In a recent speech, Dick Cheney referred to Iran’s government as an outlaw regime. I am not quite sure what makes an “outlaw regime” and how it could possibly refer to Iran?
Other than being inflammatory and getting approving nods from warmongers, does this kind of talk serve any other purpose?
I hope it serves no purpose. I hope Cheney is not trying to lay groundwork for provoking hostilities with Iran so the U.S. will be at war on Election Day 2004. I hope nobody in the Bush Administration is clever enough to notice that no sitting American president who chose to run for another second term (unlike LBJ) has ever been defeated at the polls during a hot war. I also hope they find a cure for AIDS within the next year and that NASA figures out a way around that pesky light barrier.
Cheney talking about outlaw governments?
Thats pretty rich. There are very few people in government anywhere in the world more deserving of prosecution than Cheney and Bush.
It could possibly have something to do with the money being given to terrorist organizations operating in the Occupied Territories and to Hizbullah.
Supporting terrorists, no matter their stripe, counts as outlaw behavior.
Without a link to the exact speech to put the statement in context, I’m inclined to say: BFD, what do you expect him to say, “Gee, I think the Guardians Council is swell-- I especially like Ayatollah Ali Khamenei-- and look forward to watching the the latest Iranian nuclear bomb tests.”
Well, it IS a regime that just dismantled the last vestiges of its nascent democracy. In case you haven’t heard, the hardliners there have cracked down, disallowing a whole bunch of people from running for office, arresting people, and in general acting like the thugs they are.
I’m not sure what constitutes an ‘outlaw’ regime, but can we at least call them a bunch of assholes?
’
I agree. Which makes the Bush morons support for the haiti and nicarauguan terrorists, er i mean freedom fighters, all that much more two-faced, immoral, and of course…criminal.
No, you should pick something people won’t get confused with the Bush administration.
What do I expect him to say? Absolutely nothing. Address the shortfalls in the current foreign policy, domestic policy, and democracy in Florida before starting to be bellicose again.
And the logic of Iran wanting nuclear weapons shouldn’t be to preplexing to the US government. Iran had WMD used against it, and it now seeks methods to prevent/deter it from happening again. Wouldn’t any US administration do the same thing?
Which, ironically, was fostering a more moderate government and building better relations with the West until George W. Bush called the country part of the “Axis of Evil” and stomped over those nascent democratic efforts. Not that you’d notice.
I guess you are not counting Bush Sr. because you think Desert Storm was not a “Hot War” :rolleyes:
Go here (link) for some Cheney humor. 
No. But then I don’t think he intended it to serve any other purpose.
You mean you all haven’t figured it out yet…
Iran was the REAL purpose of the Iraq war. The US first invades Afganistan in retaliation to the 9/11 attacks. Once troops are deeply rooted in the country, the US then invades Iraq using the excuse of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” to build a military stronghold there. Now that this is accomplished, The US now has Iran surrounded. Later the CIA will find some excuse to condemn Iran and then invade from both borders forcing their military to fight a two front war with their forces fighting in opposite directions. (The old Divide and Conquer routine ). Once divided, their ground forces will be easier to deal with and then the CIA will have conqured them too. From there the CIA will make up some lame excuse to attack some other country over there "probably Packistan or Seria, then will keep going on and on until the entire Middle east is under siege, then will keep going on and on until every non- caucasian nationin the region (and later on earth) is either militarily conqured or enviromentally enslaved.
Think about it…
Every sine the end of WWII, almost every war the US has fought were all against people of color…almost. Now why is that? Do you think that this is all part of some master plan for world dominance, somthing called a New World Order which is nothing more than a modified version of Nazism? I think so.
Mark my words, I can assure you that It won’t be no more than matter of time before we (the US) will be invading Iran just like we did Iraq…you just wait and see :mad:
Go lie down so sound feverish. Seeing how hard it is for US troops to deal with 25 million Iraqis, few of whom actually liked their despot, I’m not sure how they plan to “lay siege to the Middle East”. :rolleyes:
There are actually so many things wrong with this statement I think I should actually let you correct them yourself.
Nazism is a very specific charge. You may have stumbled over some of the softer adherents recently (thanks again BrainGlutton). Unless in your fevered imagination the US is planning on outright killing of all no whites (whoever they are), followed by reclaiming the Dazing corridor you should shut up.
bush, cheney and co. have their own agenda. you can’t really think any of them assumed their positions because they wanted to make your life better. if you let them screw you over they will. and you DO let them by supporting them in the polls, you have nobody to blame.
Sounds like Haliburton figured out how much Iranian oil is worth.
Rove doesn’t have his hand up Cheney’s back like he does with Bush. So Cheney still says the things that he wants to. Like that Saddam was intimately involved with Al-Qaeda, and that the U.S. has to invade Iran.
Cheney is motivated by oil and Halliburton, and not much else. Truth or practicality doesn’t enter his thinking. What he does is just marketing. He’s selling bullshit, and hoping for billions in return.
You guys (US voters) want to buy the bullshit, go ahead and pay the price.
We did spend 50 years ready to fight a war in Europe against a white European country and her white European allies, though. Fortunately, we didn’t fight them, but it came close. So, I don’t think there’s an active plan to take over the non-white world.
Wasn’t the invasion of Iraq going to be the shinning beacon in the region which would extend democracy to all other countries in that region? They would do it because (a) they would see the benefits of democracy and (b) they would be just oh so intimidated by the USA. So, what went wrong?
I am pretty sure the USA is not going to take any military action against Iran any time soon no matter what rhetoric it may use. Any attempt by the USA to start military action ould be met with huge opposition at home and abroad. The president of the USA is just in no credible position to launch a new war after the fiasco in Iraq. He would meet huge international opposition abroad, huge opposition at home and the congress would not pay for the war anyway.
If the USA were to attack Iran, the already shaky situation in Iraq would get much worse and the whole region would become one huge mess with everybody fighting everybody. No chance.
of course, before Iraq I predicted Bush would not do it because I could see the result and I thought the prez could not be so stupid as to invade Iraq in the face of world opposition only to get bogged down in a mess. Well, it turned out he was so stupid. Who would have thunk it.