Is Dick Cheney a Terrorist?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
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.
 
nbcrusader said:


Tiny brained, eh? He made it to the White House - will you get there?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
STING2 said:

John Kerry is not a hawk when it comes to working to give the military everything it asked for, and most people know that.
Click to expand...

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 said:


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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
STING2 said:


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.
Click to expand...

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
 
Yes, Team America looks bloody brilliant , Trey and Matt know how to take the piss out of politics - just watch Thats My Bush :yes:

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".
 
Last edited:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics...rror_comment_kerrys_response_would_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."
 
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.
 
A-Wanderer, thanks for that nice, concise summation of the strategy for Iraq. In all the partisan politics discussion, what's being done (or the vision for Iraq) does get lost. (Not that i agree with the approach to Iraq or think that the motivation is completely non-Oil related.)

Even looking at it in its most ideal way (i.e. Iraq could serve as a democracy model for rest of Arab world), the biggest problem, of course, remains a major major mistrust of the west. Unless the new Iraq is seen as a solution by Iraqis for Iraqis, it's not going to sell. Remember, this whole "nation building" or "nation redrawing" has been done many times by the West, the latest in the post-colonialism of the '20th century when the Brits and the French carved up the middle east and the Arab World as they left (and then the Cold War's effects, with various mid-East countries being backed either by the Soviets or the West).

It's not surprising that it's a hard sell...the fact that this latest round of nation building in Iraq is being done by the biggest military power in the world for purely the benefit of Iraqis.

I think most in the West agree Iraq needed to be transformed...the sticking point is in the approach and actions taken so far.
 
Klaus said:
nbc: you could do a poll like the "kerry vs. gore" thing - "bush vs. powell" i'd be curious if anyone prefers mr. bush over mr. powell ;)

ps. i'd support mr. powell if he'd start his race against mr. kerry
Click to expand...

Bush wouldn't be eligible in 2008 (two term limit) :wink:
 
sharky said:


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.
Click to expand...

So Al Quada has been able to mount a few bombings here and there. Are we to believe that if Kerry or Al Gore had been president that Al Quada would not have been able to launch any bombings?

The Bush administration in the months prior to 9/11 were constructing plans that went well beyond anything the Clinton administration envisioned. Bush accomplished more in his first year in office in fighting terrorism than Clinton had in 8 years.

Once again, the MAJORITY OF US TROOPS in Afghanistan are Heavy Armor troops that would NEVER be used in the mountains of Afghanistan to hunt Bin Ladin. This whole idea that the troops in Iraq were diverted from fighting in Afghanistan is complete BS! In addition, the United States has 7 times as many troops in Afghanistan, than it did right after it kicked the Taliban out of power.

There was no diversion of troops. Saddam was a huge threat independent of any terrorism or Al Quada. Saddam had failed to Verifiably disarm of large stocks of some of the worlds most dangerous weapons. He had attacked and invaded four different countries. He had threatened most of the planets energy supplies with seizure or sabotage. No other leader in history has used WMD more times than Saddam. Saddam's actions over the past 25 years had killed 1.7 millon people! How many people has Bin Ladin killed? This idea that Saddam was not a threat is rubbish as the facts show.

The United States is currently working with over 60 countries in Iraq right now. I dare you to find a larger coalition around the world or at any time over the past 10 years. 16 of the 26 NATO countries have troops on the ground in Iraq. Just because France and Germany are not there does not mean its not a coalition.

Weapons inspectors can't disarm a dictator who will not cooperate. They cannot achieve verifiable disarmament if Saddam does not cooperate and account of for the thousands of WMD stocks that are missing. Inspectors spent off and on 12 years in Iraq attempting to achieve Verifiable disarmament. By contrast it only took a year in countries like Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakstan and South Africa. Unless Saddam cooperates by showing where the WMD is or where it was dismantled(if that was the case), verifiable disarmament through peaceful inspections is impossible.

The Exit strategy for Iraq is the development of the Iraqi military and security forces to the point that they can protect the government and the economy independent of coalition forces.
 
Hawk269 said:


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
Click to expand...

The war to remove Saddam became a necessity because of his failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. Thats not a false pretense, but a fact!

The war to remove Saddam was a necessity independent of any of Saddam's alleged or real connections to any sort of terrorism.

The United States did have a coalition together, as large as the one that occupied Germany at the end of the second World War. Now there are dozens of countries from all over the world in Iraq helping to develop the country and protect the people.

The US and coalition forces went into Iraq to disarm Saddam and remove him from power. Saddam had invaded and attacked four different countries, threaten the planets energy supplies with sabotage and seizure, used WMD more times than any leader in history, and over his 25 year reign in power, murdered 1.7 million people. There is not another dictator on the planet that has caused as many security problems as Saddam over the past 25 years. The Global Economy depends on the energy from the Persian Gulf and the failure to keep that secure would have ramifications to great to contemplate.
 
