It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Cheney blames the refugee crisis on Obama's failed foreign policy.

page: 9
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
Well I don't like either one of them but
it's kind of like Cheney killed a million people
and then yells at Obama for tracking in blood
on the carpet.


A million people eh.

Where did that 'figure' come from?



Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants..


en.wikipedia.org...

Interesting thing here is MORE people have died in Syria.



Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 140,200[1] and 330,380.[2]


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 8-9-2015 by neo96 because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 02:56 PM
link   
If I remember correctly North Korea made their first nuclear test in 2006 I am sure that was during the Cheney/Bush administration. I can't remember if they were shocked by that or not, but either way I would call that a fail considering we were looking for non existent WMDs in Iraq back then.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

Hard to call the WMDs 'non-existent' when the U.S. gave anthrax seed to Saddam as well as chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war...not to mention that chemical weapons have been found as recently as a few months ago.

Also the 'non-existent' WMDs used on the Kurds which killed 100s of thousands....

NK? Following that logic, I assume that therefore every country that has nukes-other than the U.S., of course- is also a "fail'?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

The 2003 war was about viable weapons it had then in 2003, not back in 1991.

Those weapons which has been explained countless times were from and used pre 1991.

No new ones since then have been found or made.
What was left in Iraq and "found" were just rements of those pre 1991 weapons.

Now as someone who works with dangerous chemicals I can tell you they were not WMDs any more.

Nerve gas has a extremely short shelf life. Unless you maintain it right its own volatility destroys it.

The stuff in Iraq was sealed in bunkers and forgotton. Buy 2003 it was no longer a viable weapon, just chemical sludge . Sure it would be corrosive and toxic but no more than some of the more nasty house hold chemicals you can buy, hardly a WMD any more than a bottle of inseticide. A AK-47 is more a WMD at that point.

If they had found REAL WMDs the CIA, Bush and British government would be shouting it from the roof tops and they are not because no VIABLE wmds were found. The only people claiming were real WMD are some questionble neocon websites that dont seem to have backgrounds in chemistry.

For Saddam to have had WMDs in 2003 he would of needed new production sites and high maintenance storage sites which he did not. Just a few bunkers that the UN knew about full of old crap from 1991 that was sealed then and never opened fill of chemical that would have lost viability as weapons decades ago.
edit on 8-9-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-9-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Cheney makes bill Clinton look like a boy scout



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Grimpachi

Hard to call the WMDs 'non-existent' when the U.S. gave anthrax seed to Saddam as well as chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war...not to mention that chemical weapons have been found as recently as a few months ago.

Also the 'non-existent' WMDs used on the Kurds which killed 100s of thousands....

NK? Following that logic, I assume that therefore every country that has nukes-other than the U.S., of course- is also a "fail'?





And it is a fail if that country that has nukes is unstable and crazy and outright threating to nuke not just your allies but the US itself and even releases pictures of its leader next to maps detailing those nuclear strike sites!


I cant understand why your so passive and cool about North Korea thats threatening to rein nukes down on you. Yet you have your pants in a twist over Iraq that didnt have any viable WMD by 2003 and did not have the capability to hurt the USA.......



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

Look, I'm not convinced that this was the right course, dammit. I supported it initially and for the longest time after.

Hindsight has changed my view of it. The result. The way it was prosecuted. The mistakes... too many to count.

Too many to go into in this thread.

IF it had been handled better, then there'd be more support remaining for it. A little better, a little more support, a lot better, a lot more support....IMO.

It is what it is.

The current bunch is only making thing worse. One cannot pursue the policy of isolationist, militarily and politically and have open borders with refugees/immigrants that are opposed to western lifestyle/philosophy without inviting future and worse trouble. Europe is clearly evidence of that and all signs point a worsening of that situation as well.

In that sense, Cheney is right. I also hold Cheney partially to blame for the failure of the Iraq war. as well. First and foremost, though, the Iraqis themselves.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker




Hard to call the WMDs 'non-existent' when the U.S. gave anthrax seed to Saddam as well as chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq war...not to mention that chemical weapons have been found as recently as a few months ago.


The US wasn't the only one:



Wikipedia's article on Iraq's WMDs gives a good rundown of the international contributions: All told, 52% of Iraq's international chemical weapon equipment was of German origin. Around 21% of Iraq’s international chemical weapon equipment was French. About 100 tons of mustard gas also came from Brazil. The United Kingdom paid for a chlorine factory that was intended to be used for manufacturing mustard gas An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium. The nation also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure, 16% of the international sales. Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq. The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq. Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions. India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses. Luxemburg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors. Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales. China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.


The US gets all the blame



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 05:31 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok




The 2003 war was about viable weapons it had then in 2003, not back in 1991.


The war was about a hell of a lot more than that.



The resolution cited many factors as justifying the use of military force against Iraq:[3][4]




Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors. Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region." Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population." Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people". Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War. Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq. Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations. Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers. The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism. The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.


en.wikipedia.org...

There was no single reason behind the war.

There were lots of them.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

How many times have the Chinese threatened 'war' with the U.S.? Multiple times.

Do you advocate taking China out, as well?

The big difference between the two is we had already gone to war with Iraq who HAD invaded it's neighbor-not merely threatened to- and failure to act would have resulted in an implied acquiescence to continue into Saudi Arabia.

Unlike you, I see Gulf War I and II as connected, even inseparable. A continuation of the same event.

The first and perhaps worst error was Bush senior's agreeing not to invade a Muslim nation to achieve the 'coalition' which was nothing more than a 'feel-good' P.R. job that was next to useless.

Toss in 9/11, a 'new' war, and you have an increased need to get the first one over and done with. Now add in the implication that a ME leader is 'safe' from retribution even if they invade a neighbor...much like the European 'royalty' with their "oops, my bad" wars in the day, and all the points Neo 96 posted.

Then there's Saddam, firing Scuds into Israel trying to draw them into the fray, lighting up all those oil wells....and you'd trust that those 'old WMDs' were in fact now useless?

Honour the threat. A Military maxim. That's my view of it. Can you not understand this view if it? Not agree, but at least understand it?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: UnderKingsPeak
Well I don't like either one of them but
it's kind of like Cheney killed a million people
and then yells at Obama for tracking in blood
on the carpet.


A million people eh.

Where did that 'figure' come from?



Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants..


en.wikipedia.org...

Interesting thing here is MORE people have died in Syria.



Estimates of deaths in the Syrian Civil War, per opposition activist groups, vary between 140,200[1] and 330,380.[2]


en.wikipedia.org...


Funny enough, you only quoted part of that wiki page that had the lowest body count. So if we just go by your body count the fact that 112,000-123,000 civilians out of 174,000 Iraqis were killed still doesn't bolster much confidence being that the majority of Iraqi's killed since 2003 were non combatants. Not the greatest counter punch...

Here's it is it's entirety for those who don't wanna click the link.



Various scientific surveys of Iraqi deaths resulting from the first four years of the Iraq War estimated that between 151,000 to over one million Iraqis died as a result of conflict during this time. A later study, published in 2011, estimated that approximately 500,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the conflict since the invasion. Counts of deaths reported in newspapers collated by projects like the Iraq Body Count project found 174,000 Iraqis reported killed between 2003 and 2013, with between 112,000-123,000 of those killed being civilian noncombatants..


Your, lower numbers, come from a web based project.

Iraq Body Count project



Iraq Body Count project (IBC) is a web-based effort to record civilian deaths resulting from the US-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. Included are deaths attributable to coalition and insurgent military action, sectarian violence and criminal violence, which refers to excess civilian deaths caused by criminal action resulting from the breakdown in law and order which followed the coalition invasion. As of December 2012, the IBC has recorded 110,937-121,227 civilian deaths. The IBC has a media-centered approach to counting and documenting the deaths. Other sources have provided differing estimates of deaths, some much higher. See Casualties of the Iraq War.

