Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Thursday, November 17, 2005

38. THE IRAQ WAR "QUAGMIRE"

The following is the transcript of The List Administrator's 11/16/05 appearance on Nightline with Ted Koppel:

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

Ted Koppel: Okay folks, we're back and joining us tonight from the conservative republican think-tank The Dick List is The List Administrator here to discuss the quagmire in Iraq.

The List Administrator: Now I take issue with that characterization, Ted.

TK: Which? I just planted two labels in that last sentence...

TLA: Fair enough. First, I am not a "republican" nor do I consider myself per se "conservative". I have no party affiliation; and I tend to examine issues as they come and I tend to be more libertarian in my views. Second, its unfair for you to label the Iraq war as a "quagmire" with no supporting proof...

TK: Look, I don't care if you're a librarian or whatever you say you are. You think abortion is morally wrong and you are here to defend the U.S.'s actions in Iraq. Thus, you are a "republican". Now then, how does it feel to see your hero, George W. Bush, so wrong about Iraq? I bet you never considered in your wildest neocon nightmares that Iraq would turn into another Vietnam. Face it, Bush lied to the public and now we are bogged down in the mother of all quagmires. The facts speak for themselves: nearly 2,200 dead G.I.s and withdrawal is nowhere in sight.

TLA: Tell me, Ted, do you think the Civil War was a quagmire?

TK: Well, er, no...the Civil War was a glorious victory for the Federal Government against those backwards southern rednecks- although sometimes I wish we did let them secede. More importantly, the Civil War was a politically correct war and thus it was the greatest thing that ever happened... ever.

TLA: Did you know that in one day, during the battle of the Anteitam, the Union alone suffered 12,400 casualties with about 2,200 killed in action flat out and thousands more subsequently dying of their wounds? How about Gettysburg? Over four days, the Union lost more than 3,100 men killed flat out and nearly 21,000 total casualties. As a matter of fact, victory in the Civil War cost the North 359, 500 men (110,000 of which were killed in action) over a span of four years. Hmmm...that's an average of 89, 875 men killed per year.

TK: Well that was back before doctors existed and people made medicine from dog poo. I bet they didn't even have helicopters or medevacs either. Stupid barbarians. Try a comparison from this millennium, please.

TLA: Okay, try this on for size- was World War II a quagmire?

TK: Now that's not fair; you're trapping me. You know I have no choice but to laud World War II as a glorious fight against Hitler and more importantly a politically correct war. I bet you won't even let me guide this discussion towards the thousands of innocent Japanese-Americans interned during the war by the evil U.S. Government...

TLA: Good try, Ted, but the internment of gooks is irrelevant to this conversation. Since you brought up Japan, however, why don't you tell me how many Americans were killed defending our freedom at Iwo Jima?

TK: Why? Because I haven't the slightest clue. You know journalists are supposed to create history, not learn it. Jeez...

TLA: Well let me inform you. At Iwo Jima, a battle which lasted roughly one month, the US lost 7,000 men killed in action and another 19,000 wounded or missing. That's 26,000 total casualties. And that's not even the worst battle for the Americans. During the Battle of the Bulge (which was one month and one week long), the US lost 10, 276 men killed in action and a total of 80,987 casualties. In fact, during the four years of US involvement in The Second World War, we suffered roughly 416,000 men killed in action. That's an average of 104,000 killed in action per year.

TK: Okay, okay. But those wars meant something. We were fighting to end tyranny and to spread political correctness all over the world. Any war that is for a good cause cannot be a quagmire. But what about the quagmire of all quagmires, Vietnam? That war was the defining event of my generation; I even lost my virginity while I was high on shrooms at a violent anti-war demonstration! Vietnam was a pointless imperialist war like Iraq, let's see you try to throw around all your readin' and learnin' shit now!

TLA: Well before I begin skewering you, I would like to point out the utter hypocrisy of your assumption that The Civil War and WWII were "good" wars because they were fought against tyranny whereas Vietnam and Iraq are not. Ask a Vietnamese boat refugee whether the North Vietnamese government was tyrannical or go to Kurdistan and see Saddam's mass graves.

TK: Yes, but The Civil War and WWII were also fought against racism. I can think of no better cause to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of American lives for than to stop racial prejudice.

TLA: So you think that Saddam's butchery of the Kurds and Shiites was motivated purely by circumstance and not racial hatred?

TK: No, but all those people look the same and have the same color skin. That's not really racism.

TLA: The jews didn't look substantially different than Germans, numbnuts. Regardless, back to Vietnam. Major U.S. military involvement in South Vietnam lasted for roughly 7 years (1965-1972). Over that seven year period of both low and high intensity combat, the United States suffered roughly 60,000 men killed in action and 154,000 total casualties. That's an average of 8,571 men killed per year. Now then, the United States has been in Iraq for less than 3 years. If Iraq was a "quagmire" like Vietnam, we should have already suffered 25, 713 men killed in action and 66,000 total casualties.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
"Good Evening and welcome to the Nightly News. Tonight, disaster in Europe! Over 6,603 American soldiers were killed or wounded today in what looks like a botched invasion of Hitler's vaunted 'Fortress Europe'. General Eisenhower will certainly have questions to answer on Capitol Hill and Senate Democrats have accused the Roosevelt administration of involving America in another European quagmire with no plan of disengagement. Later in the program, we'll take a closer look at the massacre of Omaha Beach."

TK: The thing is, all you care about is numbers and not our lives. We here in the American media love and support our troops, and that's why we want to bring them home. Even one death over this stupid war is not worth it!

TLA: Again, your logic has all the solidity of a piece of swiss cheese. The Dick List respects and admires our American servicemen and women above all other people in this nation. We have defended the war in Iraq so that they can finish their job and come home having accomplished their mission: to make the United States and our true allies safer by installing a stable and democratic government in the heart of the middle east.

For all of your bluster about "caring" for American servicemen, you intend to show it by forcing us to run away and abandoning the brave Iraqi voters to murderous terrorists? I can think of no better way to disgrace the memory of those that have died in Iraq than to make their sacrifice utterly pointless. Then, when Iraq is one huge base for Al Queida used for launching terror strikes in the USA (a la Afghanistan) as well as forcing Islamofascism upon the rest of the middle east, you in the media will be the first to cast blame on Bush and anyone else who supported the war.

The truth, Ted, is that you and the rest of your ilk are manipulative liars who are misleading the American public because you disagree with the social policies of George W. Bush. You don't care one bit about American soldiers and why should you? You don't know or associate with any of our Soldiers, Sailors, or Marines because they don't have summer homes in Easthampton and they don't attend $500 a plate Clinton fundraisers at Maureen Dowd's loft in the Upper West Side.

The lives of our servicemen are merely convenient numbers that you can twist in a perverse manner to destroy the morale of the American public thus forcing us to pull out of Iraq and deal your nemesis George W. Bush a devastating blow in the process. You are on the same side as the terrorists whether you realize it or not.

The numbers bear out that, far from being a "quagmire", America's intervention in Iraq has been a success that is unparalleled in military history. We have thrown out an evil dictator and occupied a country of 20,000,000 for three years at the cost of 733 American lives per year. To put it plainly, Al Queida in Iraq has been getting its ass kicked and is fully cognizant that it has absolutely no chance to defeat our troops. The only way they can win is to turn the American public against the war, and the only way they can do that is through you, Ted. They know it and you know it.

Which is why you in the media are the most despicable of all. You know these animals launch terror attacks solely to garner media attention yet you give it to them anyway. Good news is no news, right Ted? Well I've got news for you: each American that dies in Iraq is as much your doing as it is the terrorists'. Without you the terrorists wouldn't waste time trying to kill American soldiers; its far too expensive in both money and manpower.

So don't go feeding me that "we support our troops" bullshit, because nothing could be farther from the truth. You subvert our troops. You demoralize our troops. You kill our troops.

If you had been around in 1860's, there might still be slavery in the south. If you had been around during the 1940s, entire races might be consigned to the history books. If you hadn't been around during the 60's, Vietnam might be the cornerstone of a free and democratic southeast Asia.

Regardless of why the war started, Iraq must be free.

TK: Boy, I am a douche.

TLA: Yeah, and your toupee isn't fooling anyone.

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us


For more information, click the link below:
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/iraq/articles/20051120.aspx