Iraq: Quagmire Or Expensive Mud?

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-08-20 01:40am

http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20030822/index.php

Quagmire Or Expensive Mud

An American officer came to the home of an Iraqi family. American soldiers had killed the family's young son by mistake. The boy was taking his mattress to the roof to sweat out the hot Baghdad night when a nervous American on patrol mistook him for a sniper.

"How much compensation would you accept?" the officer asked.

"Ten dead Americans," the father replied.

Maybe that anecdote will give you some idea of what we've stepped into. It might not be a quagmire. I understand that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld doesn't like that word. OK, then let's call it a very expensive hole with a mixture of blood, oil and sand at the bottom of it. As of 100 days after the end of major combat, about 60 U.S. soldiers have been killed by hostile fire, and several more have died in accidents, suicides and from disease. That's the human cost, and there is no indication it will decrease. The monetary cost is $1 billion a week. That $1 billion, by the way, is just the cost of the military occupation. It doesn't count toward the rebuilding of Iraq, which some are now estimating will cost $100 billion.

So just what is an average of a dead American a day and $1 billion a week buying the American people? Peace? We had peace. We are the ones who broke the peace. Iraq had never in its history attacked the United States or even threatened to attack the United States. Well, there's the satisfaction of dumping a bad dictator (even though at this moment we don't know where he is). That's certainly a benefit to the Iraqi people, though somehow I don't think we're going to get a lot of thank-you notes in the mail. But it's no benefit to the American people. There are lots of dictators in the world. Always have been and always will be. Most of them, including Saddam Hussein, have better sense than to mess with us.

Well, how about defending freedom? The politicians always like to say that. Sorry, Iraq was no threat to our freedom. It was incapable of being a threat to our freedom. Al-Qaida never has had the capacity to threaten our freedom, except by provoking our own government to take our freedom away in the name of protecting national security.

As a matter of fact, that's the textbook purpose of one form of terrorism. Provoke the government until it clamps down so hard that it alienates its own population and therefore becomes easier to overthrow. I guess we will have to wait until the presidential election in 2004 to find out if that strategy is working. Thank God we can still "overthrow" governments with ballots instead of bullets.

Well, what about the war on terrorism? The administration now claims that dumping Saddam is part of that war. Trouble is, the only "terrorists" Saddam supported were Palestinians fighting for their independence. When the second uprising against the Israeli occupation began, Saddam sent a check to the family of any Palestinian killed in the uprising. Didn't matter if it was a child, an old woman or a young man. If any member of the family got killed in the struggle for independence, the family got a check. When the suicide bombings started, Saddam simply included those families, but he neither originated the idea nor set out specifically to subsidize suicide bombings.

No, there is one and only one justification for going to war against Iraq: that it was an imminent danger to the United States. That's how the war was sold to Congress and to the American people. More than 100 days after the war was supposedly over, no evidence that Iraq or Saddam was an imminent danger to us has been found. Not one shred.

If it's never found, then the American people must hold the Bush administration accountable for deception and for the deaths of their children and spouses and parents who were sent to fight on false pretenses.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-08-20 01:46am

The reason they went after the UN building is because we've been sniping
the idiots who try to RPG our guys.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-08-20 01:55am

MKSheppard wrote:The reason they went after the UN building is because we've been sniping
the idiots who try to RPG our guys.

Wow Shepp, that post certainly shows a remarkable degree of concentration and contemplation...... considering that nowhere in the article is the UN building bombing mentioned.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-08-20 02:03am

Six months and we're in a quagmire? WTF. If six months is a quagmire, then I think we need to retroactively come up with a better name for Vietnam. It was a quagmire because we were there for almost a decade and never got anything done. We've been in Iraq for six months and have accomplished a couple things.

Next we read about the little tick that Saddam was and that he represented little if no threat the the USA, except that he distabilized the region and that region is where we get our oil from. Like it or not, we get gobs of oil from the ME and oil runs our economy. Curiously, those who don't like us being in Iraq are usually the ones who don't want us drilling off the coast or drilling in Alaska.

He distabilized the region with a greedy eye on SA and Kuwait. He destabilized the region by funding terrorism. Do you really think those big old nice checks he gave to the families of the homicide bombers went to giving the family a nice house and a vacation at Disney World?

I do agree that if Bush lied about WMD or pulled a slick one to get us there, then he should be judged by the voters.

darthdavid · Post by **darthdavid** » 2003-08-20 02:07am

You know what? I agree with that article except for the parts where they're making saddam look good. He was evil. He took his kids to tourture sessions and had them join in. That's just sick.

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-08-20 02:18am

darthdavid wrote:You know what? I agree with that article except for the parts where they're making saddam look good. He was evil. He took his kids to tourture sessions and had them join in. That's just sick.

No one is denying that, however, there are countless dictators across the globe who do the same, if not worse.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-08-20 02:25am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
darthdavid wrote:You know what? I agree with that article except for the parts where they're making saddam look good. He was evil. He took his kids to tourture sessions and had them join in. That's just sick.
No one is denying that, however, there are countless dictators across the globe who do the same, if not worse.

But not all of them sit right smack dab in the middle of the worlds oil supply.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-08-20 02:27am

Knife wrote:
BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:No one is denying that, however, there are countless dictators across the globe who do the same, if not worse.
But not all of them sit right smack dab in the middle of the worlds oil supply.

Well, you need to have some economic reason for (invasion/liberation).

BlkbrryTheGreat · Post by **BlkbrryTheGreat** » 2003-08-20 02:29am

I also love this little tidbit.......

http://www.thememoryhole.org/pol/iraq-combat/

When the White House published the text of and photos from Bush's speech announcing the supposed end of the Iraq attack, the headline read: "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." But on Tuesday, 19 Aug 2003, the Cursor website noticed that the headline had been changed to read: "President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended." The word "major" had been added.

Apparently, with the quagmire resulting in at least one dead US soldier a day--not to mention even more injuries, dead Iraqis, and sabotage--that headline had proved incorrect. Therefore, straight out of 1984, the headline was stealthily altered to make it seem as if that's what it had always said.

We were able to recover numerous instances of the unaltered headline. At the top of the page is the original headline, as it has been preserved on the Website of Scott Long, who collects photos of politicians on aircraft carriers. Under that, you'll find the headline as it is now.

Alex Moon · Post by **Alex Moon** » 2003-08-20 04:05am

BlkbrryTheGreat wrote:
darthdavid wrote:You know what? I agree with that article except for the parts where they're making saddam look good. He was evil. He took his kids to tourture sessions and had them join in. That's just sick.
No one is denying that, however, there are countless dictators across the globe who do the same, if not worse.

And when the chance comes to get rid of them, the world should take it.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-20 12:06pm

Six months and we're in a quagmire? WTF. If six months is a quagmire, then I think we need to retroactively come up with a better name for Vietnam. It was a quagmire because we were there for almost a decade and never got anything done. We've been in Iraq for six months and have accomplished a couple things.

This is the American media, Knife. Every time a soldier stubs his fucking toe in Iraq we've got a quagmire.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-08-20 12:13pm

Durran Korr wrote:
Six months and we're in a quagmire? WTF. If six months is a quagmire, then I think we need to retroactively come up with a better name for Vietnam. It was a quagmire because we were there for almost a decade and never got anything done. We've been in Iraq for six months and have accomplished a couple things.
This is the American media, Knife. Every time a soldier stubs his fucking toe in Iraq we've got a quagmire.

Oh, I know. I just bristle everytime one of these slathering idiots that are just chomping at the bit to go after anything American, go off on a quagmire rant.

Stravo · Post by **Stravo** » 2003-08-20 12:28pm

I wonder what happened to the American will in terms of casualties. Right now if there are more than 100 dead people are screaming. What would these same people say from just one battle in WW II. Fuck I could imagine the shit fits from the casulties just from the D-Day landings, and let's not even get into the Civil War casualty figures.

