• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Dick Cheney gets heart transplant

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Gaborn

Member
Bombadil said:
Who wrote the AUMF? It's difficult to judge someone under the law when they write the laws. The AUMF was passed on September 14, 2011, three days after the 9/11 attacks. It gave the President an unprecedented amount of autonomy in regards to war. So yes, it was legal for them to start major conflicts in the Middle East, bearing in mind that legality was established a mere three weeks before war against Afghanistan was declared, and probably for that very reason. It wasn't a coincidence.
Click to expand...
I completely agree with you, but then you have to blame congress a bit too. Look, I'm not trying to absolve Cheney of responsibility here, I'm only reacting directly to the comparison of Cheney and Osama. I agree, the Bush years were horrific on civil liberties (Gitmo and the PATRIOT act are enough proof of that without things like the FISA law update and even ignoring the torture).

"However, you have to separate "mistakes" that is, policy judgments that you think are wrong with things that are illegal."

Again, the legality of his actions means nothing to me, considering how easily he facilitated legality.
Click to expand...

And, you know, I would agree with this if posters in this thread had the same problems with Obama on some civil liberties issues (his voting for the FISA law, the way he went about Libya, Operation Fast and Furious, the NDAA. This all feels like people are making it more about politics rather than serious outrage about policies that are unacceptable under any administration.

Cheney's ties to Halliburton are indisputable. Another thing that is indisputable is that Halliburton was the only company afforded the opportunity to bid for a energy exploration contract in the run-up to the war. You are being naive if this strikes you as mere coincidence. It's a typical "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" situation. The strong relationship between politicians and the corporate sector, and the ease with which members of either sector can transfer seamlessly into the other exemplary of corruption.
Click to expand...

I'm not willing to go that far. Halliburton was going to get a lot of contracts no matter what because it is a large company in that area with significant capabilities. Is it ethically questionable? Absolutely. No bid contracts are a JOKE and should not be allowed by the government except for specific emergency jobs. I still think you're overstating some of this because This is part of what Halliburton does, it's their niche, but the degree of the incestuous relationship between government and corporations is problematic.

"But all of that, honestly? That doesn't compare to targeting civilians repeatedly on 9/11 or the Embassy bombings, or the FIRST WTC attack in '93, etc etc etc."

Put yourself in the perspective of a civilian living in Afghanistan during the invasion. When your world is collapsing before you and sheet rock from exploding buildings is raining down upon you and your loved ones, do you stop to think about the people doing these things? Do you say to yourself, "these aren't terrorists, they're American soldiers?"

As I said before, human beings are pliable. You give a man a title, you give his men uniforms, and suddenly it's okay. There's a bureaucratic banality to it. It's expected, it's normal. You've heard their names dozens of times on the news. So there's that positive fluency in your mind. And then suddenly the news chimes out the name of some guy you've never heard of before, whose existence meant nothing to you 2 minutes ago, and you don't know anything about him, the sound of his voice, what he does in his spare time, and of course, you don't want to compare someone you have a fairly good idea about with some foreigner who's just carried out the deaths of 3,500 people.

Dick Cheney is to many people what Osama bin Laden was to us.
Click to expand...

Sure, you could have also linked the Ron Paul ad about a Chinese army in Texas. I agree with you in large part. I think where you go wrong is that no other President would have acted differently directly after 9/11 strictly in terms of Afghanistan and that would likely lead to some deaths. And that's horrible. No question, it's unfair, and it's brutal, and it's a shame. But I have no problems with taking out the Afghan government after they sheltered Bin Laden. The issue for me was the length of our stay after that, where we saw resentment build and build against us and I think it's too the point where we've done more harm than good by staying whether or not the current government survives since at best it's viewed as a puppet of the US anyway much like Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was viewed prior to the Iranian Revolution.

The fact remains though that because we invaded Afghanistan and that means some civilians died while we were seizing Kabul and THAT makes Cheney as bad as Bin Laden though... sorry, that's just ludicrous even if you really don't like the man.

At a basic level there is a difference between civilians dying in the course of war and civilians being deliberately targeted as was the case on 9/11.
 
H

hockeypuck

Member
Kinyou said:
I wonder how it works. I mean does he get the heart of a 25 year old motorcycle rider? Or does he get the heart of someone who's 60 years old? I mean is old body - young organs even compatible?
Click to expand...
The two stricter requirements I know of are ABO blood type compatibility and heart size to body size compatibility. A 12 year-old boy's heart can be placed into a 65 year-old woman's chest cavity if they're similar in body size.
 
Z

Zizbuka

Banned
Takes a lot of blood to feed this thing........

omg.jpg
 
A

Aphallatosis

Member
Gaborn said:
but then you have to blame congress a bit too.
Click to expand...

No shit, it's irrelevant to the point though.

Gaborn said:
Look, I'm not trying to absolve Cheney of responsibility here
Click to expand...

Seems to be exactly what you're doing with the redirection of the conversation to "well congress did bad stuff, and Obama does bad stuff". Cheney did very specific, very bad stuff, hence the Bin Laden levels of distaste for him.

Gaborn said:
This all feels like people are making it more about politics rather than serious outrage about policies that are unacceptable under any administration.
Click to expand...

You are being disingenuous. You keep bringing separate political issues up, good, bad, whatever, that are nowhere near the level of starting a war in Iraq for reasons that were clearly false, causing the deaths of tens of thousands of people, which is what Cheney did. You are being political about what is a clear cut moral judgement.
 
B

Baconsammy

Banned
Cheebo said:
More than the pure evil mass murdering dictators out there in the world? Ok.
Click to expand...

How are they different from elected mass murderers who then use their own influence to make a fortune off the deaths and suffering of others? Cheney is human garbage. I don't wish him death, but he's still human garbage that I wouldn't mourn if it happened.
 
B

Bombadil

Banned
Gaborn said:
I completely agree with you, but then you have to blame congress a bit too. Look, I'm not trying to absolve Cheney of responsibility here, I'm only reacting directly to the comparison of Cheney and Osama. I agree, the Bush years were horrific on civil liberties (Gitmo and the PATRIOT act are enough proof of that without things like the FISA law update and even ignoring the torture).
Click to expand...

I do blame Congress, but it's easier to indict the ring leader than to go after every culpable individual. Out of 531 members of Congress (4 short of the usual 535), 420 House reps voted yes to to the AUMF, and 98 members of the Senate voted yes. That's a lot of people. I would lay blame to each and every one of them, but upon slightly deeper research, you find more sinister motive in Cheney than with all the Congressmen and Congresswomen who voted.

And, you know, I would agree with this if posters in this thread had the same problems with Obama on some civil liberties issues (his voting for the FISA law, the way he went about Libya, Operation Fast and Furious, the NDAA. This all feels like people are making it more about politics rather than serious outrage about policies that are unacceptable under any administration.
Click to expand...

So you're saying if I also acknowledge that Obama is a spineless politician who has been a major disappointment, and has signed into law terrible bills that have infringed upon our liberties, you will then agree with my sentiments about Cheney?

Fine, okay. Obama is a spineless politician who has been a major disappointment, and has signed into law terrible bills that have infringed upon our liberties.


I'm not willing to go that far. Halliburton was going to get a lot of contracts no matter what because it is a large company in that area with significant capabilities. Is it ethically questionable? Absolutely. No bid contracts are a JOKE and should not be allowed by the government except for specific emergency jobs. I still think you're overstating some of this because This is part of what Halliburton does, it's their niche, but the degree of the incestuous relationship between government and corporations is problematic.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you have to wonder, if you're the Vice President and you're faced with a decision of either initiating an invasion or not initiating an invasion, and the old company you used to be the CEO of calls you up and gives you some incentive for choosing the former option, don't you think that presents a major conflict of interest that compromises your ability to lead? Conflict of interest is a major issue that is rarely addressed in politics but it's something corporate law firms are constantly dealing with. The public should be aware of relationships that exist between politicians and corporations. Oftentimes, the best interests of the corporation and the best interests of the public are not the same thing, but a politician can be "persuaded" into doing what's best for the corporation, while neglecting a much larger constituency.

