Iraq blocks Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram, shuts down internet • Hacker News Board

Re: Iraq blocks Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram, shuts down internet

#151

Post by walrus01 » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 12:14 AM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #121

walrus01 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ku and mid ka, high ka band spectrum analyzers are no longer a $40,000 item anymore. I'm pretty confident I could put together a (starlink, kuiper, oneweb) locating kit for under $10k USD. The knowledge to run a spectrum analyzer just to locate on class of equipment could be taught to any moderately educated local police in one day.

Not much is using these bands anyway, especially in places like Iraq. Wouldn't it be even simpler to skip the spectrum analyzer and sweep the area with high-gain antennas tuned for these bands, the fox-hunting way?

Ku and ka aimed at the sky doesn't propagate like vhf, uhf. You'd need fairly high gain horn antennas to detect off-axial-aim emissions.

Re: Iraq blocks Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram, shuts down internet

#152

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 12:15 AM UTC

quaquaqua1 wrote: post #77

djsumdog wrote: post #66

Well mission accomplished .. I guess. A great documentary if you haven't seen it is "Iraq: No End in Sight." It's pretty clear that the completely failed (non-existent) reconstruction efforts of the Bush administration would lead eventually to a failed state. The same thing is happening in Libya after the Obama era bombings. These places weren't democratic paradises before or anything; I'm not saying that. They had c…

All warfare actions conducted by the United States are excuses for agencies to spend money, and the money goes to corporations that are contolled by politically connected individuals. The dividends from the government consumption of these items enrich the people who are giving the orders to launch the missiles. It is beyond disheartening that innocent people die because of this. I would rather just pay the money, if…

I think it's more complicated that naked corporate interest pushing for conflict. There are strategic geopolitical reasons why the US would want more control in these areas. (I'm absolutely NOT saying that makes it "okay") I think the disaster-capitalism aspect of things is just an unfortunate byproduct.

Re: Iraq blocks Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram, shuts down internet

#153

Post by quaquaqua1 » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 12:18 AM UTC

elboru wrote: post #144

quaquaqua1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All warfare actions conducted by the United States are excuses for agencies to spend money, and the money goes to corporations that are contolled by politically connected individuals. The dividends from the government consumption of these items enrich the people who are giving the orders to launch the missiles. It is beyond disheartening that innocent people die because of this. I would rather just pay the money, if…

I usually hear this kind of statement, is it really that simple? Aren’t there other geopolitical interests from the strongest economy in the world?

I'm sure we could make the argument that "if the US doesn't invade x country then China/Russia will".

But for me, I just focus on the outcomes, not the motives. If Lockheed Martin and Booz Allen Hamilton and Raydeon shareholders are making 100k or 1m or more, and hundreds of thousands of civilians are dying, those are two cold hard facts that can't be ignored.

Either the ends justify the means or they don't, in the eyes of the beholder.

Re: Iraq blocks Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram, shuts down internet

#154

Post by mful » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 12:19 AM UTC

Maultasche wrote: post #80

yongjik wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, didn't America wage a war to install a pro-American government in Iraq? Are they somehow pro-American and pro-Iran at the same time, or did they switch alliances while nobody in the west was paying attention?

The initial government was pro-American, but the consequence of pushing a country to have democratic elections is that they sometimes elect people that you don't like. When you want a country to be free and democratic, you can't also tell them who to elect. You have to choose one or the other. The United States has often chosen the latter while pretending to want the former, but at least with Iraq they seem to be mos…

> The initial government was pro-American, but the consequence of pushing a country to have democratic elections is that they sometimes elect people that you don't like.

I don't the right prior here is "elections = real democracy", for cases like Iraq. The US has long history of installing "democratic" governments that are not actually democratic, but rather military states who violently suppress the people, but support US interests. The list of countries where this has borne out is long, but if you are interested, an easy place to start would be Cold War era South America (Guatemala and El Salvador being two straightforward examples).

Re: Iraq blocks Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram, shuts down internet

#155

Post by aezakmi » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 12:21 AM UTC

Great, more zog bots operating. Brace yourself yanks, you're going to die for 3rd party interests again.

Re: Iraq blocks Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram, shuts down internet

#156

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 12:21 AM UTC

corford wrote: post #132

cheese4242 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Europe doesn't have to do anything if it doesn't want to. They can just not let in refugees (whether legitimate refugees or pretenders).

Fortunately, we're not all bastards

It is, unfortunately, not as simple as that. Germany, for example, has seen a bit of civil unrest because of their refugee policy. They have seen a huge rise in popularity of hard-right groups as a result. I'm not saying they shouldn't have let people in, but there are negative consequences to even altruistic humanitarian actions, and those consequences need to be weighed in the equation. It's not nearly as simple as bastard vs. not-bastard, and I wouldn't fault either Germany or any other EU country for being much less lenient in their refugee policy going forward. Though I would then instead want to see some other form of assistance. I'm not smart enough to say exactly what that other assistance should be. But there are no easy black & white answers here.

Re: Iraq blocks Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram, shuts down internet

#157

Post by aminecodes » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 12:24 AM UTC

cmdshiftf4 wrote: post #149

corford wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately, we're not all bastards

Wanting to protect your own civilization and way of life doesn't make one a bastard. It's this kind of divisive rhetoric that has spurned the division we see today and the rise of hard-right nationalism. Please learn to be somewhat more rational and civil in your discourse.

Refusing to accept people fleeing from death, torture and sorrowful life, because you are afraid they might interfere with your way of life, is a bastard move, to say the least.

Re: Iraq blocks Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram, shuts down internet

#158

Post by perl4ever » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 12:25 AM UTC

parsimo2010 wrote: post #129

GhettoMaestro wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American, I am curious to hear more about how we were "outplayed" re the Iraqi Gov. Thanks in advance.

1. USA ousts Saddam Hussein, and is obligated to help Iraq transition to a democratic government (because they invasion was done under the pretext of liberating a country from a mad dictator with weapons of mass destruction, instead of the commonly cited argument of securing resources for the American empire). 2. USA backs a candidate and initially gets a government elected that is favorable to the USA. However, thes…

"rather than finding a good candidate."

The idea that any part of the US government could do the sorts of things attributed to this "hegemony" is palpably ridiculous. Especially "find a good candidate". The US has a system for finding a good candidate to run a country, and it found Donald Trump.

If the hegemony that controls everything has been defeated at every turn for generations, clearly someone's talking bollocks. The more rhetoric like this you consume, the less you can appreciate what's going on.

Re: Iraq blocks Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram, shuts down internet

#159

Post by perl4ever » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 12:27 AM UTC

parsimo2010 wrote: post #136

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fail to see how this isn't a win for the US. The Iraqis get a less terrible government no matter who it is and we get to wash our hands of the situation without pissing off Israel or the Saudis.

It's not a win for the USA because one of their enemies gained influence in the region. It's really as simple as that, but: The invasion also led to the rise of ISIS, which is widely seen as a embarrassment to the USA because they were supposed to be rebuilding a country and ended up allowing a large and deadly terrorist group to form under their noses. And just to add on, there are literal losses as well. When the I…

"Iraq has "lost" at least a billion dollars of military equipment in recent years"

That's...one tenth of one percent of the cost (to the US) of the war.

Re: Iraq blocks Facebook, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Instagram, shuts down internet

#160

Post by boomboomsubban » Thu, Oct 03, 2019, 12:27 AM UTC

ineedasername wrote: post #152

quaquaqua1 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All warfare actions conducted by the United States are excuses for agencies to spend money, and the money goes to corporations that are contolled by politically connected individuals. The dividends from the government consumption of these items enrich the people who are giving the orders to launch the missiles. It is beyond disheartening that innocent people die because of this. I would rather just pay the money, if…

I think it's more complicated that naked corporate interest pushing for conflict. There are strategic geopolitical reasons why the US would want more control in these areas. (I'm absolutely NOT saying that makes it "okay") I think the disaster-capitalism aspect of things is just an unfortunate byproduct.

>There are strategic geopolitical reasons why the US would want more control in these areas.

These are access to resources in event of war, and control of trade routes. Such a war would only benefit corporate interests, the people stand little to gain. And control of trade routes is only useful for war and corporate interests.