Subhanallah!
with the age of video it gets harder and harder to hide things no matter how powerful you are. I'm sure you've seen this video, if not...share it with your friends!
Cheney's View on Iraq in 1994
if anybody said these things today, they'd be labeled an unpatriotic, al-aqaeda sympathizer, commie, liberal wacko, or terrorist.
You have to understand that Cheney was giving the official line on this topic, not necessarily his own opinion. George Bush(the elder) and the British prime minister didn't believe an invasion of Iraq was warranted at the time. Cheney was simply repeating the justifications for that decision. It has come to light since that Cheney was one of those who actually pushed for the invasion of Iraq to get rid of Saddam back in the 90's.
with all due respect, that's a bunch of bullformat_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
interviewer: 'do YOU THINK that US FORCES or UN forces should have moved into Bagdad?'
Cheney: 'NO'
He would not pull the party line?'do YOU THINK
When I am sent to represent my boss and I am asked "What do you think?",
The answer they get is what my boss thinks.
Da, that's whom I am representing.
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
ha!
it all depends on what your definition of 'you' is? what a cop out, 'you' can do better than that.
isnt america supposed to be a democracy with freedom of speech for cheney to speak his mind?
There seems to be a lack of knowledge of politics on this thread, especially American politics. When a member of the presidential cabinet is asked a policy question, that cabinet member will give the official executive reply. That is why many former cabinet members write books once they leave office, because their personal opinions aren't part of the equation in their official capacity.
From 1991 to 2003 saddam killed over 380,000 of his own people.
Thats the price they paid.
Cheney was free to speak his mind.format_quote Originally Posted by alcurad
He also has the freedom to not commit political suicide.
Correction: US killed over 2 million iraqi kids alone from starvation by it's brutal sanctions as class punishment. And then it killed more iraqis with deception of gulf war.format_quote Originally Posted by barney
Wrong! Saddam Hussein starved them so he would have money for new palaces. :grumblingformat_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
Do you mean Saddam didn't invade anyone?deception of gulf war
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.
--60 Minutes (5/12/96)
Assured by the U.S., Saddam Invaded KuwaitDo you mean Saddam didn't invade anyone?
Saddam never had tanks on the border of Saudi Arabia. Satellite photos showed that this was a lie. But this was after the war.
It's a Machiavellian political rule that hiding facts from the public for a while is good enough, because by the time the facts come out, it's too late to do anything, and the issue is a done deal.
Several American people strongly encouraged Saddam to attack Kuwait, and "rectify your borders".
Acting under Sec. State James Baker, a diplomat named Joseph Wilson (yes that one) met repeatedly with Saddam and with his inner circle. He actually chided Saddam for NOT standing up to Kuwait's evil move, stealing Iraq's oil. This was just after or during the time that Poppy Bush was still pumping money and resources into Iraq ... illegally, by the way.
What did Saddam do? Nothing. Nothing except regional negotiations and meetings with Kuwait representatives. He was a wuss ... but not because of fear of Kuwait. Because of fear of the US reaction.
Next move, Wilson's superior at State Dept, April Glaspie, visited Saddam and told him to his face, that regarding his dispute with Kuwait, "the United States has no opinion on Arab-Arab issues", but the US just wanted to be apprised of Saddam's plans for Kuwait. He stated that he could not continue to allow Kuwait to continue destroying Iraq's economy, could not afford it. Bills to pay. (So James Baker himself never officially met with Saddam, just his representatives.) Glaspie had also gone on TV with Barbara Walters to defend Saddam as a good guy who was "misunderstood". It was these Bush "conservatives" who defended Saddam, and Bush admin accused "silly liberal journalists" of making a mountain out of a mole hill, regarding Saddam's killing of civilians.
Saddam invaded ONE DAY after meeting with Glaspie. One day.
Prior to this, the Pentagon had published a report stating that Saddam had NO plans to invade any other countries after their devastating war with Iran, egged on by the US. Iraq had been taken OFF the terrorist list during the war, to allow Bush to ship weapons to them, then placed back ON the terrorist list after the Pentagon determined Iraq was too sickly to wage another war. Lotsa contradictions, eh?
Lotsa false assumptions too, like the assumption that our government would not lie to us, even though our government allowed Kuwait to fund a (illegal) $20 million PR campaign with US public relations firms in the US media, creating tapes for "evening news" shows, with President Bush repeating "facts" he knew were funded by Kuwait oil sheiks. The PR firms even staged fake "Free Kuwait" rallies on college campuses, to make it look like students were spontaneously rallying for war. You can bet the cops did not crack down on these student protests. (The current "Save Darfur" campaign is a lie too.)
Glaspie's later excuse was, she did not specifically tell Saddam to invade Kuwait, and that Saddam misunderstood her. Saddam was described by those who knew him as wily, and tough, but not crazy. Certainly not crazy enough to want to threaten the US. (barely wanted to defend itself, except after a decade of dropping bombs on Iraq, on a several times weekly basis)
In the meantime, how did Kuwait manage to suck out $14 billion of Iraq's oil from the 900 sq km Rumallah oil field they seized? Well they bought a company for $2.3 billion which manufactured Slant Drilling equipment, called Santa Fe drilling. This was owned by General Brent Scowcroft, who was an advisor to Kuwait at that time. Kuwait had started drilling and stealing oil, before the Iran-Iraq oil ended in 1988.
This info is almost outside of polite conversation to seen as some conspiracy theory, but what is theoretical?
Kissinger had stated that the best of all worlds was for "both countries to bleed each other white". (Obviously, a weaker Iraq would be easier for the US to attack.)
Molly Ivins wrote that "gosh, slant-drilling is enough to start a shooting war in Texas, let alone the Middle East". Molly Ivins may be a liberal, but she's pretty mainstream, not some fringe radical.
They openly talk about the need to 'trick' Americans into supporting wars, and we're gullible enough to accept it at face value. World War Two themes come into play. Ironically, it was Prescott Bush supporting the Nazis when American boys were dying on the beaches of Normandy.
Source
A post on a blog? :confused:
Wow, I'm Impressed.
I think you mean that world aid (from non-Muslims) was never given by Sadaam to his people.format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
You must be talking about the food for oil program, have you checked into it lately? Try googling oil for food corruption or something and you'll find not only western companies but gov't itself (like australia) that was involved in it, showing what they really care about.format_quote Originally Posted by rav
The oil for food corruption wasn't stopping Saddam from feeding his people. The corruption was getting Saddam rich and several U.N. diplomats along with him. The truth is that Saddam did not share that wealth with the people of Iraq...and as we all know, people starving to death is much better political propoganda than golden toilet seats and beautiful palaces.format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
Never mind the day and night bombing of a nation for decades, never mind over 1/2 million starved to death and your sec. of state saying its "worth it" on national tv, never mind no fly zones and other restrictions on a nation who can't move freely within its own borders to repair the damage done by unjust bombing, never mind all of that. Please continue believing what you are accustomed to, just don't be surprised at the future america is creating for itself.format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I'm always amazed that Muslims never seamed to have a problem with what Saddam Hussein did.format_quote Originally Posted by islamirama
I did care. Many cared - But then again most have no power to change.format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhumI'm always amazed that Muslims never seamed to have a problem with what Saddam Hussein did.
And I knew whoever comes and helps, there's always going to go something wrong. Either with their plan, their intentions or the outcome.
Now that would be true. I too have almost no power to change.format_quote Originally Posted by Al-Zaara
If I could create "Do Overs", we would not be in Iraq and Bush would not be President.
But then I don't get "Do Overs" either.
Hide
Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks