Why The Anti-War Movement Was Right (commentary)

[KevinTheOmnivore]

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0416-04.htm

Published on Wednesday, April 16, 2003

Why The Anti-War Movement Was Right
by Arianna Huffington

The Bible tells us that pride goeth before the fall. In Iraq, it cameth right after it. From the moment that statue of Saddam hit the ground, the mood around the Rumsfeld campfire has been all high-fives, I-told-you-sos, and endless smug prattling about how the speedy fall of Baghdad is proof positive that those who opposed the invasion of Iraq were dead wrong.

What utter nonsense. In fact, the speedy fall of Baghdad proves the anti-war movement was dead right.

The whole pretext for our unilateral charge into Iraq was that the American people were in imminent danger from Saddam and his mighty war machine. The threat was so clear and present that we couldn't even give inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction -- hey, remember those? -- another 30 days, as France had wanted.

Well, it turns out that, far from being on the verge of destroying Western civilization, Saddam and his 21st century Gestapo couldn't even muster a half-hearted defense of their own capital. The hawks' cakewalk disproves their own dire warnings. They can't have it both ways. The invasion has proved wildly successful in one other regard: It has unified most of the world -- especially the Arab world -- against us.

Back in 1991, more than half-a-dozen Arab nations were part of our Desert Storm coalition. Operation Iraqi Freedom's "coalition of the willing" had zero. Not even the polygamous potentates of Kuwait -- whose butts we saved last time out and who were most threatened by whatever threat Iraq still presented -- would join us. And, I'm sorry, but substituting Bulgaria and the island of Tonga for Egypt and Oman is just not going to cut it when it comes to winning hearts and minds on the Arab street.

In fact, almost everything about the invasion -- from the go-it-alone build-up to the mayhem the fall of Saddam has unleashed -- has played right into the hands of those intent on demonizing our country. Islamic extremists must be having a field day signing up recruits for the holy war they're preparing to wage against us. Instead of Uncle Sam wants you, their recruiting posters feature a different kind of patriotic image: an American soldier ill-advisedly draping the American flag over Saddam's face.

The anti-war movement did not oppose the war out of fear that America was going to lose. It was the Bush administration's pathological and frantic obsession with an immediate, damn-the-consequences invasion that fueled the protests.

And please don't point to jubilant Iraqis dancing in the streets to validate the case for "pre-emptive liberation." You'd be doing the Baghdad Bugaloo too if the murderous tyrant who'd been eating off golden plates while your family starved finally got what was coming to him. It in no way proves that running roughshod over international law and pouring Iraqi oil -- now brought to you by the good folks at Halliburton -- onto the flames of anti-American hatred was a good idea. It wasn't before the war, and it still isn't now. The unintended consequences have barely begun to unfold.

And the idea that our slamdunk of Saddam actually proves the White House was right is particularly dangerous because it encourages the Wolfowitzes and the Perles and the Cheneys to argue that we should be invading Syria or Iran or North Korea or Cuba as soon as we catch our breath. They've tasted blood.

It's important to remember that the Arab world has seen a very different war than we have. They are seeing babies with limbs blown off, children wailing beside their dead mothers, Arab journalists killed by American tanks and bombers, holy men hacked to death and dragged through the streets. They are seeing American forces leaving behind a wake of destruction, looting, hunger, humiliation, and chaos.

Who's been handling our war PR, Osama bin Laden? The language and imagery are all wrong. Having Tom DeLay gush about our "army of virtue" at the same time we're blowing up mosques is definitely not sending the right message to a Muslim world already suspicious that we're waging a war on Islam.

Neither is Ari Fleischer's claim that the administration can't do anything to keep Christian missionaries -- including those who have described the Islamic prophet Muhammad as a "demon-possessed pedophile" and a "terrorist" -- from going on a holy crusade to Baghdad. You think the Arab world might take that the wrong way? If there is one thing that could bring Sunnis and Shiites together, it's the common hatred of evangelical zealots who denigrate their prophet.

And it doesn't help to have the American media referring to Jay Garner, the retired general Don Rumsfeld picked to oversee the rebuilding of Iraq, as "viceroy." It reeks of colonial imperialism. Why not just call him "Head Bwana?" Or "Garner of Arabia?" I didn't realize the Supreme Court had handed Bush a scepter to go along with the Florida recount.

The powerful role that shame and humiliation have played in shaping world history is considerable, but something the Bush team seems utterly clueless about. Which is why the anti-war movement must be stalwart in its refusal to be silenced or browbeaten by the gloating "I told you so" chorus on the right. On the contrary, it needs to make sure that the doctrine of preemptive invasion is forever buried in the sands of Iraq.

Especially as the administration, high on the heady fumes of Saddam's ouster, turns its covetous eyes on Syria. I give it less than a week before someone starts making the case that President Assad is the next, next Hitler.

Arianna Huffington is the author of "Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption are Undermining America." For information on the book, visit www.PigsAtTheTrough.com

###

[FS]

Funny. I never fully realized how half-assed it was to reason that the war was righteous because it was 'easy'.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

You mean the Ronnie Raygun theory on war and politics...?

