Comments on: Powell Opposes Surging More U.S. Forces Into Iraq, Says There Are ‘No Additional Troops’ To Send

By: Think Progress » Powell Denies AP Report Claiming He Supports Escalation

Think Progress » Powell Denies AP Report Claiming He Supports Escalation — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 16:07:32 +0000

[...] Powell has previously stated his opposition to Bush’s escalation strategy. On Dec. 17, he said on CBS’s Face the Nation that there “are really no additional troops” to send to Iraq. [...]

By: EFFin’ Unsound » Blog Archive » Oh Molly, How Dare You Have Opinions?

Thu, 21 Dec 2006 04:41:55 +0000

[...] Yes, she thinks it’s a bad idea to kill more Americans. I don’t know why Eric is so fond of dead Americans. Presumably because he won’t be one of them (You can prove me wrong). There is no good reason to support the “surge.” The Joint Chiefs seem to be opposed. Colin Powell is opposed. There doesn’t seem to be any plan associated with it. The troops don’t even seem to be coming from anywhere. But that Molly is opposed, well that’s just the height of irrationality. Read, enjoy, and have a happy holidays (including a Merry Christmas!). Next year should be fascinating since this grumpiness is emerging even before Democrats formally take power. [...]

By: Cartoons Fans Lounge

Cartoons Fans Lounge — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:01:27 +0000

[...] story No Comments so far Leave a comment RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI Leave a comment Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTMLallowed:

[...]

