This page has been formatted for easy printing

Troops, Duration and Pay Per View
Crunching numbers surrounding the war.

by Richard 'Mr. Moo' Moore
December 31, 2006

OK. It's time for my so seldom rant about the war. For those of you who are newer readers, you may not know that I spoke out against the war in 2002 during my underdog run for the US Senate. But I say that so you know I am not a Johnny Come Lately to the criticism of this administration.
First, the troops. As a veteran, I know that many times the armed forces are called to jobs that have nothing to do with defending our country. Military personnel have been sent all over the globe for no good reason and on a whim of particular political persuasion. Both Republicans and Democrats.
The new Congress, barely controlled by Democrats will be faced with a request to send more troops, 30,000 to be exact, to Iraq. With enough Republicans who have the good sense to vote against sending the additional troops and most Democrats, that request should be dead on arrival. Thank goodness.
Second of all, we have been in Iraq longer than we were in World War II. Some will say it is a different type of war. I would agree. We knew what our objective was in WWII, we don't now. Actually, we have been in Iraq following the declaration of  Mission Accomplished in August 2003 longer than we were in WWII.
Don't bug me about bringing up the Mission Accomplished speech on board a carrier. It was Bush 43 who started it. (It's my job to remind you of the stupid things our leaders do and say.)
Another set of numbers that disturbs me is that we have now lost more U.S. military personnel in Iraq, et al, than we did civilians on 9/11 at all three locations. The old line holds true: an eye for an eye only makes the world blind. We have been damned twice.
Finally, and just a bit tongue in cheek, I figured out a way that we could have recouped some of the money spent on the war. With the internet population over 1 billion users, we should have sold pay-per-view event tickets for the hanging of Saddam Hussein and broadcast it live on line. Between PPV and an international news agency (CNN, BBC, Fox) having exclusive rights after the fact, we could have made a sizable dent in the 1/3 of a trillion dollars that this war has cost the United States. Before you write me a scathing letter to the editor; ask around your office, your school, even your church. People would have paid good money to see it on PPV. I did ask around and about half of everyone I questioned would have bought "tickets" to see it.
Personally, I was glad Saddam Hussein wasn't tried in the US. They would still be on opening arguments and the jury would have to be selected based on age because this trial would have taken years. By the way, where would they have found 12 dictators that wiped out half of their country to serve as a jury of his peers?
Actually being an advocate of abolishing the death penalty, I think no death here would have been better. Let Hussein see his beloved Iraq split apart by the three factions and see all of his kingdom come toppling down. It would have been hell to have him watch that.
The sad part of this entire article is that with a few questions asked and a few answers given honestly, we would not have ever been in Iraq. No discussion of raising the number of troops. No discussion of which war was longer. No jokes about swinging (from a noose) Saddam. No war - no article.
I could have taken the week off. 

About the Author:
Mr. Moo is angered by the lack of credibility shown by our leaders on the war. Gerald Ford, where are you now?

This article was printed from
Copyright © 2018 All rights reserved.