Colin Powell is an idiot!

Jedi Knight said:


The only reason that Vietnam did last is that the United States didn't carpet bomb key infrastructure in North Vietnam. Had we done that, Vietnam would have collapsed like an ice-cream sundae in the Mojave.

JK

they carpet bombed anything that could have been a minor piece of infrastructure. they dropped more bombs than were dropped in WWII.

had they actually bombed the whole of vietnam, it would have been a case of 'we had to destroy the country to save it'.
 
I agree with JK on this. Meaningful targets were selected out by senior civilians in the Defense and State Department, and by the President. Their reasons were political, but whatever the reason the effect was that the military was unable to bomb those targets that made sense.
 
Brooklyn Dodger said:
I agree with JK on this. Meaningful targets were selected out by senior civilians in the Defense and State Department, and by the President. Their reasons were political, but whatever the reason the effect was that the military was unable to bomb those targets that made sense.

what is the reason for all those bombs aimed at all those targets? the cold war is long gone, but the bombs remain. the US military currently appears intent on starting WWIII.

Afghanistan was taken as a payback, and there was little opposition as the US had to take something out, and may have even been lucky enough to get bin laden.

the payback is over now. the missiles target so many targets that are not a threat.

north korea is only threatening to fire one or two missiles, which will probably blow up on the launch pad, in retaliation at the new US policy of pre-emptive strikes.
 
a_unique_person said:


what is the reason for all those bombs aimed at all those targets? the cold war is long gone, but the bombs remain. the US military currently appears intent on starting WWIII.

Afghanistan was taken as a payback, and there was little opposition as the US had to take something out, and may have even been lucky enough to get bin laden.

the payback is over now. the missiles target so many targets that are not a threat.

north korea is only threatening to fire one or two missiles, which will probably blow up on the launch pad, in retaliation at the new US policy of pre-emptive strikes.

What are you talking about? Are you having an "episode"?
 
From circuitslave:
If it wasn't for September 11th. I could see your point. But this isn't about oil. It's about those same people who bitched about 911 and the government knowing and warnings and did nothing about it or try to prevent it, aren't going to get the opportunity again.

Thinking back, war against Iraq ("finishing the job" so to speak) was being promoted by a significant segment of the White House from the start of this administration, if not before. The connecting of Iraq and Islamist terrorism was sheer opportunism; the connection was being declared proven within hours of the 911 attacks, before any evidence could possibly have been established (unless people in the White House did know the attacks were coming, which is ridiculous).

The desperate attempts to link Iraq to Al-Qaeda are counter-productive when it comes to persuading doubters into the war party. A persuasive WMD argument can easily be made, but the 'No War Nohow' lobby can concentrate the argument on Powell's ludicrous claims, for instance that this latest tape - calling Saddam an unbeliever and his regime satanist - demonstrates a link between the Iraqi regime and Bin Laden. How can such an intelligent man bear to make a pudding out of himself in public just to try and push a case that he surely knows is invalid?
 
Now we come to these two new tapes. Interesting they are, to say the least. Let's look at them in light of several conditions.

1. They came to light at the perfect time so far as the US is concerned. Just before the war with Iraq is to begin. They lend themselves to the current US line.

2. They do fit fairly well, though not perfectly, with what the US might expect bin Laden to say. The second tape is apparently even clearer, and speaks of his pending martyrdom.

3. The previous tape that was released from bin Laden was analyzed by a laboratory in Switzerland. The lab said that it couldn't be sure, but it apppeared that the tape was probably a fraud.

4. The US has said it will not submit these tapes to the lab and the lab has said it will not analyze these tapes.

5. The US "miraculously" had a copy of the recent tapes, and their tranlations, even before the Al Jazeera News Service was aware it had them. I hope some of you are noticing a pattern here.

6. The new tapes exhort Al Qaeda and all muslims to fight the infidels and kill them, etc., which is about what you would expect. This is accompanied by what we are told is an unusual increase in terrorist communications traffic. We have raised the threat level to RED. We expect to be attacked, just as we expect to attack Iraq.

My conclusion: These two tapes, plus the last bin Laden tape, were produced by US intelligence sources. If these tapes were made by bin Laden himself, then that means he is a prisoner of the US. But we must know that he cannot surface to deny the tapes, which means that if he's not our prisoner he must be dead, and we know he is. The purpose is not to provide a reason to go to war with Iraq, but to generate communications among Al Qaeda operatives, leading to their capture or death. I believe it is succeeding.

This may well be the finest operation of its kind in decades. And bin Laden may well be our prisoner.
 
Brooklyn Dodger said:
Now we come to these two new tapes...These two tapes, plus the last bin Laden tape, were produced by US intelligence sources. ..The purpose is not to provide a reason to go to war with Iraq, but to generate communications among Al Qaeda operatives, leading to their capture or death. I believe it is succeeding.

Hey BD, why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?
 
Frank Newgent said:


Hey BD, why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?

Then you think the tapes are genuine. Why?
 
Victor Danilchenko said:
RandFan And whether the war was winnable is just as dependent on social factors as on military ones. "Unwinnability" may come in the guise of poor training, lack of resources, lack of willingness to fight, etc. -- but any of these may render a war unwinnable. Saying that a war would be winnable except for the social factors is not very different from saying that a war would be winnable except for lack of ammunition...
Let's split hairs ok. How about this. The war was absolutely winnable if we had wanted to continue to wage war. Would you agree with that statement?

Right. But as I said and you agreed, social factors are just as important as military ones. Saying that it would have been winnable based on military factors alone is not saying anything useful,
That is fine. I can live with that.


...because military factors never apply outside societal context. That, I think, was Wayne's point --
My point stands. If we had wanted to win we would have. We never lost a battle during the war and the attrition rate on the side of the North Vietnamese was simply to great to sustain continued aggression for very long.

There was a lie told during the conflict that America could not win. The word quagmire was bandied about and Americans believed that they could not win.

Cliche warning! "Whether you believe you can or whether you believe you can't you are right"

The prediction that we would lose became a selffulfilling prophecy. Prior to the change in attitudes the war was absolutely winnable. Let's be very clear about that.
 
Wayne Grabert said:
Where do I make the claim that Powell is the world's only scumbag or only liar? :confused: References to Clinton are completely irrelevant.
Go back and read my post. I never said that you maid any such claim. I merly suggested that you are going to have to lengthen your list.

"An eye for an eye will make the whole world blind." - Mohandas Ghandi

Since you know so much about me, please tell me what I had for breakfast this morning.
I can only read the evidence. You have given no indication as to your morning eating habits. Your bias recently as to ideology is as plain as the nose on your face. Unfortunate since I had thought so much of you. Perhaps that is not fair. People shouldn't be put on pedestals, but I really did think more of you than this. I understand your frustration and I think you have an argument that Powell's remarks were politically motivated. I understand your disappointment, I really do. I felt it when Magdalene Albright played shill for Clinton when it was obvious he had lied. I was a big fan of hers. Oh well, that was an indiscretion and this is the potential deaths of innocent women and children and very possible long term negative ramifications for America if we do go to war. Your point is not lost on me. The personal attacks are. I know you are better.

Telling JK you have a zero tolerance for personal attacks while you call Powell and idiot and scumbag when he is neither is just disappointing.

The last two sentences of the quote from you above are ludicrous. If Bill Gates offered you a billion dollars, I have no doubt that you'd take it. I consider that a link. That no more proves that you are about to be a billionaire than you prove that Saddam would ever give Usama a device, aside perhaps from a box that would explode when Usama opened it.
Since there is no reason for me to meet Bill or for him to give me money then your analogy is wrong. There is a purpose for them to unite and for Saddam to provide Usama with a weapon.

Look, if either Saddam or Usama want a nuclear weapon, they can buy one from Kim Jong Il same as anybody else.
Not true, it is not in Kim Jong's best interest to make such a deal. Kim Jong il is nuts but he is functioning and he craves his own survival. He would and does I believe sell arms and even components for WMD but that is not enough to trigger his removal. A nuclear bomb traced backed to him would guarantee his downfall.
 
RandFan said:
Not true, it is not in Kim Jong's best interest to make such a deal. Kim Jong il is nuts but he is functioning and he craves his own survival. He would and does I believe sell arms and even components for WMD but that is not enough to trigger his removal. A nuclear bomb traced backed to him would guarantee his downfall.
This last statement is a beauty! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

For the last few months I have reading in op-eds and hearing from talking heads how Kim Jong Il is more unbalanced and irrational than Saddam Hussein.

