The best in arts & entertainment, news, pop culture, and your mom since 2002.

[Total: 96    Average: 3.9/5]
43 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 12481
Rating: 3.9
Category:
Date: 08/12/07 02:05 AM

43 Responses to Cheney Explains why NOT to Invade Iraq

  1. Profile photo of buddy
    buddy Male 30-39
    10116 posts
    August 11, 2007 at 9:13 pm
    Link: Cheney Explains why NOT to Invade Iraq - He makes a lot of good points, to bad he didn`t follow his own advice.
  2. Profile photo of btpanther39
    btpanther39 Male 18-29
    135 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 2:11 am
    interesting post, enjoyed it
  3. Profile photo of KoRn_Rock9
    KoRn_Rock9 Male 13-17
    77 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 2:13 am
    ummmm....yeah
  4. Profile photo of BigBonny
    BigBonny Male 18-29
    2216 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 2:16 am
    Not very many more than 164? Wow how many thousands of casualties are there now?

    But yeah, Id love to see him have to watch this clip now!

  5. Profile photo of standemon
    standemon Male 18-29
    13 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 2:39 am
    BigBonny, this was done back in 1994. Which is an easy 7 years prior to the situation we are in now. He was reffering to the death toll of Operation Desert Storm/Dessert Shield in which we were protecting Kuwait.
  6. Profile photo of DrFeelGood10
    DrFeelGood10 Male 18-29
    290 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 2:43 am
    Dick Cheney`s voice always makes me want to clear my throat.
  7. Profile photo of thanatos16
    thanatos16 Male 18-29
    291 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 2:47 am
    ABOUT TIME someone found this clip and used it as the damning evidence it is. i remember this being aired on tv when i was younger and being very interested. (father went off to desert storm/shield)
  8. Profile photo of tourettes
    tourettes Male 18-29
    957 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 3:04 am
    The Dems should use this and accuse Cheney of being a hypocritical American-killer and an ignoramus when he said it wouldn`t work in `94 why would it work almost a decade later? Cheney`s a dirty Halliburton scumbag. Anybody see the documentary Iraq for Sale? basically its about the bad things and the excesses Halliburton has done to America while it is in Iraq.

  9. Profile photo of sulu
    sulu Male 18-29
    994 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 3:36 am
    Well Gulf War 1 was in the right

    But Gulf War 2 (AKA Iraq War) is completely worthless in terms of what we`re trying to get done.

  10. Profile photo of derangedingo
    derangedingo Male 13-17
    810 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 3:55 am
    sulu: are you calling the freedom of millions of Iraqi`s "worthless"?
    Saddam`s military police would come to your house and cut your tongue out if you spoke against him.

    He does make a lot of good points, and, hope to god, some of those situations don`t develop (such as a split Iraq), but that was taken in `94

    Saddam was a potential threat in 2003.. we went in and we made sure he didn`t become one, plus we liberated the populace. Now we just need to set up a government that will last more than a few months and G.T.F.O.

    And in terms of casualties, I don`t see what people are whining about. (BigBonny)
    We`ve been in Iraq for about 4.5 years
    We were involved in WW2 for 3.5 years
    There`s been about 3,000 US Military Deaths in Iraq
    There was over 300,000 US Military deaths in WW2
    There`s been about, what, 50,000 to 70,000 Iraqi civilians killed?
    There were millions upon millions of Japanese and German civilians killed, by US Bombing alone in WW2

  11. Profile photo of Legion5
    Legion5 Male 18-29
    438 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 4:13 am
    Iraq has a very small population, the war there is similar to 15 MILLION people dying in world war 2 (only about 5 million or more did between the primary factions).

    So in effect, the war in Iraq is THREE TIMES what world war 2 was, it`s just that the scale is smaller.

  12. Profile photo of mastercif
    mastercif Male 13-17
    458 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 4:30 am
    derangedingo....dont even start comparing WW2 to Iraq, in WW2 the conditions were extremely different, germany, italy, and Japan were trying to pretty much TAKE OVER THE WORLD, nearly the whole world was in turmoil and chaos, all of Europe and Northern Africa had been ransacked and raped by the Nazi`s, and alot of Russia and Russians were destroyed, over 13 million before the tide turned, Japan was committing genocide and atrocities all over Asia, not to mention began invading the US, and temporarily took control of parts of it in Alaska, so 300 thousand military deaths to stop countless genocides and atrocities, to save millions of peoples lives all over the world, and to save the world from completley being controlled by fascist leaders, and because we were the ones being invaded, 300 thousand is well spent, however still tragic and unfortunate, but there was no other choice but to fight, In Iraq, the CIA admitted that there was no link between Al-queda and Iraq, they were dead
  13. Profile photo of mastercif
    mastercif Male 13-17
    458 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 4:33 am
    wrong about how many WMD`S were in Iraq, but ofcourse found this out after we had completley taken over Iraq and turned it into a complete hell hole, where one can barley walk outside their house without the fear of being abducted, murdered, etc.

    "And in terms of casualties, I don`t see what people are whining about. (BigBonny)"-derangedingo

    say that to the 3,000 families who will never see their sons/daughters/fathers/mothers again

  14. Profile photo of benjbenj
    benjbenj Male 30-39
    916 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 7:41 am
    Cheney pretty much sums up all the arguments that are still valid a decade later. Most of his predictions came true as well. Who did the brainwashing?
  15. Profile photo of Karen_Lumb
    Karen_Lumb Female 13-17
    28 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 9:06 am
    I cannot believe you would diminish human life like that derangedingo. You simply cannot say that people are whining about death, it`s a serious matter.
    Neither can you compare any war. They are all different, the only similarity is death.
    I`m surprised that this hasn`t been shown before, it would have made a brilliant argument against this war. Unfortunately no-one had thought of a better idea of freeing the Iraqi people from Saddam`s rule. Though if it was for them, why not do the same for all those Countries in need like Burma and Zimbabwe?
  16. Profile photo of FireBlaze437
    FireBlaze437 Male 13-17
    45 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 10:18 am
    mastercif: Hmm, we didn`t find any WMDs. But we did find proof that he had commited mass genocide. If you`re so for saving lives, what does an Iraqi life mean to you?

    Karen_Lumb: The fact is, we can`t simply change how things are in Burma and Zimbabwe by sending in aid and bitching about it. The Red Cross already sends care packages and has medical faucilities around the world, but its never that easy to simply change the mob violence in those countries.

  17. Profile photo of xp
    xp Male 30-39
    522 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 11:21 am
    Derangedingo is either a troll or an idiot. Either way he isn`t worth responding to. Dick is aptly named. He needs to be put in prison for crimes against humanity.
  18. Profile photo of benjbenj
    benjbenj Male 30-39
    916 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 2:08 pm
    FireBlaze437, the Iraqis are worse off after the invasion, *as was predicted* (not only by Cheney).
  19. Profile photo of Snoogans
    Snoogans Male 30-39
    869 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 4:31 pm
    Wow, imagine that. A politician saying one thing and doing another. Haven`t we learned yet that if a politician`s mouth is moving he/she is lying? On a side note it always makes me laugh at how much Cheney looks like Batman`s nemesis The Penguin.
  20. Profile photo of Parsifal
    Parsifal Female 70 & Over
    1 post
    August 12, 2007 at 4:33 pm
    Why do people still focus on why NOT to invade?
    We *already did*. It`s too late to go back in time and not invade.
    How about focusing on what to do *from here on out*?


    /photos/f_photo/d30811271992914f_photo.gif

  21. Profile photo of BigWaFuu
    BigWaFuu Male 18-29
    1163 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 5:17 pm
    So what happened to that sentiment from then to now? What made him say "oh pshaw and nonsense, let`s do it"
  22. Profile photo of NOFX14
    NOFX14 Male 18-29
    1141 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 5:57 pm
    haha notice video from `94! helooo!
  23. Profile photo of vE
    vE Male 18-29
    127 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 5:58 pm
    from here on out, how about we get the drat out?
  24. Profile photo of KnightmareOH
    KnightmareOH Male 18-29
    285 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 6:13 pm
    "He does make a lot of good points, and, hope to god, some of those situations don`t develop (such as a split Iraq)."

    Like most republicans, you must not pick up a newspaper very often.

  25. Profile photo of millamopico
    millamopico Female 18-29
    122 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 7:25 pm
    Offlinederangedingo
    Male, 13-17, Western US
    455 Posts Sunday, August 12, 2007 3:55:26 AM
    And in terms of casualties, I don`t see what people are whining about. (BigBonny)
    We`ve been in Iraq for about 4.5 years
    We were involved in WW2 for 3.5 years
    There`s been about 3,000 US Military Deaths in Iraq
    There was over 300,000 US Military deaths in WW2
    There`s been about, what, 50,000 to 70,000 Iraqi civilians killed?
    There were millions upon millions of Japanese and German civilians killed, by US Bombing alone in WW2

    human lives are irreplaceable. 100,000 is equal to 500,000 when a life is at stake.
    Justifying killing is what you`re doing. It`s wrong for any lives to be taken.

  26. Profile photo of MVH1015
    MVH1015 Male 13-17
    301 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 7:47 pm
    we cant kill eachother remember... we need people for war so were not pussys and people for no war so were a civilized government...that is called america
  27. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 8:33 pm
    Iraq is f*cked and was better under Saddam. So where are we now? 3900 Coalition Troops dead, up to 650,000 Iraqi Civilians dead (in case numbers are a difficult subject for you, that`s over half a million), Iraqis now get 0-15 minutes of electricity per day on average, and Oxfam say that fewer people have access to clean water now than under Saddam (all from the BBC, an impartial source unlike Fox, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2002/conflict_with_iraq/default.stm if you`re interested).
  28. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 8:33 pm
    Sure the Iraqi people now have "Freedom". In theory you can now access whatever websites you want, publish whatever views you like (political or otherwise), and have fair elections. But as an Iraqi civilian said, what use is all this if you can`t get to the market to buy some tomatoes without fear of getting blown to bits by a suicide bomber. Close your eyes, and try to imagine, for a second, what life is like today for your average Iraqi. As Phil Donohue said, "Saddam was a bastard, but he was our bastard"
  29. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 8:34 pm
    There are now 2 options in Iraq, as many people have pointed out before, but just to reiterate...

    Option 1: Stay in Iraq till the `job is done`. When will that be? The violence is getting worse every day, and the situation in Iraq will not improve just by using the same tactics (continuing occupation, keeping Coalition troops there4 for longer). All you American 13-17 year olds who keep spouting right-wing Conservative Republican bullpoo didn`t live through a similar unwinnable war. It was called "Vietnam". Look it up.

  30. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 8:35 pm
    Option 2: Pull out of Iraq. The current civil war will descend into absolute anarchy in the resulting power vacuum. Iran (public enemy No. 1) will invade and take the east of Iraq (including all its oilfields) and in the words of Obi-Wan Kenobi, will become "more powerful than you can possibly imagine!". Syria (public enemy No. 2) will invade and take west Iraq. Turkey will take Kurdistan, the northern part of Iraq, and Saudi will take the south, call it a "demilitarised zone" to protect their borders. Iraq will be wiped off the map. But maybe that`s what the Chimp in Chief wanted all along...
  31. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 8:35 pm
    The "War on Terror" is bullpoo, just like the "War on Drugs" or "War on Crime". You can`t kill a concept. The War on Terror should be called "The Global Recruitment Drive for Radical Islam". The world is a more dangerous place thanks to Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and all their NeoCon, get-out-of-jail-free cronies.
    But I don`t blame Bush, I blame the 50% of the American population (150 million, give or take a few dodgy ballots in Florida) who voted for him.
    Peace.
  32. Profile photo of millamopico
    millamopico Female 18-29
    122 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 10:17 pm
    Aah see.
    Even Europe agrees with us.^
    Iraq is Vietnam Jr.
  33. Profile photo of Snoogans
    Snoogans Male 30-39
    869 posts
    August 12, 2007 at 10:24 pm
    davymid....I agree with most of what you are saying. There were so many mistakes made from the beginning. The first one was obviously going to Iraq under false pretense (WMD). I believe it was all so George Jr. could show his daddy that he was a tough cowboy. Saddam had wanted to kill Bush Sr. so little Georgy wasn`t going to let it go. Also they should have never dismantled the Iraq army. They could have used them to help out the US troops. Lastly I believe that if you are going to go to war, you have to go full blast or don`t bother. Especially when you are dealing with fundamentalist who don`t mind blowing themselves up to take you out. This half ass sh*t doesn`t work. All or nothing, but it`s too late now. The war on drugs is also a joke. The government just wants us to use THEIR drugs. They don`t like competition.
  34. Profile photo of Rich_in_VA
    Rich_in_VA Male 40-49
    110 posts
    August 13, 2007 at 9:44 am
    ** Derangedingo is either a troll or an idiot. Either way he isn`t worth responding to. **
    `Troll or idiot` apparently to you means `someone who disagrees with you`. Very classy and open minded!!
  35. Profile photo of Rich_in_VA
    Rich_in_VA Male 40-49
    110 posts
    August 13, 2007 at 9:54 am
    ** ....dont even start comparing WW2 to Iraq, in WW2 the conditions were extremely different, germany, italy, and Japan were trying to pretty much TAKE OVER THE WORLD, **
    And this is relevant how? Does the fact that in WW2 they were trying to TAKE OVER THE WORLD mean we should never attempt to defend ourselves against any threat?

    *** In Iraq, the CIA admitted that there was no link between Al-queda and Iraq ***
    Again, completely irrelevent. This war was to stop a potential threat, not avenge a past wrong. Saddam Hussein`s govt was in blatant violation of UN resol. 687 and 689 for years, that in and of itself provided all of the legal justifcation we needed to topple his government. He was very obviously an expansionist who would not have hesitated to kill us by the thousands/millions to enhance his standing in the Arab world.

  36. Profile photo of Rich_in_VA
    Rich_in_VA Male 40-49
    110 posts
    August 13, 2007 at 10:07 am
    *** Iraq is f*cked and was better under Saddam. ***
    Those folks in the mass graves will be very happy to hear that.

    *** up to 650,000 Iraqi Civilians dead (in case numbers are a difficult subject for you, that`s over half a million), ***
    Wowee! I love the smell of wild-ass exaggeration in the morning!

    ***Sure the Iraqi people now have "Freedom". In theory you can now access whatever websites you want, publish whatever views you like (political or otherwise), and have fair elections.***
    You`re right! All that stuff is way overrated!

    *** ...buy some tomatoes without fear of getting blown to bits by a suicide bomber. ***
    I didn`t know we were using suicide bombers in Iraq! I`m learning so much from your posts!

    *** The "War on Terror" is bullpoo, just like the "War on Drugs" or "War on Crime". **
    Yes, let`s just abandon all resistance. Enjoy the caliphate!

  37. Profile photo of Rich_in_VA
    Rich_in_VA Male 40-49
    110 posts
    August 13, 2007 at 10:10 am
    *** I blame the 50% of the American population (150 million, give or take a few dodgy ballots in Florida) who voted for him.***
    150 million voted for Bush! Give or take 90 million or so!
  38. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12140 posts
    August 13, 2007 at 9:09 pm
    Rich,
    Your opinion is great, thanks for that. The Iraqi people (those guys who all this was meant to be for) are now saying they were better off under Saddam and wish he was back, rather than the current situation where hundreds are dying every week.

    You can read about it here (from American CBS, not some crackpot liberal website BTW)

    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/2...

  39. Profile photo of sunnysongbrd
    sunnysongbrd Female 18-29
    532 posts
    August 13, 2007 at 10:26 pm
    Rich, I would love to hear an actual FACT from you, instead of just smart-aleck remarks. Davy actually brought up a lot of facts that have been verified in several sources, liberal, conservative, and neither, and all you can reply is that he`s exaggerating? How? Where`s your proof? Do you have multiple credible sources from all points of view?

    And you didn`t read carefully enough, either. We`re not using the suicide bombers, THEY are. And by the way, according to the psychological "puramid of needs", ideological and philosophical fulfillment (I.E. publishing political viewpoints, etc) comes about three steps AFTER you have fulfilled physical needs (I.E. eating), therefore, for the Iraqi people, it as better to be able to buy tomatoes while holding their tongues, than it is now to be able to say what they want while being too afraid of death to buy food to eat.

  40. Profile photo of sunnysongbrd
    sunnysongbrd Female 18-29
    532 posts
    August 13, 2007 at 10:31 pm
    Oh, and I bet they DON`T speak freely in public anyway, because if they do, then maybe the next suicide bomber will run up next to them on the street before he blows himself up!

    Saddam was not a threat. He didn`ts have any WMDs. He didn`t have squat, actually. All he had claim to was George W. Bush`s hatred (passed down to him by his father), and a severely crippled country.

    And don`t you think that people, when they are oppressed, will eventually rise up against those who oppress them? We Americans did it. The Canadians did it. Heck, even the minorities in our own country stood up for themselves after hundreds of years of oppression. Why doesn`t anybody ever bring up the idea that the Iraqis would have risen up in their own time as well? Every person killed in the cause of liberating their own people from oppression is a martyr, and nothing recruits better than martyrs.

    Instead, we invaded and are making the guys that we want to go away into martyrs.

    (continued)

  41. Profile photo of sunnysongbrd
    sunnysongbrd Female 18-29
    532 posts
    August 13, 2007 at 10:36 pm
    The radicals use OUR tactics and OUR "barbarism" as recruiting devices! The numbers of radical believers (the type who like to suicide bomb and such) have SKYROCKETED since we invaded Iraq. I don`t have sources to cite right now, but the studies are out there.

    And why is a war on a concept never a good idea??? Because, as Davy pointed out, A CONCEPT NEVER DIES. It is impossible to force a concept to surrender. It is impossible to force a concept to go to prison. It is impossible to invade a concept and take it over. So what does our government do instead? They attack the EMBODIMENT of the concept.

    They don`t like the idea of people tearing up their own bodies, because it depleted society of those bodies (whether or not people stupid enough to do drugs should be part of our society is another issue entirely), and so they have the WAR ON DRUGS, and they attack any and all persons who think differently about even the tiniest drug.

  42. Profile photo of sunnysongbrd
    sunnysongbrd Female 18-29
    532 posts
    August 13, 2007 at 10:41 pm
    They don`t like it that people are committing crimes everywhere, and likely always will be, so they pressure the police forces to crack down on even the tiniest offenses, and we end up with police committing illegal acts or punishing those who don`t really deserve it (think going 31 in a 30 zone) in order to "meet quota".

    Well, they don`t like the idea of somebody using terror to force us to do what they want (never mind that the Bush administration has done nothing but use fear/scare tactics to keep the American people properly sheep-like), so they attack the country that they tell us is where all the terrorist countries come from.

    Yes, these radicals are a threat, because they may attack us again, but that does not mean that it was SADDAM that was a threat, or that he ever was going to be. Neither were/are the radicals an IMMINENT threat, because after 9/11, how are they going to do something so massive again???

    So, Rich, any comments?

  43. Profile photo of jmk4422
    jmk4422 Male 18-29
    134 posts
    January 2, 2008 at 9:06 am
    "Saddam was a potential threat in 2003.. "

    AHHHHH ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!! Hang on... hang on... hahahahahahahahahaha! No no, wait, I`m going to make a point here... hahahahahahahahahahahhahaha! Sorry... too funny... can`t stop laugh---hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!

    Potential threat... hee hee... too funny, too funny...

Leave a Reply