Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Colin Powell: US Losing Iraq War  
User currently offlineKLMA330 From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 697 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 1563 times:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6188693.stm

Nothing new....

Billy.

35 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1550 times:

Ohh, I bet he doesn't get invited to Christmas Dinner at the White House this year . . .

Wonder why he's been quiet for so long about this? Powell is an honorable man, perhaps his honor and integrity didn't allow him to speak out. The same honor and integrity that caused him to resign as SecState after Bush's first term. Good man, Gen Powell.


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1547 times:

Quoting KLMA330 (Thread starter):
Nothing new....

Then why post it?  Wink

I think Powell, like ANC said, is very honorable, but I think he's still very pissed at how he was misused to, basically, feed the American people and the world a bag of lies to justify the war in Iraq.

Wonder who he might throw his support to in '08, which could sway some people?


User currently offlineAaron747 From Japan, joined Aug 2003, 8135 posts, RR: 26
Reply 3, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1525 times:

I'd love to hear the professional banter being bandied about by Cheney and co. with regard to such comments.


If you need someone to blame / throw a rock in the air / you'll hit someone guilty
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 4, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1516 times:

How would you define a Loss in this war.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineKiwiinOz From New Zealand, joined Oct 2005, 2165 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 1490 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 4):
How would you define a Loss in this war.
regds
MEL

I don't think it will ever be "lost" in the traditional sense, but I guess what most of the world now knows, including Bush himself, is that they probably won't achieve exactly what they set out to do.


User currently offlineBilgeRat From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2006, 215 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1477 times:

I think Colin Powell commands a lot of respect throughout the world. When he speaks, people should listen.

Nobody can deny the fact the military invasion of Iraq was a resounding success, Iraqi forces collapsed much faster than predicted, and the much feared large scale urban fighting for the major cities never really materialised.

I would say the US and her allies are losing the occupation. I think Iraq will probably become to the US/UK and allies what Afghanistan was to the Soviets. It's perhaps ironic that the armed insurgency in Iraq is very similar to that of the Mujahadeen sponsored by the CIA in Afghanistan 20 years ago.


User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 7, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1472 times:

Quoting KiwiinOz (Reply 5):
don't think it will ever be "lost" in the traditional sense, but I guess what most of the world now knows, including Bush himself, is that they probably won't achieve exactly what they set out to do.

Fighting an Unknown hidden & ununiformed Enemy is the toughest battles ever.
Victory can never be 100% in these cases.
regds
MEL



Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 8, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 1469 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
Powell is an honorable man

Beyond a certain point, an abundance of misplaced loyalty and a lack of balls can put that into question, however...!


User currently offlineBaroque From Australia, joined Apr 2006, 15380 posts, RR: 59
Reply 9, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 1440 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 1):
Wonder why he's been quiet for so long about this?

The charitable view was he needed time to work it all out, the less charitable one is he took time to get off the bandwagon.

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 2):
I think Powell, like ANC said, is very honorable, but I think he's still very pissed at how he was misused to, basically, feed the American people and the world a bag of lies to justify the war in Iraq.

I think more pissed now than honorable. If he used the position he still has to try to do something to rectify the mess, then he regains some honour, if not honor!

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 4):
How would you define a Loss in this war.

The usual way, if you are not winning, you are losing. In this war more than most, if you dont win, your opponents do and THAT is a loss.


User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 1401 times:

Quoting BilgeRat (Reply 6):
Nobody can deny the fact the military invasion of Iraq was a resounding success, Iraqi forces collapsed much faster than predicted, and the much feared large scale urban fighting for the major cities never really materialised.

Funny not many mentions of the lack of use of WMDs. But I will concur with your thoughts, the invasion was successful.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 9):
The charitable view was he needed time to work it all out, the less charitable one is he took time to get off the bandwagon.

I dont think he was ever really on the bandwagon, that is why you saw him leave at the first appropriate time convenient for everyone. After the 2004 election.
Baroque you and I went back and forth along with a few other members on how Iraq was down the line against most of what is known as the Powell Doctrine. If he would have been SecDef instead of State this would have gone entirely different. I am not saying he should have been SecDef, but in his position at State, he was largely handcuffed and marginalized and the general reasoning for this was his opposition to the war.


