONS in technology surrounding them. Each sailor has $BILLIONS in technology around them.
How in the heck can people say that the US throws troops around like cannon fodder. Try reading about US civil war or French & Indian war combat.
That was throwing soldiers around like nothing.
robi
Re:US isn't spending the lives of soldiers cheaply (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, yes, we treat our Boys and Girls in Green/Blue like they are rare and precious diamonds.
Re:US isn't spending the lives of soldiers cheaply (Score:3, Interesting)
Not true any more (Score:3, Informative)
In this war we do see ground forces really going in, much more so than the previous Iraq conflict which was much more an air war.
In a brief interview on CNN, a military analyst was saying that only 10% of the munitions dropped in the gulf war were precision - this time it will be about 80%.
So the introduction B-52
Re:Bias (Score:5, Insightful)
The pulling of Martin Sheen's visa commerical come to mind.
The big stink about Rick Nash's comments at the Mavericks game.
The Dixie Chicks getting their music pulled from radio stations.
Locally there's a radio DJ who's ranting on about how protesters deserve shot for hurting America's economy (ignoring the fact that the 'war' will cost (b/m)illions of dollars)
I'd guess that Vietnam protesters probably were also viewed as unpatriotic at the time (as I was not alive for the war, and history likely has biased things)
Re:Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because 'Patriot' has become deformed (Score:5, Insightful)
A Patriot is someone who loves their country, and works to help better it.
A Patriot is not silent on government corruption, illegal wars, or anything else that they think hurts the long-term health of the country.
A Patriot does criticize. They criticize at times of extreme political unrest. They ask questions when questions need to be asked.
And yes, a Patriot will perform acts of civil disobedience, when extreme situations warrent it.
A Patriot does not, under any circumstances, cowtow to the party line and 'fall in' as to not 'cause ripples'. A Patriot stands up and shouts to the fucking ceiling, 'something is wrong', when they feel something is wrong.
(And you know what's really funny? I'm Canadian. You know, one of those countries that's not 'the greatest nation in the whole world'. Whattajoke that phrase is. The hubris knows no bounds.)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
You'll notice that nobody went and damaged property or blocked morning traffic to protest Martin Sheen or the Dixie Chicks (Funny how she appologized afterwards isn't it? I guess her resolve wasn't that strong.)
I think it's funny and interesting how you suggest that defacing public and private property is okay if the protesting matches your opinions, but when people protest the views you agree with, they are "harassing" people.
Re:Bias (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bias (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of how you feel about this war, if you feel your government is doing wrong, it's your patriotic duty as a citizen to protest.
Other way around? (Score:5, Insightful)
rm -rf all Iraq government sites
It just doesnt seem like the smartest thing to do, defacing your own national websites. Hey, our troops are fighting for us across the ocean, lets not support them. You voted, your leader chose to go to war, what is your problem?
Also, hey, our economy is doing poorly, lets deface some corporate sites in a hope they lose millions to lots sales and extra security costs.
Stupid stupid stupid. If you want to protest a war, have a PEACEFUL protest. Protesting a war by doing illegal and hurtful things is the pot calling the kettle black.
These people lose all public respect and support by doing stupid, negative things.
Re:Other way around? (Score:4, Insightful)
I dont live in the US. The article is claiming that americans are protesting this way.
The war is not "illegal" in the US. Again, I am considering in the US. Outside of the US, its also not "illegal", there have been no court or un proceedings.
The protestors lost all public respect, they were the ones trying to get a concept across. The Americans have for a long time not been held in very high opinion by the world, this is another issue altogether.
Hurting their cause (Score:5, Insightful)
In the end it comes down to this - add something positive to the world.
Re:Hurting their cause (Score:5, Insightful)
Protest war with peace. Anything else and you are losing the point of your cause.
Uncivil disobedience (Score:5, Insightful)
Believe it or not, Mr L337 has acurately described what he is doing with this "protest". He is defacing public/private property, and that is a crime.
The protests on the Streets of San Francisco are not "Civil" though they are assuredly disobedient. Sitting outside of a lunch counter, or not taking the bus, that is civil disobedience. Dragging newspaper vending machines into the street to block trafic, or breaking into a server to alter index.htm is illegal.
