(Hi I am new here )
I was just wondering if I was the only one here that had the idea that Colin Powell might know what he is doing? (he has dealt with saddam hussein before) I'm not saying that if Powell says we need to nuke Iraq that we should just take his word for it, but it is in my opinion that when he raises his eyebrow over a topic he actual has first hand experience with, well maybe we should consider a closer look at what he is becoming concerned with. After all (as far as I know) we are all just "talking from the sidelines"

What exactly is it you want to debate?

I think he knows what he's doing. He tried to find a peaceful diplomatic solution to a potential problem. Unfortunately, he couldn't pull it off with a deadline.

PBS had a very interesting program called "Frontline" on tonight, and it helped change my perspective on him. Four days after 9/11, Rumsfield and Wolfowitz were using the terrorist attacks to go after Iraq. Powell and Shelton resisted. They said it was a very bad idea and nobody in the world would go along with it.

Shelton quit, but Powell persisted. He knew he could get a coalition to kick the Taliban's butt. He narrowly won the vote to take care of Afghanistan instead of Iraq.

Rumsfield abstained. Go figger...

Rumsfeld & Powell have always had a disagreement with each other...maybe because they are opposites in jobs: Rumsfeld:war Powell: Peace

I think Powell should be in the war-planning with whoever else is in it because he has experience

They should also bring back schwartzcof(?) since he knows the land

Powell I can understand and even respect. His measured responses and total conviction convey an understanding I don't see in any of his associates. Bush, Cheney, Wolfovitz and Rumsfeld all seem like total incompetants by comparison.

I'm informed that Powell actually turned down the offer to run for president in deference to his wife who did not wish to be first lady. If this is inded true, then Mrs Powell may have done the world a great diservice.

How do you folks even know what we're supposed to debate? Jester's question is vague, at best.

Debaters intuition?

Yeah, I think powell knows what he is doing. I have always admired him. I think the whitehouse is a better place, because of his first hand experience.

Too bad about the presidency. I would have voted for him.

--cheers

Jaime



Jester wrote;



I presumed Colin Powells expertise/ credibility was the question...

So, what? Are we supposed to speculate? Good debates should involve the use of support. How can we find articles to support our opinions on such a vague question?

12 hours to clarify this or I close it.

The problem is, is Rumsfield and Wolfiwitz wanted to go to war with Iraq 4 days after 9/11. They didn't care about the Taliban or Afghanistan. They found a reason to go after Saddam. Shelton and Powell didn't disagree with anybody on the war...it was the course of it. They knew it was a big mistake to use this as an excuse to go after Saddam and could never get world support for it. That was 2 years ago. Seems like only yesterday since I've heard this...

Not everyone is as articulate as we would wish.

Whats the harm in speculation.... who knows where this thread might lead.

************



Gotta link?

--cheers

Not to mention the conservatives in general have planned thier domestic politics to coincide with this war in Irag and this "War on Terror" (which, i might mention, is total stupidity to even link the two, because no ties have been found between Alqaeda and Iraq)...

What about the whole "don't switch horses" quote they keep throwin around? I think this war is partly only an atempt to help george bush jr. in the next presidential elections. Does anyone even remember that he was not popularly elected? Not to mention all the scandel in florida with people being turned away from the booths?

Ok - this is closed pending a PM from Jester. I have NO idea what the topic is here.

I guess I will never understand why some feel SO compelled to speak on something when they don't even know the topic.