6
6
0
With the fact that he was part of the architects of the War in Iraq, was totally against rights for LGBT until his own daughter came out as a lesbian, and his company (although he "gave" up interests in) made billions of the wars should we trust anything this man says to include the deal with Iran? Or is this more politics as usual by someone who cannot let go?
Republicans
Democrats
Humor
Warfare
Politics
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 23
11
11
0
Why should we? Because his ability to navigate the complexities of the Middle East helped so much in the past?
(11)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
SFC James Sczymanski - I'm not even sure why MSNBC still exists. Liberals don't even really watch it.
(1)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
SSG Warren Swan, I agree that Fox gives the conservatives a fair hearing, unlike the rest of the networks. The other networks ridicule conservatives at every opportunity and slant their coverage to support the Democrat Party line. Fox is neutral, which seems conservative in comparison to the leftist slant of rest of the media.
And you are right - MSNBC is off in the far-left fringes.
And you are right - MSNBC is off in the far-left fringes.
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
ALCON: I watch all of them. If you have "only" that station that you think will give you perspective and "knowledge" you're mistaken. No station out there is really "fair and balanced" and in O'Riley's case, the whole show is a spin (Same with Rachael Maddows). I like them all for different reasons, but overall to get all of the news and not just one sides version of it. SFC James Sczymanski ....DAMN BRO!!!! lolz
(1)
(0)
9
9
0
SSG Warren Swan
Personally, I would trust Dick Cheney on Iranian issues more than Al Gore or Joe Biden and certainly more than Spiro Agnew :-)
Dick Cheney specialized in defense, energy and the Middle East. While Iran is technically not in the Middle east it is close enough for government work :-)
Joe Biden has made improvements since the death of his first wife and more recently his son. Al Gore still seems to be still wrapped up in global warming. I still laugh every time I think about his claim of the paperless society in the mid-1990's :-)
"Dick Cheney served four Republican presidents and spent six terms in the House. The former vice president specialized in defense, energy and the Middle East."
"He served as Gerald Ford's Chief of Staff from 1975 to 1977, then served six terms in Congress before being appointed Secretary of Defense by President George H.W. Bush in 1989. About 10 years later, he worked for another Bush administration, this time as vice president to President George W. Bush in 2000 for two terms. As vice president, Cheney was known for taking on a prominent role in the bush administration, being a more active vice president than what had ever been seen in the Oval Office before."
http://www.biography.com/people/dick-cheney-9246063
Personally, I would trust Dick Cheney on Iranian issues more than Al Gore or Joe Biden and certainly more than Spiro Agnew :-)
Dick Cheney specialized in defense, energy and the Middle East. While Iran is technically not in the Middle east it is close enough for government work :-)
Joe Biden has made improvements since the death of his first wife and more recently his son. Al Gore still seems to be still wrapped up in global warming. I still laugh every time I think about his claim of the paperless society in the mid-1990's :-)
"Dick Cheney served four Republican presidents and spent six terms in the House. The former vice president specialized in defense, energy and the Middle East."
"He served as Gerald Ford's Chief of Staff from 1975 to 1977, then served six terms in Congress before being appointed Secretary of Defense by President George H.W. Bush in 1989. About 10 years later, he worked for another Bush administration, this time as vice president to President George W. Bush in 2000 for two terms. As vice president, Cheney was known for taking on a prominent role in the bush administration, being a more active vice president than what had ever been seen in the Oval Office before."
http://www.biography.com/people/dick-cheney-9246063
(9)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
I would to sir! I have been following Iranian crises since 1977 when former President Jimmy Carter was in office. This administration is a lame duck!
(3)
(0)
SGT Damaso V Santana
LTC Stephen F. - Feinstein's husband given the sale of all of the surplus Post Office Real Estate comes to mind. He has a different name and the Commission is in the Billions, sounds like a Deal!
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
SSgt Terry P.
PO2 Brian Rhodes - Guess it has slowed too much now you are late,maybe, SSG Warren Swan will give you a break.
(0)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Sir, there are loads, but he's definitely part of the list. But wouldn't that be all politicians?
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
SSG Warren Swan - Most, but not all. If you give me enough time, I can dig up a small handful who I can trust.
(0)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
LTC Kevin B. - Sir, this is just a friendly discussion. And I'm just trying to stoke conversation and some humor at the same time. It's all good.
(0)
(0)
LTC Kevin B.
SSG Warren Swan - I understand. I should have added an emoticon after my comment. I was being sarcastic there (not at you, but just in general).
