Is Dick Cheney a Terrorist? - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-12-2004, 09:35 AM   #61
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 10:51 PM
Dick Cheney is a tiny-brained, lying little fuck. He's a small man.
__________________

__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 10:24 AM   #62
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by pub crawler
Dick Cheney is a tiny-brained, lying little fuck. He's a small man.
Tiny brained, eh? He made it to the White House - will you get there?
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 10:32 AM   #63
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 01:51 AM
Brains are not a hard requirement to get to the White House. I'm not saying that Dick Cheney is dumb, smart, or anything in between. But if we elected on the basis of intelligence, we'd probably have elected Ralph Nader in 2000.

Which, of course, we did not.
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 02:39 PM   #64
New Yorker
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA USA
Posts: 2,551
Local Time: 10:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader


Tiny brained, eh? He made it to the White House - will you get there?
Yes, the extreme right wing of the GOP were successful in methodically taking over the party and getting their guy -- George W. Bush -- in to the White House, who in turn got his guy -- Dick "pathetic little man" Cheney - in as well.
__________________
pub crawler is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 06:02 PM   #65
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2

John Kerry is not a hawk when it comes to working to give the military everything it asked for, and most people know that.
Wait, why is it wrong to not be a hawk? At this point, we've probably killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. We went into Iraq with no clear way to get out. We had our own soldiers repeatedly disobey the Geneva Convention. We've had 1,000 soldiers die in Iraq but our biggest enemy -- Osama bin Laden -- is still on the loose. Why is it wrong to not be a hawk?

As for those '84 voting bills, are you saying he voted against the Star Wars idea proposed by Reagan? Because it was a bad idea, which is why it failed and never got off the ground. And in '84, we were trying to encourage the Soviet Union to open up. Five years later, the Cold War was over and we didn't win the Cold War with weapons.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 07:30 PM   #66
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 05:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky


Wait, why is it wrong to not be a hawk? At this point, we've probably killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. We went into Iraq with no clear way to get out. We had our own soldiers repeatedly disobey the Geneva Convention. We've had 1,000 soldiers die in Iraq but our biggest enemy -- Osama bin Laden -- is still on the loose. Why is it wrong to not be a hawk?

As for those '84 voting bills, are you saying he voted against the Star Wars idea proposed by Reagan? Because it was a bad idea, which is why it failed and never got off the ground. And in '84, we were trying to encourage the Soviet Union to open up. Five years later, the Cold War was over and we didn't win the Cold War with weapons.
I was talking about the term hawk in terms of defense spending, not foreign policy. But I'll address what your speaking to.

The United States has not killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq. That is the grossest generalization I have heard yet. There are some liberal outlets that report between 8,000 and 15,000 Iraqi civilians have died from all the fighting, but even those figures are suspect.

The United States and its Coalition partners went into Iraq to insure the disarmament and removal of Saddam's regime and then began the mission of helping the country developing into a strong democracy with a market economy. This is going to take a considerable amount of time. The way out for US troops is the development of an Iraqi military and police force capable of defending the democracy and economy, that is currently being built, on its own, independent of US military aid.

Only a tiny fraction of US troops were involved in incidents that were against the Geneva conventions, but pale in comparision to what Saddam and terrorist did and still do.

I think you are forgeting the accomplishments of those 1,000 troops who died in Iraq. They did amazing and incredible work which has made this country, Iraq and the world safer! They have helped to change the world and make lives of Iraqi's and people around the world, better! The United States does not have the body of UBL yet, but what exactly has UBL been able to do since 9/11?

Why is it right to be a dove on these issues? What does being a Dove accomplish on these issues? The fact is, a dovish policy would not have removed Saddam from power and a dovish policy would not be able to catch Bin Ladin or remove the Taliban and Al Quada from Afghanistan. War unfortunately is sometimes necessary.

In 1984, John Kerry campaigned for and proposed the cancelization of many weapon systems to include, the M1 Tank, Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the MLRS Rocket Launch System, the Patriot Missile System, the Apache Attack Helicopter, just to name a few. These are all weapon systems that are troops in Iraq currently rely on, and John Kerry did not want are military to have these high tech weapons.

As far as Star War is concerned, the technology that came from it as been enormously helpful in the area of Ballistic Missile defense. Potentially thousands of Iraqi and US troops lives were saved during the war when US Patriot Missile Systems knocked out Iraqi Ballistic Missiles fired into Kuwait! The technology for the Patriot Missile comes from much of the Technology used in the "Star Wars" program.

In 1984, the Cold War was as Cold as it had ever been. The Soviet Union had thousands of Tanks and millions of Troops throughout Eastern Europe and the western Soviet Union, prepared to launch an invasion of Western Europe if the Soviet leadership gave the go ahead. It was an absolute necessity to have the best military possible with the best weapons technology in order to deter a potential Soviet led Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe.

