Colin Powell certainly seems politically irrelevant at this point.
you mean the guy who said iraq had nukes?
Smartest statement ever. (sarcasm)usmarine wrote:
you mean the guy who said iraq had nukes?
so that wasnt him at the UN?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Smartest statement ever. (sarcasm)usmarine wrote:
you mean the guy who said iraq had nukes?
Your right. Let's play this card since he is supporting Obama. Hear that guys. The Iraq war was initiated by Colin powell. bush is following Colin Powell's war policy. That explains Powell's resignation.usmarine wrote:
so that wasnt him at the UN?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Smartest statement ever. (sarcasm)usmarine wrote:
you mean the guy who said iraq had nukes?
play what card? i said that a LONG time ago about him on this forum. you really cry a lot you know?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Your right. Let's play this card since he is supporting Obama. Hear that guys. The Iraq war was initiated by Colin powell. bush is following Colin Powell's war policy. That explains Powell's resignation.
did he or did he not appear infront of the UN and make the case for war? simple answer really.
The card being, Iraq is Powell's fault. He did appear in front of the UN and make the case for war. You are right, as I stated. Who gave him the case to take to the UN? Simple answer really.usmarine wrote:
play what card? i said that a LONG time ago about him on this forum. you really cry a lot you know?Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
Your right. Let's play this card since he is supporting Obama. Hear that guys. The Iraq war was initiated by Colin powell. bush is following Colin Powell's war policy. That explains Powell's resignation.
did he or did he not appear infront of the UN and make the case for war? simple answer really.
the CIA.Mason4Assassin444 wrote:
The card being, Iraq is Powell's fault. He did appear in front of the UN and make the case for war. You are right, as I stated. Who gave him the case to take to the UN? Simple answer really.
but, he was wrong just like bush. it is his job to get it right also. thats what we pay him for. yet he escapes criticism.
He did get it right.. he fought it and it's documented.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
he sat infront of the UN and lied then. either way, he was wrong.Kmarion wrote:
He did get it right.. he fought it and it's documented.
We all know that politics is about appearances. Most people would want someone who fights for his contrary beliefs behind the facades.usmarine wrote:
he sat infront of the UN and lied then. either way, he was wrong.Kmarion wrote:
He did get it right.. he fought it and it's documented.
He took his orders from a higher power.. .. In this case it was his Commander in Chief. You guys in the military are just tools, right?usmarine wrote:
he sat infront of the UN and lied then. either way, he was wrong.Kmarion wrote:
He did get it right.. he fought it and it's documented.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
if he knew it was a lie, then he is following an unlawful order. it is his duty not to follow it.Kmarion wrote:
He took his orders from a higher power.. .. In this case it was his Commander in Chief. You guys in the military are just tools, right?
It was his opinion based on the evidence. His judgment was right. That is what is really at question here. How would you go about defending yourself when disobeying the President? Especially when nearly the whole of the entire US government is saying that military force should be used. His job is to advise and he did.usmarine wrote:
if he knew it was a lie, then he is following an unlawful order. it is his duty not to follow it.Kmarion wrote:
He took his orders from a higher power.. .. In this case it was his Commander in Chief. You guys in the military are just tools, right?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
And I don't think the president telling him to go talk to the UN is the same thing as a military order on a battlefield.usmarine wrote:
if he knew it was a lie, then he is following an unlawful order. it is his duty not to follow it.Kmarion wrote:
He took his orders from a higher power.. .. In this case it was his Commander in Chief. You guys in the military are just tools, right?
when it leads to a war....yes it is. orders are orders. you are bound by the UCMJ. he did it only to save his politcal career.san4 wrote:
And I don't think the president telling him to go talk to the UN is the same thing as a military order on a battlefield.
You really don't want anyone connected from that administration endorsing you. No matter what party you're on or who they are.
So we could impeach Bush now, right?usmarine wrote:
when it leads to a war....yes it is. orders are orders. you are bound by the UCMJ. he did it only to save his politcal career.san4 wrote:
And I don't think the president telling him to go talk to the UN is the same thing as a military order on a battlefield.
Or 90 percent of congress? ..lmaoSpearhead wrote:
So we could impeach Bush now, right?usmarine wrote:
when it leads to a war....yes it is. orders are orders. you are bound by the UCMJ. he did it only to save his politcal career.san4 wrote:
And I don't think the president telling him to go talk to the UN is the same thing as a military order on a battlefield.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You think he could have been court-martialed for refusing to go talk to the UN?usmarine wrote:
when it leads to a war....yes it is. orders are orders. you are bound by the UCMJ. he did it only to save his politcal career.san4 wrote:
And I don't think the president telling him to go talk to the UN is the same thing as a military order on a battlefield.
maybe. but i dont think so tbh. he would have been fired for sure. maybe blacklisted so to speak.san4 wrote:
You think he could have been court-martialed for refusing to go talk to the UN?
The Secretary of State is not bound by the UCMJ.usmarine wrote:
when it leads to a war....yes it is. orders are orders. you are bound by the UCMJ. he did it only to save his politcal career.san4 wrote:
And I don't think the president telling him to go talk to the UN is the same thing as a military order on a battlefield.
He made his case and his boss told him to press in another direction. It was not HIS opinion he was presenting, but the Administration's case. He was the Administration spokesman. He did what any good military member does: tell your boss you think he's wrong, then sell your boss's plan as if it were your own when he tells you what he wants to do.
Powell is still one of the most respected people in the US (Dilbert's opinion...strangely enough...notwithstanding). His endorsement of Obama will make a HUGE impact on the undecideds. Particularly since Powell is the one many wanted to see run this year (either party).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
A fair pointKmarion wrote:
Or 90 percent of congress? ..lmaoSpearhead wrote:
So we could impeach Bush now, right?usmarine wrote:
when it leads to a war....yes it is. orders are orders. you are bound by the UCMJ. he did it only to save his politcal career.
It just confuses me when being for the Iraq war only counts if you support a Democrat..... seems here on this forum that conservatives bring up the fact that because the Dems in congress voted for the damn thing makes liberals at fault...
I'm an equal opportunity blamer Spearhead.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
He doesn't have to obey an order which is fundamentally wrong.He took his orders from a higher power..
'Go before the UN and lie to the world on behalf of the USA so we can invade another country illegally'
'Yes sir!'
I'd like to have someone who doesn't have need of a facade.Most people would want someone who fights for his contrary beliefs behind the facades.
Honesty is the best policy.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!