• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cheney rips Obama over foreign policy in op-ed

Dayton3 said:
Amazing how many people seem to think that if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq that everything would be wonderful in the Middle East today.

Have they forgotten

1) Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of nearly TWO MILLION people (and yeah, I can provide a source on that)
2) Saddam Hussein had invaded two of his neighbors and launched ballistic missiles into four of them.
3) Saddam Hussein required near continuous U.S. patrolling to contain for TWELVE years

Plus

4) Saddam Hussein required at least three significant U.S. bombing campaigns in the 1990s to "contain".

5) Saddam Hussein continually attacked the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south of Iraq requiring the U.S. and British to provide near constant no fly zone protection.

How is that "stability"?
Click to expand...
I've said it before and no doubt I will have to say it again ...
Saddam was an asshole and he was our asshole.
The US put he and his party in power.
rumsfeld.jpg
US and British Support for Hussein Regime
 
Top Cat said:
Cheney rips Obama over foreign policy in op-ed – CNN Political Ticker - CNN.com Blogs

You have to love the irony of that first line..Seriously Dick, just STFU and go shoot some more friends and take your skanky daughter with you.
Click to expand...

People think Cheney is an idiot than what is Obama....

I predicted this "early pullout" since the war started - you're going to see anarchy in the Middle East.

It's irrelevant weather or not who started the war (which was both democrats and republicans) however to play the blame game is absolutely irrelevant -- there is certainly a problem and it needs to be dealt with.

We are really dealing with Sharia Psychopaths....... We really need to forget politics and ideology and stop this insanity otherwise we will have basically anarchy...

Obama want's to really do nothing because he's not capable of doing anything because he lacks the balls - and generally the geopolitical authority/knowledge, which is why these "vigilantes" are so comfortable..... These individuals (including our own government) are a serious threat to US security and economy.

This ****ing idiot was only elected for individual selfish reasons/political reasons....
 
Dayton3 said:
Amazing how many people seem to think that if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq that everything would be wonderful in the Middle East today.

Have they forgotten

1) Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of nearly TWO MILLION people (and yeah, I can provide a source on that)
2) Saddam Hussein had invaded two of his neighbors and launched ballistic missiles into four of them.
3) Saddam Hussein required near continuous U.S. patrolling to contain for TWELVE years

Plus

4) Saddam Hussein required at least three significant U.S. bombing campaigns in the 1990s to "contain".

5) Saddam Hussein continually attacked the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south of Iraq requiring the U.S. and British to provide near constant no fly zone protection.

How is that "stability"?
Click to expand...

Saddam didn't "invade" Iraq - It was a coupe ...... Republicans and Democrats don't understand that..

Anyone who actually blames "Saddam" of invading Iraq will lose - or even makes that claim that Saddam did. That is basic historic ignorance.

This **** happened 20 years before I was born..... Republicans are dead - Libertarians are taking over now.

Democrats will continually repeat the same nonsense but the truth is my generation will either buy it or calls bull**** because they know and are educated.

It's only a matter of time before the Tea Party/Libertarians takes over.
 
DiAnna said:
Liz Cheney is a political animal. She has campaigned for national political office, she has been on numerous cable news networks as a "political commentator", and she has written numerous political opinion pieces for various newspapers. As such, people have a right to question her opinions, her commentary, and her conclusions publicly.

For crying out loud, you act as if she was 13 years old and some tv shock-jock compared her photo to one of an ugly dog and said the dog was better looking....

Oops, sorry, that was actually Rude Lintball talking about Chelsea Clinton when she was in 8th grade. I'm sure you were appropriately outraged at the time! :lol:
Click to expand...

Yeah and Malia could be 30 and you people would be going, "boo-hoo-hoo! Pickin' on 'at poor girl", so get a grip.
 
apdst said:
Yeah and Malia could be 30 and you people would be going, "boo-hoo-hoo! Pickin' on 'at poor girl", so get a grip.
Click to expand...

Who cares? that's that's makes an individual not care?

The difference between others and another is the fact that once cares and the other doesn't give a **** because they're educated and aren't making opinionated junk based on facts but rater FACTS.

Truth is some people just want to be reassured of their positions - regardless the facts - the facts are never important but the idea or philosophy is.
 
Dayton3 said:
Amazing how many people seem to think that if the U.S. had not invaded Iraq that everything would be wonderful in the Middle East today.

Have they forgotten

1) Saddam Hussein was responsible for the deaths of nearly TWO MILLION people (and yeah, I can provide a source on that)
2) Saddam Hussein had invaded two of his neighbors and launched ballistic missiles into four of them.
3) Saddam Hussein required near continuous U.S. patrolling to contain for TWELVE years

Plus

4) Saddam Hussein required at least three significant U.S. bombing campaigns in the 1990s to "contain".

5) Saddam Hussein continually attacked the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south of Iraq requiring the U.S. and British to provide near constant no fly zone protection.

How is that "stability"?
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the fly zones were the beginning of the mistake in policy. They provided the opportunity\excuse to go back in later.

In hindsight, I think it would have played out better to just gut their military in 1991 to the point that overthrow would have worked and then backed off, letting the Iraqis hash out a new government amongst themselves, and dealt with the winners. This is before outside terrorists had come in, so MAYBE we would have gotten a popular government running things. If we had to gut them 2-3 times before we found someone acceptable, I believe we still would have come out ahead, compared to where we are now.

Such a "hit and quit" type approach may have made AQ rethink 9/11, since that wouldn't have liked that response quite so much as what they got.
 
Last edited:
1) Saddam Hussein launched the invasion of Iran in 1980 that started a war that killed or injured TWO million people

2) The U.S. did not put Saddam Hussein for the Baath regime in power. At best we tolerated them as the "lesser of two evils".

3) Henry Kissinger after the Iran/Iraq War began referred to it by quoting Churchill regarding Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union.

"Pity they both can't lose"-which was a good summary of American opinions regarding Iraq.

4) The Iraqi military used mainly Soviet and some French weapons systems. There is not a single significant weapons system used by Iraq during the time of Saddam Hussein that was built or licensed by the United States. Same for his WMD programs.

5) Even assuming U.S. "support" for Saddam Hussein over Iran during that war, that in no way makes the U.S. morally responsible for Saddam Husseins later atrocities and actions. No more than supporting Stalin over Hitler makes the U.S. responsible for the atrocities and actions of the Soviet Union.

6) Has it occurred to any of you the complete FREAKING INSANITY of you saying good things about Saddam Hussein while condemning a U.S. president (George W. Bush).?
 
apdst said:
Yeah and Malia could be 30 and you people would be going, "boo-hoo-hoo! Pickin' on 'at poor girl", so get a grip.
Click to expand...

That is not only an idiotic thing to say, it literally makes no sense in conjunction with my post. If you have no sensible response, silence is usually best.
 
apdst said:
I'm not going to take cheap shots at someone's kids. Sorry I'm more honorable than that.
Click to expand...

His daughter did run for Senate (I think it was Senate, anyway). Once you throw your hat in the ring, you lose the free pass.

When Malia runs for office, she'll be open too.
 
apdst said:
Yeah and Malia could be 30 and you people would be going, "boo-hoo-hoo! Pickin' on 'at poor girl", so get a grip.
Click to expand...

When and if she runs for office, she's open for cheap shots.
 
Dayton3 said:
1) Saddam Hussein launched the invasion of Iran in 1980 that started a war that killed or injured TWO million people

2) The U.S. did not put Saddam Hussein for the Baath regime in power. At best we tolerated them as the "lesser of two evils".

3) Henry Kissinger after the Iran/Iraq War began referred to it by quoting Churchill regarding Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union.

"Pity they both can't lose"-which was a good summary of American opinions regarding Iraq.

4) The Iraqi military used mainly Soviet and some French weapons systems. There is not a single significant weapons system used by Iraq during the time of Saddam Hussein that was built or licensed by the United States. Same for his WMD programs.

5) Even assuming U.S. "support" for Saddam Hussein over Iran during that war, that in no way makes the U.S. morally responsible for Saddam Husseins later atrocities and actions. No more than supporting Stalin over Hitler makes the U.S. responsible for the atrocities and actions of the Soviet Union.

6) Has it occurred to any of you the complete FREAKING INSANITY of you saying good things about Saddam Hussein while condemning a U.S. president (George W. Bush).?
Click to expand...


I have nothing good to say about Saddam, but the Reagan administration's support of him and the Muhajadeen was pretty significant.
 
rocket88 said:
I have nothing good to say about Saddam, but the Reagan administration's support of him and the Muhajadeen was pretty significant.
Click to expand...

IIRC, what Saddam Hussein got in the way of support from the Reagan Admin. was some satellite intelligence and I believe the U.S. approved a third party selling Iraq cluster bombs.

You could argue that in terms of weapons we "supported" Iran more (Hawk missiles).
 
Dayton3 said:
IIRC, what Saddam Hussein got in the way of support from the Reagan Admin. was some satellite intelligence and I believe the U.S. approved a third party selling Iraq cluster bombs.

You could argue that in terms of weapons we "supported" Iran more (Hawk missiles).
Click to expand...

Also allowed selling of Anthrax strains. Or at least didn't get in the way.

Iraq Purchased Anthrax From US Company:
 
rocket88 said:
Also allowed selling of Anthrax strains. Or at least didn't get in the way.

Iraq Purchased Anthrax From US Company:
Click to expand...

I assume you realize that back in the 1980s, individuals or corporations could order things like Anthrax with little or no oversight.

And remember, those were not "weaponized Anthrax". You couldn't put what was bought by Iraq (or anyone else) on top of a warhead and launch it. Or even in a spray bottle to use.
 
Dayton3 said:
I assume you realize that back in the 1980s, individuals or corporations could order things like Anthrax with little or no oversight.

And remember, those were not "weaponized Anthrax". You couldn't put what was bought by Iraq (or anyone else) on top of a warhead and launch it. Or even in a spray bottle to use.
Click to expand...

Don't be so silly, why else would they buy it?
 
Top Cat said:
I was being facetious about the shooting remark. His daughter is an entirely different matter.
Click to expand...

His daughter is not a public figure. She could sue you. Did you think of that?
 
apdst said:
No, I tell the truth about Obama. I leave his family out of it.
Click to expand...

Obama's wife, a licensed attorney is a public figure. Moreover she has sought the limelight in her own right. His daughters are not public figures and should definitely be left out of it.
 
Buck Ewer said:
It should be noted here that Cheney and Bush both can not leave the US boarders or they will be arrested and tried for war crimes committed during their administration..


Dick is also been reportedly guilty of angry morning sex.
View attachment 67168424
Click to expand...

Bush went to Africa for Mandela's funeral. He was not arrested nor tried for anything.
 
Vice President Dick Cheney is right on the money. Obama is the most disasterous president in my lifetime.
 
But she is on FOX and is part of the political spectrum.
She should be tried for Sedition, Libel and Slander--along with her father, the chickenhawk war criminal.
Maenad said:
His daughter is not a public figure. She could sue you. Did you think of that?
Click to expand...

She is a public figure--and now runs a non-profit "birtherism" type agency to tell Americans how Obama is intentionally hurting America .
 
Last edited:
ObamacareFail said:
Vice President Dick Cheney is right on the money. Obama is the most disasterous president in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
Dick Cheney is hated and villified by 4,500 families in the USA, along with over 30,000 new Veterans in hospitals--for starters.
Cheney won't be satisfied until he blows up the whole ****ing world -
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom