Colin Powell has died from covid complications

[gummy]

Just now, Fluke said:

Yes, that was just a guess , nothing factual . 

Not a guess but reported by many if you care to search the net. Ignorance of a subject is no excuse for posting stupid posts

[longwood50]

54 minutes ago, Stonker said:

He was an honourable man of the utmost integrity and loyalty - loyal to his beliefs and his country, and it doesn't get much better than that.

Why does it not surprise me that you are of that opinion.  If Mr. Powell had utmost integrity and was loyal to his beliefs, he would not have feigned that he was a Republican but rather preferred liberal beliefs more aligned with the Democrats.  I would have had far more respect for him.  A truly despicable person is someone who through deceit convinces you that they are your friend, share common values, and common goals and then stabs you in the back.  That sir, was Collin Powell.  He wore the robe of being a Republican merely to further his career personally and when it no longer had to carry on that deceit any longer showed his true colors.  As stated, you would have thought that his military training would have ingrained in him a sense of loyalty.  I would doubt that Mr. Powell would have treated a soldier kindly who "was loyal to his beliefs" but acted in a manner contrary to the betterment of the unit he served in.  Mr. Powell acted continually in a manner contrary to the Republican Party and to Republican leaders.  A truly honorable man with integrity would not disguise their beliefs.  No sir, Mr. Powell was an opportunist who said and did what served him, and then when the fakery no longer benefited him showed that everything he previously said he stood for was a lie.  A true soldier is loyal to the leadership and his fellow soldiers.  They do not as Mr. Powell did bad mouth the leadership of the party his said he had allegiance to nor do they do things that aid the adversaries of what he said were his "fellow" Republicans.  Finally, a man of high integrity and a true soldier does not go in front of the United Nations to portray a cause of war against Iraq for possessing weapons of mass destruction based on intelligence he knew was at best incomplete and more likely false costing thousands of his "fellow soldiers" their lives and limbs to say nothing of the tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens. 

Edited October 19, 2021 by longwood50

[BigHewer]

Two posts have been hidden.

Let’s reflect on Colin Powell and not go at each other.

Thanks,

Moderator

[Marc26]

11 minutes ago, gummy said:

Surprised you know next to nothing about some of your American heros.  Wiki and Google are your friends. 

I am telling you as an American, his Jamaican heritage never really came up.

He was known as a black man......... I would say celebrated as an accomplished black man, as the 1st black Sec of State

 

For you to bring up that his "Jamaican parentage" alienated him is just absurd, considering it was never really a topic.

 

As many have mentioned on here, Colin Powell was an extremely respected man. I would say he was one of the most universally well liked figures in US political/military history.

There was no "alienation" 

Edited October 19, 2021 by BigHewer
Reference in quote to deleted content removed

[gummy]

8 minutes ago, Marc26 said:

I am telling you as an American, his Jamaican heritage never really came up.

He was known as a black man......... I would say celebrated as an accomplished black man, as the 1st black Sec of State

For you to bring up that his "Jamaican parentage" alienated him is just absurd, considering it was never really a topic.

As many have mentioned on here, Colin Powell was an extremely respected man. I would say he was one of the most universally well liked figures in US political/military history.

There was no "alienation" 

That's excellent if recognised by all, not just Americans but most Western powers. By all accounts he was a man of integrity, not many in the modern world leadership can say that with all honesty. However dig deeper  and you will find in America there is still bias against him due to his heritage, the point I previously mentioned, completely unjustified but then prejudice in the US is still clearly an issue.

[Marc26]

6 minutes ago, gummy said:

That's excellent if recognised by all, not just Americans but most Western powers. By all accounts he was a man of integrity, not many in the modern world leadership can say that with all honesty. However dig deeper  and you will find in America there is still bias against him due to his heritage, the point I previously mentioned, completely unjustified but then prejudice in the US is still clearly an issue.

I don't disagree that the US has racial issues, I have always maintained that. I think it is one of the most racist countries in the world, to be honest. I've said that for a long time.

 

But my personal opinion, Powell's race was never really held against him. Quite honestly, Americans wouldn't know of him until he came into public view as an accomplished General, so he would be regarded highly on that basis, and not his race.

 

I am sure there were racists that didn't like him, but the overwhelming majority of people wouldn't factor in his race at the point he became a public figure, given his accomplishments

 

That is just my opinion. I was also a bit younger and not as politically involved when he was prominent.

[RobMuir]

6 hours ago, gummy said:

And just look at it now ? Another typical American example of not considering what happens afterwards. They never learn as Afghanistan has recently shown. 

Yeah typical.

 

[JerseyBKK]

7 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

The problem I have with statements like that, is that it most associated with Fascists, Populists and Totalitarianism.

The problem I have with statements like this is that they are most often associated with socialists and their communists brethren who think nothing of slaughtering millions of innocents in their quest to inflict their views on the world as they attempt to enslave everyone.

[JohninDublin]

6 minutes ago, JerseyBKK said:

The problem I have with statements like this is that they are most often associated with socialists and their communists brethren who think nothing of slaughtering millions of innocents in their quest to inflict their views on the world as they attempt to enslave everyone.

Newsflash: Communism died circa 1992, but it still lives on in the minds of some on the right.

Some recent users of saying, "Enemy of the people". Trump, Duterte, Farage.

The phrase originates from a 19th Century play by Henryk Ibsen, and concerns a Doctor who warns a Spa town that the local baths which are so vital to the local economy, is a petrie dish of infections, and is then attacked by local politicians. Move forward 140 years later, and what do we see in the US? Doctors warning of the dangers of CV, being treated as enemies of the people.

As for communism and oppression, anyone recall Tiananmen Sq? The lone Chinese man standing in front of a tank? Does this remind you of anything? https://news.sky.com/video/coronavirus-healthcare-workers-block-anti-lockdown-protest-in-colorado-11975734 How ironic that the woman was screaming at the healthcare worker, that if he wanted communism, he should go to China. BTW, China nowadays is about as Communist as the John Birch Society.

Then of course, there was the illegal armed invasion of the Michigan State Capitol. Who was it that said, "Power comes from the barrel of a gun"? Mao. So we have the right, who still haven't realised that Communism is pretty much dead and buried, castigating it, but having no compunctions about taking pages out of their playbook.

[JohninDublin]

13 hours ago, ninja said:

yes.   and please do not forget that all those enemies are just the faces in front of the billionaires that really control all the money and power..... and "policies"

There is a lot of truth in what you say. I recall not so long ago, the vacuous claim that the US is not democracy but a Republic, as if the two were mutually exclusive. But the reality is that the US is a plutocracy. It doesn't matter who wins, the plutocrats will have their way. 

It's vey much the "American Way": The best politicians money can buy.

[JohninDublin]

12 hours ago, longwood50 said:

Not my favorite person since rule 1 in the military is loyalty.  And Collin Powell feigned to be a Republican but stabbed them in the back each time. 

It sounds like you think that someone changing their mind politically should not be allowed. 

[JohninDublin]

11 hours ago, Smithydog said:

I would suggest this is not the person to focus debate around benefits or not of vaccination. General Powell, as has also been stated by news reports, was a sufferer of Multiple Myeloma, a form of Cancer. Sadly one effect is how it attacks the immune system as follows:

"Decreased ability to fight infection, from a shortage of white blood cells and the body’s inability to respond to infection because of the presence of abnormal antibodies"

https://www.cancer.net/cancer-types/multiple-myeloma/introduction

Hence even if younger than his 84 years, it is equally unlikely he would have achieved any herd style immunity and the vaccinations only helped (if anything) to prop up an already badly damaged immune system against such an insidious virus.

To me, he was an example of a man firm in his convictions, apologetic for his own faults, yet widely liked and admired by both sides of politics as indicated by being a recipient of the Congressional Gold Medal, and twice awarded the presidential Medal of Freedom, once with distinction, by both a Republican President and a Democratic President.

His mark of honesty was his continued acknowledgement of the blemish on a career caused by likely false intelligence given to him over the WMD situation. He didn't blame others, just accepted the blame himself for wrongly making presentations that were, unlikely known by him at the time apart from a "gut" feeling", supported by such false information. That perspective of responsibility  alone is highly unusual when compared against many politicians and others including media people today. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-33957894

He may not be so liked now by people for continuing to express his honest views. But at least they were both...his and honestly expressed. A married family man of nearly 60 years is an achievement in itself so many will not attain.