[Vibecrewangel]

Very good article!

[Zebra 3]

The powerful role that shame and humiliation have played in shaping world history is considerable, but something the Bush team seems utterly clueless about.
:/ - Clueless sure or maybe simply indifferent.

[VinceZeb]

:moon

Huffington. The former "Conserative" that just can't get a clue.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Yet you praise David Horowitz.

So, rather than being predictable, do you have any comments on the content of the commentary, rather than the author....?

No?

Didn't think so.

[El Blanco]

The whole pretext for our unilateral charge into Iraq was that the American people were in imminent danger from Saddam and his mighty war machine.

This hurt my head for a while, then I figured out why it made no sense. She makes it sound like we were worried about his conventional forces. As if the Iraqi military was bording cargo planes and getting ready to invade us.

The thing we are worried about are the WMD. Those are a lot smaller and can be hidden in an area with a large population. Its smaller than a tank but 100x more destruvtive.

[AChimp]

It makes perfect sense to me. WMD are counted in "war machine."

If you don't believe me, look to the U.S. army. The U.S. has many WMD, and the capabilities to use them in the event of a war. Now, they may or may not, but the threat is still there, is it not?

[El Blanco]

Yes, but she made it seem we were worried about their conventional forces. You don't use WMD against an invading army.

[Helm]

Huffington. The former "Conserative" that just can't get a clue.

Ad Hominem. And no, that's not latin for gay homo sex.

[AChimp]

When you show complete disregard for the welfare of your people, and live in a fucking desert wasteland, you can use WMD on anyone you want.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

This hurt my head for a while, then I figured out why it made no sense. She makes it sound like we were worried about his conventional forces. As if the Iraqi military was bording cargo planes and getting ready to invade us.

The thing we are worried about are the WMD. Those are a lot smaller and can be hidden in an area with a large population. Its smaller than a tank but 100x more destruvtive.

Are bunker busters not WMD...?

You're grasping at straws here. A nation's WMD, as Chimp said, still get counted with a nation's military power.

Even if Saddam had these WMD, and he sold them to a terrorist network, it's still SADDAM then who poses the security threat, right?

[Abcdxxxx]

I don't recall the Iraqi military putting up much resistance. What went on in the battle field to prove they weren't able to become a threat if they wanted to be? I'm not arguing that Iraq was a threat to us (though I do think there are some decent arguments for that theory) I'm just wondering what this persons commentary is really saying here.... they didn't put up much fight, and didn't bother to even crank up their airforce, so of course we trounced them. The only thing it proves is the protest movements ability to become manipulated.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I don't recall the Iraqi military putting up much resistance. What went on in the battle field to prove they weren't able to become a threat if they wanted to be?

On what information are you judging that this wasn't their most noble effort? If the Iraqi soldiers lacked the convictions to fight for Hussein, or simply lacked the military capability to do so, doesn't that mean they posed a poor threat to us? How does this commentary conflict with that reality?

Ifthey didn't put up much fight, and didn't bother to even crank up their airforce, so of course we trounced them.

So what you're saying is Saddam rolled over and played dead in order to make people like Hutchinson support him post-war??? Who's being easily manipulated now?

The only thing it proves is the protest movements ability to become manipulated.

How may I ask?

[El Blanco]

Are bunker busters not WMD...?

By themselves, no. If you put a nuclear, biological or chemical warhead on them, then yes.

You're grasping at straws here. A nation's WMD, as Chimp said, still get counted with a nation's military power.


I'm not saying it isn't. I am contesting her point that since their tanks and infantry were useless against us, that means that Hussien was of no threat what-so-ever. She used their lack of coventional warfare capabilites to judge their unconventional. Do you see my point? Its like looking at a baseball team and saying, "Well they can't hit, so their pitchers must suck." Same team, different aspects.

Even if Saddam had these WMD, and he sold them to a terrorist network, it's still SADDAM then who poses the security threat, right?

Ya. Are you agreeing with me now?

[Protoclown]

That article was excellent.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Are bunker busters not WMD...?

By themselves, no. If you put a nuclear, biological or chemical warhead on them, then yes.

Oh come on....:rolleyes

You're grasping at straws here. A nation's WMD, as Chimp said, still get counted with a nation's military power.


I'm not saying it isn't. I am contesting her point that since their tanks and infantry were useless against us, that means that Hussien was of no threat what-so-ever. She used their lack of coventional warfare capabilites to judge their unconventional. Do you see my point? Its like looking at a baseball team and saying, "Well they can't hit, so their pitchers must suck." Same team, different aspects.

I'm sorry, I think I misunderstood your argument. I thought you were saying that we never really did fear Saddam's military might, thus making her point moot...?

I think her point is still quite solid. Saddam was presented as a security threat (likened to Hitler, in fact). I think their pitiful display proved her correct. You can say "well, we REALLY feared the WMD," but why then didn't they use them? Was Saddam still fearing public persecution from the international community? I highly doubt it.

Even if Saddam had these WMD, and he sold them to a terrorist network, it's still SADDAM then who poses the security threat, right?

Ya. Are you agreeing with me now?

No, I think I misunderstood you. But I think her point is still right on the money.

[Abcdxxxx]

On what information are you judging that this wasn't their most noble effort? If the Iraqi soldiers lacked the convictions to fight for Hussein, or simply lacked the military capability to do so, doesn't that mean they posed a poor threat to us? How does this commentary conflict with that reality?

The Iraqi airforce didn't lift off the fucking groung. Huge amounts of weapons were in position for battle, and left untouched. Oil wells were wired to go up in flames were left intact. Traffic around Badghdad was business as usual for half the action. They certainly had the capability to put up a better fight then they did. If they lacked the convictions needed defensively it doesn't really say much about their ability offensively anyway. With or without chemicals, Saddam did have the ability to do far more destruction. Do you really think that was a battle? You really think Iraq gave it their all? In the long run, it looks better and serves a greater purpose for Saddam to sit out a war he was likely to lose. He really didn't lose in the eyes of the world that loves an invcincible joker ala bin laden, or arafat. He could still emerge now and find more popularity then ever before.

So what you're saying is Saddam rolled over and played dead in order to make people like Hutchinson support him post-war??? Who's being easily manipulated now?

I'm saying it's very possible Saddam has gone underground, or playing dead. Strategically, he's much better off fighting the US psychologically. We're caught in a catch 22 now, and the term "occupation" is already being tossed around. Todays instant "Free Iraq" rally seems a little suspect to me. It was almost in his best interest to lay down, and watch us fall on our face in the aftermath. Image wise, the perception is that he is a victim. Hutchinson isn't supporting Hussein as far as I can tell, but there is an air of double sided coddling going around that would even fill Arafat with envy. Simply put, if Saddam survived, and it looks like he did, then his approach to this "war " was decidedly passive. It doesn't prove our military action to be any more just or unjust.

The only thing it proves is the protest movements ability to become manipulated.
How may I ask?[/quote]

We're not talking simply about an anti-government anti-war stance. We're talking about reasoning that shows sympathy towards a horrible regime. There's no need to paint him as a victim to legitimize the protest movement. We know innocent people died, we know there are reasons to dissent... but their reluctance or inability to fight back effectively sure as hell isn't one of them. Look at Samalia. They chewed our military up and sent us packing... does that make them any more of a threat to our national security? Not really. There is no tie between battlefield strategy or expertise and the threat they pose to other nations. Not anymore. Al Qaeda proved that. The rumors of Iraqis sneaking over the border through Mexico with an ice chest full of some dirty bomb concoction wash all the theories away. That a far fetched rumor like that could be possible is the great equalizer here. That a protest movement feels the need to spin public opinion is really pathetic. The movement should stand by their morals without such nonsense backtracking. If you are anti-war you will always be anti-war. Little is going to change your mind. If they found chemicals, they wouldn't be enough, and if they found a connection to Bin Laden, it wouldn't be substantial enough. Just as the corporate media are full of distortions, so too is the independent media that is so preoccupied on justifying their own stance their own bias clouds the way they view the situation.

[FS]

Blanco, as the war-supporting part of this forum has been boasting before things kicked off, Saddam Hussein has gassed his own people in the past. During the invasion of Iraq there was constantly fear that he'd use them on the allied forces. Every sight of anti-chem/bio warfare equipment set off alarm bells in the news. I don't like to use the term "obviously" here, but obviously, Saddam would have had no objections to using whatever WMD he had on the people that were trying to chase him from his own country.

[Ronnie Raygun]

"Black cats are WMD"- Kevin

The first thing I noticed was this quote.....

". In fact, the speedy fall of Baghdad proves the anti-war movement was dead right."

.......which I really thought was funny considering that many libs were saying that we would take heavy casualties and some, even some on this board, wanted heavy casualties to help push their political agenda. This quote reminds me of grade school when kids would say "fine!! I didn't want to play with you anyway". Another thing that really makes me laugh is the fact that the vast majority of the people of Iraq hated Saddam and if it wasn't for the war he would still be in power. So, in the end what do we have? A friendly govt' right in the middle of the middleeast with no weapons of mass destruction. A permanent airbase in Iraq. A free people in Iraq. Now, if you say you are against the war, and without war these things could not have happened......how can you say you support these things? It's a contradiction. The proof is in the pudding. The anti-bush crowd was dead wrong. So far the war plan has been one of the greatest success stories in the history of war.......and libs are dead in the water and they know it. How can I tell..? All their (elected officials) focus has shifted to domestic policy and they've given up protesting this war plan and the aftermath.

Now for Arianna Huffington, the author of this convoluted garble. The same woman that would like to stop your right to own an SUV while retaining her right to take private jets from coast to coast. The same woman who started the "What Would Jesus Drive" campaign. Well, someone should ask her, "what would Jesus fly". She is a hypocrite, a liar, and a joke as far as I and most Americans are concerned.

I will say one thing in her favor. She's a better entertainer than Tim Robbins.

[Protoclown]

.......which I really thought was funny considering that many libs were saying that we would take heavy casualties and some, even some on this board, wanted heavy casualties to help push their political agenda.

That's a lie, Ronnie.

If it's not, prove it. DON'T just say "Well Burbank wanted our troops to die", QUOTE WHERE HE FUCKING SAID IT.

You won't, because you can't. Because he didn't.

And that makes you a big fat liar.

I don't think Jesus likes liars.

[Helm]

Weird thing is, Jesus loved everybody :)

[El Blanco]

Oh come on....


Can't you do a little better?

anyway, here is what Federation of american Scientists has to say

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm

Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)
BLU-113 Penetrator
The Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) is a special weapon developed for penetrating hardened Iraqi command centers located deep underground. The GBU-28 is a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munition that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead. The bombs are modified Army artillery tubes, weigh 4,637 pounds, and contain 630 pounds of high explosives. They are fitted with GBU-27 LGB kits, 14.5 inches in diameter and almost 19 feet long. The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator and then the munition guides to a spot of laser energy reflected from the target.

The GBU 28 "Bunker Buster" was put together in record time to support targeting of the Iraqi hardened command bunker by adapting existing materiel. The GBU-28 was not even in the early stages of research when Kuwait was invaded. The USAF asked industry for ideas in the week after combat operations started. Work on the bomb was conducted in research laboratories including the the Air Force Research Laboratory Munitions Directorate located at Eglin AFB, Florida and the Watervliet Armory in New York. The bomb was fabricated starting on 1 February, using surplus 8-inch artillery tubes as bomb casings because of their strength and weight. The official go-ahead for the project was issued on 14 February, and explosives for the initial units were hand-loaded by laboratory personnel into a bomb body that was partially buried upright in the ground. The first two units were delivered to the USAF on 16 and 17 February, and the first flight to test the guidance software and fin configuration was conducted on 20 February. These tests were successful and the program proceeded with a contract let on 22 February. A sled test on 26 February proved that the bomb could penetrate over 20 feet of concrete, while an earlier flight test had demonstrated the bomb's ability to penetrate more than 100 feet of earth. The first two operational bombs were delivered to the theater on 27 February.

The Air Force produced a limited quantity of the GBU-28 during Operation Desert Storm to attack multi-layered, hardened underground targets. Only two of these weapons were dropped in Desert Storm, both by F-111Fs. One weapon hit its precise aimpoint, and the onboard aircraft video recorder displayed an outpouring of smoke from an entrance way approximately 6 seconds after impact. After Operation Desert Storm, the Air Force incorporated some modifications, and further tested the munition. The Fy1997 budget request contained $18.4 million to procure 161 GBU-28 hard target penetrator bombs.
For a visual depiction of how the GBU-28 works view the grapic produced by Bob Sherman and USA Today on-line.





I was also wrong. You can't add warheads. It is very much a conventional weapon.

[VinceZeb]

Proto, take out the statement "on this board" and his statement is correct.

[Protoclown]

Yes, I'm sure there were some fucked up people out there who WANTED us to have massive casualties. But those people are INSANE. I don't agree with them, and I doubt you'll find anyone on these boards who does.

It's the "on this board" part of Ronnie's statement that I have such a huge problem with.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

The Iraqi airforce didn't lift off the fucking groung. Huge amounts of weapons were in position for battle, and left untouched. Oil wells were wired to go up in flames were left intact. Traffic around Badghdad was business as usual for half the action. They certainly had the capability to put up a better fight then they did. If they lacked the convictions needed defensively it doesn't really say much about their ability offensively anyway. With or without chemicals, Saddam did have the ability to do far more destruction. Do you really think that was a battle? You really think Iraq gave it their all?

Don't you think the fact that waves of Iraqi soldiers surrendered immediately had something to do with this? I think Saddam would've been happy if his troops on the exterior fought just a little bit harder. Heck, everyday a video by him (be it him or not) was released, imploring people to fight until the death to expel the enemy.

I think the point was that Saddam's forces posed little threat, and the fact that most troops were conscripts who didn't want to die for the bastard anyway plays into that.

In the long run, it looks better and serves a greater purpose for Saddam to sit out a war he was likely to lose. He really didn't lose in the eyes of the world that loves an invcincible joker ala bin laden, or arafat. He could still emerge now and find more popularity then ever before.

Maybe this was the plan, but do you think the average soldier who Saddam was imploring to fight was aware of such details???? What you're essentially saying is that Saddam knew full well that his forces were better off not fighting than fighting and being crushed. Doesn't this relate to the point of the commentary?

Image wise, the perception is that he is a victim.

Where does this image prevail? I think the main image being conveyed is that he got his ass whipped. You don't hear much debate about him intentionally putting up a lame effort, or in fact planning on a quick loss. All of the propaganda he released to his people seemed to run contrary to such a notion.

Hutchinson isn't supporting Hussein as far as I can tell, but there is an air of double sided coddling going around that would even fill Arafat with envy. Simply put, if Saddam survived, and it looks like he did, then his approach to this "war " was decidedly passive. It doesn't prove our military action to be any more just or unjust.

I disagree. I think her argument is pretty cut and dry. The anti-war movement argued that Saddam posed no threat, and whether he counted on that or not, his conventional troops (those generally out of the loop of ANY serious planning) proved her, and the anti-war movement, correct.


We're not talking simply about an anti-government anti-war stance. We're talking about reasoning that shows sympathy towards a horrible regime. There's no need to paint him as a victim to legitimize the protest movement.

I'm sorry, I simply don't see where this is implied. He's not a victim according to her, rather, he's inept compared to the might of the U.S. military.

We know innocent people died, we know there are reasons to dissent... but their reluctance or inability to fight back effectively sure as hell isn't one of them. Look at Samalia. They chewed our military up and sent us packing... does that make them any more of a threat to our national security? Not really. There is no tie between battlefield strategy or expertise and the threat they pose to other nations. Not anymore. Al Qaeda proved that.

The troops we sent over there would disagree with you. They went preparing, or even counting on getting gassed, maybe even being targeted with one of these WMD.

Somalia wasn't accused of holding nukes and mustard gas. If they had that then (the gas), do you think they might've used it? Our military, as well as our CIA, expected acts of desperation that may have resulted in the use of these WMD. Why weren't they used? With an army of Western infidels knocking on your door, when IS the right time to use them, if not then...?

That a protest movement feels the need to spin public opinion is really pathetic. The movement should stand by their morals without such nonsense backtracking. If you are anti-war you will always be anti-war. Little is going to change your mind. If they found chemicals, they wouldn't be enough, and if they found a connection to Bin Laden, it wouldn't be substantial enough. Just as the corporate media are full of distortions, so too is the independent media that is so preoccupied on justifying their own stance their own bias clouds the way they view the situation.

Those involved with the anti-war movement, for the most part, have stood by those convictions. You're right, if weapons were found, I wouldstill be opposed to the war. Before this war started, President Bush created a sense of urgency, that if we waste time with these "pointless" inspections, we'll get a nuke in our back yard or a terrorist assault with bio-weaponry. This war proved that to be a lark. As I already stated, we were knocking on the door, and nothing happened. We have every right to question the validity of the supposed WMD, because they were the very justification for an urgent invasion.


"Black cats are WMD"- Kevin

Did I say that? I'm not down with the hip military lingo, but I was refering to bunker busters. Are these not WMD, Ronnie.....?


.......which I really thought was funny considering that many libs were saying that we would take heavy casualties and some, even some on this board, wanted heavy casualties to help push their political agenda.

Do you have no political agenda, Ronnie? Before the war had even ended, before our fallen soldiers had even been sent back home in bags, were you not on this board gloating about a Bush victory in 2004?? You make me sick.

Few WANTED heavy casualties. Those who did are idiots, who are deserving of your criticism. But MOST didn't rule out the possibility of a bogged down fight in Baghdad, that includes some of our own generals and Pentagon officials. How can you be so cocky and arrogant? These are human lives, for God's sake. You almost speak of them as expendable items, "eh, it'll be quick, no heavy casualties." Are you simply confident in our military's capabilities, or do you simply not care what may happen to them either way...?

Another thing that really makes me laugh is the fact that the vast majority of the people of Iraq hated Saddam and if it wasn't for the war he would still be in power.

Saddam held weak control over the north. You're right, his people hated him. Does that mean they love us? How do the folks in Afghanistan feel about us, Ronnie? I'll bet they still have their tiny waving flags, too.

So, in the end what do we have? A friendly govt' right in the middle of the middleeast with no weapons of mass destruction. A permanent airbase in Iraq. A free people in Iraq. Now, if you say you are against the war, and without war these things could not have happened......how can you say you support these things? It's a contradiction. The proof is in the pudding. The anti-bush crowd was dead wrong.

We have a possible troika, one branch run by a shi'ite muslim, do you think they love the West? What about the Kurds in the north, who have been forcifully disploacing Iraqis in the north? Do you think the Turks are pleased with the "greatest success in the history of war"???? People like you are hilarious. This war was over for you when 150 Iraqis pulled down the statue of Saddam. Then you turned on your Coldplay CD, sat back, and rested comfortably in the notion that everyone in Iraq is happy, content, and grateful. Iraq isn't even on your mind anymore. If unrest occurs, you'll ignore it, dismiss it, or condemn it as ingratitude. Your world view only lasts as long as the 60 minutes of the "O'Reilly Factor."

the war plan has been one of the greatest success stories in the history of war.......and libs are dead in the water and they know it. How can I tell..? All their (elected officials) focus has shifted to domestic policy and they've given up protesting this war plan and the aftermath.

Who thought America might lose? Can you find a quote? An essay? An article? Until then, I may have difficulty seeing how this success wassuch a marvel of modern warfare.

Democrats have shifted. Why? Because that's what they do. Most of them voted FOR the war resolution, then when they realized there was a potent movement against it, they changed their tune. But polls show that Americans are happy with the war (of course, happier the sooner it ends), so they AGAIN changed their tune.

