Former Vice President Cheney Says He’s Worried About Stability In Iraq After US forces Leave

by Bangalore 43 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  llbh

  Iran does not want a war with Israel, even the more extreme people in the the regime know that Iran will be annihilated. I agree with Justita's analysis ,Iran largely wants to be left alone, and Cheney's examination of what was going on in Iraq was woeful.

  The Bush/ Cheney invasion of Iraq was a botched job at best, costing thousand's of lives, mostly Iraqi, and vast amounts of $. with what result? Apart from Saddam going what benefits have accrued to Iraq, no wonder Cheney is concerned, but he and Bush caused it in large part? Saddam may have gone in the ' Arab spring'. Bush did, and does not understand the Middle east, much less really care for its people.

  David
• 

  designs

  David,

  What are your thoughts on Iran's and the Shiite's goals for the region and the growing Shiite influence inside of Iraq.
• 

  thetrueone

  It will not be "successful", from an Iranian standpoint, but it will catapault the world into... well, let's just say, the "next phase."

  Nothing but a bunch of sensationalist unbased bullshit.

  Nuclear weaponry is just another form of weaponry, just because a nation develops it secretly doesn't mean the nation that has

  it is more than likely use it. As far as Iran invading Iraq to eventualy get closer to Isreal, there is something called the United Nations.

  That area in the world particularly with its important oil production is sensitive globally, such as it is countries like the US would whack the shit out of

  Iran, no doubt with Britain and many other country's military forces as well. So the topic of Iran getting aggressive in the region via its nuclear

  capabilities is a moot point. Of course there's always those religious zealots who thinks when a political leader in the middle east farts,

  its the sign of the start of the Apocalypse.

  Not mentioning any names of course
• 

  BizzyBee

  Most costly Oedipal drama in history draws to a close

  

  The Iraq War is over, at least officially. It was, as then-Illinois State Senator Barack Obama said in 2002, a “dumb war:”

  I don’t oppose all wars. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

  The “cost in lives and hardships borne” Mr. Obama accurately predicted is impossible to fully reckon, as is the monetary cost. Well over 100,000 people are needlessly dead, tens of thousands more physically and psychologically scarred for life and around a trillion sorely needed-dollars poured down a rat hole.

  How did this happen? There are many reasons, but the short answer is that it was a perfect storm of assholes. It was an event that brought together a small but influential group of arrogant neo-con [gun-slingers] eager to impose their vision on the world, profit-seeking conglomerates yearning to cash in, a supine media and a nation insane with fear in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

  But none of it would have been possible without the insecure, not-too-bright scion of a prominent political family who was then in the Oval Office and burning to prove to his patrician daddy that he is too smart and capable, not dumb, not like people say. So now we know what happens when Fredo Corleone leapfrogs his smarter brother to become the Godfather—only of a nuclear-armed superpower instead of an organized crime family. Not pretty, is it?

  http://www.rumproast.com/
• 

  llbh

  Designs,

  Iraq is predominantly, though not exclusively Shia, unlike Iran which is almost exclusively Shia, so there is a natural fraternity there. Shia influence is therefore greater as Iraq is 60% + Shia, this is further overlaid with complicated tribal allegiances, The Kurds are a mixture of Shia and Sunni. This is to my mind where Bush and co singularly and miserably failed before their invasion, the preparation for peace was risible; the consequences were and are horrendous.

  There is no doubt that Iran foments mischief in places such as Syria and Lebanon, they also loathe the Saudi's and The Taliban. What is also becoming clear is that the people of the Middle East detest their kleptocratic rulers and want change irrespective of the branch of Islam they subscribe to. If the west helps this and supports this awakening, the region can and will change, it will anyway.

  A very good friend of mine who is an Iranian and still has family there is convinced that the Old Guard in Iran will change and or be overthrown.

  David
• 

  thetrueone

  The “cost in lives and hardships borne” Mr. Obama accurately predicted is impossible to fully reckon, as is the monetary cost. Well over 100,000 people are needlessly dead, tens of thousands more physically and psychologically scarred for life and around a trillion sorely needed-dollars poured down a rat hole.

  Well said Barack

  I wonder if George Jr. is listening ?

  Probably not, George is still counting the money he made selling and promoting his recent book

  and Dick is counting his money and worth on his stocks he had in Haliburton.

  Even Osama Bin Laden is thinking about George in his grave, laughing to himself " What an idiot "
• 

  thetrueone

  There's alot people around the world who also think George Jr. is an idiot that did something wrong in Iraq.

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l9xM5mwN-E&feature=related

  The cost of removing an already subdued dictator, namely Saddam Husein was far too much to pay for the Americans and the Iraqi's themselves.
• 

  AGuest

  Nothing but a bunch of sensationalist unbased bullshit.

  Perhaps, dear TTO (again, peace to you!)

  Nuclear weaponry is just another form of weaponry, just because a nation develops it secretly doesn't mean the nation that has it is more than likely use it.

  True. Although, it doesn't mean they're less likely, either. Certainly means they don't any one else to know... for whatever reason.

  As far as Iran invading Iraq to eventualy get closer to Isreal, there is something called the United Nations.

  Hmmmmm... yes. The same entity that stopped the U.S. from invading Iraq. How'd that work out?

  Of course there's always those religious zealots who thinks when a political leader in the middle east farts,its the sign of the start of the Apocalypse.

  Oh, now, see... for a second there I thought you might be addressing me/my comments, seeing as you quoted me in the opening of your response. Since I'm not religious, though... and certainly wasn't referring to, heck, even thinking about the Apocalypse... or anything related to that... you apparently aren't.

  At this point, though, I will only reserve my "right" to disagree with your... ummmm... dismissal... of what may be going on and say we'll all just have to wait and see. I'm in no great hurry, myself.

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  thetrueone

  Since I'm not religious, though...

  Again, peace to you!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA

  uuummmm..... Yeah Right !

  What was the resolve the UN established prior to the first Gulf war ?

  What would be the UN resolve if Iran invaded Iraq ?

  Iran would never attempt such a thing unless the leaders of that country wanted to commit suicide for themselves

  and their fellow countrymen . Another country that would probably join in kicking Iran's ass would be Israel.

  Make no mistake about it, Iran knows perfectly well who's looking over the region and why.

  Having their own nuclear weapons does nothing to change that established preconceived acknowledgment.

  Any kind of military movement by Iran toward any of the nearby countries would create an immediate action where Iran

  would get the worst end of the conflict and I think they know that as well.

  They're a bit of a backward third world country driven mostly by religious intervention but they're not totally stupid.
• 

  AGuest

  What was the resolve the UN established prior to the first Gulf war ?

  If THAT isn't the biggest red-herring I've seen thrown out in awhile. It's also a trick question because there's no way to tell whether you mean as to the first [Persian] "Gulf War" when Iraq invaded Iran (1980) and was assisted by the U.S. when it looked like they (Iraq) was going to lose... or the "Gulf War" resulting from Iraq's invasion of Kuwait? Even so, the UN "resolved" on quite a number of matters, on quite a number of occasions, and more than once regarding a specific country/region prior to both "first" Gulf Wars. So, of course, I truly don't know what you're referring to specifically, nor, I'm sure, does anyone else. Which I suspect you meant to occur all along, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just don't know any better...

  What would be the UN resolve if Iran invaded Iraq?

  I dunno... what it was when Iraq invaded Iran? You do realize, though, don't you... I never mentioned an invasion, per se... BY any country OF any country? And you realize that nuclear capabilities can allow a country to "invade" another from within their OWN borders, yet not literally with troops? And finally, you do realize that a LOT of such U.N. resolutions occur AFTER an invasion, etc., has already occurred? So, let me ask YOU... what you think a U.N. resolution is going to do to STOP it... AFTER a country has launched a nuclear weapon? They can "resolve" all they want after, sure.

  Iran would never attempt such a thing unless the leaders of that country wanted to commit suicide for themselves and their fellow countrymen.

  Well, not saying that "sacrifices" won't be made... but if those who would retaliate are momentarily crippled... due to being caught off guard... and Iran's allies stand ready to help defend any late but viable counter-attacks... and so the U.N. does so resolve... afterward... that because any retaliation would only leave the world in greater devastation none (of the same caliber) can or will be tolerated... I don't think Iran's gonna see it the way you NOW... at that time.

  Another country that would probably join in kicking Iran's ass would be Israel.

  Well, I DID state that the outcome wouldn't be the "success" Iran was hoping for. Funny, you missed that...

  Make no mistake about it, Iran knows perfectly well who's looking over the region and why. Having their own nuclear weapons does nothing to change that established preconceived acknowledgment.

  Oh, you're thinking that they're gonna be concerned about that then. Okay.

  Any kind of military movement by Iran toward any of the nearby countries would create an immediate action where Iran would get the worst end of the conflict and I think they know that as well.

  You know, I would have had more respect for your position would it have been that Iran didn't have a problem with Israel. Or, even better, the PEOPLE of Iran don't have a problem with Israel. I will offer, however, that when what recently occurred in Egypt and Libya... and now in Syria... attempted to occur in Iran... well, it didn't get very far, did it? Why? Because it's not the people who push the military "buttons" there.

  They're a bit of a backward third world country driven mostly by religious intervention but they're not totally stupid

  Oh, I NEVER said that, not at all. And I'm not sure I would call them "third world." Third world countries don't often have principal ballerinas. The arts aren't usually all that important with them.

  Again, we'll have to wait and see, dear one... and agree to disagree in the meantime.

  Peace to you!

  YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,

  SA