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.

 

Asked about Two-Thirds of Americans Opposition to War, Cheney says 'So?'

page: 9
21
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Apolon
 


Bush and Cheney have been in 21 wars since WWII, killing millions? With this kind of historical perspective, I see why some of you make the assertions that you do.




posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apolon
"Asked about Two-Thirds of Americans Opposition to War, Cheney says 'So?'"

Now, this sentence alone SHOULD cost him not only career but if there was a law in place he should be facing a trial for mass murder, genocide and ignorance.


You do realize that we live in a Federal Republic, not a pure Democracy or a Parliamentary type gov't, right? Our laws and foreign policy aren't based upon polls and popularity contests. If the public doesn't like politicians, their recourse is to not reelect them, or wait till their terms are up, if the individuals are in the Executive Branch. If there's evidence that there have been crimes committed, then the Legislative and Judicial branches can step in, and remove/prosecute the individuals. If there isn't evidence, then this won't happen. Aside from this, it's the politician's job to vote what they think is the best course of action(even if it differs from your opinion). Being unpopular isn't a crime yet, that I'm aware of. Being popular doesn't necessarily mean that you're right either, as Hitler was pretty popular. This is how the system is set up. It's not perfect, but it is the best system yet devised in mankind's history.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 04:34 PM
link   
What a joke
how someone in power can lie on such a consistent basis with total disregard to anyone and get away with it, is anyone in the public even paying attention?



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:18 PM
link   
reply to post by jmarmoro1
 


Huh? what'd you say?

Sorry, I was busy eatin' my hot pocket, drinkin' beer and watchin' fox news, they wouldn't lie to me would they? After all, I'm a Patriotic Ahmerican!

Damn, politics is boring, when's American Idol come on?

/sarcasm

The fix is in, and he doesn't care who knows.

Stay tuned!

Next up: Bush's War Part II: Cheney's War on Iran a.k.a. WWIII.



posted on Mar, 27 2008 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 


Since I was talking about US presence in 170 countries and Nazi were in only about dozen or less then I said THEY are responsible for killing of Millions of People meaning US government.

But if you want me to be even more precise when it comes to bush family, let me remind you that his grandfather was "American patriot" who made millions supplying heavy metal to Hitler Germany before and DURING the war till the last day.
Meaning?!
He was supplying 40% of heavy metal used to make Guns, Aircraft, Subs, Tanks and Howitzers which shelled and killed millions of People including your own kids sent in Europe by same zionist asshole in the white house with his blessing and prolong the war for couple of more years which was a plan all along to keep People like Hitler in power.
Lets not even go further with Rockefeller who made $300.000.000 in WWI. That is WWI dollars which is like a trillions now!

During both bush's administration aim was to keep Saddam and people like him well armed and happy and then attack them because he possessed arms that were sold to him by same blood sucking vampires in the first place.

Do you get the concept of starting and keeping the war on and on prolonging it all along, so few pigs on the top Morgan, Rockefeller, Rothschild's, bush's and similar pigs can make few trillions in a process.
You can check this what I wrote from many sources if you don't take my word for it.
Do you grasp the concept of morality and attitude towards ordinary People in a white house and in Washington now?
cheney and bush are a scum of the Earth. Simply put!



posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 07:54 AM
link   
I know this is a week late, but...

"They ought to go spend time, like you and I have, Martha. You know what's been happening in Iraq. You've been there as much as anybody. There has, in fact, been fundamental change and transformation, and improvement for the better. I think even you would admit that."

Personally, I think they should get all their money and toys taken away and they should spend some time HERE, IN AMERICA! While they are out fighting war, we are literally falling apart on the inside! WTF?!?

And, in my opinion, such a group of statements tells that he doesn't care what the public majority wants... it's his personal agenda (or administrations...)




posted on Mar, 28 2008 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apolon

A-Since I was talking about US presence in 170 countries and Nazi were in only about dozen or less then I said THEY are responsible for killing of Millions of People meaning US government.

B-During both bush's administration aim was to keep Saddam and people like him well armed and happy and then attack them because he possessed arms that were sold to him by same blood sucking vampires in the first place.

C-Do you get the concept of starting and keeping the war on and on prolonging it all along, so few pigs on the top Morgan, Rockefeller, Rothschild's, bush's and similar pigs can make few trillions in a process.
You can check this what I wrote from many sources if you don't take my word for it.



A- There's a big difference in having a presence in 170 countries where you have cooperative security agreements, and occupying 12 countries and controlling them.

B- If keeping Saddam in power was the Bush Jr. plan, why would we attack to take him out of power? If it was just a matter of making a buck selling him weapons, why not leave him in power, stop all sanctions, and make as much money off him as possible?

C- What the heck does Morgan, Rothschild, and Rockefeller, WWI, have anything to do with Cheney's remark? Cheney hasn't made trillions, billions, or millions since the invasion started.



posted on Mar, 29 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
A- There's a big difference in having a presence in 170 countries where you have cooperative security agreements, and occupying 12 countries and controlling them.


What about occupying nations WITHOUT occupying them? Puppet Dictators are a CIA and American Hallmark. Oppression through localized Despotism, it's the Outsourcing of Fascism!




B- If keeping Saddam in power was the Bush Jr. plan, why would we attack to take him out of power? If it was just a matter of making a buck selling him weapons, why not leave him in power, stop all sanctions, and make as much money off him as possible?


Because Saddam stopped playing ball by the agreed upon rules? Because we didn't like his uppity nature? Because he was getting to big for his britches? Because he no longer wanted to cooperate with our puppet-dictator outsourcing program?

Or there's always Resources. Mostly Oil. Saddam was planning on switching oil currency to the Euro a shortly before the war happened.



C- What the heck does Morgan, Rothschild, and Rockefeller, WWI, have anything to do with Cheney's remark? Cheney hasn't made trillions, billions, or millions since the invasion started.


I'm not certain your last sentance is provable, but then I'm also not certain it is disprovable. I get the feeling Cheney has become quite wealthy from the war, I am just uncertain where to look for it.

Why I say this is because there is no directly positive influence upon America, or any of it's politicians, by starting and continuing the war. There's always a motive, in murder and politics, and in almost all of cases it involves money.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon

A-What about occupying nations WITHOUT occupying them? Puppet Dictators are a CIA and American Hallmark. Oppression through localized Despotism, it's the Outsourcing of Fascism!



B-Because Saddam stopped playing ball by the agreed upon rules? Because we didn't like his uppity nature? Because he was getting to big for his britches? Because he no longer wanted to cooperate with our puppet-dictator outsourcing program?

Or there's always Resources. Mostly Oil. Saddam was planning on switching oil currency to the Euro a shortly before the war happened.


C-I'm not certain your last sentance is provable, but then I'm also not certain it is disprovable. I get the feeling Cheney has become quite wealthy from the war, I am just uncertain where to look for it.



A- Puppet Dictators that were pro US vs. Puppet Dictators that were pro Soviet? Are you saying that there are 170 puppet dictators that the CIA is in control of, and this is where our bases are? Are you including Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia? I wonder how many of the 170 are in locations outside of those countries.

B- If we were merely doing business with Saddam, ignoring his obvious moral deficits, it would've been a lot easier and cheaper to get rid of sanctions, buy oil, and sell him more weapons, wouldn't it? It was the French, the Russians, Kofi Annan, etc.. that were making the $$$ off him, who objected.

C- You have the same problem as everyone else who makes those claims. There isn't any supporting evidence, but it sure sounds good, and keeps people pissed off at him(it's a common technique known as demagoguery). Why wouldn't his political opponents exploit this if there was evidence? Are you saying he doesn't have political opponents that would try to exploit this info, or are they all paid off by the NWO?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by BlueRaja
 



Originally posted by BlueRaja

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
C-I'm not certain your last sentance is provable, but then I'm also not certain it is disprovable. I get the feeling Cheney has become quite wealthy from the war, I am just uncertain where to look for it.



C- You have the same problem as everyone else who makes those claims. There isn't any supporting evidence, but it sure sounds good, and keeps people pissed off at him(it's a common technique known as demagoguery). Why wouldn't his political opponents exploit this if there was evidence? Are you saying he doesn't have political opponents that would try to exploit this info, or are they all paid off by the NWO?


You're absolutely right, BlueRaja.
No proof, but it sounds good.

The facts, though interesting, are irrelevant.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Yeah, we are all swinging fists at cheney for no reason whatsoever. Poor guy is just there to serve and protect.
Just one infi and that is from 8 years ago. Can you imagine since what he did and how?
He is an EVIL INCARNATE! He let planes and whole NORAD stand down and HE and his masters are personally responsible for those events.
As a result of that order all those Americans in the plane and on the ground were killed. He is the worst mass murderer in a modern times...


"Ever since George W. Bush named him as a running mate, Dick Cheney has been all smiles. And why not? Cheney has led a charmed life. His political career included stints in the White House, Congress and the Defense Department. Then he went into the private sector and got rich.

But just how Cheney got rich deserves some scrutiny. As secretary of defense, Cheney oversaw one of the largest privatization efforts in the history of the Pentagon, steering millions of military dollars to civilian contractors. Two and a half years after Cheney left his federal job, he began cashing in on the very contracts that he helped initiate.

In 1992, the Pentagon, then under Cheney's direction, paid Texas-based Brown & Root Services $3.9 million to produce a classified report detailing how private companies -- like itself -- could help provide logistics for American troops in potential war zones around the world. BRS specializes in such work; from 1962 to 1972, for instance, the company worked in the former South Vietnam building roads, landing strips, harbors, and military bases. Later in 1992, the Pentagon gave the company an additional $5 million to update its report. That same year, BRS won a massive, five-year logistics contract from the US Army Corps of Engineers to work alongside American GIs in places like Zaire, Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, the Balkans, and Saudi Arabia.

After Bill Clinton's election cost Cheney his government job, he wound up in 1995 as CEO of Halliburton Company, the Dallas-based oil services giant -- which just happens to own Brown & Root Services. Since then, Cheney has collected more than $10 million in salary and stock payments from the company. In addition, he is currently the company's largest individual shareholder, holding stock and options worth another $40 million. Those holdings have undoubtedly been made more valuable by the ever-more lucrative contracts BRS continues to score with the Pentagon.

Between 1992 and 1999, the Pentagon paid BRS more than $1.2 billion for its work in trouble spots around the globe. In May of 1999, the US Army Corps of Engineers re-enlisted the company's help in the Balkans, giving it a new five-year contract worth $731 million.

To critics, this all adds up to classic revolving-door politics: Cheney's work for Halliburton, they say, has allowed him to improperly profit off of actions he took and contacts he made while in government.

"Over the years, we've tried to slow the revolving door to make sure decision makers don't benefit from decisions they make while they are in office," said Tom Smith, the Texas state director of Public Citizen, a non-profit consumer group. "You have to question whose interests Cheney is looking after, and whether privatization has really benefited the Department of Defense, or the defense contractors like Brown & Root."

Whole article here:

www.motherjones.com...



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Apolon
 


Apolon, a great find!! A star, and now I'll flag so I can continue to see what you provide!!

WW....'Good night, and good luck'....



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I'd be shocked if images similar to the one below were not used regularly throughout the general election.




posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 02:03 PM
link   
just in case anyone's interested, here's a youtube link to that piece of the interview:




posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Apolon
Yeah, we are all swinging fists at cheney for no reason whatsoever. Poor guy is just there to serve and protect.
Just one infi and that is from 8 years ago. Can you imagine since what he did and how?
He is an EVIL INCARNATE! He let planes and whole NORAD stand down and HE and his masters are personally responsible for those events.
As a result of that order all those Americans in the plane and on the ground were killed. He is the worst mass murderer in a modern times...





There's as much evidence for this statement, as exists for all of the profits he's made since 2003. What has happened is known as cognitive dissonance, where to justify your feelings about him, have accepted as true/accurate any negative story(whether credible or not).

The facts are these- Cheney has been scrutinized by political opponents, and they simply haven't come up with the evidence to back up the sorts of claims you are making. Just because you want to believe that Bush and Cheney are evil incarnate, doesn't make it so. All rational thought goes out the window, with ever increasing claims of treachery, and the choir going "a ha, I knew it!"

Additional facts are- there simply were no other companies that could compete with KBR, Halliburton, etc.. for the services that they won contracts for, because it was too specialized a skill set.

Of these stocks that Cheney has- how much has he no BS actually made from them? No one has any evidence that he's made a dime from these stocks. He pledged to give any profits to charity, and unless there's any proof otherwise, you need to put your money where your mouth is.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
A- Puppet Dictators that were pro US vs. Puppet Dictators that were pro Soviet? Are you saying that there are 170 puppet dictators that the CIA is in control of, and this is where our bases are? Are you including Europe, Japan, Korea, Australia? I wonder how many of the 170 are in locations outside of those countries.


I never suggested anything other than we depose legitimate governments for puppet dictators that are more friendly to U.S. interests. Having several servicemen in my family who've discussed the frankness of this truth, as well as many other servicemen who are well aware of it tends to lend some credence to the fact. Not every Country we have bases in are occupations, and some countries welcome the influx of American money (Though less so in recent years).



B- If we were merely doing business with Saddam, ignoring his obvious moral deficits, it would've been a lot easier and cheaper to get rid of sanctions, buy oil, and sell him more weapons, wouldn't it? It was the French, the Russians, Kofi Annan, etc.. that were making the $$$ off him, who objected.


Yes, and of course they would object. Switching the petro dollar to the petro EURO would've directly benefited the nations in question, while negatively impacting the U.S. economy as well as given inclination to other OPEC nations to follow suit. Which is what I was alluding to when I mentioned Saddam got too big for his britches.



C- You have the same problem as everyone else who makes those claims. There isn't any supporting evidence, but it sure sounds good, and keeps people pissed off at him(it's a common technique known as demagoguery). Why wouldn't his political opponents exploit this if there was evidence? Are you saying he doesn't have political opponents that would try to exploit this info, or are they all paid off by the NWO?


The only claim I made was that Cheney has directly profited from the war. While I haven't supplied any evidence in support of that claim, there is quite a bit of circumstantial involvement of Cheney with those who have something to gain from warfare, a history of working for defense contractors and subcontractors, as well as the remaining fact that Iraq doesn't benefit the United States, which again nobody has commented upon.

Someone has to benefit from a war, and if the American People are not that person, then someone has to be. Wars are never fought for no reason whatsoever.

As for why nobody targets Cheney, Cheney wasn't elected to office; he was appointed by his running mate.

Nobody has to depose Cheney. As an appointed official, nobody is running opposite him. That, and I don't think most politicians begrudge someone else getting rich, even if it is off the dead. Everything is up for exploitation, irregardless of party affiliation and most exploitation deals with making a politician filthy rich in some way, shape, or form.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by TheColdDragon]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by loam
I'd be shocked if images similar to the one below were not used regularly throughout the general election.



Why would they be used? Is Cheney running for office?



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Apolon
 





After Bill Clinton's election cost Cheney his government job,

< snip>

Between 1992 and 1999, the Pentagon paid BRS more than $1.2 billion for its work in trouble spots around the globe. In May of 1999, the US Army Corps of Engineers re-enlisted the company's help in the Balkans, giving it a new five-year contract worth $731 million.


And just who was in the White House between 1992 and 1999? The same administration that cost Cheney his government job.

So your accusation has a hole in the bucket, Apolon.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by jsobecky
 


The Administration doesn't have say over the Pentagon. The Pentagon decides where to spend its money.

And the Pentagon tends to be friendlier to the people that manufacture it's weapons than the Administration does. The Pentagon and Halliburton are in the same business, whereas the Administration may not be.

Essentially, it doesn't matter if the people in the Government were unfriendly to Cheney at the time, the Pentagon wasn't.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by loam
I'd be shocked if images similar to the one below were not used regularly throughout the general election.



Why would they be used? Is Cheney running for office?


Maybe not, but:




new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join