Uh, excuse me, Mr. Cheney, I hate to burst your bubble, but there ALREADY seems to be a bit of chaos in Iraq, you know? We can put US troops in the middle of this chaos where they can (and will) get killed, OR, we can bring them home where they are very much LESS likely to be killed. The Iraqi chaos will get along just fine without us.
MOREOVER, if you were REALLY so concerned about Iraqi chaos, perhaps you should not have invaded this country, deposing and executing one of the few men in the world who was capable of governing this mess? I guess now you perhaps have a little bit of insight into his methods of government, yes? They seemed a little distasteful to us, didn't they? Nevertheless, his harsh methods generated a stable government that was able to rule these people with a minimum of violence. He did a hell of a lot better job than we're doing, didn't he? Hope you've learned something about the Middle East from all of this you sorry sack of horse sh*t...
2007-09-14 05:42:52 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You're right nellebelle. It wasn't fair of us to start this war. And it won't be fair when we leave them with this huge mess. However, the reality is that we can't fix this mess. All we're doing right now is killing and dying. If we leave, a regional strongman will eventually take Saddam's place, bringing autocratic peace. While we stay, this cannot happen, and the killing will continue. Not everyone in the world can be ruled by democracy...
2007-09-14 05:59:08 · update #1
I like your response, harryd, especially with regard to Stalin. I'm not sure that Hitler lends himself well to the analogy.
2007-09-14 06:04:35 · update #2
Was that your doctoral thesis at Hezbollah University? The Kurds, all those buried in mass graves and those British school children your hero used as human shields might disagree with your assessment. By your reasoning Hitler and Stalin inflicted a minimum of violence on their citizens as well. They had "stable governments" as well. Any destabilizing influences were taken out and shot. Sieg Heil!
2007-09-14 05:55:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cheney of course jumped right on the GOP bandwagon in 2001 to make the executive branch the dominant, and perhaps, SOLE branch of government in America.
Contempuous of the Constitution, as befits a man drunk with the wine of power, and being mated to an extremely weak and hapless President, Cheney made hay while the sun shined.
Now his dream-world is collapsing, having turned into a far uglier reality, and there is no turning back for him. He'll go down screaming the same faulty premises until he retires in 2008, at which point he will make patriotic speeches about how America was "stabbed in the back" and collect large fees from audiences filled with old fat rich white men.
And life goes on in America, where even the most despicable of scoundrels can rise to high office if they are ruthless enough to do so.
2007-09-14 12:51:04 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
If the chaos increases so what? We went in and took down Saddam Hussein and his two brats. We helped them set up a government to replace Hussein. Now it is up to them to handle things from here on out. We cannot be their nanny forever. They have to grow as a country. If they can't do that then they deserve chaos. That chaos will be dealth with by the people of the region as they have with issues for over 3000 years.
2007-09-14 13:05:14 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
I like this part of your question best:
'Hope you've learned something about the Middle East from all of this you sorry sack of horse sh*t.'
YEAAAAAAAH!
I would have inserted the adjective 'devious' in there somewhere, though.
2007-09-14 12:51:57 · answer #4 · answered by Tokoloshimani 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Permanent base = Permanent oil = Exxon & Haliburton rejoice
2007-09-14 13:01:42 · answer #5 · answered by BrushPicks 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not a fan of (any) war, but I don't think its right for the US to start a war and leave without at least trying to make some semblance of order.
The pretenses of this war don't make any difference at this point. Most long wars prove to be unpopular.
2007-09-14 12:48:12 · answer #6 · answered by nellbelle7 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I agree with your observations... but what you have to remember is to whom this NEOCON runt was addressing his comments... not to someone with a clear vision like yourself, no.. not to people who have seen this cabal for what they are, no.... He is addressing the Lemmings and Sheeple that still have $hit covering their eyeballs....
Those who see the murder of Iraqis and the Military as expendable.. remember, they volunteered!!!!!!!!
Makes you wanna spit.
2007-09-14 12:54:12 · answer #7 · answered by Dream Realized 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Last nights speech topped that, though.
Bush claimed that the Iraqui's were wanting a PERMANENT US presence to help defend them from regional conflicts. he compared it to Korea.
Now really - what country would come to US for BORDER SECURITY EXPERTISE!!!
2007-09-14 12:47:22 · answer #8 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Apparently the Saudis have said US, you broke Iraq, you FIX Iraq.
What does that mean??
2007-09-14 13:18:54 · answer #9 · answered by Lotus Phoenix 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not a prob. 5-D says they're in their last throes, anyway. We're turning a corner!
2007-09-14 12:48:27 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