Korean Job Discussion Forums :: View topic - Dick Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire

Speak Korean Now!

Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!

Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Dick Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:40 am Post subject:

stevemcgarrett wrote:

just another day wrote:

Quote:

maybe he's just quiet nowadays because he's a puppet?

Gee, now I'm confused, too. I thought leftists believe that Bush is Cheney's puppet? It's so difficult keeping up with leftist logic.

keane (sock of EFLT) wrote:

Quote:

Got anything to say on the topic? That is, on Cheney's two faces on the issue and what changed so much between '94 and '03 in Iraq?

Why, don't you know? Are you outside the loop? During that crucial period the Internet greatly expanded and Dave's ESL Cafe emerged as a leading site for those in the ESL/EFL profession. Mr. Sperling's influence became so widespread that it did not go unnoticed even by the Texas Mafia. The White House requested that out of deference to the VP, that his complete name, *beep* Cheney, not be used on these forums.

You've apparently nothing to offer. Is insulting others comforting?

sundubuman

Joined: 04 Feb 2003
Location: seoul

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 11:52 am Post subject:

keane wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

could not contain Saddam and pressure Saudi on AQ at the same time.

Business as usual in the mideast was dangerous to the US.

You said that already. I find it an insufficient justification for the deaths of 100,000 to 700,000 human beings.

More leftist idiocy...whatever death figure you choose to employ.....trying to blame the Coalition liberation of Iraq from decades of the most tyrannical ruler of the late 20th century for the barbaric Islamist/Al Quaeda/Sectarian/Holy Suicide bombers responsible for the vast majority of carnage is beyond preposterous.

The only Westerners who would be responsible for further mass carnage are idiot leftists proposing a withdrawal of Coalition forces, which would certainly lead to new heights of sectarian terrorist barbarity.

just another day

Joined: 12 Jul 2007
Location: Living with the Alaskan Inuits!!

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 4:17 pm Post subject:

so whose the puppet master then? rove? he's gone now... find the puppet master and kill kill kill!!! Cindy Sheehan... you're our only hope...

Alias

Joined: 24 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 5:51 pm Post subject:

sundubuman wrote:

Those "Islamist/AQ/Sectarian/Holy Suicide bombers" are now much more prevelant in Iraq thanks to the illegal invasion.

Quote:

The only Westerners who would be responsible for further mass carnage are idiot leftists proposing a withdrawal of Coalition forces, which would certainly lead to new heights of sectarian terrorist barbarity.

The majority of Iraqis want US forces to leave. But I doubt they count.

Alias

Joined: 24 Jan 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:36 pm Post subject:

Quote:

Iraq had no relationship to terrorism?

With AQ? No. Even the administration admitted that.

Quote:

Abu Nidal

.......was killed on orders from Saddam Hussein.

Quote:

Anyway

If mideast regimes and elties stop teaching hate and inciting violence then they were be a lot less terrorists.

There are more terrorists in Iraq now then before the war.

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 7:55 pm Post subject:

keane [sock of EFLT] growled:

Quote:

You've apparently nothing to offer. Is insulting others comforting?

Uh, it was a jest. Evidently, you missed it, so must indeed be from the far Left--they have no sense of humor.

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:34 pm Post subject:

sundubuman wrote:

keane wrote:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

could not contain Saddam and pressure Saudi on AQ at the same time.

Business as usual in the mideast was dangerous to the US.

You said that already. I find it an insufficient justification for the deaths of 100,000 to 700,000 human beings.

You need to read some of the reporting on the rules of engagement of US forces and how they have been implemented on the ground, because your dismissal is incorrect. While the sectarian violence has likely killed a majority of those killed, there is a lot of evidence that US forces kill and injure bystanders at a rate of up to 70% of all US-caused casualties.

The Iraqi and Afghani governments have both protested this.

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 8:38 pm Post subject:

stevemcgarrett wrote:

keane growled:

Quote:

You've apparently nothing to offer. Is insulting others comforting?

Uh, it was a jest. Evidently, you missed it, so must indeed be from the far Left--they have no sense of humor.

You've tried this defense before. It is not believable. And in the arena of no sense of humor, shall we discuss China?

Tiger Beer

Joined: 07 Feb 2003

Posted: Tue Aug 14, 2007 9:28 pm Post subject:

just another day wrote:

i don't get it.

his daughter is lesbian, he was against the invasion of iraq, and had many reasons for it that came true.

maybe he's just quiet nowadays because he's a puppet??

I've always seen him as quiet because he has so much to hide.

