• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Colin Powell on Henry Gates: He should've Chilled Out

As for Powell, he Uncle Tomed his way to success.

His entire career, both military and political, was a simple matter of just telling the man above him what they wanted to hear, even when he disagreed profoundly, always expressed after the fact, when it no longer mattered.
 
JW Frogen said:
As for Powell, he Uncle Tomed his way to success.

His entire career, both military and political, was a simple matter of just telling the man above him what they wanted to hear, even when he disagreed profoundly, always expressed after the fact, when it no longer mattered.
Click to expand...

You could never convince me of that in a million years.
 
JW Frogen said:
As for Powell, he Uncle Tomed his way to success.

His entire career, both military and political, was a simple matter of just telling the man above him what they wanted to hear, even when he disagreed profoundly, always expressed after the fact, when it no longer mattered.
Click to expand...

A somewhat astute analysis, unfortunately.
 
JW Frogen said:
Powell's response before the UN when they told him his WMD presentation was full of crap?
Click to expand...

Powell was pressured by every single person in the White House and the country to make that speech? If he hadn't made the speech, you'd be raving that it was anti-american and unpatriotic. Not to mention the fact Powell was misled about the rationale to go to war, Tenet giving him evidence that had been flagged by analysts though not making Powell aware of that.

Your notionthat Powell is some careerist that just panders to his superiors is simply false
 
celticlord said:
Change your scenario to a young black professional decked out with a pastel polo shirt, leather jacket, Ray-ban sunglasses, and other fashion elements from the Sharper Image catalog, and you would have a more substantial argument.
Click to expand...

That individual's race was negated by the overwhelming other positive attributes. Are you really claiming that a cop is blind to color and will not deferentiate between an Afro-American and Caucasian?

My only point was that profling is made in an array of ways, and Afro-Americans are unfortunately discriminated as more likely to be commiting a crime or to be a criminal. So if you put two identical males, one black and one white, in the same scenario and doing the same thing... A cop would assess the situation and in that assessment, factor in whether the man was black or white. If the individual was black, it is very, very likely that the cop will be more alerted.
 
Last edited:
Tubub said:
Powell was pressured by every single person in the White House and the country to make that speech? If he hadn't made the speech, you'd be raving that it was anti-american and unpatriotic. Not to mention the fact Powell was misled about the rationale to go to war, Tenet giving him evidence that had been flagged by analysts though not making Powell aware of that.

Your notionthat Powell is some careerist that just panders to his superiors is simply false
Click to expand...

Powell was known for being an ass kissing political officer his entire career. You are looking at no Patton in Powell's mirror.

And you are wrong, I supported the war in Iraq, but if I had been Secretary of State I would have said this presentation about WMD is speculation, and I am not going before the UN to make it, send Rumsfeld on this case.

I would have told Bush I think we need to make the case Saddam is the WMD, that is the case we should make. And talk more about the democratisation project.

Oh and by the way, we are not sending enough troops in, as per the "Powell Doctrine", you know, the doctrine with Powell's name on it that Powell never really defended when it mattered most?

Because Powell went back to his reflex, tell them what they want to hear.

Then I went to NATO headquarters to get ****faced on Belgium beer.
 
Last edited:
JW Frogen said:
Powell's response before the UN when they told him his WMD presentation was full of crap?
Click to expand...

I covered that. It pissed me off too. But I believe he is a man of conscience and like Tommy Thompson, he jumped ship with Bush Corp.

I would stop short of calling a man who has given so much and sacrificed so much for our country an Uncle Tom. But I never said he was perfect. But I don't think he would ever do anything to harm our country intentionally. You gotta remember, with the help of some ingenious Rove strategy coupled with the likes of FOXNews, et al, the whole nation was mislead. From the bottom to the top. I never said Powell had a crystal ball. As soon as he got hip, we all saw what he did. He bailed.

I think he is a good man.
 
JW Frogen said:
Powell was known for being an ass kissing political officer his entire career. You are looking at no Patton in Powell's mirror.
Click to expand...
Bull****. Cite one source of this.

And you are wrong, I supported the war in Iraq, but if I had been Secretary of State I would have said this presentation about WMD is speculation, and I am not going before the UN to make it, send Rumsfeld on this case.
Click to expand...
The big if. I'm sure if you were Secretary of State, you would personally have gone to Iraq and beat the **** out of Saddam Hussein. If

I think we need to make the case Saddam is the WMD, that is the case we should make.
Click to expand...
The UN would tell you that years of economic sanctions and no-fly zones have made Saddam a secondary threat.

Oh and by the way, we are not sending enough troops in, as per the "Powell Doctrine", you know, the doctrine with Powell's name on it that Powell never really defended when it mattered most?
Click to expand...
Powell did defend it. Powell did everything he could to put more boots on the ground and to secure a better occupation... but that is not his job. Rumsefeld and Franks handled the war, and Rummy ended ORHA and therefore the State Department's prominence on the occupation, and replaced Jay Garner with the man he handpicked: Paul Bremer.

What evidence do you have that Powell did not repeatedly contest troop levels? You'd do yourself a favor by looking at what former officials say about the matter.
 
Captain America said:
I covered that. It pissed me off too. But I believe he is a man of conscience and like Tommy Thompson, he jumped ship with Bush Corp.

I would stop short of calling a man who has given so much and sacrificed so much for our country an Uncle Tom. But I never said he was perfect. But I don't think he would ever do anything to harm our country intentionally. You gotta remember, with the help of some ingenious Rove strategy coupled with the likes of FOXNews, et al, the whole nation was mislead. From the bottom to the top. I never said Powell had a crystal ball. As soon as he got hip, we all saw what he did. He bailed.

I think he is a good man.
Click to expand...

Powell knew that the case the CIA and Department of Defense gave him was not the kind of solid intelligence he would use to fight a military battle, but he used to to fight the UN battle because that is how he moved up his entire career.

And Powell was disgraceful in allowing Rumsfeld to dominate the military strategy, the minimal force strategy that got us into so much trouble and strife.

And where was Powell's voice when General Shinski told everyone we were not using the right amount of force, not enough troops, you know, the Powell doctrine.

Powell was AWOL.
 
Tubub said:
That individual's race was negated by the overwhelming other positive attributes. Are you really claiming that a cop is blind to color and will not deferentiate between an Afro-American and Caucasian?
Click to expand...
The only thing I am claiming is that your so-called evidence does not prove your case. You have demonstrated in abundance that minorities perceive discrimination--something with which I do not disagree. You have not shown how an individual may rationally and objectively discern discrimination; you have not shown by what combination of empirical indicators one may know he or she is receiving discriminatory treatment.

Tubub said:
My only point was that profling is made in an array of ways, and Afro-Americans are unfortunately discriminated as more likely to be commiting a crime or to be a criminal. So if you put two identical males, one black and one white, in the same scenario and doing the same thing... A cop would assess the situation and in that assessment, factor in whether the man was black or white. If the individual was black, it is very, very likely that the cop will be more alerted.
Click to expand...
You are presuming the same groupthink on the part of cops that you properly reject on the part of minorities.

The flaw in the statistical models is that they only work at a broad level addressing broad group dynamics. At the level of the individual, the model may be negated by any number of personal characteristics--there is no more a monolithic "cop" mentality than there is a monolithic "black" mentality. No matter how dramatic the statistics are, not all minorities perceive the discrimination, and not all police are guilty of discrimination. Both groups display significant variation within their respective sample populations.

How do you determine who is and who is not either discriminating or discriminated against? That is the question--and it is not one your statistics even begin to answer.
 
JW Frogen said:
Powell knew that the case the CIA and Department of Defense gave him was not the kind of solid intelligence he would use to fight a military battle, but he used to to fight the UN battle because that is how he moved up his entire career.

And Powell was disgraceful in allowing Rumsfeld to dominate the military strategy, the minimal force strategy that got us into so much trouble and strife.

And where was Powell's voice when General Shinski told everyone we were not using the right amount of force, not enough troops, you know, the Powell doctrine.

Powell was AWOL.
Click to expand...

What fails to enter your mind is that Powell was Secretary of State. It is not a State function to judge military policy and decision... he would be out of line if he publicly was denouncing what the SoD was doing. He did as much as he could within SoS parameters.
 
Tubub said:
That individual's race was negated by the overwhelming other positive attributes. Are you really claiming that a cop is blind to color and will not deferentiate between an Afro-American and Caucasian?

My only point was that profling is made in an array of ways, and Afro-Americans are unfortunately discriminated as more likely to be commiting a crime or to be a criminal. So if you put two identical males, one black and one white, in the same scenario and doing the same thing... A cop would assess the situation and in that assessment, factor in whether the man was black or white. If the individual was black, it is very, very likely that the cop will be more alerted.
Click to expand...

And you think that is only because of his skin color?

Interesting......

But you do have a very valid point.

But I have to ask. Changing scenerios, if you walked into a yard and there was a pitt bull and a golden lab, which one would you be more cautious of?

Would you be guilty of animal profiling or just exercizing instinctive self-preservation?

Much to ponder.
 
Last edited:
Tubub said:
Bull****. Cite one source of this.


The big if. I'm sure if you were Secretary of State, you would personally have gone to Iraq and beat the **** out of Saddam Hussein. If


The UN would tell you that years of economic sanctions and no-fly zones have made Saddam a secondary threat.


Powell did defend it. Powell did everything he could to put more boots on the ground and to secure a better occupation... but that is not his job. Rumsefeld and Franks handled the war, and Rummy ended ORHA and therefore the State Department's prominence on the occupation, and replaced Jay Garner with the man he handpicked: Paul Bremer.

What evidence do you have that Powell did not repeatedly contest troop levels? You'd do yourself a favor by looking at what former officials say about the matter.
Click to expand...

Powell did not do anything to get more boots on the ground, nothing, nadda; he made not one strong statement against DOD plans ever, except one inane pottery barn statement to the President.

He did not risk his position to defend the doctrine named after him.

How pathetic is that?

Incidentally, Powell was also tragically wrong about the First Gulf War, he warned Bush Snr we would loose 50,000 troops and may not be able to remove Saddam from Kuwait.

Had Powell been headed in that war Kuwait would now be Saddam's prison playground?

But when that war was successful, Powell had no problem taking credit for it.

Just as he had no problem bailing out on a war he never did a thing to stop, because he thought it would be unsuccessful?

Powell is the kind of leader that makes good headlines, media types love him, but no real soldier would want to fight with, or under him.
 
Last edited:
Tubub said:
What fails to enter your mind is that Powell was Secretary of State. It is not a State function to judge military policy and decision... he would be out of line if he publicly was denouncing what the SoD was doing. He did as much as he could within SoS parameters.
Click to expand...

Oh yes it is!

It is State's job to say the military strategy is incapable of delivering the political results we are looking for. Even worse for Powell he had more military credentials than Rummy, but he never had the balls to take Rummy on, ever.

Not publically, not in the White House.
 
Last edited:
JW Frogen said:
Oh yes it is!

It is State's job to say the military strategy is incapable of delivering the political results we are looking for if that is the case, as it was, even worse, Powell had more military credentials than Rummy, but he never had the balls to take Rummy on, ever.
Click to expand...

I gotta agree with a lot you say, (except the degrading personal remarks toward Powell.)

Is it possible at all that Powell knew that the only way he will be able to stay in the game was to play by the CiC's rules? For, surely, those who did not got sidelined every time. Just a thought.
 
celticlord said:
You have not shown how an individual may rationally and objectively discern discrimination; you have not shown by what combination of empirical indicators one may know he or she is receiving discriminatory treatment.
Click to expand...
Because that isn't provable and I think you know that.

The evidence is based on the individual, and if an overwhelming amount of individuals in a certain group say they have been discriminated against, what conclusion would you arrive at? Now, making the case that they arrive at that conclusion because they are black is futile since being black has no bearing on the person... They are all completely different people that share one innate thing in common: Their skin color.


You are presuming the same groupthink on the part of cops that you properly reject on the part of minorities.
Click to expand...
Being a police officer and being a black man do not equate. I do not mean to generalize police officers, but they do profile on several levels.

The flaw in the statistical models is that they only work at a broad level addressing broad group dynamics. At the level of the individual, the model may be negated by any number of personal characteristics--there is no more a monolithic "cop" mentality than there is a monolithic "black" mentality. No matter how dramatic the statistics are, not all minorities perceive the discrimination, and not all police are guilty of discrimination. Both groups display significant variation within their respective sample populations.
Click to expand...
I never denied this. I completely agree.

How do you determine who is and who is not either discriminating or discriminated against? That is the question--and it is not one your statistics even begin to answer.
Click to expand...
It is all based on what the individual perceives as discrimination. You made that earlier point, and I agree... But I don't get why your denying the fact that an officer is going to have a different response to one individual over another because of profling... That would include race, attire, hygeine and an array of different factors.
 
JW Frogen said:
Powell did not do anything to get more boots on the ground, nothing, nadda; he made not one strong statement against DOD plans ever, except one inane pottery barn statement to the President.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia entry: "Powell came under fire for his role in building the case for the 2003 Invasion of Iraq. In a press statement on February 24, 2001 he had said that sanctions against Iraq had prevented the development of any weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein. As was the case in the days leading up to the Persian Gulf War, Powell was initially opposed to a forcible overthrow of Hussein, preferring to continue a policy of containment. However, Powell eventually agreed to go along with the Bush administration's determination to remove Hussein. He had often clashed with others in the administration, who were reportedly planning an Iraq invasion even before the September 11 attacks, an insight supported by testimony by former terrorism czar Richard Clarke in front of the 9/11 Commission. The main concession Powell wanted before he would offer his full support for the Iraq War was the involvement of the international community in the invasion, as opposed to a unilateral approach. He was also successful in persuading Bush to take the case of Iraq to the United Nations, and in moderating other initiatives. Powell was placed at the forefront of this diplomatic campaign."

How did he not benefit the country in those years?


He did not risk his position to defend the doctrine named after him.
Click to expand...
You do understand that the reason it is named after him is because it is his doctrine... right?


Incidentally, Powell was also tragically wrong about the First Gulf War, he warned Bush Snr we would loose 50,000 troops and may not be able to remove Saddam from Kuwait.
Click to expand...
Wow! YOUR A GENUIS! You see... Powell was actually Joint Chief of Staffs at the time... What were you? Powell said in the event of a "direct attack" on Iraq's defenses in Kuwait that, on paper, we would lose 50,000 troops. That didn't happen now did it?

Had Powell been headed in that war Kuwait would now be Saddam's prison playground?
Click to expand...
Powell supported the intevention in Kuwait.

But when that war was successful, Powell had no problem taking credit for it.
Click to expand...
Probably because he was pivotal in the war and credit was given by others.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YU3I70sd9ys&feature=PlayList&p=28F3426F7128484F&index=2"]YouTube - Gulf War - Desert Shield (051 - 22nd December, 1990)[/ame]

Just as he had no problem bailing out on a war he never did a thing to stop, because he thought it would be unsuccessful?
Click to expand...
He never said it would be unsuccessful.

Powell is the kind of leader that makes good headlines, media types love him, but no real soldier would want to fight with, or under him.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry... are you a veteran?

You are clearly attacking Powell to meet some lame partisan end... Powell is one of the greatest statesman of the 20th and so far 21st century, he should be revered and respected by every American. All you can do is attack him with the most baseless accusations.
 
Tubub said:
Because that isn't provable and I think you know that.
Click to expand...
Exactly!! So on what basis can we blithely conclude that Gates' arrest is predicated on racial profiling? On what basis can we rationalize Gates' behavior as a reaction to racial profiling?

Tubub said:
The evidence is based on the individual, and if an overwhelming amount of individuals in a certain group say they have been discriminated against, what conclusion would you arrive at?
Click to expand...
That the group had, for reasons not stated or examined, perceived discriminatory treatment. The statements and statistics you have provided do not support any further conclusion.

Tubub said:
Now, making the case that they arrive at that conclusion because they are black is futile since being black has no bearing on the person... They are all completely different people that share one innate thing in common: Their skin color.
Click to expand...
You have not proven that is the sole common denominator. That is an assumption on your part; it may be correct, but it is an unproven assumption.

Tubub said:
Being a police officer and being a black man do not equate. I do not mean to generalize police officers, but they do profile on several levels.
Click to expand...
I don't have to generalize. You are profiling police officers here.

Tubub said:
It is all based on what the individual perceives as discrimination. You made that earlier point, and I agree... But I don't get why your denying the fact that an officer is going to have a different response to one individual over another because of profling... That would include race, attire, hygeine and an array of different factors.
Click to expand...
I am not denying that people react to others based on a variety of cues and characteristics. I am denying that your initial set of statistics demonstrate that police officers react based on cues of race/ethnicity more so than other cues.

What you have not grasped is that all of the examples you have cited, both statistical and hypothetical, model and are predicated on a model of the mindset of the civilian, not the police officer. Your arguments say much about civilian perceptions of police--they do not shed any light on the perceptions by the police.
 
JW Frogen said:
Oh yes it is!

It is State's job to say the military strategy is incapable of delivering the political results we are looking for. Even worse for Powell he had more military credentials than Rummy, but he never had the balls to take Rummy on, ever.

Not publically, not in the White House.
Click to expand...

Political infighting

Rumsfeld, ever aggressive, now hopes to seize on the rout of the Iraqi military by imposing America's will in the region and in other trouble spots, ultimately forcing adversaries to back down and making the world safer for U.S. interests.

Powell, mindful of the isolated status of the United States after its attack on Iraq, seeks to rebuild alliances with Europe, mend fences at the United Nations and reinvolve other countries in the global war on terrorism.

"These are two genuinely different and very strongly held views on how the United States should behave in the world," said Robert Einhorn, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies who served until August 2001 as assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation.

"I think what's happened is the substantive stakes are higher now. We're in the midst of the post-Saddam era, and we're in the midst of a nuclear crisis with North Korea. This is no longer theoretical. That's one reason why the divisions have become much more stark."

The debate is about policy, but its fervor stems from the personalities and philosophies of the protagonists.

"You have two very different geopolitical views and two very strong personalities, two men who are not only sure of themselves personally but are at the capstone of their careers," said P.W. Singer, a former Pentagon official and now an expert in modern warfare at the Brookings Institution.

"They're also both secure in that they know they have a certain constituency and know it would be very difficult for President (George W.) Bush to choose between them and say it's either one or the other."
Click to expand...


Powell vs Rummy
Former US secretary of state Colin Powell said Sunday he had expressed concerns to President George W. Bush that they were not sending a large enough military force to Iraq before the US-led invasion in early 2003.
"I made the case to General (Tommy) Franks and (Defence) Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld before the president that I was not sure we had enough troops," Powell told Britain's ITV1 television.

"The case was made, it was listened to, it was considered ... a judgment was made by those responsible that the troop strength was adequate."

Powell, a former US Army general and Vietnam veteran, said he did not agree with the assessment by Bush's military advisers that they were sending enough troops in March 2003 to topple former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein.
Click to expand...

What more are you really asking for? Do you not understand the different roles and responsibilities of different cabinet positions?



And on a futher note, in fighting between the Defense and State Department during the Bush administration is well known. I have seen Jay Garner say in an interview that Rumsfeld told him in a 1-1 meeting that he didn't like a few of the people on Garner's team, that he didn't like the people on his team that were from the State Department and that they should be removed. Garner said he needed those people... Garner got his ass removed and replaced by someone perceived to be a more loyal neo-con.
 
Last edited:
celticlord said:
Exactly!! So on what basis can we blithely conclude that Gates' arrest is predicated on racial profiling? On what basis can we rationalize Gates' behavior as a reaction to racial profiling?
Click to expand...
The cop reported it as two black males when he was told one was hispanic in the 9 11 call. You are taking what I said out of perspective anyway... your essentially putting words in my mouth or ideas that I supposively brought up when I didn't. Your case is not much of a counter to my original point.


That the group had, for reasons not stated or examined, perceived discriminatory treatment. The statements and statistics you have provided do not support any further conclusion.
Click to expand...
When one race "perceived" discriminatory treatment at 4x the proportion of another, and that group is full of completely different individuals, then the evidence supports the conclusion that one group is discriminated against at a way higher rate than the others.

You claim that is all "perception," but all of those individuals perceptions would be different.
You have not proven that is the sole common denominator. That is an assumption on your part; it may be correct, but it is an unproven assumption.
Click to expand...
What is an assumption on my part? That being black does not have a bearing on an individual's personality?

I don't have to generalize. You are profiling police officers here.
Click to expand...
I never said you did generalize. I am stating the obvious, and that is that the police profiles. That is how the police operates. Some individual officers may hold other aspects of a suspect in higher regard than race, but it is irrelevent when we are discussing the general and vague.


I am not denying that people react to others based on a variety of cues and characteristics. I am denying that your initial set of statistics demonstrate that police officers react based on cues of race/ethnicity more so than other cues.
Click to expand...
What is the first question a 9 11 caller is asked when naming a suspect? "Is the individual white, black, or hispanic?"

What you have not grasped is that all of the examples you have cited, both statistical and hypothetical, model and are predicated on a model of the mindset of the civilian, not the police officer. Your arguments say much about civilian perceptions of police--they do not shed any light on the perceptions by the police.
Click to expand...
The issue is not the individual police officer as much as the police itself. The organization centers around profiling people to assess the situation and use different techniques to recognize when someone is "suspicious". Among those are factoring in an individual's race. It's that simple.

But as for polls of police officers... I couldn't find anything appropriate for that on the internet.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom