Cheney's grim vision: decades of war

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 03:20 PM
link   
Los Angeles -- In a forceful preview of the Bush administration's expansionist military policies in this election year, Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday painted a grim picture of what he said was the growing threat of a catastrophic terrorist attack in the United States and warned that the battle, like the Cold War, could last generations.


He also said the administration was planning to expand the military into even more overseas bases so the United States could wage war quickly around the globe."

Things obviously are goin to get alot worse than they are already....

www.sfgate.com.../chronicle/archive/2004/01/15/MNGK14AC301.DTL




posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Its a second cold war and inpart and a third world war. That was a logical statement. Anyways, we need to expand our military, Clinton crippled it along with the CIA. He reduced the budget so bad, it number of soldiers went down futher than peace time levels should in order to win a war and defend our nation.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 03:31 PM
link   
The more terror attacks the more money he makes.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
How does he make more money?



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxman
Its a second cold war and inpart and a third world war. That was a logical statement. Anyways, we need to expand our military, Clinton crippled it along with the CIA. He reduced the budget so bad, it number of soldiers went down futher than peace time levels should in order to win a war and defend our nation.


I don't know how placing soldiers around the globe makes us a safer nation. I wish you would explain that reasoning there Taxman. It's doesnt seem like a defense strategy, more like the global police force with international precincts. Following my own chain of logic I would say that the more soldiers you place overseas, the less there are to defend us domestically. We are on our own over here between to wide oceans. Seems to me that instead of wasting money on soldiers to be placed abroad, we should instead invest in our navies and armies. That would be a truly defensive strategy.

Cheney is only telling the truth though. With corporate politicians in office, you can't help but to assume that these wars would be, in effect, part of a plan to gain capitally from others conflicts. Especially since the VP's former company is a defense (among other things) contractor. This type of attitude is scary. A senior administration official creating conflict for no reason than his own greed. The problem with wars is that they can cause economic strains for multi-national corporations, worse, trade embargo's and economic sanctions.

It is clear that Cheney feels that the war machine will increase employment, and strengthen the GDP. But who benefits from it? It's not likely to trickle down seeing as though the companies involved have ties to the administration. People up on the higher rungs of the corporate ladder may see a benefit but this is a downright archaic approach to economically strengthening the United States through war.




posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxman
How does he make more money?

Are you serious? This is even mainstream news. Check out Haliburton, Brown and Root, KBR.

www.globalpolicy.org...

Bush makes money also
www.hereinreality.com...

All of this is mainstream in your papers. Read alittle.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 05:35 PM
link   
All of the main stream papers are biasedly liberal, cannot trust them.

This is my belief on winning war. Especially now, offence is the key to winning. The enemy has been weakened, time to snap his neck. By killing him at his turf, the less damage to Americans that is possible, the more you strike at his infastructure.

Anyways, this war will take about 25 years I think, it take awile, were fighting a semi-invisible enemy, if he was a single country, it could be over in months, with all the enemy dead.

Also your points are valid, but heres what I think is flawed:

Soldiers cannot respond immediatly to any situation, the bases are too far apart to do anything useful. So therefore soldiers cant be useful for the most part at home. Plus, our soldiers are placed in positions where if they leave, that country would be more volnerable and they are in our interest. The bases in Europe and in the Pacific are there to be quick response time. However, I do not agree with putting bases in Africa, its too dangerous. The Middle East theres countries that are ok, ie Quater, Afgan, Iraq.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 05:54 PM
link   
Taxman!!!

How do you think the terrorist groups work to get new recruits for their suicide missions?

Well, with the current US foreign policies they don't have to spend a lot of money and effort on advertising, that's for sure.

Using force, military or economic, will only increase the number of people willing to sacrifice their lives against the US. Therefore, the current tactics (or more offensive strategies) is only making the world more unsafe.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 08:38 PM
link   
Wrong, you cannot fix a problem without fixing it. The key is Israel/Palestine. Once you get that taken care of, that will dry up 30-50% of the recruits. Plus with Iraq and Afganistan free, the countries and their people will revolt for freedom. Domino effect.

How else are you going to win a war? Stay at home and let the enemy run around freely? No, you kill it. By not hunting the enemy, you allow them to plot and build up, thats why 9/11 happened, we didnt act. We want him 6 feet under ASAP. No matter what we do, they will hate us, the terrorists, the only thing that we can do is stop the recruitment.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 08:44 PM
link   
9/11 happened for profit Taxman.
They don't hate us because of our freedoms either. Since everything you say is a Fox News sound bite.
The strange collapse of WTC 7
Was there really a steel-melting inferno inside the WTC?
The 1993 WTC bombing was ALLOWED to happen!
Another Anomaly in the Case Against Zacarias Moussaoui
100 million dollars vanished from the WTC before they collapsed.
THE "CONTROLLED" COLLAPSE OF WTC-7
Unanswered Questions about the attack on the WTC
Passengers on United Airlines Flight 93
Passengers on United Airlines Flight 175
911 - THE BASIC QUESTIONS
The FBI shutdown of Arab websites in the days leading up to 9/11
The Complete 9/11 Timeline
911 - THE BASIC QUESTIONS
The five dancing Israelis arrested on 9/11
Bush at Booker Elementary - the video that proves that 9/11 was not a surprise
Bush's lie about seeing the first WTC plane impact
The 9/11 USAF Stand Down
The 9/11 hijackings - an inside job?
7 of the 19 alleged 9/11 hijackers are still alive
The World Trade Center demolition - an analysis
Was there really a steel-melting inferno inside the WTC?
The controlled collapse of WTC 7
The "Arrive onMonday" FEMA tape
All 9/11 airports served by same company
9/11 inside trades lead to CIA
9/11 - what did the government know and when did it know it?
Foreign currency traders helped themselves to over $100 million just before the WTC collapsed!
Another Anomaly in the Case Against Zacarias Moussaoui
Instant Messages To Israel Warned Of WTC Attack
Top Pentagon Officials Cancel Flights On September 10, 2001
Stranger then fiction.
FAKE TERROR - THE ROAD TO WAR AND DICTATORSHIP
Tim Osman
PROTECTING THE TERRORISTS / ALLOWING THEM TO ATTACK



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Do you know how far left those web sites are? Those are some of the people who we say that want to take over the world write that.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxman
Do you know how far left those web sites are? Those are some of the people who we say that want to take over the world write that.

Yea infowars.com and prisonplanet.com are really far to the left NOT!! whatreallyhappened.com isn't either. They where all over exposing Clinton months before anyone else was! Loose the lefty social commie crap and wake up to this administration taking our freedoms away in the name of Terrorism that they are creating.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 08:57 PM
link   
Thats why, no offence intented, I said some.

I dont buy that 9/11 was caused by anyone or let to happen on purpose by the Congress/Bush/DOJ/DOD ect. FBI and CIA for not taking it seriously enough.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by DiRtYDeViL
...Since everything you say is a Fox News sound bite...


You know something, If my opinion sounds like its from Fox News, it happens to be chance and I would like it if you lay off my back for it.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:08 PM
link   
Well Im sorry, I was wrong about sites being right wing. They are no wing, I find this creator of this site, well to say the least, over-paranoid, even compared to the most paranoid of ATS.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxman

You know something, If my opinion sounds like its from Fox News, it happens to be chance and I would like it if you lay off my back for it.


Domino effect.
I'm not knocking you. Just pointing out the Buzz words that get into peoples head from television. Thats what they are supposed to do win the hearts and minds with propaganda
.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Ok, no problem.

You know your big finger thing is acculy intimidating on a degree?



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:21 PM
link   
the govt says..this is what happened so u will believe us.. there is sooooooooooooooooooo much evidence that 9/11 didn't/couldn't have happened the way the govt says that it is mind boggeling
it is so obvious that their must be some type of country wide mind control going on and only a few of us have broken free



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Of course they cover up somethings. But would you seriously belive that the government caused it, I mean flew the plane almost, I doubt it. Sure the FBI/CIA knew about a plot, but, however unexcuseable, howmany plots they intercept a day? The Navy had info on Pearl Harbor, didnt act on it eather, it was probitally along the same lines.



posted on Jan, 16 2004 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taxman
Wrong, you cannot fix a problem without fixing it. The key is Israel/Palestine. Once you get that taken care of, that will dry up 30-50% of the recruits. Plus with Iraq and Afganistan free, the countries and their people will revolt for freedom. Domino effect.


Please don't tell me that you got brainwashed into thinking that Israel should even be a nation. Israel is on Palestinian land, the people in power should be the Palestineians



How else are you going to win a war? Stay at home and let the enemy run around freely? No, you kill it. By not hunting the enemy, you allow them to plot and build up, thats why 9/11 happened, we didnt act. We want him 6 feet under ASAP. No matter what we do, they will hate us, the terrorists, the only thing that we can do is stop the recruitment.


The 'enemy' as you put it are the same people that were armed by the last republicans in office. Please don't throw any Lefty-commie crap at me, I'm not a Democrat. The easiest way to stop recruitment would to stop using the middle east as a bomb test site. If the US didn't use most of the world as if they owned it, sht like "terrorism" wouldn't have to happen. And I'm sorry, but bombing people thousands of miles away and capturing a person that they suspect might have ties to whoever that might be aligned with whoever else does nothing for safety here. What about safety in numbers, I'd feel safer if there were troops here that were assigned to "homeland security".

Your domino effect, with other countries revolting for freedom, do you mean revolting so that they can have a US friendly government installed, courtesy of US taxpayers?





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join