Surreal. That is the only way to characterize this video.
In this 1994 interview, Dick Cheney detailed the reasons why invading Baghdad is a very bad idea from a strategic point of view. Note how he insists on the “occupation” aspect, the extreme difficulty to keep Iraq together without Saddam, and the 146 American dead soldiers. He sure changed his mind radically in less than a decade.
Anyone cares to comment on that? Anyone respects him at all?
P.S: If you must defend Mr. shoot-old-people-in-the-face, please don’t throw in 9/11. It may come as a surprise to you Fox-viewers but Iraq had nothing to do with it.
[quote]lixy wrote:
If you must defend Mr. shoot-old-people-in-the-face, please don’t throw in 9/11. It may come as a surprise to you Fox-viewers but Iraq had nothing to do with it.[/quote]
And you were crying in another thread about how you are the constant victim of ad hominem attacks?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
And you were crying in another thread about how you are the constant victim of ad hominem attacks?
You are the hypocrite’s hypocrite. [/quote]
Did he shoot an old man in the face or did he not?
Understand that it’s not an opinion there. It’s an unquestionable stone-cold fact. Non controversial and not open to contention. A FACT! And a funny one might I add.
Still, now that you mention it, it was uncalled for. That’s the reason I added it in the post scriptum. Next time, I’ll avoid such cheap shots as they tend to divert attention from the topic at hand. Speaking of which, isn’t it funny how he dishes out all that common sense in '94 and then fervently defends the invasion a few years later? Feel free to comment on that.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Surreal. That is the only way to characterize this video.
In this 1994 interview, Dick Cheney detailed the reasons why invading Baghdad is a very bad idea from a strategic point of view. Note how he insists on the “occupation” aspect, the extreme difficulty to keep Iraq together without Saddam, and the 146 American dead soldiers. He sure changed his mind radically in less than a decade.
Anyone cares to comment on that? Anyone respects him at all?
P.S: If you must defend Mr. shoot-old-people-in-the-face, please don’t throw in 9/11. It may come as a surprise to you Fox-viewers but Iraq had nothing to do with it.[/quote]
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
And you were crying in another thread about how you are the constant victim of ad hominem attacks?
You are the hypocrite’s hypocrite.
Did he shoot an old man in the face or did he not?
[/quote]
Did I deny it? What does that have to do with Baghdad?
You are the one with the fucking kleenex, crying about how unfairly you are attacked.
In case you lost your calendar - 9 years separates his stance against invasion from his support of it. Time, situations, troop readiness, and CIC - all that has changed in 9 years.
You have to remember - we had a wag-the-dog president. I know you probably jizz on his photo every night - but he was a worthless CIC, and not fit to lead troops into battle.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
And you were crying in another thread about how you are the constant victim of ad hominem attacks?
You are the hypocrite’s hypocrite.
Did he shoot an old man in the face or did he not?
Did I deny it? What does that have to do with Baghdad?
You are the one with the fucking kleenex, crying about how unfairly you are attacked.
In case you lost your calendar - 9 years separates his stance against invasion from his support of it. Time, situations, troop readiness, and CIC - all that has changed in 9 years.
You have to remember - we had a wag-the-dog president. I know you probably jizz on his photo every night - but he was a worthless CIC, and not fit to lead troops into battle. [/quote]
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
What caused Cheney to change his mind? [/quote]
You tell me.
As far as I know, he became Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton one year after the interview. So, you may wanna look into that direction…
If you have anything else to help us crack the mystery, throw it in.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What caused Cheney to change his mind?
You tell me.
As far as I know, he became Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton one year after the interview. So, you may wanna look into that direction…
If you have anything else to help us crack the mystery, throw it in.[/quote]
He’s on the Trilateral Commission. (As is Condoleeza Rice and lots of other powerful people). The goal of the organisation is to achieve harmony and global peace. This is to be achieved by there being no superpowers in the world, where no individual government or group has the capability to resist the will of the majority of nations.
Of course, this is quite difficult in concept and a radical change in human history: usually, one powerful country imposes peace until it has drained itself enforcing the peace. We then have a massive economic depression and then another power takes its place.
This time, the goal is to have no one country restore order and police the globe. Only by combining resources and $$$ can order be restored. That’s when you get a government of the world.
So, the United States is to be drained (JFK outlined this process years ago and Eisenhower hinted at it), then a massive depression, and then finally the world government.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The goal of the organisation is to achieve harmony and global peace. [/quote]
Do you really believe that Cheney’s goals have anything to do with harmony and global peace? You’d have a really hard time convincing anyone.
Anyway, you didn’t tackle the topic of the thread. In 94, Cheney gave exactly the same arguments as those put forth by the anti-war crowd 8 years later. Which one was right? Old Cheney or new Cheney? Either way, having someone that inconsistent for vice-president would give me nightmares.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What caused Cheney to change his mind?
You tell me.
As far as I know, he became Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton one year after the interview. So, you may wanna look into that direction…
If you have anything else to help us crack the mystery, throw it in.[/quote]
If you think you know the anwser, why start a thread?
What about a guy like Gadaffi, in the 1980’s he was claiming 100 miles off the coast of Lybia as Lybian waters, sending fighters to attack our ships, bombing discos, planes, ect.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
What caused Cheney to change his mind?
You tell me.
As far as I know, he became Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Halliburton one year after the interview. So, you may wanna look into that direction…
[/quote]
Dick Cheney = War for Sale
Halliburton = If It’s Paying We’re Buying
Iraq profits must be more accessible than Afghani.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Surreal. That is the only way to characterize this video.
In this 1994 interview, Dick Cheney detailed the reasons why invading Baghdad is a very bad idea from a strategic point of view. Note how he insists on the “occupation” aspect, the extreme difficulty to keep Iraq together without Saddam, and the 146 American dead soldiers. He sure changed his mind radically in less than a decade.
Anyone cares to comment on that? Anyone respects him at all?
P.S: If you must defend Mr. shoot-old-people-in-the-face, please don’t throw in 9/11. It may come as a surprise to you Fox-viewers but Iraq had nothing to do with it.[/quote]
lixy,
Nice try with the preemptive strike.
Of course, 9/11 has to be factored in. It was when America woke up to the real threat posed by you and your pals.
That includes guys who harbor and support terrorists = saddam.
In case you were wondering, the “nice try” bit was pure sarcasm.
I expect nothing more from you.
JeffR
P.S. I’m going to send you a FOX LOVES lIXY T-Shirt.
Sorry, I’m not into anal retentive wee wee humor. I may have been when I was in grade school though… does that count?[/quote]
No, Vroom opts for more cerebral, highbrow, refined humor, like suggesting people that disagree with him are “holding each other’s dicks” or “have their lips locked on [fill in the blank]'s asshole”.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, Vroom opts for more cerebral, highbrow, refined humor, like suggesting people that disagree with him are “holding each other’s dicks” or “have their lips locked on [fill in the blank]'s asshole”.
Very urbane.
[/quote]
I’ve never said I don’t get into arguments with people such as yourself.
Are you possibly ready to get over it and try to move on to productive discussion?
Maybe you’ll finally see where the tissue reference comes from?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
If you think you know the anwser, why start a thread? [/quote]
I don’t and never claimed I did.
The first I ever heard of the guy was Bush got into the White House. I think Americans must be a lot more knowledgeable about him than me, and that’s why I asked the question. What could have changed his mind?
[quote]What about a guy like Gadaffi, in the 1980’s he was claiming 100 miles off the coast of Lybia as Lybian waters, sending fighters to attack our ships, bombing discos, planes, ect.
Now he’s all peaceful.
Why did he change? [/quote]
Let’s set a few things straight. Gadaffi holds no public office and rose to power by overthrowing the kind in a coup d’etat. You’ll be hard pressed to find a Libyan that rationalized Gadaffi’s belligerence. So, there is no room for comparison here.
But if you really wanna know why he changed his [b]obviously wrong position[/i], you may wanna look into the demise of the USSR, the all-talk-but-no-action attitude of his neighbors towards the Union of the Arabic Maghreb (his own initiative), and the economic troubles due to falling oil prices.
So, Gadaffi went from a stubborn idealistic dictator to a softer and more social international figure, which is a good transition. On the other hand, we have a twice democratically elected guy who dumps common sense to adopt a “strategy” whom everybody and his sister (including himself) knew was doomed to failure. It really boggles the mind.