It brings me to the next question of why did we go to Iraq?

Halliburton is an energy exploration company. Basically, they drill for oil all over the world. We ask ourselves now why we went to Iraq. Some say to liberate an oppressed people, others say to stabilize the Middle East by ridding it of a despot, and others like myself say oil. We went there for oil. We can do any experiment in which identify several nations that are run by dictators, and then identify which of those nations are known to have substantial deposits of oil. It's not coincidence that the United States is always interested in liberating those countries that happen to have large deposits of oil or some other resource that we're interested in or in need of. It's not coincidence that the United States often neglects those nations whose people have been suffering under oppressive regimes for decades, and have nothing valuable for Americans to take.

So I am confident in saying that we went to Iraq for oil. Because that is the variable which distinguishes Iraq from countless other nations.

Let me say one more thing about a no-bid contract. If Halliburton doesn't have to outbid another company in order to win the contract to go and develop oil fields in Iraq, then Halliburton saved a lot of money. Perhaps Cheney's 36 million dollar severance package came with strings attached. I don't want to delve into conspiracy here, but it does appear awfully like a "you scratch my back I scratch yours situation." At some point Cheney had to scratch Halliburton's back. Giving Halliburton a very profitable contract to set up shop in Iraq seems to be that scratch. Ask yourself: If Cheney was wondering whether the US should invade Iraq or not, do you think he would be able to be as unbiased as possible in his decision-making?





Sure, you could have also linked the Ron Paul ad about a Chinese army in Texas. I agree with you in large part. I think where you go wrong is that no other President would have acted differently directly after 9/11 strictly in terms of Afghanistan and that would likely lead to some deaths. And that's horrible. No question, it's unfair, and it's brutal, and it's a shame. But I have no problems with taking out the Afghan government after they sheltered Bin Laden. The issue for me was the length of our stay after that, where we saw resentment build and build against us and I think it's too the point where we've done more harm than good by staying whether or not the current government survives since at best it's viewed as a puppet of the US anyway much like Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was viewed prior to the Iranian Revolution.

The fact remains though that because we invaded Afghanistan and that means some civilians died while we were seizing Kabul and THAT makes Cheney as bad as Bin Laden though... sorry, that's just ludicrous even if you really don't like the man.

At a basic level there is a difference between civilians dying in the course of war and civilians being deliberately targeted as was the case on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Sure, I agree with you. I remember being 11 when the 9/11 attacks occurred. Although prior to that point I had never considered myself a patriot, I found myself standing on a street corner in my neighborhood, holding up signs and shouting myself hoarse with cries of "Honk if you love America." It was a combination of the mob mentality and my emotions that made me more compliant and nationalistic. Suddenly I was seeing the world as some Republicans often see it: filled with enemies envious of American freedoms.

Unfortunately, although I was an 11-year old who was easily swayed to anger and thoughts of exacting vengeance against "our enemies," I was not the only one who felt that way. Grown men who were in office seemed to share the same sentiments.

You're saying that most American Presidents would have reacted the same way in regards to Afghanistan? I don't think so. Frankly, the Republican party is more open to the suggestion of warfare than members of the Democratic party. I don't think a firmly anti-war President would have reacted the way we did. The haste with which we conducted that invasion shows that it was a knee-jerk reaction fueled by anger, hatred, confusion, and fear. We did what we did because buzzwords like "terrorist" and "freedom haters" pervaded the media landscape and emboldened us to retaliate. I am upset knowing that grown men who were supposedly educated in foreign policy and experienced in politics chose to do something so immature. They let their emotions get in the way of doing the right thing. The Bush administration wanted to look like they weren't going to take the 9/11 attacks sitting down. They wanted to punish those who harbored terrorists that would do harm to our country to reduce our freedoms. It is ironic, therefore, that our government has done more harm to our country than those terrorists ever did. We destroyed ourselves from within.

