Saddam Must Have Felt Very Safe in Bunkers

Well it's something...

The Saddam Hussein Commemorative Hardened Shelter

0500Z 16 October, 1993

"Yusef! Get down here! Yella!"

          Abu Mazen. I hate that prick. Always shouting and strutting about without lifting even a trowel himself. Ba'athist pimp, no… son of a pimp. That is more fitting for his sort of scum. Still I suppose he is the one who gives me this job and keeps me from… Never mind, just go down and see what he wants.

"Yusef! You lazy dog, why do I bother with you? The work is even farther behind schedule than last week! Should I hire another foreman? I knew it was a mistake to allow a crew of Shia curs to build anything! If I had my way…"

I climb down off the blazing hot concrete that already starts to creep up the steep walls of the bunker my crew has been slaving over for the last year and a half. The rest of the bunker is still a skeleton of exposed girders laced with rebar. There are still large gaps in the superstructure with no support girders and it is those gaps that have Abu Mazen's hijab in a knot.

", saidi… I know that we are behind schedule but surely you cannot expect me to complete this bunker without the beams? I cannot finish without supplies!"

"Supplies? Bah! It is your laziness that holds up the project! The beams will arrive soon Insha Allah but you Shia goat-fondlers work too slowly no matter what! And clean this work-site up! It is a place for pigs!"

          Shia goat fondlers? Insolent kufr! I know that it is he who loves the boys who push sand with their chests. Still he is in Uday's favor and I cannot afford to have him turn on me or worse; for that whoreson Uday to notice Adara! Insha Allah she will be married next week in a proper ceremony and forever beyond the sickness that possesses Saddam's demon son.

", they will redouble their efforts saidi. I will see to the cleaning as well."

          Sigh. It is I…Yusef, Shaykh of the Janitors. Thanks to those boy-fucking Ba'athists.

 

Saddam must have felt very safe in bunkers. I say this because here at our airfield there are literally hundreds of them! Judging from the scale of the architecture, this place could have been built by the Cyclopes. Massive 3-meter thick walls give a claustrophobic feel to even the largest of these monolithic structures. Walk into one and you wonder where all the space went.

            These are relics of a time when the world held on to the delusion that it was possible to engage the United States in conventional warfare, from a time when it was possible to be located by the enemy and stay alive, and from a time when enough concrete could keep out a bomb. These assumptions are simply not true any more.

            This is one of the major reasons for the raging anti-American sentiment in the world today. The original Gulf War gave the world a taste of our potency and the second one made them gag on it. The U.N. (and the rest of the world) came to the sphincter tightening realization that they were utterly powerless against us militarily. Only and the Former Soviet Union remained as potential nuclear threats and even that deterrent was and is fading quickly as our missile defense programs approach viability. Does 's vehement opposition to anti-missile technologies make a bit more sense now? It should.

There will never be another war like , where slipped literally millions of infantry across the in secret. You could possibly slip a few squads across a border nowadays but that is the absolute upper limit. Even if you did somehow manage to sneak a million troops across a border to engage the military the scale of the resultant slaughter would be incomprehensible. Human wave attacks? Forget about it. Give me a hilltop with a mini-gun and the only limit to the number of troops I could hold off single handedly would be my supply of ammunition.

            Speaking of ammo, a modern soldier carries a minimum of 210 rounds for his/her M16A2. If combat is expected you can double that. One soldier on a hill is not the easy mark for human wave attacks that they once were even without figuring in the devastating effects of crew served weapons, artillery, and close air support. Stand up an element of infantry of any size and it will be killed. Most likely they won't even see an American soldier before they buy it due to electronic monitoring techniques and overhead satellite coverage.

            The new rule for fighting Americans on the battlefield is: Don't.

Saddam's forces were obliterated in the most stunning rout ever seen on the face of the Earth. Our casualties to date are less than 0.25% of the troops who have served in this conflict. Read that again, 0.25%! That number has never been approached in the history of warfare. Never. It is akin to the Hand of God descending from Heaven and sweeping your enemy from the battlefield. It boggles the mind.

            Saddam never saw how useless his bunkers would be against the United States Armed Forces. He did not understand that no matter how thick the walls were we would still destroy them. After all you can't hide or move these bunkers. We can see them. If we know where you are you will perish and no amount of concrete and rebar will help you.

The only way you could hope to win against us is through the model. This scenario assumes that we have invaded another nation and that the majority of the people in it hate us. If you have this on your side you stand a very good chance of beating the eventually. Good news for the Revolutionary home teams eh? Maybe not.

            It is a different story when the majority of the populace doesn't hate us or even *gasp* supports the occupation. Instead of you get , the , (the last case is a bizarre study in attitude reversal), and . That’s right, .

            If the people in were on the insurgency's side I would never eat another thing that was not airdropped to me. No trucks would dare drive the highways. It is freakishly easy to stop or destroy supply lines if even 30% of the people are willing to look the other way as insurgents place simple explosives made from the easily obtainable ordinance dumps that Saddam stashed everywhere in Iraq. Every base would be an island reachable only through air or by M1 tank convoy. Nothing else could possibly move. We would lose 100's of soldiers a day. That doesn't happen. Want to know why?

            The people here hate the insurgents.  They turn in bomb-makers, bomb-layers, arms cache raiders, and inciters to violence. They do it everyday in droves because they want to have what we have. They want schools for their kids, running water, electricity, uncensored newspapers, the Internet, and crappy shows on the WB. They want prosperity and they know the insurgency has something quite different in mind for them.

            We offer them hope, equality, prosperity, and freedom. The Jaysh Al-Madhi, Ansar Al-Sunna, and Fedayeen Saddam offer them a return to the 7th century. The people have spoken folks and they like this century much more than some bizarre anachronistic attempt to freeze the world in the Golden Age of Mohammed.

Site Meter
3,703 views 17 replies
Reply #1 Top
Take that Terrorist Apologists, Anti American pundits, The Press and Colonels who have traded your honor for white-hot hatred!!!!

Thanks GreyWar, for speaking the truth and telling the facts as they are!! I have stated the same thing about how, if Iraqis really hated the U.S. the blood of Coalition troops would flow in every street. The fact that we have accomplished Far More with Far Fewer losses in Far Less time than any way in history means nothing to those who know nothing.

Keep up the good work, and come home to tell about it!!!
Reply #2 Top
Glad you liked it
Reply #3 Top
Reply #4 Top
Aaaaaaand... He's Back!

Good to see you. The short leave of absence did you good, it seems. Very nice piece.
Reply #5 Top
Your glorious story of the invincible US military doesn't seem to recognize the fact that we lose several a day due to IEDs. Not all die, many just have their brains permanently damaged. Unlimited money and rescources will win on the battlefield, thats a fact. But we have now entered a phase where we no longer define what the battlefield is.
Reply #6 Top
US military doesn't seem to recognize the fact that we lose several a day due to IEDs.
Ah someone who can't be bothered to read the link I guess. While there are casualties here due to enemy action there are as "coolaqua" pointed out in the one's and two's. He appears to have no point in his comment other than that he doesn't like the military but thats really the sort of "dialogue" I have come to expect from anti-war folks. Very little logic just random spewings. A shame really. Someone in the peace movement probably had a clue once. Wonder where they are now?
Reply #7 Top
"Our casualties to date are less than 0.25% of the troops who have served in this conflict."

i guess that's what happens when you let the UN starve your opponents for 15 years before invading them.
Reply #8 Top

i guess that's what happens when you let the UN starve your opponents for 15 years before invading them.

If your point is that the Iraqi Army was starving you are mistaken (they were better fed than the populace by a longshot).

Maybe your point was that we should have invaded 15 years earlier and that the UN evilly held us back to starve Iraqis?

OR maybe your point was that 15 years ago the Iraqi army was much better able to defend their country against the US Military which would seem to be thoroughly trounced by the first Gulf War?

 

Then again maybe you didn't think about your comment at all.

 

Reply #9 Top
Welcome back

pimp, no… son of a pimp


heh heh.......gowad ibn gowad
Reply #10 Top
Sorry, but it took the Germans less time to defeat France in WWII than it took the US to defeat Iraq. 6 weeks from invasion untill Hilter was dancing in Paris.

This is really not a good comparison, I know. It was the French after all.
Reply #11 Top

Sorry, but it took the Germans less time to defeat France in WWII than it took the US to defeat Iraq.

Thats laughable friend. Compare the cost in human life. It is like comparing Omaha beach to the clearing a lunchroom squabble in kindergarten.

Reply #12 Top
Just one thing that has always puzzled me... Why is it alright for the US to have nuclear weapons while no one else should be allowed to? It's easy to say that the others are more likely to use them without a 'good reason', while the US needs them to protect the country and the people. It's easy to say "we're always the good guys and they're always the bad guys". It's easy to look at it from an American point of view and think "we should have them to protect ourselves, we won't hurt anyone if we don't have to but you never know what the others might do.." But the guys over in China don't think that way. They see it from the Chinese point of view and think "we should have them to protect ourselves, we won't hurt anyone if we don't have to but you never know what the others might do".

Why should you be allowed to play when no one else can?
Reply #13 Top
Apples,

If you subscribe to moral equivalency of nations, then you're suceptible silly thoughts such as "Why is it alright for the US to have nuclear weapons while no one else should be allowed to?" The fact of the matter is that the US is a MORAL nation. We have a government that is of, by, and for the people... a people who are on the whole kind, generous, and compassionate. We do things like send our military on humanitarian rescue missions to god-forsaken hell holes like Somalia. Why? This sort of behavior was unheard of (as far as I know) in the entire history of humanity until we did it.

Grey... Glad to see you're back. Hope you don't mind me responding to Apples. I know it's your forum...
Reply #14 Top
Apples :

A. Your question has jack and shit to do with the article.

B. China has nukes so why are you blathering about us not allowing them to have any? Are you familiar with the NNTP? Apparently not.

Arq :

Feel free to blaze away.
Reply #15 Top
First, you didn't answer my question. And it does have something to do with your article, if you didn't want anyone asking about nuclear weapons, why did you add this:

"This is one of the major reasons for the raging anti-American sentiment in the world today. The original Gulf War gave the world a taste of our potency and the second one made them gag on it. (...) Only China and the Former Soviet Union remained as potential nuclear threats and even that deterrent was and is fading quickly as our missile defense programs approach viability."

If you hadn't mentioned it, neither would I.

And of course China has these kinds of weapons, wouldn't you have them if a huge country on the other side of the world had them? Oh wait, you do. Did I say you are not allowing others to have nuclear weapons? No. I asked why you should be allowed to when others shouldn't. Not why are you allowed to when others aren't, but why SHOULD be like that.

Am I familiar with the NNTP? Nope. If you read my question you'd see that all I wanted was an attempt at an answer for something that has puzzled me. The logic behind "we should and they shouldn't". Something more than "we're good and their not".


Arquonzo - again, it is easy to look at it from the American point of view. Is it true that "the fact of the matter is that the US is a MORAL nation"? Try viewing your country from the outside, from far away in another part of the world. The US does a lot of good things for a lot of people out there, I'm not even trying to claim that your country doesn't. But it won't do any good if everyone thinks "we are always right". That's what people do. And it's time to stop.
Reply #16 Top

asked why you should be allowed to when others shouldn't.

We don't hold nationwide govermentally organized hate sessions declaring other nations "satanic" and calling for the genocide of other races. If you think that folks who DO hold these sorts of events ae moral nations who deserve to hold nuclear arsenals then I have some bridges I would like to sell you.

 

Am I familiar with the NNTP? Nope.

Google for it. If you can't be bothered do do this sort of minimal research on your own I feel little obligation to teach you about it. Don't ask high level questions when you haven't one low-levl research. It' just rude and annoying. Especially whn my article is not about nuclear arms issues. I also mentioned "goat-fondling" in my aticle but that doesn't mean it is germane to the discussion.

Reply #17 Top
How do you "deserve" to hold nuclear arsenals? The more you do for others, the more weapons you can have? If you're in Bush's 'Axis of Evil' then you're not a moral nation? As for that term itself, it might not mean your president declares other nations "satanic" but it sure doesn't sound good.

As for the NNTP, again, I never asked you to teach me anything about it. I do my research and if I was asking about the NNTP, I would know the answers before I asked. All I was asking was the reason why you believe it should be alright for some countries to have nuclear arms while others should not. The answer seems to be that you believe the US is a moral nation and others are not. This could very well be true, it sure looks that way. But as I've mentioned before, it's easy to say that when you sit on this side of the fence.

And how can it possibly be a high level question to ask someone their reasoning behind a statement or how they've taken a stand on something? To me that seems like the most basic thing there is.