Rest in Peace, Colin Powell.

Excellent post.

[JohninDublin]

8 hours ago, Fluke said:

As I recall , Iraq and Kuwait had some disputed territory and Saddam discussed it with the USA , Saddam claimed that parts on Kuwait belonged to Iraq .

   The USA gave him the green light for Iraq to get their territory back and for some reason he took the whole of Kuwait . 

  Whether he did that with the USAs agreement or not , isn't publicly known 

My understanding is that he discussed his intention to invade with the US Ambassador and asked what the reaction of the US would be. He was told that they held no view on the issue.

I am of the opinion as many said afterwards, that had Kuwait produced bananas instead of oil, nobody would have given a second thought to liberating Kuwait.

[Lawyers_Guns_and_Money]

I always thought he was well spoken and polite, and obviously knew his place when he chose to lie to the United Nations on behalf of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld. He allowed himself to be used as a pawn.

Edited October 19, 2021 by Lawyers_Guns_and_Money

[JohninDublin]

7 hours ago, Fluke said:

The after math led to the USA invading Iraq and the removal of Saddam after falsely accusing him of having WMD's .

   Maybe that was the intention all along ?

I think a more likely explanation is that Rumsfeld in particular wanted a "soft victim" to add to his list of "underachievement's".

Then of course there was Cheney who as VP was on a leave of absence from Halliburton. They and their contractors had a "very good war". I recall seeing reports of them delivering petrol at 10X the local price.

[JohninDublin]

7 hours ago, gummy said:

And just look at it now ? Another typical American example of not considering what happens afterwards. They never learn as Afghanistan has recently shown. 

The US have the capability to win every war they face. Regardless, they have not won the peace since the Marshall Plan following WWII. 

IMHO. that was America's finest hour. 

[JohninDublin]

7 hours ago, Soidog said:

What I would add, is that this seems to be a problem for Western forces. We go in to a country to deal with a dangerous tyrant or stop a country falling in to the wrong hands, and we assume local people will want our form of democracy and rule of law. It’s an arrogance based on the assumption we are doing the moral work of god. We then become shocked and surprised local people don’t grasp the opportunity and continue insurgency. Mind you, the Russians and many others also failed in Afghanistan.

You might recall that most Iraquis welcomed the coalition forces. It went wrongly very quickly with the appointment of Brehme, whose first objective was the de-Baathification of Iraq. Any soldier, cop, public servant, teacher etc was instantly dismissed. The Allies had done something similar following WWII, The problem in both cases, are that in order to get a public sector job, you had to be a Nazi/Baath party member. But following WWII, the emphasis was on screening. Hardcore Nazis were purged, but those who had joined in order to get a job were not. No such distinction was made in Iraq.

Consequently there were the best part of 400k unemployed and unhappy men who had plenty of weapons to hand. That was the end of the Coalition's honeymoon.

[longwood50]

1 hour ago, JohninDubin said:

It sounds like you think that someone changing their mind politically should not be allowed. 

No, I think a stand up person does not misrepresent who they are to gain advancement.  Collin Powell was in the military and that is hardly a place where liberal ideology is in favor.  That is no different than if you were a conservative in the sociology at Berkley.  So Powell feigned to be a conservative to gain advancement and after he no longer had any reason to keep his true self hidden he revealed it.  That sir is a Benedict Arnold.  I would have had far far far more respect for him if he chose not to conceal his true self and stood for what he believed in up front.  Instead he gained the confidence of people who considered him an ally and friend and then stabbed them in the back.  

[Stonker]

3 hours ago, Marc26 said:

I don't disagree that the US has racial issues, I have always maintained that. I think it is one of the most racist countries in the world, to be honest. I've said that for a long time.

But my personal opinion, Powell's race was never really held against him. Quite honestly, Americans wouldn't know of him until he came into public view as an accomplished General, so he would be regarded highly on that basis, and not his race.

I am sure there were racists that didn't like him, but the overwhelming majority of people wouldn't factor in his race at the point he became a public figure, given his accomplishments

That is just my opinion. I was also a bit younger and not as politically involved when he was prominent.

His own view, to put that into perspective:

"I came into the Army just after segregation ended, and it was still a situation where I could go to Fort Benning, Georgia, to get my infantry and paratroop and ranger training, but if I went outside of Fort Benning, Georgia, to Columbus, Georgia, it was still segregated. I couldn't get a hamburger. And it was another few years before that ended. So we've come an extremely long way over the last half-century of my public life, but there's a way to go yet. We shouldn't think it's over. We know it's not over. We see the problems."

[JohninDublin]

59 minutes ago, longwood50 said:

No, I think a stand up person does not misrepresent who they are to gain advancement.  Collin Powell was in the military and that is hardly a place where liberal ideology is in favor.  That is no different than if you were a conservative in the sociology at Berkley.  So Powell feigned to be a conservative to gain advancement and after he no longer had any reason to keep his true self hidden he revealed it.  That sir is a Benedict Arnold.  I would have had far far far more respect for him if he chose not to conceal his true self and stood for what he believed in up front.  Instead he gained the confidence of people who considered him an ally and friend and then stabbed them in the back.  

I would say that this is your subjective opinion on the matter. After the way that Powell was misused to justify Iraq II, and the way that Bush's ignoring the warnings about the derivatives market caused the greatest disruption to the economy since the 1930's, I can see why he might become disillusioned with the GOP.

As for the Military not being a place for liberal ideology, are you suggesting that all soldiers follow the drumbeat of the Conservatives? Would that include those Generals who gave a strong indication, that they were not going to interfere if Trump had to be dragged from the WH. Or the General who contacted China to tell them that they would intervene if Trump tried to start a war with them on his way out of office?  

[Stonker]

2 hours ago, JohninDubin said:

It sounds like you think that someone changing their mind politically should not be allowed. 

I couldn't agree with you more over that, @JohninDubin.

If changing your mind and moving with the times wasn't respected, we'd all still be living with the same values we had fifty years ago (depending on our age!) regardless of how much times change and how our views change. 

In Colin Powell's case, avoiding politics (a bit), one of the biggest 'changes of mind' he had was his views on gays in the military.

As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Clinton he was strongly anti gays serving openly in the military, as were most of the military at the time.

Move on a decade or so, and he was vocally supporting LGBTQ serving openly in the military - as were most of the military at the time. 

That doesn't mean that he was 'wrong' with his earlier views or that he was hypocritical, as some might suggest, but that he kept an open mind and wasn't averse to change as circumstances changed.

Coincidentally John McCain had an identical change of mind on the same issue - another departed ex-military turned politician whose integrity, honesty and loyalty I also have the greatest respect for.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gays-military-idUSTRE6114OW20100203

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lgbt-opponent-advocate-mccain-stands-firm-defense-bill-n593036

[JohninDublin]

13 minutes ago, Stonker said:

I couldn't agree with you more over that, @JohninDubin.

If changing your mind and moving with the times wasn't respected, we'd all still be living with the same values we had fifty years ago (depending on our age!) regardless of how much times change and how our views change. 

In Colin Powell's case, avoiding politics (a bit), one of the biggest 'changes of mind' he had was his views on gays in the military.

As Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Clinton he was strongly anti gays serving openly in the military, as were most of the military at the time.

Move on a decade or so, and he was vocally supporting LGBTQ serving openly in the military - as were most of the military at the time. 

That doesn't mean that he was 'wrong' with his earlier views or that he was hypocritical, as some might suggest, but that he kept an open mind and wasn't averse to change as circumstances changed.

Coincidentally John McCain had an identical change of mind on the same issue - another departed ex-military turned politician whose integrity, honesty and loyalty I also have the greatest respect for.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-gays-military-idUSTRE6114OW20100203

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/lgbt-opponent-advocate-mccain-stands-firm-defense-bill-n593036

Yes! I think that both men compare favourably. Glad you posted that.

[Marc26]

1 hour ago, longwood50 said:

No, I think a stand up person does not misrepresent who they are to gain advancement.  Collin Powell was in the military and that is hardly a place where liberal ideology is in favor.  That is no different than if you were a conservative in the sociology at Berkley.  So Powell feigned to be a conservative to gain advancement and after he no longer had any reason to keep his true self hidden he revealed it.  That sir is a Benedict Arnold.  I would have had far far far more respect for him if he chose not to conceal his true self and stood for what he believed in up front.  Instead he gained the confidence of people who considered him an ally and friend and then stabbed them in the back.  

Why can't you have a bit of both ideologies?

Isn't that the problem we face now? That not enough people have both liberal and conservative views on all different policies?

Today, if you are conservative(or liberal),  you must agree with all or nothing, it seems......

 

I am socially liberal

But I agree with a lot of conservative policies on immigration, on limited government. I even have competing thoughts on singular policy. I agree on some conservative policies on Immigration and disagree on other conservative Immigration policy

[Stonker]

4 hours ago, Marc26 said:

Why can't you have a bit of both ideologies?

Isn't that the problem we face now? That not enough people have both liberal and conservative views on all different policies?

Today, if you are conservative(or liberal),  you must agree with all or nothing, it seems......

I am socially liberal

But I agree with a lot of conservative policies on immigration, on limited government. I even have competing thoughts on singular policy. I agree on some conservative policies on Immigration and disagree on other conservative Immigration policy

I'd suggest more importantly not only do not enough people  "have a bit of both" but not enough have respect for both.

Colin Powell and John McCain seem to sadly be in an ever shrinking minority in the US where they not only respected other people's views but were prepared to accept them, rather than to disagree on principle, where everything is either red or blue and there's nothing in-between with no overlap and no common ground even in the national interest, growing ever more extreme and divided.

[JohninDublin]

4 hours ago, Marc26 said:

Why can't you have a bit of both ideologies?

Isn't that the problem we face now? That not enough people have both liberal and conservative views on all different policies?

Today, if you are conservative(or liberal),  you must agree with all or nothing, it seems......

I am socially liberal

But I agree with a lot of conservative policies on immigration, on limited government. I even have competing thoughts on singular policy. I agree on some conservative policies on Immigration and disagree on other conservative Immigration policy

I've said it here before, but I think the term "leftist" is among the most vacuous in current usage, because the people who use it, generally use it to refer to anyone to the left of them. Thus a conservative who doesn't hate Jews and Blacks, can be considered a leftist on the far right.

I can understand the point about "big government", but if one side inherits a system that is broken in parts, most of the time, the only way to fix problem is with gov intervention. As an example, look at opioids or homelessness. Those two are often interlinked. Then there is climate change. If you have one side who decides to deny the science and starts reducing inspectors, by the time the other side is back in power, they not only have to replace these inspectors, but have to add more because of the damage those cuts caused to begin with.

There are certain problems that leaving it to the market just will not fix, especially when it is often the market that caused the problem to begin with.

But I take the general thrust of your point, which is that there are certain issues that people on both sides will oppose regardless of the merit of the idea just because it is an idea from the other side. Another comment I've made on this forum is that many problems that are faced, including opposition to change are down to the fact that schools in both the US and the UK don't teach civics. People need to understand, the causes of the problems, before they can even begin to think about fixing them, and so often that problem is lack of timely action by gov or even politicians aiding and abetting those responsible for the problems.

This world is not going to get any better until people stop viscerally opposing the ideas from the opposition, and start understanding the issues themselves. All we are doing with that stance is assuming bad faith on the part of the opposition. One example about assumed bad faith is the comment that suggested Powell was always a Democrat but climbed the greasy pole by pretending to be a Republican. Is it really possible that such a high profile man as this can spend 60 years of his life impersonating a Republican, and no be found out? Or is another explanation that he was outraged at being stitched up by his own party over WMD?

But if we look at our own role in these matters, what about our own media bias? The problem with our own media bias, is that we tend to listen to only the media that agrees with us. They will tell us what we want to hear, and thus we are faced with the curse of populism. And why is it so difficult to believe who is telling the truth when we hear something on the media. I'd suggest the answer is because we never learned Civics.