Jump to content

one of many cheney lies.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 46
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

What was the reason Edwards chose to talk only about the coalition?  Could it be because it made the numbers "better"?  Should he get to frame all of the arguments in the debate or should Cheney call him out when he chooses to argue about a portion of an overall topic?

 

The real argument about building a coalition is multi-faceted.  There are very real questions about side deals France, Germany and Russia (not to mention the UN) had going with Saddam.  Assuming for the moment that side deals existed and would not reflect well on the leadership of these countries, would they have EVER joined a coalition anyway?  Even if there were no side deals, but these countries had a vested interest in seeing the US knocked down a peg, might that have left them against a coalition?  Who decides how big a coalition is big enough?  (Seriously, who decides that?)

 

If the US decides now is the time to take action or the consequences will detrimental to us, should we still wait to be nice guys?  An argument about why it was the wrong decision is one thing, but this coalition thing is a big red herring.

 

John Kerry has still not joined the 91 coalition.  Is it big enough yet or should we leave Saddam in Kuwait?

59041[/snapback]

 

I thought the reason Edwards focused on the coalition figures was because he was comparing the first war with this war. How many countries joined us in Gulf War 1 vs. the current war? The point made was that we had a real coalition in GW1, with significant troops and funding from the coalition. Edwards was making the point that this administration couldn't get the same level of commitment for this war.

 

Surely one wouldn't inlcude the Iraqis as part of that coalition for comparative purposes, would they? If so, where were they at the start of the war....? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me just say that I disagree with you.  These people can be swayed to believe anything.  They would blow themselves up in the name of Allah whether we invaded Iraq or not.  It was simply a matter of time before they hit us (which 9/11 proved).  That is the plight of the hopeless and is EXACTLY what their handlers have been preying on for eternity.

 

The best hope we have as a society is to give them hope.  A true representative Republic smack in the middle of their caste system.  Their other choice is a smoking hole.

59252[/snapback]

 

How does your second paragraph square with the first? How does a representative republic stop them from blowing up themselves in the name of Allah?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I guess you agree with Edwards and Kerry that Muslims are cockroaches and don't count.  I am so glad that they aren't in charge.

58934[/snapback]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but the statistic was based on the coalition we went to war with. Iraqis obviously didn't go to war with themselves. I don't think you can call them part of the coalition since they are within the country. They are obviously essential and central to the equation for peace in the country, and they should be put in a position to govern and run their own country. But that wasn't where the statistic comes from. If you really want to talk about the innocent or sympathetic Iraqis that have died as a result of this war, be my guest. It's a number we dont even want to think about being responsible for, and it would be a poor strategy for the Republicans to pursue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The libs seem to be missing a key point -- key to the future of success in this war on terror (no surprise). Mission accomplished marked the end of combat operations in Iraq -- essentially the end of Saddam's rule and the beginning of the occupation force's rule. Then another event happened -- the occupation force turned the reigns over to Iraqis in the form of a provisional government. At the time the provisional goverment took power, they had the ability to ask the coalition forces to leave their country, yet they asked them to stay. At this point, Iraq became an ally and in effect a member of the coalition.

 

Cheney was dead on when he said Kerry/Edwards are using the 90% figure to make a point, and in doing so are insulting the contributions and sacrifices of Iraqis. Their scorched earth policy on Iraq is extremely dangerous. If they win, my question is how much of a coalition will be left? Why would any other country continue to stay in Iraq as part of the coalition if the American people decide even they don't have the will to stay the course? The political pressure on leaders of our coalition partners will be enormous and they likely won't be willing to continue taking the heat after the trashing Kerry/Edwards gave them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The libs seem to be missing a key point -- key to the future of success in this war on terror (no surprise).  Mission accomplished marked the end of combat operations in Iraq -- essentially the end of Saddam's rule and the beginning of the occupation force's rule.  Then another event happened -- the occupation force turned the reigns over to Iraqis in the form of a provisional government.  At the time the provisional goverment took power, they had the ability to ask the coalition forces to leave their country, yet they asked them to stay.  At this point, Iraq became an ally and in effect a member of the coalition.

 

Cheney was dead on when he said Kerry/Edwards are using the 90% figure to make a point, and in doing so are insulting the contributions and sacrifices of Iraqis.  Their scorched earth policy on Iraq is extremely dangerous.  If they win, my question is how much of a coalition will be left?  Why would any other country continue to stay in Iraq as part of the coalition if the American people decide even they don't have the will to stay the course?  The political pressure on leaders of our coalition partners will be enormous and they likely won't be willing to continue taking the heat after the trashing Kerry/Edwards gave them.

59783[/snapback]

 

Like the freakin Iraqis had a choice. They got shocked and awed and invaded. They have 50% unemployment, intermittent electricity, and as long as they don't go out in public they're safe.

 

There was no way they'd ask us to leave their country. After 12 years of sanctions they don't have the capital, tools, materials or infrastructure to begin to rebuild their power plants, hospitals, schools, factories. We had them over a barrell.

 

In terms of numbers though the dead Iraqis - women and children - FAR outnumber Americans, it's true. But guess who they blame for that? And guess who's going to pay the price?

 

Allawi is a puppet like the Shah of Iran was a puppet and like all the puppets we put into place he'll turn on us some day, if he lasts in power.

 

Those who fail to learn from history....etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheney pointed out that he never met Edwards before last night.  Well, that was one of a great number of lies from Mr. WMD, Saddam-AlQaeda link, the economy is rosey.

 

oh...I forgot.

 

The fact that they didn't meet on the Senate floor is no big deal.  Unlike his predecessors, Cheney only meets with Republican senators when he comes to the Senate.  Cheney is looking for nose reduction cream this morning for his Pinnochionitus! :rolleyes:  :)

58886[/snapback]

Bottom line: Edwards has missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee.  Almost 70% of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee. Edwards missed a lot of key votes on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...