Cheney: " This conflict can only end in their..."

gypsyman

Senior member
Jan 14, 2001
674
9
81
Financial Times front page 2/16/02 By Edward Alden in Washington. Cheney: "Such a group cannot be held back by deterrence nor reasoned with through diplomacy. For this reason the war against terror will not end in a treaty. There will be no summit meetings, no negotiations with terrorists. This conflict can only end in their complete and utter destruction."

The era of doulble speak is past. :)
 

Slacker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
8,623
33
91
No No, we should negotiate with them, give them a country of their own, then nuke it.
 

XMan

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
12,513
49
91
Hmm.

BOOM!

"Anybody else wanna negotiate?"

Bruce Willis, The 5th Element
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81


<< No No, we should negotiate with them, give them a country of their own, then nuke it. >>


:) Can't we just give them Canada? We're not using it that much anyhow...
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
This conflict can only end in their complete and utter destruction.

Assuming it ends in our favor.


He's right. You can't/don't deal with terrorists. You destroy them.

Won't someone please think of the children?

Apparently we will kill them, too.


 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Won't someone please think of the children?

Someone is thinking of the children and is trying to leave them a safe and secure world.
 

insdav3

Senior member
Jan 21, 2002
293
0
0
The only way to end a 'war' is to stop fighting. Think about it. People will start getting their own oppinions about the US for going into their country and destroying stuff.... more people inside will maybe start to agree with the terrorists and more bombings will happen, and thus the USA will fight again....and then the terrorists react...etc. The only way for this to be truely over is for the USA (yes, my country) to apologize for all the acciedental citizen killings in arab countries when the older bush was in power and same with clinton. We need to understand that without fighting there is no war. The USA's invasion of the middle east now is just raging terrorists even more. It will never stop. Trust me. It's too late now though...... we've already crossed the line. We should of just mourned...and reconized what we've done in the middle east before. And say that we won't fight.....the world shouldn't fight, and everyone should take this as a example.

Thats my thought. You can't stop fighting by killing someone elses brother. :\
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,111
926
126
Unfortunately, some of the children will already be too infected to salvage, as well. That's just fact. It doesn't mean we go kill them, but on the flipside, they're also breeding more future terrorists, who will then need to be dealt with later.
 

Jhill

Diamond Member
Oct 28, 2001
5,187
3
0
I think when he said to think of the children he was reffering to a Simpsons episode when a lady kept saying that.
 

Pacfanweb

Lifer
Jan 2, 2000
13,149
57
91
<<You can't stop fighting by killing someone elses brother>>

Right. We're finally going for the whole family.

<<The only way for this to be truely over is for the USA (yes, my country) to apologize for all the acciedental citizen killings in arab countries when the older bush was in power and same with clinton. We need to understand that without fighting there is no war. The USA's invasion of the middle east now is just raging terrorists even more>>

Don't tell me you really think that if, after 9/11, we had said something like this: "oh, now we realize what terrible things we've done to you poor middle easterners, please forgive us, we'll stay out of it from now on", you don't REALLY think that would have made any difference, do you?
Please. Even if the terrorists say that's what they wanted, well....we all know that they're honorable men, right? Not.
They're piles of crap, period. There is no reasoning with them at all. They've been fighting since history has been recorded, and it's high time that somebody puts a stop to it. Since nobody else in the world has the balls to try, as usual, it's up to the US. Our days of saying it's not our business ended last September.


 

Mavrick

Senior member
Mar 11, 2001
524
0
0
The sad reality is that this is a war, just like any other war, and war cannot really be won by diplomacy (especially not with terrorists). It's sad, but a lot of innocent people will probably be killed, but that's probably the only way to solve the problem (i.e.: in WWII, many civilians were killed in UK, France and Germany, still, now, these countries are all allied together and much more free and prosperous than they were before. Negociating with Hitler (which th UK tried at first) did not really solved anything...). Sometimes, military force is needed to prepare a better tomorrow.
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
So should we just go about trying to annihilate them systematically? It's amazingly naive to think that we can just "go in and kill the bad guys. The people saying we should just go in and terminate without predjudice often sound as stupid as those who believe purely in appeasement. Israel's "retaliate disproportionally for every incident" policy certainly hasn't made things any better for them, it's not going to work much better for us. We have to kick some ass to show people we mean business, but totally counting out any possibility of diplomacy doesn't make any sense if we ultimately want peace.
 

Balt

Lifer
Mar 12, 2000
12,673
482
126
Negotiating is the only way! It worked with Hitler, right?

Oh wait, it didn't. I guess we'll have to destroy them then. I honestly can't believe some people think that terrorists even deserve to have their demands heard.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
We have to kick some ass to show people we mean business, but totally counting out any possibility of diplomacy doesn't make any sense if we ultimately want peace.

What you fail to understand, Mani, is that we want peace on OUR terms, period. Forget the fact that North Korea and South Korea (primarily) are trying to reunite families torn asunder by conflict. NK is part of the 'Idiotic Statement of the Week Axis". Kim Dae Jung has a Nobel Peace Prize . . . GWB can spell Nobel and controls the US military. Who do you think has the best perspective on securing peace on the peninsula?

Grudgingly, I can't see any clearly superior alternative to military action against Saddam. Not that one does not exist . . . I'm just ignorant to it.

If we can't handle Castro's Cuba I doubt we will be successful in Khomeni's Iran.

And forget Malaysia and Indonesia . . . "friendly" nations with plenty of periodic America-bashing in the streets. The fact is THIS conflict will never end b/c the enemy is amorphous and abundant, hence the goal unattainable.
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Look, I don't think anyone's saying we should just cave in to their demands or operate solely on diplomacy. Just that counting it out completely is as stupid as counting out violence completely.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Look, I don't think anyone's saying we should just cave in to their demands or operate solely on diplomacy. Just that counting it out completely is as stupid as counting out violence completely.

It depends on what the demands are. NK has just about nothing other than millions of near-starvation people, atrocious infrastructure, a misguided (in many ways) nuclear weapons and missile programs, and a 'cult of personality' dictator. SK considers violence a last resort not diplomacy by other means. In part b/c the fighting will not be across a sea in a distant land. The people who will suffer are family in the South AND the North. Don't get me wrong SK will not cower to overt aggression (ala invasion from the North).

Bush II early policy towards NK was to be iron glove. Powell, I think, endorsed a more moderate approach akin to Clinton. The Hawk Axis within Bush II appears to have won and we are back to iron glove. Regardless of how flaky Kim Jong-Il may be (arguably Arafat with more troops) change on the peninsula will likely come at his pace for the same reasons that true change in the USSR came from within not outside forces.


Changing tone in NK via Kim Jong Il Asiaweek.com Sept 2000
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126


<< Bush II early policy towards NK was to be iron glove. Powell, I think, endorsed a more moderate approach akin to Clinton. >>



It's called the "good cop, bad cop" approach. Nixon and Kissinger used the same technique.



<< The only way for this to be truely over is for the USA (yes, my country) to apologize for all the acciedental citizen killings in arab countries when the older bush was in power and same with clinton. We need to understand that without fighting there is no war. The USA's invasion of the middle east now is just raging terrorists even more. >>



How wonderfully and refreshingly naive.



<< What you fail to understand, Mani, is that we want peace on OUR terms, period. >>



Amazing grasp of the obvious there. Bush is President of the U.S., why shouldn't his goal be peace on OUR terms? That's the whole point in an armed conflict - to impose your political will on your opponent.
 

insdav3

Senior member
Jan 21, 2002
293
0
0
Pacfanweb.. i understand that.... i understand all of it. Yes they are dirty mother-f!ckers but, you can't solve war by creating it. A lot of people obviously don't know what USA did to a lot of innocent people also. I think they should all die too... but seriously you're not going to stop them from breeding and being raised exactly the same way they did bfore. All those kids and teens are living and growing up with a ton of violence, and that's all they are going to learn. You can't whipe them all out. You have to try and civilize them. Impossible as it may seem.
 

