Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

In the 1994 interview, Richard "Dick" Cheney said that invading Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 03:45 AM
link   
ok i was youtubing lately and i came across this video link. I was surpised that Dick Cheney actually said it. This is what happened in 2003 and now Iraq is in a state of Civil War. Did Bush, Cheney, and Rumfield knows that invading Iraq in 2003 would result a civil war like what Dick Cheney said in 1994? I mean i don't know he was against it and now for it in 2003.

Do you agree with him that 1991 invasion of Baghdad would result a civil war like the one in 2003?

In 2003 invasion, what went wrong? I heard that was wasn't enough troops on the ground in 2003.

Was he said was true? I mean Al-Qaeda wasn't strong at that time in 1991. IMO when we invaded in 2003, Al-Qaeda attacked us and strong to conduct a insurgency all around the middle east.



edit on 18-8-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18-8-2011 by Paulioetc15 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 05:03 AM
link   
In the 1994 interview, Richard "Dick" Cheney said that invading Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein's in 1991 would result a qaugmire? Anyone knows about this?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 05:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


Saddam obviously went up in value since the 1990's.
He was worth alot more dead American troops this time around.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 05:30 AM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


Well regardless of what Dick Cheney said, i don't believe that Al-Qaeda was strong at that time to conduct a proper insurgency. Regardless i don't think what Cheney said was true about Syria, Turkey, Iran taking care of the parts of Iraq. When U.S./UN forces invaded Kuwait and southern part of Iraq in 1991, Al-Qaeda didn't attacked us then. When we invaded most of Iraq in 2003, Al-Qaeda already attacked us by then.

now Iran is still backing the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda in Iraq.



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 05:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paulioetc15
reply to post by pshea38
 


Well regardless of what Dick Cheney said, i don't believe that Al-Qaeda was strong at that time to conduct a proper insurgency. Regardless i don't think what Cheney said was true about Syria, Turkey, Iran taking care of the parts of Iraq. When U.S./UN forces invaded Kuwait and southern part of Iraq in 1991, Al-Qaeda didn't attacked us then. When we invaded most of Iraq in 2003, Al-Qaeda already attacked us by then.

now Iran is still backing the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al-Qaeda in Iraq.


Come on man! Their devious plans were in the stew since the first gulf war.
Al-Queda did jack s**t. The American Industrial military complex orchestrated
the 9/11 hoax in order to have an excuse to conclude Poppy bushes unfinished business
in the middle east..
He was called poppy for a reason, and you might not know it, but since the occupation this time
around, Afghanistan has returned to being the worlds no.1 heroin (poppy) producers.
Co-incidence, or what?



posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by pshea38
 


9/11 truther. Sorry i cannot talk to 9/11 truithers.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 06:36 AM
link   
In 1991 Al’Qa’ida did not exist as a formal entity and Bin Laden was busy annoying the Saudi Royal family over their decision to allow western forces on the land of the two holly places. I think what O’ Dick is saying about Iraq is probably him toeing the party line on the justification for not going after Saddam in 1991, but also what he is saying is true, just now we are seeking tension amongst the Turks for instance.

Like I said in 1991 Al’Qa’ida didn’t really exist and Bin Laden was not assessed as presenting any significant threat to American national security however by this time he had been preaching anti-western rhetoric for quite some time. Likewise in 2003, there was no Al’Qa’ida presence in Iraq the Bush administration did argue in the built up to war that Saddam had links with Al’Qa’ida however this was based on some very bad intelligence. So bad in fact, one could argue that the Bush administration lied about Saddam’s links to Bin Laden . Bush said to CNN of Saddam that:



"He is a danger not only to countries in the region but, as I explained last night, because of his al Qaeda connections, because of his history, he is a danger to Americans," Bush said, referring to Tuesday's State of the Union address. "And we're going to deal with him. We're going to deal with him before it's too late."


Quite an obvious statement there then that the neoconservative Bush administration presented to the world that they had intelligence that showed a direct link between Bin Laden and Saddam. However even as Bush was advertising these links to the public as a justification of war the Select Committee on Intelligence had their doubts and they were quite right to have their doubts because this was a lie. A lie that spawned from flawed intelligence that anyone with an ounce if knowledge about Bin Laden could have spotted in a nanosecond. The source of the information that Saddam and Bin Laden where best of chums came from Al-Qa’ida operative Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi who under torture passed this information on to his interrogators. According to Omar Nasari’s book “Inside the Jihad”, Ibn al-Shaykh al-libi was the man responsible for teaching militants how to resist torture and supply misinformation under interrogation. So not only had America got this information from the man who taught Al-Qa’ida to lie they also ignored the fact that Bin Laden hated Saddam they then chose to completely ignore warnings from within Washington about this questionable intelligence product and their serious doubts about any Bin Laden Saddam link.

“Al-Qa’ida In Iraq” did not exist formally until late 2004. In 2003, no so long after the fall of Saddam the Jordanian militant Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi travelled to Iraq to start up a militancy organisation originally called Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad. By late 2004 Al-Zarqawi formally pledged his bayyat (allegiance) to Bin Laden and his Al’Qa’ida network and renamed the group “The Organisation of Jihads Base In Mesopotamia” or as it was known colloquially “Al’Qa’ida in Iraq”.

Hope that helps dude, if you have any other questions give me a shout.
edit on 21-8-2011 by OtherSideOfTheCoin because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:11 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Regardless, i think that had we went in in 1991 and conduct a proper occupation and watch the Iranian border, the insurgency won't arise. I don't think that insurgents could conduct a proper insurgency at that time.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


Now we are talking in hindsight, we can only really discuss what has actually happened historically, as it was we did not go for a full invasion and change of regime during 1991. If we had things may have gone differently but that is the benefit of hindsight, in all probability Al’Qa’ida in Iraq would not have existed but the core of Al’Qa’ida would still have existed.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Ya i agree Saddam was a egotistical mademen and his Baath party is a bunch of thugs but i also heard that have hated the Islamic people so much that.s why he invaded Iran. He kept things in stable i believe. Well i don't know what would happen if we went into Baghdad in 1991 and all.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


Saddam did not “hate” Islam, he himself was a Sunni, Iranians are mostly Shia however that was not the reason he gave for invading Iran in 1980 however it was probably a factor. Also that war ended in 1988 so events of the first gulf war would have had no bearing on the outcome.

You are factually incorrect to say Saddam hated the Islamic people.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


oh thanks, but Saddam did keep Iran in check. We didn't have as much troops as it was in the first Gulf war, so because of that, insurgency arised in 2003.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   
I do not think it is a fair assessment that the war between Iraq and Iran helped keep Iran in check. Saddam came to power in 1979, when the Iranian resolution took place. Saddam was in power when Iran took hostages and throughout their policy of funding Hezbollah and Hamas which was not kept in check. Also remember the Iran contra scandal, America provided arms to Iran during this war and at the same time also aided Iraq and some have argued that Iraq’s use of Chemical weapons during this war resulted in the Iranians exploring their own WMD programs. It would be a oversimplification of history to argue that the Iran Iraq war kept Iran “in check”



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
 


Maybe because Iran and Iraq don't like each other very much. And yes i know about the Iran-Contra scandal that America provide to tried to fund the crazy anti-communist zealot in the Latin Americas. Right now Iraq is in ruins and have the backing of the insurgents funding from the other side, Iran. Pretty much what Iran wanted it.

And the 1991 invasion, who knows? H.W. Bush was told to back off supporting the rebels because they thought it would destabilized Iraq and turned it into a civil war so everyone back off as Saddam butchered them.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


In a nutshell, yes, what he said was true because at the time it was seen that he (Saddam) could still be "tamed" and that invading Iraq in 1991 would open up sectarian divisions, suck the US into a war beyond the UN mandate to free Kuwait and generally be unwelcome back home, which I think was the biggest worry. There was also the worry then that Iran could capitalise and seeing as the US had backed Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, this was taken into account.

After 2001, however, they had the will back home to go and "kick arse", no matter who really, so they took the opportunity then to invade. Don't forget too that in 2003, the US was pretty much untouchable and could do as they pleased. This wasn't the case in 1991.

EDIT: There was also the very real risk that the coalition that liberated Kuwait would unravel if the US stepped outside the mandate. Arab backing was very much key back then and they certainly did not want Saddam got rid of, as he was a bulwark against both Iran and Islamic fundametalists.
edit on 21/8/11 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:22 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


I don't know but i heard that when Gulf War ceasefire agreement was signed and UN enforced 22 resolutions against Iraq, Iraq was supposed to follow them and he didn't because he was dumb.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 


Well, there is the inter-war period nonsense to consider when looking at the 2003 invasion, but the main reasons behind not ousting him in 1991 was a fear of massive cival war which the US would be stuck, combined with the lack of support both home and abroad, especially Arab countries.

The 22 resolutions concerned things such as WMD, No-fly zones to protect the Kurds and Marsh Arabs etc. Most of which he violated at one point or another.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


What bothers me is that why did the UN failed to force compliance against Iraq. I mean the US and rest of our allies as party of a ceasefire given the UN a role of monitoring Saddam Hussein in the aftermath of Desert Storm they botched it, proving that they do not deserve the authority they were originally suppose to have.

Let's see i did some research about UNSC 687 and i checked the very last one of the article. www.fas.org...


Decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution and to secure peace and security in the area


So my thinking is that it means "obey or we will force you too." But for some reason, the UN failed to enforce it's resolutions against Iraq. Remember the oil-for-food scandal? I think that's the reason why the UN chose to be bribed by Saddam in order to get his favorite items instead of to the Iraqi people.



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Paulioetc15
 
The first Gulf war was poorly executed.
The second Gulf war was poorly executed.

We should have said "to hell" with the UN and NATO, done what needed to be done and left.
Instead, we tried to please everyone and anyone, but in the end we pleased no-one.

My 2 cents



posted on Aug, 22 2011 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 





The first Gulf war was poorly executed.


False, it's actually well planned and executed by George Bush Sr. and his military officials. It was deployed over 500,000 troops to the Gulf region, aerial bombardment, etc.



The second Gulf war was poorly executed.


It's no myth that Bush Jr.. Dick Cheney, and Rumsfield handled the Iraq War badly.



We should have said "to hell" with the UN and NATO, done what needed to be done and left. Instead, we tried to please everyone and anyone, but in the end we pleased no-one.


Try and look up at Bosnian war for example. The UN mandate even prevented the UN peacekeepers from engaging the Serbs. Yes i agree hat the USA need to kick the UN and NATO out.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join