Colin Powell is an idiot!

Oh, this very short and sweet op-ed is beautiful!
Sixteen months ago, Powell wanted to isolate Bin Laden from other Muslims, so he said Bin Laden was lying about being involved in Iraq. Now Powell wants to justify war against Iraq, so he says Bin Laden is telling the truth. Same claim, same media outlet, same speaker, same U.S. official assessing the claim, same congressional venue, different U.S. agenda, different result.
Okay, Colin Powell, as much of a dufous that he is, may not be an idiot. What he is is a lying scum bag with no integrity.
 
RandFan said:
But a significant portion of the population wanted to be free. You can argue whether a majority of the population can get together and decide to take what does not belong to them (communism). A statistical majority does not make something right. We were scared about the spread of communism and we wanted to exert some control in that part of the world. Plus we wanted to test out new military equipment and a dozen other reasons. We can argue the morality of the war. But there is no question that the war was absolutely winable.

Again, we won every single battle. The kill ratio was historic. We had more young men to die than did they. The war was absolutely winnable.
People should be free to make their own mistakes and determine their course. It's not our place to decide for them.

So we made North and South Vietnames civilians guinea pigs to test out new military equipment? I guess that also holds true for the people of Iraq who be there when we test out the new bomb that is bigger than the infamous "daisy cutter." And we have the gall to become indignant when al Qaida kills a couple thousand of our citizens? (Several hundred of the victims of 9/11 were foreign nationals.) Thank you for giving me a "proud to be American" moment.

And where do you get the idea that we won every battle in Vietnam? It isn't true.

Edited to add: Do some research on the Tet Offensive.
 
Wayne Grabert said:
People should be free to make their own mistakes and determine their course. It's not our place to decide for them.

I disagree, Wayne. When people who were sponsored by a terrorist nation-state fly aircraft into our skyscrapers it is no longer a situation where they chart their own destiny. We become the captain of their ship.

When a murderer is caught and sent to prison, are they the captains of their own ship anymore?

I am convinced that if we do not deal with Iraq now, the costs to this country via that appeasement will be incredibly high.

JK
 
Jedi Knight said:

I disagree, Wayne. When people who were sponsored by a terrorist nation-state fly aircraft into our skyscrapers it is no longer a situation where they chart their own destiny. We become the captain of their ship.
An act of war against us is a different matter. We were right to declare war against Japan after Pearl Harbor. We were right to declare war on Nazi Germany after it declared war against us. We were right to go to war against the Taliban after 9/11. However, the Iraqi situation is different. North Korea is arguably the bigger threat, yet the Bushies say that situation can be handled diplomatically--and it can, though the Bush administration refuses to do so. (It's too caught up in its aggression against Iraq.) We could also resolve the Iraqi situation without war, but the Bushies are hellbent to go to war for ulterior motives.

We had a choice between two roads. One road would have meant resolving the Iraq situation without war and lifting the sanctions against it in return. That could have been followed by removing our troops from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We could have chosen to be an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and pressured Israel to give up its settlements in exchange for Palesting giving up its "right to return" to Israel and gaining its own state. That road would have led to the loss of support for al Qaida and greater respect for the United States.

Instead, the Bushies are chosing the other road, the one that leads to the loss of international goodwill, the breakup of our alliances, to $400-billion deficits (just wait; you'll see), to the erosion of our civil liberties, to economic disaster and imperial overreach and a decline in wealth, power and influence. That's the way I see it. It's not what I want for this country and it breaks my heart to see a bunch of inept amateurs and greedy bastards ruining what could have been and what they were given to protect.
 
He tends to pretend that he has some inside information, so let's trust he'll post some sources.
No, he just made it up. Again. :(

Well, no need to follow up, just put it in the same box as the others (remember to change to bigger box). :p
 
Wayne Grabert said:
People should be free to make their own mistakes and determine their course. It's not our place to decide for them.
If a majority of Germans decided to eliminate all of the Jews living in their territory is that ok? Hey, people should be free to make their own mistakes right?

There was much more to it than that Wayne. Who decides for the land and business owners and the people who don't want to lose their freedom without ever having an opportunity to get it back? What about those purged who do not accept communism? I'm sorry but I don't find it as cut and dry as that. There was a real fear of communism and real people were going to be slaughtered and their possessions and land and businesses forcibly taken from them. Is that right?

So we made North and South Vietnamese civilians guinea pigs to test out new military equipment?
Intellectual honesty on my part. Wars are usually fought over multiple reasons.

I guess that also holds true for the people of Iraq who be there when we test out the new bomb that is bigger than the infamous "daisy cutter."
Yes but we will stop the human experiments and the mass starvation that is taking place right now. There are trade offs.

And we have the gall to become indignant when al Qaida kills a couple thousand of our citizens? (Several hundred of the victims of 9/11 were foreign nationals.) Thank you for giving me a "proud to be American" moment.
War is hell, but it is not without justification and like I said trade offs. There is great potential for helping those people.

And don't give me that "proud to be an American" crap. Where were your sentiments when business men, land owners, those that waited for death at the hands of the communists and people who wanted to be free asked for our help.

"Hey, not our problem. You should be free to make your own mistakes." Yeah, that makes me proud to be an American, someone reaches out for help and you turn the other way.

And where do you get the idea that we won every battle in Vietnam?
Every book and every documentary that I have seen said so.

It isn't true.
Do you have any evidence that it is not true.

Edited to add: Do some research on the Tet Offensive.
Wayne, the Tet offensive was a turning point in the war. While we won the battle we lost the will of the people to fight.

We did NOT militarily lose the Tet Offensive.

Tet offensive:

Although not meeting its major objectives the Tet offensive did have a lasting effect on the course of the war. It was a turning point. According to US secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, 'Henceforth, no matter how effective our action, the prevalent strategy could no longer achieve its objectives within a period or within force levels politically acceptable to the American people.'

One of the major objectives had been to drive a wedge between the Americans and the South Vietnamese. The embassy attack was aimed at showing up the vulnerability of the American forces. The Vietcong had hoped that their liberation of towns and cities would lead to an uprising against the Americans, they believed that the South's weary soldiers, dislocated peasantry, fractious youth and widely discontented layers of South Vietnamese society were ready to join the struggle. However this only occurred on a sporadic basis.

The analogy with Dienbienphu was preposterous - the US was in a far stronger position than the French were in '54. In 'Operation Niagra' the Americans had unleashed their B52 bombers ariel firepower - the greatest in military history. The Vietcong suffered huge losses, as many as 10,000 dead, while only 500 US marines were killed.
The North Vietnamese gained NO ground and lost 10,000 men. How do you count that as a win?

Well...

Tet was the final nail in the coffin for the administration of Lyndon Johnson. In 1963, when he came to power in the wake of the assasination John Kennedy, his approval rating was over 80%. But by 1967 it was down to 40%. 'But then came Tet - and his ratings plummeted - as if Vietnam were a burning fuse that had suddenly ignited an explosion of dissent.' (Stanley Karnow)

Please tell Wayne of a single battle that we lost?
 
RandFan said:
If a majority of Germans decided to eliminate all of the Jews living in their territory is that ok? Hey, people should be free to make their own mistakes right?
Yes, people should have the right to SELF-DETERMINATION. That means chosing their form of government. Your argument about the Jews in Germany is a non sequitur.

RandFan said:
There was much more to it than that Wayne. Who decides for the land and business owners and the people who don't want to lose their freedom without ever having an opportunity to get it back? What about those purged who do not accept communism? I'm sorry but I don't find it as cut and dry as that. There was a real fear of communism and real people were going to be slaughtered and their possessions and land and businesses forcibly taken from them. Is that right?
I never said we couldn't take in refugees, just like we did with the Cubans and like what we eventually did with the Vietnamese. Is it right to kill off the people who don't agree with our idea of what is best for them?

