Colin Powell is an idiot!

Wayne Grabert said:
They were the experts that you cited to make the argument that the war against Saddam would not be a quagmire.
Misread the quote. Sorry. Still do not think it will turn into a quagmire.

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.
You may be right. I did read something about this. I don't know what the final plan is. I hope we don't occupy the country but I will have to find out more. I don't think it is an automatic quagmire.

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 disingenuously gain support for a war against Iraq.
I couldn't disagree more. Inaction is more the cause of terrorism than anything else. Appeasement is wrong, has always been wrong. Terrorists are waiting to see if we will give up and give in. We must make good our agreement with Saddam and Iraq if we are going to have any credibility this unending "stop that" only emboldens those that whish to do us harm.

We need to stop it. We were wrong for pulling out of Iraq the first time when he did not do as he promised. He is claiming victory today. If those who whish to appease Saddam get there way he will have won. The sanctions were almost pulled the last time we went through this. We must stop this man and stop playing games.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: geez Wayne

Wayne Grabert said:

:rolleyes: Yet you dismiss the possibility of Kim Jong Il selling a nuclear device to al Qaida--until Bush tells you it might happen.
Fair point. I do think that there is a greater likely hood that Saddam will give a weapon to Al Qaeda that Kim Jong Il will. Kim Jong Il does not have the revenge in mind that Saddam does and there is not a natural link. I don't think Kim Jong Il sees America the way Saddam does.

However both Kim Jong Il and Saddam crave survival as I have noted before. And I will concede that my strong views about Saddam probably influence my decision but I am no ass kisser of Bush. I have been willing to criticize him and I have been willing to stand up for those who want to speak out. Your characterization of me is unfair.
 
Colin Powaell's Gulf-relaeted Miscellanae

A collection of Colin Powell's Useful Facts relating to the Proposed Actions in the Gulf Region of the World.

A: Seven proofs of links between Saddam and al-Qa'eda

1) On an audiotape, Osama bin Laden calls Iraq a "stinking cesspit of socialist debauchery". This criticism is much less hostile than the sort of thing he says about America, thus proving that al-Qa'eda has warm feelings towards Saddam Hussein.

2) Our surveillance has picked up chatter from al-Qa'eda operatives talking about organising a "rendezvous". "Rendezvous" is a French word, and France has constantly obstructed American attempts to impose regime change in Iraq. So again, we see a clear connection between al-Qa'eda and Iraq.

3) Our spy planes have photographed Saddam's deputy prime minister being driven in a motorcade of Mercedes cars. Mercedes is a German automobile, and Germany is in league with France to destroy America, like al-Qa'eda. Therefore, etc.

4) The number plate on one of these cars was A03A0 1A, which, in the rear mirror of the car in front, spells al-Qa'eda.

5) The motorcade was moving in an easterly direction through Baghdad. If you move in an easterly direction through France, you get to Germany.

6) Saddam is another Hitler. Germany had a Hitler. Again, a direct link with al-Qa'eda.

7) Al-Qa'eda operatives have recently been arrested in London. The Prime Minister of London, Tony Blair, then visited France for a meeting with Jacques Chirac. Chirac then visited Bonn to celebrate 40 years of his alliance with Gerhard Schröder of Germany. Schröder had a meeting with Putin of Russia, who then received Hans Blix, who went to Baghdad. Again, proof of a direct link.

B: Five fascinating facts about Iraq

1) Iraq is slightly more than twice the size of Idaho, occupying an area the equivalent of 500,000 American aircraft carriers.

2) Iraq has 36 miles of coastline. That's the equivalent of 300,000 Apache attack helicopters stretching 36 miles.

3) Iraq was once part of the Ottoman Empire, a land mass which, if turned into flour, would be enough to feed bread to the children of Iraq for 100 years. But Saddam refuses to do this and instead spends his money on presidential palaces, which, if converted to milk, would be enough to fill all the oil wells of the Middle East for a fortnight. That's why we have to stop him getting to the wells before he does this.

4) Iraq contains 22,000 square miles of irrigated land. That's the equivalent of 300 million bottles of anthrax laid end to end. So where are they?

5) Iraqis consume 27.3 billion kWh of electricity every year, enough to power one Star-Wars style anti-missile system. So where is it, and who's it pointing at?

C: The United Nations constitution explained once and for all

1) The UN has a 15-member Security Council, of which France, Britain, China, Russia and America are permanent members, with veto rights.

2) The UN Charter allows for the permanent members to use their veto to overrule any majority decision of the council with which they disagree.

3) This is not applicable in cases where France, China or Russia use their veto in unreasonable cases, "unreasonable" being defined as a veto against any recent council majority decisions supported by Britain or America.

4) In these cases, the charter will probably allow America or Britain to veto that veto, thus upholding the earlier unvetoed will of the council, unless the council arrives at a majority decision contrary to the wishes of America or Britain, in which case all the permanent members of the council ought to be obliged to veto it, or to veto any attempt to veto the veto.

Colin Powell is currently US Secretary of State. Following publication of the above information, he recently told his wife that he's thinking of going on the Stop the War rally in London ;)
 
It seems to me bizarre to suggest that Saddam will distribute chemical or biological weapons to anybody. They are the one thing that distinguishes him from any other thuggish dictator, so he's hardly likely to expand the club membership. And the idea that he would provide them to his enemies in the Islamist movement is more than far-fetched.

The best evidence that Colin Powell is an idiot is his continuing effort to link Iraq with Al Qaeda. The case for war could be far better made by sticking to a credible, consistent line - for instance, that Saddam has chemical weapons and will use them (again) in the region and inconveniencing everybody. As I recall, Powell originally took that line after 9/11, expressing his scepticism about the Iraq-Islamist link pounced on by Rumsfeld et al. He should have stuck to that line, but then he was getting squeezed out of the influential in-crowd until he changed his tune. Sad, really.
 
RandFan said:
You may be right. I did read something about this. I don't know what the final plan is. I hope we don't occupy the country but I will have to find out more. I don't think it is an automatic quagmire.
The article I linked above takes only about three minutes to read and presents more than one view of what may occur after Saddam is overthrown. Since it presents competing views, I thought it would be helpful to you. I hope you've had the chance to read it.
 
CapelDodger said:
It seems to me bizarre to suggest that Saddam will distribute chemical or biological weapons to anybody. They are the one thing that distinguishes him from any other thuggish dictator, so he's hardly likely to expand the club membership. And the idea that he would provide them to his enemies in the Islamist movement is more than far-fetched.
It happens ALL the time. The argument sounds good until you look at history. And yes, America is the biggest boob of them all for giving weapons to it's enemies. No, the old saw "the ememy of my enemy is my friend" gives reason for nations to look at short term gains as opposed to long term ones.

The best evidence that Colin Powell is an idiot is his continuing effort to link Iraq with Al Qaeda. The case for war could be far better made by sticking to a credible, consistent line - for instance, that Saddam has chemical weapons and will use them (again) in the region and inconveniencing everybody. As I recall, Powell originally took that line after 9/11, expressing his scepticism about the Iraq-Islamist link pounced on by Rumsfeld et al. He should have stuck to that line, but then he was getting squeezed out of the influential in-crowd until he changed his tune. Sad, really.
Are you really going to make the argument that Colin Powell is an idiot? Have you read all of this thread? There are a number of things that could be argued about Colin Powell but that he is an idiot is not one of them.
 

Back
Top Bottom