English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

https://pol.moveon.org/donate/cheneyvideo.html?r=2879&id=10983-3848768-abKpTW

Cheney outlined in 1994 all the reasons it was not going to work to go into Iraq and take over. And his predictions were exactly what happened since the U.S. went in.

2007-08-15 15:42:33 · 6 answers · asked by Habitus 4 in Politics & Government Politics

So if he knew this in 1994, why did we do what he said we shouldn't do in the last four years?

2007-08-15 15:44:17 · update #1

6 answers

He had it right in 1994, the foaming of the mouth to reshape the Middle East seems to have pushed out all logic and reason.

Just because it was before 9/11 does not make it wrong, especially since it was entirely prophetic. Too bad he didn't review this little clip before rushing into disaster.

The "it was before 9/11" argument is completely irrelevant.

2007-08-15 16:03:31 · answer #1 · answered by Mas Tequila 2 · 4 1

Cheney became CEO of Halliburton in 1995.

Once he realized how much money he could steal by starting a phony war he couldn't care less how many Americans he killed.

2007-08-15 16:12:35 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 5 1

I just saw it too...pretty amazing that he forgot everything in 6 years. The following was written in 1966 and I am sure is familiar to any officer at West Point, because 1) he was a well thought of advisor, and 2) it is nearly a quote from Sun Tzu from the Art of War http://www.kimsoft.com/polwar4.htm

"Hence the skillful fighter puts himself into a position which makes defeat impossible, and does not miss the moment for defeating the enemy.
[A "counsel of perfection" as Tu Mu truly observes. "Position" need not be confined to the actual ground occupied by the troops. It includes all the arrangements and preparations which a wise general will make to increase the safety of his army.]


Thus it is that in war the victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won, whereas he who is destined to defeat first fights and afterwards looks for victory.
[Ho Shih thus expounds the paradox: "In warfare, first lay plans which will ensure victory, and then lead your army to battle; if you will not begin with stratagem but rely on brute strength alone, victory will no longer be assured."]


The consummate leader cultivates the moral law, and strictly adheres to method and discipline; thus it is in his power to control success.

In respect of military method, we have, firstly, Measurement; secondly, Estimation of quantity; thirdly, Calculation; fourthly, Balancing of chances; fifthly, Victory.

Measurement owes its existence to Earth; Estimation of quantity to Measurement; Calculation to Estimation of quantity; Balancing of chances to Calculation; and Victory to Balancing of chances.
[It is not easy to distinguish the four terms very clearly in the Chinese. The first seems to be surveying and measurement of the ground, which enable us to form an estimate of the enemy's strength, and to make calculations based on the data thus obtain ed; we are thus led to a general weighing-up, or comparison of the enemy's chances with our own; if the latter turn the scale, then victory ensues. The chief difficulty lies in third term, which in the Chinese some commentators take as a calculation of NUMBERS, thereby making it nearly synonymous with the second term. Perhaps the second term should be thought of as a consideration of the enemy's general position or condition, while the third term is the estimate of his numerical strength. On the o ther hand, Tu Mu says: "The question of relative strength having been settled, we can bring the varied resources of cunning into play." Ho Shih seconds this interpretation, but weakens it. However, it points to the third term as being a calculation of numbers.]


A victorious army opposed to a routed one, is as a pound's weight placed in the scale against a single grain.
[Literally, "a victorious army is like an I (20 oz.) weighed against a SHU (1/24 oz.); a routed army is a SHU weighed against an I." The point is simply the enormous advantage which a disciplined force, flushed with victory, has over one demoralized by defeat." Legge, in his note on Mencius, I. 2. ix. 2, makes the I to be 24 Chinese ounces, and corrects Chu Hsi's statement that it equaled 20 oz. only. But Li Ch`uan of the T`ang dynasty here gives the same figure as Chu Hsi.]


The onrush of a conquering force is like the bursting of pent-up waters into a chasm a thousand fathoms deep. "

that was Sun Tzu in 350 BC

2007-08-15 15:57:32 · answer #3 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 5 1

The key to that video is 1994. Before 9-11, and before all the earlier and susequent terrorist attacks. Also this is brought up by moveon.org. a very leftist/liberal anti-Bush organization...who would dig way back to 1994 to try and stir the pot.

We are there, we are committed and all of the returning servicemen I have had a chance to speak with say we are making progress there, and they support our President.

2007-08-15 15:52:36 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2 7

That's because he did not care weather it worked or not. He still gets paid weather Iraq flourishes or flounders.

2007-08-15 15:46:52 · answer #5 · answered by Kevy 7 · 5 2

The same reason Bill Clinton didn't listen to Al Gore when he said Tipper should be allowed to censor music in America.
He was the VICE president.

Imagine that, a liberal on a campaign to censor art. How do they reconcile that?

2007-08-15 16:20:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 7

fedest.com, questions and answers