Colin Powell is an idiot!

[Wayne Grabert]

If Bin Ladin is alive, I think I may have figured out where he is.

There's a $25-million bounty on his head. I hope you're right!

Long ago I figured he was hiding in San Diego. (Keep your eyes open, Bjorn.) Why San Diego? Because nobody looks for anyone in San Diego! Think of it: if you get a tip that someone is headed in the direction of San Diego, you assume he's headed for Mexico. So you try to catch him at the border. When you never do, you assume he somehow got past you where you weren't looking, so you begin scouring Mexico.

That's why they never caught Pancho Villa. While the Federales were going up and down Mexico hunting him, he was kicked back on Mission beach guzzling a bucket of Coronas and scarfing down a mess of fish tacos!

Bjorn, look for a tall, swarthy surfer dude with big sunglasses and an Arab accent.

Edited to add this additional clue: Go by mosques on Fridays and see who gets in the expensive vehicle amongst the taxi cabs.

 

[Jedi Knight]

There's a $25-million bounty on his head. I hope you're right!

Long ago I figured he was hiding in San Diego. (Keep your eyes open, Bjorn.) Why San Diego? Because nobody looks for anyone in San Diego! Think of it: if you get a tip that someone is headed in the direction of San Diego, you assume he's headed for Mexico. So you try to catch him at the border. When you never do, you assume he somehow got past you where you weren't looking, so you begin scouring Mexico.

That's why they never caught Pancho Villa. While the Federales were going up and down Mexico hunting him, he was kicked back on Mission beach guzzling a bucket of Coronas and scarfing down a mess of fish tacos!

Bjorn, look for a tall, swarthy surfer dude with big sunglasses and an Arab accent.

Edited to add this additional clue: Go by mosques on Fridays and see who gets in the expensive vehicle amongst the taxi cabs.

I think he is in South America somewhere. Maybe Venezuela or Brazil. Bin Ladin at this point would have two objectives.

1) Staying alive
2) Attacking the United States

Now, he wouldn't hang around Afghanistan. That isn't like him to do that with the Taliban gone and the US in control of the country. He wouldn't hang out in the no-mans land of Pakistan either because there are too many tribes out there that he wouldn't have influence over and the Pakistani intelligence folks would be after him.

He could go to Iran, but the Iranians wouldn't want him within 100,000,000 miles of their country because they do not want to be the next target of US laser-guided bombs.

He couldn't go to Egypt because the Mossad would get him. Saddam wouldn't take him in because Saddam is too arrogant and Bin Ladin hates him for being a socialist. Saddam even had some of Bin Ladin's troops that were in Iraq shot.

Africa is too far out of the equation--only Bin Ladin's troops would go there for a lengthy period of time. It is out of his element in Africa.

No, my guess would be South America. He would try to come to this part of the global hemisphere because he could get access to modern banking networks (something that would be difficult in Africa) and he could get arms and other support. Plus he could hide out and even collect his soldiers there. You know as well as I do that there are a lot of folks down there that aren't too happy with the US right now. And Bin Ladin knows how porous our southern borders are. He could move an army through Mexico and they would be eating at McDonalds in Texas or Arizona and no one would question it or think twice about it.

If he is alive, that would be my guess. I don't think he would have the guts to go to Europe or anywhere east of Europe. No, I bet if he is alive he is in South America.

JK

 

[Wayne Grabert]

That isn't like him to do that with the Taliban gone and the US in control of the country.

From what I've been reading lately, that may be a stretch.

What about Kashmir?

 

[Frank Newgent]

...don't lock up Colonel Brooklyn. He is a good guy.

Who's that? I thought you were Johnny Iselin's boy.

 

[Bjorn]

Wayne

Long ago I figured he was hiding in San Diego. (Keep your eyes open, Bjorn.)

I will not tire from looking for him, even if I have to spend forever on the beaches ....

I think it is a possibility he is now posing as a girl - but my watchful eyes will still catch him!

 

[RandFan]

I agree with those experts. The quagmire I'm talking about will begin after Saddam's regime falls (civil war among tribes, guerilla war from al Qaida).

If we want to do what it takes to win the war, then we should not invade and occupy Iraq. I'm talking about winning the war on terror.

I respectfully disagree.

 

[CapelDodger]

From Randfan:

We have learned our lesson from Vietnam. Do what it takes to win the war.

A lesson from Vietnam is to be sure you know what winning the war means. Nations fight wars for political reasons, and the objective is a political one. A mistake that was made in the Kuwait War was to define the objective militarily - expel Iraqi forces from the territory of Kuwait. Had it been defined as "guarantee the security of the Kuwait people and territory in the medium to long term" or some such then the removal of the Baathists, or at least Saddam, would have been a necessary part. As it was, the regime that robbed Kuwait of its security was simply pushed back across the border where it remained the threat it had been before the invasion (short of a lot of equipment and warm bodies, admittedly). Now the unfinished business is making for a messy world.

(If the objective of a war is to make the Moon into a bagel, that war is unwinnable. The stated objective of the Vietnam War was to protect the legitimate government of South Vietnam which a) wasn't a country, and b) didn't have a legitimate government, despite the French and US attempts to create one. So the Vietnam War was winnable in much the same way as the Moon is a potential bagel.)

 

[RandFan]

A lesson from Vietnam is to be sure you know what winning the war means. Nations fight wars for political reasons, and the objective is a political one. A mistake that was made in the Kuwait War was to define the objective militarily - expel Iraqi forces from the territory of Kuwait. Had it been defined as "guarantee the security of the Kuwait people and territory in the medium to long term" or some such then the removal of the Baathists, or at least Saddam, would have been a necessary part. As it was, the regime that robbed Kuwait of its security was simply pushed back across the border where it remained the threat it had been before the invasion (short of a lot of equipment and warm bodies, admittedly). Now the unfinished business is making for a messy world.

(If the objective of a war is to make the Moon into a bagel, that war is unwinnable. The stated objective of the Vietnam War was to protect the legitimate government of South Vietnam which a) wasn't a country, and b) didn't have a legitimate government, despite the French and US attempts to create one. So the Vietnam War was winnable in much the same way as the Moon is a potential bagel.)

Thanks CapelDodger,

Great post,

The objective to "protect" the government was flawed without regard to the legitimacy of the government though to be sure legitimacy is a valid point. I think our "success" in Korea led us to belive that wars could be fought to a point of check mate and thus achieve the goal of protection. It's easy to understand how we made the same mistake in Vietnam since the situation was so similar.

Your post is the clearest example of why the war became a quagmire and a big reason why the American people lost the will to fight.

However, had we not stopped, the North could not have continued to wage a war of attrition. It is simply a mater of math. If the United States was not a democracy then the North would have been forced to stop the aggression at some point. Of course if the United States was not a democracy then the North would have fought a different war. Leading credence to Victor's point that losing is losing and the North "won" the war that they fought based on the strategy that they chose.

 

[CapelDodger]

Getting bogged down is a possibility here, but ...

From RandFan

However, had we not stopped, the North could not have continued to wage a war of attrition...

It wasn't just 'the North' but Vietnam that the US was at war with. They could obviously have conquered the entire country, just as they did Japan, but that wasn't what the war was supposed to be about. The war of attrition could have continued until the Vietnamese were effectively annihilated, but again annihilation wasn't meant to be the intention. A different country could indeed have gone the conquest/annihilation route (see Chechnya), but for the US to do that would have negated their own stated war aims. So the war that happened was unwinnable - greater resolve on the part of the US wouldn't have achieved the objective.

In Iraq things will be different, but I hope we actually get a statement of war aims when it all goes off - and not simply 'regime change' without any details. The danger, obviously, is that one monster is replaced by a mere uniformed gangster (Iraqi, not American). Maybe it'll turn out better, but I have an Iraqi friend (seriously anti-Baathist) who'll still think Powell's an idiot, however intelligent.

 

[RandFan]

It wasn't just 'the North' but Vietnam that the US was at war with. They could obviously have conquered the entire country, just as they did Japan, but that wasn't what the war was supposed to be about. The war of attrition could have continued until the Vietnamese were effectively annihilated, but again annihilation wasn't meant to be the intention. A different country could indeed have gone the conquest/annihilation route (see Chechnya), but for the US to do that would have negated their own stated war aims. So the war that happened was unwinnable - greater resolve on the part of the US wouldn't have achieved the objective.

I respectfully disagree but I do understand your point. I think that there was support in South Vietnam for democracy. There was an army that the US fought alongside. I will conceded that a majority of the populace were leaning towards the communists. But there was only a limited number of people willing and able to die fighting the US and south Vietnam. If we had not waged the war that we had, If we had not slowly escalated the war and if we had clear objectives then we absolutely could have won the war.

In fact if we had continued fighting the way we were fighting when we agreed to a cease fire then I think that there is no question that the North would have been forced to cease aggression at some point. Again it is the math. At some point there simply would not have been enough numbers to sustain continued aggression. The losses on the American side were too small to effect our forces. The losses on the North's side including sympathizers from the South were simply too great.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Re: geez Wayne

I don't think Mr.Powell is an idiot.

I have not read all of the material on the site The Truth About War that a friend told me about today, but it has some interesting information, such as details surrounding the faked satellite photos used in 1990 to convince the Saudis and the American public that Saddam was massing troops on the Saudi border for an invasion. (See the Claims sidebar on the left side of the Web page for where to click.)

One of the things they point out is that in a 1995 television interview, Colin Powell defended the decision not to overthrow Hussein during the Gulf War saying that it would have been a quagmire. So, as I stated earlier in this thread, "idiot" may not be the best term for Powell (though it is quick and eye-catching in a subject line), but "lying scumbag" would be. What changed since 1991 that regime change in Iraq now would not be a "quagmire"?

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: geez Wayne

One of the things they point out is that in a 1995 television interview, Colin Powell defended the decision not to overthrow Hussein during the Gulf War saying that it would have been a quagmire. So, as I stated earlier in this thread, "idiot" may not be the best term for Powell (though it is quick and eye-catching in a subject line), but "lying scumbag" would be. What changed since 1991 that regime change in Iraq now would not be a "quagmire"?

Conclusion, Colin Powell is not allowed to change his mind and Wayne's contempt for personal attacks is selective.

...so you attack me personally

So what if he does? Didn't you start the thread with a personal attack?

but my tolerance of personal attacks has dropped to zero, especially when people accuse me of such things as "being a sunshine patriot" or wishing disaster on the country and success for al Qaida or being willing to sell out the country to the highest bidder, etc. How would you feel if someone accused you of being a communist or another Jonathan Pollard?

How would you feel if someone called you a scumbag?

You sir protest too much. I would suggest that if you do not want personal attacks then you don't make them.

And I would suggest that you never change your mind, you will be labeled a lying scumbag.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Re: Re: Re: geez Wayne

Conclusion, Colin Powell is not allowed to change his mind and Wayne's contempt for personal attacks is selective.

Why did he change his mind? I asked what had changed. Apparently the only thing that did was Powell's opinion and I have no reason to suspect it was for any honorable reason. He's a two-faced politician. Why would it be a quagmire while defending the decision of daddy Bush, but not a quagmire when defending the policy of boy Bush?

How would you feel if someone called you a scumbag?

So when someone calls a politician a scumbag and provides reasons for the characterization, you take it personally? I believe so.

I have wondered why people on this Board who call themselves skeptics can be so non-skeptical when it comes to politics. Maybe its because they voted for a candidate or a party and then turn that vote into part of their ego. "He can't be wrong because I voted for him." I'm not saying that is true of you. You can be the judge of whether it applies at all to you, but I suspect it is true of some of the people on this board.

However, I'll point this out about you, RandFan, so that you can explain it to me. You say you disliked Clinton, but defended him against (what I would call) unfair and strictly partisan attacks. When I criticize the partisan attacks on Clinton, but praise criticism of his foreign policy, you have a problem with that. You see it as some sort of inconsistency on my part. Am I required to defend Clinton unconditionally? Why are you not required to do the same? I really have not been able to figure out (and can't even remember how you articulated it) why you tried to criticize me for praising Chalmers Johnson's criticism of Clinton's foreign policy. (And Johnson did not focus on Clinton. He criticized US foreign policy that fit a pattern establish during the Cold War, but more attention was placed on Clinton than other presidents because his presidency occurred after the Cold War.) Your criticism was along the lines of my being selective about praising criticism with which I agreed.


Edited to add:

So what if he does? Didn't you start the thread with a personal attack?

You asked those questions after quoting my words "...so you attack me personally." What you didn't quote was the beginning of my statement. The full sentence of mine was, "You can't refute anything I say, so you attack me personally." What is wrong with my statement? I provide arguments to back my characterization of Powell and I refute what Powell had to say.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: geez Wayne

Why did he change his mind? I asked what had changed. Apparently the only thing that did was Powell's opinion and I have no reason to suspect it was for any honorable reason.

Cool, have you applied for the [/B][/QUOTE]One Million Paranormal Challenge? Your abilities easily fit the bill.

He's a two-faced politician. Why would it be a quagmire while defending the decision of daddy Bush, but not a quagmire when defending the policy of boy Bush?

You surmise one possibility, are there others or are you presenting a false dilemma.

So when someone calls a politician a scumbag and provides reasons for the characterization, you take it personally? I believe so.

Personal attacks are personal attacks. You can't dress it up piss and sell it as perfume.

I have wondered why people on this Board who call themselves skeptics can be so non-skeptical when it comes to politics. Maybe its because they voted for a candidate or a party and then turn that vote into part of their ego. "He can't be wrong because I voted for him." I'm not saying that is true of you. You can be the judge of whether it applies at all to you, but I suspect it is true of some of the people on this board.

I don't see you as skeptical at all. I see you as angry that things are not turning out the way you want them to. It is irrational to suppose that only those who question the administration are skeptical. I question the protestors and the administration. Why do you suppose skepticism only applies to dissenters?

However, I'll point this out about you, RandFan, so that you can explain it to me. You say you disliked Clinton, but defended him against (what I would call) unfair and strictly partisan attacks.

When I criticize the partisan attacks on Clinton, but praise criticism of his foreign policy, you have a problem with that. [/b]

I had a problem when people dismissed clinton out of hand. I had a problem when people attacked Clinton in a partisan way. I had a problem with an investigation into sex. I had a problem with continuing to investigate an allegation that was clearly going no where from the start.

I think Clinton has a credibility problem. I mock him when I say "it depends on the definition of alone" or it depends on what the word "is" is.

I would not call Clinton a scumbag. I would not complain about personal attacks in a thread where I was making a personal attack.

You see it as some sort of inconsistency on my part. Am I required to defend Clinton unconditionally?

You follow your own conscience. I have no problem with your questioning of Colon Powell. I have said as much with in the last page. I find it hypocritical to complain about personal attacks while calling someone "scumbag".

Why are you not required to do the same? I praised Clinton for much of his work. I criticized him when I thought he was wrong. I have criticized Bush and the Attorney General (who at times IS an idiot).

I really have not been able to figure out (and can't even remember how you articulated it) why you tried to criticize me for praising Chalmers Johnson's criticism of Clinton's foreign policy. (And Johnson did not focus on Clinton. He criticized US foreign policy that fit a pattern establish during the Cold War, but more attention was placed on Clinton than other presidents because his presidency occurred after the Cold War.) Your criticism was along the lines of my being selective about praising criticism with which I agreed.

I don't remember. You will have to dig it up. I am consistent in my respect for those who criticize and even those who mock when it is appropriate.

My biggest problem is when you cry foul at personal remarks while you are making them.

Talk about being confused. Could you explain that one to me.

You asked those questions after quoting my words "...so you attack me personally." What you didn't quote was the beginning of my statement. The full sentence of mine was, "You can't refute anything I say, so you attack me personally." What is wrong with my statement? I provide arguments to back my characterization of Powell and I refute what Powell had to say.

You allow for no other options for Powell. You see his actions in a narrow focus. Yet this is a distinguished man who is know for his credibility. I found your attack ill founded especially after you complained about being attacked your self.

And you only responded to one statement about personal attacks. Which I happen to think paints you in a hypocritical light regardless of the sentence or context. Add to that "zero tolerance" and I think you lose it.

Please pay close attention to the following.

You are perfectly justified in questioning Colon Powell's credibility on this issue. As I said before, his actions could easily be interpreted to be political. But there are other options and I am convinced that he has simply changed his mind. You want to call him scumbag then fine. But expect a call of hypocrisy when you do the very thing you complain about.

 

[RandFan]

I agree with those experts. The quagmire I'm talking about will begin after Saddam's regime falls (civil war among tribes, guerilla war from al Qaida).

I disagre with those experts. There is no reason that there need to be a quagmire. The US is simply not going to stay just remove Saddam. What will we get after? Who knows but who ever it is will know what to expect if they act like Saddam.

If we want to do what it takes to win the war, then we should not invade and occupy Iraq. I'm talking about winning the war on terror.

There is no plan and no desire to occupy Iraq that I know of. Do you have any evidence that our plan is to occupy Iraq. And I mean evidence and not someone's oppinion.

If we want to win the war on terror it is critical that we remove Saddam.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: geez Wayne

Cool, have you applied for the One Million Paranormal Challenge? Your abilities easily fit the bill.

This is a non-answer. Besides, if you go back and read my post I say "apparently" and I ask--again--what was it that changed. Powell has a history of flip-flopping on aspects of this issue. Earlier in this thread I called attention to how he flip flopped on his opinion of bin Laden's involvement with helping Iraq by at first saying bin Laden was lying about his interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people, and then less than two years later saying bin Laden was being truthful when he says he is interested in helping the Iraqi people. The only thing that had changed was the policy Powell was trying to justify.

Personal attacks are personal attacks. You can't dress it up piss and sell it as perfume.

No, personal attacks in place of argument are ad hominem attacks. Making a claim about Powell and then explaining the claim is making an argument.

I don't see you as skeptical at all. I see you as angry that things are not turning out the way you want them to. It is irrational to suppose that only those who question the administration are skeptical. I question the protestors and the administration. Why do you suppose skepticism only applies to dissenters?

Because the weight of the evidence is on their side. I am skeptical enough to question the administration's claim--unsupported by evidence--that there is collusion between Saddam and Usama. I am skeptical enough to ask for--and then I never receive it--evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. I am skeptical enough not to be led by scare tactics by the administration. I believe you will be angry at the way things turn out when Bush gets his way.

The rest of your post was addressed in my response to your "piss and perfume" statement.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

I disagre with those experts.

They were the experts that you cited to make the argument that the war against Saddam would not be a quagmire.

There is no plan and no desire to occupy Iraq that I know of. Do you have any evidence that our plan is to occupy Iraq. And I mean evidence and not someone's oppinion.

You have not been following the news. It has been widely reported for the last few months that the administration plans to occupy Iraq in the style of the Marshall Plan used in Germany and Japan after WWII. However, it is worth pointing out that both Germany and Japan had strong nationalist identities, that Germany already had some experience with democracy, and Japan till this day has put its own spin on democracy. It is largely governed by its bureaucracy and the Japanese public don't place much trust or importance on their elected officials.

In contrast to Germany and Japan, Iraq is a state created by the British empire and not a nation. Identification is along tribal lines. This is why many experts think it likley that Iraq after Hussein could break out into civil war.

If we want to win the war on terror it is critical that we remove Saddam.

One has nothing to do with the other. In fact, invading and occupying Iraq will make terrorism worse. The Bush administration wanted to remove Saddam before 9/11. 9/11 is being exploited to disingenously gain support for a war against Iraq.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

For RandFan

Here is an article that was just published today. Read all of it. It takes only a few minutes. The line coming out of the administration lately, and that is mentioned in this article, is that the US will militarily occupy Iraq for only two years. However, also take note of this quote from this short article:

Despite these drawbacks, Fleischer said the U.S. will do what is needed to get Iraq back on its feet.


"Make no mistake; the president of the United States has stated that the United States will be committed to the long-term stability of Iraq and that we will stay in Iraq as long as necessary, not one day longer, but as long as necessary, to make certain that the transition in Iraq is a transition to a unified and peaceful Iraq," Fleischer said.

So it could turn into two decades, or however long it takes for the US to just throw in the towel.

 

[RandFan]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: geez Wayne

This is a non-answer. Besides, if you go back and read my post I say "apparently" and I ask--again--what was it that changed.

It's a great answer since you make a conclusion on assumptions.

Powell has a history of flip-flopping on aspects of this issue. Earlier in this thread I called attention to how he flip flopped on his opinion of bin Laden's involvement with helping Iraq by at first saying bin Laden was lying about his interest in the welfare of the Iraqi people, and then less than two years later saying bin Laden was being truthful when he says he is interested in helping the Iraqi people. The only thing that had changed was the policy Powell was trying to justify.

Two quotes out of hundreds. And he has moved into a political arena. I'm not trying to justify his actions I simply think that you are being extreme in this instance. I am quite confident I could find the same examples of Carter, Ford, Clinton, any of Clinton's administration and I would not feel the need to call them scumbag.

No, personal attacks in place of argument are ad hominem attacks. Making a claim about Powell and then explaining the claim is making an argument.

Sorry, dress it up as you want and believe what you want. It is apparent that you will anyway. Scumbag is not a logical conclusion to any argument about Powell. You could argue that he is inconsistent and that his motives are inconsistent but the label of scumbag is unwarranted from someone who has a "zero" tolerance for personal attacks. I'm sorry Wayne, if I honestly didn't think you were being inconsistent I would say so

Because the weight of the evidence is on their side.

Nice smug answer. What about the respect for opposing opinions. The weight is not on their side as far as I'm concerned and I am very, very skeptical of them for the reasons I cited in my thread "my problems with the protesters". I guess you can just declare that the weight of the evidence is on their side and all arguments should cease. Sorry Wayne but I'm not going to do that. I could just as easily declare the weight of the evidence on the side of Bush.

I am skeptical enough to question the administration's claim--unsupported by evidence--that there is collusion between Saddam and Usama. I am skeptical enough to ask for--and then I never receive it--evidence that Iraq poses an imminent threat to the United States. I am skeptical enough not to be led by scare tactics by the administration. I believe you will be angry at the way things turn out when Bush gets his way.

I'll be really pissed if the weapons Saddam is working on (let's be honest, he is) are given to Al Qaeda and released in the US.

Personally I'm skeptical enough to question the administration and the proterstors.

 

[Wayne Grabert]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: geez Wayne

I'll be really pissed if the weapons Saddam is working on (let's be honest, he is) are given to Al Qaeda and released in the US.

Yet you dismiss the possibility of Kim Jong Il selling a nuclear device to al Qaida--until Bush tells you it might happen.