Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Colin Powell To Step Down As Secretry of State

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 6
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
  • #46
    "I was against going to the U.N. myself, as our goals (removal of Saddam's regime) were never going to get approved in a way that would keep casualties to a minimum."

    Probably, but with a little skill and patience Saddam would have most likely presented his head to the US on a silver plate.

    "Powell misread the situation, and increased the acrimony considerably by in effect causing a sham hearing."

    The curse of the bad deed.

    "This was war."

    Uhm... and?
    “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

    Comment

    • #47
      Originally posted by Spiffor

      IIUC, Powell opposed the neocon's wet dream in Iraq and pushed for the UN episode. In the end, as the neocons were getting impatient, they decided to attack no matter what and gave some time for Powell to give excuses to the UN in order to get its agreement.
      The gunghoness of the US, incarnated by Dubya's speeches and fueled by the Wolfowitzes, is the source of the immense resentment towards the US right now. Basically, Bush and Wolfy gave the whole world the finger, and asked Powell to justify it in front of the world.
      To give a little credit to Bush and Wolfie, they never intended on asking permission in the first place. That was to a large extent Powell's doing. He misread the situation and had to face the music.

      Some think that Powell was actually trying to sabotage the whole operation. A lot of people think that he tried his best to sabotage the first gulf war as well, by making very heavy demands for forces. Bush Sr. gave him everything he wanted, and he had no choice but to go forward with it. I'm not sure what the truth is here, but there are quite a few power players from Bush Sr.'s administration who believe this.

      Originally posted by Spiffor

      Newsflash: the resentment towards the US is a popular sentiment which focuses on the individual of George W Bush. Foreigners care very little of Powell and what he can say. In these circumstances, it is hard to imagine how Powell could win the hearts of foreign people as he's never displayed on foreign TV when he tries to correct some W's blunder.
      The only time Powell really went to the spotlight (except during his WW1 days) was when he presented his unconvincing "evidence" to the UN. This farce sure didn't help the credibility of the US, but again, I don't think anybody could have done a solid presentation from this mere tape and these outdated pictures.
      Newsflash: The hatred of Bush in Europe started almost the second he took office (or more likely the second that Bush's strategic vision, the reduction of the importance of Europe in American foreign policy became known), and was in large part the product of an orchestrated campaign by several governments for reasons of their own. The fact that a lot of Europeans disliked Bush for their own reasons was as much a happy coincidence as a sign that government was responsive to the wishes of its people.

      Originally posted by Spiffor
      If the Bushies weren't looking so eagerly for international hatred, and if Powell had more control over what he did, maybe he'd have room to express his talent or lack thereof. But in the Iraqi war and the following worsened relations with other countries, I highly doubt he had any real power of changing things.
      Powell was unfortunate in that he was never an important part of the policy formulation team. But he took the job, and certainly isn't the first Secretary of State to be tasked with being more or less a Foreign Press Secratary. I feel for him, but I can't say that he's really done the job all that well. Perhaps history will vindicate him and I'll eat my words, but with the information available to me today I think he's done rather poorly.
      He's got the Midas touch.
      But he touched it too much!
      Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!

      Comment

      • #48
        Originally posted by Sikander

        Newsflash: The hatred of Bush in Europe started almost the second he took office (or more likely the second that Bush's strategic vision, the reduction of the importance of Europe in American foreign policy became known), and was in large part the product of an orchestrated campaign by several governments for reasons of their own. The fact that a lot of Europeans disliked Bush for their own reasons was as much a happy coincidence as a sign that government was responsive to the wishes of its people.
        The "reduction of the importance of Europe in American foreign policy" is mostly a problem for Blair, not for the french or germans, I'd say it would have been quite welcome by the french. That has little if anything to do with it. At first he was mostly seen as a ridiculous figure, enforced by the Florida election farce.

        Also I'm not aware of any "orchestrated campaign". Who orchestrated what?
        “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

        Comment

        • #49
          Arguably there has never been a Secretary of State who has managed to preside over such a loss of international prestige as Colin Powell.

          Absolutely agree.

          Once the Taliban were gone, was there anyone in the world easier to build a coalition against than Saddam Hussein? C'mon, even bin Laden didn't like him!

          Yet, despite that, the US managed to end up going it alone, against popular world opinion! Now that's a world-class diplomatic f*ck-up.
          Official Homepage of the HiRes Graphics Patch for Civ2

          Comment

          • #50
            Powell is an admitted pacifist. The comments above on Guld War I are very true. Powell argued against that war as he argued against GW II. A competent Sec Of State should be neithier pacifist or hawkish. He/She should be pragmatic and visionary. Powell has never demonstrated an ability to put forth a long range vision of foriegn policy. You may not like Bush's vision, but at least he has one. Without this vision, it is impossible for any SoS to gain world opinion backing. People can determine what Powell is against, but no one knows what he is for. He is an amiable bureaucrat with the ability to lead, but not inspire.

            Someone floated the name of Fred Thompson. I think he would be an excellent choice for SoS. Every project he managed in the Senate got fairly broad (for this day and age) bi-partisan support. He is a real leader and would have the ability to inspire confidence in our government from foriegn leaders. Something that is badly needed at State.
            "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." - Hillary Clinton, 2003

            Comment

            • #51
              Powell remains very popular poltiically at home, and that is what Bush needs most. Nobody knows who the hell Wolfie is realy (the electorate), and given his foot in mouth disease, it would be easy for dems. to deep six him.

              This will lose Bush votes come 2004..always a good thing.
              If you don't like reality, change it! me
              "Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
              "it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
              "Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw

              Comment

              • #52
                To give a little credit to Bush and Wolfie, they never intended on asking permission in the first place. That was to a large extent Powell's doing. He misread the situation and had to face the music.
                I think it was mostly Blair's misreading of the French on this one. Sure, Powell might have been an enabler, but Bush felt obliged to follow Blair's lead on the UN.

                Cheney, Rumsfeld and the neocons have their share of blame on this as well. Even though they didn't want to do it, they should have fallen in line better behind Powell once Bush made the decision to follow Blair in the UN route. They were moping fairly openly. Bad form, at least.

                Once the Taliban were gone, was there anyone in the world easier to build a coalition against than Saddam Hussein?
                Actually, I think it was pretty tough. Clinton and Blair tried and failed to do it in '98, with the dissenters being the same culprits (except Germany was new to the list this time).

                That's why I'm very forgiving of Bush's team. I don't buy for a moment that Bush has much impact on anti-Americanism. It's as if he's being told to answer for all of the history up to this time. Rather, I think this anti-Americanism is built into the cake of how our world works right now, especially considering the things that are important to the American electorate as opposed to Europe's electorate. It has been that way for a decade.
                I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                Comment

                • #53
                  i feel sorry for powell. rumsfeld seems to have all but taken over the important parts of his job.
                  B♭3

                  Comment

                  • #54
                    "Clinton and Blair tried and failed to do it in '98"

                    Failed at what?

                    "I think this anti-Americanism is built into the cake"

                    Disagreement is not anti-american. But yes, I think it's hopeless.
                    “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

                    Comment

                    • #55
                      Failed at what?
                      Building a coalition to oust Hussein. When Clinton and Blair couldn't build the coalition, we rather pointlessly bombed the country for four days. Don't you remember??!!

                      Disagreement is not anti-whatever.
                      While true, there's a divergence of views on some issues that antagonize Europe. For Europe, these include climate change, war crimes tribunal, military posture, missile defense, and the death penalty. It doesn't matter whether Bush or somebody else is in office. We would have had similar policies on these issues, because that's where the electorate is. Europe would have felt antagonized eventually, one way or another.
                      I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                      Comment

                      • #56
                        "Building a coalition to oust Hussein."

                        You really think Clinton wanted that?

                        "While true, there's a divergence of views on some issues that antagonize Europe."

                        And you are not antagonized about them? It takes two to tango.

                        "It doesn't matter whether Bush or somebody else is in office."

                        It does matter because his extremism and arrogance make the perfect lightning rod.
                        “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

                        Comment

                        • #57
                          You really think Clinton wanted that?
                          Yes. He and several people in his government have subsequently said that's what they wanted.

                          And you are not antagonized about them? It takes two to tango.
                          Not really. There's probably more anti-German feeling in the UK than in the US, for instance. Generally, Americans don't care much or think much about Europe.

                          It does matter because his arrogance makes the perfect lightning rod.
                          You say that he is arrogant because of issues, x, y, and z. I'm obliged to inform you that any other American president would have given you the same, as pointed out above.
                          I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                          Comment

                          • #58
                            "Yes. He and several people in his government have subsequently said that's what they wanted."

                            Hey, what happened to the Rep line that the Clintonites always lie?

                            "Not really. There's probably more anti-German feeling in the UK than in the US, for instance. Generally, Americans don't care much or think much about Europe."

                            Seeing the anti-french hysteria in certain media, I doubt that.

                            "You say that he is arrogant because of issues, x, y, and z."

                            No that's a matter of style.

                            "I'm obliged to inform you that any other American president would have given you the same, as pointed out above."

                            Depends.

                            war crimes tribunal - don't think so
                            military posture - depends further on the issue
                            missile defense - rightwing pet ptoject
                            death penalty - yes

                            But who cares, let's just get rid of each other.
                            “Now we declare… that the law-making power or the first and real effective source of law is the people or the body of citizens or the prevailing part of the people according to its election or its will expressed in general convention by vote, commanding or deciding that something be done or omitted in regard to human civil acts under penalty or temporal punishment….” (Marsilius of Padua, „Defensor Pacis“, AD 1324)

                            Comment

                            • #59
                              Originally posted by DanS
                              You say that he is arrogant because of issues, x, y, and z. I'm obliged to inform you that any other American president would have given you the same, as pointed out above.
                              Now that is the Question.
                              Would have another President shown the same Unilateralism, concerning the Points you mentioned above?

                              It can´t be proven, as it was Bush, who was declared the winner of the election.
                              But I doubt so. I think another President might have been more open to compromises in some of those points especially Environment, World Court and Missile Defence )
                              Tamsin (Lost Girl): "I am the Harbinger of Death. I arrive on winds of blessed air. Air that you no longer deserve."
                              Tamsin (Lost Girl): "He has fallen in battle and I must take him to the Einherjar in Valhalla"

                              Comment

                              • #60
                                war crimes tribunal - don't think so
                                It would never have been ratified. It was a Clinton specialty of signing it, knowing full well it would never be ratified by Senate.

                                military posture - depends further on the issue
                                There was broad support in the States for modest increases in defense spending (to 3.5% - 4% of GDP). Europe has little stomach for any defense spending.

                                missile defense - rightwing pet ptoject
                                Which is why it was strongly supported by Clinton?
                                I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 template Next
                                Working...
                                X