Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 46 of 46

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

  1. #41
    Jedi Master
    Captain America's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 01:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,672

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JW Frogen View Post
    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.
    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.

    It's GREAT to be me. --- "45% liberal/55% conservative"
    Diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy" until you can find a gun.

  2. #42
    Advisor Tubub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    05-22-13 @ 03:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    521

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

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    “Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”
    -TR

  3. #43
    Advisor Tubub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    05-22-13 @ 03:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    521

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JW Frogen View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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?
    Powell supported the intevention in Kuwait.

    But when that war was successful, Powell had no problem taking credit for it.
    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=28F3426F712 8484F&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?
    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.
    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.
    “Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”
    -TR

  4. #44
    Sage
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    08-27-09 @ 08:41 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,344

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubub View Post
    Because that isn't provable and I think you know that.
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubub View Post
    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?
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubub View Post
    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 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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubub View Post
    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.
    I don't have to generalize. You are profiling police officers here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tubub View Post
    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.
    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.

  5. #45
    Advisor Tubub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    05-22-13 @ 03:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    521

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

    Quote Originally Posted by JW Frogen View Post
    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.
    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."

    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.
    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 by Tubub; 08-01-09 at 02:40 AM.
    “Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”
    -TR

  6. #46
    Advisor Tubub's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    05-22-13 @ 03:31 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    521

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

    Quote Originally Posted by celticlord View Post
    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?
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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 by Tubub; 08-01-09 at 03:13 AM.
    “Far better is it to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checked by failure...than to rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in a gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat.”
    -TR

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •