interesting cheney quote

[Thanatoast]

"We must meet the dangers together," Mr. Cheney said in his 30-minute speech to the gathering, the annual World Economic Forum. "Cooperation among our governments, and effective international institutions, are even more important than they have been in the past."

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/international/europe/25DAVO.html) to the new york times website.

okay, is it just me, or this kinda ridiculous?

[g5man]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
"We must meet the dangers together," Mr. Cheney said in his 30-minute speech to the gathering, the annual World Economic Forum. "Cooperation among our governments, and effective international institutions, are even more important than they have been in the past."

link (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/international/europe/25DAVO.html) to the new york times website.

okay, is it just me, or this kinda ridiculous?

He was talking directly to France, Germany, and Russia. Everyone else is pretty much with us.

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by g5man
He was talking directly to France, Germany, and Russia. Everyone else is pretty much with us.
You mean everyone else is afraid to stand up to us for fear of unwarranted retribution?

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by g5man
He was talking directly to France, Germany, and Russia. Everyone else is pretty much with us.

************. No one is pitching in, even those few nations that have offered "support" for our "coalition."

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by g5man
He was talking directly to France, Germany, and Russia. Everyone else is pretty much with us.

Unless by everyone else you mean Spain, Australia, Japan and Isreal, I think you should change that language there. Something more accurate would be this:

Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia were with us cause they want in on NATO.

Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates were with us so we'd keep supplying them with arms, upholding their monarchies.

Turkey, Costa Rica and the Phillipines were with us because they need some of that cold, hard cash.

All the rest were not with us - those including Germany, France, Brazil, Russia, Canada, 52 of the 54 countries in Africa, as well as the 116 countries of the non-aligned movement, a network of developing nations representing two thirds the membership of the UN.

There were 34 countries in the Coalition of the Willing and if I remember correctly from geography class, there's roughly 190 countries in the world.

34 countries, representing about 10% the worlds population, were with us. 156 countries - the other 90% of the world - were not.

Suggesting that "everyone else is pretty much with us" is not only wrong, it's silly.

Davis

[K4NN4B15]

what do facts have to do with bush administration rehtoric?

[g5man]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
You mean everyone else is afraid to stand up to us for fear of unwarranted retribution?

Yes and no. Germany is paying a very high price not only for supporting Saddam with Weapons but also fighting us in the UN. Most of the US troops will be out in the next two years. This will cost them millions they can not afford given their double digit unemployment rate

At the same time it is also well noted that Germany has been extremely helpful in fighting Al Queda cells in its own country. Cheney just once to keep reminding them of what is at stake.

Davis,

Your post is extremely misleading. Every country choose alliances based on national interest. For you to imply that without every single country in the world showing overt 100% backing in the Iraq side show, shows some how that they are against our actions is not true.

The countries who are overtly helping have an interest in doing so. Those who can not assist don't. And those who can and choose to block the US do pay a price.

A large part of the UN is being run by socialists governments who have no interest in seeing the US maintain its superpower status. They will never back us as gov. but their populations are not always 100% behind their own governments.

Germany might have been with us if a Conservative was in power.

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by g5man
Germany is paying a very high price not only for supporting Saddam with Weapons...
Seems to me we've spent near a hundred billion dollars in the last year because we changed our minds about having brought Saddam to power.

[g5man]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
Seems to me we've spent near a hundred billion dollars in the last year because we changed our minds about having brought Saddam to power.

You know better than to repeat an outright lie. Saddam came to power through a coup by his Baath party (which originated in Syria) in 1963. There is some Arab media that attempts to imply that the CIA was behind the coup to counter a perceived relation between Kassim (president overthrown by coup) and the Soviets. However history shows that Saddam was closer to the Soviets more than any other Iraqi leader.

[Thanatoast]

Okay, I'll rephrase the statement.

Seems to me we've spent near a hundred billion dollars in the last year because we changed our minds about having Saddam in power.

From the Washinton Post website:

link (http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/03/sp_world_battle022703.htm)

Joyce Battle, Middle East analyst at the National Security Archive at George Washington University: I have not personally seen documents that indicate that the Reagan administration supplied Iraq with chemical weapons. However, the documents we recently posted on the Internet demonstrate that the administration had U.S. intelligence reports indicating that Iraq was using chemical weapons, both against Iran and against Iraqi Kurdish insurgents, in the early 1980s, at the same time that it decided to support Iraq in the war. So U.S. awareness of Iraq's chemical warfare did not deter it from initiating the policy of providing intelligence and military assistance to Iraq. There were shipments of chemical weapons precursors from several U.S. companies to Iraq during the 1980s, but the U.S. government would deny that it was aware that these exports were intended to be used in the production of chemical weapons.

We were Saddam's friend until 1991. Perhaps not supporting dictators in the first place would cost us less (monetarily, politically and diplomatically) in the long run.

[edit: added link]

[wwworry]

Cheney is a creep.
Bush is a know-nothing.

Read The Price of Loyalty

[Desertrat]

Cheney was talking to a limited group, right? We know that the UK, Germany, France and some others of the group are already working with us and other police forces in hunting for terrorists of the Al Qaeda group and other, similar groups.

As far as "the world", you must include some of the Arab countries, Indonesia and the Philippines as places which are affected by terrorist acts.

IOW, there's a lot of fact and merit in the statement, your opinions or mine to about the Bushies to the contrary...

While I'm no Bush fan, nowadays, I certainly have little use for the wannabes of the DemParty group. (So what?) The tone of many of the posts, here, about the WOT and suchlike is that if another event here killed another three thousand, you'd gleefully say, "See? I told you so!" You may not intend to sound that way, but too many of you guys do sound that way.

Whether folks are liberal or conservative, regardless of target, the viciousness of the personal attacks really does bother me.

Just some points to ponder...

'Rat

[DavisBAnimal]

Originally posted by g5man
Davis,

Your post is extremely misleading. Every country choose alliances based on national interest. For you to imply that without every single country in the world showing overt 100% backing in the Iraq side show, shows some how that they are against our actions is not true.

The countries who are overtly helping have an interest in doing so. Those who can not assist don't. And those who can and choose to block the US do pay a price.

A large part of the UN is being run by socialists governments who have no interest in seeing the US maintain its superpower status. They will never back us as gov. but their populations are not always 100% behind their own governments.


You're right, every country does choose alliances based on their interests - and I didn't mean to imply a lack of legitimacy on the coalition - ok maybe I did. But you're right, I can't look into the minds of these leaders, and the first part of my post was primarily speculation.

However, I really feel as if it is your original post that is extremely misleading, with the sentiment that "everyone else is pretty much with us".

Never once did I say those 156 countries not in the coalition were "against us" - go back and read my post and you'll see that all I say is they were not "with us". Remember, g5, that the coalition is not made up only of countries who can help - you seem to imply that a lot of countries without the ability to help us still supported our actions. That is misleading. In truth, the coalition is made up of any government whose heads chose to support the US, either militarily, through allowing use of their air fields etc., or simply through moral support. A large number of the countries on that list did nothing to help us except give their blessing - ie Costa Rica, etc. This being the case - since the coalition was open to anyone willing to go so far as release a press statement saying "We are with the US on this war" I think it is fair to say that those 156 countries, representing 90% the worlds population, were purposefully and overtly NOT with us in this action. That is not to say they are "against us" as Bush might have said once before, but they are most definitely NOT "pretty much with us", as you implied in your original post.

Now the rest of your post essentially goes on to prove most of mine. Maybe you're right - maybe a large number of the countries of the UN are run by socialists who have no interest in seeing the US remain a super power. That could be a very acute observation - one that helps demonstrate the ways in which everyone is NOT with us. Whether or not you don't like some of these countries, you have to admit (HAVE to admit) that the majority of nations on this great earth did not support the US led invasion of Iraq. They can be wrong - this doesn't mean the war was unjustified or bad or any of those things - it is simply the cold honest truth.

I appreciate your conservative viewpoint on these boards because it is so rare, but when comments that don't make sense are posted - those such as "everyone else is pretty much with us" - whether they be conservative of liberal, I can't help but try to set the record straight. I think a better way to argue you point - and you do have one - would be to describe the ways in which the overwhelming majority of the world was wrong to not support the war. That can be argued. You can't argue that most everyone else was with us, it's misleading, it's wrong, and it doesn't make any logical sense at all.

Davis

[jayb2000]

Originally posted by g5man
You know better than to repeat an outright lie. Saddam came to power through a coup by his Baath party (which originated in Syria) in 1963. There is some Arab media that attempts to imply that the CIA was behind the coup to counter a perceived relation between Kassim (president overthrown by coup) and the Soviets. However history shows that Saddam was closer to the Soviets more than any other Iraqi leader.

Look, here http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg is a Picture of Special Envoy Rumsfeld shaking hands with Hussein right after agreeing to sell them millions of dollars of weapons, because Iraq was fighting Iran, who had taken US hostages after overthrowing the CIA supported Shah.

For more details, including UN and US intelligence documents verifying this, check out
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Desertrat
The tone of many of the posts, here, about the WOT and suchlike is that if another event here killed another three thousand, you'd gleefully say, "See? I told you so!" You may not intend to sound that way, but too many of you guys do sound that way.

Can you be more specific? I haven't seen anything here, intentional or otherwise, that would lead me to this conclusion. If you are interpreting the words of those of us who don't feel that the US has been made more secure as a result of invading Iraq as being "gleeful" at the prospect of another terror attack, then clearly you have misinterpreted our concerns.

[wwworry]

I know. There is a difference between supporting the war against Al Qeada and the war on Iraq. Al Qeada attacked us so not many of us (if any) are against attacking them.

Iraq is another proposition altogether. We all agree Hussein is/was bad. We agree that Iraq is probably better off without him. What we do not agree with is the way the US public was forced into the situation. Lies in the state of the union. Faulty, if not outright false intelligence reports. Reports from inside the administration that days after Bush took power they were looking for excuses to go to war with Iraq. Really, they thought they would go after a US plane was shot down or something, any excuse to go. There is a right way and a wrong way to do things.

Read The Price of Loyalty. It's not a pretty picture. O'Neill is known above all as a truthful person. (and a republican for that matter)

No one has ever stated that they would be gleeful if there were another terrorist attack. None on the left have celebrated war the way some on the right have. None on the left have been non-challant about Amercian soldier deaths or Iraqi civilian death. We are against death. We do not have the smirking call to "bring it on".

[zimv20]

of these 3 positions:

a. US lives are more precious than iraqi lives
b. US lives and iraqi lives are equally precious
c. iraqi lives are more precious than US lives

i hold position b). it is a mistake, imo, to assume that i or anyone else on this board hold position c)

[g5man]

Originally posted by DavisBAnimal
You're right, every country does choose alliances based on their interests - and I didn't mean to imply a lack of legitimacy on the coalition - ok maybe I did. But you're right, I can't look into the minds of these leaders, and the first part of my post was primarily speculation.

However, I really feel as if it is your original post that is extremely misleading, with the sentiment that "everyone else is pretty much with us".

Never once did I say those 156 countries not in the coalition were "against us" - go back and read my post and you'll see that all I say is they were not "with us". Remember, g5, that the coalition is not made up only of countries who can help - you seem to imply that a lot of countries without the ability to help us still supported our actions. That is misleading. In truth, the coalition is made up of any government whose heads chose to support the US, either militarily, through allowing use of their air fields etc., or simply through moral support. A large number of the countries on that list did nothing to help us except give their blessing - ie Costa Rica, etc. This being the case - since the coalition was open to anyone willing to go so far as release a press statement saying "We are with the US on this war" I think it is fair to say that those 156 countries, representing 90% the worlds population, were purposefully and overtly NOT with us in this action. That is not to say they are "against us" as Bush might have said once before, but they are most definitely NOT "pretty much with us", as you implied in your original post.

Now the rest of your post essentially goes on to prove most of mine. Maybe you're right - maybe a large number of the countries of the UN are run by socialists who have no interest in seeing the US remain a super power. That could be a very acute observation - one that helps demonstrate the ways in which everyone is NOT with us. Whether or not you don't like some of these countries, you have to admit (HAVE to admit) that the majority of nations on this great earth did not support the US led invasion of Iraq. They can be wrong - this doesn't mean the war was unjustified or bad or any of those things - it is simply the cold honest truth.

I appreciate your conservative viewpoint on these boards because it is so rare, but when comments that don't make sense are posted - those such as "everyone else is pretty much with us" - whether they be conservative of liberal, I can't help but try to set the record straight. I think a better way to argue you point - and you do have one - would be to describe the ways in which the overwhelming majority of the world was wrong to not support the war. That can be argued. You can't argue that most everyone else was with us, it's misleading, it's wrong, and it doesn't make any logical sense at all.

Davis

Good post.

I can only speak from personal observation based on historical records which have indicated that like in this country the silent majority supports our actions, and most of the world supports the actions of the United States.

Support is not always verbally shown, in fact there have been contrary statements made to make it appear that displeasure is shown while in the back channels nothing can be futher from the truth. I know I am stretching with out proof, but in the world of international politics this happens more often then people realize. We rely so much on the press who gets things wrong so often. Looking at our relationship with Russia during the cold war throught the eyes of the press, one would wrongly assume we fought tooth and nail on everything. There was great cooperation in many areas including controversial events. And this goes back in the relationship between Germany and Russia and many other European countries before and after WW I and WW II.

Another example is when you see a Democrat and Republican congressman both being interviewed. Based on how the press presents the interview it would appear there is no way these two could get along. But there are many times when they work together and back each other up in secret to make sure their own electrate does not turn on them.

Basically it hard to argue many of the facts without knowing things we will never know for years to come. There are many countries that are supporting our actions simply by keeping on eye on the Iraqi diplomats during and after the run up to the liberation of Iraq.

[mactastic]

Isn't this like the 'the more troops that are killed in Iraq, the better we are doing' arguement?

The more it looks like other countries are not supporting us, the more they really are supporting us?

[jayb2000]

Finally figured out how to show the picture instead of the link.

[wwworry]

Didn't Nixon always talk about "The Silent Majority"?

[Desertrat]

IJ, it's hard to be specific about "tone" or "between the lines". It just strikes me that much of the slams on the Bushies don't have all that much reason or thought in them--taken out of context in order to make the slam, just like the first post in this thread.

jayb2000, politicos do that stuff all the time. And when they're hugging, one of them is surely looking for a soft spot for a knife. Heck, Clinton got all huggy with Milosevic at the Dayton accords, calling him a great statesmen--which I really doubt was meant with any sincerity, given what we later did to Serbia.

wwworry, isn't it reasonable to figure that maybeso some 5% to 10% on the ends of the political spectrum are somewhat to very activist? And around 80% in the middle are generally silent? (I won't quibble over 80% vs. 60% or some such.)

'Rat

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, it's hard to be specific about "tone" or "between the lines". It just strikes me that much of the slams on the Bushies don't have all that much reason or thought in them--taken out of context in order to make the slam, just like the first post in this thread.

Well you may be right here, but you ignore the fact that much of the slams on liberals don't have much reason or thought in them either. That's why I come here, even with the BS factor as high as it is, it's still lower than I find in the general public. Dumb statements come from both ends of the spectrum.

[Thanatoast]

Originally posted by Desertrat
IJ, it's hard to be specific about "tone" or "between the lines". It just strikes me that much of the slams on the Bushies don't have all that much reason or thought in them--taken out of context in order to make the slam, just like the first post in this thread.
If you're referring to my opening post, I take exception to the notion that the quote I posted was taken out of context to slam the Bushies. It was completely in context and yes, it was a slam.

For the administration to call upon international cooperation when they've proven through their words (Bush's SOTU) and actions (War in Iraq) that they could care less about what the rest of the world thinks is hypocritical and I'm calling them on it. The administration's version of cooperation is "we say, you do" and I disagree with that definition. I posted the link to the page so that anyone could read the article and try to prove me wrong.

Perhaps I was relying too much on sarcasm to get my point across, but now you know my exact argument with the text. If you have a counter argument, I am willing to listen. It's why I started this thread after all.

[wwworry]

Originally posted by Desertrat
wwworry, isn't it reasonable to figure that maybeso some 5% to 10% on the ends of the political spectrum are somewhat to very activist? And around 80% in the middle are generally silent? (I won't quibble over 80% vs. 60% or some such.)

'Rat

That's exactly what I was trying to point out, in maybe not so clear a way, to G5man when he saidthe silent majority supports our actions, and most of the world supports the actions of the United States
The phrase "the silent majority" was popularized by Nixon to build a case for whatever he wanted to build a case for. I thought it odd and not coincidental that it is being used again in a similar fashion.

[Desertrat]

Thanatoast, had he made his speech in front of the UN, I'd agree with you. My point is that in the context of his audience, his points have merit.

'Rat

[Thanatoast]

But how does his venue negate the fact that he is asking for cooperation now, when he was so ready to spurn allies before? Unless the administration has recently changed policy, he's not asking for cooperation, he's asking for submission. The message is the same no matter who he gives it to.

Not to mention that this after-the-fact-contrition is unbecoming. He's selling snake oil, and I'm not buying it.

[Desertrat]

Seems to me that it's sorta cold down in the Devil's home when a politician admits to having been wrong. They shift directions while trying their best to save face.

Look: There's a lot of stuff that's done by administrations that I just don't like. That I think is wrong. But I don't get excited by the particular behavior when it's the normal or usual methodology in that wrongdoing. Or in rightdoing, for that matter.

"We shouldn't have invaded Iraq." Okay, fine. It just seems to me to be pointless to get upset over the mouth music and wiggling and squirming that's going on. Hell's bells, it's expected! That's what politicians do when they screw up!

Which is why my concern is about the effects of screwups on things like the economy, or foreign relations in general, and on what's likely to happen as a result of decisions.

So, in this particular deal, my curiosity is about the results--if any--of the rather inept carrot-and-stick begging with implict threats.

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

The problem I see is that proof that's coming out doesn't show that the administration "screwed up" but that they deliberately caused a war for no legitimate reason.

The backspin isn't covering a boo-boo.

It's covering the fact that they committed the ultimate crime against civilisation-- aggressive war -- with full knowledge and intent to do so.

[zimv20]

rumor du jour:

cheney will not run for re-election, citing health reasons. GOP currently wooing guiliani.

if true, i wonder if cheney's recent statements are made knowing there's a built-in limit to political damage to the WH.

[wwworry]

If you read Suskind's The Price of Loyalty it paints a picture of a White House almost entirely run by Cheney and if not him, Rove. Policy groups are hand picked to be entirely on one side of an issue (as opposed to other white houses, Nixon Ford, Bush 1 that P. O'Neill is familiar with) where policy groups were picked to suss out competeing sides of issues.

Instead of the groups handing out balanced reports for the president to evaluate, the reports are given orally in scripted fashion. What this means is that there is no real balance information getting to the president. Policy groups were run by the political arm of the administration with almost no analytical imput.

But it does not matter, Bush seemed almost completely disengaged from complicated domestic issues. Given information he asks almost no questions. He does not run policy meetings and people come out wondering if he understood any of the implications.

Cheney and Rove run everything.

[Desertrat]

Does it not seem that it's a bit "late in the day" for Cheney to plead health problems? Who will they select as a VP running mate? Cheney's health has been mentioned before, of course, so maybe they'll wait until later in the primary season...

For all that some folks here are perturbed about Iraq, I'd bet that the proposal on immigration "reform" will have more effect. A lot of previous Bush support may well just stay home or just vote in the more local races. Depends on what plays out over the spring/summer.

'Rat

[IJ Reilly]

Maybe he'll quit to join Billy Tauzin's lobbying firm.

http://2theadvocate.com/stories/012404/new_tauzin001.shtml

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Does it not seem that it's a bit "late in the day" for Cheney to plead health problems?


i don't think so. a june 'heart attack' is entirely plausible, imo. bush could hand-pick a VP candidate to counter whoever the Dems front-runner is.


Who will they select as a VP running mate?


yesterday's rumor was guiliani.

[Thanatoast]

if bush could get guiliani, that would certainly be a political coup, and make the democrats' job a lot harder come november.

guliani's a republican, then?

[mactastic]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
guliani's a republican, then?

Most definetly. Although I'm sure there are some around here who would argue he's a RINO.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Thanatoast
if bush could get guiliani, that would certainly be a political coup

i doubt guiliani could be controlled, though

bush could run w/ a woman, though, which would give dems some trouble, imo.

[mactastic]

Originally posted by zimv20
bush could run w/ a woman, though, which would give dems some trouble, imo.

Particularly if she was an African-American woman...

[wwworry]

I guess Cheney got all the tax cuts he wanted and all the extra work for Halliburton he want so maybe he's getting out while the gettin's good.

Profit!

[Thanatoast]

i wonder where he'll go to work after the election...:rolleyes: with a suitable "vacation" period first, of course.

unfair? maybe. unwarranted? arguable. probable...?

[denjeff]

Originally posted by g5man
He was talking directly to France, Germany, and Russia. Everyone else is pretty much with us.

and what about belgium?!?

just a cool thing... belgian's minister of defence said that he would vote for the democrats if he lived in the usa :) a day later belgian's minister of foreign affairs got a telephone from Collin Powell (the one that the usa always use to do the dirty jobs), asking for apologies and telling not to interfere in the politics of another nation... so funny :) they probably would have given a statue to the man if he told to vote for the republicans...

[Desertrat]

denjeff, this is not the sort of thing that people in high position are supposed to say in public. I know of few--if any--nations that are not touchy about "meddling in internal political affairs".

For the Belgian to "meddle", publicly, in our politics, is definitely uncool. (Privately, of course, he's free to say whatever he wants.)

:), 'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

For the Belgian to "meddle", publicly, in our politics, is definitely uncool.

i agree that his comment was extra-diplomatic, but that fact, imo, reveals a growing frustration at the bush administration's continued diplomatic gaffes and off-the-cuff remarks.

and it worked -- it got the WH's attention.

sometimes i think the administration is either too dim to understand diplomacy-speak, or counts on the US public to respond more to cowboy-talk than diplomatic language.