They are not reflective of me, nor are they reflective of the anti-war movement. (I know this idea makes your brain hurt, everyone on the Left is a "lib").

I was also wrong. You can't add warheads. It is very much a conventional weapon.

So you posted that info about bunker busters, but then conceed your point? Thanks.

[El Blanco]

No, I was pointing out to when you mistakenly implied that bunker busters were WMD. I thought you could add warheads to them, but apparently, that can't be done. That doesn't concede my point.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

No, I was pointing out to when you mistakenly implied that bunker busters were WMD. I thought you could add warheads to them, but apparently, that can't be done. That doesn't concede my point.

Were you not arguing that they couldn't be counted as a part of our weaponry??

Also, how are they not WMD??? Aren't they "mini-nukes," despite what you've claimed about their inability to become so...?

[El Blanco]

Were you not arguing that they couldn't be counted as a part of our weaponry??

No, I was disputing your claim that they are WMD

Also, how are they not WMD???

They are big bombs. No radiation, no chemical after effect. They are meant to destroy enemy bunkers upon detenation, but not to do anything after.

Aren't they "mini-nukes," despite what you've claimed about their inability to become so...?

No. Not at all. there is no nuclear reaction or radiation expelled, there for, they are not nukes.


You have a funky defenition of WMD. What exactly do you include in it?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Forgive me, a "big bomb" should NEVER go on such a list.......but those Iraqi missiles that go 1/2 a centimeter further than regulation certainly must!

[El Blanco]

Its isn't the missiles we worried about, its what they put in the warheads. Those are the WMD.

Think about what a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon does after the explosion. Radiation, toxins, bacteria, virus or something along those lines settle in the area, making it inhabbitable. They also get into the air and can blow around to the surrounding region.

A bunker buster pierces the ground, explodes, and thats it. Target destroyed, send in your troops. No enviormental damage (except a little jet fuel). That land can be used as soon as the fires from the underground structure are put out.

[Abcdxxxx]

The hope within the Arab world is that they can turn Iraq into the West Bank, complete with American left dissention backing them up. Saddam didn't put up much fight regardless of his capabilities, and yet he still remains a threat, and so does Iraq. The original commentary posted is premature and meaningless.

Just days before the war Ali Khamenehi, the "Supreme Guide" of the ruling mullahs in Tehran, prophesied that Iraq would become " a quagmire" for the American "Great Satan," signaling its "final destruction." Bashar called on Arabs to prepare for "holy war" against "the invaders." Syria and Iran together control five Iraqi Shiite groups, and have forbidden them from taken part in a new government. Someone provided the Shiites with rather slick looking protest signs in perfect hand written English and organized rallies. It's also evident that Syria had formed partnerships with Iraq uniting them as one, and as a backup visited Iran several times in the past year (as opposed to just one visit during the previous Thirty years).

It's no secret that Saddam funded aspects of the Palestinian intifada, partnered with Arafat, and has studied the situation in the West Bank. It is an absolute that he has rubbed shoulders or given a public nod to virtually every criminal minded leader in that region, and we've seen paid mercenaries step up to the plate in ways his own army was able to. Obviously something is going on there.

What's happening is intentional, and contrary to the above commentary, Iraq and it's partner nations are still a great threat.

[Sethomas]

You remind me of an SNL skit in which an office worker can't complete a sentence without the word "ascertain", but in your case it's Israeli interests.

(This is where you mindlessly accuse me of anti-Semitism.)

[AChimp]

I think that the MOAB can be safely classified as a WMD. There's nothing small about destroying everything a few hundred yards in every direction.

Also, the U.S. military has small tactical nukes that can be put inside Howitzer shells. Each mini-nuke is a warhead equivalent to a couple kilotons. They're meant for taking out tank platoons, although if they were ever used, all of America's allies would disappear in the blink of an eye.

[VinceZeb]

Sethomas, it was actually a KITH skit.

[Abcdxxxx]

Hey guys..... Talking in the "interests of Israel" was all Seth got from my comments. Ain't that something?

[Sethomas]

Your post didn't have enough relevance to merit a response. I could have made that statement after any of your posts... ain't that something?

[Abcdxxxx]

gee, maybe that's because i tend to only post on the one topic i have a background and interests in ? trust me, once this middle east shit blows over i'll start rallying around saving the rainforest and freeing tibet...and i'll make lots of posts about it.... maybe i'll even throw my hat in all that religion talk you post about non-stop?
see you at the ren. fair.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Seth-

He (ABC) was actually responding to comments I had made earlier....I think.

[El Blanco]

I think that the MOAB can be safely classified as a WMD. There's nothing small about destroying everything a few hundred yards in every direction.


No no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

And in case you didn't get it the first time, NO, a MOAB is not a WMD.

Classifying a WMD has little if anything to do with how big the explosion is.

A real simple way to figure out if a weapon is WMD is if there is an after effect on the enviorment.