compuwiz1

Admin Emeritus Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
27,111
926
126
If faced with another Sept. 11th, it sure can't be peace on anyone's but our own terms. Let's not forget, they came here that time. We did what any reasonable nation would do, and that was to go to the root of the problem and do our best to eliminate it and bring those responsible to pay the price of their actions. We haven't dealt with but a fraction of the problem. If you want to spare innocent lives, you'd have to isolate them to a safe haven before any military action begins. Sadly, I don't know any other way, other than a broad sweeping campaign, which is bound to have civilians in the crossfire. I doubt extremist groups are capable of diplomatic relations. Their brains just don't work that way. Most of them live as though they are in some time warp, as well. :(
 

wnied

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
4,206
0
76
Balibabydoc

I think you miss exactly what GWB means when he throws NK into the same bunch as Iran and Iraq. NK has sold and continues to sell, weapons and weaponry to people KNOWN to be associated with, and KNOWN international Terrorists and their organizations. Thus this implicates them as a STATE who SPONSORS by way of supplying these cowards with the firepower to continue their overt acts of aggression towards free peoples everywhere in the world. Though I am a STOUT democrat, and usually lean left when I sit in a chair, I respect that GWB has the ba11s to call a spade a spade publicly, instead of saying we'll just overlook this blatant disregard of the world publics safety by way of ignoring who they sell theyre weaponry to.

~wnied~
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126


<< If faced with another Sept. 11th, it sure can't be peace on anyone's but our own terms. >>



If there's another large-scale terrorist attack on the U.S., not necessarily even on the scale of 9-11, the American people will be absolutely furious, and all bets are off. President Bush will not only have carte blanche to fight the war against terrorism on whatever terms deemed appropriate, indeed the political pressure from the citizrenry likely be him to act harder and with greater force than would have likely otherwise be chosen.

I think his statements were as much a warning to the "Axis of Evil" nations as anything else. I don't think Bush's first inclination is to pick a fight with the Axis countries (well, Iraq excepted from that statement), but he wouldn't have much choice if there was a terrorist attack that got linked back to, say, Iran. The American people would want the mullahs heads on pikes if that happened, and wouldn't care if the U.S. military had to reduce Iran to a sheet of glass to make it happen.

In a strange way, i think he did the Axis of Evil countries a favor, in letting them know they're walking on very dangerous ground, and giving them a chance to reform their ways a bit.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Amazing grasp of the obvious there. Bush is President of the U.S., why shouldn't his goal be peace on OUR terms? That's the whole point in an armed conflict - to impose your political will on your opponent.

I mean this in the nicest possible way glenn 1, don't be an ass. Bush could be President of the United Confederation of Kiesselbach Pickers, he would have no more or less authority/right to determine the mode or manner of peace on the peninsula. Yeah we've got 38K+ troops there but a full invasion from the North would likely swamp SK/US troops (landmines notwithstanding). What you and Bush fail to grasp is that the opponent is also family to the South. Tough talk will happen in private where Kim Jong Il can always save face . . . in part b/c he can't look weak to the hardliners in the North. Many tired old ideas from the Soviet bloc are alive and kicking within the hierarchy of NK political/military establishment.

And the truth of the matter is we (Bush admin) probably has no intentions of invading the North. We would probably just drop some bombs (my bad, launch some precision weaponry) on suspected nuclear and missile facilities. Well, since NK really can't hit anything in particular with its missiles what do you think their response will be . . . yeah, they'll invade China.
 

RadMan

Senior member
Dec 24, 1999
279
0
76
Bush is President of the U.S., why shouldn't his goal be peace on OUR terms? That's the whole point in an armed conflict - to impose your political will on your opponent.

Peace cannot exist just on OUR terms. Imposed peace is not peace. It is totalitarianism. As long as 10% of the world has 90% of the wealth and as long as that 10% of the world feels it has a God given right to impose its political will on the rest of the world there will never be peace.

True peace involves compromise, and I firmly believe Bush has no intention of compromising anything in this world. He's not interested in peace. He's interested in telling the rest of the world "You're either with us or against us." So much for freedom of thought and expression. Americans should not allow Bush to turn the United States into the dictator of the world.

Don't get me wrong. The compromise I speak of is not with terrorists. It is with other "Allied" nations. The only thing compromising with terrorists will get you is more terrorists. The real compromise that has to happen is that the western world will have to seriously re-evaluate its place in the global environment and how it interacts with 2nd and 3rd world nations.

Just my uneducated opinion. :)