User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6581 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1390 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 10):
But I will concur with your thoughts, the invasion was successful.

Were there ever any doubts that it would be succesfull? I mean seriously. I am having a hard time counting the number of countries that would be able to fend off an invasion by the US. So the invasion itself, while technically a success its more of a "least that could have happened" scenario



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1387 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 8):
Beyond a certain point, an abundance of misplaced loyalty and a lack of balls can put that into question, however...!

Quite agree . . . . and thankfully Gen. Powell didn't allow it to get to that point.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 10):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 9):
The charitable view was he needed time to work it all out, the less charitable one is he took time to get off the bandwagon.

I dont think he was ever really on the bandwagon, that is why you saw him leave at the first appropriate time convenient for everyone. After the 2004 election.

And I think he had designs on leaving the administration before the '04 election - but as I said, his loyalty, integrity and personal honor directed that he fulfill his obligations.

Gen Powell is an honorable man, there's no question. I've met the man. I can speak first hand to that.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 13, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1376 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 12):
Quite agree . . . . and thankfully Gen. Powell didn't allow it to get to that point.

I'm not that sure about it - a person with a bit more character would have had a unique position to avert a foreseeable disaster. Staying mum to avoid conflict or inconvenience very gradually mutates into cowardice. Semi-recent german history is full of examples, but the principle doesn't just start when serving a mad dictator.

After all, loyalty is only a secondary virtue - and there are situations where you need to put in in second place.

Especially since his ultimate loyalty should have been to the american people, not to the individual president. The oaths of office explicitly bind officials to the nation, not to specific representatives.

I think he's basically a decent person, but he missed a prime opportunity to exhibit courage when it was needed the most.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1368 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
I think he's basically a decent person, but he missed a prime opportunity to exhibit courage when it was needed the most

I don't think, in the beginning, he had any more information than you or I or anyone else.

When he did begin to realize things weren't as they were supposed to be, he decided it was time to pull the plug. Once again, his loyalty to the country and the office he held prevented him from just walking out the door - that's called integrity and honor.

He put the country, the State Department and his mission before himself, as he's done the entire time he's been in public service - whether that be in Tiger Stripes in 'Nam, in DCUs in Iraq or in the Dept. of State.

I think it took a hell of a lot more courage from him to walk away at the end of the first term.


User currently offlineBushpilot From South Africa, joined Jul 2007, 0 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 1364 times:

Quoting Mt99 (Reply 11):
Were there ever any doubts that it would be succesfull? I mean seriously. I am having a hard time counting the number of countries that would be able to fend off an invasion by the US. So the invasion itself, while technically a success its more of a "least that could have happened" scenario

Well the presence of nerve gas could have made things much more difficult.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
I'm not that sure about it - a person with a bit more character would have had a unique position to avert a foreseeable disaster

Bush was going regardless, despite how inept the coaltion of the willing generally is with the exception of Britain, you would not have had any allies involved.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 13):
I think he's basically a decent person, but he missed a prime opportunity to exhibit courage when it was needed the most.

This is a tough one, but ultimately his whole adult life he was a soldier. Soldiers are given mission parameters and told to get it done despite not agreeing with it. He said many times during his time as SecState, he serves at the pleasure of the President. If he would have spoken out publicly he would have been gone immediatly. This administration has long since shown through actions that as long as you toe the company line when it comes to politcal speaking, you will remain in office despite long term ineptness.
If Powell spoke out, he would have been gone, and Bush would have found someone else to be his cronie. I would honestly hate to see where we would be without Powell. Firstly, we probably would not have seen the outcome we did with the Chinese fighter plane collision. We would not have half the allies we do on this so called war on terror. Look at what Powell was able to do in his 4 years compared to what Rice has squandered away. But the common denominator here is Bush. And he may not be a dictator in the governmental sense of having no legislature, but he is similar to one in how he deals with his cabinet. If you disagree with the plan, you are looking for work in the private sector.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 16, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1350 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 14):
I don't think, in the beginning, he had any more information than you or I or anyone else.

Which is not actually correct - outside of the USA, hardly anybody subscribed to the visibly distorted or outright manufactured "information" as presented by the White House. As it turned out, this outside view (based in large part on the results of the past and recent UN inspections and on numerous independent experts in various fields) was almost exactly correct.

Colin Powell also had severe misgivings about the "massaged" claims ("This is bullshit - I can't use this!") but decided to stick it out anyway.

The vast majority of the US population just swallowed the manufactured claims as if they were reliable information. Neither the opposition nor the press objected in any way. It was one of the purest demonstrations of the power of propaganda since WWII.

And Colin Powell never said a public word, despite apparently better knowledge to the contrary.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 14):
When he did begin to realize things weren't as they were supposed to be, he decided it was time to pull the plug.

Not at all - only after everything was too late he merely declined to ask for a second term, well knowing that he wasn't wanted any more in the first place.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 14):
I think it took a hell of a lot more courage from him to walk away at the end of the first term.

What courage? What could anybody have said that could have inconvenienced him in the slightest way that late?

Courage implies that you're taking a personal risk to promote a greater good - and at the high point of the controversy, when he knew all too well that he was promoting a case of cooking the books, he simply followed his orders anyway and never spoke up.

Only after he was already mostly mobbed out of office by his own superiors and underlings he merely didn't run again. The lowest-risk and lowest-impact decision that could be imagined under the circumstances.

I don't think he's an evil guy, but courage is something else entirely. And serving his country before serving an ideology is something else as well.

He had choices, and he didn't take them when it was the time. That will most likely be his place in history.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1338 times:

We obviously disagree on this point also Klaus. There's a surprise, eh?  wink 

I cannot subscribe to your interpretation of Gen Powell or what he thought or did . . . not any more than you can subscribe to mine.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):
The lowest-risk and lowest-impact decision that could be imagined under the circumstances.

My view is that what he did was exactly the opposite. What her did took gut, and he knew it - and anyone that knows the man knew it.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 16):
He had choices, and he didn't take them when it was the time.

He managed the choices quite well, for the good of the country, the State Dept and lastly himself . . . as he's always done.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 18, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1337 times:

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 15):
Bush was going regardless

Correction: Bush wanted to go regardless!

The point would have been to intervene in the ongoing propaganda campaign and to introduce a so far completely absent voice of reason which could not be ignored.

If the propaganda campaign would have come to a screeching halt, Bush simply couldn't have gone due to lack of public support.

Sure, the odds would not have been too great, but that is exactly what real courage is all about!

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 15):
This is a tough one, but ultimately his whole adult life he was a soldier. Soldiers are given mission parameters and told to get it done despite not agreeing with it. He said many times during his time as SecState, he serves at the pleasure of the President.

According to United States Secretary of State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, his oath of office reads:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Nothing about serving the personal ideology of the sitting president to one's last breath (we've had that in monarchies or dictatorships, but not in democracies).

We probably agree that he misunderstood the actual character of his office and its ultimate responsibilities when he put overly strong emphasis on your quote above.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 15):
I would honestly hate to see where we would be without Powell.

No big difference I could see. That is, unless your only imagined alternative would have been John Bolton!

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 15):
Firstly, we probably would not have seen the outcome we did with the Chinese fighter plane collision.

Possibly, but I have my doubts. Situations like these have pretty automatic resolution strategies - unless your preferred option is global thermonuclear war.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 15):
We would not have half the allies we do on this so called war on terror.

Absolutely not!

The fight against terrorism is in (almost) everybody's best interest, and post 9-11 there was an obvious and active interest of pretty much everybody to join in.

Bush did his worst to shoot it all to pieces afterwards, but it did not hinge on Colin Powell at all.

One severe misunderstanding many americans appear to suffer from is that the fight against terrorism was in some way a "favour" others were doing the USA when in fact it is simply a global necessity.

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 15):
Look at what Powell was able to do in his 4 years compared to what Rice has squandered away.

I don't see much of a difference, actually.

Apart from the Bush administration being so weakened nowadays that they need to tread much more carefully.


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 19, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1336 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 17):
We obviously disagree on this point also Klaus. There's a surprise, eh?

Not really, no...! Big grin

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 17):
What he did took gut, and he knew it - and anyone that knows the man knew it.

I don't see it. What actual risk did he take, pray tell?

And what impact did his declining of another term actually have when he did it?


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 1328 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 17):
What he did took gut, and he knew it - and anyone that knows the man knew it.

I don't see it. What actual risk did he take, pray tell?

We could have had Condi Rice in there mid-term #1, isn't that risk enough? If I know Powell, his public face was a lot different than his private one. He likely raised the  redflag  dozens of times in closed door Oval Office (and other) meetings concerning his thoughts on Iraq. In that light, he put himself at risk, and in that light he did exactly what you quote here:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 18):

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

Like it or not, my friend, I think you're barking up the wrong tree on Powell.

Now if you wanna slag on Rummy some more, please continue.  biggrin 

Quoting Klaus (Reply 19):
And what impact did his declining of another term actually have when he did it?

The impact is simple, he will NOT go down in history as one of the many that missed the boat . . . he tried and failed to change the course (I believe that), he was essentially fired for it (I believe that), and he is now speaking out about it (proof in the thread opener).


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 21, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1321 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
We could have had Condi Rice in there mid-term #1, isn't that risk enough?

As tempting as it is, I actually don't perceive a major change of direction since she took over the State Department. Maybe a bit more chilly in the presentation, but pretty much unchanged in substance, apart from the changes enforced by altered circumstances.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
He likely raised the  redflag  dozens of times in closed door Oval Office (and other) meetings concerning his thoughts on Iraq. In that light, he put himself at risk

When you see the iceberg ahead and you can't convince the captain to turn the ship around, you have a duty to dare circumventing the captain!

In this case, he would have had to go public - the SecState has a higher responsibility to the american people than to the ruling president - at the peril of losing his job.

He would probably have had to resign before being able to speak up, but that would have been a sign of actual courage!

Meekly submitting to his superior despite better knowledge and letting the disaster roll anyway was a lot of things, but courageous it was not!

Whether he or another one was the Secretary of State didn't make all that much of a difference, since the actual tone and direction were determined by Bush/Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld anyway and he was pretty much reduced to futilely apologizing for the respective faux pas du jour.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
Now if you wanna slag on Rummy some more, please continue.

I don't kick a man who's still got a lovely glowing boot print on his backside...!  bigthumbsup 

The only regrets I have are that:
a) he exhibited a blatant lack of tar & feathers when he was run out of office on a rail  mischievous  and
b) it didn't happen about three years earlier.  gnasher 

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 20):
The impact is simple, he will NOT go down in history as one of the many that missed the boat . . .

He caught the last, insignificant one, but clearly missed the much more dangerous crucial one a lot earlier!


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1313 times:

Quoting Klaus (Reply 21):
As tempting as it is, I actually don't perceive a major change of direction since she took over the State Department.

Hasn't been one. Why should there be?

She came from NSA to State . . . her lackey was left in her old position. Seems to me that's receipe for stagnation . . .

Quoting Klaus (Reply 21):
When you see the iceberg ahead and you can't convince the captain to turn the ship around, you have a duty to dare circumventing the captain!

And I think he did that - like I said - in closed door conference.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 21):
In this case, he would have had to go public - the SecState has a higher responsibility to the american people than to the ruling president - at the peril of losing his job.

He would probably have had to resign before being able to speak up, but that would have been a sign of actual courage!

Which would have done an injustice to the country and the State Department. Afterall, Klaus, you have a better shot at changing the course of the ship from the bridge than from a life boat.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 21):
it didn't happen about three years earlier.

{Checkmark}


User currently offlineKlaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21442 posts, RR: 53
Reply 23, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1303 times:

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 22):
Hasn't been one. Why should there be?

Could have been, just not in this administration. Which proves the point: Powell speaking up would have been much more beneficial than him continuing to serve as SecState.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 22):
And I think he did that - like I said - in closed door conference.

No, that's just politely tapping the captain on the shoulder and whispering in his ear, making sure nobody else heard a word.

Raising an alarm and trying to turn the ship is something else entirely, even if you have to be ready to face a court for insubordination afterwards.

But that is exactly what courage is all about!

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 22):
Which would have done an injustice to the country and the State Department.