For months now I have been arguing that Saddam is warped but he isn't crazy or suicidal and he places his survival above all else. That is why I have argued that he poses no threat to the US or Israel--or any of his neighbors any longer now that the environment has changed and he got his ass kicked after the Kuwaiti invasion. (The US supported his war against Iran.)

I argued that Saddam would not give WMD to terrorists because, besides the mutual contempt between him and al Qaida, any bomb traced back to him would guarantee the world's wrath and retaliation against him (not just the US, but the world) and assure his downfall. Besides, if he were inclined to give WMD to terrorists, why didn't he ever give them to Palestinian terrorists, the only terrorists he likes?

So the evidence (he never gave WMD to terrorists when the had the chance) and the reasonable arguments (he'd be writing his own death warrant) support my argument that Saddam is not the threat the Bush League Administration wants us to believe.

I'm glad we've come to an agreement about this.

Edited to add: I find it interesting that you believe that Kim sells forms of WMD other than nuclear, but that does not justify his removal from power, but pure speculation that Saddam might--at some far-off future time-- do the same is reason (for some) to go to war and involve ourselves in a huge and costly quagmire. What's with such people, RandFan?
 
Wayne Grabert said:
This last statement is a beauty! Thank you, thank you, thank you!

For the last few months I have reading in op-eds and hearing from talking heads how Kim Jong Il is more unbalanced and irrational than Saddam Hussein.

For months now I have been arguing that Saddam is warped but he isn't crazy or suicidal and he places his survival above all else. That is why I have argued that he poses no threat to the US or Israel--or any of his neighbors any longer now that the environment has changed and he got his ass kicked after the Kuwaiti invasion. (The US supported his war against Iran.)

I argued that Saddam would not give WMD to terrorists because, besides the mutual contempt between him and al Qaida, any bomb traced back to him would guarantee the world's wrath and retaliation against him (not just the US, but the world) and assure his downfall. Besides, if he were inclined to give WMD to terrorists, why didn't he ever give them to Palestinian terrorists, the only terrorists he likes?

So the evidence (he never gave WMD to terrorists when the had the chance) and the reasonable arguments (he'd be writing his own death warrant) support my argument that Saddam is not the threat the Bush League Administration wants us to believe.

I'm glad we've come to an agreement about this.
It's a fair argument and I have acknowledged it before. I also believe that North Korea is dangenerous and that we don't have the opportunity that we do with Saddam. I also believe that Saddam is much more likely to give components and biological agents to Al Qaeda and I do believe their common enemy does give them a reason to work together.
 
RandFan said:
It's a fair argument and I have acknowledged it before. I also believe that North Korea is dangenerous and that we don't have the opportunity that we do with Saddam. I also believe that Saddam is much more likely to give components and biological agents to Al Qaeda and I do believe their common enemy does give them a reason to work together.
It appears that as I was editing my last post to add a comment, you were making your last post. I thought I'd point that out in case you wanted to address the "edited to add" part of my last post.
 
Wayne Grabert said:
Edited to add: I find it interesting that you believe that Kim sells forms of WMD other than nuclear, but that does not justify his removal from power, but pure speculation that Saddam might--at some far-off future time-- do the same is reason (for some) to go to war and involve ourselves in a huge and costly quagmire. What's with such people, RandFan?
Thank you for giving me the chance to respond. North Korea has a nuclear weapon right now. Our options of dealling with NK are limited because of that fact. However, our options are not similariy limited to Iraq. And as I have said a number of times our reasons for this war are more than WOMD. Though WOMD are very important.

How great would it be if we could deal with NK the way we are dealing with Iraq. It's truly unfortunate. However in the end we might need to go to war with North Korea. They are projected to have a weapon capable of reaching the continental United States in just over a decade and Alaska before that. If Kim Jong il's behavior changes drasticaly we might have to yet deal with him militarily.

There will be no "quagmire" in Iraq. According to all of the experts that I have heard, if the Republican Gaurd position themselves in the cities then it will stretch the ground fighting out into months rather than days.

We have learned our lesson from Vietnam. Do what it takes to win the war.
 
