Dick Cheney was right all along

[jeff]

There has been a shocking, +shocking+ lack of futile political argument in this board for weeks. In response to so little discord and noise, here's a clip of Dick Cheney speaking wisely about Iraq and why we shouldn't occupy it - in 1994

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZ...elated&search=

[keith]

There has been a shocking, +shocking+ lack of futile political argument in this board for weeks. In response to so little discord and noise, here's a clip of Dick Cheney speaking wisely about Iraq and why we shouldn't occupy it - in 1994

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZ...elated&search=

No no. You have neglected to compensate for the effects of inflation on the value of an american life.

[Inquartata]

Actually, he was WRONG then. But he was doing his job, promoting his President's policy. His President's foolish, timid, short-sighted policy.

Had we finished the job the first time, there would have been no flaunting of the UN inspections, no oil-for-food corruption scandals, no payments to Palestinian suicide bombers, no Fedayeen Saddam to form the core of the Sunni "insurgency", no sense of betrayal to turn the Shia Iraqis against us, and several hundred thousand Iraqis executed by the Baathist regime after 1991 might still be alive...to say nothing of the international animosity that might have been avoided had Saddam been toppled by an international coalition instead of by "unilateral" action.

[keith]

Actually, he was WRONG then.

...well any statement has a chance of being right sooner or latter.

The trick is to get the event and the policy to coincide on a non-geological timescale.


Although I'll agree that Bush senior missed the chance after the gulf war. Ah for hindsight.

[erik_blank]

Actually, he was WRONG then. But he was doing his job, promoting his President's policy. His President's foolish, timid, short-sighted policy.

Had we finished the job the first time, there would have been no flaunting of the UN inspections, no oil-for-food corruption scandals, no payments to Palestinian suicide bombers, no Fedayeen Saddam to form the core of the Sunni "insurgency", no sense of betrayal to turn the Shia Iraqis against us, and several hundred thousand Iraqis executed by the Baathist regime after 1991 might still be alive...to say nothing of the international animosity that might have been avoided had Saddam been toppled by an international coalition instead of by "unilateral" action.

While I do feel that it would have been good to remove Saddam then, I question a few of your comments.
To my knowledge (and it is limited) I have not seen any verifiable proof that the Iraq regime supported any of the Palestinian suicide bombers, as most of their support (again to my knowledge) has been coming from Saudi Arabia.
Since Iraq has been a relatively new country (in terms of how old the civilized region is there) that was formed by European colonial powers in an effort to prevent a pan Arabian nation, it was created intentionally with portions of different tribal lands forced together into one 'national' boundary that was intended to prevent unity with anything other than a 'strong man' government, much like the areas of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Bosniawere created by the Soviets. As such, I doubt that anything could have held this neo-state together after the loss of it’s dictatorial leader.
In addition, the Fedayeen Saddam may not have had such a large following, but I believe that it or something similar would have formed anyway simply from the fact that the Sunni people had benefited so much from having Saddam in office, and that fact that these people had generally been treated quite well by the government (unlike their Shia citizens), that the loss of his presence would easily have lead to an insurgency in an effort to reclaim power.

If I remember correctly one of the primary reasons that we did not invade Iraq was that the UN had not authorized an invasion. They had authorized the removal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait, but not an invasion.

Finally, and this is where I really think the decision came from, it was not in the Bush family’s interest to remove Saddam. I have read reports of pre-Kuwait invasion visits by US state department representative who essentially said they did not care what Saddam did in this region, and that if he wanted to expand his power the US would not stop him. This was his green light to invade. Why would the State Department do this? My personal view is that by allowing Saddam to invade we would have the ability to show our military muscle to the surrounding nations, allow for the creation of near permanent US military bases that allows for our own colonization of the region for people like Shell, ARCO, etc. Now with the area even more unstable, these corporate giants have been able to consolidate even more control over the regional oil resources and production facilities. They have managed to create instability in the region which caused disruption to the supply lines – driving up prices – and at the same time managed to install a corporate friendly regime that has essentially given away the store to these conglomerates.

War for Oil? My opinion – Yes.

[HDG]

much like the areas of Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, and Bosnia were created by the Soviets.

What?! You're off by decades.

[mrbiggs]

Actually, he was WRONG then. But he was doing his job, promoting his President's policy. His President's foolish, timid, short-sighted policy.

Had we finished the job the first time, there would have been no flaunting of the UN inspections, no oil-for-food corruption scandals, no payments to Palestinian suicide bombers, no Fedayeen Saddam to form the core of the Sunni "insurgency", no sense of betrayal to turn the Shia Iraqis against us, and several hundred thousand Iraqis executed by the Baathist regime after 1991 might still be alive...to say nothing of the international animosity that might have been avoided had Saddam been toppled by an international coalition instead of by "unilateral" action.

The part of the video that was ironic was his predictions for what would have happened had we deposed Saddam, which turned out to be quite correct. So in those, he was entirely right.

[Inquartata]

I have not seen any verifiable proof that the Iraq regime supported any of the Palestinian suicide bombers

Widely reported in the press at the time:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in656284.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe...ans/index.html

it was not in the Bush family’s interest to remove Saddam. I have read reports of pre-Kuwait invasion visits by US state department representative who essentially said they did not care what Saddam did in this region, and that if he wanted to expand his power the US would not stop him.

Don't bogart those reports, man. Pass 'em over.

[Inquartata]

The part of the video that was ironic was his predictions for what would have happened had we deposed Saddam, which turned out to be quite correct. So in those, he was entirely right.

You're assuming the same result under two very different sets of circumstances. Why?

If I enter a tournament which has Keeth Smart and Jason Rogers entered in it, and I say, "Man, I am going to get my a** kicked"...and then both of them drop out of the competition, leaving only Cs, Ds and Us and me in the field...is my prediction still as valid as before?


I have offered several reasons why things might have turned out differently had we invaded after the Gulf War, rather than giving Saddam ten years to prepare and for conditions to sour. Care to address them?

[mrbiggs]

You're assuming the same result under two very different sets of circumstances. Why?

If I enter a tournament which has Keeth Smart and Jason Rogers entered in it, and I say, "Man, I am going to get my a** kicked"...and then both of them drop out of the competition, leaving only Cs, Ds and Us and me in the field...is my prediction still as valid as before?


I have offered several reasons why things might have turned out differently had we invaded after the Gulf War, rather than giving Saddam ten years to prepare and for conditions to sour. Care to address them?

It's not that they should have thought that the chaos was the most likely result after the invasion. It's that they should have considered it. Again and again, the administration said that we'd be greeted with open arms, as liberators, and that a democracy would soon be established. I don't think that this line of thinking should have been their primary prediction, but I think it should have been considered.

[Inquartata]

That wasn't my question, and it doesn't explain your position, either.

I call non sequitur, in fact!

[jeff]

I call non sequitur, in fact!

That's t.3.14159, right?

Having started this thread (this part of the board has been soooo placid), I'll just add my .02: Cheney's analysis was spot on back in 1994, as mrbiggs noted. It would be interesting to pose a debate between Cheny-then and Cheney-now, to see why the positions changed so dramatically. As Inq also noted, Cheney was in both cases consistent in "promoting his President's policy", though I have to add that in the recent president he was doing far more, by actually forming much of that policy.

I'll add that we would have had a better chance of success and less political blow back if we'd done it back in 1994 (I am not disagreeing with Inq, in other words). The situation was different: an Arab, Muslim country invaded another Arab, Muslim country and we came to its aid. Our president (41) assembled a coalition of many countries with us as the acknowledged and positively-viewed lead. Quite a different situation from the current world, where it has inflamed the East-West divide over accusations of "crusaders" (abetted by #43's unfortunate use of language, come to think of it).