The United States and its allies invested large somes of money in the military and weapons and successfully detered the Soviets from invading several parts of the world. The Soviets attempts to top the Western countries in military strength so as to have a capability where the probabiltiy of having a successful invasion would be high, is what led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. Had the western countries not invested heavily in the military and other means of containment of the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union would have expanded its power across the globe in a way that would dwarf anything that Nazi Germany did.

Being a Hawk on defense spending is good because it provides the military with the resources needed to deter and prevent war, or if war becomes necessary, to win it as quickly and with as little loss of life as possible.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 08:23 PM   #67
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
I think you are forgeting the accomplishments of those 1,000 troops who died in Iraq. They did amazing and incredible work which has made this country, Iraq and the world safer! They have helped to change the world and make lives of Iraqi's and people around the world, better! The United States does not have the body of UBL yet, but what exactly has UBL been able to do since 9/11?

Why is it right to be a dove on these issues? What does being a Dove accomplish on these issues? The fact is, a dovish policy would not have removed Saddam from power and a dovish policy would not be able to catch Bin Ladin or remove the Taliban and Al Quada from Afghanistan. War unfortunately is sometimes necessary.
What has bin Laden done since 9/11? Two bombs in Jakarta -- one at an international hotel and one at the Australian embassy. Over 200 people dead in a bombing in Bali. Over 150 dead in Madrid -- the worst terrorist attack in that country's history. And have you not been paying attention to all the warnings from Homeland Security? Everyday I get on the subway and worry it's going to be bombed because we haven't taken the head off the snake.

And if we take it a step further, what did bin Laden do after the first Trade Center bombing? The USS Cole, two embassies in Africa bombed. And yet, when the Bush administration took office, Ashcroft severly cut spending to fight terrorism even though the Clinton administration suggested they increase. Osama bin Laden was never mentioned in public by this administration even though less than a year before they took office, bin Laden had attacked a U.S. target.

Those 1000 troops have made a sacrifice that I would never be able to make, have put their lives on the line in a way that I honestly would never be able to. It was right for us to go into Afghanistan to find a man who killed 3000 people on our soil. It was not right to divert troops from Afghanistan to Iraq, even though Iraq did not pose the direct threat to this country that Afghanistan did. A dovish policy would not have been correct in Afghanistan.

President Bush has said we need to be sensitive to the international community when dealing with these issues. John Kerry has said this as well. But you see Dick Cheney whining that John Kerry would have sat around and done nothing -- would've been reactive even though the president, cheney's boss, has said the same thing. We should have been more thorough in the lead-up to the Iraq War -- getting allies, giving more time to weapons inspectors, having a cohenrent exit strategy. We didn't have that and that was wrong.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 08:25 PM   #68
pax
ONE
love, blood, life
 
pax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Ewen's new American home
Posts: 11,412
Local Time: 01:51 AM
*Only* 8,000-15,000 Iraqi civilians. So insignificant, really, when you think about it.

[/sarcasm]
__________________
and you hunger for the time
time to heal, desire, time


Join Amnesty.
pax is offline  
Old 09-12-2004, 09:24 PM   #69
Acrobat
 
Hawk269's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 322
Local Time: 01:51 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2


Being a Hawk on defense spending is good because it provides the military with the resources needed to deter and prevent war, or if war becomes necessary, to win it as quickly and with as little loss of life as possible.
And isn't it great that we have such a wise leader to tell us when war is necessary? What does it mean when we use these military resources to fight a war that based on false pretenses? And fighting in Iraq is definitely not fighting the war on terror, so let's not go down that road (I already have Fox News for that type of propaganda, thanks). I'm sure that I don't need to remind you that Saddam had no connection to the 9/11 plot.

If you want to argue that the U.S. did the world a big favor by ousting Saddam, who was obviously an atrocious violator of human rights, then wouldn't it have made sense to have the patience to get a coalition together? So, then the rebuttal usually goes that we tried to get the coalition and no other countries were willing to go along (and why would they, with Bush's bogus WMD information). Besides, if we unilaterally went into every country with a horrible human rights violator like Saddam, I think we would need the type of beefed up military spending that you are referring to. The general public only knows about Saddam because our government and media exposes us to their atrocities, with little focus elsewhere. I'm sure Amnesty International can tell us all about the wonderful deeds of other madmen around the world. Let's go get ALL OF THEM!

Sting - I think you need to see the movie Team America - World Police . It should be right up your alley.

AJ
__________________
Hawk269 is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 12:16 AM   #70
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 03:51 PM
Yes, Team America looks bloody brilliant , Trey and Matt know how to take the piss out of politics - just watch Thats My Bush

Iraq is fighting terror because the center of terrorism is Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is the ideological and monetary center of Islamic terrorism, the problem is that Saudi Arabia is also the worlds largest oil producer. We cannot push Saudi Arabia too far in the WoT or else the entire country may collapse into anarchy, if that occured then what would rise would be even worse than what exists now (It is hard to imagine). In order to initiate any change in Saudi Arabia or any other Arab/Persian/Muslim state one must show that the US is not an imperialist conquesting nation (again please continue and you will understand context, I know that you are thinking - "invading an Arab country proves this conclusively so your argument is false", please I have considered that and I will explain). This can be done by pouring every effort into making a free and democratic Iraq suceed.

It is not an impossible dream to see an Arab state be pluralist and secular. There is absolutely no reason that every person in the world cannot be free. The problem is that too much of the world is under the thumbs of despots, to ensure any measure of success in ending the violent Islamist ideology we must remove the conditions from which it florishes. By giving individual freedom to people, by giving them freedom of expression they are less likely to want to surrender it all to go back to a theocratic authoritarian system. Make no mistake this will take a lot of time, blood and effort but the payoff will be immense. As you initiate change in Iraq it can directly influence Arabs and Persians. If Iraq suceeds as a free state then the reformist movement in Iran has a much greater chance of success, it will also accelerate progression within more "moderate" (if that is apt because all Arab states are very poor when it comes to liberty) states such as Egypt and Jordan. The social changes coupled with economic expansion and the eventual demise of the petrodollar may guarantee a viable future for that Colonial jigsaw otherwise known as the Middle East. This will take a lot of time, decades if ever but it can happen. You must create the most basic democratic system, even if there are religious parties, corruption and cronyism. As the country improves a middle class will develop and once you have a middle class the government starts to be held to account. No western country just emerged as a safe, peaceful, liberal and democratic state overnight - it took many bloody revolutions and regressions but the important fact is that it did happen. We overcame the obstacles and improved what was there before, and kept on improving. I am saying that we need to have global liberation or else there will never be peace.

Fighting terror is not about sitting on your hands and waiting to be attacked, it is not about bombing the shit out of every country that has ever supported terrorism in the vain hope that you will kill every terrorist. It is all about defeating a vicious ideology that cannot compete against the liberal democracy - I know that it is not the most perfect solution for government but it is a hell of a lot better than anything that came before and it will be the only solution that is sustainable in the long term and viable if we wish to see the end of terrorism without millions, or even billions of casualites.

Bin Laden didn't conduct the Jakarta bombings, you must understand that Al Qaeda is not the be all and end all of Islamic terrorism. Jemaah Islamiyah is the organization behind those bombings as well as Bali. Their goals are to create a pan-Islamic state from Malaysia to Mindanao. Their methods are trying to destabalize Indonesia, it is more of a domestic terror problem that targets the government and western interests. If you can drive out western investment then the economy goes down the shitter (again) and the chance for a mass extremist political movement to emerge increases, its revolution 101 stuff.

8000 - 15,000 civilian deaths are tragic, but they are insignificant, especially considering that up to 100,000 Iraqi's would be dead today if we had left the regime in place with innefective sanctions. There is nothing right in standing by and letting people die - and that goes for Sudan, Zimbabwe, Tibet, Burma and any number of places where despotic regimes kill lots of people, it is unfortunate that there is no political will to chase down offenders but if the oppertunity arises for one reason or another it must be taken. Or to quote the brilliant Mark Steyn, "There is no bad reason to get rid of a thug regime".
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 05:17 AM   #71
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 12:51 AM
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/...uld_be_robust/

WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday he believes Senator John F. Kerry would, if elected president, respond to terrorism "in a robust way," challenging a comment made last week by Vice President Dick Cheney.

"I can't tell you how he might respond to it. As commander in chief, I think he'd respond to it in a robust way," the retired Army general said of Kerry during an appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Powell added: "There's no commander in chief, no president of the United States, who would not respond to terrorism. Now, how he would respond, which strategies that individual would use, I can't predict the future."
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 05:41 AM   #72
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 06:51 AM
Mr. Powell
Why can't you be the Presidential candidate of the Republicans for the 2004-elections?
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 05:42 AM   #73
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,979
Local Time: 12:51 AM
I agree Klaus
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 07:05 AM   #74
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 12:51 AM
I bet you all $100 that if Bush wins this reelection, Powell is out. He also went against Cheney when he said on that Meet the Press show that there was no connection between al Qaeda and Iraq when Cheney keeps insisting there is.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 09-13-2004, 07:53 AM   #75
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 09:51 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Klaus
Mr. Powell
Why can't you be the Presidential candidate of the Republicans for the 2004-elections?
Perhaps in 2008
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com