Lets remember that words have meanings, and in describing these acts, "Civil" is not an accurate term.
Re:Uncivil disobedience (Score:4, Insightful)
IMO, protesting is one thing, so long as it is done in a civil way. It's your right. But what was done in San Francisco yesterday, not to mention several other cities across the nation including Philadelphia, is downright illegal. They should be ashamed of theirselves, and, IMO, are nothing but a disgrace to America. They are just shy of being spit-on worthy. All these so-called "protestors" are doing is occupying the time of the FBI and police forces who could be out preventing terrorism and chasing terrorists, instead of spending their time chasing down little punkish morons putting newsstands out in the middle of the street and blocking access to federal buildings.
Of course, then again, nothing that happens in San Francisco should surprise me, especially where idiocy is concerned.
Not Correct (Score:5, Insightful)
Very true.
The protests on the Streets of San Francisco are not "Civil" though they are assuredly disobedient.
"Civil" in civil disobedience refers not to civility (politeness), but to civilian, or disobedience to civil authority. There is a profound difference in both definition and implication.
In other words, the actions of those protestors snarling traffic in SF may not be civil (def: polite or cordial), but it most assuredly is "civil disobedience" (disobedience to civilian authority).
A person engaging in civil disobedience expects to be arrested and to "pay" for their crime, but choose do break the law regardless as a political statement. Ghandi and Martin Luthar King, Jr. are two such examples
A protestor on the street of San Francisco blocking traffic is most certainly engaged in "civil disobedience" and, unless they are an imbecel (quite possible based on some of the rhetoric I've seen from that direction), they fully expect to be arrested and pay for their crime. This tradeoff is worthwhile in their view, as it gives them media exposure with which they can get their message across.
Web defacement might possibly be another such form of civil disobedience, though I suspect you're right in that those doing so don't expect to get caught
I can relate to the hatred (in part)
Don't infringe on other people's rights please (Score:5, Insightful)
Yesterday, in Boston, protesters sat down and blocked the Mass Ave Bridge, a major 4 way bridge. They also blocked people from getting to work at the Boston Stock Exchange and government buildings. Why prevent people from getting into work that have nothing to do with the war? Let them earn their living. What if an ambulance or emergency crew need to get over the bridge? Why are you drawing our police away from homeland security issues?
I have also seen a lot of graffitti- notably defacing of said Mass Ave Bridge with permanent spray paint. I have also seen private business buildings hit with the "no war" graffitti. I think some protesters are just in it to get on TV and know very little about what they're protesting.
Feel free to protest, but don't infringe on my rights when doing so.
Well, HERE'S an arrogant one... (Score:5, Insightful)
You have rights. I have rights. I cannot interfere with your rights, and you cannot interfere with mine. And yes, that means that if you wish to protest, you must do so in such a way that doesn't disrupt people's lives. Not only are you not attracting converts by doing so, you're in fact breeding resentment among the very people you should be courting.
Yes, the so-called PATRIOT act is a gross violation of everything this nation stands for. That's no excuse to violate people's rights even further.
Protesters (Score:3, Insightful)
Breaking shit is a whole lot of fun! Now... If only I can find a cause to make my conscience feel good about doing it!
Circus Clowns and Protestors (Score:5, Insightful)
This is pretty much the level of sophistication of most of the antiwar protests I've seen thus far, in the streets or on the internet.
If I was a protester with genuine antiwar convictions, I'd be pretty annoyed that my credibility was being destroyed by 14 year-old script kiddies... not to mention the uninformed, loony-left, stringy-haired wannabe hippies pulling juvenile "look at me!" stunts on the streets of San Francisco.
Re:Circus Clowns and Protestors (Score:3, Funny)
What is the logic? (Score:5, Interesting)
All I can see here is people giving Saddam (or what's left of his regime) fuel for his fight. He can say, "Look, the American people don't believe what their government is doing. Stop surendering and kill kill kill!!!" This would cause more loss of life to american soldiers. So... Can anyone explain what the protesters are hoping to get out of this? (Other than a permanent record...)
-anocelot
they don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:they don't get it (Score:5, Insightful)
They have to get louder because they are being drowned out by all the "Go America" bullshit. The media has not given anything near equal voice to anti-war arguments as they have to pro-war rhetoric. The numbers of protestors have been grossely underestimated, and as for the polls that you think tell you 70% are in favor, they are completely fraudulent. I have watched several over the last weeks, and every time the results start to go in the anti-war direction, the questions are changed or the poll is dropped. Besides, any idiot knows you can get any result you want depending on how you phrase the question.
Example: Do you or would you:Now, since a lot of people are holding out for UN approval so we don't look like a bunch of assholes, you're going to have a lot of votes for B. You'll have some votes for A because about 1/3 of Americans are complete idiot hicks who think Saddam and Bin Laden are the same guy. Now when reporting the results, simply mash A and B together and say 70% support the war. It's not true, but it's not completely false either.
If you think the media is liberal and would naturally want to skew opinions towards anti-war sentiments, I suggest you check out Alterman's book "What Liberal Media"
Re:they don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm trying to discuss just the act of protesting, not the issue being protested, so I apologize for ignoring the 'life & death and global importance' aspect of your comment.
Your child analogy is very good. The reason why you weren't listened to is because you acted like a child, so was it any wonder that people figured you'd say chi
omg wtg u l4m3rz (Score:4, Insightful)
Well... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, defacing websites only sends one message... your an idiot who can use script kiddie tools...
Why don't you do something more productive, like participate in the Democratic process and let your elected officals know how you feel about the war, what you think your country should be doing to prevent war.
Doublethink... (Score:5, Insightful)
Having War will give Peace
Disobeying the UN will give it purpose
Cowardice is the refusal to injure thousands of innocent civilians living in Baghdad opposing a major power's whim.
Bravery is the ability to order the deaths of 100,000 Iraqis without wincing or bringing up your Caesar salad.
Apparently, well-fed young men sitting in millions of dollars' worth of military hardware and dropping bombs from 30,000ft on impoverished people who have already had all their arms taken away are exemplars of 'bravery'.
War on Terrorism... In the words of Terry Jones: "You can wage war against another country, or on a national group within your own country, but you can't wage war on an abstract noun. How do you know when you've won?"
Geez... The doublespeak is astounding.
My favourite one was the attack of "Shock and Awe" that the US is parading, or as the CBC puts it "Anger and Confusion". No one is shocked, no one is awed, everyone is angry and everyone is confused in Iraq.
It's pretty darn hard to be in awe of a nation that is invading you.
Oh wait... we aren't invading iraq, or occupying iraq. Even though they are raising american colours over Iraqi cities that have been.. umm.. liberated...
Yeah.. that makes sense.
Stop playing word games, open your eyes, and you'll see what's happening.
Or you can just live in doublethink and apathy. That's the way a good patriotic citizen should live I guess.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Free America! (Score:3, Funny)
We must stop Bill Gates!
Global internet traffic actually down recent days (Score:3, Informative)
Wired Story (Score:3, Informative)
*Sigh* (Score:3, Insightful)
Like graffiti, defaced Web sites are considered little more than a nuisance. The message tends to get wide exposure, but the damage to the victim is minimal. Web site operators typically have the site restored within a matter of hours.
Will the media ever learn that a seemingly "innocent" act of defacing a website causes a major headache for the people who have to patch the hole and make sure the rest of their systems weren't compromised? Of course, what should I expect from an article that thinks that crackers and "hackers" are the same thing.
Seabornes (Score:3, Interesting)
meta name=ProgId content=Word.Document
meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 9"
meta name=Originator content="Microsoft Word 9"
I'm not saying people who use Unix don't use Windows, but how many use Word to write HTML pages? What ever happened to notepad?
whitehouse.net (Score:3, Interesting)
The rumor was enough to generate 4,600,000 hits in a 72-hour period that normally sees only 100,000.
I thought it was a DDOS until I analyzed the logs. It was about 75% folks linking from email and 25% folks linking from various web based message boards. About 60% went straight to index2.html while 40% went to the home page.
Working within a democratic society 101? (Score:5, Insightful)
site at work got hacked (Score:5, Interesting)
While I'm sure there are some groups out there with genuine political motives, based on this and some other things I've seen I really believe that this is just scriptkiddies looking for something trendy to do.
Re:Protestors (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Protestors (Score:4, Interesting)
Can the average American dictate foreign policy for the United States? Same answer, no, unless you did your doctoral in polysci and are smart++.
Can the average joe schmoe vote and decide who is best to lead them and make such decisions? Yes.
Don't hate the player, hate the game...democracy is what we stand for and seem to be criticizing lately?
Re:Protestors (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is not that there is no explanation, there certainly is. The point is that the protestors don't take the time to understand what the reasons are, and instead blindly protest under the umbrella of "war is bad". If anti-war protestors can't even be bothered to understand the pro-war arguements, how can they expect to effictively counter them?
Re:Protestors (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Protestors (Score:5, Insightful)
Why are you asking people who think the war is unjustified to justify the war?
Re:Protestors (Score:5, Interesting)
I have to admit I can't explain why we're truly at war either, economicly it will be disasterous, it has ruined the international diplomatic ties the US once had, and it makes the citizens of the Uninted States more at risk to future terrorist attacks and in the worst case senario could start World War III
No, I can't explain why we're truly at war either, it baffles me. It is the most ill-conceived thing our government has done in my lifetime. Pray tell, why are we REALLY at war?
It isn't because Iraq has violated UN mandates, Isreal has violated more, and we still support them. It isn't because they have weapons of mass destruction, North Korea has more in that catagory, and we're trying "diplomatic means" to deal with them. It isn't because of Saddam's human rights record, or we'd be at war with China, not granting them favoured trade status. It isn't because the inspections were failing, the inspectors themselves thought the process was working, and shouldn't they know? Come, come, since you're so ready to critisize others for being unable to explain the cause of this war, explain the real reason we are at war, instead of alluding to it in an ambigious manner...
Re:Protestors (Score:4, Interesting)
2) Isreal has violated tons of mandates, and has a particularly sinister leader right now. We don't attack them because they're simply not a threat. Though there is a good case to stop supporting them.
3) Saddam isn't linked to 9/11. But I'm sure he wouldn't mind it one bit if some Al Quaeda boys borrowed some weapons to blow up New York. Oh please, you say? Al Quaeda doesn't like the beer-drinking, cursing, sacreligious Saddam? Well guess what? They hate us more.
4) China's government is on a remarkable progression to more Democracy and free thinking. I know because I lived there (I'm not Chinese either). Their human rights records are bad, but they'll get better.
5) The majority of the world isn't ready to cut off all diplomatic ties to the US because of the war (they might disagree, but only a few countries like France and Russia are really rabidly anti-war). That would be political suicide for them. Also, let's take France for instance. I thear a lot of folks saying "it's all about the oil." It is. France gets most of their oil from Iraq. It's no wonder they don't want us in there. Do you really believe the French are so anti-us involvement because they sympathize for the people in Iraq? Come on!
6) Iraq does pose a threat. They've got the weapons, and Saddam is crazy enough to use them. Don't believe me? We gave him weapons of mass destruction in the early 80's when he was fighting Iran. He used some against Iran, but there are others that are unaccounted for. Don't blame me as an American for being a little bit worried that he could use them (or being extremely pissed off at the lack of foresight the Reagan Administration had for giving them to him). Hell he's been dodging weapons inspectors for some time.
Re:Protestors (Score:4, Insightful)
45 countries' governments, not 45 countries' populations.
Of those who dont, only a handful really matter.
China matters, France matters, Germany matters, Russia matters, Canada matters, India matters. These are the big players around the world today. How much US foreign policy does Albania influence? This doesn't even take into account the fact that although many governments are with us, much of their population is against us, as is the case in Spain and Japan, and almost certainly any Arab members.
Economically, its already helping. Looked at the stock exchange lately?
a) a one-week rally does little to mark the end of a multi-year recession,
b) I think he may be referring to the record-breaking deficits we're already racking up as a result. To say that this is helping the economy and then to point at one rally is not convincing.
One) Hussein will use the weapons he is undoubtedly building against Israel soon enough. That is a doomsday scenario you dont want to see.
Since when does speculation build the foundation for unilateral military action? Even if you're right, you're assuming he could continue to develop these weapons with the entire world's eyes trained on him.
Two) He (hussein) has been thumbing his nose at us for 12 years, ignoring our sanctions, and recently, openly mouthing off. THere is little doubt that he has ties to the terrorist activities of the last several years, at least in those who actually read the press, and dont necessarily swallow the leftist jargon hook, line, and sinker.
a) Thumbing your nose at the U.S. does not justify a war.
b) Once again, linking Iraq to Al Qaeda is pure speculation until someone comes up with some real evidence. We've been pursuing this angle for almost a year now, and have yet to produce a convincing argument. If the administration had what even they considered to be a convincing argument, they would be waving it for the world to see at every single press conference.
If we leave the US as a huge target that never retaliates, there is _nothing_ stopping every islamic crackpot in the world from taking a shot at us.
There was a huge campaign in afganistan that overthrew an islamic fundamentalist regime, and I think we made our point very clearly. Attacking Iraq, which is not a fundamentalist nation (it's not even an Islamic nation), is not making a point about Sept. 11th. There are dozens of hotter terrorist spots we could be focusing on.
Those reasons, along with the very real threat that he has nuclear weapons, are the reasons we are at war.
Absolutely unfounded. Not only do we have zero evidence of any Iraqi nuclear capability (after years of searching for it), but there are dozens of other dangerous nations that DO have nuclear capabilities, and we seem to have little interest in them.
The original post was right on the money. If we take away the speculation and the emotions, it leaves us with a very weak case for going to war. The majority of people and governments of the world recognize how weak the case really is, and that is why there is very little support for this war abroad.
Re:Protestors (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a citizen of one of those countries. By polls 80% of our population is opposed to the war. It is not a coincidence that the supporting countries are relatively small and poor. Their governments have been easier to bribe and pressure. The only country in the worlds where the population is supporting the war is USA, and that's because of the propaganda in mainstream media (the same people who support the war, also believe that it was Saddam Hussein who organized 9/11, which is clearly a nonsense).
Even in UK, 70% of people are against the war.
Economically, its already helping. Looked at the stock exchange lately?
Wrong again. The stock market is just climbing out of the hole where it fell because of the uncertainty. Now that the end is near, we're just restoring the equilibrium.
Where were all these protestors when Clinton got us into Bosnia?
There's a huge difference between ending a war, and starting one, hence the the protests.
If we leave the US as a huge target that never retaliates, there is _nothing_ stopping every islamic crackpot in the world from taking a shot at us.
Iraq is a secular country, and Saddam Hussein is certainly not an islamic crackpot. He has done absolutely nothing to the US that would justify attacking his country and killing hundreds of thousands of people (the first Gulf war killed 100-200000 people and it was mostly in deserts, it is going to be mostly in cities this time).
Re:Protestors (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.whitehouse.net
OMG!
instant karma (Score:4, Funny)
White House was defaced! (Score:5, Funny)
Mod parent down to oblivion (Score:3, Interesting)
No, seriously, I hope they get the sonnuvabitch Saddam "Saddam" Hussein. And then I hope he rots in hell with his gay lover Satan.
Is this what content on slashdot looks like nowadays? +3 insightful? Who's the moron who actually got mod points and modded that up?
Re:These vandals (Score:5, Funny)
well, perhaps there might be a few small differences (dead people, for instance), but why split hairs....
Re:Heroes (Score:3, Informative)
Or is it somehow "unfair" to talk about the left's economic involvement in the middle east?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Heroes (Score:5, Insightful)
This is simply because America is really the least socialist, most capitalist western nation out there. Chirac is OUR idea of right-wing (and France's), but certainly not yours.
Re:Heroes (Score:3, Insightful)
If Saddam
Re:Webcams in iraq? (Score:4, Informative)
Is this the US goverment hacking these servers, or is it script kiddies having a field day?