This is very interesting (political)

[rgraham666]

Cheney on invading Iraq in 1994.

I wonder what changed his mind?

 

[galaxygoddess]

Cheney on invading Iraq in 1994.

I wonder what changed his mind?

He needed someone to shoot?

Sorry I had to

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

He needed someone to shoot?

Sorry I had to

Besides a lawyer you mean?

(Sorry, I couldn't resist either.)

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Cheney on invading Iraq in 1994.

I wonder what changed his mind?

Could be that the events of 9/11 made him take into account the real danger and explosivity of the region--all by itself--and he felt that an American presence in deposing a brutal dictator might win us favor with people in the region and focus the danger on combat military half a world away instead of civilians at home.

So, kinda like saying "lighting dynamite is a bad idea and it'll blow up and can hurt people... we shouldn't do it" and then saying "well, the oil well is on fire... I guess we better blow the dynamite"

Just sayin'

 

[DeeZire]

Cheney on invading Iraq in 1994.

I wonder what changed his mind?

Money. Lust for power. Ideology. Everything except reason. He was actually sounding quite reasonable in the clip.

 

[Lee Chambers]

A friend of mine once said that, in his opinion, we would enter Iraq and stay in Iraq in order to establish military bases of our own there, similar to what we have in Germany. We would then have an immediate launching platform for any attacks or counter-attacks against other countries throughout the Middle East, rather than having to sail ships and carriers and fly planes from the States or from ports and bases further away.

Unfortunately, I think the Bush administration severely underestimated the opposition that they would be facing in Iraq after Saddam's government was toppled. They couldn't just take down his regime and leave, even if they had managed to catch him during the first month of fighting, because this would have simply created a power vacuum for another tyrant to fill or, as Cheney said in the video, cause the country to splinter and be absorbed into their neighbors.

At the same time, we've seen what happened when we stayed. And if we pull out of Iraq and just let the Iraqis deal with the problems that they have now, then the ghost of Vietnam comes back to haunt us. In all directions on this matter, you're screwed.

I remember, when I was younger, how all of us (kids and later teenagers) hated Saddam Hussein because we grew up during the time of the Persian Gulf war and, being young (I was in fifth grade at the time) all we knew was that good men and women were going over there to help innocent people fight an evil, evil man who was painted out to be the next Hitler. And the one thing that we always said was "We should have just pushed into Iraq and taken out Saddam and everything would have been fine with the world."

It's a damn shame that the leaders of the free world can't come up with any better ideas than a bunch of fucking kids.

 

[rgraham666]

Would it have worked any better if it had been done then, rather than now?

 

[Lee Chambers]

Would it have worked any better if it had been done then, rather than now?

Maybe or maybe not. On the one hand, we wouldn't have had forces in Afghanistan and would have been able to focus all our attention on Iraq.

However, a few things on the other side of that coin:

1) We would have no allies backing us up.
2) I think the insurgents would still have come, since Jyhad is a rather old tradition in the Middle East.
3) With Vietnam much fresher in our minds than it is today, and with the cold war having recently come to an end, I think we would have gotten tired of the fighting A LOT faster than we did in the Iraq war today.

 

[Carnevil9]

Cheney on invading Iraq in 1994.

I wonder what changed his mind?

Well, that was a different war, with a different coalition, in a different freakin' century. Different millennium, even. Nothing stays static forever......Carney

 

[S-Des]

It's a damn shame that the leaders of the free world can't come up with any better ideas than a bunch of fucking kids.

Perfectly said. A lot is being made of this, but it's pointless banter. What changed is obvious . . . a large number of terrorist attacks including 9/11, expansion of radical Islam into other countries, and a fear that we weren't being taken seriously by our enemies. I'm not saying the decision was a good one or that the handling of it wasn't bungled with utter ineptitude, but the simplistic explanations given by people who hate the Bush administration doesn't do anything to help the situation. If I had a dollar for every Liberal who said the entire reason for the war was so that Haliburton could get rich . . .

 

[Guest]

Perfectly said. A lot is being made of this, but it's pointless banter. What changed is obvious . . . a large number of terrorist attacks including 9/11, expansion of radical Islam into other countries, and a fear that we weren't being taken seriously by our enemies. I'm not saying the decision was a good one or that the handling of it wasn't bungled with utter ineptitude, but the simplistic explanations given by people who hate the Bush administration doesn't do anything to help the situation. If I had a dollar for every Liberal who said the entire reason for the war was so that Haliburton could get rich . . .

I would counter that, Des, with "if I had a dollar for everyone who still believed, due to what our president and his cronies said, that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction . . ."

 

[rgraham666]

It had nothing to do with Halliburton getting rich, Des.