Let's put things in perspective. We inavded a fucking country and lost maybe 200 soldiers. I'd like to see another nation put up kill ratios like that. We are currently losing a soldier a day to guerilla action. 60 by the count of this article. The losses are not staggering and considering how dangerous it is out there - urban environmetn, sniper friendly, angry/resentful population, 1 soldier a day is a miracle.

Vietnam we were losing something like a hundred or more a week. We were there for over a decade with no hope in sight. Slowly but surely Iraq is being rebuilt and there is a light at the end of the tunnel.

Quagmires were Vietnam, hundreds dead a week with no hope of end in sight. We lose less than 10 a week and we're ready to pull the fuck out and go off running?

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-20 12:33pm

Quagmires were Vietnam, hundreds dead a week with no hope of end in sight. We lose less than 10 a week and we're ready to pull the fuck out and go off running?

No, fortunately the people in charge of the government are not willing to do so. It's these bedwetting wimps in the media who won't let up on the caterwauling.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-20 12:35pm

Knife wrote: Next we read about the little tick that Saddam was and that he represented little if no threat the the USA, except that he distabilized the region

Please explain how Saddam was destabilising the region.

Knife wrote: He distabilized the region with a greedy eye on SA and Kuwait.

What do you mean? What's a "greedy eye"?

Knife wrote: He destabilized the region by funding terrorism. Do you really think those big old nice checks he gave to the families of the homicide bombers went to giving the family a nice house and a vacation at Disney World?

You can also say insurance companies "fund death" by paying out insurance death claims. But let's not play semantical games. Please provide proof which shows he funded terrorism.

Knife wrote: I do agree that if Bush lied about WMD or pulled a slick one to get us there, then he should be judged by the voters.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Well then. Let the preparations for his trail begin!

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-20 12:37pm

Knife wrote:
Durran Korr wrote:
Six months and we're in a quagmire? WTF. If six months is a quagmire, then I think we need to retroactively come up with a better name for Vietnam. It was a quagmire because we were there for almost a decade and never got anything done. We've been in Iraq for six months and have accomplished a couple things.
This is the American media, Knife. Every time a soldier stubs his fucking toe in Iraq we've got a quagmire.
Oh, I know. I just bristle everytime one of these slathering idiots that are just chomping at the bit to go after anything American, go off on a quagmire rant.

Poor baby.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-20 12:41pm

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

A claim that the British government is standing by to this day.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-08-20 12:41pm

Stravo wrote:
Quagmires were Vietnam, hundreds dead a week with no hope of end in sight. We lose less than 10 a week and we're ready to pull the fuck out and go off running?

It's less the amount of death, but the fact that it's becoming apparent that the main reason put forward to support the invasion in the public eyes was a lie, and the responsibles knew it.

People are willing to accept casualties only and when if necessary. Having people dying for no reason (and removing a ruthless dictator is not a valid reason, or most african, some asian, a few european and american rulers would have to go) is a huge blow to morale. Even if you pull the oil card, it doesn't work quite well. People dislike wars started for economic benefits (unless their name is Axis Kast).

Not being able to deliver the promised WMD leaves a huge, devorating black hole of criticism that doesn't exist in the case, for example, of Afeghanistan. A hole that feeds itself everytime the death count rises.

BoredShirtless · Post by **BoredShirtless** » 2003-08-20 12:43pm

Durran Korr wrote:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
A claim that the British government is standing by to this day.

A claim your government knew was false last year.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-08-20 01:04pm

It is true that the Administration must deliever on the WMD soon for their credibility to remain intact. It doesn't matter if Saddam had a slew of nuclear weapons and shipped them off to Syria and is now sitting in Damascus smoking cigars; if they don't turn up, Bush has run out of credit.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-08-20 01:05pm

Please explain how Saddam was destabilising the region.

Well lets see, he fough a large scale war with Iran. He invaded Kuwait. By all acounts he thought about invading SA. He appearently ran a retirment home for old terrorists. He vocally advertised the fact that he payed large amounts of cash to families of homicide bombers. Subverted UN mandates by selling oil to European countries that were not supose to get oil from Iraq. Has or had WMD and threaten to use them. Burned oilfields. More or less ran a terror campaign against Shi'ite (sp?) Muslims.

My bad, your right. He was obviously cleaning up the region.

What do you mean? What's a "greedy eye"?

Tis no secret that Saddam wanted to occupy SA if he could. He wanted to, by all that I have read, to have an effective control both politicaly and economicly in the ME.

You can also say insurance companies "fund death" by paying out insurance death claims. But let's not play semantical games. Please provide proof which shows he funded terrorism.

Semantic games?

Thats your game bud. I said that by paying families (25 grand wasn't it?) he's funding terrorism. How many Palistienians have you seen getting a check Ed McMan style? Even if the family is getting all the money, which I doubt, then he is still inciting by providing an incentive to perform TERRORISM.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Well then. Let the preparations for his trail begin!

Your not reading, your presuming. I said I agreed that the voters should decide. And decide they shall.

Poor baby.

Any particular reason for the flame bait?

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-08-20 01:52pm

Knife wrote: He distabilized the region with a greedy eye on SA and Kuwait.

The Gulf War actually was provoked by the Kuwaitis, who used slant drilling to mine Iraq's oil. Then when Saddam asked the US if it would mind if he took action, the US basically said they had no opinion. I remember a quote from Bush Sr. saying "Saddam is our man."

Remind me again, did Saddam actually invade Saudi Arabia? After his defeat, was he really in a position to take over Kuwait or Saudi Arabia? He certainly wanted to, I won't deny that, but did he possess the capability to overcome the stationed troops in Kuwait or Saudi Arabia?

Again, where are his WMD? Scud missiles might be illegal, but are hardly WMD, unless you stick a few biological/chemical agents on it, or add a nuclear warhead. Iran tried to assassinate a few of Iraq's officials. Bush lied outright about Uranium being purchased from Africa.

Yes, he's commited genocide and many other atrocities. Maybe he has supported terrorists in the past, but he's not the only country to do so. Saudi Arabia does, Iran, Libya just to name a few. So why Iraq? The oil. North Korea has flaunted it's nuclear weapons, they starve their citizens, government censorship is everywhere.

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-08-20 02:08pm

Yes, he's commited genocide and many other atrocities. Maybe he has supported terrorists in the past, but he's not the only country to do so. Saudi Arabia does, Iran, Libya just to name a few. So why Iraq? The oil. North Korea has flaunted it's nuclear weapons, they starve their citizens, government censorship is everywhere.

I am a proponent of cleaning up our messes when we can. We should deal with SA, we did deal with Libya and if we need too more than I am willing to listen to the proposals. Iran looks like it might deal with itself soon but if not....

North Korea seems ripe to implode as well and if not we have some ugly choices to look at but what are we to do? Make another deal they have no intention of keeping?

Look. The ME gets alot of our attension because they have the ability to effect our economy. Like it or not, our civilization runs off of oil. Personally I would like to develope our own source and give the finger the those fuckers over in the ME but politicaly speaking, it doesn't seem likely for the forseeable future.

Iceberg · Post by **Iceberg** » 2003-08-20 02:08pm

Ah, but Iraq doesn't have nuclear missiles that could conceivably (if nothing goes wrong) hit Honolulu.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-08-20 02:16pm

Knife wrote: Look. The ME gets alot of our attension because they have the ability to effect our economy. Like it or not, our civilization runs off of oil. Personally I would like to develope our own source and give the finger the those fuckers over in the ME but politicaly speaking, it doesn't seem likely for the forseeable future.

But Saddam was more than willing to have the sanctions lifted and start selling oil normally. He couldn't do a move without being scrutinized, and it seems he wasn't bluffing after all in his "don't shoot, we're unarmed" speeches.

If SA decides to stop selling oil to the infidels, it would suffer far more greatly than the western world. The only thing we must prevent is them using the money to finance terrorism, and that Iraq couldn't do. SA and Iran, for example, are far more serious suspects.