The Riddle of Baghdad's Battery 1808
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."
No! (Score:5, Funny)
It's not a battery! It's a chemical weapon! Call Hans Blix!
Wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wrong! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No! (Score:3, Insightful)
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:No! (Score:4, Insightful)
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&nci
Iraq != Germany (Score:3)
Re:No! (Score:3, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:No! (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:elusive justifications (Score:3, Insightful)
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:No! (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
No evidence... (Score:5, Interesting)
Israel ? And what was Donald "lets invade" Rumsfelds job during the 80s... err selling chemicals to Sadam.
We know, beyond any reasonable doubt that the US has helped Israel get WMD, we also know its sold them to Britain as well.
So there are two official cases where it has happened. And officially the US and Britain supplied billions of dollars of arms equipment to Iraq during the Iran v Iraq war.
What else do we know
1) CIA trained Bin Laden and many people in Afghanistan against the USSR, many of these became the Taliban.
2) The US supplied weapons to terrorists in the Iran/Contra scandal.
So yes, apart from these cases and lots more there is no evidence at all to say that the US has potentially the dirtiest hands on the block.
Re:No evidence... (Score:4, Interesting)
How does that make your argument feel?
indole
Re:No evidence... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No evidence... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Genocide... (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Well Then This Would Mean (Score:3, Insightful)
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:No! (Score:3, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Informative)
OK, please correct me if I'm mistaken, because I was fairly young when the Kosovo thing occurred, but it seems to me that atrocities were being commited at the very time we entered Kosovo. Our motives were fairly pure in that we as a country weren't "getting" anything out of liberating the people there--we were honestly just trying to help.
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?
If I honestly believed that the only (or even primary) reason we were going to Iraq was to make life better for the Iraqi people, then I think I wouldn't be as hard on Bush as I have been.
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?
Re:No! (Score:4, Insightful)
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! (Score:4, Interesting)
I just think it funny how people assume Bush is a moron, when he always seems to outwit his political opponents. He got the democrats to vote on giving him authority to attack Iraq, and though he has taken fire from the world for being a 'cowboy' he has got inspectors back in Iraq (by forcing the UN), and now Iraq may take apart its missles. Bush has done more on Iraq in 2 years than Clinton did in 8 and he has not fired a shot. I hope a bomb never falls on Iraq, I have a sister in law over there right now and a brother who might have to ship out in the event of a long war, but I agree with them when they say the right, not the easy or popular thing, has to be done.
Right now the Democrats are killing themselves in the senate with regards to Estrada, a philibuster, I welcome the government doing nothing for awhile, keep it up.
Re:You're right, it probably wasn't a battery (Score:5, Insightful)
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:You're right, it probably wasn't a battery (Score:3, Insightful)
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:typical liberal responses (Score:5, Insightful)
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:typical liberal responses (Score:5, Interesting)
The current application has no relation to the actual meaning of those words, which have been bent to political ends. The truth is lies and lies are the truth. A studio apartment is "spacious."
Political Conservatism in America means conserving traditional American political values. The values of Ashcroft are not those of America's traditions. He wishes to change those values. That is a liberal stance. The fact that he may have convinced some that his values are traditionally conservative is a bit of flim flam. Not the truth. Such is the nature of politics. Such flim flam is the polititions stock in trade, as it were.
Aggresively engaging in a war, in the Orient, against a nation that has made no attack on us, is making no attack on anyone else, and *cannot* make any direct attack on us is not a traditional American political act. It spits in the face of said American traditions.
What is the philosophy of conserving the enviroment called, and has been called since the early 1800's? *Conservationsim.* It is conservative. Conservatism is that which *conserves.* Yes. Conserving the human dignity of American citizens is conserving the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. A rather conservative stance.
Removing the protections accorded by the Bill of Rights is a *liberal* stance, and unamerican.
What is labeled as liberalism today has no relation to what was labeled liberlism a mere few decades ago. In fact, they are nearly polar opposites, and the same is true of conservatism.
Such is the true result of the modern political philosophy *falsely* labeled as "political correctness" ( a term which has a conservative definition dating back to 1798).
The true word for what is currently refered to as "political correctness" is fascism.
Fascism means "to follow the flag as ordered" (the fascia being the banner presented at the front of a column of Roman Centurians, thus its current meaning of a "facing").
Following the flag as ordered, Fascism, is most distinctly NOT American conservatism. No matter what they tell you on the television.
KFG
Priorities (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Priorities (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Bad Priorities (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank you for the name calling.
There are some of us, thank you very much, who oppose the war on ideological grounds. Some of us believe that the function of the U.S. military should be to defend the citizens of the U.S., not to run around the world "installing" democracies. We should lead by example, not by force.
Unless, of course, you believe that Saddam only poses a threat to his own people, so why should we care?
Um, you really think that Saddam poses a threat to the U.S.? I've followed the administration's incredibly weak attempts to convince us that he does, but I still don't see it.
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.
Re:Bad Priorities (Score:5, Informative)
Will they happen by selling Harpoon missiles and anthrax bacteria to Saddam Hussein, like Rumsfeld did when he was Reagan's special envoy to the middle east?
Re:Bad Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Bad Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Bad Priorities (Score:4, Insightful)
When "personal harm" extends to millions of people, the logic changes just a bit. We're not on the playground anymore.
Re:Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Priorities (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Priorities (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Priorities (Score:5, Informative)
Are you talking about the chemical weapons given to saddam by the US from 1985 to 1989 and which included among other things Antrax and Botulinum ?
Some would say that they hate being targets of weapons funded by Iraq... you would hear this from the Israelis.
You mean weapons funded by the US government. [bowlingforcolumbine.com]
Re:Priorities (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Priorities (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Perhaps Bush should install democracy in.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Lots of reasons (Score:3, Interesting)
I would feel a little more comfortable with this war if the US plan for post-war Iraq didn't boil down to basically the same sentiment you make above: "gee, that'd be nice".
In other words, we really have no idea how to bring about democracy or a representative republic in Iraq, as the country has so little experience with those forms of government. Furthermore, they're basically composed of a large number of different ethnic and religious groups who have remained unified only due to ruthless oppression. The Administration's plans don't really lay out much in the way of a road-map, beyond (possibly) letting Turkey "deal" with the Kurds and leaving a lot of Saddam's oppressive government in place.
Furthermore, according to Gen. Eric Shinseki (who is, allegedly, fairly credible), the rebuilding and occupation will require several hundred thousand troops-- essentially the entire deployable US army. One hopes that we'll be able to get some international support for this effort, so our forces aren't totally hamstrung for an indefinite duration. (Of course, we could just pull back and let the heart of the middle east become a power vacuum.)
There's a reason Bush the first didn't go into Iraq, and we'll find out a lot more about it in the coming years.
Not the "same civilization" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Not the "same civilization" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not the "same civilization" (Score:2, Interesting)
You could say the same for Egypt, except they care for and maintain the pyramids and their heritage. Why should the people of Iraq be denied the same?
Re:Not the "same civilization" (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Not the "same civilization" (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not the "same civilization" (Score:5, Informative)
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.
They say specifically that the artifacts are in danger from the war, not the civilization. Nowhere do they imply that the civilization that created them is the same culture that inhabits Iraq now.
Re:Not the "same civilization" (Score:4, Insightful)
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]
Cheney says it is (Score:5, Interesting)
Excerpting:
Policy Review: It is now two years after the spectacular victory of the United States and its allies in Desert Storm. What objectives were achieved during this war?
Cheney: The best way to evaluate Desert Storm is to consider what the world would be like today if we hadn't fought and won this war. If we had taken a pass on Saddam's occupation of Kuwait, by today he would have the eastern province of Saudi Arabia and would sit astride about 50 percent of the world's oil reserves, which he could control directly when you add up Kuwaiti, Saudi, and Iraqi oil reserves. He'd be able to dominate the rest of the reserves in the Persian Gulf. And he'd have nuclear weapons. We had to stop this from happening. And we did.
--
Notice how the nukes are clearly a secondary consideration.
--
P.R.: You got out of Iraq without going all the way to Baghdad. Are you worried that Saddam Hussein is still in power today?
Cheney: I'd rather he were not in power, but I don't see him at this point as a threat to any of his neighbors. In that part of the world, I'm more concerned about Iran. Saddam is unable to sell oil; without selling oil, he can't generate the revenue he needs to rebuild that military machine we destroyed. The Iranians aren't faced with that situation; they have access to the world's markets, they are selling oil, and they are using some of that revenue to regenerate their forces and expand their capabilities. For example, they're buying diesel-powered submarines and MiG-29s from the Russians.
--
Nah, can't be about the oil.
Re:Not the "same civilization" (Score:4, Insightful)
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:Not the "same civilization" (Score:5, Interesting)
All brown people look alike huh?
Iraq and Afghanistan are NOT THE SAME THING!
As evil and dangerous as Saddam is, he is not a taliban, and in fact Iraq was on the Taliban's list of not-nice-places. Iraq is a modern country (kinda), where women can go to school and work and show their faces in public. Saddam has founded a lot of archeological digs, he even had replicas built of the excavated sites so that the people could go look at their countrie's past glory without damaging the originals.
Try to get this in your head: Saddam and Oussama are NOT THE SAME PERSON, they don't agree on anything except that they both resent the US.
Re:Not the "same civilization" (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
can't resist (Score:5, Funny)
*Bunny marches by...* *thump thump thump*
eletroplating (Score:2)
Re:eletroplating (Score:3, Interesting)
I also enjoyed the speculation that the batteries were used as religious icons. Get a little jolt touching the sacred statue... Now I've got great ideas for D&D adventures!
All in all, an interesting read -- I consider my mind expanded by Slashdot. And here everyone thought Slashdot was only good for MS-bashing!
I think I have one of these (Score:3, Funny)
What? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Which is better? (Score:2, Interesting)
So we either (possibly) lose some priceless artifacts, or we lose priceless lives when the next terrorist strike comes.
I know which one is more important. Do you?
War called on account of old battery (Score:2)
The real find... (Score:4, Funny)
I can see the headlines now (Score:5, Funny)
Subsequently, the defense department has changed Homeland Security status to Condition Copper, indicating a potentially shocking situation.
Religious Ideology of the Time? (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:Religious Ideology of the Time? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, in a roundabout way, you are on the right track. One of the tenets of Orientalism is that Oriental cultures by definition are degenerate and in decline. Occidental cultures are, in contrast, always progressive, especially after the 14th Century CE. Occidental cultures are all European countries and their descendant cultures that are ruled by people who have European origins -- a notable exception being Slavs. So, the point is because this supposed technology rose from an Oriental culture it is either the product of interaction with ascendant Occidental culture or an anamoly. In either case, it must be erased. See Richard Perle and Wolfowitz for the contemporary personification of academics who think this way. It's called "the colonizer's model of the world."
Saddam wasn't too concerned about artifacts.... (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/i
Tom
Besides, The Garden of Eden was in Iran. (Score:3, Informative)
The Riddle Of My Plumbing Battery (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
RTFA: Did they throw away 11 others too? (Score:5, Interesting)
That is very interesting in its own right. However,
I think it's likely that the ancients put some vinegar in this metal container, discovered that it corroded badly, and threw it away.
They've found at least 12 such primative batteries, so unless they were throwing away a bunch of defecting jars that all mysteriously resembled batteries far more closely than simple storage jugs, I think the idea that they suffered a little accidental corrosion and threw it away is rather unlikely.
Virtually everyone believes these were primitive batteries, and used as such, but not to drive bronze age equivelent walkmans or the like. Rather, some believe it may have been to imbibe idols with magical "shocking" capabilities to lend credence to local religious cults, an invention that occurred likely by accident, reproduced by trial and error, and then applied (secretively) by the priests of Baal (or whatever cult was popular at the time) as a way to convice people of the divinity of their statue.
That they were batteries designed to deliver a low amperage, fairly low voltage electrical current is pretty widely accepted. Why they were made, and what they were used for, is really anybody's guess at this point
Re:RTFA: Did they throw away 11 others too? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Riddle Of My Plumbing Battery (Score:4, Informative)
The pillar you are referring to is in Delhi and its mystery has apparently been solved [expressindia.com]
Apparently the metal had a high hydrogen content and formed a coating of "misawite" .
Quick - Call Jennifer Garner!! (Score:2, Funny)
Its a precious Rimbaldi artifact. Its part of a weapon! Send in Jennifer Garner and the CIA goon squad. A little spandex, a red wig, and it will be ours!
Wow (Score:2)
9 volt battery on the tongue (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't see how they can assume these are batteries when there is no evidence of wires or mechanical devices that would use the electricity.
A few months ago I saw something on the Discovery Channel talking about all of this. They found similar things (bowls/pots with acid in them) in South America too. They said all of these most likely were for magical purposes (cool shock or possibly even coating/electro-plating jewelry), but not batteries.
Re:9 volt battery on the tongue (Score:3, Informative)
Just because you aren't powering a Walkman with it, doesn't make the device not a battery. It doesn't have to have x amount of charge to be a battery. If it allows chemical energy to be converted to electrical energy, there's your battery.
First war? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:3, Insightful)
This area has been under so much war. (Score:4, Interesting)
Threatened by what exactly? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 ...
Iraq deserves no special treatment (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Whiners (Score:3, Funny)
Thinnest anti-war pretext yet! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thinnest anti-war pretext yet! (Score:4, Insightful)
2200 years ago, time travel (Score:3, Interesting)
it was a mistake made in the future when someone went back to the past. They're probably laughing at us right now in another timeline because we don't get it.
hoax or a fake (Score:3, Insightful)
... 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.
Re:Our lack of history preservation is apalling (Score:2, Informative)
It wasn't Al Queada - it was the Tailban.
The Taliban supported/allowed (seperate discussion) Al Queada activity in Afganistan, but they're not the same thing.
Re:Our lack of history preservation is apalling (Score:2)
Think back when Al Queada destroyed the Buddhist monuments in Afganistan, where was the public outrage then?
Well, Taliban actually, but that detail doesn't impact your point. Goddam straight.
The answer, of course, is an exercise in the double standarad of political correctness, which is why the peace protesters et. al. have absolutely no moral foundation for their arguments, to say nothing of credibility.
Re:Our lack of history preservation is apalling (Score:4, Interesting)
Interestingly enough, the Dalai Lama called for restraint after the fact, saying that despite their great historical value, they were only statues - and the impermanence of things is central to Buddhist doctrine.
funny you should bring that up (Score:3, Interesting)
The archeologists naturally refused to provide any funds except to protect the statue, and the taliban were pissed off at an attitude that valued old lumps of rock above starving children, so they blew them up in a fit of pique. [Dont get me wrong.. there will always be starving children, and those were pretty cool rocks, but it doesnt hurt to know the arguments]
Now we have a situation where we're preparing to go to war to... [sorry, I forget which excuse is in vogue at the moment, it changes too fast for me] and we're horrified that some artifacts might get blown up along with Iraqis.
Re:Our lack of history preservation is apalling (Score:4, Informative)
You mean when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhist monuments? Where was the outrage? Actually I think you'll find it here [guardian.co.uk], here [bbc.co.uk] and here [sawaal.com] or are many other hundreds of places.
Re:battery??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the Europeans hadn't heard of electricity doesn't mean it wasn't known elsewhere.
Re:battery??? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:battery??? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Religion kills Science (Score:2, Informative)
there is christians and muslims living together in Iraq! hell even Iraqi's prime minister (Tarek Aziz) is christian..
Iraq is not Saudi Arabia!
Re:Iraqi lives and future vs an ancient battery. (Score:3, Interesting)
It is interesting to see what the archeologists have dug up next. We are all curious about what happened in ancient times past. It would be regretful to lose parts of the story.
But we should never place the ancient over the present. They are not going to discover anything of real value to us now. Certainly nothing more valuable than the lives of thousands of people living in the present.
Hey everyone, check this guy out! (Score:3, Interesting)
Whoa! Damn! This dude is on to something! Wow, he must watch Fox TV or read Newsweek, those bastions of pacifism and respect for international law!
I am humbled by such an acute insight, such pithy observation. I would never have noticed by merely reading or watching "the media." Thank God Anonymous Coward has opened my eyes to the truth!
Great, but what about the others? (Score:4, Informative)
And while you're at it, tell me why Sadam needs to be off the country, if not for US control of oil. US don't need oil from Iraq, they get most of theirs from Venezuela and Kuwait (you didn't believe the USA helped kuwait out of good will back in '91, do you?). It's not about getting oil, it's about CONTROLLING oil.
Re:It's all about oil... TO FRANCE!!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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:This really is troll food, but whatever... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:American re-education (Score:3, Interesting)
If you get a chance, read this book Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong [amazon.com]