Reply With Quote
(pin dropping..)
...circa an interview back in 1994.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
Transcript:
Q: Do you think the U.S., or U.N. forces, should have moved into Baghdad?
CHENEY: No.
Q: Why not?
CHENEY: 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 eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, 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.
Last edited by PixelPusher; 08-12-2007 at 05:48 PM.
(pin dropping..)
for a more comprehensive view of Cheney the Younger's prophetic views on Iraq, read his speech to the Soref Symposium back in 1991.
Some choice cuts:
His buddy Rumsfeld must have been snoozing during that portion.Some have suggested that if we had gotten involved just a little bit -- for example, if we had shot down a few helicopters -- it would have changed the outcome of the conflict. Again, I think that is a misguided notion. One of the lessons that comes out of all of this is we should not ask our military personnel to engage "a little bit" in a war. If you are going to go to war, let's send the whole group; let's make certain that we've got a force of sufficient size, as we did when we went into Kuwait, so that we do not suffer any more casualties than are absolutely necessary.
I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place.
What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?
I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
Yeah but that was before we had concrete intelligence reports that Saddam possessed WMD's.
Interesting stuff, but that was a different time, different war, different objective. We never prepared for the idea then to take Iraq over, and it would have been a real mess compared to today. This time, we planned to take Iraq, and look at how many months it took us moving troops, equipment, and ships before we started.
This current war is not a quagmire, and don't expect it will ever be unless the democrats get their way.
The democrats are so invested in us losing this war. They are more concerned about political power than making things right. Even if you don't agree with that, just take a moment and consider the possibilities that I may be right.
....Ummm.....Yeah, I think even the most red-white-and blue blooded American has considered that 'possibility' for long enough...Iraq's biggest problem is the religious secretarian violence going on between the Jordan-Saudi Arabia backed Sunni, the Iran-Syria backed Shiite and the Kurds who back the Maliki government...then you have ole Maquada running his own virtual city-state in Sadr-city...these are all problems that need to be addressed by a legitimate Iraq government and supported by internal military forces not foreign forces, not matter our intention......
America became a republic when colonizers united, despite their religous and social differences, and expelled a common enemy....and so it has to be for Iraq...the government and it's army must be able to defend itself, lest it will be either controlled and under the power forever of the colonizer or crumble by its own lack of legitimacy and something else will take it's place...
Cheney: 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 eastern Iraq the Iranians would like to claim, 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.
Preparedness is never mentioned or implied in Cheney's statement, only the results of "taking over Iraq". He makes no exception for preparation bringing a different result. No, Cheney was right when he made the statement and it was prophetic.
Last edited by UV Ray; 08-13-2007 at 01:12 AM.
What color is the sky in your world?
But the central questions, put forth by then SecDef Cheney remain the same:
What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists?
How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place?
What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew?
How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?
Spot on
"We never prepared for the idea then to take Iraq over"
And dubya and head and rummy weren't prerapared to take Iraq over in March 2003, either. head was totally correct in predicting a quagmire for Iraq.
But by the end of the 90s, after 8 years of nearby US occupation surveillance, over-flying, and sanctions had emasculated Saddam militarily and infrastructurally, head/AIE/PNAC/neo- s thought the US could push Saddam over and grab the oil, and wrote Clinton to start the Iraq quagmire.
I won't deny that. I'm only pointing out that cir stances and priority are different in 2003 than they were in 1991. We didn't prepare for a full invasion in 1991, but we did for 2003. It does make a big difference. If you really get a balanced set of news sources, you know things aren't as bad as the main scream media makes it out to be.
I was in a rather unique position in the Army in 1991. I was in a communications relay position for the Joint Chiefs, NATO, and the European theatre. I was at the net control station for what was then known as the "Cemetery Net." We dealt with traffic for nuclear weapons, and Airborne Command Post. In support of Desert Storm, we communicated directly with them. Many things are declassified since the wall coming down and Statigic Air Command being disassembled. I could tell some stories, but I'm not sure which ones without having to shoot you! I worked at a place that was also dubbed "The Antenna Farm."
Here is a satellite view of a visible antenna from the Antenna Farm I worked at:
I won't deny that. I'm only pointing out that cir stances and priority are different in 2003 than they were in 1991. We didn't prepare for a full invasion in 1991, but we did for 2003. It does make a big difference. If you really get a balanced set of news sources, you know things aren't as bad as the main scream media makes it out to be.
I was in a rather unique position in the Army in 1991. I was in a communications relay position for the Joint Chiefs, NATO, and the European theatre. I was at the net control station for what was then known as the "Cemetery Net." We dealt with traffic for nuclear weapons, and Airborne Command Post. In support of Desert Storm, we communicated directly with them. Many things are declassified since the wall coming down and Statigic Air Command being disassembled. I could tell some stories, but I'm not sure which ones without having to shoot you! I worked at a place that was also dubbed "The Antenna Farm."
Here is a satellite view of a visible antenna from the Antenna Farm I worked at:
If you really get a balanced set of news sources, you know things aren't as bad as the main scream media makes it out to be.
well by all means provide us with some of those balanced new sources. why do I have a feeling that they are right wing blogs?
How often have I linked a reference to a blog? Pretty uncommon for me, isn't it. I don't recall a time right now, but I may have.
CNN commenting and showing the clip now.
GWB should've taken notes when his biological didn't bother.
you're right, Saddam's actually had WMDs that worked back in 1991.
Typical. Changing the subject. You know that's not what I meant, don't you?
You don't even know what you mean. Besides, how's it changing the subject of the "cir stances in Iraq in 1991" when I'm merely illustrating one of the "cir stances in Iraq in 1991?" You really are a political hack that brings rarely an insight into any political discussion. Consider yourself on ignore.
quagmire indeed:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070815/iraq/
I guess I don't know what you mean. Yes, he had working WMD then. It is all but confirmed he had working WMD just before the 2003 invasion too.
I say that becasue you imply WMD was the only reason we went in. Hack mode no. An attempt for the truth, yes.
Thank-you. Less responces to me means less I need to respond to you.
I guess that depends on who you believe.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/04/23/cia.iraq/index.html
I choose to believe what I knew when I left the Army from working in the Cemetary Net. I don't care what the media, or people talking to the media that may have agendas say.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