The project uses reports from English-language news media (including Arabic media translated into English), NGO-based reports, and official records that have been released into the public sphere to compile a running total.[2] On its database page the IBC states: "Gaps in recording and reporting suggest that even our highest totals to date may be missing many civilian deaths from violence."[3] The group is staffed by volunteers consisting mainly of academics and activists based in the UK and the US. The project was founded by John Sloboda and Hamit Dardagan.


Too think this web based project has every death calculated is a bit of a stretch.

en.wikipedia.org...



The Iraq Body Count project (IBC) figure of 110,937 – 121,227 civilian deaths from violence up to December 2012 includes reported civilian deaths due to Coalition and insurgent military action, sectarian violence and increased criminal violence.[18] The IBC site states: "it should be noted that many deaths will probably go unreported or unrecorded by officials and media."[19] The IBC website currently states that, "Further analysis of the WikiLeaks' Iraq War Logs may add 12,000 civilian deaths."


Oh, and only up to 2012? Shame since the Iraqi death toll has increased dramatically in Iraq every year after. But the important note to take away is that deaths go unreported, you know, because Iraq is in a quagmire and all. But let's hear from the web based group themselves.

Iraq 2014: Civilian deaths almost doubling year on year



2014 Summary

17,049 civilians have been recorded killed in Iraq during 2014 (up to Dec 30). This is roughly double the number recorded in 2013 (9,743), which in turn was roughly double the number in 2012 (4,622). These numbers do not include combatant deaths, which even by the most cautious tallies have also seen a sharp rise in 2014.

The conflict in Iraq that began with the US/UK invasion of March 2003 has continued now for nearly twelve years. During this period, not a single day has passed without Iraqi civilians being killed. The year 2014, however, reflects an increase in violence to levels not seen since the worst years of 2006 and 2007. The rise of the group Islamic State (or ISIS or ISIL) as a major force in the conflict, as well as the military responses by the Iraqi Government and the re-entry of US and Coalition air forces into the conflict, have all contributed to the elevated death tolls.


Hey look, there's your ammunition to point fingers at Obama because the numbers increased on his watch. But let's not forget it was Bush who signed the SOFA agreement with the Shia Iraqi gov't that troops will begin to pull out in 2009 and be completely removed by 2011, not excludingg the giant Baghdad embassy/base, military contractors, mercs, and military advisers, and drones/airstrikes.

Why not not Blame Obama though, if you're a die hard Republican, conservative, w/e, if this all happened during his command. It's not like he inherited this quagmire and left to sort it out.

Bush/Cheney made the right call invading Iraq and toppling Saddam. Clearly it's all worked out and Obama screw it all up.

I don't even care for Obama but if we are going to be their cheerleaders why not deny a little ignorance and accept they may have made a mistake instead of blaming the new guy who these problems were left for him to clean up.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

The US (via Donald Rumsfeld), UK, Germany, and France all made Iraq's chemical weapons program a reality.

Some WMD's, well chemical weapons, were found much later but the question remains, were these chemical weapons a threat to national security, so much so we had to immediately invade Iraq and take out Saddam? Seems all a little sudden, especially considering other ME nations have WMD's and we don't invade them for their weapons. Although, Iran is always going to be on the chopping block and is next in line for the WMD excuse.

But was I concerned Saddam was gonna launch ballistic missiles at the US loaded with mustard gas? God no.

en.wikipedia.org...


In 2002, Scott Ritter, a former UNSCOM weapons inspector heavily criticized the Bush administration and media outlets for using the testimony of alleged former Iraqi nuclear scientist Khidir Hamza, who defected from Iraq in 1994, as a rationale for invading Iraq:

We seized the entire records of the Iraqi Nuclear program, especially the administrative records. We got a name of everybody, where they worked, what they did, and the top of the list, Saddam's "Bombmaker" [which was the title of Hamza's book, and earned the nickname afterwards] was a man named Jafar Dhia Jafar, not Khidir Hamza, and if you go down the list of the senior administrative personnel you will not find Hamza's name in there. In fact, we didn't find his name at all. Because in 1990, he didn't work for the Iraqi nuclear program. He had no knowledge of it because he worked as a kickback specialist for Hussein Kamel in the Presidential Palace.

