Wow...Cheney explains why invading Iraq is a bad idea - Part II

Scrum · 09-28-2007, 04:56 PM

This one from 1992.

YouTube - Cheney on Invading Iraq - 9/14/1992

He parrots the same points as the other video, but he is consistent. The invasion of Iraq and the removal of Saddam was not a good idea.

I still have yet to see how 9/11 changed Saddams situation and I think these videos show that Bush and Cheney decided to go in knowing what a mess this would turn out to be.

RMNIXON · 09-28-2007, 05:05 PM

And Al Gore the same year:

YouTube - Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

Now before I dig up my old post and all the recorded responces lets play the total hypocrite game once more?

Stylerod · 09-28-2007, 05:23 PM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

And Al Gore the same year:

YouTube - Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

Now before I dig up my old post and all the recorded responces lets play the total hypocrite game once more?

thomez · 09-29-2007, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

And Al Gore the same year:

YouTube - Gore criticizes Bush for ignoring Iraq's ties to terrorism

Now before I dig up my old post and all the recorded responces lets play the total hypocrite game once more?

The Clinton-Gore administration was put in position to invade Iraq and was asked to do so, but they made the smart decision. We know what decision the Bush-Cheney administration made.

motivez · 09-30-2007, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

motivez · 09-30-2007, 06:21 AM

Why is it the only thing conservatives, Republicans, ne-ocons, etc, have to say in response to stuff like this is to change the subject to be about Clinton, Gore, or some other Democrat/liberal/progressive?

How about we discuss what Cheney said and the validity of it instead of trying to change the subject, yes?

Diesel66 · 09-30-2007, 02:55 PM

IN 1992, it WAS a bad idea. He had a lot more power, a larger military, had much more chem/bio weapons etc.....

thomez · 09-30-2007, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

IN 1992, it WAS a bad idea. He had a lot more power, a larger military, had much more chem/bio weapons etc.....

so what you are saying is that the Clinton-Gore approach was effective from 92-2000

he had no chem/bio weapons, very little power, and not much of a military to speak of at all

he wasn't a threat in the region, he wasn't a threat in the world, and he wasn't supporting terrorists

seems like when Gore had the opportunity to act rather than talk, he had a pretty effective strategy

Cheney's strategy when given the power to act, on the other hand... well we all know it hasn't worked so well

RMNIXON · 09-30-2007, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

OK!

RMNIXON · 09-30-2007, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by motivez

Why is it the only thing conservatives, Republicans, ne-ocons, etc, have to say in response to stuff like this is to change the subject to be about Clinton, Gore, or some other Democrat/liberal/progressive?

How about we discuss what Cheney said and the validity of it instead of trying to change the subject, yes?

That is kinda what I suggested in my original Gore Post.

Both sides play the game of "he did in too" in politics. Not just the ne-ocons Motivez and you know it. It is a poor argument, but often an effective one.

Anyone hear who thinks they always take the high road in debate may cast the first stone.

motivez · 09-30-2007, 09:23 PM

I'm hardly saying the Democrats don't do it too, I'm just sick of seeing it all around

I mean, obviously Cheney knew what would happen if we attempted to overthrow Saddam, that's what we should talk about, there's always room for another thread about Clinton/Gore/etc

Diesel66 · 09-30-2007, 10:20 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

so what you are saying is that the Clinton-Gore approach was effective from 92-2000

ignoring the bullshit that Saddam did was not effective and caused millions of Iraqis to die. Not to mention it forced the attacks in 1998, it increased the hatred that bin laden had on the US (for basing in SA), it caused the current war, etc........

thomez · 09-30-2007, 11:10 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

ignoring the bullshit that Saddam did was not effective and caused millions of Iraqis to die. Not to mention it forced the attacks in 1998, it increased the hatred that bin laden had on the US (for basing in SA), it caused the current war, etc........

the job of the US Armed Forces is not to police the world or keep Iraqis alive

forcing attacks in 98 is not a problem if you believe they were at legit targets - seems like those kinds of attacks were pretty successful (no wmd)

bin laden would hate the US no matter our involvement at that time, he developed that hatred long before

saying that the policy caused the current war is ignoring the fact that the current war was completely unnecessary - in no way could it be construed as a defensive measure

tbone · 10-01-2007, 11:23 AM

Iraq was a war of opportunity. Had Sept. 11th not happened, no President would have been given authority to invade Iraq and topple Saddam without proof of an imminent threat. Bush and Cheney took advantage of the terrorist attack and tried, unsuccessfully in hindsight, to link Iraq to terrorists and got the American public and Congress to beleive them. Granted they have changed their reasoning for invading Iraq several times since, but the original presentation was based on a September 11th and terrorist link.

Diesel66 · 10-01-2007, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

the job of the US Armed Forces is not to police the world or keep Iraqis alive

It is when our actions are killing them. Embargos.

bin laden would hate the US no matter our involvement at that time, he developed that hatred long before

But he didnt do anything against the US until 1993 after we abused the Holy Land.

thomez · 10-01-2007, 09:21 PM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

It is when our actions are killing them. Embargos.

And.... we shouldn't have been doing that either. Next...
But he didnt do anything against the US until 1993 after we abused the Holy Land.[/quote]

It takes time to organize attacks of that scale. I'm sure he's hated us since long before 1993.

Diesel66 · 10-01-2007, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by thomez

And.... we shouldn't have been doing that either. Next...

So we should have just ignored his blatent disregard to the ceasefire and allowed him to rearm at will ?

Remember he didnt get rid of his bio weapon program until 1995

It takes time to organize attacks of that scale. I'm sure he's hated us since long before 1993.

1993 was when he created al-qaeda. And one of their big reasons was because the US invaded/descrated the Holy Land.

thomez · 10-02-2007, 07:05 AM

Originally Posted by Diesel66

So we should have just ignored his blatent disregard to the ceasefire and allowed him to rearm at will ?

Remember he didnt get rid of his bio weapon program until 1995

at what point is any of this a direct threat to the United States?

yeah, didn't think so

Originally Posted by Diesel66

1993 was when he created al-qaeda. And one of their big reasons was because the US invaded/descrated the Holy Land.

because we have constantly meddled in Middle East affairs

I think we should stop it completely, you seem to believe that the policies you believe are correct are the answer - when every policy of meddling has gone wrong thus far