What did Cheney know...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by hjmick, Aug 15, 2007.

  1. hjmick
    Offline

    hjmick Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    16,167
    Thanks Received:
    4,676
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +7,108
    ...And when did he know it?

    In 1991, during the first Gulf War, Dick Cheney was the Secretary of Defense. On April 15th, 1994 he was asked about the reasons for not going into Bagdhad and toppling Saddam Hussein, his answers are quite revealing.

    Now, before people start piling on me, calling me a hater and any number of other descriptive names, let it be known that I voted for the Bush/Cheney ticket both times. Let it also be known that, while I have been disappointed by many decisions made by this administration, he is still my President, just as Clinton was, if for no other reason than the fact that they are/were the President. I don't agree with some of their decisions, but then again I don't agree with some of my wife's decisions either.

    To further cut off any inflammatory criticism, I was in favor of action in Afghanistan, and am in favor of continued action in Afghanistan. While I would have preferred waiting until Osama bin Laden was dead or in custody before dealing with Saddam, I do not believe that pulling the troops out now is a good idea. This would be a huge mistake, IMO. It would be tragic for Iraq and bad for the U.S.

    Until we invaded Iraq, I am of the opinion the the front for the War on Terror was in Afghanistan, obviously that front has now migrated to Iraq.

    All this being said, if Cheney knew the things he reveals in the below 1994 interview, why in the fuck were we not better prepared for the aftermath of the invasion of 2003? Is it the influx of outside agitators alone that turned the situation into a clusterfuck? Granted, the tide seems to be turning with the surge, but it's been four years. Oh yeah, we're still in Germany and we're still in Japan, but were there the levels of violence in those countries after four years on the scale of what we've seen in Iraq?

    <object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BEsZMvrq-I"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/6BEsZMvrq-I" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. ReillyT
    Offline

    ReillyT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    2,631
    Thanks Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    London, UK
    Ratings:
    +164
    He was so wise then.

    Of course, the difference between then and 2003 is that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded. Oh wait... he didn't, did he? Dammit!
     
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    The mid-east isn't Japan or Germany. There are those in that area that hate each other in addition to the US. They hate so much that they can't decide who to kill. Did the US mistakenly hope that taking out Saddam would quell this hatred. Probably.
     
  4. Paulie
    Offline

    Paulie Platinum Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    31,527
    Thanks Received:
    4,850
    Trophy Points:
    1,130
    Ratings:
    +15,362
    Well you'd have to completely trust the administration 100% that they are telling the truth about such an influx. Notice who they are blaming though...

    This is a classic case of doublespeak. First of all, in '94, what would the reason to Congress or the American public be, to commit our entire military to a full scale invasion of Iraq? We all know damn well that this invasion wouldn't be possible without 9/11.

    This is a springboard for further action into Iran...if that doesn't seem obvious to anyone here, than you haven't even been watching mainstream news. We are in Iraq to stay...a huge embassy the size of the Vatican, many permanent military bases...that country is OURS now.

    Cheney said that in '94 not because he believed it himself, but because he knew we wouldn't be able to pull it off to begin with. The funny thing is, that he was part of many neo-con think tanks that were adamantly pursuing an Iraq invasion at that time...PNAC, for one...It's not like anything he mentioned then has changed...you could have said the exact same thing the day before we started the "shock and awe" bombing campaign.

    Or maybe he was just waiting for Britain's blessing...who knows.

    I just don't understand how anyone could trust this man.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. hjmick
    Offline

    hjmick Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    16,167
    Thanks Received:
    4,676
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +7,108
    It's just so damn frustrating, dillo. Especially when you hear Cheney say that the lives of American soldiers weren't worth risking to take Saddam down in 1991. What changed? He was far more likely to have had WMDs in '91, he was far more dangerous, there had been no sanctions or scrutiny from the global community.

    I don't know.
     
  6. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I agree--there is a lot we don't know. I just happen to believe that there is no possible way that we can negotiate with people who have no demands and there is no way we can tolerate anyone who runs around killing people because they are the wrong race, nationality or religion.

    IMHO the problem is that there are people who try to kill as many as they can to make some point. I assume there is some point to the killing. Do you know what it is?
     
  7. hjmick
    Offline

    hjmick Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    16,167
    Thanks Received:
    4,676
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    Ratings:
    +7,108
    The extremists say they want to establish a world dominated by Muslims, Islam, and Islamic law, the Shari'a. Their goal is the extension of the Islamic territory across the globe, and the establishment of a worldwide ‘caliphate' founded on Shari'a law."

    Terrorists have openly declared this goal. The extremists who assassinated Sadat in 1981 decorated their holding cages with banners proclaiming the "caliphate or death." One of the most influential Islamist thinkers of recent times, Abdullah Azzam declares that his life "revolved around a single goal, namely the establishment of Allah's Rule on earth" and restoring the caliphate.

    Bin Laden speaks of ensuring that "the pious caliphate will start from Afghanistan." Zawahiri also hopes to re-establish the caliphate, for then, he says, "history would make a new turn, God willing, in the opposite direction against the empire of the United States and the world's Jewish government." Fazlur Rehman Khalil (another Al-Qaeda leader) publishes a magazine that has declared "Due to the blessings of jihad, America's countdown has begun. It will declare defeat soon," to be followed by the creation of a caliphate.

    Obviously, if these are their goals, negotiations are pointless.
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Well that's been my take on what they want but apparently others think they are running around killing and bombing for some other reason. I look at what the enemy says and I look at what the enemy does and what do you know---they match.
     
  9. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    Dilloduck does raise a point here. Japan's population was entirely homogeneous, and the German population largely so. Iraq, in contrast, is consists of, as I'm sure we all know, three very distinct religious and ethnic groups with a very long and very bitter history of animosity. The Japanese and German governments certainly weren't sitting on the ethnic powder keg that Saddam was. Of course, this doesn't in anyway justify the administration's lack of preparation, it only partially explains why we didn't see a similar situation post-WW2.
     
  10. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Post WWII we saw massive land redistributions and dictators committing genocides to secure their positions. I don't think we had all this decided upon prior to D-Day. There was obviously not much thought put into how Arabs or Persians were going to feel about the new maps drawn for them.
     

Share This Page