Powell: "We are losing."
Congo--Kinshasa
18-12-2006, 04:24
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6188693.stm
Is there now anyone besides Bush that does not deny that we're losing? :rolleyes:
Wilgrove
18-12-2006, 04:25
Eh at this point we're just trying to convince Bush, but you can't really do that with a guy who has his hands over his ear and going "la la la la, 9/11, la la la la, terrorist, la la la la Democracy, la la la..."
Congo--Kinshasa
18-12-2006, 04:32
Eh at this point we're just trying to convince Bush, but you can't really do that with a guy who has his hands over his ear and going "la la la la, 9/11, la la la la, terrorist, la la la la Democracy, la la la..."
lol
In others news, a recent scientific study conducted at Berkeley University has determined that the Pope is indeed Catholic.
Hobos That Read
18-12-2006, 04:43
In others news, a recent scientific study conducted at Berkeley University has determined that the Pope is indeed Catholic.
And in unrelated news, it turns out Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds was a real person, by the named of Senator McCartney
Andaras Prime
18-12-2006, 04:46
Saddest part of Powell's career was that he was forced to prostitute his career to sell the UN a load of garbage about Iraq.
Gift-of-god
18-12-2006, 05:00
The whole question of success in Iraq is an odd one, though. What do we mean when we say we are losing?
For me, losing means that western forces are unable to stop and reverse a growing trend of violence and abuse towards Iraqis.
For Bush and Cheney, it may mean that they are unable to ensure control over a sizeable output of Iraqi oil.
On yet another hand, the USA has already won: Saddam Hussein has been tried and convicted in an Iraqi court and Iraq is not a WMD menace to the US or its allies.
It's hard to say who's winning when we're all playing by different rules.
Ashmoria
18-12-2006, 06:12
yeah, powell was on "face the nation" this morning. it sorta emphasized the importance of having someone in the administration who has military experience (and to actually listen to him)
im hoping that powell is writing a truthful tell all book. i would love to hear his story of what really happened during his time as secretary of state.
New Stalinberg
18-12-2006, 06:14
Maybe because if he admitted we're losing he'd also be admitting that the single most powerful nation on the planet is incompetent?
Unlucky_and_unbiddable
18-12-2006, 06:25
The whole question of success in Iraq is an odd one, though. What do we mean when we say we are losing?
For me, losing means that western forces are unable to stop and reverse a growing trend of violence and abuse towards Iraqis.
For Bush and Cheney, it may mean that they are unable to ensure control over a sizeable output of Iraqi oil.
On yet another hand, the USA has already won: Saddam Hussein has been tried and convicted in an Iraqi court and Iraq is not a WMD menace to the US or its allies.
It's hard to say who's winning when we're all playing by different rules.
Very true.
Allegheny County 2
18-12-2006, 06:36
The whole question of success in Iraq is an odd one, though. What do we mean when we say we are losing?
For me, losing means that western forces are unable to stop and reverse a growing trend of violence and abuse towards Iraqis.
For Bush and Cheney, it may mean that they are unable to ensure control over a sizeable output of Iraqi oil.
On yet another hand, the USA has already won: Saddam Hussein has been tried and convicted in an Iraqi court and Iraq is not a WMD menace to the US or its allies.
It's hard to say who's winning when we're all playing by different rules.
Agreed.
Daniloth
18-12-2006, 07:28
Saddest part of Powell's career was that he was forced to prostitute his career to sell the UN a load of garbage about Iraq.
He wasn't forced. Noone took control of his body and made him do it. They might have coerced him, but he still CHOSE to go in front of the UN and say all that garbage. He had the option of refusing. :(
Sarkhaan
18-12-2006, 07:32
The whole question of success in Iraq is an odd one, though. What do we mean when we say we are losing?
For me, losing means that western forces are unable to stop and reverse a growing trend of violence and abuse towards Iraqis.
For Bush and Cheney, it may mean that they are unable to ensure control over a sizeable output of Iraqi oil.
On yet another hand, the USA has already won: Saddam Hussein has been tried and convicted in an Iraqi court and Iraq is not a WMD menace to the US or its allies.
It's hard to say who's winning when we're all playing by different rules.
Might be why most wars are fought with actual objectives. Iraq's objectives were shady from day 1, and as each objective has fallen through (or, in astoundingly rare cases, accomplished) we've been left with almost no direction in our fight.
The good news is that without objectives, you can't lose. The bad news is you also can't win.
Wilgrove
18-12-2006, 07:37
He wasn't forced. Noone took control of his body and made him do it. They might have coerced him, but he still CHOSE to go in front of the UN and say all that garbage. He had the option of refusing. :(
He still got fired though. :(
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6188693.stm
Is there now anyone besides Bush that does not deny that we're losing? :rolleyes:Tony Snow...
Nah, after reading the report... things are worse than I imagined. So much for fiscal responsiblity :D
Maybe because if he admitted we're losing he'd also be admitting that the single most powerful nation on the planet is incompetent?
The rest of us realised that quite a few years ago.