Great Colin Powell quote.....

[texasbluebell]

bookmark

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Archbishop of HarryPotterbury BUMP.

[Ditto]

"A bit disingenuous, though, since we control pretty much the entire planet at this point in time.

We do? France? Russia? Germany? Turkey? China? India?

We control those places?

[Mudbug]

Secretary Powell made these remarks at the World Economic Forum in Switzerland on January 26 during the Q&A that followed his presentation:

"We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last hundred years and we’ve done this as recently as the last year in Afghanistan and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in, and otherwise we have returned home to seek our own, you know, to seek our own lives in peace, to live our own lives in peace. But there comes a time when soft power or talking with evil will not work where, unfortunately, hard power is the only thing that works."

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2003/16869.htm

[Dr. Eckleburg]

DU? As in Duh?

Give it a rest, pal. We only differ in our vocabulary.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Question: What currency is the Euro based on?

[stands2reason]

All I can say, is, if we are empire-building, we sure are doing a lousy job of it.

[Samwise]

Lump in throat.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Time will tell.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Thanks!

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man.

Twain

[RonDog]

GREAT FIND!

"Urban legend," my butt!

See also THIS confirmation (in the next-to-last paragraph) from www.weeklystandard.com:

The Peacenik Top 10
A look at the ten most popular objections to war and some common-sense responses to them.
by Fred Barnes
03/06/2003 12:00:00 AM

Fred Barnes, executive editor

THOSE OPPOSED to military action in Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein, destroy his weapons of mass destruction, and liberate the 24 million Iraqi citizens under his control cite at least 10 objections to going to war now. These objections range from the arguable to the totally absurd. Let's examine them.

(1) Rush to war. This is a favorite of congressional Democrats. But the rush is more like a baby crawl. Iraq has been in material breach of United Nations resolutions since a few weeks after the Gulf War ended in 1991. New resolutions have been approved, inspectors ousted, and the United Nations made to look impotent. President Bush has taken all the steps asked of him before going to war: getting the approval of Congress, getting another U.N. resolution (with perhaps yet another on the way), and building a coalition of supporters. He's hardly rushing.

(2) It's a war for oil. The United States could buy all the oil it wants from Iraq by lifting the sanctions and helping to reconstruct the Iraqi oilfields. It's the French and Russians who have oil deals with Saddam and thus are fixated on that issue. They don't want a war that would upset those deals.

(3) War with Iraq will bring more terrorism. This is a hardy perennial. It was claimed before the Gulf war and the Afghanistan campaign--and when bombs fell on al Qaeda and the Taliban during Ramadan. Rather than more terrorism, removing Saddam will bring more respect for the United States. Terrorists will be increasingly fearful.

(4) The Arab street will erupt. Another perennial. This is often predicted but rarely happens. A swift, decisive victory over Saddam will quiet the Arab street. So far, only the American street has erupted--against the French and Germans.

(5) Bush is doing it for his dad. President Bush the elder stopped short of deposing Saddam in the Gulf war and to this day believes he did the right thing. So do his top aides, such as national security adviser Brent Scowcroft. Instead, they agreed to a truce with Saddam conditioned on Iraq's full disarmament. Also, consider the source of this charge: Martin Sheen.

(6) Attacking Iraq would be unprovoked aggression. No, it wouldn't. Andrew Sullivan has pointed out a significant fact: There was no peace treaty, only the truce, so the state of war resumes when the conditions are violated. By attacking now, the United States would be ending the war, not starting it.

(7) Containment is working. The problem is the right threat is not being contained: the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Sure, with U.S. troops and U.N. inspectors in the area, Saddam won't attack Jordan or Syria or other neighbors. But he could slip chemical or biological agents to terrorists without anyone knowing. And that's the threat.

(8) America doesn't have enough allies. What? Forty or so isn't enough? Is the case for war weakened in the slightest by the absence of the French or the Angolans? No. And despite what Democrats like Howard Dean say, a war with Iraq would not be "unilateral," which would mean the United States would be acting alone.

(9) Win without war. That's a nice goal. Unfortunately, it's Saddam's goal. With no war, he wins and emerges as the new strongman in the Middle East, forcing people to come to terms with him.

(10) Bush is seeking a new American empire. This is a favorite accusation of Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, the man who once recited the Gettysburg Address in Donald Duck's voice. I'll let Secretary of State Colin Powell answer this one. When hectored by a former archbishop of Canterbury on this subject recently, he said: "We have gone forth from our shores repeatedly over the last 100 years . . . and put wonderful young men and women at risk, many of whom have lost their lives, and we have asked for nothing except enough ground to bury them in." Well said.

No doubt opponents are capable of coming up with new arguments against war with Iraq. They'd better do so soon because so far they haven't convinced anyone outside the reflexively anti-Bush crowd.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

[Ditto]

What currency is the Euro based on?

It's based on the Euro, Doc. It's value is based on the national bank reserves of it member nations and the fiduciary trust people place in the Euro. It's value can go up or down when measured against the US Dollar, or the British Pound, or the Japanese Yen, just like any currency can move up or down against any other currency.

It is not based on the US Dollar although when created, they exchanged Francs, Duetchmarks, Lira, Peso, etc. to bring the Euro into par value with the dollar. Since then, its relative value has been both above and below the value of the dollar.

Some very small countries have "pegged" their currency to the value of the dollar, and some others have forsaken national currencies all together and accepted either the dollar, Euro, or Pound as their official media of exchange.

[Mudbug]

Thank you. Secretary Powell's other comments, particularly about his response to 9/11, are also a worthwhile read.

[Brian Allen]

<< As an Episcopalian, the Arch Bishop of Canterbury is a disgrace to our religion. >>

At my [Current] Home-Away-FRom-Home congregation -- Saint Andrews Anglican Cathedral, Singapore -- we have sent missionaries to and consecrated bishops in both England and America in our efforts to endeavor to bring the church in both countries back to the traditional, theological and biblical "straight and narrow."

[SquirrelKing]

"All I can say, is, if we are empire-building, we sure are doing a lousy job of it."

I guess if there is an empire it's an empire of ideas. We export freedom around the world on the backs of military, commercial, and other personnel. We can measure our sphere of influence in the free markets of Asia, a warm Coke in Africa, and now a smiling Iraqi child.

PS: Give 'em hell, Texas.

[what's up]

No, I think Powell knows (and knew) that working the UN would be a quagmire. I believe it was a ruse to bring moderates who respected Powell into the pro-war fold.

[visualops]

Bravo!
I like Fred Barnes more every day.
Recently, I heard him just come out and say Daschle et al just hate Bush. No reasoning, no politics, just hate.
Then, he said that it is intellectually dishonest to say you "support the troops" but not what they are doing (i.e. the war).
The truth rules!

[T Lady]

In a word, the man IS brilliant.

...What was that nonsense Harry Belafonte was spouting about Colin being a houseslave?

-Regards, T.

[justanotherfreeper]

It was smart on their part because it worked. Several of my moderate friends from church were shocked at how France and Germany behaved. I don't see how anybody with a pulse couldn't tell the UN -- and France -- would hose us. It really surprised me how upset these gals got.