When he does come out behind the rock he's hiding from, he just mentions how incredibly pro-war he is (while hiding the 'I'm personally profiting immensily' part)...and then goes back into hiding.

That's also the reason he vows he will never even remotely consider running for President.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 12:13 am Post subject:

"Alias"]

Quote:

Iraq had no relationship to terrorism?

With AQ? No. Even the administration admitted that.

Quote:

Abu Nidal

but Iraq did support terror . that much is clear.

Quote:

.......was killed on orders from Saddam Hussein.

What are you a Saddam Hussein apologist? You are trying to make it look as if Saddam killed him to fight terror. When you must know that it happened right before the invasion after being in Iraq for years. Why was he in Iraq for years? Probably cause for a while Saddam viewed him as an asset that he might be able to use.

But then when the pressure came he got rid of him. If the pressure were off then what was Saddam's next move? It would not have been too hard to figure out.

Quote:

Anyway

Quote:

There are more terrorists in Iraq now then before the war.

and 70,000 trained in AQ camps in Afghanistan during the 90's.

before the US invaded Iraq.

And why did 70,000 train in AQ camps in Afghanistan during the 90's ?

If mideast regimes and elties stop teaching hate and inciting violence then they were be a lot less terrorists.

stevemcgarrett

Joined: 24 Mar 2006

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:04 am Post subject:

keane/EFLT wrote:

Quote:

You've tried this defense before. It is not believable. And in the arena of no sense of humor, shall we discuss China?

Sure, go right ahead. What of it?

China spends far more than it needs on defense these days and given that three-quarters of its people still live in the countryside, and that half of those earn one-fourth of what the average urban worker makes, I'd say that indefensible.

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 2:26 am Post subject:

Tiger Beer wrote:

just another day wrote:

i don't get it.

his daughter is lesbian, he was against the invasion of iraq, and had many reasons for it that came true.

maybe he's just quiet nowadays because he's a puppet??

that is right he supported the Iraq war just to make money. Rolling Eyes

keane

Joined: 09 Jul 2007

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 4:54 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Tiger Beer wrote:

just another day wrote:

i don't get it.

his daughter is lesbian, he was against the invasion of iraq, and had many reasons for it that came true.

maybe he's just quiet nowadays because he's a puppet??

that is right he supported the Iraq war just to make money. Rolling Eyes

Just? No. But it was certainly part of the reason. No bid contracts for his company, Haliburton. No consequences for not doing the work, for overcharging, for neglecting the health of the soldiers. While his stock options make him millions upon millions.

You're right, though: there is no conflict of interest.

Rolling Eyes

What a fool believes, no wise man has the power to reason away...

Manner of Speaking

Joined: 09 Jan 2003

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 6:41 am Post subject:

keane wrote:

Very true. But I jest! The people in the current administration have, in fact, done their jobs quite well, with the exception of the execution of the war. Getting into it? A+. Creating a fearful and timid congress? Off the scale. Creating a fearful and timid people? Formerly off the scale, now about a B+. Rigging the electoral process? Off the scale. Draining the coffers of the country and the middle class into the pockets of the wealthy? Off the scale. Getting hold of the Iraqi Oil? Incomplete.

Well put.

Quote:

Let us get back to Cheney more directly. Iraq, by the description given in that video, backed by the reality since invasion, was going to be a quagmire. Since we know, and they knew, Iraq had no relationship to terrorism or 9/11, and it was going to be a quagmire by *beep*'s very own assessment, why in the name of all that is, ever was and will be did they go in there?

In Cheney's case, once he realized what direction the wind was blowing, he had more to gain by going along with the crowd than by resisting it. Maybe after the 94 interview somebody at Haliburton got to him and said, "HEY! RECONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS FOREVER!!!" Laughing

Tiger Beer

Joined: 07 Feb 2003

Posted: Wed Aug 15, 2007 8:02 am Post subject:

Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote:

Tiger Beer wrote:

just another day wrote:

i don't get it.

his daughter is lesbian, he was against the invasion of iraq, and had many reasons for it that came true.

maybe he's just quiet nowadays because he's a puppet??

that is right he supported the Iraq war just to make money. Rolling Eyes

Supported? I wouldn't use the word 'supported' the Iraq War. I'd say something more similar to 'very strongly encouraged' or 'had a strong hand in manipulating towards'.

He is the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES...he's not a sideline cheerleader who just happens to 'support' the local team without a clue to inside decision-making processes and their implications on various levels.

Display posts from previous:

	Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next
Page 2 of 5

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe