Dick Cheney quote

[livendive 8]

Who's seen this one before? In a 1991 speech when he was the Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney said the following with regard to Bush I's excursion in Iraq...

Quote

"I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.

What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?

I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq."

Source

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[storm1977 0]

My feeling is that what he said is right in 1991, however, a lot has changed since then. First of all we went to Iraq in 91 because SH had invaded Kuait. Our objective at the time was to liberate Kuait from Iraq. This speak was given by Chaney after the liberation had occured. Mission complete. Now so people at the time wanted to go to Bahdad, and the argument was that we had succeded in our mission and instead we would put sactions on Iraq and keep an eye on SH.

So we did, and for 12 years he broke every rule we put in place to stop he from being a tyrant and a suppoprter of the palistinians and terrorist.

The purpose in Iraq this time around was "Regime Change" quite different from the Kuaiti liberation.

One must also look at the significance of what we are really doing in Iraq and what our ultimate goals are there.

For a long time now the middleeast has been a producer of hate and violence. Countries like Syria, Iran, Iraq, Afganastan, and even Saudi Arabia haven't been real friendly to the US mainly for Ideological reason. Iraq is a great place to move in kick the bad boys out and set up a permanent military facility. Now the Iranians Jordanians, and Saudis have us right in their back yard. We will keep bases there just like we still have them in Germany from WWII.

Stratigically in the long run this is an excellent move, but in the short term it is very dangerous and violent.

Do you remember at the begining of this war how difficult it was to get permission to use Turkish bases and Pakastani bases???? Well, for the future if we ever have a problem with Syria, Jordan, Iran, or Saudi Arabia, we don't need permission.... We are always going to be there.

Hopefully in 20 years we won't need those bases because hopefully our presence there will send the message.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

The purpose in Iraq this time around was "Regime Change" quite different from the Kuaiti liberation.

Really? I seem to recall the president saying that nation building is NOT what we would be doing and that the purpose was to get rid of WMD.

Quote

is a great place to move in kick the bad boys out and set up a permanent military facility.

Great, a permanent target for terrorists to kill Americans. A permanent reason for jihadists to continue their quest of removing foreigners from Arabia.

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Really? I seem to recall the president saying that nation building is NOT what we would be doing and that the purpose was to get rid of WMD.

As early as Feb 03 once the US had decided that SH would not completely comply with UN regulations and inspections Mr. Bush said publically we will not stop short of "Regime Change in Iraq" ..... If you recall it was a common slogan for all the protestors.... The signs said stop regime change in Iraq and start it in the USA.

No, the policy was to remove the ba'athis regime and disarm the country.

Chris

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[storm1977 0]

Quote

Great, a permanent target for terrorists to kill Americans. A permanent reason for jihadists to continue their quest of removing foreigners from Arabia.

Keep your friends close and keep your enemies closer

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[Gawain 0]

Actually the policy for "regime change" was developed in the mid-90s and in 1998 was further resolved by Congress.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[livendive 8]

Quote

My feeling is that what he said is right in 1991, however, a lot has changed since then.

While a lot has changed, almost every point in his speech remained true last year.

We DID have to go all the way to Baghdad.
We DID have to commit a lot of force.
We DID have to hunt him down.
We DID have to put another government in place.
We DID have to pick a type of government to prop up.
We STILL don't know how long we'll have to be there.
We STILL don't know what will happen to our puppet government when we leave.
We STILL don't know how many casualties we will have to suffer trying to "create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable"

So why did Dick think it was inadvisable then, but advisable now, when nothing of any substance changed (except perhaps that Saddam got rid of his WMDs)?

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Gawain 0]

Quote

So why did Dick think it was inadvisable then, but advisable now, when nothing of any substance changed (except perhaps that Saddam got rid of his WMDs)?

Because politically, we weren't willing to alienate relationships with other world governments to take action.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[TheAnvil 0]

So if we weren't there, do you think the jihadists would just disappear and bother us no more? Send us an Easter basket in the spirit of inter-faith healing and peace? LOL. I think not.

We've been trying the 'swat at flies' method for years and terrorism hasn't gone away. Say what you like about the doctrine of pre-emption, it's NOT doing the same thing over and over again. As long as we don't abandon the place and complete what we've started there, good things could come of this. As those of us who have friends over in Iraq right now already know - good things already HAVE come of it. bad news gets stories.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

So if we weren't there, do you think the jihadists would just disappear and bother us no more?

Yes...if the US was not in the middle east at all, including its support of Israel, the US would not be a target of Islamic terrorism.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

So if we weren't there, do you think the jihadists would just disappear and bother us no more?

Yes...if the US was not in the middle east at all, including its support of Israel, the US would not be a target of Islamic terrorism.

Now I must ask this question: Do you advocate that the US withdraw its support to Israel?

Aside from that, the jihadists would not simply leave us alone if we just left.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[storm1977 0]

You are wrong Philly.

Quote

Yes...if the US was not in the middle east at all, including its support of Israel, the US would not be a target of Islamic terrorism.

All Muslim FUNDAMENTALIST view any non muslim as the enemy. And they seek to destroy us.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[storm1977 0]

Quote

While a lot has changed, almost every point in his speech remained true last year

Yes but what you fail to acknowledge here is that the mission today is different than it was in 91. You are compareing apples and oranges.

In 91 we gave SH the benefit of the doubt and we (stupidly) believed he would go the way of Muamar Gadafi. That would be to smarten up and leave everyone alone ..... Well SH is a moron and he didn't.

Since 91 he has attempted to have Bush 1 killed, payed families to blow themselves up in Isreal and at least in tried to obtain and build WMD. Not to mention shot at US planes patroling the no fly zone over 1,500 times in 12 year.

-----------------------------------------------------
Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

All Muslim FUNDAMENTALIST view any non muslim as the enemy. And they seek to destroy us.

And many more Muslims view any non-muslim in Arabia as the enemy and seek to drive them out. OBL reason for turning against the US, his former ally, is because we had military bases in Saudi Arabia.

[kallend 2,151]

Quote

Quote

Really? I seem to recall the president saying that nation building is NOT what we would be doing and that the purpose was to get rid of WMD.

As early as Feb 03 once the US had decided that SH would not completely comply with UN regulations and inspections Mr. Bush said publically we will not stop short of "Regime Change in Iraq" ..... If you recall it was a common slogan for all the protestors.... The signs said stop regime change in Iraq and start it in the USA.

No, the policy was to remove the ba'athis regime and disarm the country.

Chris

I take it you didn't listen to or watch the 2003 State of the Union Address.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,120]

>All Muslim FUNDAMENTALIST view any non muslim as the enemy. And
> they seek to destroy us.

Nonsense. No more so than Christian fundamentalists seek to destroy all those who are not Christian. True, there are certainly Christian terrorists (look at the Army of God website) but that doesn't mean that all fundamentalists are like that.

Terrorists come in all colors and creeds. The current hornet's nest we've riled up is in the Middle East in a predominantly Muslim area, so we see a lot of Muslim resistance. In ten years it may be the North Koreans, or the Chinese, or the Tamil Tigers (who aren't religious.) The issue is to fight terrorism, not religion.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Nonsense.

Not really, but it is a bit of a blanket statement. Here's a trunkated list from http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/terrorist-groups.cfm

I focused primarily on middle-eastern located groups, but added a few that were "anti-US" in their goals.

Quote

NAME: al Qaeda
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Established by Osama bin Laden in the late 1980s.
GOALS: Establish a pan-Islamic Caliphate throughout the world by working with allied Islamic extremist groups to overthrow regimes it deems "non-Islamic," and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries.

---

NAME: Armed Islamic Group (GIA)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1992.
GOALS: GIA aims to overthrow the secular Algerian regime and replace it with an Islamic state.

---

NAME: The Salafist Group for Call and Combat (GSPC)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1996.
GOALS: Overthrow the Algerian government and impose fundamentalist Islamic theocracy.

---

NAME: Al-Jihad a.k.a. Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Jihad Group, Islamic Jihad
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Late 1970s.
GOALS: Overthrow the Egyptian government and replace it with an Islamic state; attack U.S. and Israeli interests in Egypt and abroad.

---

NAME: Al-Gama'a al-Islamiyya (Islamic Group, IG)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Late 1970s.
GOALS: The IG's primary goal is to overthrow the Egyptian government and replace it with an Islamic state, but certain group leaders also may be interested in attacking U.S. and Israeli interests.

---

NAME: Revolutionary Nuclei (RN) a.k.a. Revolutionary Cells
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1995.
GOALS: Believed to be the successor group to the Revolutionary People’s Struggle (ELA), RN is a leftist group with an anti-establishment, anti-U.S., anti-NATO and anti-EU agenda. The ELA, which sought to oppose “imperialist domination, exploitation, and oppression,” has not been active since 1995.

---

NAME: Revolutionary People's Struggle (ELA)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1971.
GOALS: To oppose "imperialist domination, exploitation, and oppression."
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Since 1974, has conducted bombings against Greek government and economic targets, as well as U.S. military and business facilities.

---

NAME: Abu Nidal organization (ANO) a.k.a. Fatah Revolutionary Council, Arab Revolutionary Brigades, Black September, and Revolutionary Organization of Socialist Muslims.
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Split from the PLO in 1974.
GOALS: Establishment of a Palestinian State.

---

NAME: Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK or MKO) a.k.a. The National Liberation Army of Iran (NLA, the militant wing of the MEK), the People's Mujahidin of Iran (PMOI), National Council of Resistance (NCR), Muslim Iranian Student's Society (front organization used to garner financial support).
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1960s.
GOALS: The MEK continues to conduct a worldwide campaign against the Iranian government, which stresses propaganda and occasionally uses terrorist violence.

---

NAME: Palestine Liberation Front (PLF)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Broke away from the PFLP-GC in mid-1970s.
GOALS: Creation of a Palestinian state.

---

NAME: Aum Supreme Truth (Aum) a.k.a. Aum Shinrikyo, Aleph
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1987.
GOALS: To take over Japan and then the world.

---

NAME: Hezbollah (Party of God) a.k.a. Islamic Jihad, Revolutionary Justice Organization, Organization of the Oppressed on Earth, and Islamic Jihad for the Liberation of Palestine
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Unknown.
GOALS: Increasing its political power in Lebanon, and opposing Israel and the Middle East peace negotiations.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Known or suspected to have been involved in numerous anti-U.S. terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombing of the U.S. embassy and U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983, and the U.S. embassy annex in Beirut in September 1984.

---

NAME: HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1987.
GOALS: Establishing an Islamic Palestinian state in place of Israel.

---

NAME: The Palestine Islamic Jihad (PIJ)
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: 1970s.
GOALS: The creation of an Islamic Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel through holy war.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Because of its strong support for Israel, the United States has been identified as an enemy of the PIJ, but the group has not specifically conducted attacks against U.S. interests in the past. In July 2000, however, publicly threatened to attack U.S. interests if the U.S. Embassy is moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

---

NAME: Jamaat ul-Fuqra
DATE STARTED/FIRST ACTIVE: Early 1980s.
GOALS: Purify Islam through violence.
MAIN ANTI-U.S. ACTIVITIES TO DATE: Assassinations and fire-bombings across the United States in the 1980s. Members in the United States have been convicted of criminal violations, including murder and fraud.

Some of these goals are not "stated" anti-western or anti-US, but they are clearly in conflict with our goals.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!