No. The lives of many thousands outweigh the embarrassment and inconvenience of a few, even if you have to transgress some rules in an emergency.

Even the US armed services have a provision which limits the authority of superiors to lawful commands, which clearly allows for a limited but still necessary moral conscience on the part of the subordinate soldier.

It is my impression that Powell put a lot of emphasis on following orders and practically none on keeping an eye on the legitimacy of those orders.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 22):
Afterall, Klaus, you have a better shot at changing the course of the ship from the bridge than from a life boat.

That's why you need to actually speak up after your meek suggestions haven't been heeded in an obvious emergency situation to avert the need for manning the boats!

[Edited 2006-12-18 21:21:06]

User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21571 posts, RR: 55
Reply 24, posted (7 years 8 months 2 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 1301 times:

Quoting Bushpilot (Reply 15):
If Powell spoke out, he would have been gone, and Bush would have found someone else to be his cronie. I would honestly hate to see where we would be without Powell. Firstly, we probably would not have seen the outcome we did with the Chinese fighter plane collision. We would not have half the allies we do on this so called war on terror. Look at what Powell was able to do in his 4 years compared to what Rice has squandered away.

That's an excellent point. I really respect Powell, but always thought that he could have been a bit more vocal in his opposition to something that he had serious misgivings about. But when I look at it from that perspective, it becomes more understandable.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
25 Bushpilot : Further correction, Bush was going to war with Saddam. 9-11 allowed that to happen, by tying it together with Al-Qaeda and WMDs. Both were wrong, and
26 Mir : Colin Powell may have thought that the Iraq War was a bad idea, but there's nothing unconstitutional about it. He is not obligated by his oath of off
27 Post contains images Klaus : The entire venue wholly depended on the US-domestic propaganda campaign. Which was only near-invulnerable as long as it managed to maintain at least
28 Klaus : Preventing a major national disaster by criticizing the sitting president is pretty much exactly what the spirit of the US constitution is about, wou
29 Post contains images ANCFlyer : And once again you short sheet the man . . . . it's for this reason you lose credibility with me from time to time Klaus (not, of course that it matt
30 Klaus : When I've assumed a comparable position and fared similarly, I'll certainly be ready to face comparable criticism. You've missed my points - I've nev
31 ANCFlyer : Nope, I got 'em . . . all of 'em, I just basically disagree with most all of them. And so is my newspaper boy . . . you short sheet this man with eve
32 Allstarflyer : What if he just ran, instead? If Powell runs, or is selected as the VP alongside someone - that ticket will be the one to beat. I can't imagine Powel
33 Klaus : But you didn't address any of them. People can't be measured along a simple one-dimensional scale. It is more the rule than the exception that real p
34 Post contains images ANCFlyer : Maybe I should hook you up with Dr. Mirrodie for an eye exam? No they cannot. And Gen Powell definitely is not a one dimensional person. His professi
35 Post contains images Klaus : Is that an evil moderator threat™? No, just please point out where you actually addressed my points...! No, it does not. Having shied away from a h
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Iraq War And Current US Government Policies posted Sun Jul 20 2003 06:31:56 by Flyf15
Observer: US Dirty Tricks To Win Vote On Iraq War posted Sun Mar 2 2003 13:37:41 by Racko
Why The US Is Losing The War On Terrorism posted Mon Dec 16 2002 08:00:21 by Twaneedsnohelp
Survey On Iraq's War, Differences US/EUR posted Thu Dec 5 2002 17:34:13 by OO-AOG
New Evidence: Blair Lied About Iraq War posted Sat Dec 16 2006 22:51:34 by Joni
Great Iraq War Analogy posted Sat Dec 9 2006 23:31:24 by Yellowstone
Bush's Iraq War Tactiic Backfired..Heres Why.. posted Wed Dec 6 2006 15:03:19 by Wardialer
Iraq War To Outlast WW2 posted Sat Nov 25 2006 00:42:00 by AA787823
Iraq War Going South Fast. posted Wed Nov 1 2006 17:04:02 by ArtieFufkin
Iraq War Milestone posted Tue Oct 24 2006 15:27:37 by UALPHLCS