Saving Private Cheney

Von

One of the ironies of the war is that the president and vice president, two of the lads that have done all the tough talkin' and are so flippant about the deaths of others, both dodged the vietnam war draft.



Rest of the story here.

Gargoyle

Cheney had a child and thus wasn't going to be drafted. Not volunteering is a far cry from dodging it, ala Clinton.

Von

Cheney was a supporter of the war but used his connections to defer four times, the fifth was when he was to become a father.

Nagilum

He took five years worth of deferments, four as a student and one as a soon-to-be-father, and avoided serving in the military altogether.

So you're saying that not dropping out of school to join the war is the same as dodging the draft?

Hobbes

Whatever works I guess.

... let me just expand on that.

If you wanted to nitpick you could say Cheney at least had no intrest what-so-ever of getting shot at.

If he did he would of signed up after his schooling was finished.

How many other "fathers to be" do you think went to Nam?

I see the US has now started up Selective Service again.

Von

Nah it's just odd that someone, an arch militarist, who supported the vietnam war would do everything possible to avoid actually participating in it. Odder still is that later on he would try to tell stormin' norman schwarzkopf how to run the gulf war. At least Mr.Bin Laden did a stint against the russians.

Manach

But they are being advised by someone who served with distinction at platoon level in Vietnam, Colin Powell.

Shinji

Where "advised" equals "run like glove puppets".

No bad thing - Powell has that rarest of things in the current US administration, A Clue. The Afghan conflict mightn't be the greatest moment in America's military history (and it's going to get a lot messier once troops go in on the ground; the US administration doesn't talk much about how close they came to losing a LOT of people in that much-vaunted commando raid last week...) but without Powell's hand keeping morons like Bush and his ilk in check, it'd be a total disaster.

Typedef

Yeah and thus having a clue he realises that he is a token coloured. And not that coloured incidentally, he is basically there to probably detract from charges of nepotism and anti-democratic practices in the US. I mean lets face it , Bush had his brother rig the election for him so the Republicans need all the moderate tree-hugging black loving PR they can get.

Oh and what a surprise that politicians are big on talk of war but, not so keen to fight it, big shock there huh?

Gargoyle

Originally posted by Typedef
Yeah and thus having a clue he realises that he is a token coloured. And not that coloured incidentally, he is basically there to probably detract from charges of nepotism and anti-democratic practices in the US. I mean lets face it , Bush had his brother rig the election for him so the Republicans need all the moderate tree-hugging black loving PR they can get.

Oh and what a surprise that politicians are big on talk of war but, not so keen to fight it, big shock there huh?

[SARCASM]
Its very obvious the Typedef is a perfectly objective poster.
[/SARCASM]

Manach

Originally posted by Typedef
... he realises that he is a token coloured. And not that coloured incidentally,

I see, it's okay to insult someone on account of their race if they are the conservate persuasion.

Typedef

No I'm not insulting him, I think he is a moderating force in the US and I welcome that, at the same time his leader George Bush jr has refused to condemn the flying of the Confederate flag from Government buildings. One of the main reasons for the Civil war was the black slaves which the Confederates wanted to keep, so what kind of message does that send? Also seeing as how American politics seems to be based in such a large way around political families and who you know not what you know I find it suspicious that the arguably more right wing party which would arguably get more support from people who are themselves racist, would install a black man to such a high position unless it was a political maneuver to stem accusations of.

Nepotism
Racism
Rightwingedness
Treaty Breaking
Being political appendage from military complex
And synical attempt to gain coloured votes.

Also I doubt a leader with an attitude like this to homosexuals is big on race issues do you?

* Tolerance & equal rights, not gay marriage & special rights. (Oct 2000)
* No gay adoptions; but listens to gay GOP group. (Apr 2000)
* Against gay marriage, but leave it to the states. (Feb 2000)
* No gays in Boy Scouts. (Aug 1999)
* Hate-crime rules don?t apply to gays. (Jul 1999)

No gays in boy scouts , cute hmm?

Day before yesterday the US awareded 140 billion dollars in a weapons contract ( the biggest weapons contract ever). I know Bush thinks that

* US chosen by God to be a model among nations".
* Allow religious groups to address social ills."

And his right wing religious tendancies are fine but the inferance I draw here is if the man is so against "Gay's" so convinced that the US has been chosen by god, and so comparitavely unsympathetic towards poorer people what possible reason to suspect good motives behind the appointment of for example Colin Powell as Sec of State is there?

But surely instead of spending this 140 billion on weapons he could have given it to the poorest Americans - most of whom are black.

Of course he wants to

* Maintain basics of government?s ?most successful program?

when it comes to social welfare cuts. Guess this is what "compassionate conservatism" really means and it looks like he has even let his boy sit up front with him, how touching.

Gargoyle

Typedef, I'm curious. Way deep down, do you actually hope the US loses this battle and keeps getting attacked by terrorists? Please answer honestly. Thanks.

Typedef

Deep down I hope one day that no one grouping of humans thinks themselves so important and powerful that they feel they can dictate global treaties, policies and says, this group over here is ok but that group over there is not, and see that group they have too much oil and it should be ours!

bonkey

Originally posted by Gargoyle
Typedef, I'm curious. Way deep down, do you actually hope the US loses this battle and keeps getting attacked by terrorists? Please answer honestly. Thanks.

Exactly how does criticising the current government imply that he wants the US to lose this battle?

And, once again, how does winning the battle in Afghanistan prevent you getting attacked from the terrorists? Most of them arent in Afghanistan, and those that are arent the main target any more.

jc

Typedef

Too true, look at the mid-east where tit for tat killings are stifiling any real chance for peace. Whoever you think is right it must be obvious that while one side keeps responding to force with force all that will arise is more use of force.

Also seeing as how upwards of 20,000 Pakistani young men have crossed the border into Afghanistan in the last 72 hours to fight on the side of the Taliban how could anyone seriously make the case that bombing the Taliban is weakening their position?

Surely the more prodigious action would have been to accept the offer of putting Osama Bin Laden on trial in an impartial country? What was so wrong with this? How do the allies seriously believe that peace can be a militarily enforced dictum on allied terms

Albert Einstein
Peace cannot be kept by force.
It can only be achieved by understanding