Harris vs. Cheney: Who ya got?

#52
#52
McDad said:
We're also wildly inconsistent. This country commits genocide and we roll out the heavy hand. That country commits genocide and we look the other way.
Click to expand...
We don't just look the other way we outright help them. We're running naval blockades to assist SA in their genocide in Yemen. All about the almighty petrodollar
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#53
#53
hog88 said:
They did have WMDs, that's what Assad used on his people. BUT that still doesn't justify the invasion.
Click to expand...
That were of no threat to the US. That's the part that was sold along with the yellow cake farce
 
#55
#55
utvolpj said:
Then it seems you've read very little past 2003. Then evidence wasn't bad, it was fake. Cheney knew it and pushed ahead anyways

Saying you didn't know that at the time is one thing. Saying it now with everything that's been released is confusing
Click to expand...
In limited defense of Bush/Cheney; at that time so soon after 9-11 it was AWFULLY difficult to deal with uncertainty. No political leader wanted to be caught missing a critical vulnerability and being responsible for another attack. Any government at the time was going to be trigger happy. But we got it wrong. Hindsight is a bittersweet thing
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#56
#56
OrangeTsar said:
In limited defense of Bush/Cheney; at that time so soon after 9-11 it was AWFULLY difficult to deal with uncertainty. No political leader wanted to be caught missing a critical vulnerability and being responsible for another attack. Any government at the time was going to be trigger happy. But we got it wrong. Hindsight is a bittersweet thing
Click to expand...
And that's likely how Cheney was able to push thru his agenda. He was smart, effective and evil. I'll take an incompetent VP over that every time
 
#57
#57
OrangeTsar said:
In limited defense of Bush/Cheney; at that time so soon after 9-11 it was AWFULLY difficult to deal with uncertainty. No political leader wanted to be caught missing a critical vulnerability and being responsible for another attack. Any government at the time was going to be trigger happy. But we got it wrong. Hindsight is a bittersweet thing
Click to expand...

I don't think that ever crossed their minds with regards to Iraq. They saw a money and legacy making opportunity while the nations blood was still up over 9/11 and took advantage of that. Bush also saw an opportunity to finish what his dad wasn't able to do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#58
#58
utvolpj said:
And that's likely how Cheney was able to push thru his agenda. He was smart, effective and evil. I'll take an incompetent VP over that every time
Click to expand...
The ideal government (and the one envisioned by the founders) is one that is limited enough so that having either Dunce or Devil in charge shouldn’t make a difference
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and hog88
#59
#59
OrangeBoro said:
Yes and I was also thinking a guy like that needs to be taken out. And while he was a terrible violent thug, it's not my problem. Iraq/Afghanistan has shaped my opinion on things like Ukraine, not my problem don't send $$ we don't have to other corrupt leaders.
Click to expand...

First thing is Saddam was no threat to us. But he was a threat to Iran. He was a wonderful counter balance to Iran. It was poor strategic planning to take him out because it strengthened Iran, a price we're still paying today. Saddam would have seen to it that Iran didn't get nukes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OrangeBoro
#60
#60
Sea Ray said:
First thing is Saddam was no threat to us. But he was a threat to Iran. He was a wonderful counter balance to Iran. It was poor strategic planning to take him out because it strengthened Iran, a price we're still paying today. Saddam would have seen to it that Iran didn't get nukes.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately once he invaded Kuwait, he was seen as a threat to the Saudis as well. The whole mess started when Bush 41 let his ambassador to Iraq give a wishy washy answer to Saddam when he started saber rattling over Kuwait. If Iraq would have been read the riot act in no uncertain terms ahead of time, untold problems would have been avoided. A supposed foreign policy expert like Bust 41 blundered us into a 30 year nightmare
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#61
#61
Sea Ray said:
First thing is Saddam was no threat to us. But he was a threat to Iran. He was a wonderful counter balance to Iran. It was poor strategic planning to take him out because it strengthened Iran, a price we're still paying today. Saddam would have seen to it that Iran didn't get nukes.
Click to expand...
Why is Iran a threat to us? What has Iran ever done to us?
 
#62
#62
Rasputin_Vol said:
Why is Iran a threat to us? What has Iran ever done to us?
Click to expand...
The answer is not about threats because there really isn't one. The answer is about perceived stability in a region providing a critical global commodity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#63
#63
Rasputin_Vol said:
Why is Iran a threat to us? What has Iran ever done to us?
Click to expand...

Where have you been? Iran threatens us in all sorts of ways. They threaten the Saudi oil fields and we have a huge economic interest in those fields. Iran getting a nuke also affects us for sure. Both parties agree with that
 
#64
#64
McDad said:
The answer is not about threats because there really isn't one. The answer is about perceived stability in a region providing a critical global commodity.
Click to expand...
Iranian leadership has been stable for 40 years. And sanctions on Iran have affected the critical commodity they have more than the theocratic regime.
 
#65
#65
Sea Ray said:
Where have you been? Iran threatens us in all sorts of ways. They threaten the Saudi oil fields and we have a huge economic interest in those fields. Iran getting a nuke also affects us for sure. Both parties agree with that
Click to expand...
The Saudis and Iranians are making moves to end the hostilities between the two. If the US would just get out of the way, that would bring stability to the region.

MBS urged Baghdad to arrange meeting between Saudi, Iran FMs

And Iran getting a nuke only affects us because it would represent a deterrent from the US trying to invade like they did in Iraq. Contrary to popular belief, the people running Iran don't have anymore of a desire to die in a nuclear fireball than most sane people here. I say "sane people" because I think our leadership would have no issue lobbing nukes when convenient.
 
#66
#66
Sea Ray said:
Where have you been? Iran threatens us in all sorts of ways. They threaten the Saudi oil fields and we have a huge economic interest in those fields. Iran getting a nuke also affects us for sure. Both parties agree with that
Click to expand...
One day... in the not so distant future, the US is going to come to the realization that we won't be able to use bully tactics and our military to achieve economic goals. At some point, diplomacy, give-and-take, compromise, etc will be the way. Mutually beneficial trade and peace.

Also, your assumption is that these economic interests are beneficial to Main Street Americans, not Wall Street and Beltway insiders.
 
#67
#67
In the world prior to instant media, Cheney was able to get things done that we didn’t want to know how it got done. After 9/11 and his fingerprints on blackwater and Halliburton showed financial gain.

He was tabbed by Bush for international relationships and being no non-sense.

Harris was tabbed because she’s a non-white woman.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#68
#68
Rasputin_Vol said:
Iranian leadership has been stable for 40 years. And sanctions on Iran have affected the critical commodity they have more than the theocratic regime.
Click to expand...
Is Iran's stability a model which should be copied by other countries in the region and is Iran a positive influence on the region's stability?
 
#69
#69
McDad said:
Is Iran's stability a model which should be copied by other countries in the region
Click to expand...
Probaly not. But it works for the people of Iran. and so far, they have not been an aggressive nation.

McDad said:
is Iran a positive influence on the region's stability?
Click to expand...
No more positive or negative than Saudi Arabia, Israel or US/NATO..

I'm not sure where you are going with this line of questioning???
 
#70
#70
Here's just a snippet of what Iran is up to:


Designated as a State Sponsor of Terrorism in 1984, Iran continued its terrorist-related activity in 2019, including support for Hizballah, Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza, and various terrorist groups in Syria, Iraq, and throughout the Middle East. Iran used the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps-Qods Force (IRGC-QF) to provide support to terrorist organizations, provide cover for associated covert operations, and create instability in the region. Iran has acknowledged the involvement of the IRGC-QF in the Iraq and Syria conflicts, and the IRGC-QF is Iran’s primary mechanism for cultivating and supporting terrorists abroad. In April 2019, the Secretary of State designated the IRGC, including the Qods Force, as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO). Iran also used regional proxy forces to provide deniability, in an attempt to shield it from accountability for its aggressive policies.
Click to expand...

https://www.state.gov/reports/country-reports-on-terrorism-2019/iran/
 
#72
#72
Rasputin_Vol said:
Probaly not. But it works for the people of Iran. and so far, they have not been an aggressive nation.


No more positive or negative than Saudi Arabia, Israel or US/NATO..

I'm not sure where you are going with this line of questioning???
Click to expand...
 
#73
#73
The purpose of these questions is not to convince you that our intervention in the region is necessary or beneficial. The purpose of the questions are to illustrate how some people think and arrive at the interventionist conclusions that they reach.

I don't have to share those ideas to be able to understand and even articulate them. You strike me as an intelligent person who is capable of the same. And if that is the case, then your first response to my post in this thread is less about the understanding of the approach and more about the lack of US consistency in the region when our approach is counter to its stated precepts.

So, these questions are to accentuate how political leaders arrive at their decisions even when a government has been stable for 40 or more years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland
#74
#74
Chaney would take the lone wolf with a shotgun approach. Harris would hire a small militia and command from her bunker..
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top