GeneralThis forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Introduction to Linux - A Hands on Guide
This guide was created as an overview of the Linux Operating System, geared toward new users as an exploration tour and getting started guide, with exercises at the end of each chapter.
For more advanced trainees it can be a desktop reference, and a collection of the base knowledge needed to proceed with system and network administration. This book contains many real life examples derived from the author's experience as a Linux system and network administrator, trainer and consultant. They hope these examples will help you to get a better understanding of the Linux system and that you feel encouraged to try out things on your own.
Click Here to receive this Complete Guide absolutely free.
View Poll Results: why do u think US wants a war despite all the opposition?
liberation of iraq, destruction of WMDs, US control of Iraq, precedent for future unjustified wars, gateway to greater US domination of
the world, attempt to improve bush's popularity
there could be other reasons. but i think the first two are the biggest ones.
I'm an international student
don't much about politics.
however i'm wondering what you guys think the reason is.
I wish i could make poll options more comprehensive and mutually exclusive .. i'm open to changing the poll options and any moderator editing it.
Last edited by doublefailure; 03-20-2003 at 12:52 AM.
Unfortunately, I don't think you could have enough options. There are probably just as many opinions as there are people. Personally, I believe there are multiple reasons. If Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, or plans to build them, I believe the main purpose of the war is to stabilize the inherently unstable political situation in the middle east. Saddam has shown a willingness to be the aggressor. What's to stop him from using those weapons in the future, making him that much more dangerous?
Then throw Israel into the mix. Throughout history, mankind has gone to war in the name of God. In such a crusade, there are no hold barred; the enemy is corrupted by the evil of his (dis)belief and deserves righteous judgement, whatever it may be, delivered by the "chosen". And that is EXACTLY the situation between many Arabs and the Israelis. I could easily see Sadam launching a devastating, surprise attack against Israel using whatever weaponry he has at his disposal; even nuclear if he had it. He would then proclaim to be the true leader of Arab peoples in their quest for the holy land and the destruction of the infidels. So what if the holy land is irradiated for a few hundred/thousand years? Will it be any less holy? That act would undoubtedly destabilize the entire region, perhaps breaking out into civil war among the religious factions. Then, you will have the international community's response. Obviously an unprovoked attack would warrant a military response. Then who knows... We might find ourselves in the middle of World War III. Granted, I've made some assumptions about this causing that influencing this other thing, but based on what we know of Saddam, are they really stretching the imagination? Is it really an implausible sequence of events?
In other words, this war is prevention. It will stabilize the region somewhat; not entirely, but will increase the overall stability. Yes, that will also have an impact on the economy of the United States. We obviously don't want to install a new regime that hates the United States, but maintaining the flow of oil is not the primary concern. Note, I did not say insignificant. Simply that it's not primary.
A curious question though is what happens to the region when a true alternative to oil is discovered (natural or synthetic)? What happens when the money doesn't flow in like water?
why would the war be an oil thing when the us buys most of it's oil from russian and their surrounding areas?
I don't think this war is about bush or oil. I think it's about someone finally standing up to husein thumbing his nose at the world saying "I can do what I want when I want to whom I want." Bush seems to be the only one willing to put an end to him and the threat he poses. THank God Gore wasn't elected.
I'm not flaming you, but read what you wrote here:
"I can do what I want when I want to whom I want."
that's exactly how a lot of people in this world look at George Bush.
That aside, nobody will ever be able to say whether this war is good or bad until it's over. That is the nature of war. My personal opinion is that no war is good, and I really believe that GB should have waited for the UN rather than forcing this on the rest of the world, and causing more rifts in the international community.
I see how bush can be seen as what I said about husein. I agree, there is nothing good about war...but the freedom we enjoy in america comes at a price...unfortunately. I think one thing that the un doesn't understand is how 911 effected this country. I think bush wants to rid himself of this threat and be proactive rather than having to react again.
Originally posted by busbarn ...I think one thing that the un doesn't understand is how 911 effected this country. I think bush wants to rid himself of this threat and be proactive rather than having to react again.
Why wouldn't the UN understand? Many nations have lived with terrorist attacks and terrorist threats for far longer than the US, mine for one (maybe this is the problem, the US thought it was invulnerable and suddenly found out it wasn't)
Also Iraq wasn't in any way connected with OBL, Al Qaeda or the attacks on the World Trade Centre on the 11th of September 2000.
What I can see this war doing is polarising public opinion in many Arab states that were indifferent to the US before. What do you suppose would be the best way of ensuring that you generate as many new fundamentalist Arabs as possible with a vendetta against the USA ?
Location: a tiny place caled hendrik ido ambacht in the netherlands
Distribution: SuSE, debian, slackware, lfs
I don't know for sure that the US want's here. I really hope they want peace and have no hidden agenda. But I have my doubts.
My biggest concern is, what will happen after the war? Will the iraqi people accept the post war goverment? I hope i'm wrong, but I don't thinks so. So what will happen if they don't. I'm guessing anarchy will break out. The country will destabalize. Add turkisch hostillities against the kurds in the mix and armageddon is a reallety.
Again, I hope I'm wrong, but what if i'm not? Is war really worth it in that case.
Plus I think un inspections were yielding results. War could of been avoided by diplomacy.
Lastly I would like to say i'm really resenting US arrogance. Want to know what the US have in store for the world? Go to www.newamericancentury.org . US arrogance makes me sick.
Yes - not nice but I am afraid thats what is going to happen in the long run if the current US administration doesn't change their policy and I don't see that happening.They already made it very clear that Iraq is only number one on the list in an attempt to establish a new order in the middle east.Terrorist groups will see a new influx of willing recruits because of this despite the fact that Saddam isn't exactly a supporter of Islam.Then there will be some more terrorist acts against US targets that serve as an excuse to invade a little more which then leads to bla,bla,bla...
I hope this won't happen but being realistic I think it will.
Last edited by crashmeister; 03-20-2003 at 07:40 AM.
Iraq invasion plan written in September 2000 -- BEFORE Bush was "elected".
Bush's new 'global domination' policy is based almost verbatim on a policy written up by PNAC (Project for a New American Century) as found on http://www.newamericancentury.org
It's available for download (for now) and includes all the Bush administration's newly adopted military stances (preemptive strikes, military presence in the Gulf, antiterrorist philosophies, American global domination, etc.).
It should be required reading for all Americans, as well as anyone who believes that Bush is only acting in response to 9/11.
"The United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need for a substantial American forces presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."
Looks like they got their wish. The group was formed in 1997 as a response to Clinton's second term, and the membership list reads like a who's who of the Right Wing:
It includes security advisors going back to Nixon, characters from Iran-Contra, the so-called drug wars, Christian Values groups, Jewish and Israeli lobbyists (not to mention Christian and Jewish coalition groups), and 'Family Value' zealots who led the charge against Clinton during the Lewinsky debacle.
It features the heads of Lockheed, Boeing, and other military suppliers and contractors. Also included are senior editors of the major right-leaning publications, as well as current staffers of the Bush administration (including Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and convicted Iran-Contra felon Elliott Abrams).
Amazingly, it also boasts the membership of Jeb Bush, NOT his simpleton 'fool me once' brother -- guess that explains the recent events in Florida (including the theft of the 2000 election in the first place). Also featured is Zalmay Khalilzad who was a paid spokesman for UNOCAL, was pivotal in setting up meetings with the Taliban, and who later gave testimony that Afghanistan needed to be 'converted' into a more US-friendly (read: oil) environment in hearings in March 2000. His supervisor at one point was Condoleeza Rice!
These are the people pulling Bush's strings. And BTW - the guys who were supposed responsible for the lax security on 9/11 (i.e., the 'acting' head of the CIA) are also prominently featured.
Want to really freak out? Run the lesser-known names on the members page through Google. You will NOT believe what you come up with.