So many here maintain that Powell was against the war and that the other members of the security council where right in not getting involved. His comparison is timely in that on the 6th we mark the most important date in the history of the modern world, the landing in Normandy.

Powell compares Iraq war to fight against Nazis

2 hours, 40 minutes ago Add Politics - AFP to My Yahoo!



PARIS (AFP) - As US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) headed to Europe for celebrations to mark the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings, Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) compared the war in Iraq (news - web sites) to the fight against Nazi Germany.


AFP/File Photo



"I think we can compare the fight against the Nazis and the fight against Communism with the fight that we are now all engaged in against terrorism. And Iraq is a part of that battlefield," Powell said in an interview on France 3 television.


He said Iraq was not the only battlefield, however, citing the recent attacks in Saudi Arabia and the March 11 train bombings in Madrid, as well as the Istanbul bombings last year and the Bali blast in 2002.


"This is a new threat that we face and we have to approach it in the same way, with all of us working together, a great alliance of people who believe in peace, and freedom and the democratic process, to say to terrorists: 'You will not succeed. We will fight you'," said Powell.


Bush left Washington Thursday for Italy to attend a ceremony marking Rome's liberation by American troops on June 4, 1944, before heading to France to mark the June 6 landing of Allied troops on Normandy's beaches.

TK,

A metaphor as analogy does not make it so, even when make by so formerly a remarkable man as Colin Powell. It's the stuff a statesman's speech is made of, and shouldn't be confused with an objective technical analysis. However, it probably won some applause, even in France.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

So Powell is a "formerly" good guy? he was a great guy when you thought he departed from Bush's policy. He was a good guy when you could quote him to support you anti-everything-Republican aganda.... So now he points out that Iraq is a battlefield in the war on terror and he is an idiot? A bad man?

What gives with that shallow logic?

Quite a romantic analogy, but I think Powell is simply parroting Bush's speech to the Air Force Academy.

The war in Iraq is more analogous to the Spanish-American war, with the sinking of the USS Maine and the propaganda provided by Hurst ("You supply the pictures, I'll supply the war."), or the Vietnam War, with President Johnson's propaganda surrounding the attack on the Maddox.

The similarity being motivating the American people to back a war using false information.

What's the boss supposed to do Harley? get out in front of the worker bees and say things are desperately screwed up and if I were you I would stay in your homes....it all sucks.....we'll Never win.....Oh I wish I hadn't made all these decisions....oh my ....oh gee....doom and gloom...

That would motivate alot of people!

Of course not. But I don't think he should be trying to use WWII as another play on the public's hearts to gather emotional support for his Iraq debacle. He's trying to conjure up images of Hitler's reign to keep the people scared and supportive. See Goering.

Dave Ross had a guy on the other day that spoke of how the neocons are so frightened of another Nazi-like regime that they use WWII as justification for invading any country that may pose a threat.

I still think comparing terrorism in the world to the Nazi occupation of Europe is flawed. Terrorism is not a government that you can identify and replace with a more suitable one. It's a tactic, like using a gun versus using a knife. You cannot erradicate terrorism any more than you can rid the world of every knife or sharp object.

You have to learn to predict it, protect from it, and repel it. What makes all that more difficult is invading a country for whatever-reason-of-the-week is, wasting billions of dollars on that folly, and neglecting our own shores.

My fellow Americans

I SUCK!!!

I'm not worthy...


there is that a better speech?

My fellow Americans in just a few generations you have forgotton that freedom brings great responsibility. You are like little kids looking for the next sweet treat. Already fat from excess you waddle through Walmart and you balk at sharing the fruit of your freedom fortune with others. As you sit in your spacious homes you cannot fathom the misery of others. Shame on you, you deserve the wrath of the angry and the jealousy of others.

Aunty, cut out the Al Gore part and you'd just about have my vote....

Hey how's the view from that high horse?

Unless, of course, you're posting from Sudan now, while taking a break from building homes and water purification systems.

Dan. We have built 10 water systems and 3 villages schools in Sudan and Kenya each. We have also built several 100 homes in each country and a few hundred more in Mexico. I send $250 a month to these countries in direct aid. I will go to Sudan with my kids in 2007 as a lesson in life. I could buy a nice boat and take some real nice fishing trips I suppose but thats what the people at the bottom of the hill do.

Aunty for president!

And you got a problem paying a few bucks a month in tax to help out the less fortunate in your own country?

Harley,

If I have to explain the difference between the two groups you are a lost cause.

Poor in this country is generally a choice with a few exceptions.

Helping people is a choice and a responsibility and should not be mandated by the Federal govt.

Ya know, that's probably the most disgusting thing you've said thus far. And it perfectly corroberates my perception of you.

If people took the responsibility of helping their own countrymen first the Feds wouldn't have to "persuade" you. I fail to understand why some here have such a disdain and contempt for their fellow Americans.

"Poor in this country is generally a choice with a few exceptions."


King,

Let me introduce you to about 5 or 6 MILLION inner-city minority citizens and about the same amount of rural inhabitants across America who definitely DID NOT CHOOSE poverty. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

I know you post a lot of sh!t just to get a reaction. It's when you post sh!it like the quote above and appear genuine in your sentiments, that you really start to worry me...

4salt,

Horse hocky to the 10th power. You confirm that the left is the most racist party with that drivel. It is blatatntly racist to say that these people are incapable of lifting themselves up. making excuses . It is absolutly a choice barring mental illness ,physical disablitiy etc. the SE Asian migration in the late 70's and early 80's to this country and their success as a people and culture prove that point. A bigger example happening now is the Hispanic migration. Where they are legal they live above the poverty level where they are not they live below the poverty level. Go to any 3rd world country and offer them the free education every other opportunity that those "inner city dwellers" have and you would be considered a savior as you watch their station in life improve.

"Helping people is a choice and a responsibility and should not be mandated by the Federal govt."

But didn't you just call for the Federal Government to step in in Sudan? And aren't you all for the Federal Government "helping" the Iraqi's?

I am all for faith based initiatives if they want to send church organizations overseas to fight without using the USA brand name if that's what you are saying. It would kill two birds with one stone.

Wow, the "left" is now a political party and 4Salt is the official spokesperson.

But how are his remarks racist?

Stlhd,

Where did I call for the US to step in. I would hope we could see past our own good fortune and help some others out. I agree we are pretty busy now. What about calling on France, Germany and other european countries to payback a little of what they got 60 years ago?

Harley,

There are better ways to help out the disadvantaged in this country rather than through taxes. Taxes funneled through govt. agencies eat to much off the top IMHO so the help is diluted. If I could see that 1005 of what i paid in taxes went to help tax away!


on 4 Salts comments,
"Let me introduce you to about 5 or 6 MILLION inner-city citizens and about the same amount of rural inhabitants across America who definitely "

It's racist because of this word "minority" being attached to this phrase "DID NOT CHOOSE poverty". Implying it is a conditon of repression and or inability. first on minoritites are being repressed. That statement in and of itself is racist implying that the majority being white is holding down the minority. You nor anyone else can prove this in any way shape or form. Primarily because the majority of that minority are immigrants who have chosen to be here because they recognise the opportunity in this great land. Second it would be racist to say that Blacks, Hispanic, Hatians ,Se Asian etc are incapable of making their own way in this country. Again far too many examples of successful members of these races to even begin to make that point.
3rd. take what is considered to be poverty level in this country and stack it up against any avg wage in the avg. country in the world and you have a wealthy person then combine that with all the freebeies they do not get in services like education and assistance programs. on top of all that offer to have any of these people that did not choose poverty the option of switching places with someone in bangladesh and let me know how many offers you get. I will not even go into the causes because you will just counter with the liberal hogwash that booze, drugs, preganacy,aids,etc are diseases and not lifestyle choices. I'll go tit for tat with any of that chit all day amigo!

4Salt, you're a racist. Stop using facts.

The US government, Affirmative Action and I had a little chuckle there.

WOW!!! My post was a couple of sentences long and 'ol King read THAT much into it!

My point (Funny how I ALWAYS have to clarify it for you King ) is that, through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, many people in this country (Whites included King) live far below the poverty line.

We weren't comparing American poverty to that of Bangladesh. I wasn't blaming the poverty on the Bush administration or any other specific factor for that matter.

I WAS MERELY REBUTTING YOUR BLANKET STATEMENT THAT POVERTY IN THIS COUNTRY, "WITH A FEW EXCEPTIONS" AS YOU PUT IT, IS A LIFESTYLE CHOICE!

Comprehension my friend. You know... that thing they taught you in grade school...

GP2,

Yes, Powell is on my former “good guy” list. Unlike Bush and Cheny - who never appeared to be reliable sources of information from well before the 2000 election - Powell had integrity to spare. I had absolutely never read nor heard of a single negative attribute about the man. So when he made his presentation to the UN regarding the presence of WMD in Iraq and the imminent threat they represented, I considered that information more believable than anything provided by any other administration representative. It turns out he sold a position that turned out wasn’t supported by the information available to him. Bright people like Powell don’t make those kinds of errors. He never would have risen to his previous positions if he had. Powell spent his integrity in my book, and that’s why I deleted him from my good guy list. His action at the UN was more in keeping with being an administration political hack, unfortunately. I really, really, respected him a lot, quite independent of his association with Bush, and going back to Gulf War I, even though his positions on issues didn’t always reflect my own. And I didn’t call him an idiot or a bad man. Why do you insist on reading in your own meanings that are not present in my statements? (Are your own meanings more interesting to you?) Does my logic seem shallow to you still?

Regarding what’s the boss supposed to do? Admitting making a mistake would be an appropriate first step toward developing integrity. But Bush just doesn’t come across as an integrity kind of guy. It doesn’t seem to be one of his interests. Too bad, because personal integrity is so presidential.

Your example speech for our fearless leader would at least be his first that contained more elements of truth than of lies. I’d give him a B+ if he said it.

Aunty,

You go, girl! That speech is a winner. As good a guy as Al likely is (at least until he became a presidential candidate 4 years ago), he wouldn’t fit the ticket. Now, replace Cheney with McCain (ooh, there’s that personal integrity element so lacking in this administration) - not that John would go for it - and you’d have some formidable publicly appealing political horsepower.

TK,

Freedom does not bring responsibility. People are either given or earn freedom. It is theirs to do with as they please. Now leadership, that incurs responsibility. And responsible leaders lead by example. Hmmm, former AWOL, cocaine user, alcoholic, become business icon using his daddy’s connections, become the President who squanders US goodwill, alienates allies, enriches only the rich - usually at the direct expense of the unrich, and degrading the environment that supports my life and that of all Americans. No wonder I sense a leadership and responsibility void.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

4salt,

"NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN" care to list these no falut poverty victims reasons for thier station in life? I would bet the majority of the reasons can all be taken back to lifestyle choices.

TK, so in your view there should be no poverty in this country since they all have the opportunity to help themselves?
There are only X amount of US dollars. Whom do you advocate loses money so that the poor are no longer poor?

Stlhd,

I did not say there should be no poverty I said in the majority of cases it was a choice. Quitting school, teen pregnacy, substance abuse ,immegration etc are all choices. My point is that we have all the tools at our disposal for free or little effort in this country. things like education, Scholarships , Job training,a multitude of state and local and federal programs to help people out.
I have first hand knowledge as a kid of a single mom who quit school in the 7th grade and had 3 kids before her 18th birthday and divorced and alone at 19. I grew up as 4salt mentioned. There is a way out and its up to the individual 100% the resources are there. Now this of course excludes people with handicaps , mental illness etc.

But in this society there will always be poor if there are rich. As long as there are those with more there has to be those with less.

Stlhd,

Correct but it says nothing about cause or relativity. The poor in this nation would be rich in other nations. The reasons some are poor in this nation would cause little empathy in most of the world.

No the poor would not be rich in other nations. If they took their salary and then were able to live and make the same amount of money in a lower standard country then yes but that isn't the case. Move to another country and get a job at that countries wages and you'd still be low skilled and poor.

Stlhd,

No. Take the poverty level vs the avg income of most nations and you will see that the poor in the US are closer to the avg wage than almost any other nation. This does not include subsidies and program asistance which is non existant in the 3rd world governments. Then there are the extremes For example in East king county if you make less than $90k combined you qualify for "low income housing" because of the median price of a home. In the bay area you could get a section 8 voucher for $5000 a month in rent due to housing laws requiring Multifamily developments to reflect and meet the demographic of the comunity in which they are built. Show me programs like those in Bangladesh. So poor is relative in this country and not so in others.

AN AMERICAN DEMOCRAT: You have two cows. Your neighbor has none. You feel guilty for being successful. You vote people into office who tax your cows, forcing you to sell one to raise money to pay the tax. The people you voted for then take the tax money and buy a cow and give it to your neighbor. You feel righteous.

So I take that to mean that if only we were more of a socialist of communist country we would be able to level the playing field and no one would have more than anyone else...We'd all be the same....? Boy that sounds really inviting for us hard working money makers.....I guess if you have no ambition and want "the state" to take care of you that probably sounds like heaven to you. Sounds like prison to me.

GP...take the words I type at face value without adding your bent. There is one pool of money so there will always be the haves and the have nots. Pretty self explanatory.