RandFan said:
And don't give me that "proud to be an American" crap. Where were your sentiments when business men, land owners, those that waited for death at the hands of the communists and people who wanted to be free asked for our help.
You mean like under Stalin? Under Mao? I wasn't born. In Vietnam? Depending on the time period, I either wasn't born or was a child.

RandFan said:
Wayne, the Tet offensive was a turning point in the war. While we won the battle we lost the will of the people to fight.

We did NOT militarily lose the Tet Offensive.
The North Vietnamese gained NO ground and lost 10,000 men. How do you count that as a win?

Well...

Please tell Wayne of a single battle that we lost?
So who wins or loses depends on the number killed, not on the overall effect? I disagree. The Tet Offensive was a victory for the North Vietnamese. By your own admission it was a turning point. For whom? The North. What people lost the will to fight? The South and the US. Who won the WAR? The North. But declare victory if you want. Saddam declared victory in 1991.

And Colin Powell is still a scum bag with no integrity.
 
circuitslave said:
"Colin Powell is an idiot!"

The irony lies in the fact that the U.S. government is fighting for your right to make these statements.

:rolleyes:


Really? Against whom? Who in the US is opposing free speech?
 
Re: Re: Re: Colin Powell is an idiot!

Wayne Grabert said:

There is some wishful thinking on this thread, but it isn't from me. You want some wishful thinking from me? How's this? I wish Kodiak would wise up soon rather than later.

You wearing ruby slippers??

No?...

that's too bad...
 
Wayne Grabert said:
In Iraq, the country is likely to Balkanize and there will be a guerilla war against the US troops after Saddam falls. The occupation will in no way resemble the Gulf War or the Taliban War.

There are those predictions again... :rolleyes:

Evidence please.
 
Wayne Grabert said:
As for your second paragraph with its ad hominem, just like the wishful thinking in your last paragraph, you don't know what the $%$ you're talking about.

Hmmm...

"Ad Hominem's"...

"Wishful thinking"...

Using your criteria, it looks like you don't know what the $%$ you're talking about either, Wayne!...
 
Percentage of Christians in Iraq

From the web article:

"Iraq: Background.

In the absence of official statistics since the coming to power of the Ba‘th party in 1960, reliable figures regarding the number of Christians in Iraq are hard to come by. However, best estimates place the number of Christians in Iraq today at over 600,000, representing 3 percent of the Iraqi population of 20 million."
 
Wayne Grabert said:


We had a choice between two roads. One road would have meant resolving the Iraq situation without war and lifting the sanctions against it in return. That could have been followed by removing our troops from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We could have chosen to be an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and pressured Israel to give up its settlements in exchange for Palesting giving up its "right to return" to Israel and gaining its own state. That road would have led to the loss of support for al Qaida and greater respect for the United States.

Instead, the Bushies are chosing the other road, the one that leads to the loss of international goodwill, the breakup of our alliances, to $400-billion deficits (just wait; you'll see), to the erosion of our civil liberties, to economic disaster and imperial overreach and a decline in wealth, power and influence. That's the way I see it. It's not what I want for this country and it breaks my heart to see a bunch of inept amateurs and greedy bastards ruining what could have been and what they were given to protect.


I've just calculated what the odds are that almost identical language will have been used by the 2004 presidential winner when that campaign is over...

50/50
 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Wayne Grabert


We had a choice between two roads. One road would have meant resolving the Iraq situation without war and lifting the sanctions against it in return.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How would you resolve the Iraq situation without war AND with removing the sanctions? Just what exactly is going to motivate Saddam to cooperate? I am not sure that removing the sanctions would motivate Saddam to cooperate more. think about the N. Korea situation. Saddam has almost never cooperated with us. I understand that you might argue that removing the sanctions themselves will motivate him, but I am not so sure. Every compromise we have made so far has only convinced him that he can get away with more. So now we are going to go talk to him to get him to cooperate and also remove the sanctions? He then has no reason to do anything but say o.k sure and then keep building whatever he wants in secret. No matter how much he appears to cooperate, clearly he has the ability to deceive us. I agree however that it would be nice if we could find an alternative to the sanctions that surely burden the people of Iraq more than Saddam.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That could have been followed by removing our troops from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although this is generally related to the iraq situation, it is not really related to the specific topic about whether we should go to war or not, so I am not sure how this relates specifically to your 'other' alternative. However, again, I agree that our extended/permanent military presence in SA is troubling Isnt that really what Osamas original beef was?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We could have chosen to be an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and pressured Israel to give up its settlements in exchange for Palesting giving up its "right to return" to Israel and gaining its own state. That road would have led to the loss of support for al Qaida and greater respect for the United States.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

see my response above. not really specifically related to what we are discussing. However, again, I agree that we should have gotten out of any role in this conflict other than a nuetral one a long time ago. I am not sure I know enough to agree or disagree with your specific suggestions

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Instead, the Bushies are chosing the other road, the one that leads to the loss of international goodwill, the breakup of our alliances, to $400-billion deficits (just wait; you'll see), to the erosion of our civil liberties, to economic disaster and imperial overreach and a decline in wealth, power and influence. That's the way I see it. It's not what I want for this country and it breaks my heart to see a bunch of inept amateurs and greedy bastards ruining what could have been and what they were given to protect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that much of what you said directly above is bad if it happens, but you seem to be making a lot of predictions in this thread and not backing them up. Is it fair then to fault others in this thread for doing the same. (I apoligize if you dont believe you have done this, I didnt go back and re-read the thread, but this seems to be my general impression.)
 
Wayne Grabert said:
Yes, people should have the right to SELF-DETERMINATION. That means choosing their form of government. Your argument about the Jews in Germany is a non sequitur.
What does self-determination have to do with Stalin's purges or Mao's atrocities? How can a majority take away the SELF-DETERMINATION of the minority? Sorry but your "self-determination" is an oxymoron.

The Jews in Germany is a perfect analogy because it shows how a majority can take away civil right, property, land and lives of a minority. This is precisely what happened in every instance of communism.

I never said we couldn't take in refugees, just like we did with the Cubans and like what we eventually did with the Vietnamese. Is it right to kill off the people who don't agree with our idea of what is best for them?
Oh that's nice. You loose everything, land, property, freedom and if you are lucky enough to survive we will let you live in America. Of course you have to get here. We don't exactly send tickets.

You mean like under Stalin? Under Mao? I wasn't born. In Vietnam? Depending on the time period, I either wasn't born or was a child.
Read the post again. I said "sentiment". In other words, the sentiments of people like you would have done nothing for the people of Vietnam.

So who wins or loses depends on the number killed, not on the overall effect? I disagree. The Tet Offensive was a victory for the North Vietnamese. By your own admission it was a turning point. For whom? The North. What people lost the will to fight? The South and the US. Who won the WAR? The North. But declare victory if you want. Saddam declared victory in 1991.
Wayne, I will state it again. We never lost a battle in Vietnam. That is a fact. You have probably heard "you can win the battle but loose the war". This is what happened. We WON the battle. There simply is no dispute about that. We lost the war because we gave up. The Tet offensive was only successful in that it demoralized American citizens.

Saddam lost on the battlefield. We never lost on the battlefield. So if you want to get technical...

Can you name a single instance where the United States militarily lost on the battlefield in Vietnam?

And Colin Powell is still a scum bag with no integrity.
Why the ad-hominem? I had thought much better than that of you.
 
Wayne Grabert said:
We had a choice between two roads. One road would have meant resolving the Iraq situation without war and lifting the sanctions against it in return. That could have been followed by removing our troops from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. We could have chosen to be an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and pressured Israel to give up its settlements in exchange for Palesting giving up its "right to return" to Israel and gaining its own state. That road would have led to the loss of support for al Qaida and greater respect for the United States.
What are you talking about. The US in cooperation with the UN has been trying to resolve the situation for 12 years.

Saddam will not stop. He has lied time and time again. He was caught with huge stock piles of biological agents when he said he did not have them. We have proof that he is spying on the inspectors and moves materials before the inspectors can get them.

What road Wayne?
 

Back
Top Bottom