The gall of this man and other members of the Bush administration seem to have no limits. Is it really possible that anyone can take his remarks seriously when he accuses Russia of "bullying others"? Are we supposed to believe that the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are nothing more than a friendly helping hand?
Is the pressure and sanctions being applied to Iran not "bullying"? And what about the recent trips into Pakistan´s sovereign territory to kill some more civilians, what are we supposed to call that?
Most of the comments that Cheney made at a global security conference in Cernobbio, Italy, seemed to be describing the Bush administrations crimes, not Russia´s. Is he getting a little confused over which country is doing what?
Cheney spoke of the risks of confrontation with NATO, but failed to mention that one of the United States most sophisticated warships, the USS Mount Whitney, has arrived at the port of Poti in Georgia, supposedly bringing "humanitarian aid", and at the same time effectively giving the "finger" to the Russian warship also in that area. If that is not "confrontation" what is?
Why is the US using warships to deliver "aid"? The USS Mount Whitney is not designed for this task and surely it would be less confrontational if they used non-military ships for this purpose. Could it be that the US are bringing more than food and a few tents to Georgia and using Navy ships to conceal this?
Another reason could be to place additional warships in the area for a forthcoming attack on Iran, and the Georgia conflict was a good excuse to do that. It is still very likely that the US and Israel may use Georgia in the attack on Iran, hence the urgency to restore conditions and weapons. Sadly, it is the Georgian people (and their country) that will pay the price for taking part in this lunacy, when Iran retaliate. It will be interesting to see if Saakashvili finds the courage to leave his country this time, just before all of this happens.
Whilst Russia is most certainly on the Neo-Cons list of countries to "acquire", Iran is first in line. Although Iran are not developing a nuclear weapon (US intelligence have confirmed this), why shouldn´t they? If it is OK for Israel to have around 200 nuclear weapons, why shouldn´t other countries in that area have a few for defensive purposes? Why does Israel think it has some special right to exist on this planet and have a superior military force, while others can not?
Let´s be honest about the situation, Israel has not shown that it can be trusted to have such devastating weapons, and some have actually talked about using them (on Iran). Iran is not involved in constant wars with its neighbors and at the moment seems to be a far more reliable candidate to hold such weapons (although it would be much better if no one had them at all).
The recent actions by the Bush administration (and Cheney) appear to give the impression that a clock is "ticking" somewhere, but what can possibly be motivating them into creating a world war that will kill everyone on the planet? Do they feel it is their duty to bring about the biblical "end of times"?
The Russian President, Dmitry Medvedev, has said that Russia is a nation "to be reckoned with" and you can read that as a very simple message meaning Russia will not accept US dominance (or foolish threats from Europe). If Russia is attacked, she will respond. And I´m afraid that means "Game Over" for everyone.
Maybe now is a good time (for those who believe in God) to hope that the biblical prophecies made at the "end of times" is correct. It looks as if we may get a chance to find out very soon.
By Ian Brockwell
http://www.Profindsearch.com
Ian Brockwell is the creator of Profindsearch.com