TK....You cannot compare any average wage in the US to that of a third world country. Sure take $24,000 a year and live like a king in some countries but then you aren't making $24K a year there either. You'd have to already have it in the bank. And US welfare/subsidy programs don't follow you out of the country. The poor would still be poor else where. Sure some can and do climb out of their lot in life but, for the reasons I explained above, the void is quickly filled by another. It's just the facts of a capitalist society. There will always be the lower class in the US just as there wil always be an upper class. Just like with investing there must be losers in order for there to be winners.

Having lived in a society that engineered themselves to be just as Grandpa has said, I have (I think) a unique perspective on this question. GP, you are right in that there is no great motivation to be creative, hardworking, or strive to something better. However, there was no one living in the streets, no hunger, great educational opportunities for everyone. It just goes to show - there is no perfection here on Earth - we get to wait for perfection. And anytime we deal in absolutes, it's more likely (IMHO) that we are absolutely wrong than absolutely right.

absolutely

Stlhd,

Stay with me, I said same % of avg wage so if its $24k in the US it may be $24 in Bangledesh. the point being the impoverished in the US are the most well off impoverished in the world. In most 3rd and 4th world countries you are born into poverty and there is no way out.

Stlhead,

Probably a minor point overall, but I think you're incorrect that there must be losers in order for there to be winners in investing. My understanding is that there are two ways of making money in markets. One, as you allude to, is the transfer of money from the losers to the winners. The second is the creation of new wealth by combining capital and labor to synergistically create products and or services that are worth more than the mere sum of the capital and labor. I think win-win outcomes are also a market possibility.

It's those SEC scams like Ivan Bosky and Michael Milken, and now probably Enron and others - that were all about transfer of money - that give a negative connotation to earning money through investing.

I agree with you that there will always be rich and poor in societies, even collectivist societies. And being rich isn't all about hard work. Many of this planet's people work hard without ever achieving wealth. Much of what happens in life is the result of luck, or a lack of it.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo, my point on investing is that there is only one finite pool of money which changes hands daily. In the sense of the bond market there is a trade off where a borrower benefits and the loaner also benefits in the form of interest. Similar to your example. But the interest is not new money. The borrower has lost some wealth in return for the benefit of a loan. Winners and losers is just an analogy for the distribution of wealth. But the only way there cannot be winners and losers is to produce more money which simply causes inflation, devaluation of the dollar and nobody wins or loses...in theory anyway.

So how would you redistribute wealth under your vision?

TK so our poor are better off than in other countries. Is that a bad thing? I see so often the "get rid of welfare" mantra. But when you realize that there will always be lower class and upper class the dilemma becomes much more complex. We've all seen pictures of squalid, pollution oozing, disease ridden slums in third world countries where families eek out an existence by rummaging through garbage at the dump. Is that where we should be? Remember that a large percentage of the poor in this country are elderly who haven't much hope of climbing out of their predictament except in death. Also, yes there are examples of people who simply milk the system but there are plenty of examples of women with children who's sole bread winner is deceased. How does she climb out of her predictament without neglecting the children, earn a living wage with no education or experience and not live off the tax payer dole in her attempts to do something? To me, the tax payer providing something to cover the unpredictable, keeps people from desperation. Desperation leads to high crime and the conditions above which effects us all in the long run.

Gp...to quote a recently passed away former president...."There you go again". Who said anything about re-distributing the wealth? oh that's right you did and only you.

Stlhd,

The point of the disucssion was poverty being a choice in this country rather than being inflicted upon people by others. Your example of the widow is rare. For everyone of your examples demographics show you a half million that are caused by substance abuse. Nothing wrong with a hand up for those willing to try. If we opened the borders the majority of our poor would either get with it or die as there are a million people waiting to live 10 to a one bedroom apt in the worst slum in america to have a shot at what they turn down. Opportunity. "

Desperation leads to high crime and the conditions above which effects us all in the long run."
Horse hocky to that crappola. This would assume that these are people that have always done the right thing at every turn and only out of lack of options turn to crime. Wrong! these are people that have always taken the easy way out and crime is just another bad decision in a long list.

One need only look to the Middle East or Africa to verify that statement.

TK, And I countered your point that it is often not a choice but inherant in a capitalist society. I take it you believe that everyone, in an ideal world, should be middle class or above if they would only try. Isn't that socialism? Isn't that redistribution of the wealth? Whom does the lower class take from to enter the middle class? Has to come from either the middle class or the upper class in order to prop up the entire lower class.
Sure there are all sorts of individual circumstances of people who try and those who don't and of people who succesfully climbed out of poverty but you made a blanket statement which I refute.

Stlhd,

Yes but we would be importing the lower class if the bottom 10% now pulled them selves up and so on and so on. You are speaking as if the country and its economy existed in a vacumn.

No it exists in a pie. Everyone has a sliver. Some have larger pieces and some have smaller. How do you want to divide it? If the bottom 10% pulled themselves up and so on and so on you arrive at the top 1% who can't pull themselves higher because the pie is only so big. Meaning, in this case, the top 1%'ers slice of the pie gets smaller to prop up all the other levels. So, for the impoverished to climb as a whole someone somewhere up the chain has to decline. Of course trickle down economics is the exact opposite where the bottom of the chain loses out. It's inherant in capitalism.

Stlhd,

You are basing you assumptions off of a fixed population and economy. Neither is true. The top 1% of a billion people is more than 1% of 350 million people.

[QUOTE] [Winners and losers is just an analogy for the distribution of wealth. /QUOTE]

I must have taken this out of context or misinterpreted what your point about rich and poor is or the class imbalance or whatever. Kind of sounds a bit like the usual Democratic left ideology of levelling the playing field...If I am mistaken it won't be the first time and I apologize.

The idiology comes from an attempt to assuage or rationalize the guilt they feel for not being on the bottom and the resentment for not being at the top and being in the middle and bleating with the rest of them

No. I am basing my assumptions on a fixed pool of money.

How much of your net worth is cash?

Point being if everyone cashed in their hard assests today their would not be enough paper money. So your Cash pool being fixed does not work. It's a dynamic system not a fixed system.

I've decided to argue this further is futile. If you think the pool of money/wealth is all paper dollars then more power to you. I sincerely hope you don't ever fall below the ever shifitng poverty line because you sure won't receive much sympathy as it will have been all your own doing. The irony is the odds are it will also be under an administration you voted for.

Stlhd,

You said it was a fixed pool of money. Prove it or move on.

Have you ever heard of computers? You are using one right now. No institution in the world has actual physical cash on hand to cover what is in it's accounts that I am aware of. And it's so far off and meaningless to the debate it's simply unworthy of further comment. You win, all poor people deserve it because they are too lazy to pick themselves up and create brand new wealth for themselves. I bet your church donates to charities. You should set them straight about giving money to low life scum who refuse to help themselves.

Stlhd,

The bank has to have $ for $ what your balance shows. They keep it in a varity of ways but it all has to total each and every day. You need to read up on our monetary sytem and banking system. Saying there is a fixed pool of money/wealth in this country is moronic.

BTW I make sure all of the money I give at church goes over seas. Insted of Christmas and Birthday presents for myself from friends and family I ask them to donate to Childrens hospital. I write a check occaionally to a local family in dire need. We had a local guy die of brain cancer leaving 4 young kids and a wife broke and desparate after the long painful death of her childhood sweetheart. How about you before you condem others?

Ever heard of the NYSE, AMEX, etc? How about bonds? What about the mortage market where mortgages are bought and sold every day? Do you see huge semi's full of cash running around on our highways? And you call me moronic? "Hey bubba, another billion just changed hands. Run these dollars over to them will ya?"

Why do you donate to the family TK? Your blanket statement claims it's a good bet that it's their own doing and they deserve what they got and if they weren't so lazy they'd get off their A** and work their way up the ladder? Argue with you enough and you prove your own point wrong.

I donate to United Way, yeah they had problems at one time but have cleaned up their act, and to goodwill every single year. Partly for the tax deduction and partly because I should. But then I didn't claim that poor people chose to be poor either.

Get your last word in...I am done with this.

Stlhd,

You claimed a fixed pool of money. If that where the case there could only be a $ of cash available for every $ worth of hard goods. There is not and your own ill informed examples of the stock market prove your claim false. If everyone sold 100% of their stock today the price would go through the floor as there is only x ammount of cash to cover the sale. The fact that stocks are sold at different times ,on margins, overseas etc account for the inflated value of such. Proving your point dead wrong about a fixed ammount of wealth. Again it is a dynamic system .

OK one more attempt and read slowly:

There is a fixed pool of money, wealth, whatever you want to call it whether you want to think of a global economy or only domestically. If it grows that is inflation. Inflation means you really didn't grow because the price of everything went up in relation. The same if it shrinks. Prices then drop which is deflation. Numbers might look bigger or smaller and wealth changed hands but the actual value of the wealth is finite.

Only in the sense if every hard asset in the world was sold at the same time. Has that ever happened? It would have to to use your argument to define the reasons for poverty. the tuth is you cannot support your claim so you are going to be obtuse to deflect from your claim that poverty is inevitiable and therefore no one can be held accountable for poverty except those that hold too much resource. Socialist thoughts and reason.