Lets listen to Dick Cheney about Iraq (Middle East)

Tagged:  
No votes yet

In a major address to the nation last night, President Obama announced that the U.S. will escalate its military campaign against ISIS (also known as ISIL or the Islamic State). His plan seeks to "degrade" and ultimately "destroy" ISIS in a sustained air campaign that would include dropping more bombs on Iraq as well as possibly beginning strikes inside Syria.1

Let's all be really clear: President Obama is, in essence, proposing that we launch a new U.S. war in the Middle East. The White House has indicated that this strategy could take upward of three years to execute—meaning Obama would be handing the next president a new war after he brought Bush's Iraq war to a close.2 Roughly 1,600 U.S. troops and advisers have already been deployed to the region in recent weeks.3 Senior members of Congress are currently drafting legislation to authorize arming Syrian rebels.4
It was especially sobering to wake up to this news on September 11—an anniversary of so much pain and tragedy.

It's vital that we slow down and engage in a real, full-throated debate—including discussion of all the alternatives we have for confronting ISIS—rather than rushing headlong into another open-ended war in the Middle East.
There are tough questions we should be grappling with to avoid making the same mistakes again—questions like:
How is the U.S. prioritizing alternatives to military force, such as halting the flow of weapons to the region that end up in ISIS's hands and cutting off ISIS's financing so it can't keep waging war?
How might the use of U.S. military force undermine those alternative strategies?

What's the U.S.'s exit strategy? What does "defeating" ISIS look like? How will we know when to stop?

What are the potential unintended consequences?

Any statement I make is the opinion of me exercising my first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and is generally permitted.

Our country is broke from Idiot-in-Chief George Bush's two wars. Saudi Arabia (our ally) is now holding fund raisers for ISIS. http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/19/is-saudi-arabia-regretting-its-su... Look around you, look at your pothole filled roads, look at the jobless poverty and tell me we need another war. The above two videos tell it best and good intentions and a broke country will kill off the golden goose. Bin Ladin lured the idiot-in-chief that now has our country distracted from its own problems.
Bin Laden: Goal is to bankrupt U.S. http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/01/binladen.tape/
"Al-Jazeera aired portions of the videotape Friday but released the full transcript of the entire tape on its Web site Monday.
"We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah," bin Laden said in the transcript.
He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers."
"We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat," bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it "easy for us to provoke and bait this administration."

9/11, 30 Saudi Al Qaeda terrorist with $500,000 from Saudi Arabia started George Bush's $4 Trillion wars. Will Obama let Cheney and McCain sucker us into another disaster?

Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.

I agree with Mr. Cheney.

He accurately described the current situation in Libya. Coming soon to a Syria near you now too.

At least when Mr. Cheney made his mistakes he didn't reduce the military to where we couldn't handle wars on multiple fronts. Yet here we are putting troops on the ground while simultaneously reducing our force, maddening!

MikeyA

Cheney the Coward was referring to IRAQ!
Cheney the Coward, obviously did a 180 on this point of view when he became the VPOTUS! As VPOTUS, Cheney the Coward contradicted himself as well as Bush #41, and what Bush #41 wrote in his book (which I read, and W claims he NEVER read).

Fact #1 -- W removed Saddam.
Fact #2 -- Just as Cheney the Coward and Bush #41 predicted, BEFORE W became the POTUS and Cheney the Coward became the VPOTUS, without an indefinite, costly U.S. occupation there, Iraq is breaking apart.

IMHO -- If the U.S. supports forces which want to remove Assad from power in Syria, there are better chances that they will be unsuccessful AND that ISIS/ISIL will get a LOT of the weapons we send into Syria, than that Assad is actually removed by the so-called "moderate" forces.
And, if Assad were to be removed, what would prevent Syria from breaking apart just as Iraq is since the removal of Saddam?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.