The end result is that we have a crippled economy, two multi-trillion dollar wars on our hands, a more fearful public than ever (fearful of the future), a Middle East more unstable than it was prior to the wars, and nothing at all to show for it.

Meanwhile, Halliburton is thriving, the tin man's got a new heart, and Bush is living a life most of us couldn't hope to dream of.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
isn't this like his 2nd or 3rd heart transplant? I swear he had one a few years ago.
 
M

mavs

Member
ezrarh said:
Ah..if his heart isn't going to fail, I hope he gets shot in the face then.
Click to expand...

I hope this didn't get a ban. Are we too mature for Dick Cheney face-shooting jokes now? Do they have to be accompanied by the picture of his boner?
 
J

jimi_dini

Member
Gaborn said:
At a basic level there is a difference between civilians dying in the course of war and civilians being deliberately targeted as was the case on 9/11.
Click to expand...

Because it's accepted that uniformed soldiers kill people. Oh sure, those killed people are "casualties" and it was an "accident" to throw bombs on them. Like it is an accident to kill people by throwing bombs around. For the killed people there is definitely no difference between killed by planes into a building or getting killed by bombs dropping on them during a wedding.

Would it have been the same, if say Saddam Hussein invaded the US and his soldiers killed 100.000 american civilians? Those civilians sure would be "casualties" as well. No one would accept it in the way it's accepted that civilians are killed in afghanistan.

US is not even at war with Afghanistan. The US (and some other western forces) are in the "war against terror", which effectively means invade anyone and kill anywhere, no problem at all. And the other "good" thing about that is that the geneva convention doesn't apply, because it's no war between 2 or more sovereign states.
 
V

-viper-

Banned
Cheebo said:
Dick Cheney was a terrible vice president with horrible policies but to compare him to Bin Laden is insane. Bin Laden was a crazy vile mass murderer.
Click to expand...

Both are one and the same. Just because you sit behind an office does not mean you don't have blood on your hands.

Was Osama on the frontlines? No.
 
J

JGS

Banned
Do people really think a medical consultation goes like this:

Doctor: We're sorry Mr.Cheney but due to your involvement in warmongering after 9/11, you cannot have this heart.

No matter how wrong he was on war (Afghanistan was completely justified and if you don't want to die for your country don't voluntarily join the military.), he made the right decisions in trying to keep living now. The guy has had a bad ticker for years now.
 
Theonik

Theonik

Member
Gaborn said:
Are you really going to say that Cheney and Osama are comparable? Because that's pretty sad if you're actually that partisan. I have deep and personal policy disagreements with Bush and Cheney's time in office but I don't wish either of them ill health.
Click to expand...
I read this as Osama and Cheney are compatible and just imagined the irony of Cheney getting Osama's heart as a transplant.
Edit: I kind of agree, no matter how much you hate the guy and his policies, wishing that he dies is going rather overboard. That said I'm also wondering as to why they'd let a person that old get on the donor list in the first place. I'm sure a younger person could have had a longer prosperous life instead.
 
P

Prologue

Member
Personally I don't think I would have taken the heart. At that age, someone younger would have gotten it. But then again I'm not in that position.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Christian Bale Sure is Looking... Like Dick Cheney
2
88
20K
hydruxo replied
Jason Spencer, Georgia lawmaker who yelled N-word and exposed his butt, resigning
32
1K
Alfadawg replied
Reggie Fils-Aime to Retire: Doug Bowser Named New President of NoA
2 3
128
9K
IbizaPocholo replied
  • Locked
Liz Cheney wins GOP primary for congress in Wyoming
15
2K
turmoil replied
17 people on Trump transition team made $14.9m from lobbying
6
2K
Beartruck replied
Top Bottom