Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Cheney's goals


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Cheney's goals Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Cheney's goals - 7/31/2006 7:54:44 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		It is rather trivial to stand on the balcony and say let them eat cake.  It is not a certainty that those standing on the balcony are of a kind that furthers the human condition, in fact, history shows us that the contrapositive is more the case.

And why is Machiavelli getting such a bad rap here?  He would certainly not agree with the governance or political action of this administration, in fact he warned against such slippery slopes.

Ron

(Don't make me look the fucker up)


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Level)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: Cheney's goals - 7/31/2006 8:09:05 PM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		Ron,

I did not use Machiavelli in a pejorative sense, I used his name because I wanted to show that unlike Bush, Cheney is clearly at the top of his game politically.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: Cheney's goals - 7/31/2006 8:17:25 PM   
LTRsubNW


Posts: 1604
Joined: 5/6/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

LTR,

Well that is a good start, I am glad to see you are making progress!

(Just kidding!)


Hey...things can change man....

(but...don't get cocky...tomorrow's another day)

The Democrats might win.

(GAaaawwwwddddd...I've sunk so low...I used to be a Rep....Rep..........{I can't even say it})

< Message edited by LTRsubNW -- 7/31/2006 8:20:10 PM >

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: Cheney's goals - 7/31/2006 8:20:23 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		CrappyDom,

I understood your point, and I know it was not rigorous and meant to be disected but Machiavelli had qualms and scruples, neither of which Cheney has evidenced other than within his dominion. 

Shall we say the rich get richer and the poor get kids?

I will say that at least he (cheney) will be a horses ass to the assembled, but fuckwad thinks he has righteous indignation. The other guy......so we here about the lying of the blowjob shit.......why can't he belive it true like the illuminati apologize for Dubya for?

Niether one was a or will ever be a human, that is left to us.

My apologies if you think I was somehow refuting your actual position, I overall agree with your logic.

Sincerely,
Ron


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: Cheney's goals - 8/18/2006 5:42:12 AM   
Lordandmaster


Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline 		I've been thinking about this for a long time, because I hadn't considered the possibility that the fiasco in Iraq was envisioned and intended, but this article, by the veteran diplomat Peter W. Galbraith, has brought me back to my original view that it's all a mixture of ideological fervor and stunning incompetence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTRsubNW

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster

I fail to see how the chaos in the Middle East serves U.S. interests, but maybe the supergenius Cheney sees things I don't.

I doubt it...but maybe.


We don't have all the pieces.

They may be incongruous.

We should listen to history (and question).

(in reply to LTRsubNW)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: Cheney's goals - 8/18/2006 7:55:26 AM   
Daddy4UdderSlut


Posts: 240
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

I have long wondered what Cheney's real goals were.  He is a realist of the first order and as Machiavelian as they come.  The policies that led directly to the current chaos could not have been oversights as they were just to glaring and too clear to anyone with the least understanding of the ME so I knew there was something I was missing.

Chaos in the ME serves one goal, it ensures the Arabs remain dependent on America for security and ensures that China is unable to secure ME oil.  Only America has the ability to project stablity outside of our borders, we have the naval and poltical forces capable of making it happen, China doesn't.  Stable countries can sell to the highest bidder, unstable ones have to sell to the one who keeps them in power, in this case us, or at least Bush's buddies.

This is the only theory that fits the facts that I have seen.  Nodody is dumb enough to think that invading Iraq, a country with a Shia majority, would somehow create a western leaning democracy.  Nobody could really be dumb enough to occupy a muslim country and think that not having a long term plan would be be a good idea.  Threatening countries like Iran during an election and being surprised the citizens take umbrage and elect a hardliner cannot be a surprise to anyone but the most ignorant neocon.

So in short, the supposed mess we are faced with has to be the result of desire not accident as they have consistently chosen the path toward chaos and away from stability and order.  PNAC spelled out they wanted to secure the ME oil but how clever is it to do it in such a way that not only enriches you by funneling the oil through your firms but also that we have to buy weapons from you in order to keep it secure.

Down right brilliant.

I am not a Cheney admirer, and in fact hold him in contempt.  While I cannot really know what the motivations of someone else are for doing something... when it comes to the propaganda role he played to the public and the championing he apparently did within the administration to push for the Iraq invasion, it's a little hard for me to buy the notion that this outcome is what he wanted.  Even though the events are going on 10,000 miles away, this can very easily come back to bite us here, whether it's with more terror attacks or simply problems with accessing hostile or disrupted oil markets.

As to why he did it, I prefer the more conventional explanation - that he (and Paul Wolfowitz) were concerned about access to middle east oil, and Israeli security, and considered Iraq a threat on both counts.  The goal was to overthrow the government in Iraq and install one favorable to the US and at least moderate towards Israel.  While I do think that his ties to Halliburton had everything to do with their receiving a rammed through no-bid multibillion dollar contract for support in the Iraq adventure, I don't beleive as some have said that he actually started the Iraq war to get this money to Halliburton - corrupt, yes, crazy - no.

< Message edited by Daddy4UdderSlut -- 8/18/2006 8:21:25 AM >

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: Cheney's goals - 8/18/2006 8:05:13 AM   
meatcleaver


Posts: 9030
Joined: 3/13/2006
Status: offline 		Having just read about Cheney on Wikipedia, I see he is another coward that likes to send other people to war. How come it is always the cowards that are warmongers?

(in reply to Daddy4UdderSlut)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: Cheney's goals - 8/18/2006 8:20:23 AM   
CrappyDom


Posts: 1883
Joined: 4/11/2006
From: Sacramento
Status: offline 		I am reading FIASCO and it makes a strong case that is was simply monumental incompetence so who knows.  I still wonder why, once their assumptions were exposed as idiotic, that they didn't retrench and take a more realistic view.  I mean all the shit that has gone wrong was accurately predicted by many people including someone as pathetic as myself.  One would think they would then turn to those people and say "okay, you were right, we were wrong, help us fix this disaster"

They didn't, so is that simply incompetence of a greater magnitude than previously thought possible or is it a sign of something else?

(in reply to meatcleaver)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: Cheney's goals - 8/18/2006 8:28:39 AM   
Daddy4UdderSlut


Posts: 240
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CrappyDom

I am reading FIASCO and it makes a strong case that is was simply monumental incompetence so who knows.  I still wonder why, once their assumptions were exposed as idiotic, that they didn't retrench and take a more realistic view.  I mean all the shit that has gone wrong was accurately predicted by many people including someone as pathetic as myself.  One would think they would then turn to those people and say "okay, you were right, we were wrong, help us fix this disaster"

They didn't, so is that simply incompetence of a greater magnitude than previously thought possible or is it a sign of something else?

Well, it's the real world, and I don't think these guys are unique in that they don't like to admit errors.  Of course, it's true that they are particularly strong in this area, and that the effect is to prevent any practical corrections for misguided national policies - simply because to do so might cause them some personal embarrasment.  With so much at stake, it's disgusting - I am with you on that.  It's a very small-minded and narcisstic bunch.

< Message edited by Daddy4UdderSlut -- 8/18/2006 8:29:13 AM >

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: Cheney's goals - 8/18/2006 8:46:21 AM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		crappy is quite possibly right - foreign policy is rarely easy to read and the stuff they tell us is often just a distraction to keep us wrapped up in conspiracy theories.

Example; Europe was divided between west and east not because we were too afraid of Uncle Joe Stalin and his armies to free the likes of Poland, Czechoslovakia (as it was) and Hungary et al - we could probably have steamrollered the Russian steamroller better than Barbarossa did in 1941, and US troops were already into Hungary and Bohemian Czechoslovakia. An agreement was reached to allow Uncle Joe to take possession of the eastern bloc in order to persuade him to send armies east for the invasion of Japan, regardless of the protestations of France and Britain that a promise of liberation had been made for Poland. It was sold as a deal to provide for rebuilding and a basis for lasting peace, but in fact it was about nothing of the sort. Everyone knew that Uncle Joe was a scumbag who would purge his new empire through firing squads, but that was not a problem for the US.

Example; Gulf War I, all indications given to resistance groups within Iraq and even briefings to at least British Army units was that the allies would carry on past Kuwait and into Iraq to bring about regime change. Everyone thought this was the natural sequence of events and it was reported as such, to get rid of a man who by that time had started two wars with his neighbours and threatened security in the region. I remember the disbelief when the tanks stopped, but as I explained to my boss at the time they would never get rid of Saddam at that stage as they needed him to keep the pressure up on even more hostile surrounding states and because his absence would cause a power vacuum that even worse people might well fill. (Shame Bush Jnr didnt listen to me for episode II, but there we are). Again, thousands of people in resistance groups rose up, and were killed by Saddam, and everyone knew that would happen, but it fulfilled the policy goal and thats all that counts.

The west does not want democracy for these Arab states in any case. I seem to remember Algeria having free elections and they were foolish enough to elect a theocratic government - military rule followed. We want them instead to have democracy as long as they will elect the right people (people who will kowtow to us), or to have it in order that, being unable to deal with it because of inexperience, chaos will ensue. Sure it costs lives, but mainly Arab lives and they arent worth a lot are they?

E

(in reply to Level)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: Cheney's goals - 8/18/2006 8:56:20 AM   
MistressLorelei


Posts: 997
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline 		If I were a Republican.... I would feel completely raped by the administration I voted for.  Bush and Cheney had such an agenda to manufacture "truths" in order to make the pushing forward of their extreme, brutal agenda look necessary.  If the liberals get a branch of government back, I think we are going to see a lot of questions and a lot of evidence showing of the unjustice this administration has provided for the people it claims to represent. 

All the talk of liberals being intolerant....  and people wonder why?  

<venting>


(in reply to Daddy4UdderSlut)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: Cheney's goals - 8/18/2006 9:01:33 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Once again:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to MistressLorelei)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: Cheney's goals - 8/18/2006 10:46:36 AM   
MistressLorelei


Posts: 997
Joined: 11/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Once again:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials


Perhaps the public won't be such an easy sale in the near future....  As Bush would say "Fool me once shame on you, fool me- can't get fooled again". 

I think we, the people are learning that we have to rely mostly on ourselves, and that most people who tell us 'you can trust me' are those who you should trust the least.  Electing a politician  has sadly become who do we think will harm us the least, let's vote for that person.  And when we make the wrong choice....  it looks like the country we are living in now. 

We have seen how this government has behaved when attacked, we have seen where patriotism has lead us, and we are in that 'greater danger' now, I believe.  Government will at least have to think of newer, more creative ways to scare us into allowing things we don't want.  

Wishful thinking perhaps...  

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: Cheney's goals - 8/18/2006 7:32:59 PM   
cloudboy


Posts: 7306
Joined: 12/14/2005
Status: offline
He's a detached-from-reality idealogue.

(in reply to CrappyDom)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: Cheney's goals - 8/18/2006 7:45:50 PM   
Daddy4UdderSlut


Posts: 240
Joined: 4/2/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Once again:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials

Hmmm, would that make Cheney a Goering disciple?  Certainly the fear card was played heavily against the populace, and the patriotism card was played heavily against the Congress... the sad thing was it worked, and the Congress didn't have the courage to say no to an ill-conceived war.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 35
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: Cheney's goals Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094