|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
posted July 30, 2004 10:55 PM |
|
|
Khayman -- ROFL
I DO hope that others detected your sarcasm as I did.
Consis -- Thanks for your rather comprehensive issue-spotting response to my question. Wow, you're kind-of all over the map there buddy! Just one example -- It appears to me that the major objection to stem-sell research is the life-beginning-at-conception issue. But on the other hand you support abortion. That's interesting, wonder what you had to say in response.
Furthermore, I tend to agree with the idea that an individual is not qualified to be president just because he is a military general. However, I will point out that just because one happens to be a military general does not in turn mean he should be disqualified to be president.
Colin Powell is perhaps the most gifted and brilliant statesman to hit the American scene in perhaps fifty years, perhaps longer. I understand you place a greater value on domestic issues and I place a greater value on international relations. Perhaps this is because after years of international studies on the subject, I perceive us having both feet rather firmly planted in a powderkeg that has been building up for about a century now (at least where we are concerned) and if it really blows on us then we won't have much domestically to remain concerned about.
I know a lot of people are really down on Hillary; BTW I don't happen to be one of them and frankly the entire anti-Hillary movement confuses me. On the other hand, any savvy president can surround themselves with cabinet-member specialists in the various domestic political issues and don't need to be specialists in those areas themselves, if they are truly gifted statesmen and leaders.
I do not necessarily believe this is the case where International relations is concerned. It is far too intriquate, delicate, and divisive and dangerous to have anyone but the president in charge of the final analysis.
For anyone who has not yet recognised as much, Colin is a true genius. He is a statesman smart enough to operate on the domestic front -- probably more satisfactorily than either Buch or Kerry. However, he has something going for him that none of the others -- including Hillary -- have going for them. He is not a career politician. This man is of an entirely different tapestry than any of the others. It is this very thing about him, combined with his international statesmanship (to be CLEARLY distinguished from the incidental fact that he is a General)that compels me to support him despite his refusal to run.
In my understanding of world affairs just now, they have become critical where we are concerned. I cannot emphasize just how critical. We could very easily find ourselves in the midst of World War III if we don't get somebody in there quickly who truly knows what (s)he is doing on the international front. The potential consequences of such a conflagration of the sort I can easily imagine would make 9-11 look like a nosebleed.
EDIT
I am going to be out of touch on vacation starting tomorrow until next Sat. Just wanted you guys to know in case I appear to suddenly drop from the debate here.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted July 31, 2004 12:01 AM |
|
|
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
When asked why he felt the way he does towards Superman, Batman is quoted as saying:
"No one man should ever have that much power."
And I agree with Batman. No military general should ever be allowed to gain political power. Colin Powell wants to be president but I would never vote for a man who's made his career out of the science for war. The military exists for the people but NOT the reverse.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted July 31, 2004 12:14 AM |
|
|
Colin Powell declined the offer of an endorsement from the Republican party.
I agree with you Consis, in theory. That's one of the reasons I am going for Powell; he does not want it and this support my proposition that he is not, as I said, a career politican.
He is a true statesman.
While Powell is schooled in the Art of War, this does not necessarily make him pro-war. This is an assumption that is both illogical and inconsistent. I made a complete independent study project out of Hitler when I was in college. But I was anything but pro-Hitler.
Beyond being schooled in the Art of War, Powell is further both schooled and tremendously skilled in the art of diplomacy. To overlook this fact is to be blind to the greatest statesman to hit this continent in decades.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted July 31, 2004 01:28 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 30 Jul 2004
|
Total Hypocrasy
'The art of war', you say? There is no art in war. Art is the expression of a person's true feelings that helps other people understand a little bit more about that person's inner beauty. The only true feeling in war is that of suffering. People truly suffer from war whether it is their war or some war brought to them by someone else.
There is no such thing as the art of war. There is anything but art and plenty of suffering. People who think war is an art are the same people who think it's ok to war for necessity. War should be the last option, effort, or struggle of a people who face extinction. But instead we have people like you who marvel at the military genius, technological advances, and self confidence you get when you win a war.
I submit that war is not the answer, but only a response for the truth. And the truth my friends, can sometimes be more painful to face than the countless dead found in war. Or at least that's what history would teach us. In war there are only losers and victors, but no winners.
I'm dissappointed with your flawed logic of the art of war. To me, this is synonymous with saying the art of death.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 31, 2004 02:33 AM |
|
|
|
As intruiging as your rather extreme response is Consis, you miss the point. The term "art of war" is not an attempt to make war glamorous, but rather a term used to talk about certain skills in fighting a war, certain set proceedures and tactics. It's merely a term, not meaning what it sounds like it means. By saying he is schooled in the art of war, PM is implying that Powell is knowledgeable of tactics and strategy, he understands the best, least bloody (for his own army and civilians in this day and age) and quickest way to win that war whilst remaining in the bounds of certain principles.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted July 31, 2004 06:09 AM |
|
|
Oh, Consis my friend!
I should know you well enough by now to know that you would have taken that phrase literally, and perhaps been more attentive to anticipate such a reply.
As PH submits, the phrase "Art of War" is a typically used phrase to refer to the school of thought that pertains to war. I find war in general as repugnant as you yourself do. I even cringed when typing it myself, because I have the very same emotional responses to the entire concept as you.
I did not coin the phrase, as PH so eloquently clarifies. It is merely a phrase to which I became accustomed in my days of international studies. Similarly, the phrase "legal term of art" has a specific meaning which, as an artist, runs against my own grain just ast the term "art of war" does yours.
Now, if you are opposed to war in any and all circumstances, then you and I will have to have a side talk, or perhaps a talk right here in one of these threads. Even though I have strong pacifist tendencies and core feelings, I believe still that at times it becomes necessary to defend oneself, or in turn one's country, lest all pacifists become extinct for their failure to self-defend. I am a subscriber of the notion that "your right to swing your fist stops at the surface of my face."
But if you think I was somehow glorifying the idea of war, then you have not read my previous posts and do not know me very well. When it comes to international relations, we need someone who is developed in the art of deterring other countries, or other entities, from "swinging their fists" so that we to not have to self-defend. Colin Powell is a deterrer; a diplomat; a master negotiator. He is gifted in de-escalating and preventing the very things both you and I abhor. THAT'S why I think he is essential.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted July 31, 2004 07:49 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 31 Jul 2004
|
Getting Through Confusion
Quote:
It's merely a term, not meaning what it sounds like it means.
Ok then next time please provide me with your personal Rosetta stone so that I may properly translate the true meaning from now on.
You two think I missed her point. Well I didn't. I was simply attacking what I believe to be a common lax in principle delivery. I'm hard up for words and their true meanings. i.e. I WANT THE TRUTH! I get so annoyed when told things that don't really mean what they are defined as! Why do people do that? I can understand if the general purpose is to be cynical, humorous, or autistic but not when you're trying to be serious with me. And I'm always pointed out as being retarded for not having translated what their definition of the word is. I know she didn't coin that phrase. I've heard it many times by many people. The problem is that everyone likes to use phrases like that in their own specific way. Am I suppose to go out and purchase a dictionary for each person I meet? Come on give me a break.
Whatever with all that, I know exactly what you were trying to say Peacemaker. You simply want Powell as president because you think we are at war. You think this nation is in a time of war. But the last I checked, Congress did NOT declare war. You know this to be true and yet you still want the next Eisenhower to step up and save us all with military expertise. Powell is known for what you have detailed except you seem to forget that every deal he went off and tried to broker was cut and swung back to Rumsfeld. Powell has been spanked so many times by his dad Rumsfeld that I'm surprised he can sit in his comfortable leather chair back at his undisclosed private residence. Powell has much to learn and you think he's ready to be president. Well not me.
You talk about how you're ready to defend our country, etc, etc. Control your rampant patriotism for the time being. You're acting like it's the day after 9/11. Well it isn't. It's over. The people are dead. They aren't coming back. Bush has served his country in the fight against Al Quaeda. Calm yourself madam please. The time for fighting is not now. You seem to be caught up in the candidates' propaganda or something. Come back to earth and let's talk about the issues that matter. War is not the issue for today. It may be tomorrow but not today ok? If tomorrow is the day for fighting a war, then I swear to you on my family if that day comes, you and I will face it together as two citizens of the same country, united, and in friendship. That's a promise.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted July 31, 2004 11:40 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Ok then next time please provide me with your personal Rosetta stone so that I may properly translate the true meaning from now on.
Sorry consis, but you're talking rubbish here, the term is not invented by me, or changed by me, or translated by me. Any cursory look at millitary history of say Napoleon uses the term in the way I described, the way PM used it. She merely reffered to him being a good general. I'm at a loss as to how anyone can take it the way you did given it's most common use coincided with the way PM was using it.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted July 31, 2004 04:32 PM |
|
|
In a strange way, of all the administration, I'm most angry with Colin Powell. I sort of feel betrayed by him. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all of them, I never trusted them so when they lied to get into war and handed the reconstruction contracts to their old buddies I wasn't surprised, it was just what you expect from them. Powell? He was supposed to be the steady one, the trustworthy one, the one who would look out for us and make sure that the men he once commanded weren't sent to war under false pretenses, without enough support from the world and without enough men to win the peace. When he went and gave the speech to the UN, I believed him. I still thought the war was foolish, but I believed him in his claims that it was justified. Turns out he's just as bad as the rest of the Bushies. There was a time when I, too would have considered writing in his name on the ballot, but not now. Fool me once and so forth.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted July 31, 2004 05:51 PM |
|
|
Hey bort! So glad you've chimed back in. I've been anxious to hear from you on this subject.
Yes, you have expressed some of the same sentiments concerning Powell that many of my more liberal acitivst friends in the community have. But as an ex-government employee serving under two political administrations I can understand that when the chips are down, you do it the boss's way whether you agree with it or not.
If the Boss says we're going to invade Iraq, then we're going to invade Iraq. If the boss says go to the UN and make the best show you can, that's what you do. When the boss screws up your attempts to garner support to invade the country you didn't think should have been invaded, you do your best to build a coalition and try to put the pieces of the situation back together in the best way possible. When your intelligence community give the boss just enough to allege imminent threat, you take what they have given you and you run with it.
I think your suspicions about Powell are reasonable. However, I maintain that if Powell had not had Bush leering over his shoulder screwing up his attempts to handle this situation, he would have handled it in a completely different way. As the Secretary of State under Bush, nothing short of a government coup by Powell would have allowed him to do that. I am confident that as president, he would manage affairs in the future in a much more diplomatic, effective and rational way. Something else I strongly suspect; that is this whole thing could have gone even worse if we didn't have Powell in the middle of the negotiations trying to smoothe things over the way he did so many times.
Consis, oh, my friend! Sometimes you get so excited over the things when we misunderstand one another. If there's one thing I'm not, it's a "rampant patriot." LOL! This reference demonstrates to me that I have not expressed myself to you terribly well in this discussion.
On the issue of being "at war:" well, there I sort of agree with you and sort-of don't. We are living in a completely new paradigm, I agree that using the term "war" is antiquated and misleading.
But there are at least two dozen fundamentalist terrorist cells lurking out there with the express purpose of killing off everyone in the U.S. -- and all other infidels. They further are gaining access as fast as they can to increasingly dangerous, massively destructive weapons. If you thinik this is mere speculation on my part, then you may be right. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest my speculation is accurate.
This problem is not over as you say it is. If we do not address the roots of this hatred, terrorists will continue to avail themselves of increasingly deadly technologies to disrupt the West in ways which could make 9-11 look like a picnic.
You seem to think I am "pro war," Consis. Again, I clearly have not expressed myself to you very effectively. I thought I had been clear and consistent in all my earlier posts that I think the very problem is addressing this mess using conventional warfare. I have been against it from the beginning because in my estimation using conventional warfare will only deepen the anti-Washington sentiments that have brought about the terrorist campaign against the United States. In case you have not noticed, there have been not just one, but multiple terror attacks against the U.S. and other countries who are invested in ways the Middle East in general finds at best disturbing, and at worst intolerable.
This isn't just going to go away, Consis. And now we really have got our feet planted in the middle of the mess. With our troops in increasing numbers of Middle Eastern countries in which he have overthrown the standing government, we may not technically be "at war," but we are deeply, deeply involved, in that way and many other ways. And Congress may never have "declared war," but Bush did -- twice -- after Congress did pass the Patriot Act, a sweeping and arguably martial law-inspired document which allows this country to suspend about half of the Constitutional protections you and I presumably continue to enjoy, as long as we don't walk down the street with the wrong people on the wrong day. Conventional declarations of war typically apply to war with a given country. The very problem here is that we are being insidiously attacked, repeatedly, and in increasingly deadly ways, by entities other than countries. So far, we have not gotten terribly creative about how to address this new paradigm of ideological warfare.
This isn't just going to go away, Consis. We have a long-standing relationship with Israel, planted right in the middle of the Middle East under our hand, which includes ancient sacred territories of three specific religions, two of which have been at war with one another for two thousand yers over who has the right to that land. One of those peoples having been essentially vanquished from that land now leaves them a people with a fervent identity and religious zeal but no true territory, and enough hatred to fuel their activities for generations upon generations, splintering off into countless cells to fight an endless Holy War to get back that land and forever destroy anyone and anything that threatens to deprive them of it. Our unwaivering support of Israel continues to fan the flames of the hatred, and thus fosters further terrorism against the United States.
No, Consis. This isn't just oing to go away. We must transform our dealings with the Middle East in new and innovative ways, for our prior and current dealings have played a huge part in stirring up the hatred that brings about the terror. What we need is someone who understands the delicate complexities and complete history of the situation enough to reform our involvements in ways that de-escalate the anti-Western sentiments.
No, Consis. It may not be a "war," but it most certainly isn't "over."
P.S. Consis, thank you for referring to us as united in friendship. However fervently we may disagree occasionally, I feel the same way. I love your passion, which is so painfully absent in so many.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 31, 2004 08:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If the Boss says we're going to invade Iraq, then we're going to invade Iraq. If the boss says go to the UN and make the best show you can, that's what you do.
Hello Peacemaker,
I canīt agree with you here, and I ... even find it hard to imagine that you agree with yourself. Powell is not some small gouvernment employee needing his job to feed his family, and thus doing what the boss said. I am sure that he is a financially independent man, and he would have had the choice to refuse to act his UN show. No, he would not only have the choice, it absolutely would have been his moral obligation to do so.
If Powell knew that the war was based on economical interests, and justified with fabricated evidence (lies), I cannot but feel the deepest contempt for the man. He had the power to save many lives, the power to prevent Al Quaeda from being strenghtened more than Bin Laden could have possibly dreamt of, but it was more important for him to do as he was told, and keep his high position. Bah.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted July 31, 2004 09:02 PM |
|
|
Yes Lews, this is another aspect of the debate I have engaged in before. It harkens back to the old tension between staying in power under an administration hostile to your own ideals because it's the only place you have any influence in the situation, or leaving behind the only leverage you have by your own refusal to participate (similar to the tension between the political theories of reform versus revolution). I am familiar with the notion of refusal to act out of a sense of moral obligation, and probably as recently as ten years ago would have agreed.
However, I have become more of a pragmatist; perhaps a bit too jadad. I will concede that is a possibility. Perhaps the analogy between state and federal government correctly leaves you as unimpressed as it does. But politics in this country work in very similar ways across the board. I must act on my understanding of how the world works based on my own experience.
First, I will remind you all that our intelligence organizations admitted after the fact in senate hearings that they stretched the truth and perhaps justified an unjustifiable invasion with unsupportable allegations. Under whose urging they did so remains unclear, but I will submit to you that it was not Powell, who to me evidenced putting up the most resistance of anyone in the cabinet to rushing ahead.
Second, once the ball was in play as it were, and we realized the intelligence was not substantiated, for Powell to stomp out in an act of principle would have left that hole for somedody very likely even less capable of dealing with the situation to fill, very likely causing even more damage. I shudder to think what Bush would have been like without the voice of Powell's reason to temper him in any way. If he had left, it is not only possible but likely that even more lives would be lost in the long run. So reasonable arguments can be made for the saving of lives either way.
Powell could have quit. But if I had been in his shoes, by the time these "mistakes" became clear I probably would have been fearful myself that doing so would have likely worsened the situation. I probably would have done precisely what he did; he stuck it out and did the best he could.
At any rate, for us to turn our backs on Powell now for being caught in the middle of an impossible situation would be to sacrifice the only individual on the front who has the skill and temperance to deal with the mess we have aggravated in the future. THere is no one else who can deal better with the standing circumstances than Colin Powell. I am so certain to the marrow of my bones that that he can prevent future deaths better than anyone else that I feel compelled to act as I do.
Thanks, Lews, for bringing up this critical tension. I think it is important that we think about these options and how they play into all our judgments of this situation. I can certainly see how reasonable people such as yourself would disagree with me, but maintain that my position is also reasonable and furthermore at least equally pragmatic, for the reasons I have stated here.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted July 31, 2004 09:29 PM |
|
|
How is it pragmatic to vote for someone who is not on the ballot?
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted July 31, 2004 09:40 PM |
|
|
Peacemaker,
As I see it, and many americans, Powell is a trained soldier and accomplished military leader. He knows nothing of thinking for himself or terms of principle. He has spent his entire life following orders and will continue to do so for the remainder of his life. That's the kind of man he is. He is the african american version of Robert E. Lee. He is a master of military strategy, has a humanitarian hunger for compassion, and loyally defends those who command him. We don't need a Robert E. Lee leading our country. If congress had declared war then the circumstances would be different and he may indeed be our best hope of surviving. Powell is a man whom commands respect from those he leads. His troops, administrators, and fellow countrymen love him as a fellow american. That's the power I spoke of earlier. People are just as loyal to him as he is to those he serves. I suppose you could say he is the epitomy of the 'golden rule'. Why did Julius Caesar's fellow countrymen seek to assasinate him? They loved him but also feared the kind of power he would have if he gained the political will to match his military genius. I believe that Powell is not a statesman. He is among the very best soldiers in our country. Ask yourself the role of our first president. George Washington was in fact made to be a statesman but everyone knew this was because his opponents feared his strategical prowess. He too was a man respected in the world and loved at home, but he was not a politician.
Secondly, your analysis of the middle east seems to exclude you having read my comments in the Israel v. Palestine thread. I agree that powell has shown a spark of light for the grim situation that has plagued that region of the world since the dawn of the creation of christianity, Judaism, and Islam. If you would kindly please read my comments in that thread before posting here, it might help you understand my thoughts concerning this issue. If you don't want to then I could easily spam a huge annoying copy/paste job that might piss people off and possibly even gain me a highly deserved -Qp.
Third, I am in full agreement with Lews_Therin's entire post following yours.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted July 31, 2004 10:16 PM |
|
|
Hey Consis --
No, I have not read the other thread and only noticed its existence a couple of days ago. Guess I have some catching up to do. I am leaving town soon and will unfortunately not be able to do that until I return and catch up with life first. Sorry! Anyways. no need to cut and repost your comments here.
That being said, I must respectfully but strongly disagree with your assessment of Powell's statesmanship skills as you have stated above. I will also note that you apparently have not read the dozens of posts I have made in Attack Iraq and other threads on related topics, or else you would not have made the charming and laughable references to me glorifying war and being a rampant patriot! In fact you have come after me rather viciously in the past for being just the opposite (see your first post in reponse to me wherever that was).
It's no matter though. Neither of us can be expected to remember so much information as those who make long, comprehensive posts like you and I both do.
bort -- good point. Touche' man. Guess I am being a bit inconsistent in my willingness to act based on ideologey.
But in a way I think it is even less pragmatic to follow the crowd in voting for either of the people who are equally either dangerously ignorant and/or zealots. One of them is going to win anyway, so I am voting my conscience or else my may not even bother. In my assessment it will make no difference except to send a message to Powell that people want him badly enough to write him in. Hopefully this will encourage him to run in the next election, assuming there's still a country here to be president of.
|
|
bjorn190
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Jebus maker
|
|
posted July 31, 2004 10:49 PM |
|
|
|
Don't vote for Bush - or you wont get to heaven
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted August 01, 2004 01:10 AM |
|
|
Hello Peacemaker,
Iīm sorry, I did not mean to sound disrespectful to your position on the subject.
I agree with you that for an idealistic person in politics, itīs often the good and more constructive choice to be pragmatic and swallow some frogs rather than quit and lose all power. But in my view, this is absolutely no excuse for Powellīs WMD show before the UN. At this moment, he had more influence than at any other before and after. He had the choice to stand there and say: 'I am sorry, but we have no evidence at all for the existence of weapons of mass destruction in the Iraq.' He would have been fired, yes, but the war might have been avoided, and the US become a safer place than itīs today. Europe also.
Instead he did what a good soldier is supposed to: He obeyed - he lied and deceived, he did what he could to persuade the other countriesī leaders, so that they would send their own soldiers to die for Neocon interests.
Of course I like Powell more than I like Cheney and Rumsfeld. Well, actually I like pimples on my bottom more than Cheney and Rumsfeld. But here I agree with Consis, I think that he his a person who obeys orders, and I think that he let his chances pass to act like a man with courage and principles.
Iīm also a bit doubtful that he did much internally to change the situation to the better. It rather seems to me that he lets himself be used as an excuse for moderate Americans to vote for the Neoconsī extreme right-wing politics.
____________
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 01, 2004 01:26 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 31 Jul 2004
|
Dear Oh Dear.....
First of all I fully expect to be held accountable for what I say by the other members of this board.
Second, my memory works just fine thankyou. Here is the location of the post you are referring to:
http://heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?TID=10746&pagenumber=5
Third, your post was the kind of post that tries to generalize americans as some kind of vigilante freedom fighters. Well, Peacemaker, I am an american who is no such thing.
Fourth, what do you expect me to think when you're fanatically promoting a military general to be president of the United States of America? You may in fact be anti-war, but that is not the message you send with your efforts to elect a military general as president. What in all of the world do you think the military is? The military is an organization whose job is war. That's their job plain and simple, no if's, and's, or but's about it. Make no mistake that a general who has made his entire life's work to be that of the science of war. He will ultimately do what he has done his whole life. That's what they are! They are war experts in every sense of the word.
You can tell me you are anti-war all you want but don't expect me to believe that when you are promoting a former army General to the highest office of this country. So be it if you think you're anti-war but do you think the world will see it as such? If we elected Powell to president I promise you the world will see it as a pro-war act. It's almost as bad as pointing your nukes and massing troops at your borders with a neighbor, and then saying "We don't want war, we simply want to be safer at home." Who in their right mind would believe that nonsense? If a country amasses large numbers of boots and pointed weapons at their neighbors, then we're talking proliferation. Essentially, electing Powell to president would be telling the world our country is getting ready for war.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted August 01, 2004 02:15 AM |
|
|
Hmmm
Washington, Andrew Jackson, Eisenhower, Grant... all former US army generals, all presidents of the USA. Now at leastone of those is considered by some to be the greatest of your presidents. There could be more for all I know, and most of your presidents seem to have served in the military in some capacity or another during their lives. I would think on the kind of logic that you're suggesting consis, that people will have always thought that of the USA...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted August 01, 2004 03:43 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 31 Jul 2004
|
Let's Talk About Colin Powell
I've already spoken about the mere principle of electing a former United States army general. Now let's talk about the details.
Colin L. Powell currently holds the federal office of secretery of state. Colin L. Powell became the 65th Secretary of State on January 20, 2001. As he stated at his confirmation hearing, the guiding principle of U.S. foreign policy during his tenure will be that "America stands ready to help any country that wishes to join the democratic world."
Before becoming Secretary of State, Colin Powell had served as a key aid to the Secretary of Defense and as National Security Advisor. He also served 35 years in the United States Army, rising to the rank of Four-Star General and serving as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
He once said, "We do not see the war against terrorism and the nurturing of constructive relationships among the major powers as competing tasks. We conduct the war on terrorism with an eye turned toward great power cooperation. And we seek enhanced great power cooperation with an eye turned toward success in the war on terrorism."
Now let's talk about some things that absolutely cannot and should not be overlooked.
1. The office of Secretary of State is defined as: Head of state department and senior official of the Cabinet, who is the president's chief foreign-policy advisor.
2. The position of chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff is defined as: Leader of a group within the Department of Defense. consisting of the chief of staff of the Army, Naval operations, Air Force, and Commandant of the Marine Corps.
3. The rank of Four Star General is defined as: Unknown
Of all these jobs, which one was Colin Powell ever elected to? Each and every office, position, and rank that he has ever held are appointed by a higher office. Colin Powell is not an elected official and I think there is something to be said about that. He is a soldier through and through with an immense talent in foreign affairs. He is a great asset, loving fellow countryman, and skilled foreign diplomat to this country, but he is not nor will he ever be our elected president.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