By: Jrose Jrose — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 12:38:43 +0000 What the people who think we should send in more troop will not say is what they are supposed to do! What is winning? Is winning refusing to acknowledge that you never had any goals, and failed to accomplish the goals you made up along the way to pretend you had goals to begin with? We knew it was going to be catastrophic. It is. It will continue to be. We must rise up and stop them. Stand in the streets. Have a hunger strink. Make congress stop him. Impeach, fine, but in the meantime, many more may die. This must stop now. We didn’t run amok when they stole the election in 2000. Shame on us. We need to do it now. By: Think Progress » House Armed Services Chairman ‘Extremely Concerned’ With Iraq Escalation Plans Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:03:30 +0000 [...] Yesterday, incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he could support a brief increase in troop levels but only as part of a plan for phased withdrawal. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), a member of the Armed Services Committee, have said they do not favor troop increases. [...] By: Maddmoe Maddmoe — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:21:00 +0000 Lotta background noise in here. Those of you wanting to impeach the emperor because he has not clothes (or brain). Consider if he goes who is gonna replace him. Remember that man shot one of his own friends in the face, What’s he gonna do to you and me? and our children. By: franny franny — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:08:17 +0000 #33 & #34 – If Boxer decides to run for President (unlikely), she leaves her seat open for Ahnold. He’s probably going to run for it in 2010 anyway. By: j.cro j.cro — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 19:27:37 +0000 Why doesn’t the media remind Powell that he got up in front of the UN and said that we must invade Iraq b/c they had WMDs? I mean, the man doesn’t have an ounce of credibility left in his body. The “good soldier” my ass. If he disagreed, he should have resigned in protest. Whoever above said he still has political aspirations is correct… Why else would he tout a bunch of lies that help start this debacle of a quagmire?! I’m outraged. By: gorn gorn — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:37:09 +0000 #64 Bruce Peace, a stable, pro-US puppet goverment, and uncontested control over the oil fields. We cannot possibly ensure peace (in the Middle East? Hah!), so that’s not a usable measure of victory. As for pro-US puppet government and uncontested control of the oil fields, if these are the end goals of continued military operations, I don’t believe anything close to a majority of Americans would find it compelling, if even moral. Therefore, I conclude that “victory” is a meaningless, vacuous premise regarding the situation in Iraq, and as I said, we should stop using this propaganda term. Not to say I fully agree that we just cut our losses and leave. There are humanitarian considerations. We can’t necessarily solve them, but we should try to mitigate. The strategy should be to broker a compromise, diplomatic solution with Iraq’s neighbors to contain the situation and ensure that the conflict remains internal to Iraq, and provide a means of humanitarian assistance and sanctuary for the inevitable civilian refugees of protracted civil war. We also maintain a state of readiness in the Gulf, and retain the right to re-engage militarily to prevent any traction being gained by radical terrorist organizations in using Iraq as a base of operations for exporting terror. By: Zee Zee — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 18:15:13 +0000 Powell comments are accurate and true. He is more qualified to assess a military situation better than the average person or leadership. For any enlisted personnel the idea of commenting on any military topic is practically asking for court martial, but when it comes to the officer section it is a different game. Thus, you have comments that are coming out of the current high ranks. As any reader fully knows military is not a democracy as well as the leadership of any government (including the US when it comes to National security). Sometimes one had to scarify his/her personal stance and follow orders in order to keep good to remain good (make your definition of good). Powell took his information to the UN having a â€œgutâ€ feeling that it may not be as reliable. At the time, our situation of security was heightened to a level of insanity due to the horror of 911. The UN was, and still is, in bad shape to handle any global issues other than throw a resolution at any thing. Therefore, for any reader who has no military experience to make comments of â€œlacking leadership qualitiesâ€ to Powell is really not smart at all and irrelevant. If any reader is/was a military personnel in the higher ranking some assessment of any leadership would be acceptable to Powell. Beyond that, the public is welcomed for any comment but it is only based on hearsay or other news agency or writerâ€™s comments. Regardless please support our troops who are in the war and have gone through it. By: Powell Says He Opposes Sending More U.S. Forces Into Iraq at innerangst.net Powell Says He Opposes Sending More U.S. Forces Into Iraq at innerangst.net — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 17:05:58 +0000 [...] read more | digg story Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: . [...] By: Bruce Gorton Bruce Gorton — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 16:28:48 +0000 gorn Peace, a stable, pro-US puppet goverment, and uncontested control over the oil fields. Like I also said though, even with a massive upping of troop levels victory would be far from guaranteed, and chances are that victory would cost more then losing would. It would actually be a lot better for the American people if America just cut its losses and left. By: leftcoast leftcoast — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:07:05 +0000 I’m reading Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope. I have to say that I’m very impressed with his ability to articulate the aspirations of Americans, the political landscape and the steps needed to take us forward. He also has experience that goes well beyond that which Bush had coming into his first term. We have had so few politicians that can deliver a message as Obama. Yes, he is “star”; but, that’s because he resonates with so many Americans. A ticket which includes Obama should be considered. By: gorn gorn — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 07:42:31 +0000 Bruce Gorton #6 1 is the only way you can win in Iraq. It is the only real path to victory there. Can anyone explain to me what exactly constitutes “victory” or “winning” or “losing”? I keep hearing these words. They are empty and meaningless without an agreed benchmark of measurement. The original stated mission was to ensure Iraq would have no WMDs. Since WMDs did not exist, by that benchmark we were victorious three years ago. The original UNstated mission was to topple Saddam. By that measure, we were victorious about a week after the invasion started, and closed the deal when Saddam was dragged from his spider hole. So, if there is now a new definition of “victory”, what is it? Are we supposed to ensure that civil war will not happen in Iraq once we leave? How is it possible to ensure that, short of genocide? If the goal is to “defeat the terr-rists”, even genocide won’t do that, unless the genocide continues throughout the Middle East, and if that’s really the goal, we have more pressing battlefronts outside Iraq. I expect the neocons to talk about “victory” and “winning”, but we ought to do better on this side than to fall for that false dichotomy. We should avoid using these carefully selected loaded terms. We should be focusing on measurables, not intangibles, otherwise this hell will never come to a conclusion. By: doro doro — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 07:24:33 +0000 My dad was one of those sailors shoving the helicopters into the ocean after they landed on the aircraft carriers. What a nightmareâ€¦ Comment by Zooey â€” December 17, 2006 @ 3:00 pm Sorry Zooey if I touched painful family memories there. My dad was a soldier, too. In WWII. His health was broken and he died much too soon at the age of 65. I still miss him, that’s what makes me so furious about wars in general. It brings only sadness. By: rousettus madagascariensis rousettus madagascariensis — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 05:35:03 +0000 give bill orally a rusty old pistol and a box of bullets…oh, and send over his little ho, michelle…they’ll take care of it… By: RUCerious RUCerious — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 04:47:15 +0000 Nearly four years into this mess. There aren’t any MORE troops to send. The NeoCon Asshat warwhores should have thought about this before they bit off more than we could choke on. Out Now, not after another SURGE – (Note the last part of surge is urge, which is what George (GeOgre) Bush is trying to scratch again) By: Lora Lora — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 03:01:17 +0000 Might I suggest: Boxer/Obama or Obama/Boxer. Comment by Briseadh na Faire â€” For some of us, including myself, that is a dream team. But has Barbara Boxer ever expressed interest in running? Also, I’m not sure if America is ready for such a combination. By: Lucy Martinez Lucy Martinez — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 02:47:31 +0000 Bush–What would “success” and “winning” look like? I can’t even fathom what the *%&* we are doing there now, all I can see coming is more death and destruction. By: ForTruth ForTruth — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:38:03 +0000 All people who support Bush should suit up, cowboy up, and fall-in Marine, NOW!