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.

 

Look at this quote from Dick Cheney in 92

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 09:54 PM
link   
This is from Wikipedia. Quoted from Dick Cheney right after the first gulf war, hes answering a question of why the military didnt go all the way to baghdad after the iraqis were driven out of kuwait:


"I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home.

And the final point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties, and while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the (1991) conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, it wasn't a cheap war.

And the question in my mind is, how many additional American casualties is Saddam (Hussein) worth? And the answer is, not that damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the President made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."


Can you believe this is the same guy thats out vice pres now?


mod edit to use external quote code, please review this link

[edit on 8-9-2006 by DontTreadOnMe]




posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:01 PM
link   
Could you please supply the link to that quote?

Regarding the quote, he was answering with information available to him at the time.
More than a decade later, many things had changed that altered his opinions.
Not saying the War is right or not, just saying I think it is out of context with today's situation.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   
heres your link
en.wikipedia.org...
under the section "end of hostile activities"

while your right, he was working with the information available to him at the time, if we invaded iraq in 03 because "they had wmds!" which obviously they didnt because UNSCOM destroyed them all in the mid 90s, then why the hell didnt we go all the way to baghdad in 91 for the same reason, except back then they actually did have the weapons and we knew it! not that i think it would have been a good idea, but that was the stated reason for doing it in 03



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
Could you please supply the link to that quote?

Regarding the quote, he was answering with information available to him at the time.
More than a decade later, many things had changed that altered his opinions.
Not saying the War is right or not, just saying I think it is out of context with today's situation.


I swear some people work for propoganda organisations on this website.

Chenney would of know from his days of saying that speach.. there was no imminent terrorirst THREAT from that country. because that country had just found out that the US could totally dominate them, and htey didnt want lose there lavish palaces and lifestyles.

But what did this admin push so hard the connection?
Think about it.. 911, which had nothing to do with iraq...
was used as a REASON... to invade and occupy.

He obviously had a major change of heart.. maybe influnced through money.... power?.....

And the information to him at hand?
would of been pretty conclusive in the statement that
' iraq no longer produced, or stock piled chemical and biological weapons '

Why has ats become a sanction of government dis - information.



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 11:35 PM
link   
Here's a link.

Personally I think Cheney showed a lot more sense in '92.

Occupying Iraq was a bad idea back then, it was a bad idea in 2003.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 12:26 AM
link   
real nice link xmotex there was more there that what i had on my link. its amazing, like was cheney taken somewhere and brainwashed or something i still cant believe hes the same guy as the guy making the remarks in 92. every bad scenario he envisioned of a occupation of iraq, has come true. but in 92 he was well aware of it and chose not to fully invade iraq.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 03:56 AM
link   
Iraq is a "proving ground". It's nothing more than a coordinated excercise to condition troops for the battle with the ME. This has been building for some time (ever since we supported the forming of Israel). Desert warfare has been practiced in the region for millenia, and we have been drawn into it.
The attacks of 9.11 were significant in that they showed we were not invincible, and there's a lot of dissent within the public.
There would be a lot of outcry to cease any type of war, but we are currently involved in two regions, and the involvement with Iran is getting complex. Not to mention Pakistan (amnesty for a known terrorist).

I believe that this war will be scaled, with neither side wanting all out engagement, but rather a limited conflict. Much like it is in Iraq right now.


[edit on 9/9/2006 by bothered]



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Cheney has alaways done what profited him and those around him, he is a very rich man and as you can see from this report he is no boy scout by any means.



www.commondreams.org...
But the one company that helped Saddam exploit the oil-for-food program in the mid-1990s that wasn’t identified in Duelfer’s report was Halliburton, and the person at the helm of Halliburton at the time of the scheme was Vice President Dick Cheney. Halliburton and its subsidiaries were one of several American and foreign oil supply companies that helped Iraq increase its crude exports from $4 billion in 1997 to nearly $18 billion in 2000 by skirting U.S. laws and selling Iraq spare parts so it could repair its oil fields and pump more oil.

U.N. documents show that Halliburton's affiliates have had controversial dealings with the Iraqi regime during Cheney's tenure at the company and played a part in helping Saddam Hussein illegally pocket billions of dollars under the U.N.’s oil-for-food program. The Clinton administration blocked one deal Halliburton was trying to push through sale because it was "not authorized under the oil-for-food deal," according to U.N. documents. That deal, between Halliburton subsidiary Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co. and Iraq, included agreements by the firm to sell nearly $1 million in spare parts, compressors and firefighting equipment to refurbish an offshore oil terminal, Khor al Amaya. Still, Halliburton used one of foreign subsidiaries to sell Iraq the equipment it needed so the country could pump more oil, according to a report in the Washington Post in June 2001.

The Halliburton subsidiaries, Dresser-Rand and Ingersoll Dresser Pump Co., sold water and sewage treatment pumps, spare parts for oil facilities and pipeline equipment to Baghdad through French affiliates from the first half of 1997 to the summer of 2000, U.N. records show. Ingersoll Dresser Pump also signed contracts -- later blocked by the United States -- according to the Post, to help repair an Iraqi oil terminal that U.S.-led military forces destroyed in the Gulf War years earlier.



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 07:21 AM
link   
Hunger for money, power, greed played major parts, as well as Bush's determination to put forth a plan for the NWO...such as his daddy wanted.
I've always said Dad Bush has his fingerprints all over what is transpiring today.
He's pulling his sons strings. AND so is Cheney...



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
Why has ats become a sanction of government dis - information.


We tend to see this accusation from time to time. It generally comes form a overall balanced approach that can be confounding to some contemporary conspiracy theorists who would have us act differently.

I think I'm safe in saying that a significant number of long-term ATS members pride themselves in being "critical thinkers" and have been researching and speculating on conspiracy theory long before 9/11/2001. Somehow, after 9/11, we began to see a massive influx of "closed minded conspiracy theorists" who become agitated at the thought of considering all evidence, angles, ideas, alternatives, and theories.

For example, most conservatives who frequent ATS tend to think I'm liberal because I'm exceptionally critical of the Bush administration... well, the couldn't be more wrong... I was just as critical of Clinton -- I dislike all politicians with equal rancor.

Overall, there's a great deal of information here that spans the spectrum of alarmingly supportive of the administration to stunningly critical. It's all here.

Enjoy.



posted on Sep, 10 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Granted S.O,

It just seems to me, sometimes very convenient posts/threads appear.. right when they are needed.

Some peoples opinions on this site, stink soo badly of blind support for current events, that its incomprehensable a reasonable thikning human being would follow such a line of thinking.

Im not saying this site was setup as Dis-info, or anything as such.
But in recent times Ive noticed a major increase in the PRO side for the government, especially when all the evidence and on goings point to EXACTLY the opposite.

IE,

Why do we get Marines in IRAQ, whom are under privacy agreements saying they'll answer quetsions.
Unless your living under a rock, its pretty obvious Iraq isnt going as planned, and is sliding faster and faster toward outright anarchy.
Yet certian members still spout the same rhetoric about freeing iraq, saying its improving and all the naysayers are wrong becuase there 'arm chair' readers.

Iraq is going anything but good.
It seems to me, the only people ive ever met, talked to or debated with that oppose this view.. are the government them selves, or people on this site.
Every citizen walking the streets agree's its a collosal stuff up, that is going no where fast.
But people on this site soo steadfastly argue thats wrong.. and its going good.

I love this site, I love debating and im a very opinionated person, im sure people are some times against my views, sometimes for my views.

But some peoples blind belief in everything this government says, tells me there more than just expressing there peronsal opnion.

There trying to convince you of something you should already believe, but chose not to becuase of the over wealming evidence of misconduct, outright devious acts and pure lies.. to convince the masses of one simple point.

'' the world will be better, with a US dominated middle east ''

Deny Ignorance

Ignorance = To deny the use of uninformed conclusions
Uninformed = Not having, showing, or making use of information

So what happens when your deliberatley wrongly informed,
making you conlclude falsehoods under the guise of denying ignorance?

Absence of proof, is not proof.
But when the only proof released is highly questionable, which raises suspicion..
is it proof enough that it is the ONLY Evidence?
when there should be much much more if indeed it is the truth,
especially when its not in your interests for there to BE Suspicion?


