Quote:
Originally Posted by Abcdxxxx
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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
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.
|
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.
Quote:
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...?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronnie Raygun
"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.....?
Quote:
.......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...?
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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."
Quote:
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").
Quote:
Originally Posted by El Blanco
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.