It had everything to do with the current administration sending this message to world. "There is no more law except what we say it is. And this is what happens to people that displease us."

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

It had nothing to do with Halliburton getting rich, Des.

It had everything to do with the current administration sending this message to world. "There is no more law except what we say it is. And this is what happens to people that displease us."

...and maybe just a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit to do with trying to keep Americans safe. Maybe a little.

 

[rgraham666]

...and maybe just a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle bit to do with trying to keep Americans safe. Maybe a little.

LOL! Hilarious!

What danger was Iraq to America, Joe?

They had no weapons of mass destruction. There were no ties to Al Qaeda. Its armed forces was in a shambles after the Kuwait War and over a decade of sanctions.

Its Baathist political philosophy was of no interest to Americans. It did not endanger the energy supplies of America. The last month before the invasion it sold all the oil it was alllowed, half of it to America.

So, I ask again, what danger was Iraq to America?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

LOL! Hilarious!

I, regrettably, wasn't joking.

What danger was Iraq to America, Joe?

They had no weapons of mass destruction. There were no ties to Al Qaeda. Its armed forces was in a shambles after the Kuwait War and over a decade of sanctions.

Its Baathist political philosophy was of no interest to Americans. It did not endanger the energy supplies of America. The last month before the invasion it sold all the oil it was alllowed, half of it to America.

So, I ask again, what danger was Iraq to America?

I never said that Iraq /was/ a danger to America. Just that maybe just a little, the decision to go to war with Iraq and get involved in this whole nutroll was one intended to keep Americans safe. Example... maybe being there prevented other attacks over here--perhaps the idea was to draw attention away from flying more planes into more buildings in New York by having them fight us half-a-world away.

Or showing the world and those who /might/ attack us similarly, that we have dramatic and powerful responses to such actions--so much so that many wouldn't want any direct or indirect ties to any such kind of event in the future.

Or toppling a regime that we felt might be served by a lack of fear of America down the line.

 

[rgraham666]

I, regrettably, wasn't joking.


I never said that Iraq /was/ a danger to America. Just that maybe just a little, the decision to go to war with Iraq and get involved in this whole nutroll was one intended to keep Americans safe. Example... maybe being there prevented other attacks over here--perhaps the idea was to draw attention away from flying more planes into more buildings in New York by having them fight us half-a-world away.

Or showing the world and those who /might/ attack us similarly, that we have dramatic and powerful responses to such actions--so much so that many wouldn't want any direct or indirect ties to any such kind of event in the future.

Or toppling a regime that we felt might be served by a lack of fear of America down the line.

Oh I see. So by beating the living shit out of a nation, in violation of the law and unrelated to 9/11 or any strategic objective, America might have prevented a similar incident in the future.

Does this mean that if someone broke the front window of my house, it would be within my rights to go to another house down the street and use a baseball bat on the people there, to teach others not to mess with me?

Do I have the gist of your post, Joe?

 

[Seattle Zack]

A friend of mine once said that, in his opinion, we would enter Iraq and stay in Iraq in order to establish military bases of our own there, similar to what we have in Germany. We would then have an immediate launching platform for any attacks or counter-attacks against other countries throughout the Middle East, rather than having to sail ships and carriers and fly planes from the States or from ports and bases further away.

Actually, we did have military bases in the region. Saudi Arabia, in a secret deal brokered by none other than Defense Secretary Cheney after the first Gulf War, agreed to an American presence of some 5000 troops and several hundred strike planes in their country.

Having U.S. military on Saudi soil is one of the things that galvanized Bin Laden and his followers, to the extent that he was able to recruit 15 Saudis into flying airplanes into American landmarks. Even before 9/11, his number one demand was that U.S. troops leave Saudi Arabia.

Those bases have now quietly been closed.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Oh I see. So by beating the living shit out of a nation, in violation of the law and unrelated to 9/11 or any strategic objective, America might have prevented a similar incident in the future.

That's true.

Does this mean that if someone broke the front window of my house, it would be within my rights to go to another house down the street and use a baseball bat on the people there, to teach others not to mess with me?

It would be within your rights if it were legal, sure. If it were not legal, then it would not be within your rights.

Do I have the gist of your post, Joe?

I don't know yet.

 

[drksideofthemoon]

Over 3600 US servicemen, dead.
Over 27,000 US servicemen seriously wounded.
30-40% of returning troops with psychological issues.
50,000 - >100,000 Iraqi civilians dead.
Over 500,000,000.00 spent.

The US has totally botched the invasion, and subsequent occupation of Iraq from day 1.

There was no hotbed of Islamic fundamentalists prior to the invasion, there were no terror networks. No weapons of mass destruction.

Is the average American better off or any safer? No.

Is the average Iraqi better off or any safter. Definitely not.

So, exactly how is the world better off?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Over 3600 US servicemen, dead.
Over 27,000 US servicemen seriously wounded.
30-40% of returning troops with psychological issues.
50,000 - >100,000 Iraqi civilians dead.
Over 500,000,000.00 spent.

The US has totally botched the invasion, and subsequent occupation of Iraq from day 1.

There was no hotbed of Islamic fundamentalists prior to the invasion, there were no terror networks. No weapons of mass destruction.

True-ish.

Is the average American better off or any safer? No.

I'd disagree with that--I think its complicated and there's certainly a possibility.

Is the average Iraqi better off or any safter. Definitely not.

So, exactly how is the world better off?

There may be more to the situation than what you present, and as such there may be judgements about it that reflect some accomplishment in part--despite a very bad most.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Man, I've stayed out of politics for like 3 months now and it's worked out pretty well for me, but I was big on the "causes" for the invasion...

Cheney and Wolfowitz and other holdovers from Bush I were very very impressed and frankly frightened by what they found after they took care of Saddam in Desert Storm. He had an atomic weapons program that was decades ahead of what the CIA thought and a bioweapons program that was almost ready to go online, and they never ever forgot this.

Because of the CIA's misestimates in these areas, Cheney never again trusted CIA intel and went ahead and formed his own intelligence gathering group, which went ahead and looked and looked till they found what he wanted them to find: it was bullshit, but it was what he wanted them to find.

But by then the decision to go to war had already been made mased on NeoCon New American World Order thinking

 

[S-Des]

It had nothing to do with Halliburton getting rich, Des.

It had everything to do with the current administration sending this message to world. "There is no more law except what we say it is. And this is what happens to people that displease us."

I don't disagree with this. I think it's a little oversimplified, but that seems to be the general intention of the administration. I think picking a situation that seemed like a sure-fire win, one that had primary interest to us (i.e. oil), and other factors played a part, but the main reason was most likely strategic. That doesn't make it any better, but at least we're not saying, "These are the people we disagree with, they're so crooked they'll kill thousands (tens of thousands) just to make their buddies rich. That is reducing them to a charicature so we can properly hate and despise them (this I am familiar with from people I know on the right and I find it utterly objectionable and lacking in depth or perspective from anyone). I think we can find plenty of reasons to despise them and what they've done without resorting to that.

I would counter that, Des, with "if I had a dollar for everyone who still believed, due to what our president and his cronies said, that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 and had weapons of mass destruction . . ."

That may be your experience Sarahh, but I've never met a single person who's expressed that sentiment. I keep hearing it in polls, so it may be true, but not around here. Sadaam gave money and support to terrorist organizations, and there may have been indirect links to Al Qaida (as there are with many countries), but even if that was the administrations intent, that ship has sailed as far as I can tell. On the other hand, I hear in the news, from friends, and obviously around here, comments about Bush being happy to kill Americans (and loads of foreigners) if it could help his friends get richer (nevermind the billions they made under Clinton). It puts people in a position where they have so much invested in making the other guy the anti-christ that there's no room to ever find agreement with him (and there are plenty who do it on the other side of the aisle as well). I just don't know how things are going to get better if we're all screaming that the other side is evil all the time.

 

[rgraham666]

That's true.


It would be within your rights if it were legal, sure. If it were not legal, then it would not be within your rights.


I don't know yet.

Does that mean that if, oh say, China decides to invade Venezuela to show the rest of the world not to fuck with them, that would be OK?

And to with my neighbour example, the neighbour I kicked the shit out of had nothing to do with the broken window. In your opinion, it's all right for me to punish someone not responsible for an action, if it 'teaches a lesson'?

And Joe, the invasion of Iraq was against the law.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Does that mean that if, oh say, China decides to invade Venezuela to show the rest of the world not to fuck with them, that would be OK?

No. It wouldn't.

And to with my neighbour example, the neighbour I kicked the shit out of had nothing to do with the broken window. In your opinion, it's all right for me to punish someone not responsible for an action, if it 'teaches a lesson'?

Not at all.

And Joe, the invasion of Iraq was against the law.

O.k.

How does any of this have anything to do with my point?

 

[rgraham666]

No. It wouldn't.


Not at all.


O.k.

How does any of this have anything to do with my point?

So what you're saying is that America invading Iraq, to make America safer, to prevent something similar to 9/11 from happening again, to show that America is not to be trifled with, is a good thing.

But China invading Venezuela to do the same thing, or me smacking my neighbour with the same idea in mind, is not?