Colin Powell: "You have to define what's victory."
answer to a question, "Is victory still possible?"
He sounds like Rumsfeld here. He should know better that the government should define it when they are planning it and BEFORE they make a first strike. He USED to think that way. We have never given the object of the operation with a good reason.
It was like this:
"Let's start bombing, then maybe something will come out, maybe a victory?"
I agree but remember that he was answerable to the President and it was his job to provide answers, if the POTUS demands answers, they have to give regardless of knowledge.
America started WW2, think about it!, who do you think hitler bought the oil and gas from?... not from russia... not from saudiarabia... not from iraq.... hmmm.. america? ;) the whole world is a conspiracy owned by the banking men...
If you believe that the U.S. should control the region by military force then you must support a draft. A perpetual occupation of Iraq, let alone Iran, requires far more troops than can be enlisted.
I think it's clear now that we all recognize the consequence of success and failure. Success will help the free world in the strugle against terrorism. Failure will hurt us. Iraq isn't the only place going through this painfull process. there's lebanon, somalia and even the philipines. We as the free world need to pull together and find a way to get through this. Or these next few years will be terrible.
What exactly are we "getting through" and what is "success" eldorama? Is it installing and maintaining a puppet government in Iraq and expanding a military presence in the Middle East?
how the hawks define victory is murder of all civilian people of iraq, theft of thier oil, placing bases all over the world all at the expence of the american taxpayer.stealing natrul resources from other countries, that is victory for the bush , buddies & co, administration, neocon, hawks, just greedy.
Powell was a professional soldier who served his country well. George W. Bush never fought in a war and was a spoiled brat when he was young, who used his Daddy's connections to avoid the fighting. Real soldier's like Powell know how to avoid fighting simply because they know what war is like. They love humanity more than business or politics. Bush is just another power-hungry politician like Saddam and Stalin
There never was a "Iraq" except that the British declared it and later on the Bath party maintained it. Iraq effectively died with Saddam. The middle class professionals, in whom some sense of national identity had developed, have all fled. The only people left in Iraq are the one's too poor to leave and the one's that want their Shiite, Sunni or Kurdish state. So I don't know that we've made the mess so much as the whole notion of of an Iraq has always just been a fiction buttressed by force.
Most of what you say is true, but we certainly did make a mess. Since we had no solution to the problem that you note (Iraq is a fiction) we let he Genni out of the bottle when we removed the only power that was keeping it at bay.
Hear is words... he has not changed his stand... He is full of bull... War is profit and he is cashing in from the blood of humanity. Peace will never come when we dishonor people. Peace comes when we allow life. He is nothing more than a mouthpiece for more chaos globally.
you don´t know what your talking about xavier. Colin Powell was the only sensible guy in the Bush regime, infact to sensible and smart for the hawks so they finally had to let him go and installed a psychopath in his place. Bush, Rumsfield, Cheany, Rice and Wolfowits are fucked up people who wouldn´t be trusted with a cup of coffee in Europe. But Mr. Powell is different.
Believe it or not, there were people in 2000 who thought this Administration was full of professional, credible people. Powell wasn't the only one. I remember thinking that Rumsfeld would have the experience and maturity necessary to guide Bush. What a fool I was - along with most people.
Indeed. Most still thought that guys who had been in earlier Republican Presidencies would at least know how to run a country, though. Seems we were mistaken.
That is because you are deeply ignorant about your own country. He wasn't competent under Ford why do you think he be competent now? As ford's Chief of Staff he set up his own parallel intelligence group, Wolfowitz was included in this, because he didn't think the CIA was doing a good enough job on the Soviet Union. He advocated a first strike nuclear war with the Soviets and guess what all his intelligence was bullshit and the CIA had gotten it right all along.
I guess none of you are Americans so I retract my first sentence. Anyway, these guys are in Powell's words "fucking crazies" and they have been their whole term of government service.
Under Ford Rummy lied about the soviet threat and cooked the books on the intelligence. One of the gems was to tell America that since no evidence of a stealth technology for soviet subs could be found the technolgy must be so advanced that it cannot be detected! One thing that cannot be detected is a shred of honesty in the neo-con camp.
We need to "get through" this struggle against islamic fascism. Success is Iraq's ability to sustain and defend itself against islamic fascism. If you believe America is the real enemy in this fight secularprophet, then you are empathizing with the terrorists. You are excusing their acts because of your assumptions of the "neo-con camp." Instead of blaming America first, why can't you just root for the good guys and against the bad guys?
By the way, secularprophet, the good guys are the brave soldiers fighting for what most of them believe is right. The bad guys are the terrorists who target and kill innocent men, women and children just to incite fear in order to get their way. Iraq can be a free nation as long as they have an orderly existence. America can only do so much so lets at least hope they prevail. Can't you do that?
I envy you the simplicity of your thinking. The soldiers, bless them every one, are doing what they signed up for. Reservists are doing a heck of lot MORE than they signed up for. They are now dieing for a failed policy. We've been here before (Viet Nam e.g.) I have no idea of what you mean by "prevail." We created a power vacuum in Iraq that has become a civil war. Some faction or coalition of factions will emerge to rule. The continued presence of our forces just inflames the entire situation.
I never claimed monopoly of patiotism. I have family and friends currently serving overseas as well. But labeling neo-cons as more fascist than the jihadists just demonstrates how lost you are in your thinking. Are you suggesting we just let them do what they want? Let's just withdraw from the face of terror.
Look up the term "fascist" it does not mean bad guy. It is not just a dirty word. It is a political system. The Islamists lack the industrial base required for fascism. The neo-cons have conned the Christian-right into their coalition with oil interests and military-industrial interests - that fits the fascist model.
btw, Iran is not 10 years away. It's probably 5 years at most. And Pakistan never said they would "wipe Israel off the map" or any other country for that matter. The center IS Iran with Iraq as the battlefield. If we leave Iraq, Iran will dominate the region.
We disagree. Pakistan has actually exported nuclear weapons technolgy while in Iran you have one idiot shooting his mouth off. Iran and Saudi Arabia will compete for regional dominance whether we are there are not. If you think that the U.S, should maintain troop levels high enough to control the area then we would need a draft.
Also, Ron Paul is an idiot. He wants to do what Europe did in the 30s. Appeasement. Just leave it alone and they'll leave us alone right? forget it. He is deaf to the threat against the free world and you, secularprophet, are an apologist for the jihadists.
I am certainly not an apologist for the Jihadist. As I said we should go after them where they really are: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. If you do a bit of research you will learn that it was the neo-cons that armed the Jihadist in the first place and it was their policies that created the Taliban. You will also learn that it was Pakistan that made nuclear weapons technology available to Iran and North Korea. We should be in Pakistan today not Iran or Iraq.
Musharef of Pakistan is our ally in this "war on terror." Sending our forces into his country would cause an uprising, thus handing the nukes to the terrorists. I am a big fan of Reagan but you are right in that he did arm Saddam with chemical weapons and the taliban with stinger missles to fight the Soviets. Taliban were on our side until they raped the entire nation of Afghanistan.
Oh please. Musharef is no friend. He had the difficult choice of backing the Taliban or the U.S. He knew he would be crushed if he didn't side with the U.S. You don't really believe that the U.S. would lose in an all out war against Pakistan do you? The Taliban was never on "our" side. The world would be so much better if we had left the Russians to stew in their juices with Afghanistan.
One other thing, Musharef will not rule Pakistan forever. There have been several assassination attempts already. The people of Pakistan are hard-core Islamists and when they get rid of Musharef they will put in an Islamic radical. It is not hard to imagine the Tel-Aviv skyline silhouetted by a mushroom cloud shortly thereafter.
Musharif is weak but that doesn't give us the reason to invade his country. His support is shakey already but allowing Americans on Pakistani soil would weaken his government even more and give the nukes to the terrorists. If, however, the Pakis replace a moderate gov like that of Musharif with a radical, they won't be left with a pot to piss in.
furthermore, the problem with the democrats is that they blame Bush for not pursuing bin laden in Pakistan while you and I both know that the Dems would never want to invade Pakistan. Even if we did get osama and invaded Pakistan, what then? You'd still have terrorists running around and we'd still have a tyrant in control of the 2nd biggest source of oil.
The U.S. has no problem, historically, with tyrants running oil-rich nations. We overthrew the democraticly elected government of Iran to install our own tyrant, the Shaw, as you may recall. The Dems are spineless and the GOP just flat corrupt.
We supported the Shaw because he was anti-Soviet. Hammas was popularly elected and so were the Nazis. Doesn't make it right necessarily but when you democratically elect an entity that would disolve democracy, then you have corruption. All govs (Dems and Reps) are to some extent corrupt.
Wrong. We put the Shaw in because the elected president of Iran had nationalized the oil industry. We have supported brutal dictators in South America (Chile e.g.) The United States of America is not now and has never been run by Roy Rogers. We should start looking at ourselves honestly. The war in Iraq is for oil, pure and simple. That doesn't make us bad, it is just the way of the world.
Iraq is about oil not for our gain, but for the gain of the world. Saddam used that oil to finance terror (ie. Hammas and others) while building his own arsenal. Britain tried to overthrow the Prim Minister of Iran and convinced Eisenhower that the PM relied on the backing of pro-communists. In hindsight, it could be argued as a mistake because of the harshness of the Shah.
I'm asking you to look beyond the rhetoric, the smoke and mirrors of politicians. Look at the simple facts not the political rational. Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, a popular nationalist was elected Prime Minister of Iran. He was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1953. British Petrolium lost its control over Iran's oil when Mossadegh nationalized that industry. England enlisted the U.S. in its attemps to regain that control. All the rest is just rhetoric.
Mushaif does not have popular support in his courty and he maintains a military dictatorship. I'm not say ask for his permission, I'm saying we should have occupied that country when we first went to Afghanistan. The only way to control those nukes is to physically sieze them. The Pakis are almost certain to replace him either by revolution or assassination. Then you will have a wacko islamic state with a nuke. Iraq is the wrong place to be. We have much more pressing matters.
Invading Pakistan would have accomplished very little and there's no telling where those nukes are. Musharraf took over during a bloodless coup and enjoyed support from parliament and vote of confidence in 2003. You can't just go in there and expect that alone to fix the problem. It's a global struggle from without and within.
Eldorama, you strike me as an intelligent and articualte individual who has accepted a certain set of ideas. I am curious as to the rest of your world view. 1. Do you accept Darwin's theory of Evolution? 2. Are you Pro-Life? 3. Do you support funding of "faith based inititives" ? You are certainly entitled to your position on any of those things and this is not an invitation to debate them, I would just like a better idea of your basic way of thinking. Thank you.
While it lacks relevence to the issue, I am not an evangelist. I believe evolution exists, I am pro-choice, and as long as it is for a good cause, then yes, I do support faith based initiatives. We shouldn't discriminate against any religious groups.
That's actually a mischaracterization of Ron Paul's beliefs. He never speaks of appeasement. But what we should do is protect our country, not spend our treasure and the lives of our sons and daughters for objectives of corporations. If you want to protect America and destroy the current terrorist network, then this is not the way to go about it.
What really caused 9/11? Bureaucracy! We had all the pieces to the puzzle before it happened, but no communication between the different intelligence agencies. So the same people who thought Iraq was a great idea also thought that more bureaucracy, under the name Homeland Security was one too. Come on Ron Paul is the only person running who is smart enough to make this country really safer. The real idiot is Cheney not Paul.
I'm witholding my opinion on 911. I am quite certain that the truth of the matter is yet to be told. The official story just does not pass "the smell test."
Chenny is no idiot. He is a clever, self-serving, autocratic. A very dangerous and corrupt man. Ron Paul is an idealist. He often speaks unpopular truths. Unfortunatly, that is not the road to power in this country.
Cheney is an idiot, not in the sense that he's not an intelligent person, but rather in the sense that his beliefs about the world simply do not, in fact, work. Dick Cheney is an idiot in the same sense that Kenneth Lay was one. They are men who's lack of forsight brings ruin.
Ron Paul also has a lot of pragmatic qualities. He's not a pie in the sky guy at all.
I agree it doesn't pass "the smell test" and in time maybe more facts will come to light. But certainly we know that our intelligence services did have information that could have prevented it, if it weren't for bureaucratic incompetence and that the first Gulf War became a major rallying point for Osama Bin Laden....
What ever the real truth is, I don't believe it was an outright fraud perpetrated on us by the same people who aren't even competent enough to win in Iraq. Although, there are other trains of thought that suggests they don't really want to.
Leaders of jihadist organizations have publically indicated that our talks of "redeployment" to them reflects our defeat. "Victory in Iraq will be a major stepping stone in the struggle (against the west) and proof that our resistence works." They'll keep fighting us even harder if we show weakness by leaving Iraq in the face of terror.
You should learn more about the "enemy". That is a nice bit of rationalization and I can see why you might be scared that it could happen-- I mean it should plausible enough if you don't really understand the culture or what we're up against. But it is just not true in reality.
So you'd stay in Iraq until we're bankrupt and broken? That way they could just follow us home and finish off of. That's a magnificent strategy!
Your inference that I'd stay until bankrupt is off the mark. I said "victory" and "winning." Obviously if we just stay there and not adjust to the reality of our resources, then that would lead us to defeat. And you do excuse their actions by blaming the US and not the terrorists. Strategy is one thing, but taking a position that inevitably leads to defeat is entirely something else.
I don't think that we "know" anything. The spin is now that it was a failure of intelligence. That takes the heat of the decision makers. Those decision makers have a proven record of distorting the message. This is a "wait and see" thing but a good rule of thumb when looking for suspects is to look first to those who have the most to gain.
Osama exploited every opportunity he could to gain for himself. Whatever reason issued in his "fatwa" doesn't excuse his actions. Bin Laden is a terrorist and there are networks all over the world. It's absurd to think that our withdrawel would be of any help. In fact, they use our retreat (like that of Somalia in the 90's) for a rallying cry more than anything.
I never even came close to suggesting that it could excuse his actions.
The thing is you don't know very much about networks. In physics our understanding of the behavior of networks has risen by a factor of ten, easily, in the 3 decades. You defeat a terrorist network the same way you kill a cell (chemical network) or take out the internet because networks all behave the same way, and by analogy invading Iraq was not it.
Also, invasion of Iraq was not about simply disrupting a terror network. It was about bringing down an evil dictator (yes, believe it or not, Saddam was evil). It's unthinkable to leave a tyrant like that in control of all Iraq's oil in a post-9/11 world.
I am an American. Both of my parents were career military officers. You do not have a monopoly on patriotism. I am not blaming America, I am blaming the dishonest neo-con leadership that has lied and cheated its way into power in this country and into this war in the Persian Gulf.
Al Qaeda knows that by bombing Shiite holy sites, like they did today, enflames the Shiites to retaliate against innocent Sunnis. Hence, the "civil war" you see. Al Qaeda is the one perpetuating the violence, American presence is trying to quell the violence. WWII wasn't "school football" either, but, wouldn't you root for the allies to win that war or blame America for pissing of the japanese leading to Pearl Habor?
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are the core of fundimentalist Islam. That is where they should be dealt with. We correctly went to Afghanistan, we should have gone from there to Pakistan and taken control of the only Islamic Atom Bomb. The Islamic Atom Bomb is in Pakistan right now not Iran in ten years. Instead we pulled our forces to Iraq to consolidate oil-interests. We are breeding terrorists by our occupation of Iraq. Only Al Queida and the neo-cons benefit from that.
fascism - a governmental system led by a dictator (like Saddam) having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism (like terrorism). America did none of thsoe things. You are quick to infer that I want to go to war with Iran. I don't want that to happen but won't rule it out.
War against Iran would have made a lot more sense than the overthrow and occupation of Iraq-- I was deployed at the start of that campaign btw. Of course, we can no longer entertain the idea of war with Iran because we have crippled our military capability over Iraq. What would have made the most sense is if we had just done Afghanistan correctly and really rebuilt that country. We would have been heros to the rest of world instead of pariah we are today.
Damn, there is no reason for me to post anything more on this thread - Texas Rounder is right on the money. So, I'll see you all on the next hot issue. -- so long.
The conflict between the Islamic factions is greater than the conflict with their external enemies. It is not a matter of "innocent Sunnis" vs. evil Shites. Remneber it was all Sunni's on the 911 airplanes and Saddam was a Sunni. Why do you want to "root" for somebody? I want a rational policy aimed at what is best for America. I do not believe that conducting eternal resource wars is the best thing for us to do.
I never labeled shiites as evil. You keep making false assumptions. I want to root for the free world because it's better than leaving terrorists to do what they want. Wouldn't you? Islamic fascists are the enemy, not a particular religious faction. do you suggest we negotiate with the terrorists?
The reality is, Pakistan would have been an even bigger mess and Saddam would still be left standing financing our enemies with his oil money. Leaving him standing would prevent the free world from accomplishing much in the long run. He had to go. Deposing him was the absolutely right thing to do. The way it was done is an entirely different story.
In other words, Colin Powell should have been President. Not Bush. Rumsfeld had good ideas but Powell had better ones and we should have listened to Powell. The problem is, there is no way to go back and change that. We need to find a solution short of retreating in the face of terrorism. Showing weakness will severely jeapordize our security in the long term.
