The price of victory

Jordan Times, 3/27/03

THE FIRST week of war has passed, and it has been exactly what all sensible, peace-loving people feared.

Iraqi civilian casualties are already well in the hundreds.

The war promises to be much longer, bloodier and destabilising than expected.

Like in all conflicts, misinformation is being generously used by both sides in a bid to win the propaganda war.

For almost everyone, this war is extremely difficult to follow.

But one widespread impression is clearly emerging and gaining ground: The fortress of US certainty is turning more and more into a castle of cards, as the first doubts are being loudly cast over a US victory.

Former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter was quoted yesterday as saying the US doesn't have the military means to take over Baghdad and will lose the war.

According to Ritter, US-British forces might win some tactical battles “as we did for 10 years in Vietnam, but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost.”

President George W. Bush has already lost the war, indeed.

He lost it when he decided to go ahead without a UN mandate, thus dealing a blow to the very foundations of international legitimacy.

He lost it with the first civilian casualty, which reminded the world that innocent people die in every war.

He lost it when one of his Marines was filmed raising the US flag on Iraqi soil, dissipating every Arab doubt over Washington's real intentions in Iraq and the region.

He lost it again yesterday, when it became even more apparent — as if needed — that “surgical wars” don't exist, and that the US is now bombing apartment buildings and marketplaces in a desperate attempt to take Baghdad.

Bush has been preparing for this war for so long that it is both inconceivable and ironical how miserably all his preparations have failed.

Turkey's refusal to allow the use of its bases, for a start, will haunt Washington's strategists and policy makers for generations to come. One would have thought that, having mulled over this war since the minute he took office, the leader of the world's sole superpower would have at least managed to secure that his troops could count on the strategic “northern front.”

Granted that things never go according to plan in any case, and especially in wars, it is still shocking how gross a miscalculation the Bush administration has made on the resistance that its troops would have encountered in Iraq.

Now, tactical victories on the ground will come only at the prohibitive price of huge civilian casualties. It is a price that Washington cannot afford, but that it will have to pay.

A victory at the price of massacres is a defeat.

As Ritter said, the US has already lost, in either case.

can you provide the source of the scott ritter quote? although he is a republican, he is one of my american heroes

right now.

Here's a link to your hero.

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,6119,2-10-1460_1338708,00.html

You are aware of his sexual issues, right?

All I have is the Jordan Times article that is reprinted above. Sorry that I cannot help anymore than that.

>>Scott Ritter: "Every time we confront Iraqi troops we may win some tactical battles, as we did for ten years in Vietnam, but we will not be able to win this war, which in my opinion is already lost."

Yeah,Scott. And that girl is already 18.

>He lost it when he decided to go ahead without a UN mandate, thus dealing a blow to the very foundations of international legitimacy.

I agree. It's time for America to extend an olive branch to the world body. Powell and President Bush should both pledge that the allies will withdraw from Iraq the moment the Security Council passes a resolution demanding it.

they're people too. age of consent laws are unconstitutional. ask my friends here on the left. we don't support age of consent laws. young girls should have the right to have sex with me if they want. it would be mutually consentual and then those angry moms and dads couldn't say shit.

and I'd like to thank the ACLU for supporting NAMBLA too.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Of course, as soon as they call for a vote, the USA can just veto it, so what's the point?

Security Council = impotent

UN = flawed

international unity = fictitious

world peace = fantasy

SR and other pro-war people,

Amanda recently posted a great comment in response to pro-war folks who assailed her credibility and background. She utterly silenced them by posting the information below.

See if you can spot your own arguments about Scott Ritter among these:

<<

There are many kinds of logical fallacies and your arguments commit a few of them:

An argument is an ABUSIVE AD HOMINEM argument if and only if it purports to discredit a position by insulting those who hold it. (For example, calling someone a spoiled little brat)

An argument is a CIRCUMSTANTIAL AD HOMINEM argument if and only if it purports to discredit a position by appealing to the circumstances or characteristics of those who hold it. (For example, bringing up a person's education or background).

An argument is a RED HERRING if and only if it tries to justify a conclusion irrelevant to the issue at hand. (For example trying to argue that protesters are liberal democrats or bringing up whether or not a protester voted in the last presidential election.)

Some other kinds of logical fallacies to look out for:

An argument is Tu Quoque if and only if it purports to discredit a position by charging those who hold it with inconsistency or hypocrisy.

An argument appeals to force if and only if it tries to justify a kind of action by threatening the audience.

>>

I think I will post this helpful guide every time a pro-war person sinks into one of these kinds of flawed argument. I would encourage others to do the same. Just cut and paste it as a gentle reminder to our pro-war friends.

(And we anti-war folks might want to keep these things in mind, too. We have reason on our side--rules like the above only help us in this conflict.)

Props, of course, to Amanda for creating the guide in the first place.

I read that crap, and you know what? The comments about Scott Ritter don't fall into any of your fancy categories.

Scott Ritter solicited a 16 year old girl.

This is a fact. (Factus Non Bullcrapus).

Hmmmmmmmm.....let's see....oh, yeah:

Source please.

Roll your eye now

Its good to know that not everyone has fallen into the trap of these conspiracy theorists. They don't trust the government, our media, support Saddam, hate our troops, hate Jews, love Palistinian terrorists, hate Republicans, Bush, Conservatives, and have no respect for anyone elses opinion. These are the bsaic characteristics of all peace protesters. There is a strong similarity between them and the Saddam supporters. They should really try to stop watching Al Jazeera and pay attention to Fox News---"Oh no that corporate media, they always lie to me like the government." and there are aliens at Roswell, Right?

http://stacks.msnbc.com/local/WNYT/M264375.asp

Better roll your eyes back to the computer screen.

Your source is MSNBC? LMAO.

Fuck...do you still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy?

Man...you are the sort of dumb fuck that had the wool pulled over your eyes by Bushit.

You are pathetic....and most likely dangerous. Please do not reproduce. The world has enough idiots like you already.

Man, you are totally lame.

Oh, I'm sorry. Here's the story at Little Green Footballs. I'm sure THAT will satisfy you.

http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=5347

Of course, there is the possiblity that a national media outlet isn't good enough, a weblog isn't good enough, wait a minute! What would be good enough?

Perhaps a mention in Pravda?

MSNBC is a good source of information. These are the facts. I know you get your info from Al jazeera. Its funny that an American flag was flown over the Al Jazeera web site today! Did you cry when it happened? Why don't you go write a book telling us of how the government lies to us and the media. Can you tell me if aliens landed at Roswell? Who really shot Kennedy? You dumbfuck, you need to be in a mental institution!

Hey, here's Scott on Page Six!

http://www.pagesix.com/pagesix/1541.htm

Are you in need of another ass-fucking? Give me a ring sometime, sweety!