NationStates Jolt Archive

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 Posted: 3:50 AM EDT (0750 GMT)
...
In a wide-ranging interview Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live," Cheney cited the recent push by Iraqi forces to crack down on insurgent activity in Baghdad and reports that the most-wanted terrorist leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had been wounded.

The vice president said he expected the war would end during President Bush's second term, which ends in 2009.

And you trust Cheney to tell the truth? Yeah right!

And you trust Cheney to tell the truth? Yeah right!Im just wondering where did he get a Crystal Ball?

ebay?

2009 is too late anyway. The monitary cost alone to run the war is destroying the country.

Interesting that he chose the year Bush's run ends.

2009 is too late anyway. The monitary cost alone to run the war is destroying the country.

Interesting that he chose the year Bush's run ends.Lends more weight to the rumor that Cheney plans on running in 2008. Cheney and Rove have been dictating the war anyway. They'll end it when it'll give them the best spin for the next election. If the Repugnicans have difficulty at the mid-term elections, we'll see the war end more quickly.

What the hell does that have to do with the topic of this thread?

And no, I don't believe anything that Dick Cheney says. I don't trust him for many reasons, especially not when it comes to the Iraq war...

I think he's telling the truth...to the best of his ability and knowledge at this point, but he specifies "war in Iraq" correct? NOT "war on terror". So by 2009, the PNAC will have invaded several other countries to fulfill their Imperial mission. We are in perpetual war and it will take someone with a lot of brains and a lot of guts to end it.

The only thing I fear is that Cheney is the one responsible for more brain and guts in the streets before the situation improves.

I think Cheney is right, the next president will come into office, see that there is no more to be had in Iraq and will hopefully pull out of a more stable Iraq.

Now that we are there. We need to stay until its stable. If it takes until 2009 then so be it.

I'm actually thinking this will end before 2009 but then, I"m an optimist.

2009 is too late anyway. The monitary cost alone to run the war is destroying the country.

Interesting that he chose the year Bush's run ends.

A.) The country is not going to be destroyed by a war with some uppity insurgent forces that are probably going to lose interest and join some other terrorist regime in a couple years.
B.) Did we read the same blurb? Cheney didn't say it would end in 2009. The author did.

The vice president said he expected the war would end during President Bush's second term, which ends in 2009.

what bothers me is the quote from late 1967 by William Westmoreland in Vietnam...."We can see the light at the end of the tunnel"

I sure hope the hell I am being unduly pessemistic

what bothers me is the quote from late 1967 by William Westmoreland in Vietnam...."We can see the light at the end of the tunnel"

I sure hope the hell I am being unduly pessemistic

The light at the end of the tunnel is all too often a train.

I really hope that someone told the insurgents that... but things do seem to be looking up. My unit has gotten its second stand down, now. Thats a good thing, I really did not want to go again.

The light at the end of the tunnel is all too often a train.


which is really weird, considering the relatively low frequency with wich trains enters tunnels :p

Perfect timing! Just like the timing on the Alien and Sedition Act and the release of the Iranian hostages!

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 Posted: 3:50 AM EDT (0750 GMT)
...
In a wide-ranging interview Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live," Cheney cited the recent push by Iraqi forces to crack down on insurgent activity in Baghdad and reports that the most-wanted terrorist leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had been wounded.

The vice president said he expected the war would end during President Bush's second term, which ends in 2009.

The only thing that will change is the name. American forces will still be deployed in Iraq, just as they were in Vietnam and Korea for years and years after the wars there were supposedly over. They will tell the American people that the war is over, and fly another lovely little b.s "mission accomplished" banner, and the American public will go back to doing what it does best: being apathetic, while pro-imperialist policy steams right along, uninterruped by the fact that a Democrat or a Republican is in office, the same as it's been since the end of ww2.

Wait a second...

Didn't the War end two years ago? I seem to recall it had.

You know, with Bush on an Aircraft Carrier(Which was actually a mile or so off the Coast of Hawaii, man our President has guts, FDR went into war-torn Europe, Wilson did the same, Nixon went to China, and Bush goes to Hawaii, WOW), proclaiming that he "War is over". Yeah right. I smelled bullshit then and I smell it now. This war is not going to end. Even if we stablize Iraq, a thousand other wars which we will have to rage will open up. For ever insurgent we kill, we spew forth many more. Why? Family and friends of those killed. This war will never end, at least not in the way it's being fought.

And does anybody else find it odd that we can't even effectively quell a small rebellion(I refuse "insurgents"; it is infact a rebellion)? These people are equipped with obsolete, practically worthless weaponry that was used decades ago, and we, the all-mighty superpower(which we really aren't as great as most think we are) can't even effectively quell them. We have vastly superior technology, weapons, and training, and yet we can't even take care of a few civilians with obsolete weaponry. This just proves at how inept the higher ups are at evaluating a situation. We need a massive overhaul of procedure. We can't just fighting the war the same way we are now- it simply is not working.

Wait a second...

Didn't the War end two years ago? I seem to recall it had.

You know, with Bush on an Aircraft Carrier(Which was actually a mile or so off the Coast of Hawaii, man our President has guts, FDR went into war-torn Europe, Wilson did the same, Nixon went to China, and Bush goes to Hawaii, WOW), proclaiming that he "War is over". Yeah right. I smelled bullshit then and I smell it now. This war is not going to end. Even if we stablize Iraq, a thousand other wars which we will have to rage will open up. For ever insurgent we kill, we spew forth many more. Why? Family and friends of those killed. This war will never end, at least not in the way it's being fought.

<snip>

Exactly. Why don't people realize this? Bush can tear up his "most wanted" card deck all he wants only to find another four being constructed behind his back after another large terror attack. I think the Administration knows it will never end in the way it's being fought, so that leads to the question "why"? Bush himself said it cannot be won.

QUESTION: Can we win [the war on terrorism]?
DUBYA: I don't think you can win it...
Interview aired on NBC's "Today Show", Aug. 30, 2004

So why then are we fighting this perpetual war? For those of you not familiar with the little-known but more powerful-than-you-think group, a neoconservative agenda known as the Project for a New American Century, which basically reinstates Manifest Destiny to include the entire world, using military action as a first resort because "no one can beat the U.S. military." This is not a "war on terror" but rather a spreading of democracy into places where it's not wanted, thus upsetting entire cultures. Some of the members of the PNAC include: Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and more. This war is never going to end soon because War is Peace, Ignorace is Strength, and Freedom is Slavery.

"It's the land of the free, and the home of the brave. Where the less you know, the better off you are." -- Warren Zevon.

Didn't the War end two years ago? I seem to recall it had.

You know, with Bush on an Aircraft Carrier(Which was actually a mile or so off the Coast of Hawaii, man our President has guts...same ol..same ol...

he declared victory in Iraq...from Hawaii.

and...he fought the Vietnam war from Texas. :gundge:

also i took him ages to visit ground zero at the WTC...
Giuliani has way more guts than Dubya.

So why then are we fighting this perpetual war? For those of you not familiar with the little-known but more powerful-than-you-think group, a neoconservative agenda known as the Project for a New American Century, which basically reinstates Manifest Destiny to include the entire world, using military action as a first resort because "no one can beat the U.S. military." This is not a "war on terror" but rather a spreading of democracy into places where it's not wanted, thus upsetting entire cultures. Some of the members of the PNAC include: Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Dan Quayle, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld and more. This war is never going to end soon because War is Peace, Ignorace is Strength, and Freedom is Slavery.



Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! Finally someone gets it! This is totally just the PNAC agenda, it is a war that was never meant to end, but instead to spead out all over the world until every country on the planet looks the way the signateurs of the PNAC doctrine want it to look!

Wait a second...

Didn't the War end two years ago? I seem to recall it had.

You know, with Bush on an Aircraft Carrier(Which was actually a mile or so off the Coast of Hawaii, man our President has guts, FDR went into war-torn Europe, Wilson did the same, Nixon went to China, and Bush goes to Hawaii, WOW)

I seem to recall the President going to Iraq to celebrate Thanksgiving.

also i took him ages to visit ground zero at the WTC...
Giuliani has way more guts than Dubya.

There was a gigantic fallen building there. The wreckage probably wasn't all that stable. We're talking about the President. The President does not go anywhere unless it is reasonably safe.

He went there three days after it happened.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!!! Finally someone gets it! This is totally just the PNAC agenda, it is a war that was never meant to end, but instead to spead out all over the world until every country on the planet looks the way the signateurs of the PNAC doctrine want it to look!

Which will never happen.

Reminds me greatly of 1984, really(Nice reference, Archtung).

We are in perpetual war, a never ending a war, a war in which frankly the government does not even believe can end, nor is really interested in ending. Thus War is Peace. Of course, there is deeper conotations to this, but it applies in more than one sense.

The average American knows nothing. The average American doesn't want to know nothing. The average American believes that since they know nothing, that what ever they are told is true. They are ignorant to the point that the government wants them. Thus the Government is stronger. The Administration has done quite a good job at changing history, even recent history. And the people buy it. The Government is strong, becasue the people are ignorant. Thus, Ignorance is Strength. Like before, deeper conotations, but it holds many meanings.

Finally, the Administration has put into the people's minds that if you oppose them, you are un-American and hate freedom. If you dissent, you are unpatriotic. Thus, in order to be a true American, you must abide by the Administration fully, without disagreement. Ignorant following is supporting your nation, and thus supporting freedom. The Administration is rather good at making people believe this. Thus, you give away yourself without question so as to have the false notion of being free. Thus, Freedom is Slavery .

The way I see it, anyway.

The average American knows nothing.

I disagree. I feel no need to justify that. I doubt I could if I wanted to. Although, I suppose I could find average grades of High School graduates and explain that someone with a C average has been taught something.

Finally, the Administration has put into the people's minds that if you oppose them, you are un-American and hate freedom. If you dissent, you are unpatriotic.

I almost agree. Insert 'some' between 'the' and 'people's' and I'll agree.

Now that we are there. We need to stay until its stable. If it takes until 2009 then so be it.

If someone with irritable bowel syndrome shits all over the bathroom, I'm going to want him to put on a diaper and get the hell out as soon as possible and let a janitor clean it up.

Bush and Iraq are the exact same situation. The longer he stays there, the more shit he's going to drop all over the place.

Tuesday, May 31, 2005 Posted: 3:50 AM EDT (0750 GMT)
...
In a wide-ranging interview Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live," Cheney cited the recent push by Iraqi forces to crack down on insurgent activity in Baghdad and reports that the most-wanted terrorist leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, had been wounded.

The vice president said he expected the war would end during President Bush's second term, which ends in 2009.

Optimist. It will end, at the earliest, by Bush's fifth term, which ends in 2021.

Optimist. It will end, at the earliest, by Bush's fifth term, which ends in 2021.

WTH?

Dude, he's done in 2009! Unless there was a Constitutional Amendment passed that no one knows about.

It'll end before 2009

I disagree. I feel no need to justify that. I doubt I could if I wanted to. Although, I suppose I could find average grades of High School graduates and explain that someone with a C average has been taught something.

And that's why mudslinging works so well? Sure we may be "smart" but when it comes to politics the average American knows very little thus they are susceptible to mudslinging more than other countries. And the brightest minds in America are middle-of-the-pack in India, Japan and other countries when it comes to fields such as computer programming, where we should be leading the world


I almost agree. Insert 'some' between 'the' and 'people's' and I'll agree.

First off, the way you reworded it doesn't make sense, ("the some people's") but you're right--to a certain degree. I need not write the many examples of Bush telling Americans to hate the resistance because it is common knowledge. You've heard him say to the effect of "SOME in Washington don't CARE about your safety," and we are to immediately assume these "some" are the Democratic resistence. And how Connecticut-born Bush won as an outsider while being a multimillionaire, Yale- and Harvard-educated, son of a former President still amazes me--showing how ignorant and vulnerable to propaganda the average American citizen is.

"...see, in my line of work you gotta keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kinda catapult the propaganda."
--GWB; Greece, New York, May 24, 2005

If someone with irritable bowel syndrome shits all over the bathroom, I'm going to want him to put on a diaper and get the hell out as soon as possible and let a janitor clean it up.

Dude! My mother is IBS! And she hasn't ever done that. I suggest you read up on it Domici before speaking about something you know nothing about. Comprende?

Bush and Iraq are the exact same situation. The longer he stays there, the more shit he's going to drop all over the place.

Eh? how do you figure this?

And the brightest minds in America are middle-of-the-pack in India, Japan and other countries when it comes to fields such as computer programming, where we should be leading the world

Are you sure you believe this?

Think about it. In an educated society with five times as many people, you're going to have five times as many very bright people (and five times as many really stupid people).

When you see someone from India in the US, for example, you're probably looking at a highly educated person who was in the 95th percentile in his home country.

Now put a lot of them over here.

It skews things - especially your perception.

Eventually, as everything evens out around the world, the country with more people will make more discoveries and have more people with high intelligence.

It will not mean, however, that the average person from Country A will be smarter than the average person from Country B.

Unless you want to be racist.

Are you sure you believe this?

Think about it. In an educated society with five times as many people, you're going to have five times as many very bright people (and five times as many really stupid people).

When you see someone from India in the US, for example, you're probably looking at a highly educated person who was in the 95th percentile in his home country.

Now put a lot of them over here.

It skews things - especially your perception.

Eventually, as everything evens out around the world, the country with more people will make more discoveries and have more people with high intelligence.

It will not mean, however, that the average person from Country A will be smarter than the average person from Country B.

Unless you want to be racist.
That still doesn't make Americans any smarter nor does it make Americans any dumber. I'm saying that the best minds in America are dwarfed by the best minds in India or Japan, so we can't really brag about being the smartest in the world. And just because they have more people doesn't mean anything. It's the educational system, and the NCLBA isn't helping at all. We're concentrating on the dumb students, the ones born to sweep the floors at McDonald's and forgetting the smart ones, the ones born to unify physics, or create an economical rewritable holographic hard drives. Sure some of that may be a "gift," but we're not stimulating "gifted" students to acheive, we're telling them that passing tests is the only thing worth working for.

Eh? how do you figure this?

Well, you could look at it from the simple fact that occupations are hard to sustain, and the longer one sustains an occupation, the more resentment and anger you will build towards your presence. Its not Bush per se, its the mere presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil which will eventually override all other considerations.

A guest, no matter how welcome at first, will eventually become a bother. There is no way to escape that reality. The bases in Germany and Japan are still sources of anger; simply because a bunch of foreigners are standing on their soil. Every incident, large or small, will add to the resentment.

Outside that, if the occupation of Iraq were to end by 2009, I would be absolutely amazed. The nation was utterly pulverized by the protracted seige during the 90's, and the final war a few years ago. The occupation and the constant insurgent attacks make it hard to form a social framework in which a nation can sustain itself.

The physical infrastructure MIGHT be reasonably well built by 2009, but that would essentially be only half of the problem. The political/social framework that would allow the nation to stand on its own will likely take over a generation after that to develop.

Well, you could look at it from the simple fact that occupations are hard to sustain, and the longer one sustains an occupation, the more resentment and anger you will build towards your presence. Its not Bush per se, its the mere presence of foreign troops on Iraqi soil which will eventually override all other considerations.

To borrow the words of the current Iraqi Foreign Minister, and this is by no means a direct quote, "We don't like having foreign troops on our soil but we know its necessary right now due to security concerns." He's going to the UN to ask the Security Council to extend the mission.

A guest, no matter how welcome at first, will eventually become a bother. There is no way to escape that reality. The bases in Germany and Japan are still sources of anger; simply because a bunch of foreigners are standing on their soil. Every incident, large or small, will add to the resentment.

Here I will agree with you but you also have to remember that both nations lost a war. Also remember that the anger in Germany became prominent when the Cold War ended. I'm sure it was there during it but no one probably said anything because it was necessary for security reasons.

Outside that, if the occupation of Iraq were to end by 2009, I would be absolutely amazed. The nation was utterly pulverized by the protracted seige during the 90's, and the final war a few years ago. The occupation and the constant insurgent attacks make it hard to form a social framework in which a nation can sustain itself.

Occupation is already over. Yes there are troops on the ground however, the Iraqis themselves have full control over their government.

The physical infrastructure MIGHT be reasonably well built by 2009, but that would essentially be only half of the problem. The political/social framework that would allow the nation to stand on its own will likely take over a generation after that to develop.

Democracies aren't built in a day you know. I can't wait for this constitution to be written. We'll get a better insight into how things go when it is written and put to a vote.

To borrow the words of the current Iraqi Foreign Minister, and this is by no means a direct quote, "We don't like having foreign troops on our soil but we know its necessary right now due to security concerns." He's going to the UN to ask the Security Council to extend the mission.

Here I will agree with you but you also have to remember that both nations lost a war. Also remember that the anger in Germany became prominent when the Cold War ended. I'm sure it was there during it but no one probably said anything because it was necessary for security reasons.

Occupation is already over. Yes there are troops on the ground however, the Iraqis themselves have full control over their government.

Democracies aren't built in a day you know. I can't wait for this constitution to be written. We'll get a better insight into how things go when it is written and put to a vote.

Well, yes. But remember it matters little what their government says to our government about the troops on the ground.

To the person on the street the US presence is undoubtely an "occupation" and will be seen as such until we leave. The niceties of diplomacy don't matter in the arena of public opinion. Its that reality that our troops will have to deal with; the increasing pressure by the locals to leave, even though the time isn't right for us to go. That's going to be the hardest part; and its yet to come. US troops will undoubtedly NEED to stay there longer than anyone WANTS them to..

There were significant protests all throughout the cold war as well, they just aren't much talked about here. They happened in many of the nations we had bases in, S. Korea and Japan both frequently have hissy fits when something goes wrong with the locals, there's no avoiding it.

Its not really a big concern though, our troops stayed because they were needed there. Suddenly after the Cold war, our troops were no longer seen as a nessascary evil, and more of just a nuscience to be gotten rid of at the first opportunity. The recent base restructuring will hopefully ease such tensions, we'll have to wait and see.

Of course Democracies aren't built in a day, not in 6 years either. I'm not sure the American public understands just what it is we will have to do in Iraq to make the process have the best possible chance at succeeding. There's nothing inevitable about this process too, that's the scary part. This is a very dangerous and difficult undertaking, and failure is sadly a possibility; especially if we leave too early, due to pressure from the Iraqi public.

I think he's telling the truth...to the best of his ability and knowledge at this point, but he specifies "war in Iraq" correct? NOT "war on terror". So by 2009, the PNAC will have invaded several other countries to fulfill their Imperial mission. We are in perpetual war and it will take someone with a lot of brains and a lot of guts to end it.
Next stop on the Mission Impossible Tour........Iran?