This blog explores the contemporary political and cultural trends from a distinct perspective
Why the U S will not prevail in Iraq
Published on January 7, 2005 By Bahu Virupaksha In Politics
The U S marines have only one rule in Iraq:shoot first clear the mess later. Any vehicle approaching within 100 meters of a US military humvee is peppered with bullets before questions are asked. Similarly any ordinary Iraqi with a cell phone risks having his guts ripped out by a splatter of M-16 gunfire. Deadly force has become the norm as for as the Anglo American forces are concerned. All this makes for a horrendous loss of civillian life. A 20 something U S soldier says proudly that "we waste people "if they come too close. Just imagine if men used to this level of violence return home. Since September 1 2004 when theAmerican soldiers came to Ramadi more than2000 civillians have been killed inthat city alone.Now the US army with logistical support from the British forces have a new tactic: they hide in wait near the bodies of dead Iraqis and when someone comes to bury the body, they open fire. I wish the commanders of such forces would read one of the outstanding plays of Greek literature, Antigone. They would know that for every one Iraqi they "waste" 10 more will take their place. It is for this reasonr the deadly force is unlikely to yield the desired results.

So far the steady flow ofcasualities has only proved that the American civil society has overcome its distaste for body bags. There is as yet no hope of a settlement that would bring peace with honor.

The run up to the elections as we have always known is proving extremely costly. In the last two days more than 36 Iraqis have dies in bombings, 21 US soldiers have died along with the Allawi regime governor of Bagdad. The projected Sunni Shia divide is not materialising and Iraqis are showing everyone thatthey matter .

Comments (Page 4)
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6 
on Jan 09, 2005
"I don't think that one can even remotely compare Germany to Iraq. To do so would be anti-semitic. Hussein did not kill over four million people through purges. Hitler did and so did Stalin. This kind of statement could easily be construed as anti-semitic."

Don't worry about it.

It's not the number that makes the devil, it's the reason. Hitler killed Jews for the same reason Saddam killed Shi'ites. He hated them and needed somebody to blame for whatever goes wrong. It doesn't matter whether the victims are Jews or Shi''ites or whatever. The deed is the same.

Saddam was every bit as evil and dangerous as Hitler was then. The difference lies merely in the means the two fascists could employ. The Baathist party of Saddam (which also rules Syria!) even calls itself an Arab nationalsocialist party, and they are.

on Jan 09, 2005
(ill be happy to provide the quotes)--


You mean like Bush spouting off "Regime change" every 10 seconds... good clips from watching the daily show.
on Jan 09, 2005
Iraq was a heretical country, thus an attack was justified. I was quite surprised that the Pope was against the war. But then again, as a devout English Protestant, I know that the papists are evil anyway.
on Jan 09, 2005
All I can say is that it is hard to justify the merits of staying in Iraq if I was completely against the invasion in the first place. Having said that, I understand that if we just leave, we lose. The Iraqis lose. Hell, they've already lost. Big time! The neocons created a quagmire that has cost irreparable damage to Iraqis, including lives lost, art treasures lost, lifestyles lost, etc. It will take years to clean up the mess. But the mess cannot be cleaned until we cut our American losses and leave. Yes, there will be a bloodbath, but there is a bloodbath already there. However, it will become a bloodbath of their own making rather than ours. And, very likely, the government that will result from this mess will be yet another Islamist regime. Unless the Americans stay forever to prop up a puppet "democracy", the void will be filled with terrorists. That, in and of itself, means we lost the war.

Maybe the bloodbath, via civil war, will sort things out quicker. I dunno. That seems so cruel. But, maybe then, American can start paying out war reparations that it undoubtedly owes to the Iraqis. We broke it. We own it. We are responsible for the mess. And I doubt that Iraqi oil will pay for the recovery. Not if greedy neocon contractors have any say in the matter.

I really do think Iraq was a lost cause from Day 1. Everything thing else is just a matter of figuring out how to get out of there and save face. That is all.
on Jan 09, 2005
Iraq was NOT a heretical country since it was never Christian. What was the reason for regime change in Iraq. It was not to enhance our security because rogue states do not attack major powers. They also do not provide WMD if there is any chance it can be traced back to them. The threat that faces the US and other Western nations had nothing to do with Saddam and when we took it onto our selves to go into an Islamic nation we made a major error. Saddam was evil and should have been removed from power by the people of Iraq NOT the US. Saddam did not present any measurable danger to America. There are far more dangerous dictators than Saddam. We have created a hot bed of terrorist activity in Iraq where none existed before Bush invaded that country!
on Jan 09, 2005
COL Gene, aside from spamming me with an advert for your book, you have also proved yourself an ignorant peasant.


The entire world belongs to England, or at least the 25 pc we controlled during empire, therefore the entire world is Christian land occupied by terrible infidels.
on Jan 09, 2005

Sometimes one must put his money where his mouth is


hitparade, i was calling into question the assertion of successful regime change rather than asking how to achieve it. 

having said that, it's going to take a lotta 'death squads' to wipe out an estimated 30-40,000 insurgents (the number im hearing batted around now) even if only 1/3 or 1/5 are currently active fighters.   if your mafia theory is valid, maybe we can buy em off?

on Jan 09, 2005

Reply #49 By: Sir Peter Maxwell (Anonymous) - 1/9/2005 11:11:16 AM
Iraq was a heretical country, thus an attack was justified. I was quite surprised that the Pope was against the war. But then again, as a devout English Protestant, I know that the papists are evil anyway.


Not evil, just grossly misinformed.
on Jan 09, 2005

Reply #50 By: dabe - 1/9/2005 11:15:16 AM
All I can say is that it is hard to justify the merits of staying in Iraq if I was completely against the invasion in the first place. Having said that, I understand that if we just leave, we lose. The Iraqis lose. Hell, they've already lost. Big time! The neocons created a quagmire that has cost irreparable damage to Iraqis, including lives lost, art treasures lost, lifestyles lost, etc. It will take years to clean up the mess. But the mess cannot be cleaned until we cut our American losses and leave. Yes, there will be a bloodbath, but there is a bloodbath already there. However, it will become a bloodbath of their own making rather than ours. And, very likely, the government that will result from this mess will be yet another Islamist regime. Unless the Americans stay forever to prop up a puppet "democracy", the void will be filled with terrorists. That, in and of itself, means we lost the war.

Maybe the bloodbath, via civil war, will sort things out quicker. I dunno. That seems so cruel. But, maybe then, American can start paying out war reparations that it undoubtedly owes to the Iraqis. We broke it. We own it. We are responsible for the mess. And I doubt that Iraqi oil will pay for the recovery. Not if greedy neocon contractors have any say in the matter.

I really do think Iraq was a lost cause from Day 1. Everything thing else is just a matter of figuring out how to get out of there and save face. That is all.


If we cut and run now, every American life lost in Iraq will have been for nothing.
on Jan 09, 2005
Not evil, just grossly misinformed.


We English threw the Papists of Rome out of our country because they are decadent, and evil. How can the Anti-Christ (The Pope) be misguided? He knows what he is up to old chap.
on Jan 09, 2005
I think quite frankly the noise raised over the american lives lost in Iraq is a little bit much. I mean come on, more people die each month due to fast food related problems than will during the entire "war", and I use that term loosley considering it is supposed to be over, and to think that 100 times or more INNOCENT Iraqi lives have been lost. Now, I don't want to see anyone die, but people (especially the invading force) die in war, so get used to it. I just like it because it helps detract from the wars movement, and of course I object to the war for more than just the soldier's lost lives. What people should be concerned about is soldiers dying for something that they don't beleive in, something not important, something based on a personal agenda, people should be worried about the soldiers lives being used in pawns in a game of chess between George Bush and some other unknown.

Now, Sir Peter, I am glad that people take great lenght to distance themselves from your garble of physcotic nonsense you spout out, because you are to England what terrorists are to the middle east. You are to England what Jerry Folwell , or actually worse, is to America. The pope is rightly against the killing of people, no matter what the reason. Now obviously, if we look into history we see horrible acts commited by so called missionaries, but currently the Catholic church is one of the most peacefull churches.
on Jan 09, 2005
What makes you think we're not already fighting Iran (Syria, and other terrorist sponsoring nations also)? There is a lot at stake for terrorist nations (especially the Jihadist types) in Iraq. To think that they are merely sitting around rooting for "their" side would be grossly naive.


I fully believe that some of their nationals are attacking us in Iraq as part of the insurgency. Its another thing though to say we need to attack their territory and be able to control it. We leave it in the same anarchy that we left Iraq after combat was over there, we will have the same insurgency issue. Its taking 120K + troops to sort of control Iraq and we aren't able to do that. To take on Iran or Syria, we would have to pull those troops out of Iraq and leave that country to the insurgents. Additionally the armies of Iran and Syria have not been depleted already as were those of Iraq. Its also not inconceivable that were we to invade another country that they may have allies from other countries that do not wish to see the entire region converted to a US satellite nation. The ones being naive are the ones that think that we can just militarily take over the entire region with the current military we have. If we have to take down Iran, we don't have the strenth to do so and hold the territory.
on Jan 09, 2005
sir peter

You are so full of C___ If it were not for the US, you woluld be ruled by Germany today. We also kicked you A.. in the late 1700's if you remenber your history.
on Jan 09, 2005
I guess Bush did have proof that Saddam had them at one point. His daddy and Rummy kept the receipts.


Do you have a detailed description of all the "weapons" that were "sold" to Saddam?




on Jan 09, 2005
Reply By: drmilerPosted: Saturday, January 08, 2005You know Bahu I would like to thank you. I have been labeled a butthead by more than a few on this list. And to be frank I probably deserve the label. But you are working out to be a bigger one than me and as such it pulls the heat off me. So type your foolish head off.


one yer notta butthead.............. two your a kind man with strong opinions. and anyone pointing out yer "rectally head challenged" should be sued.
6 PagesFirst 2 3 4 5 6