NationStates Jolt Archive

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/16/cheney.iraq/?iref=mpstoryview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuXEDrDFhr4 Watch around 1:10-13

He says that even if America had got correct info about the Iraqi wmds(that there were none), we'd still have gone to war with them. So, this thing WAS planned out all along. PNAC and all that.

The shit just keeps getting deeper.

So, with both Bush AND Cheney revealing what we all knew to be true about how diabolical they are, do you think there will ever be any justice brought to them?

A good friend of mine was in desert storm many years back. And when that war ended and he was about to be shipped home his commanding officer told him that they were going to need him again 10 years down the road. A stint of cancer stopped him from going back, but the point of this story is that I think they knew they were going back since Desert Storm.

The shit just keeps getting deeper.
Not really, I think most people know that they went in there for resources and to kick the shit out of someone loud to prove that you don't mess with the US.
So, with both Bush AND Cheney revealing what we all knew to be true about how diabolical they are, do you think there will ever be any justice brought to them?
No.

Now we get to thrill to the spectacle of a bunch of media and other morons acting surprised at this.

And I agree with Minoriteeburg that this war was on their "to do" list that long, at least.

Also, no, there will never be any justice for those murderous war-criminal bastards -- unless some religions are right and there really is a hell.

And I agree with Minoriteeburg that this war was on their "to do" list that long, at least.

I think Clinton just put an end to the Bush agenda, and Bush jr started it right back up where daddy left off. plain and simple.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/16/cheney.iraq/?iref=mpstoryview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuXEDrDFhr4 Watch around 1:10-13

He says that even if America had got correct info about the Iraqi wmds(that there were none), we'd still have gone to war with them. So, this thing WAS planned out all along. PNAC and all that.

The shit just keeps getting deeper.

So, with both Bush AND Cheney revealing what we all knew to be true about how diabolical they are, do you think there will ever be any justice brought to them?

I was saying this before Bush even got elected. Many already knew there would be another war in Iraq. The writing was on the wall.

I think Clinton just put an end to the Bush agenda, and Bush jr started it right back up where daddy left off. plain and simple.
It sure as hell looks that way.

I was saying this before Bush even got elected. Many already knew there would be another war in Iraq. The writing was on the wall.
Me too. I mean, it was so obvious. The rightwing have wanted to get militarily active in that region since Reagan -- some even since Nixon (*glares at Cheney*). They never made a secret of it. Yet to so many Americans, it seems there's no such thing as yesterday. How else could they have been blindsided by this?

Man they're really cutting loose now that they're on their way out.

Quick, someone ask them about aliens and Roswell!

It sure as hell looks that way.
Me too. I mean, it was so obvious. The rightwing have wanted to get militarily active in that region since Reagan -- some even since Nixon (*glares at Cheney*). They never made a secret of it. Yet to so many Americans, it seems there's no such thing as yesterday. How else could they have been blindsided by this?

I participated in the first Gulf War. When Iraq went into Kuwait our armored unit was alerted. We were told to grab our gear and prepare to leave in 24hrs from Germany. We landed in Saudi and were driven out to a base to grab tanks that were already there. So what does that tell you?

I participated in the first Gulf War. When Iraq went into Kuwait our armored unit was alerted. We were told to grab our gear and prepare to leave in 24hrs from Germany. We landed in Saudi and were driven out to a base to grab tanks that were already there. So what does that tell you?

So is that true about troops knowing about the 2nd iraq war from desert storm?

*edit* he was the only one i have ever met who served in the gulf war.

I participated in the first Gulf War. When Iraq went into Kuwait our armored unit was alerted. We were told to grab our gear and prepare to leave in 24hrs from Germany. We landed in Saudi and were driven out to a base to grab tanks that were already there. So what does that tell you?
Well, I'm not sure. Depending on what model tanks they were, it tells me they were parked there, gassed up and ready, since either Reagan or Nixon, but I can't tell which one just from what you said.

Gods, how I hate these neocon bastards.

No.

Which is why sometimes, justice cannot be delivered by legal means. And then people express shock and horror when it's delivered anyway.

So what does that tell you?
That Saudi Arabia has airports and ships too.

Well, I'm not sure. Depending on what model tanks they were, it tells me they were parked there, gassed up and ready, since either Reagan or Nixon, but I can't tell which one just from what you said.

Gods, how I hate these neocon bastards.

M1's

That Saudi Arabia has airports and ships too.

American tanks. ;)

Which is why sometimes, justice cannot be delivered by legal means. And then people express shock and horror when it's delivered anyway.
Neither Bush nor Cheney is going to get taken out by the general public, esp. Cheney. He's a major shareholder in an industrial contractor-cum-PMC, not like he'll be going about his business (which is the kind of business no-one poor will ever see, most likely) undefended.

So is that true about troops knowing about the 2nd iraq war from desert storm?

*edit* he was the only one i have ever met who served in the gulf war.

It doesnt matter if one served in the first gulf war or not. What Bush was saying prior to being elected hinted at a second war. Plus the fact that his Daddy really didnt finish it in the first place. Also Saddam trying to kill Daddy in Kuwait didnt help.

American tanks. ;)
Uhu, so they probably loaded them up onto planes, swooshed them off and they were already there when you turned up. They send the tanks out of Germany as well, or from the US?

It doesnt matter if one served in the first gulf war or not. What Bush was saying prior to being elected hinted at a second war. Plus the fact that his Daddy really didnt finish it in the first place.
He finished the conflict that was going on. Give Snr. that much credit.

It doesnt matter if one served in the first gulf war or not. What Bush was saying prior to being elected hinted at a second war. Plus the fact that his Daddy really didnt finish it in the first place. Also Saddam trying to kill Daddy in Kuwait didnt help.

Especially that part.

Uhu, so they probably loaded them up onto planes, swooshed them off and they were already there when you turned up. They send the tanks out of Germany as well, or from the US?

They were there well before Iraq went into Kuwait. They sent tanks from Germany and the US as well as other areas prior to the ground war. Tanks generally are assigned to a unit with a number and marker on them. The ones we grabbed when we first got there had neither. Which tells me that they were pre-positioned. Possibly for a strike on Iran? Not to sure.

Not surprising; I had seen it coming long before the election.

They were there well before Iraq went into Kuwait.
Ah right, in which case it was probably the US basically just waiting until Iraq went into Kuwait to kick its arse, or having spares about as a contingency for if the Saudis got uppity.

"Those who allege that we've been involved in torture, or that somehow we violated the Constitution or laws with the Terrorist Surveillance Program, simply don't know what they're talking about," he said.

Hear that Constitutional lawyers? You dont know what youre talking about. Youre a bunch of Ivy League Eastern Elitests, the whole lot of ya.

Well the CNN link actually says nothing of the sort that the OP claims.

The ABC youtube link, could be interpreted in which that is what he is saying but then I think CNN got it right in what he was saying.

I participated in the first Gulf War. When Iraq went into Kuwait our armored unit was alerted. We were told to grab our gear and prepare to leave in 24hrs from Germany. We landed in Saudi and were driven out to a base to grab tanks that were already there. So what does that tell you?

I seem to recall news reports at the time stating that we had left hardware with our strategic partners, the Saudis, on the likelihood that there would be some sort of mideast conflict. My mind insists on seeing pictures of depots full of tanks wrapped in plastic sheeting and buried in the sand. I don't have time to source it right now, but that's my memory.

Conflict in the oil states = a given. Conflict with Iraq = probably a given with 43.

BTW, don't be so quick to lump George H.W. Bush in with Dubya. Back when CNN was running Gulf War I as a reality show, lots of Americans (including me) were cheering 41 on and hoping he'd race into Baghdad and finish the job. When he pointed out that he didn't have the international backing to do so, and that it would put the USA in questionable warmongering status, most Americans accepted the concept of limited victory. Apparently one of his sons didn't.

I don't think USA went into a war, costing many soldiers, iraqis and...money just because that famous American intelligence institute said that iraq tried to kill Bush sr.

I don't believe that Iraq was thinking about eliminating him either. If it was, Bush sr was already death. Maybe they wished him short arms and lots of itch but death? Nah.

I don't know why USA went to Iraq. Partly oil, partly business, partly bad politics, partly stupid revenge for 911, partly because Bush jr was just in a bad mood that morning.

Another thing, but not mentioned a lot in the news, is that Saddam wanted Euros for his oil, instead of dollars. If he really did this, the dollar would have exploded.

But who knows this for sure, it is possible that this last story is another urban legend.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/16/cheney.iraq/?iref=mpstoryview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuXEDrDFhr4 Watch around 1:10-13

He says that even if America had got correct info about the Iraqi wmds(that there were none), we'd still have gone to war with them. So, this thing WAS planned out all along. PNAC and all that.

The shit just keeps getting deeper.

So, with both Bush AND Cheney revealing what we all knew to be true about how diabolical they are, do you think there will ever be any justice brought to them?

So... this was all, all along, about oil and getting rid of Saddam?:confused:

So... this was all, all along, about oil and getting rid of Saddam?:confused:
My personal theory is that it was really all about destabilizing that region in order to guarantee not only a foothold for US hegemony but also neverending income for the military-industrial complex, in which Cheney et al are heavily invested.

In other words, it was the worst kind of political corruption -- war for profit.

My personal theory is that it was really all about destabilizing that region in order to guarantee not only a foothold for US hegemony but also neverending income for the military-industrial complex, in which Cheney et al are heavily invested.

In other words, it was the worst kind of political corruption -- war for profit.

Yeah, I've heard that the Bush family has invested heavily on the weapon industry. I didn't know Cheney was also being benefitted from that.

I knew the current US administration was corrupt and a disgrace. I didn't know though, that it went so far as trying and succeeding in destabilizing a region like they did in Iraq and surrounding areas just for monetary gain.

Maybe the Iraq war didn't happen. It's just another illusion.

GOLLY GEE! I AM SO SURPRISED! :eek2::eek2::eek2::eek2::eek2:

Not.

I knew the current US administration was corrupt and a disgrace. I didn't know though, that it went so far as trying and succeeding in destabilizing a region like they did in Iraq and surrounding areas just for monetary gain.

Not only did you not know, but Muryavets also did not know. Muryavets was clearly stating opinion, not fact. Convenient of you to turn opinion around, and make it sound as though factual, but it does little (nothing, actually) to make you appear intelligent.

Not only did you not know, but Muryavets also did not know. Muryavets was clearly stating opinion, not fact. Convenient of you to turn opinion around, and make it sound as though factual, but it does little (nothing, actually) to make you appear intelligent.

And the rudeness and attitude came from?

This is like the second time Cheney has admitted he's made of pure evil in as many days. I guess it's a side effect of the exorcism they're performing to actually get him out of the white house before the president-elect arrives.

I believe that Bush invaded Iraq to protect America, to bring democracy to the Iraqis, to save the world and to destroy terrorism for good.

Heil Bush!

I believe that Bush invaded Iraq to protect America, to bring democracy to the Iraqis, to save the world and to destroy terrorism for good.

Heil Bush!

And the Catholic Church allows women to be ordained priests.

This is like the second time Cheney has admitted he's made of pure evil in as many days. I guess it's a side effect of the exorcism they're performing to actually get him out of the white house before the president-elect arrives.
yeah. seeing him on tv makes me wish he'd go back to his bunker. im so glad he is leaving office in a month.

id love to see him facing war crimes charges next year.

And the rudeness and attitude came from?

Busheviks will always be upset when you talk smack about Dear Leader. Their mentality is this, your opinion on Dear Leader, if it is negative, is pure speculation and most likely unsubstantiated and false. Their opinion on Dear Leader, almost always positive, is factual and based in reality.


To be blunt, no one outside of the Administration really knows why we went to war in Iraq. But, based on what they said and did, as well as what people close to them have said and done, we can guess what is most likely. And Mur's theory is one of the more likely theories.

BTW, don't be so quick to lump George H.W. Bush in with Dubya. Back when CNN was running Gulf War I as a reality show, lots of Americans (including me) were cheering 41 on and hoping he'd race into Baghdad and finish the job. When he pointed out that he didn't have the international backing to do so, and that it would put the USA in questionable warmongering status, most Americans accepted the concept of limited victory. Apparently one of his sons didn't.I suppose in retrospect we can all agree that 41 was right about his assessment.

I suppose in retrospect we can all agree that 41 was right about his assessment.

Na, gedankts sie?

(Hope this works as a bad translation of "Gee, you think?") ;)

Na, gedankts sie?

(Hope this works as a bad translation of "Gee, you think?") ;)I don't speak Dutch, so don't ask me.

I don't speak Dutch, so don't ask me.

>.>

<.<

I was hoping it would be read as German. Guess that goes to show how much my German SUCKS. :p

Busheviks will always be upset when you talk smack about Dear Leader. Their mentality is this, your opinion on Dear Leader, if it is negative, is pure speculation and most likely unsubstantiated and false. Their opinion on Dear Leader, almost always positive, is factual and based in reality.


To be blunt, no one outside of the Administration really knows why we went to war in Iraq. But, based on what they said and did, as well as what people close to them have said and done, we can guess what is most likely. And Mur's theory is one of the more likely theories.

Gotcha.

Again, at least he's honest. People always talk about how much they'd like honest politicians...and there you go. A guy who has the balls not only to openly condone waterboarding but to flat out say he'd wage war regardless of evidence or justification.

So Cheney is firing off a parting shot saying that the potential for WMD is enough for war and the world is safer without Saddam. Reminds me of a sketch I saw after Bush won in 2004 where Cheney says "Four more years, sorry I meant fear more wars"

"In conclusion, I, Dick Cheney, am the quintessence of Evil and there's nothing you fucking fools can do about it. Hail Satan. That's all." - Dick Cheney at his latest press conference.

Again, at least he's honest. People always talk about how much they'd like honest politicians...and there you go. A guy who has the balls not only to openly condone waterboarding but to flat out say he'd wage war regardless of evidence or justification.

Id like an honost politican who isnt pure evil.

So, with both Bush AND Cheney revealing what we all knew to be true about how diabolical they are, do you think there will ever be any justice brought to them?

Nope. Not for a minute.

Nope. Not for a minute.

Bush did get a shoe thrown at him. If that counts for anything.

Bush did get a show thrown at him. If that counts for anything.

Yeah but those of us who want justice are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Bush did get a show thrown at him. If that counts for anything.

I think you meant "shoe".:wink:

I think you meant "shoe".:wink:

oops...fixed. ;)

Yeah but those of us who want justice are waiting for the other shoe to drop.

You're going to be waiting for a long time.

How about Europe/the EU and the UN grow some sack and charge them with war crimes? Theyve admitted they torutered people...

You're going to be waiting for a long time.

Someday, the shoe will be on the other foot.

How about Europe/the EU and the UN grow some sack and charge them with war crimes? Theyve admitted they torutered people...

The UN Hasn't had a backbone in ages, what is going to make them get one now?

The UN Hasn't had a backbone in ages, what is going to make them get one now?

I know nothing will happen. Its just with all the smack Europe talks about George and his administration and the torture etc etc, why dont they put their money where their mouth is and actually charge him?

I know nothing will happen. Its just with all the smack Europe talks about George and his administration and the torture etc etc, why dont they put their money where their mouth is and actually charge him?


Because I am betting large sums of money are ivolved. And if Bush goes down, then a lot of other people will go down too. Many of them I am sure are in Politics.

Because I am betting large sums of money are ivolved. And if Bush goes down, then a lot of other people will go down too. Many of them I am sure are in Politics.

Oh, I know that. My point is, the European governments most likely dont really care that George is torturing people. In fact, many of them have probably done it in the recent past themselves. They are just putting on a public face of moral outrage and superiority.

Since no charges are brought, we can assume that the European governments dont care that much about all this, and thus, despite what Euro-centric superiority complex Europeans like to tell themselves (and anyone who will listen), their governments arent actually any better.

Oh, I know that. My point is, the Europian governments most likely dont really care that George is torturing people. In fact, many of them have probably done it in the recent past themselves. They are just putting on a public face of moral outrage and superiority.

Since no charges are brought, we can assume that the Europian governments dont care that much about all this, and thus, despite what Euro-centric superiority complex Europians like to tell themselves (and anyone who will listen), their governments arent actually any better.

Or they're not doing anything about it because they're doing the same things, just with a little more intelligently than the Bush Administration did.

Oh, I know that. My point is, the Europian governments most likely dont really care that George is torturing people. In fact, many of them have probably done it in the recent past themselves. They are just putting on a public face of moral outrage and superiority.

Since no charges are brought, we can assume that the Europian governments dont care that much about all this, and thus, despite what Euro-centric superiority complex Europians like to tell themselves (and anyone who will listen), their governments arent actually any better.

Just a friendly correction from one poster to another: it's European.:wink:

Just a friendly correction from one poster to another: it's European.:wink:

You are on it today. :tongue:

Just a friendly correction from one poster to another: it's European.:wink:

I knew that, I was typing fast. Has been fixed.

It's GOOD that we took out the Saddamite regime. I'm GLAD we did it. President Bush said at the time that there were multiple reasons for doing so, NOT just MWD's. Props to Bush/Cheney for doing what needed to be done and standing firm in the face of all the haters. Their Iraq policy was successful and they will be vindicated by history.

As for "justice", they brought justice to millions of ordinary Iraqis by deposing Saddam and liberating the country.

So, the haters can just go on hating, dreaming their futile dreams of legal actions against the men who crushed their dreams in 2000 and 2004, and making a great display of their morality and righteousousness, when in reality they are nothing more than sore losers and posers.

BTW: Dick Cheney has been one of the best VP's in the history of the United States. Slow Joe Biden on his best day won't be half the man Cheney was on his worst.

It's GOOD that we took out the Saddamite regime. I'm GLAD we did it. President Bush said at the time that there were multiple reasons for doing so, NOT just MWD's. Props to Bush/Cheney for doing what needed to be done and standing firm in the face of all the haters. Their Iraq policy was successful and they will be vindicated by history.


These reasons were? Most of them have been debunked.

So, the haters can just go on hating, dreaming their futile dreams of legal actions against the men who crushed their dreams in 2000 and 2004, and making a great display of their morality and righteousousness, when in reality they are nothing more than sore losers and posers.

Much like you'll be doing after Obama and his machine crushed your dreams last November, I think.

BTW: Dick Cheney has been one of the best VP's in the history of the United States. Slow Joe Biden on his best day won't be half the man Cheney was on his worst.

1. Dick Cheney is not a man
2. We'll see.

It's GOOD that we took out the Saddamite regime. I'm GLAD we did it. President Bush said at the time that there were multiple reasons for doing so, NOT just MWD's

"It's OK that we were fucking wrong about WMDs, because there could be other reasons we're wrong about too!"


As for "justice", they brought justice to millions of ordinary Iraqis by deposing Saddam and liberating the country.

Half a million corpses do not agree that they have been "liberated."

And don't act like you give two shits about ordinary Iraqis, or in fact anyone. There are people here who can read what you write.

So, the haters can just go on hating, dreaming their futile dreams of legal actions against the men who crushed their dreams in 2000 and 2004, and making a great display of their morality and righteousousness, when in reality they are nothing more than sore losers and posers.

Sore losers? OK, mister "I put my faith in the people. The people let me down" when Obama wins. We can play the sore losers game. It goes like this - your arguments are made of fail, and I'm gonna rub it in every time, and you can just cry about "Fort Sumpter" in angry impotence.

Sore losers? OK, mister "I put my faith in the people. The people let me down" when Obama wins. We can play the sore losers game. It goes like this - your arguments are made of fail, and I'm gonna rub it in every time, and you can just cry about "Fort Sumpter" in angry impotence.

Win.

American tanks. ;)The Saudis use the M1. ;)

Id like an honost politican who isnt pure evil.

I sometimes think true evil and honesty are correlated, as odd as that might seem.

BTW: Dick Cheney has been one of the best VP's in the history of the United States. Slow Joe Biden on his best day won't be half the man Cheney was on his worst.So he won't shoot any of his friends in the face? I like Slow Joe even more. :)

Oh, I know that. My point is, the European governments most likely dont really care that George is torturing people. In fact, many of them have probably done it in the recent past themselves. They are just putting on a public face of moral outrage and superiority.

Since no charges are brought, we can assume that the European governments dont care that much about all this, and thus, despite what Euro-centric superiority complex Europeans like to tell themselves (and anyone who will listen), their governments arent actually any better.

What could the "European governments" charge them with? Under what jurisdiction could the charges be tried? What court could try such a case?

Bush did get a shoe thrown at him. If that counts for anything.

It counts for amusement and pity. Not much more.

What could the "European governments" charge them with? Under what jurisdiction could the charges be tried? What court could try such a case?

Better question is why they would, especially with Russia not too far away. After all, the US might use waterboarding but that pales in comparison to the things Russia's done in Chechnya and (quite likely) Georgian South Ossetia.

What could the "European governments" charge them with? Under what jurisdiction could the charges be tried? What court could try such a case?

La Haya, maybe.:confused:

The UN Hasn't had a backbone in ages, what is going to make them get one now?

Make the US give up the power of veto first, then you can complain about the UN inaction in this case.

what could the "european governments" charge them with? Under what jurisdiction could the charges be tried? what court could try such a case? The ICJ?

La Haya, maybe.:confused:

That's a big city...

The ICJ?

No. The ICJ doesn't try criminal cases.

That's a big city...

The Court of La Haya. Isn't that the name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

The Court of La Haya. Isn't that the name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court

That would be the ICC, a court that the US is not a member of. So the court would have no jurisdiction. And the UN wouldn't ask them to investigate either.

If they're not tried for war crimes or the crime of aggression, they sure as hell won't be tried for torturing a relatively small number of people.

Snip.

"Haters" = "Doesn't agree with me."

There's a reason you don't answer anyone here who responds to your claims: You know you can't.

By the way: Reported.

That would be the ICC, a court that the US is not a member of. So the court would have no jurisdiction. And the UN would ask them to investigate either.

If they're not tried for war crimes or the crime of aggression, they sure as hell won't be tried for torturing a relatively small number of people.

Oh, I see. For some reason I thought that La Haya could try any country on the base of crimes against humanity. I guess I was mistaken.

So, the haters can just go on hating, dreaming their futile dreams of legal actions against the men who crushed their dreams in 2000 and 2004, and making a great display of their morality and righteousousness, when in reality they are nothing more than sore losers and posers.

Aww ... the delicious taste of hypocrisy.

Aww ... the delicious taste of hypocrisy.

What I enjoy the most is the fact that Obama's going to be President for 4 to 8 years and there's NOTHING neocons can do. Obama will leave Iraq, the Administration is going to be one that sees the war as a mistake. And so do 70% of the American people.

Now we only need to raise the dead Iraqis, don't we? That oughtta be easy.

Oh, I see. For some reason I thought that La Haya could try any country on the base of crimes against humanity. I guess I was mistaken.

It's a rather common mistake. The authority of the ICC is actually pretty restricted. You would have better luck going after Bush through national Dutch law, since that apparently contains some provisions for universal jurisdiction in some cases.

So, the haters can just go on hating, dreaming their futile dreams of legal actions against the men who crushed their dreams in 2000 and 2004, and making a great display of their morality and righteousousness, when in reality they are nothing more than sore losers and posers.

There was no reason for you to troll, nor was there reason for you to bring this up. All of the posts before this failed to mention the actual elections of 2000 and 2004. You are the only one who brought it up. Knock it off.

Which is why sometimes, justice cannot be delivered by legal means. And then people express shock and horror when it's delivered anyway.

Justice?

I sometimes think true evil and honesty are correlated, as odd as that might seem.

Well, that's not so odd if you're a fan of Dungeons & Dragons. Anyone familiar with that game's alignment system knows about Lawful Evil. It's the kind that is both nefarious and obsessed with following their own rules. For an analogue, think of the various "deal with the devil" scenarios. Beings of sheer evil and power having the semi-nobility to check that power with rules. That's why Cheney is not a demon (Chaotic Evil) but a devil.

Aww ... the delicious taste of hypocrisy.

Now in treason flavor.

Justice?

Or redress, take your pick. I've said it before, that the laws simply cannot touch those in power, no matter how many laws they break, simply because they make the laws most times, or have the means to avoid being prosecuted. If the concept of justice carries over from law, then justice must be delivered from beyond the law when the law will not, because in many cases, the law is simply a tool of those in power and the idea of justice flies out the window.

That would be the ICC, a court that the US is not a member of. So the court would have no jurisdiction. And the UN wouldn't ask them to investigate either.

If they're not tried for war crimes or the crime of aggression, they sure as hell won't be tried for torturing a relatively small number of people.

it can have authority over matters if the country is beaten in a war, or your side loses a civil war and the new regime is willing to hand you over. i think it happened in African countries a few times.

but right now the ICC is mostly a joke as China, Russia, the US, and India have refused to sign it. leaving the only major power to have signed it as the EU. ( really need to add them together to be on par with US, Russia, china on all levels).

Or redress, take your pick. I've said it before, that the laws simply cannot touch those in power, no matter how many laws they break, simply because they make the laws most times, or have the means to avoid being prosecuted. If the concept of justice carries over from law, then justice must be delivered from beyond the law when the law will not, because in many cases, the law is simply a tool of those in power and the idea of justice flies out the window.

Got it. Thanks for the clarification.

it can have authority over matters if the country is beaten in a war, or your side loses a civil war and the new regime is willing to hand you over. i think it happened in African countries a few times.
It doesn't matter whether or not the country is beaten in a war or if you "lose" a civil war. The ICC only has jurisdiction if the person accused of committing a crime is a national of a state that's a member of the court (party to the treaty); where the alleged crime was committed on the territory of a member state; or where a situation is referred to the Court by the UN Security Council.

2. In the case of article 13, paragraph (a) or (c), the Court may exercise its jurisdiction
if one or more of the following States are Parties to this Statute or have accepted
the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with paragraph 3:
(a) The State on the territory of which the conduct in question occurred or, if
the crime was committed on board a vessel or aircraft, the State of
registration of that vessel or aircraft;
(b) The State of which the person accused of the crime is a national.

The Rome Statute of the ICC (http://www.icc-cpi.int/library/about/officialjournal/Rome_Statute_English.pdf)

but right now the ICC is mostly a joke as China, Russia, the US, and India have refused to sign it. leaving the only major power to have signed it as the EU. ( really need to add them together to be on par with US, Russia, china on all levels).
Frankly, that's bullshit. Simply because those four countries aren't members does not in any way make the court a joke. I can assure you that the 108 members of the court aren't laughing, nor are Joseph Kony (Who's trying to bargain his way out of the arrest warrant), Thomas Lubanga, Germain Katanga, Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui or Jean-Pierre Bemba. Especially, I would think, after former senior defence official Theoneste Bagosora was convicted of instigating the Rwandan genocide and sentenced to life in prison by the The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).

The president of Sudan Omar al-Bashir doesn't seem to find it all that funny either...

The Saudis use the M1. ;)

They didnt at the time. They were using M60's. Not until they seen the MBT in action did they want to purchase them. Not surprising. :p

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/16/cheney.iraq/?iref=mpstoryview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuXEDrDFhr4 Watch around 1:10-13

He says that even if America had got correct info about the Iraqi wmds(that there were none), we'd still have gone to war with them. So, this thing WAS planned out all along. PNAC and all that.

The shit just keeps getting deeper. Straughn said as much years ago.
http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html
http://www.geocities.com/jacksonthor/lieswmd.html
http://www.counterbias.com/527.html
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060301faessay85202-p0/paul-r-pillar/intelligence-policy-and-the-war-in-iraq.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/03/iraq.usa
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060311&articleId=2085
http://100777.com/node/133
http://thinkprogress.org/rumsfeld-called-tscript/
and ...
http://www.democracyinaction.org/dia/organizationsORG/ccr/campaign.jsp?campaign_

Some of those are funnier than others.

I honestly believe Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes. They lied, they knew about it, they didn't care, and hundreds of thousands of people are dead as a result. They are NO BETTER THAN SADDAM and if there is a thing as justice, they'll hang just as he did.

I honestly believe Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes. They lied, they knew about it, they didn't care, and hundreds of thousands of people are dead as a result. They are NO BETTER THAN SADDAM and if there is a thing as justice, they'll hang just as he did.
Did i mention this one?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
Did i say it was funny?

It's a rather common mistake. The authority of the ICC is actually pretty restricted. You would have better luck going after Bush through national Dutch law, since that apparently contains some provisions for universal jurisdiction in some cases.

I see. Thanks for the clarification on that one.

Did i mention this one?
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
Did i say it was funny?
i suppose its better for your stress levels to laugh but i find that it makes me quite angry to hear cheney refute himself.

I honestly believe Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes. They lied, they knew about it, they didn't care, and hundreds of thousands of people are dead as a result. They are NO BETTER THAN SADDAM and if there is a thing as justice, they'll hang just as he did.

*sigh*

Have you not read the links presented? If there's even a bit of truth, or the ability to say "this was the intelligence we had at the time", it's not really a lie. I'm not sure you can hang someone for being too eager to get any confirmation before acting. I'm no Bush fan, but I'd rather not play by their rules and just say "LIES" unless actual lies have been told.

I honestly believe Bush and Cheney should be tried for war crimes. They lied, they knew about it, they didn't care, and hundreds of thousands of people are dead as a result. They are NO BETTER THAN SADDAM and if there is a thing as justice, they'll hang just as he did.


First off Saddam had actually used chemical weapons before. So it is not to much of a stretch to say he didnt still have them. I highly doubt that he had none. Either they were destroyed prior to the ground war or shipped off to Syria. Evidence suggests the latter. So to say they flat out lied is wrong in my opinion. Did they over hype everything? Yeah they did. Should they have gone in is also debateable. Was Saddam is big piece of crap? Sure was.

*sigh*

Have you not read the links presented? If there's even a bit of truth, or the ability to say "this was the intelligence we had at the time", it's not really a lie. I'm not sure you can hang someone for being too eager to get any confirmation before acting. I'm no Bush fan, but I'd rather not play by their rules and just say "LIES" unless actual lies have been told.
I really don't know how anyone can look back at the entire public record of the lead-up to the war and say with any seriousness that Bush, Cheney and their underlings were not deliberately lying in the arguments they presented and the accusations that they made.

I fail to understand how anyone can look at Cheney now admitting that they would have attacked Iraq regardless of what the intelligence had been, and still claim that they were only being "too eager to get any confirmation before acting." Every single thing that they claimed was "intelligence" that "confirmed" anything has been proven just plain false, AND is accompanied by either documented proof or very strong circumstantial evidence that Bush and Cheney knew it was false when they said it. So, then, what did they think they were "confirming"?

The only "confirmation" Bush/Cheney were waiting for before launching the first strike against Iraq was the confirmation that nobody in the US or UN would take legal or military action to stop them.

The only "confirmation" Bush/Cheney were waiting for before launching the first strike against Iraq was the confirmation that nobody in the US or UN would take legal or military action to stop them.

Actually this is very likely. However the reasons that they gave were also acceptable at the time. Looking at it from an outside perspective it seemed plausible. However the run up to the war it was extremely obvious that they were going in no matter the excuse.

First off Saddam had actually used chemical weapons before. So it is not to much of a stretch to say he didnt still have them. I highly doubt that he had none. Either they were destroyed prior to the ground war or shipped off to Syria. Evidence suggests the latter. So to say they flat out lied is wrong in my opinion. Did they over hype everything? Yeah they did. Should they have gone in is also debateable. Was Saddam is big piece of crap? Sure was.
They lied because they did not care whether Saddam had WMDs or not. If I want to hit you in the head with a baseball bat just because, and I do it and claim that it was because you ran over my puppy, and it later turns out that you did not run over my puppy, then I am lying when I say why I smacked you with that baseball bat. If it turns out later, that the real reason I hit you with the bat was so that I could rob your house while you were lying there bleeding, then that gives a very strong suggestion that my lie was deliberate.

And it doesn't matter if in fact you once did run over someone else's puppy. You didn't run over my puppy, as I said you did, and I never claimed to be avenging that other person's puppy. Just like Bush never claimed to be avenging the Kurds, who the US was only to willing to leave twisting in the wind before. Bush's references to that earlier chemical attack only added insult to the Kurds to the injury of his lies about his war of choice.

Actually this is very likely. However the reasons that they gave were also acceptable at the time. Looking at it from an outside perspective it seemed plausible. However the run up to the war it was extremely obvious that they were going in no matter the excuse.
Not to me they weren't. I have uttered the word LIAR more times in the past 8 years than in the whole rest of my life put together. I have never heard either Bush or Cheney, or any of their lapdogs, say one word about Iraq that I thought was anywhere near not being a complete and deliberate lie.

I totally agree with your last sentence, obviously, but I have a lot of difficulty imagining a perspective from which their excuses could have looked plausible to anyone at any time. I listen to people on this forum, in the media and in my own social circle saying that there was plausibility, and to me, that just sounds crazy or like they're in denial somehow.

I listen to people on this forum, in the media and in my own social circle saying that there was plausibility, and to me, that just sounds crazy or like they're in denial somehow.

You know the saying. There's a sucker born every minute. Nigerian scam successes and people who bought the codswallop Bush peddled prove it.

You know the saying. There's a sucker born every minute. Nigerian scam successes and people who bought the codswallop Bush peddled prove it.
Too, too, bitterly true.

You know the saying. There's a sucker born every minute. Nigerian scam successes and people who bought the codswallop Bush peddled prove it.
well now they didnt do it all on their own. the media pushed it just as hard. the congress pushed the idea (not that i think they wanted to go to war, they were more trying to sound tough in the face of "evil")

anyone who said "now wait a minute here, this isnt making any sense" was shut down as an antiamerican fool. no real discussion was allowed.

it was the one thing bush was masterful at. getting everyone who mattered to sign onto the idea that saddam hussein was an imminent threat.

anyone who said "now wait a minute here, this isnt making any sense" was shut down as an antiamerican fool. no real discussion was allowed.

Which is the cause of me wondering why is it that more people are NOT looking to rub it in. I mean, those that were shut down, especially in the media... They could do it.

I really don't know how anyone can look back at the entire public record of the lead-up to the war and say with any seriousness that Bush, Cheney and their underlings were not deliberately lying in the arguments they presented and the accusations that they made.

I fail to understand how anyone can look at Cheney now admitting that they would have attacked Iraq regardless of what the intelligence had been, and still claim that they were only being "too eager to get any confirmation before acting." Every single thing that they claimed was "intelligence" that "confirmed" anything has been proven just plain false, AND is accompanied by either documented proof or very strong circumstantial evidence that Bush and Cheney knew it was false when they said it. So, then, what did they think they were "confirming"?

The only "confirmation" Bush/Cheney were waiting for before launching the first strike against Iraq was the confirmation that nobody in the US or UN would take legal or military action to stop them.

You're probably right, but you've just said it -- "every single thing they claimed WAS PROVEN false." (Emphasis added) Nobody said or did anything to counteract the bogus intelligence they already had. Now, we may never know whether or not they knew not to trust information from Curveball or not. If it can be shown that the Administration KNEW that Curveball or like sources were unreliable and then used that source to justify their horseshit, you'd have something to act upon.

You're probably right, but you've just said it -- "every single thing they claimed WAS PROVEN false." (Emphasis added) Nobody said or did anything to counteract the bogus intelligence they already had. Now, we may never know whether or not they knew not to trust information from Curveball or not. If it can be shown that the Administration KNEW that Curveball or like sources were unreliable and then used that source to justify their horseshit, you'd have something to act upon.
of course they knew it. there were plenty of people telling them the truth.


they chose to "believe" the shaky facts that supported what they had already decided to do.

First off Saddam had actually used chemical weapons before. So it is not to much of a stretch to say he didnt still have them. I highly doubt that he had none. Either they were destroyed prior to the ground war or shipped off to Syria. Evidence suggests the latter.
Actually, evidence suggest the former. The evidence suggesting the latter is mostly flimsy, speculative and untrustworthy.

Not to mention illogical.

And of course, quoth Charles Duelfer:
Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/duelfer/index.html

So, with both Bush AND Cheney revealing what we all knew to be true about how diabolical they are, do you think there will ever be any justice brought to them?

PERP WALK!

Nah, if they're this diabolical they probably have some plan to escape into space if worst comes to worst.

You're probably right, but you've just said it -- "every single thing they claimed WAS PROVEN false." (Emphasis added) Nobody said or did anything to counteract the bogus intelligence they already had. Now, we may never know whether or not they knew not to trust information from Curveball or not. If it can be shown that the Administration KNEW that Curveball or like sources were unreliable and then used that source to justify their horseshit, you'd have something to act upon.
I got your point the first time you made it. The bolded part above is precisely the part that sounds like blind denial to me, because I look at just the public record, which cannot be even near complete, and even in just that fragmented overview I see enough connected dots to say with confidence that they DID know their intelligence was bogus.

And I dismiss the entire angle of questioning whether the sources were unreliable. Those sources were 100% reliable, inasmuch as they could be relied upon to say exactly what Cheney told them to say. That is my view on the matter, and I base that view on the public record of the lead up to the war, as well as events since then.

In case you missed my point the first few times I made it, I'll repeat again, just once more:

Bush/Cheney et al were not misled; they were not confused; they were not laboring under faulty intelligence that sounded plausible at the time. They were lying. They lied deliberately and for the specific purpose of ginning up public support for a war they had no intention of not launching. And the only reason they wanted to gin up support at all -- even though they didn't give a shit what the public thought -- was so that they could use public pressure to make the Congress cave in and release the money for the war. Period.

And it doesn't matter if anyone already has enough evidence to "act upon." There will be no action against these bastards for one simple reason: There is no will in Congress to take action against them. And that is just another shame on our country.

well now they didnt do it all on their own. the media pushed it just as hard. the congress pushed the idea (not that i think they wanted to go to war, they were more trying to sound tough in the face of "evil")

anyone who said "now wait a minute here, this isnt making any sense" was shut down as an antiamerican fool. no real discussion was allowed.

it was the one thing bush was masterful at. getting everyone who mattered to sign onto the idea that saddam hussein was an imminent threat.

Too few people weren't suckers. Pre-war, the majority supported the war and bought the whole thing hook, line and sinker, demonstrating a remarkable lack of critical thinking capability. Sheep, the lot of them. Even today there are those who still think that way, or rather, don't think at all.

Too few people weren't suckers. Pre-war, the majority supported the war and bought the whole thing hook, line and sinker, demonstrating a remarkable lack of critical thinking capability. Sheep, the lot of them. Even today there are those who still think that way, or rather, don't think at all.
while that is true you might want to think back to that time and remember how totally the argument was controlled by the pro-war speakers. anyone who spoke up was ridiculed.

it not like there was independent info out there saying that it was all bullshit. if you had no background on the whole iraq thing you had no way to evaluate how true the barrage of anti-saddam propaganda was.

i opposed the war not because i believed that iraq had no wmd, i had no real way to know if they did or not, but because it is wrong to go to war with a country that isnt doing anything to you and has not even threatened to do anything to you.

while that is true you might want to think back to that time and remember how totally the argument was controlled by the pro-war speakers. anyone who spoke up was ridiculed.

it not like there was independent info out there saying that it was all bullshit. if you had no background on the whole iraq thing you had no way to evaluate how true the barrage of anti-saddam propaganda was.

i opposed the war not because i believed that iraq had no wmd, i had no real way to know if they did or not, but because it is wrong to go to war with a country that isnt doing anything to you and has not even threatened to do anything to you.

I also remember the anti-war protesters and the counter protesters who were gibber mouth foaming idiots who couldn't even place Iraq on an Atlas, much less the continent it was in, but were all for pure genocide.

I also remember the anti-war protesters and the counter protesters who were gibber mouth foaming idiots who couldn't even place Iraq on an Atlas, much less the continent it was in, but were all for pure genocide.
it was a bad time.

we were taken advantage of by cynical men who wanted to invade iraq for reasons that are murky to me. they used our fear against us to get what they wanted. it is george bush's only triumph.

it was a bad time.

we were taken advantage of by cynical men who wanted to invade iraq for reasons that are murky to me. they used our fear against us to get what they wanted. it is george bush's only triumph.

Like I said, sheep. Fit only to be led bleating to wherever it is some jumped up shepherd decides. People like to blather about freedom to think do as they please, but most of them only seem to want to use that so called freedom to throw it away.

Of course, they never actually wanted it to begin with. Real freedom entails responsibility, something that the consumerist society despises. What they wanted is the illusion of it.

I also remember the anti-war protesters and the counter protesters who were gibber mouth foaming idiots who couldn't even place Iraq on an Atlas, much less the continent it was in, but were all for pure genocide.

In their defense, Iraq is very heavy, and you'd probably ruin the atlas you placed it on anyway. Maybe they didn't want to take the risk of back pain/broken atlases.

I got your point the first time you made it. The bolded part above is precisely the part that sounds like blind denial to me, because I look at just the public record, which cannot be even near complete, and even in just that fragmented overview I see enough connected dots to say with confidence that they DID know their intelligence was bogus.

And I dismiss the entire angle of questioning whether the sources were unreliable. Those sources were 100% reliable, inasmuch as they could be relied upon to say exactly what Cheney told them to say. That is my view on the matter, and I base that view on the public record of the lead up to the war, as well as events since then.

In case you missed my point the first few times I made it, I'll repeat again, just once more:

Bush/Cheney et al were not misled; they were not confused; they were not laboring under faulty intelligence that sounded plausible at the time. They were lying. They lied deliberately and for the specific purpose of ginning up public support for a war they had no intention of not launching. And the only reason they wanted to gin up support at all -- even though they didn't give a shit what the public thought -- was so that they could use public pressure to make the Congress cave in and release the money for the war. Period.

And it doesn't matter if anyone already has enough evidence to "act upon." There will be no action against these bastards for one simple reason: There is no will in Congress to take action against them. And that is just another shame on our country.

You do know I agree with you, right?

I'm playing a slight Devil's Advocate here simply because if there's ever even a scintilla of hope that someone high up gets what they truly deserve, I want to make sure the case is air-fucking-tight. I know nobody here will be arguing it (well, maybe Neo Art, if we're lucky), but I wanted to draw a little of your kind of fire to make sure the thread's Bush fans understood exactly who they were mindlessly cheering on both then and now. I apologize if it galled you a bit, but I thank you for your unequivocal shattering of any potential defense of these...these...*adopts Col. Nathan Jessup voice*...fucking people.

I also remember the anti-war protesters and the counter protesters who were gibber mouth foaming idiots who couldn't even place Iraq on an Atlas, much less the continent it was in, but were all for pure genocide.

I remember a crowd of them actually singing:

"All we are saaaayiiiing
Is kick Hussein's aaaassss."

I very nearly barfed up breakfast.

I also remember screaming at the TV whenever Rumsfeld or Cheney or Bush or any of them came on to ramp up the war. I'd just yell "PROOOOOF!!!" and get very agitated.

I remember a crowd of them actually singing:

"All we are saaaayiiiing
Is kick Hussein's aaaassss."

A guy wearing a shirt with the ORIGINAL lyrics, on the other hand, got kicked off a mall.

That and several other examples show how mean the pro-war mob was. Which baffles me as to why no one called them on it. Why is no one rubbing it on their faces. They didn't debate. They simply shouted "Anti-American!" and kept on. Why does no one call them on it? Why are the (former) 20% who opposed the war from the start not gloating? Not saying they told them so? Not making the simple act of being pro-war sound un-American and become socially unacceptable, like the fate those 20% suffered before? In short, not reminding them of the treatment they dealt and making them regret it?

I remember a crowd of them actually singing:

"All we are saaaayiiiing
Is kick Hussein's aaaassss."

I very nearly barfed up breakfast.

Likely they were immature (not necessarily young) dolts to whom war is something that happens on the TV, nice and sterile, and the only people who die are cartoon villains.


I also remember screaming at the TV whenever Rumsfeld or Cheney or Bush or any of them came on to ramp up the war. I'd just yell "PROOOOOF!!!" and get very agitated.

Make a Bush and Cheney doll. Stick a lot of pins in them. Then burn it.


That and several other examples show how mean the pro-war mob was. Which baffles me as to why no one called them on it.

You're still on that whole "revenge for getting kicked off an IRC channel by dolts"?

Rubbing it in their faces won't change anything. They'd just go into denial and shut their eyes and ears.

If you want to change things, you'd find them, kidnap them, and put them in a packing crate on a one way trip to Baghdad with a recruitment form filled up in their name. Actually, better not. You'd just be inflicting more misery on the people there. Take out the recruitment form and make them live as the Iraqi citizenry do instead.

Words are meaningless for defeating deliberate ignorance. Putting them in the reality of their words is a lot better, especially when their convictions has a very real chance of killing or maiming them.

Rubbing it in their faces won't change anything. They'd just go into denial and shut their eyes and ears.

If you want to change things, you'd find them, kidnap them, and put them in a packing crate on a one way trip to Baghdad with a recruitment form filled up in their name. Actually, better not. You'd just be inflicting more misery on the people there. Take out the recruitment form and make them live as the Iraqi citizenry do instead.

Words are meaningless for defeating deliberate ignorance. Putting them in the reality of their words is a lot better, especially when their convictions has a very real chance of killing or maiming them.

Oh, but it's not only rubbing it in, it's dispensing the same treatment they did. Calling them un-American, expelling them from malls, making their opinion as much of a social faux pas as ours was back then. Rendering them unable to make a point without a shrill "You hate America!!!" silencing them.

That would put them in the reality of our debate.

THEN we could send them to Baghdad. :p

Oh, but it's not only rubbing it in, it's dispensing the same treatment they did. Calling them un-American, expelling them from malls, making their opinion as much of a social faux pas as ours was back then. Rendering them unable to make a point without a shrill "You hate America!!!" silencing them.

That would put them in the reality of our debate.


Wasted effort. No gains.

Wasted effort. No gains.

...fun? :p

I DID add a compromise, BTW... :p

...fun? :p

I DID add a compromise, BTW... :p
Sorry, H, but I am not interested in treating them as they treated others because they are scum and I am better than them. Since I am superior to them, why would I want to make myself inferior by acting like they do? Monkeys may throw poo. I am not a monkey and I do not throw poo. Those who throw poo are no more civilized or respectable than monkeys, and that's why I wish you'd get off this tack.

Sorry, H, but I am not interested in treating them as they treated others because they are scum and I am better than them. Since I am superior to them, why would I want to make myself inferior by acting like they do? Monkeys may throw poo. I am not a monkey and I do not throw poo. Those who throw poo are no more civilized or respectable than monkeys, and that's why I wish you'd get off this tack.

Interesting expression. o_O I get the gist of what it means, but I can't seem to find much on it.

(Sorry if I diverted it a bit, but the more I know of your language, the better I do my job.)

Interesting expression. o_O I get the gist of what it means, but I can't seem to find much on it.

(Sorry if I diverted it a bit, but the more I know of your language, the better I do my job.)
"Tack" in this context means an angle of approach to an issue or topic. It comes from a nautical term that refers to the way sailing boats zig-zag into the wind and adjust their vertical angle in the water to change direction. Those vertical angles that have the boat leaning more to one side or the other are referred to as the "tack" and steering by changing them (as when sailing into the wind) is "tacking". When you change "tack" you are changing direction or changing the way you approach something. When you're on a tack, it means you are following a distinct angle of approach. When you get off the tack you're on, it means you are changing how you approach the topic.

"Tack" has other meanings in different contexts (such as it is the word for equestrian equipment -- bridles, saddles, etc), but when I say I wish you'd get off this tack, it means I wish you would change the way you deal with the fact that you (we) were right and the rightwingers were wrong.

EDIT: By the way, a lot of people nowadays are only semi familiar with this phrase. They've heard it said but not seen it written and don't recognize the word "tack", but they still try to use the expression. That's why so many people say "get on a different tact." But "tact" is an entirely different word with an entirely different meaning.

"Tack" in this context means an angle of approach to an issue or topic. It comes from a nautical term that refers to the way sailing boats zig-zag into the wind and adjust their vertical angle in the water to change direction. Those vertical angles that have the boat leaning more to one side or another are referred to as the "tack". When you change "tack" you are changing direction or changing the way you approach something. When you're on a tack, it means you are following a distinct angle of approach. When you get off the tack you're on, it means you are changing how you approach the topic.

Thanks. Thought it meant something slightly different: "direction" as opposed to "approach". ^_^

Anyways. I don't know. I guess it's just my nature. I'm VERY commercial, so to speak, and I do quite a bit to repay any debts - the good part is I'm very thankful to whoever helps me, and I also take the concept of "owe you one" seriously. The bad part is, well...

Anyways. Not to hijack the thread into a blog - or a Linguistics discussion - are there any groups at all broadcasting this interview or otherwise highlighting what Cheney said?

You do know I agree with you, right?

I'm playing a slight Devil's Advocate here simply because if there's ever even a scintilla of hope that someone high up gets what they truly deserve, I want to make sure the case is air-fucking-tight. I know nobody here will be arguing it (well, maybe Neo Art, if we're lucky), but I wanted to draw a little of your kind of fire to make sure the thread's Bush fans understood exactly who they were mindlessly cheering on both then and now. I apologize if it galled you a bit, but I thank you for your unequivocal shattering of any potential defense of these...these...*adopts Col. Nathan Jessup voice*...fucking people.
I suspected as much, but I admit, for a while there, I thought you were losing it.

Thanks. Thought it meant something slightly different: "direction" as opposed to "approach". ^_^

Anyways. I don't know. I guess it's just my nature. I'm VERY commercial, so to speak, and I do quite a bit to repay any debts - the good part is I'm very thankful to whoever helps me, and I also take the concept of "owe you one" seriously. The bad part is, well...

Anyways. Not to hijack the thread into a blog - or a Linguistics discussion - are there any groups at all broadcasting this interview or otherwise highlighting what Cheney said?
Approach, direction, either will do.

As for the speech, I don't know, but I would be surprised if it's not on youtube, or if there is not video of it available from CNN online or other major news outlets.

Approach, direction, either will do.

As for the speech, I don't know, but I would be surprised if it's not on youtube, or if there is not video of it available from CNN online or other major news outlets.

It's less about the Internets than about it being, well, broadcast at large. o_o

I mean, I don't know. A campaign to get them prosecuted or something.

It's less about the Internets than about it being, well, broadcast at large. o_o

I mean, I don't know. A campaign to get them prosecuted or something.
It was broadcast at large. It was broadcast when he said it, and it has been played over and over in the news media since then, with a lot of very angry and outraged commentary from lawyers and other officials. As for a campaign, there is never going to be one because, as I said earlier, there is no will or backbone among the Congress to take any action against these war criminals.

It was broadcast at large. It was broadcast when he said it, and it has been played over and over in the news media since then, with a lot of very angry and outraged commentary from lawyers and other officials.

Ah, THAT's what I was wondering.

Actually, evidence suggest the former. The evidence suggesting the latter is mostly flimsy, speculative and untrustworthy.

Not to mention illogical.

And of course, quoth Charles Duelfer:
Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/duelfer/index.html

Remember that the Iraqi Airforce flew many planes to Iran to keep them from being destroyed in the Gulf War. So illogical doesnt fit in the sense they would ship weapons out of the country. The Arab mind does not think like the Western one in many respects. What we find illogical is not the same with their mindset.

Remember that the Iraqi Airforce flew many planes to Iran to keep them from being destroyed in the Gulf War. So illogical doesnt fit in the sense they would ship weapons out of the country. The Arab mind does not think like the Western one in many respects. What we find illogical is not the same with their mindset.

And you apparently seem to think that the "arab mind" is incapable of learning from past mistakes as well, seeing as how Iraq never got a single plane back.

I disagree. And as I said before, the available evidence is backing my position.

I suspected as much, but I admit, for a while there, I thought you were losing it.

I understand. I'm far more verbally vehement when I truly believe in the stance I'm pushing. I know it'll be a long time before even history gets it's shit together and castigates this den of thieves and liars in full throat.

"Tack" in this context means an angle of approach to an issue or topic. It comes from a nautical term that refers to the way sailing boats zig-zag into the wind and adjust their vertical angle in the water to change direction. Those vertical angles that have the boat leaning more to one side or the other are referred to as the "tack" and steering by changing them (as when sailing into the wind) is "tacking". When you change "tack" you are changing direction or changing the way you approach something. When you're on a tack, it means you are following a distinct angle of approach. When you get off the tack you're on, it means you are changing how you approach the topic.

"Tack" has other meanings in different contexts (such as it is the word for equestrian equipment -- bridles, saddles, etc), but when I say I wish you'd get off this tack, it means I wish you would change the way you deal with the fact that you (we) were right and the rightwingers were wrong.

EDIT: By the way, a lot of people nowadays are only semi familiar with this phrase. They've heard it said but not seen it written and don't recognize the word "tack", but they still try to use the expression. That's why so many people say "get on a different tact." But "tact" is an entirely different word with an entirely different meaning.

God, I love you. I know that means next to nothing here, but I mean it as much as one can mean it in this context. Strong opinions, fierce defense of said opinions, AND a cunning linguist? You make me glad to be able to read.

And you apparently seem to think that the "arab mind" is incapable of learning from past mistakes as well, seeing as how Iraq never got a single plane back.

I disagree. And as I said before, the available evidence is backing my position.

I have a ton of personal experience in the Arabic world. Far more than probably anyone on these boards. Having lived in the Arab world and speaking the language I think I have an insight on whats going on. They flat out do not think the same way as we do. Is that a bad thing? Not really. I was just stating that the culture has a different outlook then our western culture does.

i suppose its better for your stress levels to laugh but i find that it makes me quite angry to hear cheney refute himself.
Funny in the sobbing, end-of-Donnie-Darko kind of way.

I have a ton of personal experience in the Arabic world. Far more than probably anyone on these boards. Having lived in the Arab world and speaking the language I think I have an insight on whats going on. They flat out do not think the same way as we do. Is that a bad thing? Not really. I was just stating that the culture has a different outlook then our western culture does.

However they think, there is still no credible evidence of said weapons being shipped across the border, or that they existed to begin with (aside from the pre Gulf War chemical stockpiles which weren't the ones people were working their way up in a frenzy about)

However they think, there is still no credible evidence of said weapons being shipped across the border, or that they existed to begin with (aside from the pre Gulf War chemical stockpiles which weren't the ones people were working their way up in a frenzy about)

Yeah, the Administration didn't get too frothy about those since they were given to Iraq by the US. ;)

You make me glad to be able to read.
That, in sincerity, is one of the coolest quotes i've ever seen here.

Yeah, the Administration didn't get too frothy about those since they were given to Iraq by the US. ;)

Would have been rather embarrassing, not that it stopped the average war loving fruitcakes from declaring that it was Saddam's personal brew rather than presents from Uncle Sam.

I understand. I'm far more verbally vehement when I truly believe in the stance I'm pushing. I know it'll be a long time before even history gets it's shit together and castigates this den of thieves and liars in full throat.
We can but hope that the principle of there being no statute of limitations on murder will apply. Look how patient the Israelis have been hunting down Nazis. Surely we can hold out hope that the truth will out and will have an impact in this story, if it's still going on in that one.

God, I love you. I know that means next to nothing here, but I mean it as much as one can mean it in this context. Strong opinions, fierce defense of said opinions, AND a cunning linguist? You make me glad to be able to read.
Aww... :fluffle: Thank you! I just read a lot and do crossword puzzles. :D

He says that even if America had got correct info about the Iraqi wmds(that there were none), we'd still have gone to war with them. So, this thing WAS planned out all along.

Duh? Doesn't Cheney run a military contractor company or something? War means money for them.

This isn't news in the slightest, in fact the administration has admitted this multiple times before. The line - "Saddam Hussein still had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the technology [and] he had the people. ... [He] had every intention of resuming production once the international sanctions were lifted. This was a bad actor", has long been peddled by the administration, for years. Not news.

This isn't news in the slightest, in fact the administration has admitted this multiple times before. The line - "Saddam Hussein still had the capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. He had the technology [and] he had the people. ... [He] had every intention of resuming production once the international sanctions were lifted. This was a bad actor", has long been peddled by the administration, for years. Not news.



Learn to read jackass.

Learn to read, jackass.

Fixed for irony.

There actually are really good reasons for the invasion of Iraq that didn't include the WMD BS.

But that's how the Bush administration works. They don't disclose their real reasons, preferring instead to disclose alarmist lies. It's not that they're wrong about everything they do (although there's plenty of that, too). They just routinely lie to justify doing everything, even if it's the right thing to do.

It's part of the whole Executive Branch Power Trip they're on. Remember the lesson of Richard Nixon: It's not illegal when the president does it.

Well, for Cheney and Bush, it's not a lie when it's the President saying it.

And this is what I think about that: :upyours::upyours::upyours:

There actually are really good reasons for the invasion of Iraq that didn't include the WMD BS.

But that's how the Bush administration works. They don't disclose their real reasons, preferring instead to disclose alarmist lies. It's not that they're wrong about everything they do (although there's plenty of that, too). They just routinely lie to justify doing everything, even if it's the right thing to do.

It's part of the whole Executive Branch Power Trip they're on. Remember the lesson of Richard Nixon: It's not illegal when the president does it.

Well, for Cheney and Bush, it's not a lie when it's the President saying it.

And this is what I think about that: :upyours::upyours::upyours:
I agree with your comment about their habitual dishonestly and that, given the choice between giving a good true reason for doing something or a lame lie of a reason, they'll choose the lame lie everytime.

However, I cannot think of a single good reason to have invaded Iraq. I do not believe there was a good reason they could have cited instead of their lame-ass lies. I think their real reasons for invading Iraq were all really bad ideas in their own right. In other words, not good reasons.

There actually are really good reasons for the invasion of Iraq that didn't include the WMD BS.

But that's how the Bush administration works. They don't disclose their real reasons, preferring instead to disclose alarmist lies. It's not that they're wrong about everything they do (although there's plenty of that, too). They just routinely lie to justify doing everything, even if it's the right thing to do.

It's part of the whole Executive Branch Power Trip they're on. Remember the lesson of Richard Nixon: It's not illegal when the president does it.

Well, for Cheney and Bush, it's not a lie when it's the President saying it.

And this is what I think about that: :upyours::upyours::upyours:
there were excellent reasons to keep a sharp eye on iraq, to keep the UN sanctions in place, to keep the no fly zones in place, to keep agitating for UN inspectors, have our satellites monitoring developments, etc

there was no good reason to go to war with iraq.

I agree with you Muravyets - even though Saddam Hussein was a genocidal dictator.

An ex-Maoist I knew (Albert Langer), surprised me by advocating for the invasion of Iraq. When I asked him why, he replied, "Because it will inevitably lead to the creation of a Palestinian state."
He saw the wheels within wheels that the destabilisation of the region that would result when Saddanm was gone.
However, even the creation of a Palestinian state (which I support) was no reason to support this stupid and greedy war that has cost so many lives.
It was a greedy little war for oil and my Christmas wish for Cheney is that one day, he confesses his bloody role in lying to the world while giving Haliburton carte blanche in Iraq.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/16/cheney.iraq/?iref=mpstoryview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuXEDrDFhr4 Watch around 1:10-13

He says that even if America had got correct info about the Iraqi wmds(that there were none), we'd still have gone to war with them. So, this thing WAS planned out all along. PNAC and all that.

The shit just keeps getting deeper.

So, with both Bush AND Cheney revealing what we all knew to be true about how diabolical they are, do you think there will ever be any justice brought to them?

This sort of thing has been discussed here so often it just gets boring. There are people here that are glad that we went to war with Iraq and there are people here who are upset about this. There are some people here who think that we went to war to stop WMDs. No amount of proof makes them realize that this was not really the case. If you do not like Bush and Cheney, that is fine. They are scumbags. If you do not like war that is fine, you are a hippie peacenik. If you like wars that end tyranny and help spreap democracy, you have my respect. *yawn*

This sort of thing has been discussed here so often it just gets boring. There are people here that are glad that we went to war with Iraq and there are people here who are upset about this. There are some people here who think that we went to war to stop WMDs. No amount of proof makes them realize that this was not really the case. If you do not like Bush and Cheney, that is fine. They are scumbags. If you do not like war that is fine, you are a hippie peacenik. If you like wars that end tyranny and help spreap democracy, you have my respect. *yawn*
What about if you like fairy tales more than reality? (see bold, above)

I think Clinton just put an end to the Bush agenda, and Bush jr started it right back up where daddy left off. plain and simple.

Yep. Clinton put an end to it by signing the Iraq Liberation Act. That must have been the last nail in that coffin huh?

Strange that all evidence, according to British, American, French, Jordanian, and UN intelligence pointed to a weapons program in Iraq is suddenly a diabolical plot created by a supposedly idiotic President and his evil minions.

This little conspiracy can only be believed by those who remember actual history.

Strange that all evidence, according to British, American, French, Jordanian, and UN intelligence pointed to a weapons program in Iraq


If you toddle off and read the Butler report, you'd see how thats untrue.

Strange that all evidence, according to British, American, French, Jordanian, and UN intelligence pointed to a weapons program in Iraq is suddenly a diabolical plot created by a supposedly idiotic President and his evil minions.

This is simply bullshit.

Also, so what? The US - the Bush administration - chose to ignore the evidence, especially after the weapons inspectors were let back into Iraq.

Even if EVERYBODY believed it at some point, that still wouldn't matter as new evidence came to light as the investigations progressed and the intelligence assessments changed underway. Just not in the US, where it mattered...

If you toddle off and read the Butler report, you'd see how thats untrue.

Really? You mean the Butler report that bolstered the credibility of the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger in 1999? That Butler report?

Cheney, just outright said that it was perfectly ok for the President to break Congressional Law as long as you just said it was for national security reasons.

*One last point: there is much consternation over Dick Cheney's "Nixon/Frost moment" yesterday, where he expressly endorsed the idea that, as a "general proposition," a "wartime" President can do anything he wants -- even if it violates duly enacted statutes -- as long as it's justified in the name of national security. In one sense, Cheney was being so explicit yesterday about his belief in Bush's lawbreaking powers in part because he's taking pride in being so defiant on his way out the door -- daring a meek and impotent political class to do anything about his lawlessness -- and also because Chris Wallace conducted one of the best interviews (and, revealingly, one of the only interviews) about the Bush/Cheney view of executive power.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/22/cheney/index.html

This is simply bullshit.

Also, so what? The US - the Bush administration - chose to ignore the evidence, especially after the weapons inspectors were let back into Iraq.

Even if EVERYBODY believed it at some point, that still wouldn't matter as new evidence came to light as the investigations progressed and the intelligence assessments changed underway. Just not in the US, where it mattered...

Once Clinton left office all the evidence changed huh? And about those inspectors: where did they say they cleared Saddam? Or did they just say they needed more time? Not even Blix says that Saddam was complying with inspectors.

But I do give everyone credit for avoiding the Iraq Liberation Act. It is good for your conspiracies to avoid such facts.

Once Clinton left office all the evidence changed huh?
No. See my post above.

And about those inspectors: where did they say they cleared Saddam?
Who said anything about clearing Saddam? You said "all evidence" pointed to a weapons program in Iraq, which is an outright lie.

Or did they just say they needed more time? Not even Blix says that Saddam was complying with inspectors.
http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/uncyclopedia/images/thumb/9/9f/Project_Managers_Moving_posts.jpg/300px-Project_Managers_Moving_posts.jpg

But I do give everyone credit for avoiding the Iraq Liberation Act. It is good for your conspiracies to avoid such facts.
What about it? It was Bush that mislead and lied to the people, and ignored evidence. Bush ordered the invasion and, as Cheney says, he would have done so even without the threat of WMD. The responsibility lies with Bush who took action, regardless of what his predecessors did or didn't do.