Why The Anti-War Movement Was Right (commentary)

[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]

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.

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.

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.....?

.......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").

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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 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.