[edit on 11-9-2006 by Agit8dChop]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 02:14 AM
link   
No but it was Clinton who did all the bad before Bush!

Great link on the Oil for Food deals and Hali even getting caught once

Makes you sick really when you see him talk to us today and Cheney just lies to our face.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 02:59 AM
link   
Complicity


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
I swear some people work for propoganda organisations on this website.


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
It just seems to me, sometimes very convenient posts/threads appear.. right when they are needed.

Some peoples opinions on this site, stink soo badly of blind support for current events, that its incomprehensable a reasonable thikning human being would follow such a line of thinking.

Indeed, we also have some members who find a way to point fingers, make questionable insinuations about other members and engage in character assassination when confronted with different opinions.

These are classic tactics used by paid provocateurs.

Would it be appropriate for me to assume that you are a paid provocateur simply because I see you doing these things?

For what it's worth, I don't think you're a paid provocateur, but I hope I've made my point about the importance of refraining from ad hominem attacks -- and why such tactics are contrary to the goal of Denying Ignorance.

Instead of pointing fingers and posting false innuendo about other members, I recommend commenting on the topics themselves and the merits of the information and opinions presented.

Civil, topical discussion is the only way I know to counteract misdirection and disinformation, and I hope you will agree that this is a goal we should all share and help support.

Topic: Look at this quote from Dick Cheney in 92

Not our suspicions about other members or our difficulties in accepting their rights to hold and express differing opinions.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   
Check out these pictures...





Those two have been in cahootz for a long long time folks. Big Chemical, Big Pharms, and Big Oil all in one Administration. It's a corporate wet dream, and we're footing the bill, literally paying them to lie to us.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   
Thumbs up in agreenece.
I like the way i must be a paid provotaceur, becuase im willing to show my disgust at how senoir members obvioulsy dont post there opinion, but the opinion that suits the moulding of the viewers.

Thankyou for reinforcing my belief though, I wonderd which mod was going to have enough balls to reply directly to my 'dis info threads' being ive been commenting for a while now, and it seems there rather forgotten about in the hope of being washed over...

but I like the way im a paid provocateur..
that just makes me all warm inside.

But the problem is, if you saw lots of 'senoir' people doing these thigns.. you'd be fare to assume wouldnt you.. being its just myself.. well its obvious its my opinion.

but when i see so many members activley attempt to CONTINUE the governemnts attempt at conning us into believing things that are quite obviously LIES... welll ill leave that up to every individual to figure out themselves.


but mods, its getting obvious. especially with the predictability of certain memebrs posts.

I loves ya, and respect ' some of yas ' but id hate to think it was known by the admins that people were directly attmpeting to hide the truth on this site.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 03:34 AM
link   
Discussing The Obvious


Originally posted by Agit8dChop
but mods, its getting obvious. especially with the predictability of certain memebrs posts.

I loves ya, and respect ' some of yas ' but id hate to think it was known by the admins that people were directly attmpeting to hide the truth on this site.

If you would like to open yet another "ATS Cointelpro" or "The Mods Are Against Me" kind of thread in BB&Q to discuss your suspicions, I'm not thrilled at the idea, but that's preferable to derailing topics with these comments.

In this thread, your comments about the staff are off-topic and inappropriate.

Topic: Look at this quote from Dick Cheney in 92

Let's stay on topic.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 03:48 AM
link   
Majic this is exactly what I've been talking about... You say

[snip]



(Mod edit: Do not ignore my requests to stay on topic. We will discuss this matter privately. Further off-topic digressions or sniping will result in warnings or other staff action. --Majic)

[edit on 9/11/2006 by Majic]



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by twitchy
Check out these pictures...





Those two have been in cahootz for a long long time folks. Big Chemical, Big Pharms, and Big Oil all in one Administration. It's a corporate wet dream, and we're footing the bill, literally paying them to lie to us.


Rumsfeild is toast. The opinion polls show the need for a scape goat. I'd imagine quite a few know he is on his way out. Most likey will finish his term in limited scope. Kind of like Tom Ridge when American's showed their dissatisfaction with the gov'ts handling of the search for terrorists. It's becoming a pattern: Get blamed, blame someone else to fix it.

Cheney, on the one hand is prone to violence. The 'ole "I'll blow your friggin' face off" bit is one that should not be readily employed. Not to the tune of where Public Relations Press Officers determine the need for viable options.



posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
\Some peoples opinions on this site, stink soo badly of blind support for current events, that its incomprehensable a reasonable thikning human being would follow such a line of thinking.


Yes, but they're posting here aren't they? Consider it an opportunity to help guide them toward your understanding of the events. An angry reaction to someone's reluctance to let go of a faith in government/media won't serve any purpose but to validate their hesitation.

Calm recital of facts, with supporting information, and a heavy dose of understanding how they have been hoodwinked goes a long way toward dusting away layers of "ignorance".

In this case, with this topic, the quote from Cheney in 1992, a little Google research may have provided an enlightening backdrop for discussion:

www.lewrockwell.com...

Is anyone listening to the vice president? Is the vice president even listening to himself?


en.wikipedia.org...

In 1992, the United States Secretary of Defense during the war, Dick Cheney, made the same point:
...
Instead of greater involvement of its own military, the United States hoped that Saddam would be overthrown in an internal coup. The Central Intelligence Agency used its assets in Iraq to organize a revolt, but the Iraqi government defeated the effort.


There's a lot more here: Google Search Of Quote... most of which tends to support your position.


There... see how something like that, instead of anger, might turn a thread from reactive drama to productive discussion?




posted on Sep, 11 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   
During the time of the first gulf war we had a mandate to only remove Saddam from Kuwit, yes we hit Iraq with alot of things. But, everyone new to topple Saddom was to destabilize the region. We had our hands full with just his troops and were not prepared for counter insurgents.
Here is something to ponder.
www.ringnebula.com...
Jan. 1990 CENT-COM conducted computer analysis/games - testing Plan 1002-90. [Video testimony - Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (32)] US War College report written: "Baghdad should not be expected to deliberately provoke military confrontations with anyone (54). Its best interests now and in immediate future are served by peace."
Aug. 5, 1990 US State Dept. representatives, including General Colin Powell, flew to Saudi Arabia, telling them that the Iraqis were amassing on their borders preparing to invade. Official press releases included the fact that the Saudis were shown satellite photographs proving this buildup. [ABC and the St. Petersburg times revealed January 6, 1991 that commercial satellite photographs obtained from that same period did not show the claimed buildup (58a) - i.e.. the military photos shown to the Saudis were falsified (58b). [See discussion of evidence (58c) , CS Monitor coverage(58d), and video testimony within Hidden Wars of Desert Storm (32)]
Mar. - Apr. 1991 Popular rebellion spread broadly across Iraq in March. Under the ceasefire agreement, Schwartzkopf allowed Saddam's helicopters to fly through coalition force lines, that were used to slaughter Shiite rebels in the south and Kurdish rebels in the north (72). In addition, rebelling Republican Guard troops in the south were denied the use of their stored weapons. A massive refugee crisis on Turkish and Iranian borders followed. The failed rebellion resulted in over one-hundred thousand rebel deaths, and in keeping Hussein in power.
Nov. 2000 Iraq became the first OPEC nation to begin selling its oil for Euros, rather than for dollars.
Mar. 3, 2003 WAR IN IRAQ. NOTE: Thousands of rebels who might have been successful in toppled Hussein in Feb. 1991 had been killed by Hussein forces; this as a result of the US cease-fire policy at the time, and following the US's failure to support the uprising. (92). As this militia no longer existed, military experts within the Bush (Sr. and Jr.) governments calculated that occupation of Iraq would be met with less militia resistance (suggesting this war came as a result of at least a decade of planning and scripting.) [See: Reports from un-"embedded" observers (93)]

Where does this leave Cheney the man is not dumb and has been on every committee involved about the middle east for 25 years.

In 1992 cheney was not in a position to make the remarks he is making today!
As for ATS I would like to thank the board and owners to allow me to post information that I feel is important about 911 and the events of the world. As with all forums; posters have to defend their posts with real information, solid, precise
and too the point.


[edit on 11-9-2006 by mondegreen]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join