[ranxer]

omg wmd's? you havnt seen the craters we've left? holy chowder batman you can't tell me they dont have depleted uranium in those mothers! oops, i can't tell you they do.. but if they do.. the halflife of the dust is 4.5 billion years! nuclear wastelands again in metropolitan areas.. this really was a nuclear war folks, we're just in denial.

most of the munition we've been shooting iraq up with has had at the very least 4 pounds of solid du in them.. the nightmare has just begun >:

Islamic extremists must be having a field day signing up recruits for the holy war they're preparing to wage against us.

all the propaganda i saw from iraq posed the idiotic view that they will win.. it seems really bizaar.. but then i thought maybe they didn't mean the war we were talking about.. maybe they meant the war where this is the first battle :eek course saddam doesnt seem capable of that for he wasnt anywhere near loved by his people, whew. still arabs vs americans is very much a huge problem thanks to bush jr. and all his funders/profiteers

still the osama's and other fundamentalists have been tremendously enabled by this bush crime.. Damnit, what do we do now?
Dont we need to work with international agencies to gain credibilty as fast as possible? no? then its bush/american hedgemony.. no?

[Abcdxxxx]

Do you get a penny for every time you type "depleted uranium" ?

[El Blanco]

omg wmd's? you havnt seen the craters we've left?holy chowder batman you can't tell me they dont have depleted uranium in those mothers!

I pull my hair out everytime I go through this.

A big hole does not mean WMD.

And we don't put DU in our bombs. It would be a waste. DU goes coats bullets for armor peircing.

most of the munition we've been shooting iraq up with has had at the very least 4 pounds of solid du in them.. the nightmare has just begun

Source? And I want a credable source. Somone who actually handled the rounds. Don't gimme some fucking protestor who has never even seen one.

Besides, so what? Scientific studies have proven that a body can easily handle the DU in rounds even if you ingest it (unless it goes directly to your stomack via a bullet), so all this crap about our DU rounds causing cancer in Iraq is just that....crap.

If it is so cancerous, why don't Forts Bragg and Benning have insanly high cancer rates? They store warehouses full of DU and fire thousands upon thousands of round a day. Were are the tumors?

[ranxer]

the du sitting next to you on the sofa isn't gonna have much effect,
most of the radiation is such that it can't go through the skin.. its the after impact du that is the problem. but its not known well thus a mysterious syndrome gulf war one was complicated by the blowing up of chemical and biological weapons factories.. i sure hope we checked which way the wind was blowing! not to mention the oil fires. the world health organization said

Potential health effects of exposure to depleted uranium

In the kidneys, the proximal tubules (the main filtering component of the kidney) are considered to be the main site of potential damage from chemical toxicity of uranium. There is limited information from human studies indicating that the severity of effects on kidney function and the time taken for renal function to return to normal both increase with the level of uranium exposure.

thats after unfinished study

more on use of du:
http://traprockpeace.org/rosenfeldapril03.html
(It is denser and more penetrating than lead, burns as it flies, and breaks up and vaporizes on impact -- which makes it very deadly. Each round fired by a tank shoots one 10-pound uranium dart that, in addition to destroying targets, scatters into burning fragments and creates a cloud of uranium particles as small as one micron. Particles that small can enter lung tissue and remain embedded.

Efforts to contact Pentagon officials for comment at the Office of the Special Assistant for Gulf War Illnesses and officials at the Veterans Administration who deal with DU-related illness were not returned.

What Rokke and other outspoken Desert Storm veterans fear is today's troops are being exposed to many of the same battlefield conditions that they believe are responsible for Gulf War Syndrome. These illnesses have left 221,000 veterans on medical disability and another 51,000 seeking that status from the Veterans Administration as of May 2002.

Nichols' lobbying sparked Congress to pass a 1997 law requiring the Pentagon to conduct a physical and take blood samples of all soldiers before and after deployment. In a House hearing on March 25 on that requirement, Public Law 105-85, Pentagon officials said the military had not conducted those baseline tests for Iraq War soldiers, saying they asked troops to fill out a questionnaire instead.
oops

i've heard various descriptions of the amount of du. each type of round has its own variation but its usually a solid rod.
tanks have an apporximate 3.25 by 18 inch rod that is depleted uranium, the dod said it was coated at one point to confuse the issue. the nightmare is coming.. the brits are keeping track of some of the effects..

http://traprockpeace.org/ducleanup.html
By Alex Kirby
BBC News Online environment correspondent
4-24-2003

People in Iraq need urgent advice on avoiding exposure to depleted uranium (DU), the United Nations has said.

It wants the US and UK to provide precise details of sites targeted with DU weapons. The Royal Society, the UK's national science academy, is also demanding targeting data to enable a clean-up to begin.

It says it is "highly unsatisfactory" to continue using DU without knowing people's exposure levels.

"It is vital that this monitoring takes place, and that it takes place within a matter of months." Professor Spratt called as well for monitoring of DU levels in a wide sample of soldiers, including "foot soldiers and field hospital staff across Iraq", and Iraqi civilians.

He said: "It is highly unsatisfactory to deploy a large amount of a material that is weakly radioactive and chemically toxic without knowing how much soldiers and civilians have been exposed to it."

The UK has said it will make available records of its use of DU rounds. It offers veterans voluntary DU tests.

The US says it has no plans for any DU clean-up in Iraq. It does not test all exposed veterans. DU, left over after natural uranium has been enriched, is 1.7 times denser than lead, and effective for destroying armoured vehicles.

When a weapon with a DU tip or core strikes a solid object, like the side of a tank, it goes straight through before erupting in burning vapour which settles as dust.

Unep found DU traces in air and water in Bosnia-Herzegovina up to seven years after the weapons had been fired there.

we are selling du to 17 countries last i heard
anytime they describe our missle as penetrating you can bet its got a du portion in it. its been called a giant leap in weapons tech and they(dod and our administration) say that du is harmless so its a safe bet they are using it in a lot more than tank shells.. the A-10 warthog can shoot 4000 rounds a minute thats estimated 2.25 lbs of solid uranium in the munition so thats a ton and half du per minute.

i can't find a listing of how much is in what so there's no way to know at this point how much is there and how much is in the like vaporized version and how much is in fragments.


we're now putting du in consumer goods. damn
see http://www.umrc.net/
DU is a byproduct of the uranium enrichment process.

Presently there is no acceptable solution for safe disposal of radioactive waste. The laws and precautions governing its use have largely been discarded since large-scale military use made them impractical. Depleted uranium is also now being made available to be recycled as an element going into manufacturing of consumer or industrial products.

The enrichment process also creates small quantities of the man-made isotopes U236 and Plutonium (Pu239). These isotopes are included in the “depleted” uranium mass as it is too expensive to extract them.

For every grams of enriched uranium that is produced there are 7 grams of Depleted Uranium. This results in huge stockpiles of radioactive waste. It is estimated that there is over one million tons of DU stockpiled in the U.S. The quantities of plutonium in these stockpiles are a well-kept secret. It is routinely measured but not publicly reported.

we've made every blunder under the sun so much so that i question which are errors to a degree that's disturbing

[El Blanco]

Yes, its there, I think we all agree the DU has been used. But, all you have is half an unfinished study. You still can't explain why the thousands of men and women who handle tons of it day after day aren't showing any side effects.

[ranxer]

handling it is not the problem.. its the effect after the rounds are fired that is the problem.

[Abcdxxxx]

I'm not in the military but I think the points ben made a few times over that live ammunition is used for training all the time, without the effects you're talking about.

[ranxer]

well, there's a difference between practice and the real thing.. i assume that makes a difference on the munitions being used.. maybe not with small arms but surely a bunker buster(etc) isnt 'tested' in a ground fight practice. not to mention the fact that most of the time ive been involved with 'practice' fighting we didnt stand around the targets as the dust settled or live around the areas we did our firing of weapons.

[GAsux]

The thing I really love about Ranxer is his clever use of sources. It's such an obvious theme. Discredit the sources of anything that refutes your point of view, particularly when it comes from "mainstream" media, all the while posting link upon link to your "alternative" news as some kind of gold standard.

As if something must be truthful simply because it didn't come from mainsteam media. You know, the National Enquirer is "alternative", but I don't suppose there is much truth to the story that some woman in Alabama is having an Elvis/BigFoot baby.

You can't have it both ways my friend. You can't in good faith ignore or deny a source simply because it's statements refute your position. I am quite positive that I could provide just as many links as to the inconclusive proof of the effects as you have provided here in your defense. In the end, in my mind, they basically equal out with no clear answer. But in your mind, you'll say that my sources are bogus, and amount to nothing more than clear attempts to disinform the people by the government, regardless of the source.

But you're right. Since you are convinced that DU is killing the world, and you've even provided a source that says PERHAPS it's true although studies are inconclusive, you are surely right, and everyone else is surely wrong.

[ranxer]

Ga you exaggerate.. 'du is killing the world' come on! why would you paint my view as such? what source have you posted that i have ignored?

i'm simply posting some of the stuff i've run across.. and the du subject is not going away.. at the same time its very hard to verify because the folks that speak out are in a lot of trouble for speaking out!

did you know that if a soldier claims to suffer radiation symptoms they can be kicked out of the service? ..healthcare denied.. if they persue same anyway thier records of service can be 'lost.'
so its a very hard situation and the government is maintaining nearly complete denial.. so i realize im not going to get far very fast on this subject.

[El Blanco]

well, there's a difference between practice and the real thing

The only difference for the purpose of this discussion is that there is no one on the other end catching the live round.

maybe not with small arms but surely a bunker buster(etc) isnt 'tested' in a ground fight practice

Do you want me to go bald? Is that it? You want me to yank more hair out of my raw, bleeding scalp?
One more time for our short bus riders:

WE DO NOT PUT DEPLETED URANIUM IN BUNKER BUSTERS!! It would be a waste. The BB already wipes out the underground bunker. It causes the structure to collapse on itself. What purpose would the DU serve? Is Saddam hidding the Death Star under Iraq?

Do yourself a favor, give up on the technical and scientific side of this conversation. You are outgunned.