[Abcdxxxx]

Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore

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.