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

It is a bit disappointing, but I get the impression that JSObeckie has placed me on their ignore list.

Disappointing in the sense that, in every interaction we have had, I rebutted and responded concisely and with as cogent a response as I could muster (Knowing that I am given to long-winded mannerisms, of course).

While being accused of being a hypocrite and a troll, it seems far more trollish to start ignoring people because they call you out on your information and provide a different viewpoint in matters.

I am deeply saddened that we could not have further dialogue on the subsequent comments and actions of Cheney and Bush the 2nd.

On the subject at hand, I as yet have heard an adequate reply as to what we are getting back from the Iraq War.... nor have I heard a proper response or rebuttal to the fact that Cheney has quite a bit to gain (For himself and allies) in prolonged and difficult international conflicts.

I have usually different opinions when it comes to the world events to him or Blueraja but I would never think of putting anyone on the black list just because of his/hers different views.
After all if we start ignoring views of People who don't think along the same lines as we do we will get bored very quickly having debate with People with whom we have a lot in common.
I don't mind when someone tels me my "theory" suck because such and such reason. It gives me a kick to respond to them.
I though that was a whole point of coming to place like this and having (sometimes strong and heated) debates and exchange our opinions regardless of how different they might be!
Well, that's a shame.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon


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]

The problem of trying to establish that Cheney has benefitted directly from warfare, is that there just isn't evidence showing cause/effect.
All the naysayers want to demonize Cheney, Bush, etc... but they never provide anything more than hunches, circumstantial evidence, guilt by association(i.e. so and so's cousin's step brother twice removed worked for the nephew of the brother of so and so's father in law, so therefore tehy must be directly involved in.....), etc...

reply to post by BlueRaja

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The problem of trying to establish that Cheney has benefitted directly from warfare, is that there just isn't evidence showing cause/effect.

[color=FFFF00]Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[color=FFFF00]Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

Originally posted by BlueRaja
All the naysayers want to demonize Cheney, Bush, etc...

Actually, "Cheney, Bush, etc." have done a pretty good job, through their actions, of demonizing themselves.

And to disparage those who would strive to expose the self-serving evil that these "public servants" commit as "naysayers" is a nice O'Riley type "no-spin" spin, isn't it?

Surely, just because one jumps to their defense at every turn, hanging by their coat-tails as-it were, wiping their ass, spinning their lies, doesn't mean in the end they won't be crapped on just the same.

Do you really think they're saving you a seat at the table if you stick up for them?

I mean, what's your motivation here?

I suppose the good American people deserve the leaders they have, no?

[color=FFFF00]The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.

[color=FFFF00]Plato (427 BC - 347 BC)



reply to post by TheColdDragon


Those who use the "ignore" feature embrace defeat and ignorance.

Their steadfast devotion to their morally bankrupt leaders is reprehensible and deserving of naught but censure and pity.

[color=FFFF00]Millionaires, stooges and suckers; the only ones who continue to defend such obvious evil.





[edit on 2-4-2008 by goosdawg]

Originally posted by BlueRaja
The problem of trying to establish that Cheney has benefitted directly from warfare, is that there just isn't evidence showing cause/effect.

Well, here is what I know to be true and verifiable;

Cheney worked for Halliburton, was a major investor and stockholder.

Halliburton stock has greatly increased since the beginning of the Iraq War.

Irrespective of if Cheney himself benefited from the war monetarily, his old-boys club (Halliburton) has.

Cheney has verbally, and through actions, demonstrated that he feels the American people are beneath the decision makers, and that their swaying opinion holds no water to the decisions of policy. The topic of this thread is indication of where he relegates the opinion of the Statesian people's.

All the naysayers want to demonize Cheney, Bush, etc... but they never provide anything more than hunches, circumstantial evidence, guilt by association(i.e. so and so's cousin's step brother twice removed worked for the nephew of the brother of so and so's father in law, so therefore tehy must be directly involved in.....), etc...

You're right, none of us have provided a "This dot is connected to that dot" comparison and examination of Cheney's actions and his opinions, but the general way in which Cheney conducts himself verbally and intellectually speaks loudly about a poorly concealed sense of Id and elitism above the common man.

It is not that he outright says he disprespects the working class or the working poor, it is that he visibly shows a lack of concern or compassion concerning those outside his circle. You don't need to say you despise a person in order to demonstrate that it is true.

And I'm not putting forward that Cheney despises people, only that he conducts himself in a way that shows a brazen callousness and detachment towards those that question his views.

It's all well and good for an every day joe to be as cavalier, but we are talking about a public representative. The Veep of the USA, who has historically been considered the more diplomatic face of the States, whereas the Prez is often viewed as figurehead abroad.

Frankly, I don't like the man which Cheney presents himself as. There's a- sense of coldness about him, which is hard to pin down to any one thing he has said and done. One could call it a lack of remedial humanity, in a sense.

Two thirds? I don't know a single person who is for this war...

except for the occasional raised pickup truck you see on the road with the 75+ bumper stickers all over it exclaiming "god bless the usa, damn everyone else" and that kind of thing. these are the 'roided out adrenaline junkies that are eager to fight and just as eager to find any excuse to shoot at brown people anywhere in the world.

Seriously, out of the perhaps 50 people I see and talk to in a day, not a single one of them wants this war to continue any longer.

Where are they finding this 1/3 of people?

reply to post by ianr5741


Ask 50 people if they want this war to continue. The great majority would say no.

Ask the same people if they think it is wise for the coalition to leave Iraq tomorrow. You'll get quite a different answer.

Damn I hate doing this... but I have to agree with Josbecky... up to a point.

We are in a damned if we do, damned if we don't situition. If we pull out now Iraq will descend into even greater chaos and probably break apart.... if we don't pull out, we tax our military to the breaking point and give cause for Al Qeada its greatest recruitment drive ever.

So what do we do?

I think there is only one workable solution... give the Iraqi "government" a strict deadline, say, 2 years from now with staged pullouts, for our total withdrawal and stick to it.

Basically the same thing we did in Vietnam.

The bottom line is this, there are no winning solutions for Iraq so long as we are there.

[edit on 3-4-2008 by grover]

reply to post by TheColdDragon


My point is that if you're gonna criticize someone, or accuse them of wrongdoing, it's a good idea to have PROOF. Otherwise it's just an opinion, and that's perfectly fine, so long as one admits that. If you want to criticize Halliburton, that is more tangible. The fact that Cheney used to work for Halliburton isn't evidence that he's a terrible person, profitting off of blood and oil.

As for the remark about Cheney's view of the public- policy decisions are not based upon opinion polls, under our system. Him saying "so" is being taken in a different context here, than when he uttered it. I don't take his remark as him giving me the finger, so much as pointing out what I already mentioned about the use of polls to make decisions. Leadership means making tough decisions, that may be unpopular, and sticking with it.
We elect people to be leaders, not followers. If you don't like them, then vote them out(or in Cheney's case, wait till his term is up) and vote for someone who's views are closer to yours.