Does anyone believe that Cheney is right?

[August]

Originally Posted by Tchocky

Well, for a start Cheney is simplfying a very complex issue. Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups don't have caucuses, many fight amongst themselves. Labeling them terrorists doesn't help either. It's correct,but not exclusive. Terror is a tactic, after all. "Shock & Awe", anyone?
And, he's misrepresenting a current event. No-one is fighting a Caliphaste stretching across the globe, it's a messy, dirty war in dusty streets and mountains.

Said mountains and dusty streets stretching from New York City to night clubs in Bali.

As for shock and awe. Perhaps its a faulty memory, I am getting old after all, but what part of shock and awe involved sawing the heads off a civilian hostages on camera? What part involved hijacking civilian airliners full of innocent civilians and flying them into buildings full of other innocent civilians? What part involved detonating bombs specifically targeted against civilians in crowded market places or London subways? Can you not see the difference?

As Baggygreen mentions there are entire generations of children being brought up with the concept that you Aussies are squatters on their land and that non muslims everywhere deserve either death or slavery if they refuse to submit to Islam.

If you want to reject Cheneys message because of who he is, then that's your business, but I firmly believe that unless we stand together against it now, our children and their children will inherit this problem, and by then it will have grown to the point they may not be able to stand against it.

[geetrue]

Somebody said ... "I'll be glad when the Avon Lady responds to this question"

Here's Avon Lady's reply:

Blah, blah, link ... blah, blah, but I still love her ... it's all those links I've had to read you know ... In fact I probably would've voted for her .... Maybe next time.

My view on Cheney however is this: He's a good vice president ... He's cool, he could take over and run the country the way it was intended to be run by the desire's of the people for the people represented by it's elected offical's.

That's the system set up in American, we complain about it, we live by it, we have elected good offical's and we have elected bad offical's, but we the people can correct the situation, not the news media, not the newspapers, not the editor's, but we the people.

Remember this debate is not about President Bush (whom I love) ... but about a man that he chose to be his friend and advisor. A man to stand in the wings and take over in case of any number of things that can happen to a President.

Mr. Cheney is better at debating than anyone on this forum ... that new lady democrat in charge of the Congress, (the U.S. Congress is just a bunch of rule makers or rule changing committe's that in our country put things in bills to beneifit their congressional district, it's the Senate where real earth moving decisions are made)

Anyway she put Vice President Cheney down really bad and he just side stepped it and didn't sling back. He was the Secretary of Defense for Desert Storm and that was a war for the record books ... we won't get into who's decision it was to leave off and stand down.

I have to go do some chores now, but I just hope and pray that President Bush doesn't need Mr. Cheney to be his LBJ ...

I would play poker anyday with Vice President Cheney and know it would be a challenging game.

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by August

I look forward to Avon Ladys reply in this thread.

No JW links needed. Cheney's right on the mark. The Muslims have been teaching it for 1400 years and not being shy about saying it loud and clear recently.

Well, I can't resist. Just the most recent example: Muslim Council of Britain's Shari'a Plan. Sorry it's not a JW link.

Good luck, Europe. Wake up, America!

[The Avon Lady]

Originally Posted by geetrue

Somebody said ... "I'll be glad when the Avon Lady responds to this question"

Here's Avon Lady's reply:

Blah, blah, link ... blah, blah

Right on the money!

[ReallyDedPoet]

Originally Posted by Boris

As for Dick Cheney, I think he wants another Cold War. His kind of rhetoric is very reminiscent of McCarthyism. It's alarmist, and designed to scare.

This

[dean_acheson]

McCarthy wasn't too terrible off, there were Communists in the State Department.

Is it necessary that I blah blah blah http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venona link?

Now, if we get into that old lefty bugaboo we are going to have posts longer than those that I get from H-Diplo!

[Mikkow]

Originally Posted by Boris

As for Dick Cheney, I think he wants another Cold War. His kind of rhetoric is very reminiscent of McCarthyism. It's alarmist, and designed to scare.

The neoconservatives are building an empire as well as enriching their good friends in the military businesses. Militarism and expansionism cannot be upheld without popular public support. The easiest way to get this support is to convince the citizens that they are constantly under the threat of attack by some powerful enemy. Having a pretext for offensively using military force is necessary. In the past, feigning an attack by the enemy provided this pretext. And now we have a pretext of preemptive war. With these simple tools, you can justify attacking anyone anywhere. You can have wars of aggression that are perceived by the local populace at home as self-defense. It is a very common, yet surprisingly, unknown method of manipulation. The Germans used it with great effect before and during World War II. They believe themselves acting in self-defense. But of course Hitler and the leaders see exactly what they're doing.

For example, see this following article written by Joseph Goebbels at the end of 1939, after Germany invaded Poland and the war was going well. It claims Germany is innocent and merely acted in self-defense, even though now we know that they pursued a ruthless war of expansion. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb21.htm

Originally Posted by Boris

Baggygreen, If what you say is true, then it's very worrying indeed. But as far as Muslims go, most indonesians are fairly liberal and hardly religious. Of course there have been extemeist groups. I'd like to confirm this with an Indonesian, interesting.

As for Dick Cheney, I think he wants another Cold War. His kind of rhetoric is very reminiscent of McCarthyism. It's alarmist, and designed to scare.

Most of what comes out of gov't these days is designed to scare the populace. That is how they justify their existance and growth. The strategy of the nanny state. Its a lie, but tell the lie long enough and people start to believe it.

Originally Posted by Mikkow

The neoconservatives are building an empire as well as enriching their good friends in the military businesses. Militarism and expansionism cannot be upheld without popular public support. The easiest way to get this support is to convince the citizens that they are constantly under the threat of attack by some powerful enemy. Having a pretext for offensively using military force is necessary. In the past, feigning an attack by the enemy provided this pretext. And now we have a pretext of preemptive war. With these simple tools, you can justify attacking anyone anywhere. You can have wars of aggression that are perceived by the local populace at home as self-defense. It is a very common, yet surprisingly, unknown method of manipulation. The Germans used it with great effect before and during World War II. They believe themselves acting in self-defense. But of course Hitler and the leaders see exactly what they're doing.

For example, see this following article written by Joseph Goebbels at the end of 1939, after Germany invaded Poland and the war was going well. It claims Germany is innocent and merely acted in self-defense, even though now we know that they pursued a ruthless war of expansion. http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/goeb21.htm

I'm not trying to hijack the thread but the entire global warming issue is also intended scare everyone into more government.

[Mikkow]

Originally Posted by waste gate

I'm not trying to hijack the thread but the entire global warming issue is also intended scare everyone into more government.

Really? I have tried to see why anyone would have any motivation for promoting the idea of global warming except genuine care for the climate. It is a very easy to see why industry and the nationstate would disapprove of the idea, due to it conflicting with their interests. Can you quickly explain what you mean?

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Most of what comes out of gov't these days is designed to scare the populace. That is how they justify their existance and growth. The strategy of the nanny state. Its a lie, but tell the lie long enough and people start to believe it.

By "these days" you mean twenty-one (21) months before the election that over one billion dollars is going to be spent on to tell us how bad the other side is and that is why the party saying the other side is bad should be the party in charge.

In other words, politics ...

Merriam-Webster said it best:
(the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government)

Originally Posted by geetrue

By "these days" you mean twenty-one (21) months before the election that over one billion dollars is going to be spent on to tell us how bad the other side is and that is why the party saying the other side is bad should be the party in charge.

In other words, politics ...

Merriam-Webster said it best:
(the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government)

No. In the last number of years since September 11, 2001. Even the weather channel contributes to the fear mongering with their it could happen tomorrow series. Seems like everyone is preying on peoples anxiety, and we, collectively allow it.

Seems there is a lot of money and gov't in fear.

[loynokid]

Terrorists will create an "empire" here if we don't stop them, and also really i am not so concerned about them taking over the world, but more for my own safety. I support the war on terror because i don't want me or my future children to be blown to blown up by a bunch of muslim jihadist terrorists. Terrorists want to wipe jews and anyone who supports them off the face of the earth. We fought them in Afganistan and Iraq so, if they had the chance they would wipe US of the face of the earth.

[Mikkow]

Originally Posted by loynokid

Terrorists will create an "empire" here if we don't stop them, and also really i am not so concerned about them taking over the world, but more for my own safety. I support the war on terror because i don't want me or my future children to be blown to blown up by a bunch of muslim jihadist terrorists. Terrorists want to wipe jews and anyone who supports them off the face of the earth. We fought them in Afganistan and Iraq so, if they had the chance they would wipe US of the face of the earth.

What do you think about different ways of stopping terrorism? And can you tell me which ones you prefer, and why?

[loynokid]

Originally Posted by Mikkow

What do you think about different ways of stopping terrorism? And can you tell me which ones you prefer, and why?

I think that the front on the war against terror should not be fought in US, I would much prefer that it is fought were the terrorists live, primarily in the mid east. I like the idea of just blowing down the door and bombing and invading the crap out of them, as in the Iraq invasion. You have to be careful though, because you want to keep a limit on civilian casuallties. I also realize that a lot of Iraqis are very p**sed of right now, I mean i would be very angry if a foreign country just decided to invade the US. Also, we weren't provocitive going into Iraq. If anyone thinks we were, then they need to google 9/11. Also we need to beef up security inside the states, which we have done since 9/11. I really am not a strategist or anything, those are just a few ideas of mine.