It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Quote of Colin Powell

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2003 @ 06:35 PM
link   
When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the
Archbishop of Canterbury, if our plans for Iraq were just an example of
empire building by George Bush.
He answered by saying that, "Over the years, the United States has sent many
of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond
our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is
enough to bury those that did not return."
It became very quiet in the room.




posted on Apr, 4 2003 @ 06:38 PM
link   
That was a pretty good answer if you ask me.



posted on Apr, 4 2003 @ 06:46 PM
link   
For nearly a decade and a half I have always respected Powell, if it was safe for him to be president I would offer my sword as his Secret Service. I stand firm that Powell may be the only sane person in congress.



posted on Apr, 5 2003 @ 07:38 AM
link   
the statment is true i suppose when you don't into account privatization. that's just the buy-up/turn over of all of a countries natural resources to an american corporation...mostly it's done without war through the World Band, WTO, and IMF. some peoples of certain nations such as Bolivia and Colombia form terrorist organizations and fight back...most corporations doing business under the circumstances are given military cover by the USG paid for with our tax dollars and our young men and womens lives.

that's right...our military not only serves and protects freedom, but imperialism under the guise of "american interest". a wiser archbishop would have called Mr. Powell on that practice.



posted on Apr, 5 2003 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Saphronia:

I would like to see any supporting information you may have for your accusations. I would also like to see how it ties in with his statement.

In case you are wondering, I do happen to know that this war is being fought specifically for the economy, regardless of what is being mentioned in the media. (I have posted numerous threads on it). At the fore, an average democrat would say that isnt right to send people to die for money. That is true. However I DO support this war, because I also know just what the effects will be if we do not prosecute it... it would result in the essential end of the United States. I personally dont care to see that.

I am sure that if the true reason for the war was to be made public, the vast majority of Americans would support it 100%.



posted on Apr, 5 2003 @ 12:13 PM
link   
DR: i'll address the problems I see with Powell's quote.

"Over the years, the United States has sent many
of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is
enough to bury those that did not return."

Surely you understand how this thing works. First comes the conflict then privitization so, without taking one piece of land the IMF, WTO, and World Bank can take control of a countries economy then hand over control of a countries resources to bidding corporations. This will be done in Iraq. Bidding has already started on the rebuilding of the oil fields...if my memory serves me right I think Halliburton is the front runner.

The US being the richest nation holds the most votes and the these organizations are based in the US. So, basically the US controls these organizations--they are not democratic bodies though hundreds of nations are members.

a little background on how these organizations work:

CLICK

Ususally these corporations employ paramilitary groups for "sercurity". In some cases the country's military is employed. Ususally the groups are trained by US military. Since terrorism has expanded to the point where just securing with small forces isn't working. In nations such as Colombia corporations are getting a hand from US military.

more background:
CLICK

In every country where you find IMF influence and forced privitization you will find western/american corporations, civil unrest, increase in poverty and terrorism, and soon a US military presence.

The New Strategic Framework's comprehensive security arrangement is a more appropriate reflection not only of the post-Cold War relationship between the United States and Russia, but of the new security threats we face in the 21st century. These will be characterized by transnational terrorist threats that are harder to isolate and identify, and by the very real dangers that biological, chemical, or nuclear technology pose when hijacked by hostile forces. Partnership and cooperation between the United States and Russia has been a key objective of the Bush administration from the beginning, and our countries will work together to halt the dangers that threaten us and the rest of the civilized world.

--John Bolton, link



posted on Apr, 5 2003 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Surely you understand how this thing works. First comes the conflict then privitization so, without taking one piece of land the IMF, WTO, and World Bank can take control of a countries economy then hand over control of a countries resources to bidding corporations. This will be done in Iraq. Bidding has already started on the rebuilding of the oil fields...if my memory serves me right I think Halliburton is the front runner. Posted by Saphronia

I do understand how this works, and you are not far from the mark I will grant you. However, I do not see this as being a bad thing.

