VP Cheney in 94, Iraq would become a quagmire under US occup

Sorry, Solve et Coagula, I didn't see you'd already started a thread when I started mine. Here is a transcript I wrote for those who prefer to read:

[b] Interviewer:[/b] Do you think the US or UN forces should have moved into Baghdad? [b]Cheney:[/b] No. [b]Interviewer:[/b] Why not? [b]Cheney:[/b] Because if we'd gone into Baghdad, we would've been all alone; there wouldn't have been anybody else with us; there would've been a US occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what you gonna put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you can easily end up seing pieces of Iraq fly off. Part of it the Syrians would like to have, of the West. Part of Eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, fought over it for years. In the North you've got the Kurds. If the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to invade Iraq. The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact that we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families it wasn't a [mumbles two syllables I can't understand]. And the question for the president in terms of whether we went on to Baghdad and took additional casualties in an effort to ged Saddam Hussein was, "how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth?" And our judgment was, "not very many", and I agree, in Iraq.