That's the mantra, but it is far from the truth. Bush would have been ok if he hadn't been sucked into the neo-con plot of Chenney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, Perle, et al. Those guys are just evil. Even worce they are incompetent.
Those are not my words, nor are they my positions. Here's my response: (1) Powell did not have the courage to publicly oppose the Iraq invasion and in fact he supported it in his speech at the U.N.
2) Rumsfield has been lying about external threats to the U.S. since his days with Reagan. He is a dyed in the wool neo-con. The neo-cons were looking for any excuse to put Iraqi oil under the control of the American oil interests.
(3)The political climate after 911 gave the neo-cons a canvas and they painted a picture of lies on that canvas (WMD. Saddam-911 connection, yellow-cake deal with Niger)to justify the invasion. those lies are all exposed so the justification rationale has shifted. It is still a fabric of lies.
What justifies the invasion of Iraq is that we live in post-9/11 times and Saddam's history of invading Kuwait, attacking Israel, and threatening Saudi Arabia coupled with is repeated violations of the cease fire agreement gave absolute validity to the invasion. We were "at war" during persian gulf, Saddam agreed to cease fire, he violated it, so we finished what should have been done during persian gulf
I hate oil and we need a "manhattan project" or a "man on the moon" type government sponsored project that provides new technologies for alternative and efficient forms of energy. Incase you can't tell, I'm supporting Rudy for President. And the energy project I just described is exactly what Rudy wants to do as President.
You are a very unusual "pro Iraqi war" individual indeed. I absolutley agree that we must move out of the Oil Age, though I think that Al Gore is by far the best qualified guy to move us in that direction.
I'm not all that unusual when you look at Giuliani on those issues. He believes in evolution and he is pro-choice. Not to mention he's ahead in most polls. As far as Al Gore, hell to the no. Even though during the 90's he said a lot of the same things Bush said about Iraq.
If the invasion of Kuwait was justification then Bush I should have pressed on to Baghdad. It wasn't and he didn't. Using "post 911 times" as justification is so broad that I guess we could invade Canada - there's some muslims up there I'm sure. What attacks on Israel are you talking about. And what threats to Saudi Arabia, other than merely being next door?
After Saddam invaded Kuwait, he verbally threatened Saudi Arabia because we supported them, he launched missles into Israel during the war, and knowing how vulnerable we are (as 9/11 proved) we couldn't let Saddam with his record go ignored. Something had to be done and diplomacy clearly wasn't working.
your number "2" about rumsfeld are all assumptions that can't be proven. I look at it as taking oil out of the hands of thugs and terrorists and making it available to the world market.
No assumptions. All fact. Rumsfield was making speeches about a Soviet military build-up that the CIA flatly contradicted. For a video with some of those clips look at "the Power of Nightmare" its on Google video.
ok buddy. I don't need to watch that "the power of nightmare" diatribe. Before I watched it, it said, "just like nightmares, the threat of terror networks aren't real." You can spin it however you like. But the reality is, terror networks do exist and the Soviets were building their military to expand. If you don't believe that, then like the democrats, you're in denial.
Powell was secretary of state who serves on behalf of the President. If every cabinet member just did what they believed was right, we'd have a messy gov. He DID voice his opinion but the Rumsfeld approach was accepted over Powells.
Powell voiced it to the UN on behalf of the administration. The President decides on what direction it goes. If powell had a serious problem he'd have resigned. Their opinions clearly matter but you can't have multiple voices speaking for one administration.
and if, as you say, this is all about oil, then support Rudy and his goal (among many) to get off of oil. Why believe him? Because he's the only guy I kno in politics who said what he was gonna do and actually did it...
Obviously you're not a New Yorker. Rudy is a scumbag son of a petty career criminal. He cost lives on 9/11 and he would fuck this country up good, in fact he could finish us. How come his own fire deparatment (NYFD) has nothing but contempt for him-- kinda like his ex wives. Like I said scumbag, end of story.
You make false assumptions about Rudy. the UNION of fire fighters don't like him simply because Rudy is tough on unions (that's a good thing). Unions are run by real scumbag criminals like the mafia which, by the way, Rudy prosecuted many in the mafia.
You obviously have little faith in humanity if you really think that gassing people would lead us to victory. The terrorists are the ones exaserbating the problem and lately, believe it or not, sunni and shiite tribes have allied with the US in Iraq to fight the AlQaeda terrorist affiliates. Lets hope that trend continues.
Quite frankly you are just proving yourself to be stupid. You obviously have zero understanding of the situation which must mean you enjoy talking out of your ass. Who are the terrorist? They are the Iraqis! And if you don't except that so be it, but you have a lot of opinions for someone who so ignorant. Quite frankly its people like you who have damn near ruined this country.
Here's a suggestion try reading all of the comments and putting them in context before adding your own non sequiturs. Obviously, in context, it clear that what I am saying is when we speak of "terrorists" in Iraq we are talking about the "Iraqi" people themselves, not that the people are terrorists. So who's uninformed now, biatch. Sorry I just succumbed to level of opinions being expressed here. It just overwhelmed me...
But really in case you're stupid let me make this point as clear as can in another 500 characters. I am suggesting that when people talk about the terrorists in Iraq they are talking about the people, themselves. You know the ones we are suppose to be there to "help". So when I say the Iraqis are I am making an ironic point. Irony it's a wonderful thing you should look it up....
Of course that was lost on eldorama because he believes that the sunnis and shiite who are "allied" with the US to fight the Al Qaeda presence aren't the same people planting roadside bombs themselves at the exact same time, he doens't even begin to understand the complexity of mideast tribal politics. These people aren't terrorists though they are insurgents responding to a foreign occupation of their land. Of course it is very convenient to lump them together with Al Qaeda...
So you have sunnis playing the Americans against Al Qaeda and the Shiite's, while the Shiite's are playing America back against the Sunnis and Al Qaeda. But you've also got the Sunni's playing Al Qaeda against the Shitte's and the Shiite's playing Iran against everyone else, and I haven't even started talking about the Kurds yet. While of course the Americans just think there are the good guys (us) and the bad guys (terrorists). So who's uninformed again, Biatch!!!!
TexasRounder, you speak as if you are familiar with tribal politics. I never said I was. But when you have terrorists killing themselves or planting bombs to kill other innocent people, that makes them terrorists. when you have tribal leaders calling on the US to help them fight Al Qaeda (which is happening incase you ever watch the news) is something different. Having such little faith in humanity feels good doesn't it?
Rudy's dad was in the mafia. You are a fucking idiot. I am just saying. It's true I've lost my patience and there is no reasoning with people like you. It is not that we have different opinions, its that use are so ill-informed and so destructive...
I should clarify that his father was a predatory criminal who was associated with the mafia while there were extended family members who were more regularly involved. Personally I think Rudy Guilaini is a sociopath himself. But even if he's not he still obviously a sleazy self serving lawyer type. The kind of guy who sought mafia convictions for his personal political advancement.
TexasRounder, you proved that you can't debate with the obvious because of your incessant name calling. You're proving yourself to be a ranting foul mouth. How intelligent to just call people fucking idiots without anything to support your false assumptions. Go ahead and vote for Ron Paul or the Democrats or whatever defeatist you want running the white house. There's no reasoning with hot heads like yourself. You can't back up your claims so you spew the vitriol like most SPs.
Eddie has had too many long islands. Instead of vilifying those persons truly responsible, you attack this guy? And your bigot. Why hasn't our country turn the corner yet, because people like you were born.
You are not ignorant. You have just been played very well by a president that preys on Americans who dont think about complexities. He wants to give you simple empty phrases that doent go into depth about his real intentions. If everyone was against us and that number is growing, we would b annihilated.
Keep in mind that putting Rudy in will put more Republicans in as well. Their ties to the status quo, and Rudy's political debts to them will certainly overpower any radical shifts away from that status quo. Simply put, the Republicans are owned by big business and there's little Rudy could do to change that.
To me Rudy is like Sgt. Schultz in Hogan's Heros. No matter what he is personally, he is part of a machine that has been captured by ideologues. That team has actively undermined the very fabric of this country. Putting Rudy in keeps that team in power and will keep America walking down the wrong road.
I agree that if Powell had a serious problem he should have resigned, and that you cannot have multiple voices in the administration. Powell was on the team that lied us into Iraq and he must be accountable for that.
It is Saudi Arabia that funds the terrorists, not Iraq. Iraq under Saddam was no friend of Al Quieda. He was a thug, but the U.S. supported him for years. We didn't say a word when he gassed the Kurds as you recall.
I've met quite a few Kurds and think they are great people. But we have to understand what gassing the Kurds meant in Iraqi terms. This represented within Iraq a rival tribal group vying for power. If we really wanted to win in "Iraq" we'd have to start gassing people too. There is simply no way to keep the various tribal struggles in check to have sovereign Iraq with out this order of violence....
Hussein might have been a monster, but he was also a pragmatic leader. The problem only monsters are willing to do what is necessary to keep something Iraq together.
This btw is one reason we can't win in Iraq, we are not prepared to play by mideast rules and commit the kind of atrocities that Israel or Syria does, or that Hussein did. This is a country that has been ruled by brutal foreigner occupation since the 1257 Mongol conquest. We're pansies compared to the rest.
They don't want "democracy" they want, by and large. security which we are unwilling to provide them because it would mean things like leveling whole towns, just burying the people alive. Anyway it is too late for all that the Iraqis that matter have already fled are refugees. The is situation is lost. Pull out and let the U.N. try to contain the damage like SP suggests.
And if I sound somewhat like I am contradicting myself. It is because it is a very complex situations with many layers. You have the mideast and general tribal and religious complications then you have this part of the mideast aka "Iraq" with it own history like I said which has been under the strong hand of someone since 1257. The bottom line is we can't win and trying to do so just spins our wheels or worse while the terror networks grow stronger.
If they don't want "democracy" then why was their voter turnout larger than the US 2004 election? The reality is that the terrorists are trying to make more people think like you. They want us out and they taunt us by saying "come and get it." The Iraqis need to step up but it's America's rold to ensure that the next ruler of Iraq is not a sponsor of terror.
Because they want security you dumb fuck. You really need everything explained to you like you were a child. I do realize you are a child, mentally. Your comments testify to the fantasy world you live in. Nevertheless, its obnoxious.
TexasRounder, you are a defeatist. Plain and simple. You're so quick to trust the UN in solving this problem? If you want to see pansies, just look at the United Nations.
And you my friend have very poor reading comprehension. I while back your complaining how SP was putting words in your mouth, but turn around and do the same thing. I am not quick to trust anybody, but that is a reasonable plan. The operational part of which is the term reasonable. Something I take is foreign to you because you haven't really proven yourself to be well reasoned yet.
Simple that is a good description of you. I am through with you and this conversation. Go vote for Rudy-- who the firefighters hate not because he's against unions but that his cheap ass killed a bunch of them-- you fucking American hating piece of shit. In the end you are going to get the country you deserve and it will be a crying shame. The last of the great human dreams, gone.
Yea, Saddam wanted Iraq together under himself. He was an evil dictator bent on dominating the middle east. that was apperent in his fight against Iran and Kuwait. We allied with Saddam at the time of Iran/Iraq war because he didn't have the history he has now and he was secularist. We are paying for that mistake now particularly because we sold him chemical weapons.
Sadam would never have had a problem with Iran or Kuwait if Daddy Bush and his crew had not instigated it,provided him with WMD, and to top it off, promised him he could take Kuwait,after Iran,then turned on him. That is why Sadam had a hit out for daddy bush and wala! There we are,,There is just HERE,but with a T. Love Robin....
it seems obvious and i totally agree with you but you know they'd find something wrong with that...they'd find a way for your idea to look wrong or stupid or say it wouldn't work or some other bullshit excuse.
You need to wake up fundamentalism is the enemy. It flew planes into our buildings on 9/11 and then preceded to further shred the Constitution of our country. In one case it was the Jihadists and the other Neo-cons. This country was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment and it's belief in rationalism. Fundamentalism is the enemy of rationalism whether it is Islamic, Christian or a secular political ideology.
You are too quick to buy the propaganda and its labels. Fascism is a marriage of military, religious, and industrial powers. That label fits the neo-cons better than it does the Jihadists. This conflict is not good guys vs. bad guys and it ain't High School football. Listen to what Ron Paul has said about the roots of the hostilities. Everyday we are in Iraq Americans get killed. How many more of our soldiers must die?
Let Iran have nuclear weapon and hand it over to terrorists. Iraq is not Vietnam because the vienamese did not persue us after we left. The terrorists WILL follow us home. Like I said, Iraq isn't the only place at war. The philipines, Lebanon, Somalia, the list goes on. Iraq is the center because of it's vast oil wealth and the emergence of a power vacuum.
It is Iraq that we are at war with at present, not Iran. You are too eager for the next war. Yu are wrong about the core of the problem. It is not Iraq.
You obviously don't understand the fragile democracy in Pakistan right now. If we invaded Pakistan, Musharif would be overthrown and the islamin nukes would be in the hands of terrorists. If we really wanted to consolidate oil wealth, why not invade and overthrow the Saud? You are buying into the jihadist propoganda.
Because the Saud tribe that rules Saudi Arabia are our close "friends" (they are certainly close friends to the Bush family), have you forgotten already how quickly we dumped our other friend Saddam Hussein when he looked he was becoming a threat to the Saudis? Or do you not really understand what the first Gulf War was actually about?
This whole situation where Saddam Hussein was our enemy never really had to be in the first place. He helped check Iran, and he provided stability to the region. Kuwait was a mistake, and he obviously recognized that because was willing to withdraw 24 hours after invading. The guy had his own problems with fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Both the Bush's have really fucked us good...
The first Gulf War wasn't the great American triumph our jingoistic fervor required of us to believe. It was actually a horrific blunder that played its own significant role leading up to 9/11 and the mess we are in right now. More stupidity obviously isn't the solution.
Why would Saddam invade Kuwait anyway and why would he expect the US to just turn a blind eye? The notion that we "suckered" Saddam into invading is preposterous. It does not excuse his actions and the reality is, if we don't win, we lose. The problem with the Democrats (and Ron Paul) is that they never mention "victory" or "winning" but the quickest way to ensure defeat.
Saddam invaded Kuwait and Bush isn't the only "friend" of the Sauds. Clinton, Carter, Reagan, pretty much any Presidnet was chummy with the Sauds so don't be too sure this is all a Bush/oil conspiracy.
best way to fight terrorism is not by invading a country, it would be a big failure and the cost is not worth it.
I'd take the approach of sending fast moving special forces by taking out the terrorist. look at Bin laden's death... small special forces group
crumcon 8 months ago
How can you have victory ? Iraq had nonthing to do with 9/11 or terrorists ? It was a BIG Failure to invade the country.
CSIS25 3 years ago 2
Colin Powell: "You have to define what's victory."
answer to a question, "Is victory still possible?"
He sounds like Rumsfeld here. He should know better that the government should define it when they are planning it and BEFORE they make a first strike. He USED to think that way. We have never given the object of the operation with a good reason.
It was like this:
"Let's start bombing, then maybe something will come out, maybe a victory?"
allgoo19 3 years ago
I agree but remember that he was answerable to the President and it was his job to provide answers, if the POTUS demands answers, they have to give regardless of knowledge.
JapeUK 3 years ago
America started WW2, think about it!, who do you think hitler bought the oil and gas from?... not from russia... not from saudiarabia... not from iraq.... hmmm.. america? ;) the whole world is a conspiracy owned by the banking men...
redraw666 4 years ago
he bought it from GWB grandfather too. look it up people
dantej32 4 years ago
Wow...you people are so mean.
AsabiG 4 years ago
Vietnam II...Vietnam Vet here...God Bless you General Powell!
greenhornet59 4 years ago 2
Colon-
Fuck you, you social-climbing turncoat. We whites don't like you, your homies are tired of your Oreo coating, you fucked us to be the head niggah!
dude, get us out of this shit, NOW!
LongIslandEddie 4 years ago
What is wrong with you.
ruecast2007 4 years ago
I tend to see things differently from time to time.
You'll admit of course, he lied to aid Bush, yes?
Perhaps I was a tad harsh and hasty in my initial
outrage at his errant behavior. He could've worked
out in the end but he wouldn't have it that way!
LongIslandEddie 4 years ago
The heart of the matter.
If you believe that the U.S. should control the region by military force then you must support a draft. A perpetual occupation of Iraq, let alone Iran, requires far more troops than can be enlisted.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
I think it's clear now that we all recognize the consequence of success and failure. Success will help the free world in the strugle against terrorism. Failure will hurt us. Iraq isn't the only place going through this painfull process. there's lebanon, somalia and even the philipines. We as the free world need to pull together and find a way to get through this. Or these next few years will be terrible.
eldorama 4 years ago
What exactly are we "getting through" and what is "success" eldorama? Is it installing and maintaining a puppet government in Iraq and expanding a military presence in the Middle East?
What is the goal?
Secularprophet 4 years ago
how the hawks define victory is murder of all civilian people of iraq, theft of thier oil, placing bases all over the world all at the expence of the american taxpayer.stealing natrul resources from other countries, that is victory for the bush , buddies & co, administration, neocon, hawks, just greedy.
just4u1000 4 years ago
Powell was a professional soldier who served his country well. George W. Bush never fought in a war and was a spoiled brat when he was young, who used his Daddy's connections to avoid the fighting. Real soldier's like Powell know how to avoid fighting simply because they know what war is like. They love humanity more than business or politics. Bush is just another power-hungry politician like Saddam and Stalin
AccordGTR 4 years ago
from what i have seen, Colin Powell is a good honest person, unlike president bush and the rest of his administration
Americaisgreat 5 years ago
So the US invades Iraq, make the entire country fall apart and then turns around and blames everything on the Iraqis? Hmmm...
joe1941 5 years ago
There never was a "Iraq" except that the British declared it and later on the Bath party maintained it. Iraq effectively died with Saddam. The middle class professionals, in whom some sense of national identity had developed, have all fled. The only people left in Iraq are the one's too poor to leave and the one's that want their Shiite, Sunni or Kurdish state. So I don't know that we've made the mess so much as the whole notion of of an Iraq has always just been a fiction buttressed by force.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
Most of what you say is true, but we certainly did make a mess. Since we had no solution to the problem that you note (Iraq is a fiction) we let he Genni out of the bottle when we removed the only power that was keeping it at bay.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
You're starting to lose your command of English. Be careful.
Powell's laying out the situation. If just talking about the facts on the ground sounds like treason or surrender, we've got a big problem.
LanysNevelesser 5 years ago
Hear is words... he has not changed his stand... He is full of bull... War is profit and he is cashing in from the blood of humanity. Peace will never come when we dishonor people. Peace comes when we allow life. He is nothing more than a mouthpiece for more chaos globally.
All BS.
Xavierjezalex 5 years ago
you don´t know what your talking about xavier. Colin Powell was the only sensible guy in the Bush regime, infact to sensible and smart for the hawks so they finally had to let him go and installed a psychopath in his place. Bush, Rumsfield, Cheany, Rice and Wolfowits are fucked up people who wouldn´t be trusted with a cup of coffee in Europe. But Mr. Powell is different.
Vennipaer2 5 years ago
Believe it or not, there were people in 2000 who thought this Administration was full of professional, credible people. Powell wasn't the only one. I remember thinking that Rumsfeld would have the experience and maturity necessary to guide Bush. What a fool I was - along with most people.
LanysNevelesser 5 years ago
Not most people. MOST people voted for Al Gore.
Pumper4 4 years ago
Indeed. Most still thought that guys who had been in earlier Republican Presidencies would at least know how to run a country, though. Seems we were mistaken.
Lensei 4 years ago
That is because you are deeply ignorant about your own country. He wasn't competent under Ford why do you think he be competent now? As ford's Chief of Staff he set up his own parallel intelligence group, Wolfowitz was included in this, because he didn't think the CIA was doing a good enough job on the Soviet Union. He advocated a first strike nuclear war with the Soviets and guess what all his intelligence was bullshit and the CIA had gotten it right all along.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
I guess none of you are Americans so I retract my first sentence. Anyway, these guys are in Powell's words "fucking crazies" and they have been their whole term of government service.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
Under Ford Rummy lied about the soviet threat and cooked the books on the intelligence. One of the gems was to tell America that since no evidence of a stealth technology for soviet subs could be found the technolgy must be so advanced that it cannot be detected! One thing that cannot be detected is a shred of honesty in the neo-con camp.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
We need to "get through" this struggle against islamic fascism. Success is Iraq's ability to sustain and defend itself against islamic fascism. If you believe America is the real enemy in this fight secularprophet, then you are empathizing with the terrorists. You are excusing their acts because of your assumptions of the "neo-con camp." Instead of blaming America first, why can't you just root for the good guys and against the bad guys?
eldorama 4 years ago
By the way, secularprophet, the good guys are the brave soldiers fighting for what most of them believe is right. The bad guys are the terrorists who target and kill innocent men, women and children just to incite fear in order to get their way. Iraq can be a free nation as long as they have an orderly existence. America can only do so much so lets at least hope they prevail. Can't you do that?
eldorama 4 years ago
I envy you the simplicity of your thinking. The soldiers, bless them every one, are doing what they signed up for. Reservists are doing a heck of lot MORE than they signed up for. They are now dieing for a failed policy. We've been here before (Viet Nam e.g.) I have no idea of what you mean by "prevail." We created a power vacuum in Iraq that has become a civil war. Some faction or coalition of factions will emerge to rule. The continued presence of our forces just inflames the entire situation.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
I never claimed monopoly of patiotism. I have family and friends currently serving overseas as well. But labeling neo-cons as more fascist than the jihadists just demonstrates how lost you are in your thinking. Are you suggesting we just let them do what they want? Let's just withdraw from the face of terror.
eldorama 4 years ago
Look up the term "fascist" it does not mean bad guy. It is not just a dirty word. It is a political system. The Islamists lack the industrial base required for fascism. The neo-cons have conned the Christian-right into their coalition with oil interests and military-industrial interests - that fits the fascist model.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
btw, Iran is not 10 years away. It's probably 5 years at most. And Pakistan never said they would "wipe Israel off the map" or any other country for that matter. The center IS Iran with Iraq as the battlefield. If we leave Iraq, Iran will dominate the region.
eldorama 4 years ago
We disagree. Pakistan has actually exported nuclear weapons technolgy while in Iran you have one idiot shooting his mouth off. Iran and Saudi Arabia will compete for regional dominance whether we are there are not. If you think that the U.S, should maintain troop levels high enough to control the area then we would need a draft.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
Also, Ron Paul is an idiot. He wants to do what Europe did in the 30s. Appeasement. Just leave it alone and they'll leave us alone right? forget it. He is deaf to the threat against the free world and you, secularprophet, are an apologist for the jihadists.
eldorama 4 years ago
I am certainly not an apologist for the Jihadist. As I said we should go after them where they really are: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Afghanistan. If you do a bit of research you will learn that it was the neo-cons that armed the Jihadist in the first place and it was their policies that created the Taliban. You will also learn that it was Pakistan that made nuclear weapons technology available to Iran and North Korea. We should be in Pakistan today not Iran or Iraq.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
Musharef of Pakistan is our ally in this "war on terror." Sending our forces into his country would cause an uprising, thus handing the nukes to the terrorists. I am a big fan of Reagan but you are right in that he did arm Saddam with chemical weapons and the taliban with stinger missles to fight the Soviets. Taliban were on our side until they raped the entire nation of Afghanistan.
eldorama 4 years ago
Oh please. Musharef is no friend. He had the difficult choice of backing the Taliban or the U.S. He knew he would be crushed if he didn't side with the U.S. You don't really believe that the U.S. would lose in an all out war against Pakistan do you? The Taliban was never on "our" side. The world would be so much better if we had left the Russians to stew in their juices with Afghanistan.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
One other thing, Musharef will not rule Pakistan forever. There have been several assassination attempts already. The people of Pakistan are hard-core Islamists and when they get rid of Musharef they will put in an Islamic radical. It is not hard to imagine the Tel-Aviv skyline silhouetted by a mushroom cloud shortly thereafter.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
Musharif is weak but that doesn't give us the reason to invade his country. His support is shakey already but allowing Americans on Pakistani soil would weaken his government even more and give the nukes to the terrorists. If, however, the Pakis replace a moderate gov like that of Musharif with a radical, they won't be left with a pot to piss in.
eldorama 4 years ago
furthermore, the problem with the democrats is that they blame Bush for not pursuing bin laden in Pakistan while you and I both know that the Dems would never want to invade Pakistan. Even if we did get osama and invaded Pakistan, what then? You'd still have terrorists running around and we'd still have a tyrant in control of the 2nd biggest source of oil.
eldorama 4 years ago
The U.S. has no problem, historically, with tyrants running oil-rich nations. We overthrew the democraticly elected government of Iran to install our own tyrant, the Shaw, as you may recall. The Dems are spineless and the GOP just flat corrupt.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
We supported the Shaw because he was anti-Soviet. Hammas was popularly elected and so were the Nazis. Doesn't make it right necessarily but when you democratically elect an entity that would disolve democracy, then you have corruption. All govs (Dems and Reps) are to some extent corrupt.
eldorama 4 years ago
Wrong. We put the Shaw in because the elected president of Iran had nationalized the oil industry. We have supported brutal dictators in South America (Chile e.g.) The United States of America is not now and has never been run by Roy Rogers. We should start looking at ourselves honestly. The war in Iraq is for oil, pure and simple. That doesn't make us bad, it is just the way of the world.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
Iraq is about oil not for our gain, but for the gain of the world. Saddam used that oil to finance terror (ie. Hammas and others) while building his own arsenal. Britain tried to overthrow the Prim Minister of Iran and convinced Eisenhower that the PM relied on the backing of pro-communists. In hindsight, it could be argued as a mistake because of the harshness of the Shah.
eldorama 4 years ago
I'm asking you to look beyond the rhetoric, the smoke and mirrors of politicians. Look at the simple facts not the political rational. Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, a popular nationalist was elected Prime Minister of Iran. He was overthrown in a CIA-backed coup in 1953. British Petrolium lost its control over Iran's oil when Mossadegh nationalized that industry. England enlisted the U.S. in its attemps to regain that control. All the rest is just rhetoric.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
Mushaif does not have popular support in his courty and he maintains a military dictatorship. I'm not say ask for his permission, I'm saying we should have occupied that country when we first went to Afghanistan. The only way to control those nukes is to physically sieze them. The Pakis are almost certain to replace him either by revolution or assassination. Then you will have a wacko islamic state with a nuke. Iraq is the wrong place to be. We have much more pressing matters.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
Invading Pakistan would have accomplished very little and there's no telling where those nukes are. Musharraf took over during a bloodless coup and enjoyed support from parliament and vote of confidence in 2003. You can't just go in there and expect that alone to fix the problem. It's a global struggle from without and within.
eldorama 4 years ago
Eldorama, you strike me as an intelligent and articualte individual who has accepted a certain set of ideas. I am curious as to the rest of your world view. 1. Do you accept Darwin's theory of Evolution? 2. Are you Pro-Life? 3. Do you support funding of "faith based inititives" ? You are certainly entitled to your position on any of those things and this is not an invitation to debate them, I would just like a better idea of your basic way of thinking. Thank you.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
While it lacks relevence to the issue, I am not an evangelist. I believe evolution exists, I am pro-choice, and as long as it is for a good cause, then yes, I do support faith based initiatives. We shouldn't discriminate against any religious groups.
eldorama 4 years ago
You are demographicly unusual. I promised not to debate those issues and I won't. Thank you for your candor.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
That's actually a mischaracterization of Ron Paul's beliefs. He never speaks of appeasement. But what we should do is protect our country, not spend our treasure and the lives of our sons and daughters for objectives of corporations. If you want to protect America and destroy the current terrorist network, then this is not the way to go about it.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
What really caused 9/11? Bureaucracy! We had all the pieces to the puzzle before it happened, but no communication between the different intelligence agencies. So the same people who thought Iraq was a great idea also thought that more bureaucracy, under the name Homeland Security was one too. Come on Ron Paul is the only person running who is smart enough to make this country really safer. The real idiot is Cheney not Paul.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
I'm witholding my opinion on 911. I am quite certain that the truth of the matter is yet to be told. The official story just does not pass "the smell test."
Chenny is no idiot. He is a clever, self-serving, autocratic. A very dangerous and corrupt man. Ron Paul is an idealist. He often speaks unpopular truths. Unfortunatly, that is not the road to power in this country.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
Cheney is an idiot, not in the sense that he's not an intelligent person, but rather in the sense that his beliefs about the world simply do not, in fact, work. Dick Cheney is an idiot in the same sense that Kenneth Lay was one. They are men who's lack of forsight brings ruin.
Ron Paul also has a lot of pragmatic qualities. He's not a pie in the sky guy at all.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
I agree it doesn't pass "the smell test" and in time maybe more facts will come to light. But certainly we know that our intelligence services did have information that could have prevented it, if it weren't for bureaucratic incompetence and that the first Gulf War became a major rallying point for Osama Bin Laden....
TexasRounder 4 years ago
What ever the real truth is, I don't believe it was an outright fraud perpetrated on us by the same people who aren't even competent enough to win in Iraq. Although, there are other trains of thought that suggests they don't really want to.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
Leaders of jihadist organizations have publically indicated that our talks of "redeployment" to them reflects our defeat. "Victory in Iraq will be a major stepping stone in the struggle (against the west) and proof that our resistence works." They'll keep fighting us even harder if we show weakness by leaving Iraq in the face of terror.
eldorama 4 years ago
You should learn more about the "enemy". That is a nice bit of rationalization and I can see why you might be scared that it could happen-- I mean it should plausible enough if you don't really understand the culture or what we're up against. But it is just not true in reality.
So you'd stay in Iraq until we're bankrupt and broken? That way they could just follow us home and finish off of. That's a magnificent strategy!
TexasRounder 4 years ago
Your inference that I'd stay until bankrupt is off the mark. I said "victory" and "winning." Obviously if we just stay there and not adjust to the reality of our resources, then that would lead us to defeat. And you do excuse their actions by blaming the US and not the terrorists. Strategy is one thing, but taking a position that inevitably leads to defeat is entirely something else.
eldorama 4 years ago
I don't think that we "know" anything. The spin is now that it was a failure of intelligence. That takes the heat of the decision makers. Those decision makers have a proven record of distorting the message. This is a "wait and see" thing but a good rule of thumb when looking for suspects is to look first to those who have the most to gain.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
Osama exploited every opportunity he could to gain for himself. Whatever reason issued in his "fatwa" doesn't excuse his actions. Bin Laden is a terrorist and there are networks all over the world. It's absurd to think that our withdrawel would be of any help. In fact, they use our retreat (like that of Somalia in the 90's) for a rallying cry more than anything.
eldorama 4 years ago
I never even came close to suggesting that it could excuse his actions.
The thing is you don't know very much about networks. In physics our understanding of the behavior of networks has risen by a factor of ten, easily, in the 3 decades. You defeat a terrorist network the same way you kill a cell (chemical network) or take out the internet because networks all behave the same way, and by analogy invading Iraq was not it.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
Also, invasion of Iraq was not about simply disrupting a terror network. It was about bringing down an evil dictator (yes, believe it or not, Saddam was evil). It's unthinkable to leave a tyrant like that in control of all Iraq's oil in a post-9/11 world.
eldorama 4 years ago
I am an American. Both of my parents were career military officers. You do not have a monopoly on patriotism. I am not blaming America, I am blaming the dishonest neo-con leadership that has lied and cheated its way into power in this country and into this war in the Persian Gulf.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
Al Qaeda knows that by bombing Shiite holy sites, like they did today, enflames the Shiites to retaliate against innocent Sunnis. Hence, the "civil war" you see. Al Qaeda is the one perpetuating the violence, American presence is trying to quell the violence. WWII wasn't "school football" either, but, wouldn't you root for the allies to win that war or blame America for pissing of the japanese leading to Pearl Habor?
eldorama 4 years ago
Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia are the core of fundimentalist Islam. That is where they should be dealt with. We correctly went to Afghanistan, we should have gone from there to Pakistan and taken control of the only Islamic Atom Bomb. The Islamic Atom Bomb is in Pakistan right now not Iran in ten years. Instead we pulled our forces to Iraq to consolidate oil-interests. We are breeding terrorists by our occupation of Iraq. Only Al Queida and the neo-cons benefit from that.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
fascism - a governmental system led by a dictator (like Saddam) having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism (like terrorism). America did none of thsoe things. You are quick to infer that I want to go to war with Iran. I don't want that to happen but won't rule it out.
eldorama 4 years ago
War against Iran would have made a lot more sense than the overthrow and occupation of Iraq-- I was deployed at the start of that campaign btw. Of course, we can no longer entertain the idea of war with Iran because we have crippled our military capability over Iraq. What would have made the most sense is if we had just done Afghanistan correctly and really rebuilt that country. We would have been heros to the rest of world instead of pariah we are today.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
Damn, there is no reason for me to post anything more on this thread - Texas Rounder is right on the money. So, I'll see you all on the next hot issue. -- so long.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
The conflict between the Islamic factions is greater than the conflict with their external enemies. It is not a matter of "innocent Sunnis" vs. evil Shites. Remneber it was all Sunni's on the 911 airplanes and Saddam was a Sunni. Why do you want to "root" for somebody? I want a rational policy aimed at what is best for America. I do not believe that conducting eternal resource wars is the best thing for us to do.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
I never labeled shiites as evil. You keep making false assumptions. I want to root for the free world because it's better than leaving terrorists to do what they want. Wouldn't you? Islamic fascists are the enemy, not a particular religious faction. do you suggest we negotiate with the terrorists?
eldorama 4 years ago
The reality is, Pakistan would have been an even bigger mess and Saddam would still be left standing financing our enemies with his oil money. Leaving him standing would prevent the free world from accomplishing much in the long run. He had to go. Deposing him was the absolutely right thing to do. The way it was done is an entirely different story.
eldorama 4 years ago
In other words, Colin Powell should have been President. Not Bush. Rumsfeld had good ideas but Powell had better ones and we should have listened to Powell. The problem is, there is no way to go back and change that. We need to find a solution short of retreating in the face of terrorism. Showing weakness will severely jeapordize our security in the long term.
