Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'm surprised this hasn't been a topic yet, so here goes. In a clip that's now all over youtube, the Daily Show, and all the news stations, Dick Cheney in '94 explains why it would have been a bad idea in 1991 to have taken out Saddam and occupied Iraq when we easily could have. He basically says it would have been a bad idea, because once Saddam is gone, what then? Iraq could fragment, and we'd be stuck in a quagmire. (Yes, he uses that exact word). <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =6BEsZMvrq-I</a> Here's a transcript and a link to that: <a href="http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003624798" target="_blank">http://www.editorandpublisher. com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003624798</a> "Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad? A: No. Q: Why not? A: Because if we'd gone to Baghdad we would have been all alone. There wouldn't have been anybody else with us. There would have been a U.S. occupation of Iraq. None of the Arab forces that were willing to fight with us in Kuwait were willing to invade Iraq. Once you got to Iraq and took it over, took down Saddam Hussein's government, then what are you going to put in its place? That's a very volatile part of the world, and if you take down the central government of Iraq, you could very easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off: part of it, the Syrians would like to have to the west, part of it -- eastern Iraq -- the Iranians would like to claim, they fought over it for eight years. In the north you've got the Kurds, and if the Kurds spin loose and join with the Kurds in Turkey, then you threaten the territorial integrity of Turkey. It's a quagmire if you go that far and try to take over Iraq. The other thing was casualties. Everyone was impressed with the fact we were able to do our job with as few casualties as we had. But for the 146 Americans killed in action, and for their families -- it wasn't a cheap war. And the question for the president, in terms of whether or not we went on to Baghdad, took additional casualties in an effort to get Saddam Hussein, was how many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? Our judgment was, not very many, and I think we got it right. " So far, the only justification I've seen on right-wing sites is "9/11 changed everything," but of course it didn't. It didn't change the history of that part of the world, or the fact that Iraq was an artificial country to begin with (cobbled together by the British in the 1920's in THEIR interests out of peoples who never got along), or the fact that other countries in the region would be very interested in a weakened/fragmented Iraq, or the problems with Turkey if the Kurds wanted their own country, or the simple fact that if you create a power vacuum you almost inevitable create a power struggle. Discuss.
Originally Posted By imadisneygal I mentioned this Daily Show clip in the other thread but with all the arguing it got skipped over. My question there was something about what might have changed to make him think that this would be a quick, easy war with few casualties when back then he thought it would be a quagmire. That show was great, with Jon Stewart very passionate about the whole "change of mind" thing. The man who wrote the book about Cheney was barely holding his head above water trying to defend the VP.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <So far, the only justification I've seen on right-wing sites is "9/11 changed everything," but of course it didn't.> 9/11 changed a lot, but also ten years of Saddam defying the UN and not complying with the cease fire changed a lot also. Yes, we risked a quagmire going into Iraq. It still could happen. But there weren't any better choices, as much as some people insist otherwise.
Originally Posted By barboy I have no problem that he "180ed"--- in fact I respect those who have the integrity and honesty to adapt or change for the better. But his "180" has led to catastrophe resulting in wasted billions and thousands of lives---so now I call him a duckhead.
Originally Posted By barboy "Yes, we risked a quagmire going into Iraq. It still could happen" Not to get too personal here, but what planet are you from? So, it(a quagmire) still COULD happen???? No, let's change that helping verb to an "is" as in: It is happening.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Yes, we risked a quagmire going into Iraq. It still could happen. But there weren't any better choices, as much as some people insist otherwise. Of course there were. Continuing to contain him (as we do with Korea, which actually HAS nukes), letting the inspectors do their jobs, and eventually discovering through them and/or better inteligence on our end that he didn't have WMD after all. Sounds like a better choice to me. To say we had no other choice but to invade and occupy in March 2003 (it had to be then!! We couldn't wait till May and let the inspectors do their jobs, as they begged us to do!!) because Saddam might have had WMD makes no more sense than saying that it would be wise today to invade and occupy the Korean penninsula because we know Kim has nukes. Yes, he has nukes, but that doesn't mean it would be WISE to invade and occupy that country. That's the disconnect that always eludes you.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It is happening.> No, it's not. There's been a lot of "two steps forward, one step back", but it hasn't been a quagmire. We've made a lot of progress in Iraq. Of course, you wouldn't know that from reading the headlines in the New York Tiems, or watching CNN Headline News or CBS Evening News.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <To say we had no other choice but to invade and occupy in March 2003 (it had to be then!! We couldn't wait till May and let the inspectors do their jobs, as they begged us to do!!) because Saddam might have had WMD makes no more sense than saying that it would be wise today to invade and occupy the Korean penninsula because we know Kim has nukes.> Well, since I didn't say either, I'm not sure what you're point is. <That's the disconnect that always eludes you.> Because I don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean anything eludes me.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <To say we had no other choice but to invade and occupy in March 2003 (it had to be then!! We couldn't wait till May and let the inspectors do their jobs, as they begged us to do!!) because Saddam might have had WMD makes no more sense than saying that it would be wise today to invade and occupy the Korean penninsula because we know Kim has nukes.>> <Well, since I didn't say either, I'm not sure what you're (sic) point is.> You said we had "no better choice" than to invade in March 2003. Which is utter nonsense. <<That's the disconnect that always eludes you.>> <Because I don't agree with your conclusions doesn't mean anything eludes me.> Common sense seems to. (See "we had no better choice.")
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <You said we had "no better choice" than to invade in March 2003. Which is utter nonsense.> I keep trying not to get personal, but sometimes your arrogance is overwhelming. Just because you don't agree with my opinions does not make them nonsense. <Common sense seems to.> No, it doesn't.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<You said we had "no better choice" than to invade in March 2003. Which is utter nonsense.>> <I keep trying not to get personal, but sometimes your arrogance is overwhelming. Just because you don't agree with my opinions does not make them nonsense.> No, the very idea that there we had "no better choice" is just nonsense on its face. Considering that Saddam didn't have the WMD that we insisted he did ALONE (forget the chaos we unleashed for a second) indicates that yes, of course, we had a better choice. And you yourself often use the word "nonsense" to refer to the opinions of me and other people here. So either grow a pair, or "physician, heal thyself." <<Common sense seems to.>> <No, it doesn't.> I disagree.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <No, the very idea that there we had "no better choice" is just nonsense on its face.> No, it's not. And a majority of both houses of Congress felt the same way. <And you yourself often use the word "nonsense" to refer to the opinions of me and other people here.> No, I use the word "nonsense" when people make wild claims that cannot be supported by evidence.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<No, the very idea that there we had "no better choice" is just nonsense on its face.>> <No, it's not. And a majority of both houses of Congress felt the same way.> Yes it is. And isn't that a "faulty appeal to authority?" Because a majority of people vote a certain way doesn't mean that they were right, or that there wasn't a better choice. <<And you yourself often use the word "nonsense" to refer to the opinions of me and other people here.>> <No, I use the word "nonsense" when people make wild claims that cannot be supported by evidence. > "We had no better choice than to invade Iraq" fits that category perfectly. Thank you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Getting back on topic, did anyone else check out the Cheney video from '94?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And isn't that a "faulty appeal to authority?"> No, because when a majority of people make a choice, that implies they all believed that was the best choice. You may believe there was a better choice. I do not. That doesn't make my opinion utter nonsense. <We had no better choice than to invade Iraq" fits that category perfectly.> No, it doesn't, for the reasons I've already given.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> My question there was about what might have changed to make him think that this would be a quick, easy war with few casualties when back then he thought it would be a quagmire. << Consider another possibility - that the quagmire was actively sought out. It's the oldest story in politics - "follow the money". The infamous 'military-industrial complex' was losing funding at the time, and we were beginning to enjoy the "peace dividend" brought about by the end of the cold war. The giant infrastructure of military contractors that had been thriving on fat government spending was now endangered. What was needed was a long messy war that would allow for massive military spending, with the money artfully directed to the "right" suppliers. All they needed was a compliant republican in the white house. Whip snap boom, bob's yer uncle. And there's your real winners in the iraq war - the same people who put bush in the white house are the same people who have profited so obsenely as a result - the warmongers. You think maybe it's just a coincidence?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<And isn't that a "faulty appeal to authority?">> <No, because when a majority of people make a choice, that implies they all believed that was the best choice.> But it does not mean it WAS the best choice. If 70% of the people polled before the war said they thought Saddam was behind 9/11 (and they did), they thought they were giving the best answer to that question. It wasn't the right answer, though. Just what they had been led to believe by the administration's selling of the war. Likewise, when 70% of Arabs polled say they think we're in Iraq primarily to control their oil, it doesn't mean they're right. Just that that's what they believe. So yes, your answer before was the classic "faulty appeal to authority" that you love to bring up. <You may believe there was a better choice. I do not. That doesn't make my opinion utter nonsense.> As I said, the fact that we know he didn't have WMD by itself means that invading was pretty obviously not the best choice. Look, we differ here. But you've used "nonsense" to describe people's opinions that were no more off the wall than saying that invading was the "best choice." Yet when I say it, it's "overwhelming arrogance" (and you "never" make personal attacks). But when you use it, it's not somehow. Doesn't work that way, bucko. <<We had no better choice than to invade Iraq" fits that category perfectly.>> <No, it doesn't, for the reasons I've already given.> Yes it does. Repeating a faulty argument doesn't make it any better. If Saddam had actually had WMD, it still would have been an iffy proposition because of the history of that country and the forces we would be sure to unleash. As Cheney himself said in 1994. Since he didn't have them, quite obviously it was not as good a choice as continued containment and eventually finding out he didn't have WMD would have been. Saying it was something like "understandable given the intelligence at the time" would be arguable, but at least coherent. Continuing to insist it was the "best choice" makes no sense. It is in fact nonsense.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But you've used "nonsense" to describe people's opinions that were no more off the wall than saying that invading was the "best choice."> No, I haven't. <Continuing to insist it was the "best choice" makes no sense. It is in fact nonsense.> No, it's not.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<But you've used "nonsense" to describe people's opinions that were no more off the wall than saying that invading was the "best choice.">> <No, I haven't. > Of course you have. <<Continuing to insist it was the "best choice" makes no sense. It is in fact nonsense.>> <No, it's not.> Yes it is. Are we done now?
