The Riddle of Baghdad's Battery

Jodrell writes "The BBC has an interesting article about a 2,200 year old battery discovered in Iraq in 1938. It is basically a clay pot containing a copper/iron core immersed in an electrolye solution (probably acidic vinegar). The article talks about how this priceless artifact as well as many others, from the same civilisation that invented writing and the wheel, could be threatened by the impending war."

Priorities

[vicviper]

Some would say that removing Saddam is more important than any priceless artifacts.

Re:Priorities

[Joe the Lesser]

Some would say it's not.

What?

[stinky wizzleteats]

The article talks about how this priceless artifact as well as many others, from the same civilisation that invented writing and the wheel, could be threatened by the impending war.

And I suppose the artifacts never had anything to fear from Iraq being run by an expansionist, sadistic madman who is known to do things such as setting whole oil fields on fire.

Sorry. I looked everywhere for guilt, but just couldn't find any.

Re:Not the "same civilization"

[Wateshay]

I don't think it was saying they were. What it was saying was that the same people who invented the wheel and writing also invented this battery.

Re:Priorities

[Anonymous Coward]

Some would also realize that removing Saddam is the best way to preserve these artifacts. He would not hesistate to place military equipment right next to a archaelogical site just like he would put them next to a hospital.

Religious Ideology of the Time?

[VitrosChemistryAnaly]

The article states:
Though this was hard to explain, and did not sit comfortably with the religious ideology of the time, he published his conclusions.

How did identifying it as a battery conflict with religious ideology of the time? I'm truly curious. Any suggestions?

I mean, it couldn't have been because there's no passage saying "And then God invented the battery and said it was good".

Did it confict with the European idea that they were the center of science and religion?

The Riddle Of My Plumbing Battery

[istartedi]

Under the right circumstances, ordinary pieces of metal (like plumbing) exposed to acid can make "batteries" by chance. More intriguing is the "un batteried" iron obelisk I recall hearing about in India--an iron monument that has resisted rusting for hundreds of years.

I think it's likely that the ancients put some vinegar in this metal container, discovered that it corroded badly, and threw it away.

Of course we can't rule out that they knew something about electricity, but I think we need some clay tablets describing the use of electric devices to confirm it before we can say "ancient battery" with confidence.

Re:battery???

[aridhol]

It wasn't until the 1700's that Western civilization documented the discovery of electricity. There are many civilizations more mature than the West, especially at that time. They all had their own discoveries that surpassed ours.

Just because the Europeans hadn't heard of electricity doesn't mean it wasn't known elsewhere.

Re:Don't we have moe important things to worry abo

[stratjakt]

Noone wasted time worrying about the art and archaeological treasures in Holland, France or Germany when they liberated Europe from Hitler.

With todays much more precise technology, it's unlikely that archaeological sites would be affected at all.

First war?

[zjbs14]

The article talks about how this priceless artifact as well as many others, from the same civilisation that invented writing and the wheel, could be threatened by the impending war.

This is the first war ever fought in the region in the last 2,000 years? Were people concerned about artifacts when Iran and Iraq were blowing the crap out of each other? Were people concerned when Saddam was constructing enormous builings for his personal use?

Perspective... It's not just for breakfast anymore.

Putting historical importance in perspective

[Slightly Askew]

How much German, Japanese, and European history was destroyed in the early 20th century? Is history more important than the present? I believe there was a quote, maybe from Tokien, which said something about the folly of being more proud of who your ancestors were than who your children are. Some countries are willing to trade the freedom and safety of their children to preserve the memory of their ancestors. France did it in the early 20th, and they are apparently willing to do it again today. I, personally, don't have much respect for this type of elitist cowardice. If the destruction of a pottery battery will save a couple hundred Iraqi civilians from being detained, thrown in jail, and tortured, it's worth it.

Bad Priorities

[dfenstrate]

Some would say it's not.

and those people we would call weak-willed moral relativists.

If it's important enough to start a war (or, more precisely, continue a war, since Iraq is violating the cease fire agreement of the gulf war), then an ancient artifact is certainly acceptable collateral damage.

You may disagree wether or not we should invade Iraq, but the decision is not made lightly. The importance of an (already studied) artifact is irrelevant in comparison.

Moreover, It takes courage to advocate and perform an unpleasent but neccessary action. It takes none at all to come out in favor of puppies and kittens, children playing in the sun, and M-16 barrels being used to hold flowers.
Guess what? Bush, Rumsfield, Powell, and Blair value those things to. But these things will not happen in Iraq, or the middle east, by simply wishing them into existence.

Unless, of course, you believe that Saddam only poses a threat to his own people, so why should we care?

It's all about oil... TO FRANCE!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

To everyone who thinks the wars is all about oil--it is, to France. FRANCE HAS HUGE OIL INTERESTS IN IRAQ. Do you need me to repeat that? I said FRANCE HAS HUGE OIL INTERESTS IN IRAQ. In fact, you might say that their opposition to the war is solely due them potentially losing $Billions in oil investments. Of course they would have you believe otherwise, and it isn't being widely reporting, since the media is anti-war. But check it out--it's true.

Besides, if the US really wanted Iraqi oil for cheap, they could just lift the trade embargos. Much, much simpler, a lot less costly, and bloodless.

This "it's all about oil" argument is a complete liberal cop-out. They can't come up with a real argument so they say it's all about oil. Equivalent to name-calling.

Threatened by what exactly?

[Titusdot Groan]

Threatened how? Will the US be targeting ancient batteries with their smart bombs? Will any land troops be looking in museums for for ancient clay pots to destroy? Should the US not invade Iraq simply because that this precious artifact may be destroyed? How did this thing survive the crusades and the Gulf War?

Similarily, when the Taleban was destroying ancient Buddha's should this have been a reason to invade all by itself?

I hate how every news article has to somehow relate to the cause of the day ...

war crimes

[oliverthered]

some(the UN) would also say that it's a war crime to remove a government from power.

Though I'm sure an exception could be made for Bush(the removal of)

Re:battery???

[Scrameustache]

correct me if i am wrong but it wasnt until the 1700's that humans discovered electricity and began trying to control it and use it.

You are wrong, that's the whole point of the artifact.

Humans had discovered electricity long before, but the knowledge was lost and took thousands of years to be discovered again. They obviously never pushed the tech as far as its been in recent centuries (it took many a genious to get us where we are now), but they had the basis for it...and it somehow got lost.

Now, if archeologist were allowed to dig up a bit more without Dubya bombing everything into oblivion, maybe we would learn much more about how advance early civilisations got.

BTW, your comment reeks of occident-centricism (just made that word up). The way you just assume that nobody could have thought of making a battery before Mr Volta...disgusting. Oh, and I guess aliens had to help the mayas build pyramids huh? 'cause those brown skinned savages could never be that smart...

Sigh

Re:Not the "same civilization"

[stubear]

Or these very same people, who care nothing for their own culture or heritage except to prop up dictators and make them look like liberators and heroes of the poeple, could very well do the same thing the Taliban did in Afghanistan [cnn.com]. Even in Egypt, ancient temples were built upon by contemporary Egyptians with little care for the past. The Temple of Karnak has a modern mosque about 40 above it because they built the mosque on some ruins without first excavating the site. Abu Simbel would have been lost for all time had it not been for the efforts of the US. Now that Egypt is a more open and democratic society, archeologusts can, and have, move in and begin to resurrect the past and share it with the world.

Re:Not the "same civilization"

[SirWhoopass]

If one wanted the price of gas to go down, invading Iraq is not the way to do it. They way to make gas prices go down would be to declare that Iraq is indeed disarming and allow them to resume oil exports. This is the fastest, cheapest way to get the oil. It not that the Iraqis don't want to sell oil, it's that their exports have been limited by the UN.

Invading, during which time the facilities will most likely be destroyed, plus the cost of war and the problems it will generate in the world oil market will drive oil costs up for a long time. And that is without the additional affects of a possible Arab oil embargo to protest the war.

So, in conclusion, the war is not a good way to get the oil. Presumably, an oil man would know that. Why then, is he still pushing for war? Maybe because it's not about the oil? [bigjweb.com]

Iraq deserves no special treatment

[Embedded Geek]

So what if they invented writing? Every culture has its contributions to world history and culture. What of Aztec culture when the Conquistadores (sic) conquered? Or the German Medieval sites that were wiped out by stray WWII bombs when the Allies bombed the Nazis? For that matter, what of the loss of a McDonalds in Moscow by a Chechen bomber? Is any of that bloodshed any less or more tragic because of the assosciated loss to world culture?

To argue that a war should or should not be fought based on possible damage to historic artifacts is foolish. While such damage is a tragedy, it is nothing to the loss of human life. Personally, I'd be more concerned about the life of the night watchman at an archeological site than all the artifacts buried there.

You can argue whether war with Iraq is justified, whether it will (or will not) in the long run save more lives than it will take. You can argue about the U.S. motives for the war or any of a thousand other things, but the decision to go to war or not should have nothing to do with a people's historic contributions or lack thereof. While the preservation of artifacts should enter the discussion about how to prosecute a war (i.e. don't intentionally shell that museum), it is today's people that should be the concern - Iraqis, their neighbors, and the rest of the world community.

Everything else - ancient batteries or modern oilfields - they're just things.

Re:Priorities

[crawling_chaos]

Of course one of the largest oil companies in Iraq is TotalFinaElf, which is, of course, French. More than one side of this debate is mostly concerned about Iraqi oil money.

Oh, you thought the French government actually cared about the street protests? Sorry to disillusion you. It's all about money and power (and a penis size contest between world leaders.)

Re:Not the "same civilization"

[radish]

Yeah, the US is a great role model for the world in how to deal with your history and native peoples.

Re:Priorities

[Wellspring]

Nuclear weapons in the hands of someone who's used WMD before and who has started 11 wars is certainly a greater concern if your job description says, "save the living" and not "advance archeology".

BTW, priceless artifacts have been an issue in other cases. In the UK and America, artifacts are often, knowingly or not, destroyed as a consequence of land development (economic reasons).

In Afghanistan, of course, the Taliban destroyed most of their most precious archeological artifacts for religious reasons. In Israel, a mosque built relatively recently (100-200 years ago) on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem has for years been the site of secretive excavations by Palestinian authorities trying to destroy Jewish artifacts from the Temple (political reasons, this time).

The Library at Alexandria was destroyed by Islamic invaders. If I recall my history, the scrolls were burned to keep the hot baths running to calm a rebellious populace (entertainment reasons-- in fairness, I've heard this story disputed, BTW).

So you see, destroying evidence of our precious history is nothing new. Whereever possible, we try to save things, but they are called ruins for a reason. Over the years, things get broken. It's just thermodynamics.

So while we should protect these things where we can, we can't let ourselves get paralyzed from doing what we have to do to protect the lives of people who are still alive, such as those living in Iraq and America.

Re:Not the "same civilization"

[JonTurner]

A "region" doesn't have a culture. A civilization has a culture, and when the population changes (as in this case), the culture is either adopted, modified or replaced entirely.

Or would you claim that the city of Washington, DC has elements of American Indian culture because those peoples once lived there before being displaced?

Absurd.

Re:Perhaps Bush should install democracy in..

[dfenstrate]

You'll have to settle for a Representative Republic, which is what the United States is. This would be okay in Iraq, too.

As for not representing the millions of people out protesting- the whims of the masses are easily swayed, and we elect leaders to do the right thing, even if it's unpopular. If the people ultimately decide that the leader was wrong, then they are replaced next elections. Thus, the long term interests of the people are protected, but the short-term mass foolishness is neutered.

More over, the protests that I've seen amount to little more than kindergarden level arguments and ad-hominim attacks like 'No more Bush.' I'm sorry, but they'll have to do much better than this if they expect anyone in power to take them seriously.

Re:No!

[eglamkowski]

I think you mean:

George: "Tony, Tony, hurry, we found one"
Tony: "Yes georgie, I have my thumb already on the button"
George: "Shouldn't we first ring our friends and allies"
Tony: "Sure thing - I'll get on the phone right away to Italy, Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Britain, Denmark, the Netherlands, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Macedonia, Slovenia, Croatia, Japan and Kuwait!"

Re:Priorities

[ThrasherTT]

And I love people who think they know the truth, but are just falling for the leftist hype. If it were all about money, would we really want to spend so much to get it? Think of the huge amount of capital, both physical and political, that the US is spending in trying to disarm Saddam. Would it be worth it for a questionable source of money? Do you think that the US is really going to occupy Iraq and make it the 51st state? Do you really think Saddam Hussein, with his track record, should remain in power? If so, why, and how do you rationalize his previous actions?

Re:Bad Priorities

[dfenstrate]

I don't give a fuck what you think. You don't give a fuck what I think.

And I care even less what an AC thinks, but I'll respond anyway.

But you're basically saying that there's no point to posting on slashdot... yet you posted this reply.Perhaps you should listen to yourself?

I know there's no point in posting on slashdot past my own enjoyment of arguing and occasionally being enlightened, or enlightening someone.

If we "give it a damn rest" then we might as well not post on Slashdot. Sure, our lives would be pretty much the same with or without Slashdot, but it's fun, so I post. If you don't like it, don't read it.

Oh, one more thing- I try never to bring up the labels 'liberal' or 'conservative' because they're so inciteful and amount to name-calling. I prefer to let stances and ideas stand on their own. So, if you identified lack of courage with liberals, that's your call. An adept one at that.

Come on ...

[wgnorm]

if the items survive the looming war in the Middle East.

What an inflammatory article. What makes everyone think that all things good in Iraq are going to be destroyed by any military action we take?

People seem to think that our bombing campaigns still work like they did in Vietnam, where we target an area and blanket it with bombs. Yeah, sometimes our smart bombs will go astray, or wrong locations will be targeted, but those incidents are few and far between (and decreasing more with UAVs in the sky).

It's a big country, and the missiles are relatively small. They are aimed at military targets. Unless of course Saddam plants a scud launcher in the middle of a museum or site. Then are we to blame if we have to take it out?

Such is the way of war

[Dark Nexus]

Always has been, and always will be. War will always destroy some, if not most, of the ancient artifacts and historical pieces and locations. Think of the historical pieces and buildings lost in Europe thanks to both World Wars.

The real question is not if that's a reason to not go to war - it obviously is - the question is if it's a GOOD ENOUGH reason to not go to war.

It's also a reason to be careful when you're dropping bombs and firing artillery. Just incase the civilians weren't enough reason.

Re:Not the "same civilization"

[Lemmy Caution]

People can bitch and moan about the Americans, but no other culture has gone to such lengths to prevent civilian injury in modern times.

*Cough* Hiroshima, Dresden, Nagasaki, Tokyo, Cambodian carpet-bombing, napalm in Vietnam.

The US killed more civilians than combatants in Vietnam and Japan. And since the 2nd world war, just how many of the governments overthrown by US action led to stable, human-rights-respecting democracies? In Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Grenada, Indonesia? I think that would be "none."

Re:Perhaps Bush should install democracy in..

[Kruemelmo]

Quite true - but not Enough said.

What I miss most from the US is to come to terms with their past. There are just too many events in the past where the US as a state/nation have badly interfered with other people or nations and there have not been any apologies.

This is valid for many nations, but if you want to bring democracy to the world you better reflect about yourself. In public. And can admit mistakes. And be a good example of an open society. And respect life, the environment and other people's life styles.

Re:Priorities

[ives]

The Library at Alexandria was destroyed by Islamic invaders. If I recall my history, the scrolls were burned to keep the hot baths running to calm a rebellious populace (entertainment reasons-- in fairness, I've heard this story disputed, BTW).

Check out this [bede.org.uk] source or this [ehistory.com] one for a nice overview of the history of the destruction of the library. It turns out that troughout history various groups have been accused of the destruction of the library by their opponents. Unfortunately it's again the anti-muslim version that has stuck in people's collective memory...

Re:Not the "same civilization"

[Ducon Lajoie]

Yes yes... refusing to sign the Montreal protocol on Landmines and the protocol 1 to the Geneva convention (hint: it's titled Civilian Populations) is a great effort to minimize civilian casualities.

Civilian injury: I think it was 2 or 3 week into the campaign in Afghanistan that the civilian casuality tally matched the 3 000 deaths of 9/11. These were directly caused by military actions, it excluded starvation, diseases and what not. It only kept getting better from there. As another poster said, american lifes have more value than foreigners lifes.

Dictators whom we remove? Hussein? Noriega? The Afghan talibans/freedom fighters? Somalian warlords? Wouldn't that be the dictators we supported put up there in the first place? There isn't much glory in trying to mop up the mess, is there?

Re:No!

[manyoso]

No, no I'm pretty sure he means:

George: "Tony, Tony, hurry, we found one"
Tony: "Yes georgie, I have my thumb already on the button"
George: "Shouldn't we first ring our friends and allies"
Tony: "Sure thing - I'll get on the phone right away to all the countries in the world that we are bullying/bribing into supporting this war by either threatening veto's on attempts to get into NATO and withholding foreign aid or paying out ungodly amounts of bribe money!"

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid =6 55&e=1&cid=655&u=/oneworld/20030227/wl_oneworld/10 32_1046349026

Civilization BEGUN there

[alexborges]

I agree partly with the statement that human life is allways more important BUT, iraq is somehow of the mother of all archeologicall sites....

My friend, most of the bible's stories has iraq as a background. Not only writing, but navigation, maps, law.... a large host of things where made in the area.

So lets gravitate to the middle, we can agree that war is allways a pitifull, incredibly animal and uncivilized thing.

We can agree that human life is more important than any piece of clay.

We can agree that iraq is one of the most important and amazing sites. The origin of western civilization.

So now, should america nuke it?

So now, should iraq nuke anyone else?

So now, should israel nuke iraq?

Is any of this justified over some oil, saddam's manhood (or lack thereoff), religious and nationalistic (practically fascist) arab feelings?

No, No No No.... im tired of all... im tired of germanies, france, russia hipocresy (they have allways been ruthless with their colonies, murderers as any powerfull nation).

Im tired of the US allways protecting the interest of the incredebly pitifull american "culture". Fucking bunch of barbarians that, come on, drool over fucking pecan pie or big-macs (that says a lot about a country).

Im tired of the damned arabs with their cocky attitude, thinking the truth is what they hold when mostly they arent even refering to the profets words, but to their own bloody local traditions (look up what the q'ran of omar says, versus to what the rest of the books say....the qran is pretty peacefull, the rest of the stories are bloody shows of animality and disgrace).

Humanity is inexistant, we are all sick, noone has the moral pull to convince anyone. All have ulterior motives, and yet, they will decide....i just hope an asteroid fucks us up before we do.

And there..... we are back to where we started.

Re:It's all about oil... TO FRANCE!!!!

[The Ape With No Name]

Besides, if the US really wanted Iraqi oil for cheap, they could just lift the trade embargos. Much, much simpler, a lot less costly, and bloodless.

Actually, the embargo keeps the prices down since Iraq is not allowed to sell the oil for profit only food and humanitarian needs. Try again big guy.

This "it's all about oil" argument is a complete liberal cop-out. They can't come up with a real argument so they say it's all about oil. Equivalent to name-calling.

Name calling? Real argument? Did you see that laughable speech by the usurper last night? It isn't about terrorism, it's about peace in the Middle East. What a dumbass. How the hell does killing countless people in Iraq help peace? -1 + -1 = ???.

You're right, it probably wasn't a battery

[ShatteredDream]

I don't see why so many people buy into this. We can recognize it as a battery but that doesn't mean that the people who made it did. For all we know it was a cooking pot. Sure, electricity may have been known back then. Anyone looking up at the sky during a thunderstorm would see it, even if they couldn't identify it. Now, let's say they knew what electricity was, what practical applications would they have had for it? I can't think of any, can you anyone else (besides shocking people :) ). Seriously people, if these people didn't even have the societal, political and linguistic advancements necessary for understanding the amount of math and science that the West did before it found a practical way to generate and use electricity, what makes anyone think they knew what to do with it other than shock dogs, little kids and prisoners with it?

I oppose the war in Iraq. I think we should make the Israelis earn the foreign aid for a change by sending in some Mossad hit squads to kill Sodamn Insane and his family. Our real threat is North Korea which is one of the few countries on Earth with a government bloodthirsty enough to instantly up a convention conflict into a nuclear one and has a military that would be more than happy to follow an order to nuke LA, SF, Honolulu, Seoul, Portland and Seattle. You would either have to be a zealous anti-American (hmmm that's typically exceedingly redundant) moron or just plain ignorant of our culture to think that our military would follow an order to use a WMD without a meaningful provocation. If Bush ordered a pre-emptive nuclear strike on a nation that hasn't used WMD against us and/or doesn't have the means to, the military would most likely disobey the order to the point of a coup if necessary. The military takes an oath to uphold and defend the constitution, not follow the President's orders blindly.

Still though, Bush didn't invade Afghanistan to protect the Buddhist statues, which are a hell of a lot cooler and of more value than some peasant's pot which happens to be able to maintain an electrical charge. It is not ironic that the majority who oppose the war in Iraq do so out of sheer hatred for the US. Pacifists always see their side as the aggressor, it happened in World War II with the British and American pacifists who would have condemned the entire Jewish and Romany races to the NAZI death camps, and it's happening now. If you're going to oppose a war, at least have a principled reason for doing so other than "violence is wrong." Violence is often a legitimate tool for solving problems. If the US had to send in 10K marines to Rwanda with orders of shoot-to-kill, anything goes to stop the genocide, the ends would justify the means. Pacifism is a cowardly philosophy that plays God with the lives and freedom of those who are too weak in some form be it strength of body or numbers to defend themselves against an aggressor. Those who think that pacifism is moral should debate a holocaust survivor. Let them tell someone who was almost massacred because of their religion or ethnicity that the American troops that overran several concentration camps were "imperialist aggressors." Yeah yeah, the NAZIs declared war on us, but so did Sodamn Insane by providing material aid and support to those who are engaged in acts of aggression and violence against us and our allies. Methinks too many people in the West are so daft that they have no understanding of proxy warfare.

So pacifist cry babies, if you want to make a big stink about Iraq, go protest France too for their involvement in the Rwandan genocide. Wah bloody, fucking, wah. Cry me a river for the human shields and iraqi soldiers dumb enough to fight for Sodamn Insane. Why the hell should we care about how many people get killed in Iraq? Many of these are the same people that joyously danced in the streets when the WTC was bombed and 3000+ civilians from ~80 nations were murdered. At least it wasn't nuclear because at that point we would have been right for asking them: "Dresden or Carthage, your pick."

Re:Bad Priorities

[grammar fascist]

In fact, I'd always considered it a sign of great personal strength, this desire to peacefully resolve conflicts even if it included the risk of grave personal harm.

When "personal harm" extends to millions of people, the logic changes just a bit. We're not on the playground anymore.

Re:Bad Priorities

[rifter]

and those people we would call weak-willed moral relativists.

If it's important enough to start a war (or, more precisely, continue a war, since Iraq is violating the cease fire agreement of the gulf war), then an ancient artifact is certainly acceptable collateral damage.

You may disagree wether or not we should invade Iraq, but the decision is not made lightly. The importance of an (already studied) artifact is irrelevant in comparison.

Moreover, It takes courage to advocate and perform an unpleasent but neccessary action. It takes none at all to come out in favor of puppies and kittens, children playing in the sun, and M-16 barrels being used to hold flowers.

Guess what? Bush, Rumsfield, Powell, and Blair value those things to. But these things will not happen in Iraq, or the middle east, by simply wishing them into existence.

Unless, of course, you believe that Saddam only poses a threat to his own people, so why should we care?

Boy was that flamebait, but I suppose I am going to respond in case you might possibly be serious. First, I have to wonder what exactly you have against peace in general, since you seem so contemptuous of the very idea of peace, puppies, kittens, and flowers. What, in your opinion, is so odious about having peace in the world?

Secondly, I would have to differ with your opinion on the nature of courage, and whether it is possible to be a courageous pacifist. I think that if you were to actually study the lives of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Vaclav Havel, to name a few famous dedicated pacifists, you might begin to understand the immense courage, character, and inner strength it takes to truly stand up for peace when those around you want war.

As for the "leaders" you mention, my personal opinion based on my observation of their actions is that they do not in fact value life, puppies, children, etc unless they are their own. They seem perfectly content to sacrifice the lives and happiness of others, not out of necessity as you claim, but their own personal private gain. They will not make the same sacrifices and in fact when given the chance in the past they made sure they would not have to do so. A true leader is willing to do what he asks others to do and share in the sacrifices and trials of those he leads.

It is also my contention that the decision to invade Iraq has been made lightly. The proof is in the pudding, in that the hastily made plans are self-evident. The decision by George Bush unilaterally to invade Iraq has been treated as inviolable from the beginning. The only reasons the US have not invaded are those of logistics; since the Saudis will not allow US troops to use their bases we had to build new ones in Kuwait specifically for the purpose of launching an invasion of Iraq. Meanwhile the pretense of going to our allies and the UN first (though Bush has dismissed their objections out of hand) can be maintained and the time it takes to amass our forces can be used as proof we are not being hasty.
Additionally the "proof" Saddam is breaking resolutions, which is supposed to be our reason for acting in the first place, is being dredged up after the fact, and when reports point out that villages with no water or electricity cannot be chemical weapons plants and grad student papers from 1997 about 1991 conditions in Iraq are not proper, current intelligence reports on the situation in Iraq today are met with scoffing from the Bush camp.

Bush cannot be seriously considering his decision to go to war, because a true consideration must include the possibility of peace, and in Bush's plan there is no possibility of peace. There is nothing the Iraqis can do to escape the destruction he intends to visit upon them.

As for your charge of weak-willed moral relativism, I would guess you mean it takes a strong-willed moral relativist to believe it is okay to rape and murder if your leader tells you so, though it is certainly not otherwise.

The only point I agree with in your post is embodied in the last two sentences. No peace will be achieved in the middle east or anywhere else simply by wishing it into existence. Achieving peace is far harder than waging war. Of course having peace does require people who value and want peace, just as having war requires people who value and want war. Unfortunately the latter seems to be the case here and now.

And, yes, I do agree that Saddam poses a threat to his own people, and I do think we should care. But how we deal with that situation is a very sticky problem. In the past the answer (per Bush the Elder) has been to give Saddam Hussein aid, power, and the very weapons we seem so upset he possesses while flushing out his enemies for him (an act recently repeated by Bush the younger, though they did not rise to the bait this time) by making public false promises of aid, then watching as he destroys them. And now we are starting another war which the Iraqi people (and even, it would seem, Saddam Hussein) do(es) not want, which will only serve to consolidate his position as people tend to rally to their leaders in time of war no matter how terrible they are (as evidenced by Bush's own poll results).

Re:No!

[manyoso]

Uh, you left out a few points I think:

• The US -- only country which has used a nuclear bomb on two civilian targets which killed hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths. The country who is primarily responsible for arming Iraq as well as the rest of the world in all of the conventional weapons plus biological/chemical. The country who has refused to rule out the use of WMD killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians upon the same country it wishes to 'liberate'. The country who along with Britain backed Iraq and supported Iraq when the tyrant allegedly used chemical weapons against an entire village of innocent civilians, (ad nauseum).

American re-education

[oob]

It is bizarre reading these posts and seeing people quote as fact the propaganda of the American government and media.

That the American public is completely unfamiliar with the modern history of Iraq and with their own government's history of creating instablity in the region is quite shocking. I think it's the reason why Americans swallow whole the misinformation and outright lies spoon fed to them by their media and politicians.

After WWII and continuing today, the UN mandates the teaching of the Nazi era to all German school children at all levels, in an attempt to ensure that Germans cannot hide from the legacy of the last world conflict.

I think that a similar UN mandate is warranted here. The uninformed/misinformed American public are creating real difficulties for the world by supporting extremist politicians in their government. I would like to see the U.N. step in and make an effort to teach American school children some basic facts about life outside the U.S. and the long history of America's damage to the wider world. Such an effort might go a long way towards helping Americans learn to behave in a civilised manner both as individuals and as a society.

American media (which we see here in Britain) is absolutely shocking. The only examples of blatant propaganda that come even close to it are Stalinst-era Soviet broadcasts and the works of Goebels in Nazi Germany.

It would be too much to ask that the power structures behind the American media begin to show Americans the truth, but perhaps with a U.N. education effort for young Americans they will become less susceptible to the lies that they are force-fed and gleefully regurgitate here in such a repugnantly belligerent manner.

Thinnest anti-war pretext yet!

[mumblestheclown]

I agree. The risks of potentially hurting the gutenberg press were much higher than freeing millions under naziism. We should have stayed in bed, or just rolled over like the french.

Re:No!

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, I think you got the veto part wrong - France is the one threatening to veto eastern europe since they are supporting the US.

But what the hell - the eastern european countries just came out of 50 years of brutal, oppressive regimes, what do they know about life under a vicious dictatorship? Of course France knows better... Or at least, France knows it doesn't want to lose several billion in oil contracts.
Oops.

Re:No!

[jedidiah]

...simply more leftist selective memory.

The US was partnered with the USSR when it was busy arming countries like Iraq. Also, it is not proven that the US has helped arm any other country with weapons of mass destruction. This claim is pure conjecture on your part.

Why lie if you don't need to? Do you need to? It really is starting to look that way.

Re:You're right, it probably wasn't a battery

[jovlinger]

It could very well have been a battery: it is easy to stumble accross the effect and through experimentation be able to recreate it, without understanding it. Isn't that what science is about: the "huh?!" factor? (Great quote that, which I lack a reference for: "the sound of science isn't 'yes', but rather 'huh?'")

Although any fail to spring to mind (damn brain, be more helpful or I'll poke you with a q-tip), I imagine many such curiosas were relegated to amusing the court for decades before their true world-changing power became apparent.

I imagine that many discoveries were also buried because they failed to agree with the fashionable world view at the time: Galileo needed both insight AND courage: he wasn't the first to realise the proper organisation of planets , merely the one to argue the point publically.

Re:Bad Priorities

[Mattster P.]

I don't believe for one second that this is primarily about oil, but it certainly isn't about the national security of the U.S.

Amen, George W.'s war with Iraq isn't about oil and for sure not about national security, it's about the Bush legacy and George W. attempting to finish what his dad started in the Gulf War.

I think in Bush's mind this war will give him more popularity and keep him in Office for another term (Presidents are always re-elected during war time) .

the BBC is anti american

[Anonymous Coward]

I would expect nothing more than a story like this from the bbc, they are known for their liberal reporting. I wouldnt be suprised if they came out and said saddamn hussein himself shits out gold nuggets.

Who would be to blame?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the so-called battery is destroyed, who is to blame? I say the ones who caused the war. And that would be . . . . . SADDAM!

Re:Thinnest anti-war pretext yet!

[spakka]

You did stay in bed. America joined the war after Pearl Harbour, remember.

Re:Priorities

[abulafia]

If it were all about money, would we really want to spend so much to get it? Think of the huge amount of capital, both physical and political, that the US is spending in trying to disarm Saddam. Would it be worth it for a questionable source of money?
Yes, it is certainly worth it, if you're not paying for it.
The notion is called "nationalizing loses, privatizing profits". The idea is you offload costs of business onto the government, e.g., tax payers, while ensuring the bulk of the profit stays in your company. The tax payer pays for the war, and the oil companies get the contracts once a puppet is in power.
Quite a simple notion, really. It has been going on for quite a while... The best example, in terms of what you may not have slept through in highschool might be the East India Company.

Re:Not the "same civilization"

[Platinum Dragon]

They way to make gas prices go down would be to declare that Iraq is indeed disarming and allow them to resume oil exports. This is the fastest, cheapest way to get the oil.

Wrong. This is the fastest way to reduce oil prices somewhat. It does nothing to gain control of the oil, which is the point that the "no war for oil" people are trying to get across.

The head of the INC, who hasn't been in Iraq since 1956, is already talking with US oil companies for access to the oil fields after the war. Cheney and Bush are oil barons. If the price of oil goes up, their friends and families benefit, since most people will pay through the nose anyway. If the price drops after the war, even better; the oil families will still rake in the cash, and the OPEC dictatorships will see their own economic base weakened by a drop in prices. Either way, the situation is win-win for certain powerful people and organizations. Western life is tied to oil as a common, essential resource. It is the source of our fuel and some of our most common materials.

Oil may not be the only factor, but it is a factor. However, to believe that anyone currently running the show in Washington is seriously concerned about the lives of Iraqis is pure naivete. Quite a few of the people currently in power helped support Saddam's war machine during the Iran-Iraq war, looked the other way while both sides used chemical weapons, didn't make a noise about his development of chemical and biological weapons (may have quietly helped, in fact) and didn't give a rat's patoot about the megalomaniac until he invaded the wrong country. Invading Iran was fine. It's not enough to say Bush I wasn't president for the Iran-Iraq war and thus Saddam's actions then weren't his problem, as he was vice-president during that period.

One only need look at that infamous picture of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam's hand to know where freedom and human rights rank compared to political expediency in the minds of the cabal currently running the US.

Re:No!

[manyoso]

The US was partnered with the USSR when it was busy arming countries like Iraq.

Who is it 'partnered' (no idea what you mean with this) with now as it continues to spew arms all over the place including Saudi Arabia (another oppressive regime) and the rest of the countries it is bribing with arms into joining the coalition of the coerced?

Also, it is not proven that the US has helped arm any other country with weapons of mass destruction. This claim is pure conjecture on your part.

How about the Anthrax and Botulism that it has given to Iraq in the past? How about all of the F-16's and the attack helicopters and all of the other weapons of mass destruction it has given to all kinds of countries? What exactly do you require as proof?

Re:But...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll bet you're likely to find mostly French and Germany have been recently "in-bed" with Iraq on the weapons front.

France build them their Nuclear Plant (bombed by Israel) in the early 80's, Germany recently got "caught" selling aluminum cylinders which can be used in purifying uranium... (which I'm sure is for making glow in the dark stickers).

France & Germany's resistance has more to do with Oil and Exports than America.

This isn't to say we helped Iraq against Iran (remember the Embasy hostages in the late 70's), just as we helped Afghanistan against the USSR in the 80's).

Re:No!

[eglamkowski]

This "the US is the only country to use nuclear bombs" crap is such a red herring - yeah, the US used atomic weapons on Japan. What were the alternatives?

First of all, we did not kill multiple hundreds of thousands with the atomic bombs, but in total just over 100,000. But I ask you this, what were the alternatives?

Invasion? In addition to high casualties among the soldiers, Japanese civilians would have committed suicide in huge numbers. Even as early as Guam civilians were killing themselves to avoid US occupation (and many of those were actually forced to jump from cliffs by japanese soldiers, so it wasn't really suicide...). Deaths would have been in the millions, including these civilians.
That's an order of magnitude greater then the atomic bomb.

Or perhaps we should relied on the blockade we had in place (since it was EXTREMELY effective, after all)? Let me tell you, the government (that is, the military) would not let itself starve, and the Japanese civilians were far too compliant to complain. Probably millions of civilian deaths from privation in this case. Not to mention that the million+ japanese army in China relied heavily on forage and would have been very active regardless. I've heard that possibly over 10,000 chinese people PER DAY were killed by the Japanese. If the blockade took another year or two, that's 3.65-7.3 million dead chinese. In addition to the millions of japanese civilians killed by privation and who knows how many military casualties. You're looking at likely TWO orders of magnitude greater then the atomic bomb.

Or maybe we could have just let the Soviets seize control of all of Asia? Yeah, that'd be real great - go ask eastern europe how great that was to be under Soviet domination. You'd be looking at THREE orders of magnitude (or more!) greater in deaths in the next 50 years.

Sorry, but the atomic bomb was absolutely the best choice possible, in the sense that it produced the least amount of casualties in the long run.

The US was not evil for using it, it was incredibly smart. For those (mostly liberals) whining about casualties and deaths and "the children", the US absolutely did the right thing in that particular case. The alternatives simply would have lead to orders of magnitudes more death and suffering.

Now, having said that, I will say that using nuclear weapons in Iraq would be dumb dumb dumb, but let's not forget that Saddam would happily use atomic weapons (if he obtained them) to impose his own perverted will on the world (and to obliterate Israel), he would NOT use them to end evil and bring about just peace to the world.

Same thing goes for North Korea.

Which is to say, criticizing the US for using atomic weapons is really quite foolish, considering how much worse the alternatives were.

Comparing US use of atomics to the uses Iraq or North Korea would put them to is utterly ludicrous and barely even worthy of a response.

Re:Putting historical importance in perspective

[WegianWarrior]

Amen!

The Soviet Union lost about 11 million soldiers fighting the invading germans - fighting them all the way into Berlin in fact. The US lost how many? I seem to recall hearing 0,3 million US lives lost in Europe in both WWI and WWII...

Yes, we europeans did a lot of stupid stuff during the first half of the last century. But that means we have seen the folly of war far better than those safely behind two oceans.

Re:You're right, it probably wasn't a battery

[GooberToo]

We can recognize it as a battery but that doesn't mean that the people who made it did. [...] Now, let's say they knew what electricity was, what practical applications would they have had for it?

It's thought to of been a medical device or used as part of a magician's tricks. Seems there is some evidence to support both positions. Appears that even modern science agrees with some of these conclusions as low voltage can used to aleviate pain and even cause relaxation for sore or tired muscles, post-treatment. Of course, there's also the possibility that it could be used as a simple "sparking" device to aid in rapid creation of fire with available fuel sources.

Remember, electricity doesn't only have to be used with door bells and light bulbs.

Re:Bad Priorities

[workindev]

What, in your opinion, is so odious about having peace in the world?

If you consider what Iraq has done and is still doing today as "peaceful", then you might want to consult a dictionary. Personally, I do not consider tyrannical leadership filled with murder, rape, and torture as peaceful at all. Not to mention the fact that the ruling Baath leadership has gassed its own people, is actively working to develop WMD, and has shown that they are willing to brutally expand their borders. This is no different than Hitler, but I suppose you would have argued that we should have left him alone to maintain "peace".

It is also my contention that the decision to invade Iraq has been made lightly. The proof is in the pudding, in that the hastily made plans are self-evident.

Hastily made plans? Even if you don't count the 12 years and dozens of UN resolutions that were violated before, we have been threatening and planning for military action for well over a year now. These "hastily made plans" are still being made, and last time I checked we had not invaded Iraq yet.

The decision by George Bush unilaterally to invade Iraq has been treated as inviolable from the beginning.
There is nothing the Iraqis can do to escape the destruction he intends to visit upon them.
Wrong. Every UN resolution that has been passed has given Iraq an out. War will be completely avoided if Iraq and Saddam submit to the UN resolutions. They have not done that yet. War is only unavoidable if Saddam does comply.

Additionally the "proof" Saddam is breaking resolutions, which is supposed to be our reason for acting in the first place, is being dredged up after the fact

What are you talking about? We have had proof that Saddam is breaking resolutions since 1991! He didn't comply with the resolution to unoccupy Kuwait until we kicked him out. He was not complying with the resolutions when he kicked the UN inspectors out in 1997. He was not complying with UN inspectors when Clinton bombed him for 4 days in a row. He is not in compliance now because he has not accounted for the warheads and missiles that the UN has demanded he account for. He is not in compliance now because he refuses to destroy missiles that have a longer range than allowed by the UN. If you don't see any proof of non-compliance, you are really not looking at all!

It boils down to this: Throughout history there have always been evil people willing to do evil things. It is up to everybody else to do something about it before things get out of hand. We have a clear connection between Iraq and terrorism -- they both have a common hatred for Americans. This was evidenced in the Bin Ladin audio tape that surface a few weeks ago where he called on the Muslim world to rally around Iraq. Since September 11th we know we have obscure enemies that are willing to go at great lengths to injure us, and we also know that Iraq has the ability and desire to make weapons to injure us. We cannot risk allowing these two common goals to bring Al Queda and Iraq together to try and destroy us.

Re:It's all about oil... TO FRANCE!!!!

[ehiris]

embargo keeps the prices down since Iraq is not allowed to sell the oil for profit only food and humanitarian needs

How exactly did you figure that out? The more offer the offer goes up and the demand stays steady, the price always goes down!

If you want some historical evidence, think about the Great Depression and what happend to all the goods that over-produced. They had to be thrown away so that the price doesn't fall under the cost of production.

This really is troll food, but whatever...

[smoondog]

It is bizarre reading these posts and seeing people quote as fact the propaganda of the American government and media.

What is truely bizarre is that you manage to write so much, but give no examples of this propaganda. While I agree with you that the American media has a tendancy not to question statements by American leadership, this post is another example of ignorance (and arrogance?) toward American media and Americans in general.

The real tragedy here is that many Europeans truely believe that America is a country filled with mindless drones who believe everything they read and that everything they read is a lie. This is simply not true.

Many Americans have differing beliefs, and many (american) media outlets do reflect this heterogenecity. Examples include the 100,000+ people that marched in San Francisco against military action in Iraq. Or last night, Dan Rather's interview with Saddam Hussein. Do you think the Bush administration wanted that aired? Many newspapers have written in editorial pages reservations about the Bush administration stance. Ignorance is everywhere, and perhaps that smell is coming from your own back yard and not your short wave radio...

-Sean

Re:Bad Priorities

[Rasputin]

...but you can not reason with the unreasonable.

So, I guess, talking Bush into not invading Iraq is out of the question...

Re:No!

[Anonymous Coward]

"How about the Anthrax and Botulism that it has given to Iraq in the past? How about all of the F-16's and the attack helicopters and all of the other weapons of mass destruction it has given to all kinds of countries? What exactly do you require as proof?"

First of all, F-16s and attack helicopters are not weapons of max destruction.

Second, I'll believe that we gave biological and chemical agents to Iraq, when I hear it from someone with even a mediocre amount of authority.

Democrats do not count, nor do bleeding heart liberals who would have everyone believe that a quarter of a million Iraqi civillians were slain each time a bomb misfired during the last war. :p

Re:No!

[TheCarp]

And when is the last time the US made any sort of sacrifice for the UN?

Arn't we kin do fhypocrits to wipe our ass with every treaty that the UN or anyone asks us to sign, and then to point our finger at Iraq and say they arn't playing fair?

The Bush administration said that the Iraq issue will "test the relevance of the UN". Personally, I think the kyoto protocol already did that. The US decided YEARS ago that the UN wasn't really relevant and was to be used as nothing more than a vehicle to push OUR agenda on the rest of the world.

Besides...look at the region. Can you honestly say that a person ruling a country in that region can be considered a competent ruler AND NOT have nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs?

Just look at who they boarder and then tell me they shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction. Fuck, if I were in Saddam's shoes I would too!

-Steve

Re:Genocide...

[kingkade]

So what would you call killing several hundred thousand civilians in two bombings...

I call myself more of a lefty than anything (indep), but this sort of reasoning is so misguided and specious in my opinion.

When the US used *the first* nuclear weapon, it was in a WAR that had been raging throughout most of the world for six years killing millions of civilians and millions more service men. Used against a *COUNTRY*. The bomb was dropped, Japan was asked to sign a treaty (that's to END the war), they did not, and they got another one dropped on them. You'll just have ot take my word that i don't support killing of innocents at all, but if you and millions others were losing your lives everyday for a war that could end witht the mere threat of an A-bomb, you would support the A-bomb being used as a threat. Do you have any idea that the otherewise proposed invasion of mainland Japan would cost many more lives?

Their military cites and factories and industries were IN those cities, and obviously they would lose a lot of civilian people.

The most important point here is that that was in a hot WAR. And you call that GENOCIDE? You need to put your ideology in perspective.

I repect your right to your opinion, but it seems to me you have not thought through your first very REACTIONARY comment.

They Native Americans on the other hand WERE actively killed (I still am not entirely sure genocide is the word) and there is simply no excuse for they way they were treated by frontiersmen, etc but I don't know if it was the policy of the relatively fledgling US govt to actively purse genocide.

Re:No evidence...

[manyoso]

"The US may have done things that have bitten us on the ass, but never has the US participated in genocide."

Oh wow. That is perhaps the most ignorant comment I have seen yet! You really do win the prize with that one. I think the Native Americans would beg to differ.

Re:No evidence...

[banzai51]

1) CIA trained Bin Laden and many people in Afghanistan against the USSR, many of these became the Taliban. Let's clarify. The US supplied money, support, arms to the Afgan people when they were invaded by the Soviets. After years of fighting, the Afgans repel the Sovs. Hoorah. Now that the Sovs are gone, the US stops sending arms and cuts back on the money sent. The Afgans loose their minds because they intended to go on a worldwide jihad on the US dollar. Boofuckinghoo. So they acted like brats and turned on the US. That is Bin Laden and the Taliban.

Re:No!

[ajakk]

Gee, haven't you heard? Big Oil was pushing that the sanctions be lifted from Iraq so that they could get their hands on the oil. A war in Iraq will make its oil supply unavailable for quite a long time to US Oil Companies. The one thing that Oil companies don't want is unrest in a country they are doing business with. A country under a command and control dictatorship (like Saddam Hussein's) is much more stable and much better to keep oil flowing for Big Oil. The only reason that "Big Oil" might want Saddam Hussein toppled is because they are afriad that he will get his hands on nuclear weapons and start invading his neighbors again. Once Saddam gets nuclear weapons, he will not be easily contained anymore. Yes, France suffered through a very brutal war. Of course, the US did not suffer at all during the World Wars liberating France. It is precisely because of the enormity of the Second world war why we should invade Iraq. Before the Second World War, Britain and France appeased Hitler and Nazi Germanys productions of weapons and land grabs. Because they did not prevent Germany from following the restrictions which they agreed to, Germany became extremely dangerous, and millions of people died. The same thing is happening with Iraq. What does it say about the international community if we allow a brutal dictator to violate the terms of a cease-fire treaty and build terrible weapons? It shows that we are taking the route of PM Chamberlain. If we want "Peace For Our Time" we must not be deathly afraid of using our military to create peace.

Re:The Riddle Of My Plumbing Battery

[Locmar]

I read somewhere a theory that the the Baghdad battery was used in gold-plating. You attach a copper wire to the iron rod and another to the copper tube, fill the pot with vinegar, and run the wires into a solution of gold and cyanide, then put something metal into it. The current, about half a volt, causes the gold to come out of solution onto the metal object, but it also releases cyanide gas. This process is still used today, but it's a little more sophisticated than giving some metal bits a grapejuice bath.

Re:No!

[Frank of Earth]

*laf* I knew it. We wouldn't be in this mess now if Clintion was sticking cigars in places where cigars should never go.

If he wasn't worried about getting his dick sucked by every bitch in the White House, maybe he would have responded with a real retaliation to the FIRST WTC bombing.

His liberation of Kosovo was way too late and many lives were lost because of his lack of a backbone, among other things

And yes, it's a preemtive strike. Are you so blind that you can't see that we are AT WAR right now? Perhaps we need the golden gate bridge to be brought down before you realize that it's time for action, not talk.

Back to an earlier point, of Clinton didn't decimate the CIA, maybe we would have had SOME decent intelligence in place.. ARgh, I can go on and on.

Yes YES YES it's about putting our sphere of influence around Iraq. The radical Muslim "units" that live and breed in these nations must be aware that we are there and we will not stand for another attack.

Iraq is just a stepping stone.

The reason why everyone isn't going apesh*t over N korea is because we have the backing of China. China's economy is directly related to trade with the US. Any compromise in that will be squashed by the big Red. Bush and his team know that N Korea would have a huge world of pain if they tried any shit.

And lastly, what pisses me off is not being anti-war but being anti-american. You probably don't even realize it.. most Democrats don't.

Re:No!

[N3WBI3]

As I understand it, Sadamm has committed endless atrocities, but the very worst ones were committed in the past. Why are we only going in now? So that we can get cheap oil? Because Bush holds a grudge against this guy ("he tried to kill my dad")? Because we can't find Osama and so need an easy scapegoat to bring down in his stead?
The reason we are doing this now is because when he violated the cease fire he signed (1992?) in 1998 clinton did nothing about it. Youre right now makes little sense but it makes more than in 5 more years it would have been right to do this 5 years ago. In 1998 when Iraq kicked out inspectors Clinton dropped a few bombs on them, looked good for him and he did not have to really commit to doing anything. In 1998 I did not see outrage we were bombing Iraq becuase in the minds of many Clinton is not an 'evil republican' so his motives must be true. The truth is we have more proof of WMD in Iraq than we had of mass graves in Kosovo...

And look at Afghanistan. All these months after our liberation there and have we really done that much good? Warlords are still running amock; the only place they don't have any real power is Kabul. Are we really interested in helping the oppressed of the world or are we just so blindingly scared of terrorism that we're willing to lash out at the first country the President looks at funny?

It will be a long process to reunite that country, but the taliban did support a man and shelter a man who plots every day to kill people. In addition to this you could be killed if youre a woman and too much of your face is showing. I just hope we do right by them and stay there long enough for a govt to hold (be it a monarcy, a tribal republic, or whatever)..

Re:No!

[malelder]

no joke or sarcasm meant, but there are not any enemies out there like that for America anymore...

and if that war that sent home 3 out of four soldiers dead or missing limbs was for a good reason (such as ousting an insane criminal from running a whole country) America would probably gladly do it...at least this American would...

but then, I just can't get enough blood (:

And America took place in that particular military action in 1914...something a lot of countries overseas for some reason seem to have forgotten. Just because it wasn't on our soil doesn't mean we didn't die to help out the cause.

Mod me down tho, because I actually do believe this potential war in Iraq is for humanitarian reasons, not for oil...remember, if it was for oil, we would of taken it in 1991. (:

Re:typical liberal responses

[kfg]

Satire is an insulting medium. It is *intended* to insult. What differentiates satire from mere boorishness is that it is also funny.

It insults by pointing and giggling, and inducing others to do the same. It is the *ultimate* insult. In part because it inherently relies on the *truth* for its humor.

Didn't yo mamma ever tell you if it weren't true it wouldn't hurt?

Satire isn't *what* is said, it is *how* it is said. You, sir, have removed the wit of the parent post to reveal the insult. Very good. We all knew it was there. You also removed the intelligence and simply rendered a bit of boorish doggerel.

Satire is the tool of the intelligent. Liberals use it and Conservatives use it, because there are intelligent people, and fools, in both camps.

And anyone who starts saying "That's not funny" when man and dog are wiping the tears from their eyes has just revealed himself to be a perfect target for satire, personally.

"Sir, this is a feminist bookstore. There *is* no humor section!"

Now THAT is good satire.

KFG

Re:elusive justifications

[eglamkowski]

Let's just say, just for a second, that Osama Bin Laden has an infallible crystal ball, or is a Mentat, or in some other way was able to do a calculus that indicated that crashing planes into the WTC was a course of action that would cause, in the medium-to-long run, markedly fewer civilian deaths than any alternative.

Or let's say that they used a truck bomb at the WTC that only caused 6 deaths? Ooops, that's exactly what happened in 1993. Oddly enough(!), it WAS rather just accepted as one of those things that happens and has passed into being a fairly minor footnote in our history.

Anyways, in World War II there was no naiveity in assuming we were good guys and they were bad guys. Take a look, for example, at how occupied countries were treated. Or how prisoners of war were treated. Or, for that matter, how countries treated their own populations. There is absolutely no question that the allies were the good guys and the axis was the bad guys. It really wasn't complicated, it was completely obvious. And the day the US troops first liberated a german concentration camp really drove home to everyone how completely crystal clear it was, for those few who were still far too myopic to understand.

The allied armies didn't have competitions to see who could kill the most civilians in the shortest period of time (Japanese in Nanking).

We didn't slaughter every last man, woman and child in a town and completely raze it to the ground because a leader was assassinated nearby to it (see Germany's Heydrich).

Yes, we interned the japanese population and that was stupid, but we didn't exterminate them (like the germans) or force them to work at hard labor til they died from exhaustion (like the japanese). It was simply containment.

In the current situation, I would be surprised if anybody (even liberals) tried to claim Saddam was a good guy. His tortures, rapes, murders and assorted perversions are well documented. He is NOT "good". In fact, I think it IS safe to go the step further and say he is "evil".

That doesn't mean we should automatically qualify Bush or Blair as good, but many pro-war people are acting with good intentions. It may be cliche, but "Evil Prevails When Good Men Do Nothing". And since Saddam is clearly evil....

Re:Well Then This Would Mean

[kingkade]

It was OK to kill hundreds of thousands of women and children because it ended a REALLY UGLY WAR

You're words, not mine. It was ok to use whatever weapons you have to defend yourself:
- This was a *war*, declared on *us* by *japan*.
- They were ready to fight to the death costing even more lives.
There were no smart weapons to single out structures. Factories and military were concentrated in cities.

Or to generalise the argument, "its OK to kill civilians as a method of stopping a war". Tell me, where do you draw the line? Either it IS acceptable to deliberately kill civilians in a war, or it is NOT. Its one or the other, there are no fuzzy inbetweens.

There's your problem: you generalize, you think eveything is black and white. A problem with arm-chair philosophists. Tell me, i don't know what war is like. If you were pulled out of your life in your teenage years to be hauled thousands of miles away from home to stop some madmen from commiting real genocide (see: rape of nanjing, auschwitz), and your friends called over there are dying everyday, you see soldiers crying for their mothers as they try to shove their entrails back into themselves -- all to save the world from a certainly horrible future...If it wasn't for the brave men who fought for the freedom we wouldn't have the right to post what we are both really thinking right now, and would most likely be pretty badly off.

So, you ask: 'Where do you draw the line?' My answer is a resounding 'I don't know.' But my gut feeling is that it was justified in ending the war and saved many lives over a ground invasion of japan.

Bottom line is: It was a war, and it was a war we were dragged into.

Answer me this: if the US wanted to merely threaten Japan in order to stop the war, why didn't they first drop one of these bombs in a poorly populated area, and THEN use in a populated area if they didn't get results?

Probably because it took them years to develop those two bombs?

Re:typical liberal responses

[kfg]

Newsflash:

God reaffirms the Jews as his chosen people. Millions of Jews go into mourning.

Rabbi Lev in Prague, Czech Republic comments, "Oy vey, like, once in a while, couldn't you just choose someone else?"

The above is your miserable little rant turned into satire. The joke is so old it vanishes into the mists of history, but so funny that *Jews* have preserved and treasured it for generations. I laughed at it when I saw it in Fiddler on the Roof, and I laughed at it again when, decades later, I saw it on satirewire.com.

And yes, it is based on an insult. Yes, Jews insult themselves. Self deprecating humor is one of the end results of surviving thousands of years of persecution.

It was funny when I satirized you too, although you may have missed it. It was kind of a "meta" satirization.

I'll close with the words of a great humorist:

"Go away little boy, ya bother me."

KFG

Re:No!

[Citizen of Earth]

Big Oil was pushing that the sanctions be lifted from Iraq so that they could get their hands on the oil. A war in Iraq will make its oil supply unavailable for quite a long time to US Oil Companies. The one thing that Oil companies don't want is unrest in a country they are doing business with.

I think that in place of "Big Oil", you should be saying "France, Germany, and Russia". Not to mention the billions of dollars that Saddam owes them for weapons and technology which they are worried about collecting.

Re:No!

[Citizen of Earth]

I've heard that possibly over 10,000 chinese people PER DAY were killed by the Japanese. If the blockade took another year or two, that's 3.65-7.3 million dead chinese.

Nobody cares about the hundred million people who have been killed by tyrants in the past 50 years, certainly not the U.N., which sat on its ass and watched. It's all about what can be blamed on the United States. I guess that condemning tyrant dictators just isn't sexy enough.

Your all off topic...

[MickDownUnder]

What about this pot ?

WOW a 2200 year old battery !!!

I wanna know more !

I request everyone not specifically talking about the foreverready batter be modded to -1. That way I can find the useful information about this fascinating pot

hoax or a fake

[Martin S.]

The BBC has an interesting article about a 2,200 year old battery ...
... how this priceless artifact as well as many others...
... threatened by the impending war.

This are is undoughtedly a hoax or a fake, If it was a battery it would show signs of electrolysis not corrosion, it does not it is also rather pointless without something to apply the power to, a light, motor, a transistor radio. It is probably an early 20th Century hoax or propaganda aimed at the appeasenicks and is to be expected from Saddam really.

However you don't expect this type of sloppyness from the BBC. The article makes the automatic assumption that the West will be bombing museums, and by implication, schools hospitals etc. This is just plainly absurd. The BBC seem to have dropped their usual impartiality and integrity on this whole issue and adopted a pro-appeasenick position.