The reason I say this is because first of all the reason the war is being waged is to prevent the replacement of the US dollar as the world wide oil standard currency. This would be extremely devastating to the US economy because the oil standard is the ONLY hard asset backing the US dollar has. (The gold standard has been bastardized to the point of uselessness). If the Euro replaces the dollar, the dollar you have in your pocket will be worth about 1/10000 of what it is now.

If this comes to pass, the United States will become highly balkanized, and I wouldnt be surprised to see it literally break up similar to the former soviet republics.

In addition, there would be far reaching international effects, as about 75% of the worlds economy is built on areas of the US economy. If the foundation of this international economy collapses, there will be a world wide depression worse than anything we have seen in the past. At this point, a serious global conflict is the only way to pull us out of the depression... if you are worried about what we are doing in Iraq, wait till you see what this conflict will be like.

As to the privatization of smaller countries, yes it does happen. No arguement. Is that wrong? Maybe. But as I mentioned in another thread, life isnt fair. It sucks, but its true.

The fact is that those with the money and firepower gets to make the rules. Yes, the contracts to rebuild Iraq are going to be exclusively contained in the US/UK and a few other allied nations. There are a couple of reasons for that: 1, to make a bit of money (not a surprise) 2, to lock competitors (France and Germany) out of it, and also to lock them out of any potential influence to that country, and 3, to increase US control on that country, and by extension, the region.

Unfair? Yes. But as I mentioned, life isnt fair. I would content that this is neccessary in order to keep things from falling apart, and also to maintain an significant presence in the region to keep tabs (and pressure) on Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC nations.

By the way, yes, Halliburton is in fact still making plans for operations in Iraq. I interviewed with them last monday, and they were offering LOTS of money for me to go over to Iraq by the end of May.... I backed off on it, although it is MUCH more than I am making now.



posted on Apr, 5 2003 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I like powell, he would make an awesome president.

However the time of countries invading each other for land has passed in the first world. America may have only asked for the land enough to bury their dead, but instead of land they gain political power, military influence, economic gain, and increased buffers of secuity arond their country.

The wars fought by america (and basically every other country) were not fought for altruistic reasons but security and influence. That must be undeniable and obvious to anyone.

here is my favorite Powell quote

"When recently asked to comment about the fact that President Bush is in bed every night at 10 and that he sleeps like a baby, Powell reportedly remarked "I sleep like a baby too - every two hours I wake up screaming""



posted on Apr, 5 2003 @ 03:43 PM
link   
The wars fought by america (and basically every other country) were not fought for altruistic reasons but security and influence. That must be undeniable and obvious to anyone Posted by Netchicken

Absolutely correct. I dont think this should be thought of as a negative either. I have mentioned before, the US only goes to war in defence of national interests, here or abroad. If the true reason for the war was explained in a fashion whereby the average person on the street could understand it, and understand the consequences of NOT going to war, I think the vast majority of Americans would support it, as well as most of the rest of the world.



posted on Apr, 5 2003 @ 05:18 PM
link   
my point was that the quote is true and spoken by a true politican even if he doesn't like the title. in the world we live claiming and renaming land isn't necessary. all you have to do is devalue a countries currency, lend them money to compensate, and make them turn over their resources as a condition of the loan.

Powell's statement is true to a point but when you are dealing with USG nothing is ever that simple...and i'm sure he knows it.



posted on Apr, 5 2003 @ 05:48 PM
link   
all you have to do is devalue a countries currency, lend them money to compensate, and make them turn over their resources as a condition of the loan. Posted by Saphronia

Agreed.

My point is that if this war were not fought, such activities would be taking place in the US, and WE would be the ones to be on the loosing end. Again, is it unfair to the 3rd world countries we do it to? Yes, but what can you do about it? To fail to do anything in this instance would result in the US falling to the level of, oh, say Bolivia.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join