STING2

Kofi Anan repeated this weekend again that he thinks that the War against Iraq was illegal.
It's interesting that many countries of the security council and many employees of the UN (including "the boss" of the UN).
And please sting, do you remember any country which has bin invaded by Mr.Hussein since the last iraq war?
 
STING2 said:


The war to remove Saddam became a necessity because of his failure to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD. Thats not a false pretense, but a fact!

The war to remove Saddam was a necessity independent of any of Saddam's alleged or real connections to any sort of terrorism.

The United States did have a coalition together, as large as the one that occupied Germany at the end of the second World War. Now there are dozens of countries from all over the world in Iraq helping to develop the country and protect the people.
Click to expand...

If this were a true "coalition" right now, then why have the deaths BY FAR been AMERICAN SOLDIERS?! Here are the stats of your "coalition":

UNITED STATES 1,028 DEAD
ALL OTHER COUNTRIES 134 DEAD

Let's do the math, shall we? That's 88% of the dead! Call it a hunch, but WWII's coalition was not so lop-sided. So, let's not make the mistake of equating the two.
 
Hawk269 said:


If this were a true "coalition" right now, then why have the deaths BY FAR been AMERICAN SOLDIERS?! Here are the stats of your "coalition":

UNITED STATES 1,028 DEAD
ALL OTHER COUNTRIES 134 DEAD

Let's do the math, shall we? That's 88% of the dead! Call it a hunch, but WWII's coalition was not so lop-sided. So, let's not make the mistake of equating the two.
Click to expand...

Yep, do the math, how many countries were occupying Germany at the end of the second World War? How many countries fought Japan and occupied Japan after the Second World War?

If your so convinced this is not a coalition, then please list what "real" coalition is, and provide a historical example. Please list precisely the number of troops involved.
 
Klaus said:
STING2

Kofi Anan repeated this weekend again that he thinks that the War against Iraq was illegal.
It's interesting that many countries of the security council and many employees of the UN (including "the boss" of the UN).
And please sting, do you remember any country which has bin invaded by Mr.Hussein since the last iraq war?
Click to expand...

Kofi Anan is one person with an opinion. He does NOT decide what is legal and not legal. He does not have a vote on the security council. If one believes that operation Iraqi Freedom was illegal, then one would have to believe that operation Desert Storm in 1991 was illegal. The resolutions approving both are essentially the same.

In addition, if the war was illegal, why would the UN approve the occupation in three different resolutions? Where is the condemnation of this "illegal war" from the UN? Where is the resolution calling for the removal of coalition troops from Iraq? Where is the demand that the government of Saddam be restored?

If you want an example of an illegal invasion, I refer you to Saddam's invasion of Iraq in 1990! Examine how the UN reacted to that!

Technically, the first Persian Gulf War NEVER ended! Ask yourself how many people did Saddam kill since 1991, and how many resolutions did he comply with! These resolutions were supposed to be enforced if Saddam did not comply with them! It is unfortunate that it took this long to do so!
 
STING2 said:
Kofi Anan is one person with an opinion.
Click to expand...
as are you really

and I'm quite sure Anan could provide about as many reasons as to why he sees this war as being illegal as you can to why it is legal


to regard Kofi Anan as just "one person" in a UN matter is highly illogical to me though
 
Salome said:
as are you really

and I'm quite sure Anan could provide about as many reasons as to why he sees this war as being illegal as you can to why it is legal


to regard Kofi Anan as just "one person" in a UN matter is highly illogical to me though
Click to expand...

Did I claim to be more than one person? Kofi Anan is "one person".

Perhaps you or Kofi Anan would like to explain why, if this war is illegal, the UN has not condemned it and called for a withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq and the restoration of Saddam's regime?

Why would the UN approve the occupation from a war it considers to be illegal? Look up how the UN responded to the invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and then ask yourself if you think this war is really illegal!

Saddam will be having a trial eventually, perhaps Kofi Anan would like to speak in his defense.
 
STING2 said:
Perhaps you or Kofi Anan would like to explain why, if this war is illegal, the UN has not condemned it and called for a withdrawal of coalition troops from Iraq and the restoration of Saddam's regime?
Click to expand...

How can it do that? This is a resolution for the Security Council. One of the countries that is a permanent member there, the US, is also the country that invaded Iraq. Would it vote against its own actions? Don't think so. So a resolution is useless from the start, because of the US veto.

C ya!

Marty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
916
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 1 Listening Thread
7 8 9
Replies
244
Views
7K
LemonMelon
LemonMelon
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
6K
namkcuR
N
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 3 Listening Thread
3 4 5
Replies
133
Views
5K
iron yuppie
iron yuppie
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Master List and Discussion Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
5K
Axver
Axver

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom