By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - Former President Cheney urges another war (on Iran)

This man's answer to everything is war. War on Afghanistan in 2001 and still going, war on Iraq in 2003 and still going. He wants war on Iran because he is a blood thirsty war mongerer. Iraq War cost 5,000 American soldiers their lives and countless Iraqis their lives and over 1,000 Coalition soldiers lost their lives and the Iraq War cost the US tax payers a staggering one trillion dollars.

Cheney was the man who ran the country during George W. Bush 8 year Presidency.



Around the Network
sethnintendo said:
Kasz216 said:

 

Did Reagan have any active war's... i'm drawing a blank.


There was the whole Iran-Contra debacle.  While we weren't technically at war we did give weapons to help fuel a war.  Funny that we were so scared of WMDs from Iraq (I wasn't) when we allowed the use of chemical warfare against the Iranians and the Kurds.  It is pretty obvious USA needs to stop messing around with other countries (especially the Middle East and Latin America).  Every time USA tries to interfere/intervene with another country they usually mess things up.  The world would be better off if USA would stop trying to interfere with every country.

I wouldn't disagree.  Though yeah, i wouln't call Iran Contra a war persay.  Ridiculious... but not a war.

Still it says something about US Presidents.

Bush's mistake compaired to other presidents wasn't that he ordered an attack.  It's that he actually decided to stay.

Typical US procedure is to just pound the otherside making their lives miserable and targeting their bigwigs until they give us what they want.  In this case he actually ran them out of power, leaving him with the legacy of needing to nation build.

 

Had Bush just bombed Afghanistan until they have up Osama  (or he went to the wind and we got something else from them) and hell, even bombed Iraq until they let weapon inspectors in or something...

Almost no one would of cared.


Problem was, like Jimmy Carter.  George Bush was an optimistic idealist  (of course with far different views.)

Bush actualy thought he could run them out of power, get the US what it anted AND install democracies that would praise the US for saving them.



Kasz216 said:
sethnintendo said:
Kasz216 said:

 

Did Reagan have any active war's... i'm drawing a blank.


There was the whole Iran-Contra debacle.  While we weren't technically at war we did give weapons to help fuel a war.  Funny that we were so scared of WMDs from Iraq (I wasn't) when we allowed the use of chemical warfare against the Iranians and the Kurds.  It is pretty obvious USA needs to stop messing around with other countries (especially the Middle East and Latin America).  Every time USA tries to interfere/intervene with another country they usually mess things up.  The world would be better off if USA would stop trying to interfere with every country.

I wouldn't disagree.  Though yeah, i wouln't call Iran Contra a war persay.  Ridiculious... but not a war.

Still it says something about US Presidents.

Bush's mistake compaired to other presidents wasn't that he ordered an attack.  It's that he actually decided to stay.

Typical US procedure is to just pound the otherside making their lives miserable and targeting their bigwigs until they give us what they want.  In this case he actually ran them out of power, leaving him with the legacy of needing to nation build.

 

Had Bush just bombed Afghanistan until they have up Osama  (or he went to the wind and we got something else from them) and hell, even bombed Iraq until they let weapon inspectors in or something...

Almost no one would of cared.


Problem was, like Jimmy Carter.  George Bush was an optimistic idealist  (of course with far different views.)

Bush actualy thought he could run them out of power, get the US what it anted AND install democracies that would praise the US for saving them.

Grenada was brought up, and you're forgetting Bush 1 and Panama, as well as Bush 2 with the mission against Charles Taylor (president of Liberia)



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
sethnintendo said:
Kasz216 said:

 

Did Reagan have any active war's... i'm drawing a blank.


There was the whole Iran-Contra debacle.  While we weren't technically at war we did give weapons to help fuel a war.  Funny that we were so scared of WMDs from Iraq (I wasn't) when we allowed the use of chemical warfare against the Iranians and the Kurds.  It is pretty obvious USA needs to stop messing around with other countries (especially the Middle East and Latin America).  Every time USA tries to interfere/intervene with another country they usually mess things up.  The world would be better off if USA would stop trying to interfere with every country.

I wouldn't disagree.  Though yeah, i wouln't call Iran Contra a war persay.  Ridiculious... but not a war.

Still it says something about US Presidents.

Bush's mistake compaired to other presidents wasn't that he ordered an attack.  It's that he actually decided to stay.

Typical US procedure is to just pound the otherside making their lives miserable and targeting their bigwigs until they give us what they want.  In this case he actually ran them out of power, leaving him with the legacy of needing to nation build.

 

Had Bush just bombed Afghanistan until they have up Osama  (or he went to the wind and we got something else from them) and hell, even bombed Iraq until they let weapon inspectors in or something...

Almost no one would of cared.


Problem was, like Jimmy Carter.  George Bush was an optimistic idealist  (of course with far different views.)

Bush actualy thought he could run them out of power, get the US what it anted AND install democracies that would praise the US for saving them.

Grenada was brought up, and you're forgetting Bush 1 and Panama, as well as Bush 2 with the mission against Charles Taylor (president of Liberia)

Not so much forgetting as in general, not knowingabout grenada  (was like 1-2) or  the Charles Taylor thing apparently completely missed my radar somehow.

while the Bush 1 Era... as far as Bush foreign policy all I remember is vaguely a "Dead or Alive" novelty Saddam Hussein poster and in general the iraq war, because that was right around the time where I knew who the president was and was paying attention but only had TV news to go off of since I didn't  have a computer yet and only one newspaper.  (Was around 10.)

Bush's economic policy was always the more interesting part of it, since it seemed like he didn't do that badly and yet only had the one term.

 

Either way, the point still stands, War is actually sadly commonplace for US Presidents.  I mean, i'm just assuming carter didn't have any armed conflict like wars.  Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he's probably the only one post WW2?

Even Pre WW2 it's not like the numbers would be great presidents wise.  Seems the US was always in a war, and when it wasn't it was committing genocide on the Native Americans, which i'd say counted.



Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:

Grenada was brought up, and you're forgetting Bush 1 and Panama, as well as Bush 2 with the mission against Charles Taylor (president of Liberia)

Not so much forgetting as in general, not knowingabout grenada  (was like 1-2) or  the Charles Taylor thing apparently completely missed my radar somehow.

while the Bush 1 Era... as far as Bush foreign policy all I remember is vaguely a "Dead or Alive" novelty Saddam Hussein poster and in general the iraq war, because that was right around the time where I knew who the president was and was paying attention but only had TV news to go off of since I didn't  have a computer yet and only one newspaper.  (Was around 10.)

Bush's economic policy was always the more interesting part of it, since it seemed like he didn't do that badly and yet only had the one term.

 

Either way, the point still stands, War is actually sadly commonplace for US Presidents.  I mean, i'm just assuming carter didn't have any armed conflict like wars.  Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he's probably the only one post WW2?

Even Pre WW2 it's not like the numbers would be great presidents wise.  Seems the US was always in a war, and when it wasn't it was committing genocide on the Native Americans, which i'd say counted.

Perot. Perot's support primarily came from Bush's base, and even though Perot scuttled his own chances by pulling out midway and then pulling back in, he was able to sap enough support from Bush to give Clinton the win with well under 50% of the popular vote

Which was the first time 3rd party intervention had swung an election since 1912.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Around the Network
Mr Khan said:
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
 

Grenada was brought up, and you're forgetting Bush 1 and Panama, as well as Bush 2 with the mission against Charles Taylor (president of Liberia)

Not so much forgetting as in general, not knowingabout grenada  (was like 1-2) or  the Charles Taylor thing apparently completely missed my radar somehow.

while the Bush 1 Era... as far as Bush foreign policy all I remember is vaguely a "Dead or Alive" novelty Saddam Hussein poster and in general the iraq war, because that was right around the time where I knew who the president was and was paying attention but only had TV news to go off of since I didn't  have a computer yet and only one newspaper.  (Was around 10.)

Bush's economic policy was always the more interesting part of it, since it seemed like he didn't do that badly and yet only had the one term.

 

Either way, the point still stands, War is actually sadly commonplace for US Presidents.  I mean, i'm just assuming carter didn't have any armed conflict like wars.  Giving him the benefit of the doubt, he's probably the only one post WW2?

Even Pre WW2 it's not like the numbers would be great presidents wise.  Seems the US was always in a war, and when it wasn't it was committing genocide on the Native Americans, which i'd say counted.

Perot. Perot's support primarily came from Bush's base, and even though Perot scuttled his own chances by pulling out midway and then pulling back in, he was able to sap enough support from Bush to give Clinton the win with well under 50% of the popular vote

Which was the first time 3rd party intervention had swung an election since 1912.


That's what I had thought too, though what I'd read things that suggested Perot pulled pretty evenly from both... maybe that was only before he pulled out though.

As an personal example, my Dad was a big Ross Perot guy despite being a diehard union democrat.. in general he had a lot of Union Democrat support at first, largely due to being an Economic Nationalist who actually meant it.

For my dad though, he was a big fan of the "Tax form the size of a postcard" or whatever it was.  Like me, he just wanted all deductions gone period.

EDIT: Outside regional cost of living deductions which don't even exist!   With a progressive tax system it's ridiculious we tax someone making 40,000 in downtown New York as we do somewhere in North Dakota or Wisconsin.



Manhattan District Court ruled against Iran in 911 case
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/16/us/ruling-against-iran-in-sept-11-case.html

Therefore, Iran is a target to start war against as legitimate as Afganistan was. Not mentioning their recent agression against USAF resulted in UAV capture. Those who badmouth Cnehey here are really being dicks themselves.