Cheney blames the refugee crisis on Obama's failed foreign policy.

a reply to: Swills

Is there really a point?

The point being that some people want to IGNORE is the people doing the most killing over there in the ME.

Have been the 'muslims' themselves the sunnis and the shia's, and yet it's ALL W's fault, it's ALL Cheney's fault.

a reply to: neo96

You just can't give them a lil bit of responsibility. Your posts defending them are the perfect example of blaming everyone else but those who you support. And that's why I enjoy engaging with you because your every post is more incredible than the last.

Yes, we're all very aware of the conflicts between Shiites, Sunni's, Kurds, and others, have been going on for a very long time but is it so hard to admit invading Iraq was a bad idea and the result is not at all what was promised. I'll go one further, do you think Cheney was aware of the quagmire Iraq would become if Saddam was toppled?

a reply to: neo96

I have to agree. What's avoided in these comments regarding invasion is the alternatives were just as bad if not worse.

The total dead under Saddam is higher than what the war caused. If left in power the same would have continued. If Saddam was, say, merely assassinated it is probable we'd see the same dramatization as we do now. That being fighting amongst the three ethnicities.

All had consequences. So far the invasion gambit hasn't worked. Yet, it was the only one that opened the door to possible freedom! Freedom of choice and the potential of a peace. A real one. One that doesn't require one to give up his integrity or beliefs.

On an intellectual level, that chance makes the choice Bush and Co. took worth the try. (Easy for me to say not having lost anyone in the ME, yet I honestly believe if push came to shove I'd be willing to sacrifice myself for a similar cause. That's how this country came into being...)

a reply to: Swills

You just can't give them a lil bit of responsibility.

I will give them 'credit'.

When these people are given 'credit':



Everyone was for the WAR until it became an election cycle.



But then again not really interested in rehashing a 15 year old 'argument' that's been done ad inifnitum.

a reply to: neo96

False out rage as you like to say.


Your playing the exact same partisan childish blame game as the people in the "other" camp you criticize

Hense it makes you no better than them.


Least I have the integrity to blame both sides for there ME screw up.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
I have to agree. What's avoided in these comments regarding invasion is the alternatives were just as bad if not worse.

I cant think for the life of me how the present situation could be "worse".

originally posted by: nwtrucker
The total dead under Saddam is higher than what the war caused. If left in power the same would have continued. If Saddam was, say, merely assassinated it is probable we'd see the same dramatization as we do now. That being fighting amongst the three ethnicities.

Least under Saddam the dead were mostly kept under Saddem and hadn't spilled out across the ME is a deadly cluster #, not after the first golf war showed him what would happen if he did. A Cluster # I may add that now threatens both Europe and the USA.

Saddam was no threat to US or EU security. You traded that for ISIS thats a threat to all of us. Bad deal I say.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
. Yet, it was the only one that opened the door to possible freedom! Freedom of choice and the potential of a peace. A real one. One that doesn't require one to give up his integrity or beliefs.

Please dont go there just dont.........The freedom bull# barely worked even in 2003 and only for the dumbest Americans.

Its not the USA or UK job to "free" people or enforce or own morals. That was up to the Iraqis themselves.

Im with Rand Paul on this, it was not our fight or business.!

originally posted by: nwtrucker
On an intellectual level, that chance makes the choice Bush and Co. took worth the try. (Easy for me to say not having lost anyone in the ME, yet I honestly believe if push came to shove I'd be willing to sacrifice myself for a similar cause. That's how this country came into being...)

The USA fought and choose its OWN freedom. It did not have another country force it on them.

originally posted by: nwtrucker


The big difference between the two is we had already gone to war with Iraq who HAD invaded it's neighbor-not merely threatened to- and failure to act would have resulted in an implied acquiescence to continue into Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia invaded? O wouldn't that be a shame.....................

That idea almost makes me want to be against the first gulf war if it wasn't for poor Kuwait in the middle.

A dead Saudi Arabia would certainly put a smile on my face.

a reply to: Swills

Forget it.

You seems try be dealing with part loyalists. A unfortunately common sub species of human called homo sapein Republicas very similiar to Homo Sapien Democratus both of which are fiercely loyal to there "clan" and refuse to admit a mistake even if blatant. Scientists are unable to determine if it is due to sheer pride or lack of ability to think for ones self.

What is known is homo sapein Republicas and Homo Sapien Democratus even though they share similar if not identical traits they both are fiercely competitive and will even at the expense of there own well being fight.



On a more serous note. This is why I dont subscribe to partisan party politics. I may have voted Conservatives (UK right) in the last two elections but im not above ripping into them when the situation warrants.


Peace and pacifism is no more a "left" trait than war and warmongering is a "right" trait.

There are right pacifists (Paul Clan) and Left pacifists (Saunders) and there are Left war mongers (Tony Blair) and Right war mongers (Bush)

a reply to: nwtrucker Cheney wasn't wrapped too tight as a younger man and is becoming more and more delusional as time goes on. Fortunately he and his oil patch pal are no longer in power.

a reply to: crazyewok

My apologies on the delay in response. "Upgraded" to window 10 combined with an infection has had me distracted...

Now, back to business:

"Don't go there"? Really? My, my, your points are beyond weak.

Do you fail to recall, even with the ineptitude, how close it came to working? The crowds cheering as Saddam's statue was pulled down? The multitudes that voted with painting fingers as proof of having voted despite the IEDs, the suicide bombings and general threats against voting?? Really? It's STILL not impossible.

Don't go there?? Was there ANY chance with Saddam remaining in power or his sons taking over in the event of Saddam's demise???

Don't go there??? Where was the "on their own" when Hitler was removed/killed? Where was "on their own" when Japan and their "diet/military gov't was defeated and replaced???

Yes, the U.S. fought for it's own freedom. Germany's wasn't, Japan's wasn't, irrelevant point, from what I can see.

I believe the real reasons you say don't go there is due to the fact it is a unarguable point that you really cannot dispute without the so weak points you post....Give it up...

a reply to: crazyewok

P.S. I almost forgot, you have for years, been advocating the very same action by the U.S. In North Korea as taken in Iraq.

It's applicable to NK but NOT Iraq???

You drop to a new low....

a reply to: crazyewok

You may not ascribe to the left-right labels, but surely do to the war-monger-pacifist monikers. Semantics...

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: crazyewok

P.S. I almost forgot, you have for years, been advocating the very same action by the U.S. In North Korea as taken in Iraq.

It's applicable to NK but NOT Iraq???

You drop to a new low....

But point of action in NK is based not on some soap box of morol superiority.
Sovereign countrys has the right to set there own domestic policys without us in the west barging in and enforceing our own morals. What gives the US the right to go round forceing freedumb on people? Especially ones that never asked for it!


My support for actions in NK have no relations to that! Where NK have crossed the line is not only break the treatys banning the production of nukes but also threating to bomb south kora, japan and the USA with them!

Unlike you my basis for war is not on some fake outrage about speeading American Freedumb in places we clearyshpuld not be but on actualy national security!

Saddam post 1991 reign was horrid but had ZERO to do with UK or US national security. It waS up to his people to get rid of him not us as it was clearly a domestic problem and the US has ZERO rights to violate sovereign territory to interfere.

There is no failure here,Obama must be very high up in Muslim eschatology not since Tamerlane has such an invasion of Europe occurred or there been such chaos in that area.The Cologne cathedral will come up a treat when the minarets are added.

a reply to: crazyewok

Ummm, who declared war on Germany?? The U.K....at that point, not a threat to U.K. security.

I really love how you impose YOUR moral standards on when and where war should be engaged in and arrogantly assume everyone else should follow suit.

NK hasn't invaded anyone. All rhetoric. Iraq had. All kind of 'nice' acts such as setting on fire oil wells all over Kuwait.

Sorry, but your 'moral' standard, I believe is smoke. At the very least...semantics.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Germany was a threat!

It was annexing countrysand UK allies left right and centre!
Plus as the number one militarily power at the time in 1939 the UK was one of germanys biggest threats as we owned the seas and trade, hitler would sooner or late be brought into conflict bwith us.

And the USA was right in the first gulf war when Iraq invaded Kuwait. A neutral country in the wars at the time and a ally to the US as well as a more sane ME nation, its protection was justfied.
But that was in 1991.

2003 was a different kettle of fish as Iraq had not invaded anyone since its beat down in 1991. All its issues were internal, hence none of our bloodly buisness.

Dick Cheney is a scumbag, always has been, always will be. I became aquainted with his ways in the early 80's when I first moved to Colorado, and had friends that worked for Halliburton. He will blame others, and screw over anyone in his way to improve his bottom line. SCUMBAG

A year old, probably been posted before and if you can get past the condescension....enlightening

a reply to: crazyewok

Of course it was! No disagreement from me.

a reply to: Swills

Oh absolutely. Cheney stood to make a killing with his carpetbaggers (Halliburton).

Taking out Saddam was the worst thing they could have done. That's why Bush the Elder didn't do it. It destabilized the entire region and set off a sectarian war that's been 1,500 years in the making.