nuckles.... nowhere in my post do I give complete justification for the United States invasion of Iraq. What I said... was that we didn't start it.
So please, don't misinterpret what I wrote, or worse, make assumptions that I agreed with that decision.
Additionaly, the second Iraq war, much like first, was not a unilateral action of one country against another and, contrary to what you stated, was very much a unique case, as Iraq had previously demonstrated, by war, the danger it and it's leader posed to the world. The other, 'axis of evil' countries Bush referred to were quite different situations. If North Korea suddenly decides to overrun South Korea you can bet the exact same scenario, as happened with Kuwait, would play out.
Also... to think that Saddam Hussein, humiliated on the world stage and his country economically destroyed due to sanctions he brought upon himself and his people... wasn't stockpiliing weapons of mass destruction or aiding Al-Qaeda is simply naive and shows an amazing lack of perception into human nature. The man was evil, that doesn't just go away.. that's who he was. C'mon. The man was a second-rate Hitler, maybe you'd like to answer how the world would have benefited if we'd 'removed' him prior to 1939.
Yes... we didn't find anything.
You know why?
They moved them. It's not like the U.N. suddenly crept up one night and surprised Iraq.. they knew we were coming. Whatever Saddam had, regardless of how American intelligence perceived reconnaissance pictures or what Cheney truly believed... is still out there.
While the second war with Iraq may or may not have been justified in proportion and scale with the first, the responsibility for it lies squarely at the feet of Saddam....
just like I said in my first post.

What about a war on Israel, This country seems to be commiting war crimes for years which go un-paid!

and better yet the give a rats ass about us, yet we are in debt and giving them billions of dollars in aid? How about aiding us... your own people?

Enough is Enough

Someone needs to do something very severe with Iran very soon. In Iran we have a nation that is led by people who actively support terrorists. Their leadership has stated in no uncertain terms that they want Israel destroyed, and it's obvious from the terrorists that they've helped train and fund that the United States is no less a target.

It's politically unpopular right now in the United States to support any military action against any country. But let's get something straight. Politically unpopular doesn't mean wrong. All it means is that our hands are tied. It may be that Iran has to hand a nuclear weapon to a terrorist before the citizens of the United States let their government act again.

It's pleasant to think that if we're just nice to everyone, they'll be nice to us. Young adults feel intellectually superior because they hold this belief and scorn anyone who doesn't share it. But that doesn't work if you have cultures that teach a completely different value system - one where anyone with a different religious belief must be killed, and doing so will earn you eternal salvation. You can't beat this by being nice. You simply have to do whatever it takes to prevent people with that sort of mentality from achieving the means to kill people.

But I don't think our culture will be willing to take the necessary steps until a huge disaster comes along. Lessons from the 40's are lost, and we've forgotten what sick people in charge of countries can do. Now we're willing to risk letting it happen again, this time with much bigger weapons.

Interesting and very misleading title. First off Cheney was never president and second the article stated Cheney's opinion on what should have been done to the drone. He never stated anything about going to war to recover the drone.  The article also includes a lot of bias and useless opinions by the author. It is very doubtful that destroying the drone would have led to war. It would have, at worst, led to some political fallback. It's not like Iran would hate the US any more than it does now, but neither country would want a war either.

I won't go into too much of the article.  However, just going by the statement "a quick airstrike" I can tell you Cheney is full of shit.  Let us just say this supposed airstrike only targets the drone.  Could there be any possibility that Iran would declare war after being hit on their land with a US airstrike (even if it is just taking out a drone)?  I believe there is and thus an airstrike to take a drone out is completely idiotic.

With isolation and alienation do extremists gain their power. The rise of the Ultra-nationalists on the other side that did so much damage was due to the isolation that all countries experienced during the Great Depression. In countries more susceptible to extremism, these ideals took root more strongly because the people had no outside voices to gainsay them. Intimate contact with other peoples: diplomacy and trade, these are the things that defeat extremism more thoroughly than weaponry

Take Cuba for instance. It is the sole fault of the United States of America that Castro and the Communists have lasted as long as they have. You see, the embargo was the best gift that regime could have been given: a constant source of adversity, adversity that gives credence to the regime's message that America is out to get them, and adversity that keeps the people struggling against poverty

In no way am i saying that we should tolerate the bad things, of course. The views of the extremists should be actively discouraged as staunchly as possible, but one must take into account that methods used against the extremists have the tendency to reinforce their positions. If we blow up an Iranian hospital in the course of trying to stop them from acquiring a nuclear weapon (like the aspirin factory we blew up in Sudan when we're looking for bin Laden) is just going to reinforce the position that America is bad and the extremists are good

Mr. Khan:
"Intimate contact with other peoples: diplomacy and trade, these are the things that defeat extremism more thoroughly than weaponry"

.....No. Absolutely not. That's how interaction works among nations who apire towards peace. That is not how power works, which is the fundemantal downfall with that type of ideology. You can't defend against a sword with words and gifts, and as long as swords remain, there will always be someone willing to use them.
For example, at some point in the future a nuclear bomb will be used to again.... history just hasn't provided the opportunity yet.

I never said anything about which options were viable or if the actions that he suggested were even ones I agreed with. I just stated that the title of the thread is incorrect and misleading and what would be the more likely fallout if the drone was destroyed. Don't really care about the article either, it's not any sort of news.

People not in power especially those from an opposition party tend to run their mouth since there are no consequences they have to face. Dick was a very dangerous man since he wanted to pretty much eliminate any country that was not in the US orbit but thankfully he was overruled numerous times while in office. He also believed public opinion didn't matter while in power so he did display quite the authoritarian streak. But one has to wonder what he would have done if he became President. Would he have been as hardline or would reality set in that he can't go round bombing everyone that doesn't obey his commands and that public sentiment does count for something.

One of the great untold stories of 9/11, was how Donald Rumsfield and Dick Cheney wanted to go and bomb Iraq right after 9/11. They were stooped by Richard A. Clarke saying the only one connected is Osama Bin Laden.

After 9/11 Rumsfield and Cheney did everything possible to get Bush to attack Iraq.

That is the type of a guy Cheney was, a very powerful guy but a terrible person.