eldorama 4 years ago
That's the mantra, but it is far from the truth. Bush would have been ok if he hadn't been sucked into the neo-con plot of Chenney, Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, Perle, et al. Those guys are just evil. Even worce they are incompetent.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
Those are not my words, nor are they my positions. Here's my response: (1) Powell did not have the courage to publicly oppose the Iraq invasion and in fact he supported it in his speech at the U.N.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
2) Rumsfield has been lying about external threats to the U.S. since his days with Reagan. He is a dyed in the wool neo-con. The neo-cons were looking for any excuse to put Iraqi oil under the control of the American oil interests.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
(3)The political climate after 911 gave the neo-cons a canvas and they painted a picture of lies on that canvas (WMD. Saddam-911 connection, yellow-cake deal with Niger)to justify the invasion. those lies are all exposed so the justification rationale has shifted. It is still a fabric of lies.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
What justifies the invasion of Iraq is that we live in post-9/11 times and Saddam's history of invading Kuwait, attacking Israel, and threatening Saudi Arabia coupled with is repeated violations of the cease fire agreement gave absolute validity to the invasion. We were "at war" during persian gulf, Saddam agreed to cease fire, he violated it, so we finished what should have been done during persian gulf
eldorama 4 years ago
I hate oil and we need a "manhattan project" or a "man on the moon" type government sponsored project that provides new technologies for alternative and efficient forms of energy. Incase you can't tell, I'm supporting Rudy for President. And the energy project I just described is exactly what Rudy wants to do as President.
eldorama 4 years ago
You are a very unusual "pro Iraqi war" individual indeed. I absolutley agree that we must move out of the Oil Age, though I think that Al Gore is by far the best qualified guy to move us in that direction.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
I'm not all that unusual when you look at Giuliani on those issues. He believes in evolution and he is pro-choice. Not to mention he's ahead in most polls. As far as Al Gore, hell to the no. Even though during the 90's he said a lot of the same things Bush said about Iraq.
eldorama 4 years ago
If the invasion of Kuwait was justification then Bush I should have pressed on to Baghdad. It wasn't and he didn't. Using "post 911 times" as justification is so broad that I guess we could invade Canada - there's some muslims up there I'm sure. What attacks on Israel are you talking about. And what threats to Saudi Arabia, other than merely being next door?
Secularprophet 4 years ago
After Saddam invaded Kuwait, he verbally threatened Saudi Arabia because we supported them, he launched missles into Israel during the war, and knowing how vulnerable we are (as 9/11 proved) we couldn't let Saddam with his record go ignored. Something had to be done and diplomacy clearly wasn't working.
eldorama 4 years ago
your number "2" about rumsfeld are all assumptions that can't be proven. I look at it as taking oil out of the hands of thugs and terrorists and making it available to the world market.
eldorama 4 years ago
No assumptions. All fact. Rumsfield was making speeches about a Soviet military build-up that the CIA flatly contradicted. For a video with some of those clips look at "the Power of Nightmare" its on Google video.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
ok buddy. I don't need to watch that "the power of nightmare" diatribe. Before I watched it, it said, "just like nightmares, the threat of terror networks aren't real." You can spin it however you like. But the reality is, terror networks do exist and the Soviets were building their military to expand. If you don't believe that, then like the democrats, you're in denial.
eldorama 4 years ago
Powell was secretary of state who serves on behalf of the President. If every cabinet member just did what they believed was right, we'd have a messy gov. He DID voice his opinion but the Rumsfeld approach was accepted over Powells.
eldorama 4 years ago
Voiced it to who? He gave a speech at the United Nations where he voiced the administration's position to the world.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
Powell voiced it to the UN on behalf of the administration. The President decides on what direction it goes. If powell had a serious problem he'd have resigned. Their opinions clearly matter but you can't have multiple voices speaking for one administration.
eldorama 4 years ago
and if, as you say, this is all about oil, then support Rudy and his goal (among many) to get off of oil. Why believe him? Because he's the only guy I kno in politics who said what he was gonna do and actually did it...
eldorama 4 years ago
Rudolf W. Giuliani is the only man in politics who accomplished what he had primised...
eldorama 4 years ago
Obviously you're not a New Yorker. Rudy is a scumbag son of a petty career criminal. He cost lives on 9/11 and he would fuck this country up good, in fact he could finish us. How come his own fire deparatment (NYFD) has nothing but contempt for him-- kinda like his ex wives. Like I said scumbag, end of story.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
You make false assumptions about Rudy. the UNION of fire fighters don't like him simply because Rudy is tough on unions (that's a good thing). Unions are run by real scumbag criminals like the mafia which, by the way, Rudy prosecuted many in the mafia.
eldorama 4 years ago
You obviously have little faith in humanity if you really think that gassing people would lead us to victory. The terrorists are the ones exaserbating the problem and lately, believe it or not, sunni and shiite tribes have allied with the US in Iraq to fight the AlQaeda terrorist affiliates. Lets hope that trend continues.
eldorama 4 years ago
Quite frankly you are just proving yourself to be stupid. You obviously have zero understanding of the situation which must mean you enjoy talking out of your ass. Who are the terrorist? They are the Iraqis! And if you don't except that so be it, but you have a lot of opinions for someone who so ignorant. Quite frankly its people like you who have damn near ruined this country.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
Quite frankly,you are uninformed. Iraqis are not the terrorist,,or they weren't before Junior and his bunch decided to create even more "terrorist".
sanannmay 4 years ago
Here's a suggestion try reading all of the comments and putting them in context before adding your own non sequiturs. Obviously, in context, it clear that what I am saying is when we speak of "terrorists" in Iraq we are talking about the "Iraqi" people themselves, not that the people are terrorists. So who's uninformed now, biatch. Sorry I just succumbed to level of opinions being expressed here. It just overwhelmed me...
TexasRounder 4 years ago
But really in case you're stupid let me make this point as clear as can in another 500 characters. I am suggesting that when people talk about the terrorists in Iraq they are talking about the people, themselves. You know the ones we are suppose to be there to "help". So when I say the Iraqis are I am making an ironic point. Irony it's a wonderful thing you should look it up....
TexasRounder 4 years ago
Of course that was lost on eldorama because he believes that the sunnis and shiite who are "allied" with the US to fight the Al Qaeda presence aren't the same people planting roadside bombs themselves at the exact same time, he doens't even begin to understand the complexity of mideast tribal politics. These people aren't terrorists though they are insurgents responding to a foreign occupation of their land. Of course it is very convenient to lump them together with Al Qaeda...
TexasRounder 4 years ago
So you have sunnis playing the Americans against Al Qaeda and the Shiite's, while the Shiite's are playing America back against the Sunnis and Al Qaeda. But you've also got the Sunni's playing Al Qaeda against the Shitte's and the Shiite's playing Iran against everyone else, and I haven't even started talking about the Kurds yet. While of course the Americans just think there are the good guys (us) and the bad guys (terrorists). So who's uninformed again, Biatch!!!!
TexasRounder 4 years ago
TexasRounder, you speak as if you are familiar with tribal politics. I never said I was. But when you have terrorists killing themselves or planting bombs to kill other innocent people, that makes them terrorists. when you have tribal leaders calling on the US to help them fight Al Qaeda (which is happening incase you ever watch the news) is something different. Having such little faith in humanity feels good doesn't it?
eldorama 4 years ago
Rudy's dad was in the mafia. You are a fucking idiot. I am just saying. It's true I've lost my patience and there is no reasoning with people like you. It is not that we have different opinions, its that use are so ill-informed and so destructive...
TexasRounder 4 years ago
I should clarify that his father was a predatory criminal who was associated with the mafia while there were extended family members who were more regularly involved. Personally I think Rudy Guilaini is a sociopath himself. But even if he's not he still obviously a sleazy self serving lawyer type. The kind of guy who sought mafia convictions for his personal political advancement.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
TexasRounder, you proved that you can't debate with the obvious because of your incessant name calling. You're proving yourself to be a ranting foul mouth. How intelligent to just call people fucking idiots without anything to support your false assumptions. Go ahead and vote for Ron Paul or the Democrats or whatever defeatist you want running the white house. There's no reasoning with hot heads like yourself. You can't back up your claims so you spew the vitriol like most SPs.
eldorama 4 years ago
Ignore this fool Tex. He is a chicken-shit chicken-hawk.
m007burns 4 years ago
I see that you've studied the cocksucker.
I'd rather have a sister in a whorehouse
than a whoppy president named Ghouliani.
all niggahs like chicken and watermelon.
Dago politicians lie and steal. If you don't
believe me, ask Bernie Kerik. No, I am not at
all predjudiced. I just hate lying politicians
and black political turncoats.
LongIslandEddie 4 years ago
Eddie has had too many long islands. Instead of vilifying those persons truly responsible, you attack this guy? And your bigot. Why hasn't our country turn the corner yet, because people like you were born.
19770326 4 years ago
Better a bigot than a smallot.
If Powell was a loyal to his country he would not
have whored himself for Bush, the megalomaniac.
I like Snoop Dawg and he's black (and proud). As
Bush said, "If you are not with us, you are against us".
Powell is NOT with US.
Besides, as a 30 year old, you only know half
of the story and a tenth of the truth.
LongIslandEddie 4 years ago
You are not ignorant. You have just been played very well by a president that preys on Americans who dont think about complexities. He wants to give you simple empty phrases that doent go into depth about his real intentions. If everyone was against us and that number is growing, we would b annihilated.
19770326 4 years ago
promised...
eldorama 4 years ago
Keep in mind that putting Rudy in will put more Republicans in as well. Their ties to the status quo, and Rudy's political debts to them will certainly overpower any radical shifts away from that status quo. Simply put, the Republicans are owned by big business and there's little Rudy could do to change that.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
To me Rudy is like Sgt. Schultz in Hogan's Heros. No matter what he is personally, he is part of a machine that has been captured by ideologues. That team has actively undermined the very fabric of this country. Putting Rudy in keeps that team in power and will keep America walking down the wrong road.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
I agree that if Powell had a serious problem he should have resigned, and that you cannot have multiple voices in the administration. Powell was on the team that lied us into Iraq and he must be accountable for that.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
It is Saudi Arabia that funds the terrorists, not Iraq. Iraq under Saddam was no friend of Al Quieda. He was a thug, but the U.S. supported him for years. We didn't say a word when he gassed the Kurds as you recall.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
bs. We DID say something about it but we couldn't do anything because it "wasn't our problem"
eldorama 4 years ago
I've met quite a few Kurds and think they are great people. But we have to understand what gassing the Kurds meant in Iraqi terms. This represented within Iraq a rival tribal group vying for power. If we really wanted to win in "Iraq" we'd have to start gassing people too. There is simply no way to keep the various tribal struggles in check to have sovereign Iraq with out this order of violence....
TexasRounder 4 years ago
Hussein might have been a monster, but he was also a pragmatic leader. The problem only monsters are willing to do what is necessary to keep something Iraq together.
This btw is one reason we can't win in Iraq, we are not prepared to play by mideast rules and commit the kind of atrocities that Israel or Syria does, or that Hussein did. This is a country that has been ruled by brutal foreigner occupation since the 1257 Mongol conquest. We're pansies compared to the rest.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
They don't want "democracy" they want, by and large. security which we are unwilling to provide them because it would mean things like leveling whole towns, just burying the people alive. Anyway it is too late for all that the Iraqis that matter have already fled are refugees. The is situation is lost. Pull out and let the U.N. try to contain the damage like SP suggests.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
And if I sound somewhat like I am contradicting myself. It is because it is a very complex situations with many layers. You have the mideast and general tribal and religious complications then you have this part of the mideast aka "Iraq" with it own history like I said which has been under the strong hand of someone since 1257. The bottom line is we can't win and trying to do so just spins our wheels or worse while the terror networks grow stronger.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
If they don't want "democracy" then why was their voter turnout larger than the US 2004 election? The reality is that the terrorists are trying to make more people think like you. They want us out and they taunt us by saying "come and get it." The Iraqis need to step up but it's America's rold to ensure that the next ruler of Iraq is not a sponsor of terror.
eldorama 4 years ago
Because they want security you dumb fuck. You really need everything explained to you like you were a child. I do realize you are a child, mentally. Your comments testify to the fantasy world you live in. Nevertheless, its obnoxious.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
TexasRounder, you are a defeatist. Plain and simple. You're so quick to trust the UN in solving this problem? If you want to see pansies, just look at the United Nations.
eldorama 4 years ago
And you my friend have very poor reading comprehension. I while back your complaining how SP was putting words in your mouth, but turn around and do the same thing. I am not quick to trust anybody, but that is a reasonable plan. The operational part of which is the term reasonable. Something I take is foreign to you because you haven't really proven yourself to be well reasoned yet.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
Simple that is a good description of you. I am through with you and this conversation. Go vote for Rudy-- who the firefighters hate not because he's against unions but that his cheap ass killed a bunch of them-- you fucking American hating piece of shit. In the end you are going to get the country you deserve and it will be a crying shame. The last of the great human dreams, gone.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
Saddam Hussein never wanted anything but to stay in power and keep Iraq together. We always had all the control in the world of that situation.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
Yea, Saddam wanted Iraq together under himself. He was an evil dictator bent on dominating the middle east. that was apperent in his fight against Iran and Kuwait. We allied with Saddam at the time of Iran/Iraq war because he didn't have the history he has now and he was secularist. We are paying for that mistake now particularly because we sold him chemical weapons.
eldorama 4 years ago
Sadam would never have had a problem with Iran or Kuwait if Daddy Bush and his crew had not instigated it,provided him with WMD, and to top it off, promised him he could take Kuwait,after Iran,then turned on him. That is why Sadam had a hit out for daddy bush and wala! There we are,,There is just HERE,but with a T. Love Robin....
sanannmay 4 years ago
How about this: The U.S. declares a victory and goes home and the U.N. puts in a peace keeping force.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
it seems obvious and i totally agree with you but you know they'd find something wrong with that...they'd find a way for your idea to look wrong or stupid or say it wouldn't work or some other bullshit excuse.
LadyScorpio84 4 years ago
Although I agree that it is the obvious solution, I haven't heard a single Democrat table this idea. That troubles me.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
You need to wake up fundamentalism is the enemy. It flew planes into our buildings on 9/11 and then preceded to further shred the Constitution of our country. In one case it was the Jihadists and the other Neo-cons. This country was founded on the principles of the Enlightenment and it's belief in rationalism. Fundamentalism is the enemy of rationalism whether it is Islamic, Christian or a secular political ideology.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
You hit it on the button.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
You are too quick to buy the propaganda and its labels. Fascism is a marriage of military, religious, and industrial powers. That label fits the neo-cons better than it does the Jihadists. This conflict is not good guys vs. bad guys and it ain't High School football. Listen to what Ron Paul has said about the roots of the hostilities. Everyday we are in Iraq Americans get killed. How many more of our soldiers must die?
Secularprophet 4 years ago
Let Iran have nuclear weapon and hand it over to terrorists. Iraq is not Vietnam because the vienamese did not persue us after we left. The terrorists WILL follow us home. Like I said, Iraq isn't the only place at war. The philipines, Lebanon, Somalia, the list goes on. Iraq is the center because of it's vast oil wealth and the emergence of a power vacuum.
eldorama 4 years ago
It is Iraq that we are at war with at present, not Iran. You are too eager for the next war. Yu are wrong about the core of the problem. It is not Iraq.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
You obviously don't understand the fragile democracy in Pakistan right now. If we invaded Pakistan, Musharif would be overthrown and the islamin nukes would be in the hands of terrorists. If we really wanted to consolidate oil wealth, why not invade and overthrow the Saud? You are buying into the jihadist propoganda.
eldorama 4 years ago
Because the Saud tribe that rules Saudi Arabia are our close "friends" (they are certainly close friends to the Bush family), have you forgotten already how quickly we dumped our other friend Saddam Hussein when he looked he was becoming a threat to the Saudis? Or do you not really understand what the first Gulf War was actually about?
TexasRounder 4 years ago
This whole situation where Saddam Hussein was our enemy never really had to be in the first place. He helped check Iran, and he provided stability to the region. Kuwait was a mistake, and he obviously recognized that because was willing to withdraw 24 hours after invading. The guy had his own problems with fundamentalist Islamic terrorists. Both the Bush's have really fucked us good...
TexasRounder 4 years ago
The first Gulf War wasn't the great American triumph our jingoistic fervor required of us to believe. It was actually a horrific blunder that played its own significant role leading up to 9/11 and the mess we are in right now. More stupidity obviously isn't the solution.
TexasRounder 4 years ago
There's a pretty good case to be made that Saddam was suckered into invading Kuwait by assurances that the U.S. would not intervene.
Secularprophet 4 years ago
Why would Saddam invade Kuwait anyway and why would he expect the US to just turn a blind eye? The notion that we "suckered" Saddam into invading is preposterous. It does not excuse his actions and the reality is, if we don't win, we lose. The problem with the Democrats (and Ron Paul) is that they never mention "victory" or "winning" but the quickest way to ensure defeat.
eldorama 4 years ago
It was fun Secularprophet, you're a good guy despite how wrong you are.
eldorama 4 years ago
Saddam invaded Kuwait and Bush isn't the only "friend" of the Sauds. Clinton, Carter, Reagan, pretty much any Presidnet was chummy with the Sauds so don't be too sure this is all a Bush/oil conspiracy.
eldorama 4 years ago
Voice of reason
tnbookgal 5 years ago