RandFan said:
Thank you for giving me the chance to respond. North Korea has a nuclear weapon right now. Our options of dealling with NK are limited because of that fact. However, our options are not similariy limited to Iraq. And as I have said a number of times our reasons for this war are more than WOMD. Though WOMD are very important.

How great would it be if we could deal with NK the way we are dealing with Iraq. It's truly unfortunate. However in the end we might need to go to war with North Korea. They are projected to have a weapon capable of reaching the continental United States in just over a decade and Alaska before that. If Kim Jong il's behavior changes drasticaly we might have to yet deal with him militarily.

There will be no "quagmire" in Iraq. According to all of the experts that I have heard, if the Republican Gaurd position themselves in the cities then it will stretch the ground fighting out into months rather than days.

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

So none of this is about the poor, downtrodden Iraqi people. That is all just fluff for the media. It is all about how to look after the US.
 
RandFan said:
There will be no "quagmire" in Iraq. According to all of the experts that I have heard, if the Republican Gaurd position themselves in the cities then it will stretch the ground fighting out into months rather than days.

We have learned our lesson from Vietnam. Do what it takes to win the war.
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.
 
More support for my claim.
If the US blindly goes ahead with the threatened attack on Iraq, will that bring bin Laden closer to his goal, or further from it?

My judgment, based on more than 25 years of studying Muslim issues, is that it will bring bin Laden much, much closer.

(snip)

The key piece of evidence on this in Powell's speech was a slide showing a grainy satellite image of a dozen small buildings grouped around a courtyard. "Terrorist poison and explosives factory, Khurmal," the caption read.

"This camp is located in northeastern Iraq," Powell said, alleging that the members of a shadowy terrorist group called the Zarqawi network were using the factory for "teaching its operatives how to produce ricin and other poisons."

Scary stuff, yes? The problem is, not much of it seems to be true. Khurmal is not under Hussein's control at all: It lies in the part of northern Iraq controlled by the Kurds and protected by the US-British air umbrella.

Further, villagers in Khurmal hotly deny that their village hosts any terrorists at all. On Feb. 5, they showed Western reporters around Khurmal and told them that the nearest encampment of Islamic extremists was in another village several miles away.

The politics of Iraqi Kurdistan are very complex. But the International Crisis Group (ICG),a research organization in Brussels whose analysts are very familiar with the region, has cast serious doubt on the US claims. Some of these analysts worked on documenting Hussein's use of chemical weapons against Kurdish villagers in the 1980s - and they're not "soft" on him at all.

An ICG report released last week - "Radical Islam In Iraqi Kurdistan: The Mouse That Roared?" assumed that when talking about the Zarqawi network, Powell was referring to "Ansar al-Islam," a Kurdish Islamic-extremist group that controls an enclave near - not in - Khurmal. It noted that there is little independent evidence of links between Ansar and Baghdad. Such evidence as has been presented came, it said, from the notably unreliable source of "confessions" obtained from captured Ansar militants, sometimes under duress. ICG judged that it would be very hard for people or military supplies to pass between Baghdad and the Ansar enclave because a secular Kurdish group hostile to both of them controls all the routes between them.

"The only thing that is indisputable," the report concludes, "is that the [Ansar] group could not survive without the support of powerful factions in neighbouring Iran, its sole lifeline to the outside world."
 
Brooklyn Dodger said:
Now we come to these two new tapes...These two tapes, plus the last bin Laden tape, were produced by US intelligence sources. ..The purpose is not to provide a reason to go to war with Iraq, but to generate communications among Al Qaeda operatives, leading to their capture or death. I believe it is succeeding.
Frank Newgent said:
Hey BD, why don't you pass the time by playing a little solitaire?
Brooklyn Dodger said:
Then you think the tapes are genuine. Why?

One week from next Saturday, you will be called for at 11:10 am and taken to the Timothy...Sanitarium, 84 East 61st Street. We want you there for a checkup.
 
Frank Newgent said:
One week from next Saturday, you will be called for at 11:10 am and taken to the Timothy...Sanitarium, 84 East 61st Street. We want you there for a checkup.

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

Oh yeah, BTW, don't lock up Colonel Brooklyn. He is a good guy. ;)

JK
 

Back
Top Bottom