He goes into northern Iraq and meets up with Ahmad Chalabi. He walks in and says, I'm Saddam's "Bombmaker". So they call the CIA and they say, "We know who you are, you're not Saddam's 'Bombmaker', go sell your story to someone else." And he was released, he was rejected by all intelligence services at the time, he's a fraud.

And here we are, someone who the CIA knows is a fraud, the US Government knows is a fraud, is allowed to sit in front of the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and give testimony as a expert witness. I got a problem with that, I got a problem with the American media, and I've told them over and over and over again that this man is a documentable fraud, a fake, and yet they allow him to go on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and testify as if he actually knows what he is talking about.[76]

edit on 8-9-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:27 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I admire you for admitting the war was a mistake, even if it took this long. Just pay closer attention next time when politicians and media outlets from your camp start beating the war drums again.
edit on 8-9-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

China threaten war on the US? Huh? How many times has the Chinese gov't threatened war with the US, I am curious indeed!

NoKo, on the other hand, barks all the time and they have nukes. Are their nukes capable of reaching the US? Nope, not yet but I'll be damned if they don't keep trying to get it right. Funny thing is, China is NoKo's ally and that's why we don't invade them. According to Bush, NoKo is apart of the axis of evil but in 2006 when they tested their first nuke there was no invasion or much to do about anything really from the west.
edit on 8-9-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

In hindsight...and due to the mistakes made. The initial decision, I understand the choice made.

Let me ask you a question,out of curiosity, no malice intended.

Let's say it had worked out. Saddam gone, the general Iraqi population demanded peace and negated the 'insurgents' and perhaps agreed to split Iraq into it's three ethnicities...or some such scenario. In other words it had worked.

Would you say it was a 'mistake' in that circumstance?



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

Well we can pull "what if" scenarios out of the sky all day but we have to face reality and the reality of what Iraq degraded into was foreseen by the US/Friends and they still invaded.

That said, splitting Iraq into 3 sections instead of letting only the Shia run the show probably would have been a better idea. I'm sure they thought of that and rejected it.
edit on 8-9-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

Is there really a point to those numbers?

Considering:

1. The US left in 2011
2. Can't really pin deaths on any one group. Because no one knows if it was a.) coalition forces, b) Saudi's backed ISIS, or AL Aqaeda (Sunnis) or c) or the Shia side of that coin backed by Iran.

But hey no one cares about that they only care about '1 million Iraqi' deaths cause by 'Bush'.



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

You didn't answer the question...but that's fine.

Here's the latest one re China:

www.defenseone.com...



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 09:56 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

Is there really a point? What does it matter? Well, I was merely responding to your counter punch. The theme of my post wasn't only about all the lives lost since 2003 but the whole picture being relevant as your post only gave a smidgen that supported your perspective.

But yes, the lives do matter because these deaths are a direct result of invading Iraq and toppling Saddam. Had that not happened Iraq would probably not be in the state it's in today and those responsible for sowing those seeds are the Bush administration.

Politics is BS though because it's always about the blame game, not the taking responsibility game, but worst of all are the people who support one camp over another. What really gets accomplished with all this bickering and finger pointing? Nothing, but an agenda continues in the background whether a donkey or elephant is in control of the gov't.


edit on 8-9-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 8 2015 @ 10:05 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I'll play your "what if" game if that's really what you want but what's the point? If Iraq was a complete 180 than it is today and life was what was promised to be back in 2003 of course no one could dispute that there war was a success. Too bad that's not reality and as I've already said, Cheney was well aware of the dangers that laid to wait if Saddam was over thrown.

So that's it for China? Looks like war was threatened because the US is meddling in China's affairs. Oh that US gov't, it's true, they're always meddling in foreign countries affairs but if I was a betting man I'd put big money China and the US are not going to war over this, or any time soon. Both sides have too much too lose. Small Middle Eastern nations should be so lucky.

NoKo, on other hand, threatens all the time but are safe because of their ally China.
edit on 8-9-2015 by Swills because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 6  7  8    10  11 >>

log in

join