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
With all due respect, he is just making an opinion, you should be concerned about those capable of making a decision, and understand the implications for us, either option they choose to make. Dick Cheney, even when he was the president of the senate, did not yield any power, with the exception of what advice he may have given GWB, and what he in turn accepted and put in motion. I rather have him make a decision, since for the past 6 years we have already too many problems, and back to square one on the Islamic terrorism. Russia, China, Iran, North Korea are threatening us, and all we are showing is weakness, and leaving our loyal friendly countries out to dry.
(4)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
But he does wield power. He may not be the VP anymore, but to think he doesn't know how to navigate the system he's been a part of for the better of 45 years would be foolish. He would have no problem getting a meeting with any congressman of either party and that would be just off name alone. The name Cheney could make sudden meetings with the current POTUS and VP happen no matter what the schedule says.
(2)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
It maybe so, knowing people, but he has no elected government position since 01/2009. You are more concerned of what he says, instead of concerned what the actual administration that does yield that actual power. On that note, I think we are making mistakes dealing with Iran, we should have maintained the sanctions, and make them more severe. When a states wants the elimination of another country, they should be dealt with a hard hand.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
Yes...he hasn't given us reason to doubt him. His "former" company made money. But such is the nature of war. I wish I had invested in the company that made Patriot missiles back in the late 80s.
(3)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Senior, do you really think he gave up full control just because he became the VP? And how on earth does a company like that have a clause in it's contract to where it operates with impunity and cannot be sued or the government has to pay? Not many outsiders are that smart. Trump could be president "cough...cough", but to think he wouldn't have his mitts in his companies? Naw.
(1)
(0)
SMSgt Tony Barnes
SSG Warren Swan - First of all, I don't operate off of speculation. Secondly, to say it was his company is incorrect as it is a publicly traded and owned company. And, of course they would have expertise to be able to perform the contracts as they did with his involvement. He was quite the subject matter expert. I have utmost respect for Cheney. I would love to drive up to Jackson Hole and have coffee with him.
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SMSgt Tony Barnes - Senior, no problem with that. I'm not saying one is better than the other. IMO damn near every career politician is a crook; just with better clothes and schooling than me. So for you to go meet him, take your phone! Make sure you take one with him in the front leaning rest position!
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Depends...
Would I trust Dick Chaney to send improperly supplied trooper into war?
Absolutely!
Would I trust Dick Chaney to choose the American people over Halliburton?
Nope/
Would I trust Dick Chaney to send improperly supplied trooper into war?
Absolutely!
Would I trust Dick Chaney to choose the American people over Halliburton?
Nope/
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Completely agree, but I'm sure Haliburton will be properly supplied and will want for nothing by the time they show up in the chow halls.
On Cheney's defense, there are very FEW who I'd trust to send us into battle properly. And most of them are SGM/CSM/Chiefs, and the senior enlisted of each branch. I do have a few officers I'd follow into hell and back, but I dealt with the enlisted side more, so they're where I find most of my heros.
On Cheney's defense, there are very FEW who I'd trust to send us into battle properly. And most of them are SGM/CSM/Chiefs, and the senior enlisted of each branch. I do have a few officers I'd follow into hell and back, but I dealt with the enlisted side more, so they're where I find most of my heros.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
Well, I don't know if we should trust him or not but damn, him and Bush have been apparently running the country from 2000 to 2015. At least when anything goes wrong. The most important thing is not to blame the current administration. We have to keep the "it's bush's (Cheney) fault going as long as possible. The fact is the Iranian deal is a joke regardless of what Cheney says.
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
I can't blame anyone unless it's directly a result of indecisions or decisions on their parts. Now with the Iran thing, it was Bush's fault being they went from 0-5000 in 2008. That happened along the time that Bush was wrapping up and Obama was taking over. When Obama makes mistakes I have no issues calling him out. The Iran deal leaves everything on the table should things not go as planned. But what alternative would there be? War? Iran has been doing it's thing for 20 years and no one invaded then, so we're supposed to do it now? Or is it because they said they could beat us in checkers?
(0)
(0)
CW2 John Brookins
The suggestion that the only alternative to this deal is war isn't valid. It is the narrative however. There are many alternatives. Add to that, there are many levels of war, so it’s not like all out war would somehow overnight be declared by anyone. But it makes this deal easier to accept I suppose. I have no issue with blaming the Bush admin for what happened in that time but it's been 7 years, when does this administration take responsibility for its actions or in-actions? We are going to implement a deal that will give a known terrorist supporting country anywhere from 4-8 billion dollars in oil and other revenue.
Lifting of the sanctions will free up another $100 billion in frozen oil profits.
Inspections are not for all sites, only limited number can be inspected daily, other require a request that can be postponed, if all options are implemented, for weeks.
This is a country whose leaders, not radial elements of some fringe party, continue to chant death to America and promise the destruction of Israel.
Remember you can actually see the details of the agreement here -
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/
Of course this doesn’t account for the reported side deals.
How about we require Iran to do something to prove to us first that they are serious, and then we give them something. Why are we dealing from a position of weakness and must give in?
I do suggest everyone pay attention to the discussion on the deal as it goes through congress. Maybe I misread the document or it’s been revised. Maybe, it is a good deal but to simply go along with it because you don’t trust Dick Chaney doesn’t seem logical.
Lifting of the sanctions will free up another $100 billion in frozen oil profits.
Inspections are not for all sites, only limited number can be inspected daily, other require a request that can be postponed, if all options are implemented, for weeks.
This is a country whose leaders, not radial elements of some fringe party, continue to chant death to America and promise the destruction of Israel.
Remember you can actually see the details of the agreement here -
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/world/full-text-of-the-iran-nuclear-deal/1651/
Of course this doesn’t account for the reported side deals.
How about we require Iran to do something to prove to us first that they are serious, and then we give them something. Why are we dealing from a position of weakness and must give in?
I do suggest everyone pay attention to the discussion on the deal as it goes through congress. Maybe I misread the document or it’s been revised. Maybe, it is a good deal but to simply go along with it because you don’t trust Dick Chaney doesn’t seem logical.
Full text of the Iran nuclear deal
The accord will end decades of economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for restrictions on its nuclear program.
(1)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
CW2 John Brookins - You're right, that would be a terrible reason to support it. Unfortunately, we're faced with this reality - We cannot sustain sanctions against Iran alone. Hard lining Iran was never on the table and we are faced with the reality that we can either be part of the process or we can put one more nail in the coffin of American influence. In this case, we had to take a chance on what could be a bad deal (but still one of the best deals ever made in one of these situations) or hand over the future of Iran to Russia and China.
(0)
(0)
CW2 John Brookins
SGT Jeremiah B. - You have some valid points. Not that I agree with them, but they are reasonable as a starting point for discussion. You say we can’t sustain sanctions? You may be right but why not? Perhaps our influence has already sunk so low that we are not looked upon with credibility. We will cave quickly, as has been seen numerous times in the last few years. Remember the red line?
I don’t believe the way to gain influence is to go along with a bad deal because everyone else wants to. This is called following and not leading. Leaders influence, followers clean the coffee pot.
There was a time, not long ago, when we were respected, if not feared. Russia and China continue to push the limits of our sovereign space as never before. They smell weakness as ever other nation does and that results in less and less influence.
The fact is, we are horrible negotiators, giving away our position well before we reach the table. I learned quickly with the Afghans for example, just how good they are at this game.
I don’t believe the way to gain influence is to go along with a bad deal because everyone else wants to. This is called following and not leading. Leaders influence, followers clean the coffee pot.
There was a time, not long ago, when we were respected, if not feared. Russia and China continue to push the limits of our sovereign space as never before. They smell weakness as ever other nation does and that results in less and less influence.
The fact is, we are horrible negotiators, giving away our position well before we reach the table. I learned quickly with the Afghans for example, just how good they are at this game.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
No, we should not trust him! Hell, look what happened in the 2 nd half of the Gulf War Billions of dollars wasted and our brothers and sisters died in vain because Iraq and the Middle East is not stable and never will be! The powers to be knew this! A constant enemy to fight!
(2)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
Staff you said it when it came to the dollars. We are an expendable asset when it comes down to it. How much is a troops life worth when you're (not you directly) making billions per year, have immunity from prosecution or lawsuits, and happen to be the VP with NO family members eligible to deploy?
(0)
(0)
Capt Seid Waddell
In 2010, Biden Predicted Iraq Would Be "One Of The Great Achievements Of This Administration"
In a February 11, 2010 interview with Larry King, Biden predicted success in Iraq.
SSG (Join to see), the Middle East was more stable when he left office than it is now after 6 years of Obama.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLteUGkvpOc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLteUGkvpOc
(1)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Good morning CPT Waddell. I can say that under the Bush 2 administration it was better than now. This monstrosity of a administration, well you can say so many foul words. But remember this, a bird has two wings, a right and a left. A bird need both wings to flap together to work. So I essence, we have to deal the lesser evils?
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google