[jessicasimpson]

no oil-for-food corruption scandals

Because The vice presedent did not own 400,000 of the company that was on the monitary recieving end of that corruption, unlike today. Also Bush 41 did not need a war to frighten voters into re-electing him, as he had (iirc) 90% approval rating durring the gulf war

[Lemonaide]

Jeff I agree that there is a lack of spirit. But it's interesting to see why..... unless we, ourselves of Fencing net actually take office, there won't be a good outcome. Here it is: Iraq was invaded because we understood that those were the guys who sold the stuff that blows things up to the Aligators who are actually from Afgan. We stopped Russia from attacking them, because we wanted to control the outcome, but they're smart enough to know that so, they proceed to blow up the wtc. But, since we also realized that they would realize that we would want to control things, we countered with a blitz in Iraq, knowing that the outcome of all outcomes would be that everyone on the entire planet would have to show their cards...
pony up as they say, everyone would have to put it up up up! and once they do, dad-blame it all.... every dad-blamed cowgirl in the en-tire wild west would go berserk in retaliatory vainglory, simply for one reason [I'm wiping spit from the side of my lip now] because by the time it got to Iraq most of the citizens would be eating dust from lack of employment and therefore woud be desperate enough to join the aligator men and that's what has happened... or they could resist the temptation and stick with old glory for one reason and one reason only - to save the nation.

Back to you.

[mrbiggs]

That wasn't my question, and it doesn't explain your position, either.

I call non sequitur, in fact!

I didn't answer your question because it was based on a misunderstanding of my position. No, I don't think that the same result in Iraq should have been expected in 1994 and 2002. However, the result expected in Iraq in 1994 should have been considered in 2002. It was not.

[Inquartata]

I didn't answer your question because it was based on a misunderstanding of my position. No, I don't think that the same result in Iraq should have been expected in 1994 and 2002.

So IOW no, his "prediction" was NOT correct...then. Only after multiple circumstances changed to conform to the conditions of the predictions was it "correct"?

In the same way, if I predict that Dennis Kucinich is going to win the Democratic Presidential nomination, that prediction is "correct"...even though it will have to await the sudden simultaneous deaths of all the other candidates before it can be SHOWN to be so?

However, the result expected in Iraq in 1994 should have been considered in 2002. It was not.

And you know this because you were at all the NSC meetings?

[Inquartata]

Because The vice presedent did not own 400,000 of the company that was on the monitary recieving end of that corruption, unlike today.

AFAIK Halliburton had nothing to do with the oil-for-food scandal. Perhaps you have different information. I would love to see it. Otherwise your comment looks like nothing so much as an example of the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy...

[jessicasimpson]

AFAIK Halliburton had nothing to do with the oil-for-food scandal.

congratulations, you got my point



[/QUOTE] your comment looks like nothing so much as an example of the ad hominem circumstantial fallacy...[/QUOTE]

yes it is circumstantial, if it was proven fact, the vice prez would have allready stepped down, been convited, and pardoned by the president

[jeff]

Back to you.

Mango, right?

[mrbiggs]

And you know this because you were at all the NSC meetings?

I know this because it's what happened and the administration can't stop talking about how they didn't expect this resistance, didn't expect this splitting of the Iraqis and so on.

If they'd expected it and planned for it, we wouldn't be in this situation.

So IOW no, his "prediction" was NOT correct...then. Only after multiple circumstances changed to conform to the conditions of the predictions was it "correct"?

In the same way, if I predict that Dennis Kucinich is going to win the Democratic Presidential nomination, that prediction is "correct"...even though it will have to await the sudden simultaneous deaths of all the other candidates before it can be SHOWN to be so?

His prediction was correct. I don't think it necessarily should have been known in 2002 that the situation was sufficiently similar to that in 1994 that it should have been assumed to be still true, but it should have been considered.

I should also point out that none of the specifics Cheney mentioned in the video changed significantly in the next eight years.


Your analogy fails because your prediction is currently wrong. Cheney's prediction about the 1994 election was correct.

It'd be like you saying Barack Obama was going to win the nomination now, but several events happen that give Hillary a significant lead. Then, if Barack was to win the election, it would be somewhat a surprise, but you could hardly say that no one could have guessed that he would win.