I swore to myself I wouldn't post on a political subject again....but, here goes!

I think Colin Powell could be elected President at the next election...or the one after that. I think his eloquence combined with his no-nonsense style is appealing to the average citizen. I admire the man.

---

Quid quid latine dictum sit altum videtur
(That which is said in Latin sounds profound)

I agree that it is a very eloquent response, well said Mr Powell. However, it is also just a very eloquent political non answer to a direct question.

Don't think anyone would disagree that the US doesn't want to ship people over to Iraq to use their land to build yet another strip mall and housing development, but what's under that land is a major (if not THE major) reason the US forces are digging into the sands outside of Baghdad. The current US empire is very dependent on that little Iraqi export.
I guess what would have been the best answer to that question would have been "No, not empire builidng, but empire maintenance."

Texas and Mexico wars? Let's not mention the indians.

Agree Powell and McCain are brilliant but I fear neither would ever be elected and that neither of them would run.

I agree it is a great quote from a great American.

The spirit of the quote cited above is true, although the context in which it was delivered has been greatly simplified.

During an address to the World Economic Forum, Secretary of State Colin Powell was asked a somewhat long and involved question by the former Archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, which ended with the following interrogative:

And would you not agree, as a very significant political figure in the United States, Colin, that America, at the present time, is in danger of relying too much upon the hard power and not enough upon building the trust from which the soft values, which of course all of our family life that actually at the bottom, when the bottom line is reached, is what makes human life valuable?

Secretary Powell delivered a lengthy response to the former Archbishop's question, in the midst of which came the eloquent line quoted in the example above:

The United States believes strongly in what you call soft power, the value of democracy, the value of the free economic system, the value of making sure that each citizen is free and free to pursue their own God-given ambitions and to use the talents that they were given by God. And that is what we say to the rest of the world. That is why we participated in establishing a community of democracy within the Western Hemisphere. It's why we participate in all of these great international organizations.

There is nothing in American experience or in American political life or in our culture that suggests we want to use hard power. But what we have found over the decades is that unless you do have hard power -- and here I think you're referring to military power -- then sometimes you are faced with situations that you can't deal with.

I mean, it was not soft power that freed Europe. It was hard power. And what followed immediately after hard power? Did the United States ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan. Soft power came with American GIs who put their weapons down once the war was over and helped all those nations rebuild. We did the same thing in Japan.

So our record of living our values and letting our values be an inspiration to others I think is clear. And I don't think I have anything to be ashamed of or apologize for with respect to what America has done for the world.

(Applause.)

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.

A full transcript of Secretary Powell's address is available on the WEF web site.

I agree that Powell is a brilliant man. However, I am bothered by the always present reference to god in many speeches given in the US.

isn't the gov. supposed to be laic? what if you believe in god differently than the gov. people?
just a question out of curiosity. the ref. to god is quasi never an issue in Europe (in most countries anyway).

If my memory is correct, Independence (and, the land that came with independence) from Mexico was gained by Texas - it's own country at the time... As for the Mexican-American War, I believe there was a disagreement over where the border actually existed. So, from that standpoint maybe that was colonialist addition. But, who was the real winner in the long run... ever been to that portion that was gained after the Mexican-American War?

Now, before anyone decides to jumb all over me with that last statement... It's called a - joke. Bedside, I'm a Texan and know many people who live in that annexed area of Texas... and even a few relatives. So, lightened up before anyone starts flaming me.

As for the Indian, perhaps the best bumper sticker I ever saw was on a Oklahoma License plated car (BTW, it was an Indian Reservation License plate - heck, I didn't even know there was such a thing). The bumper sticker said, "Indians Had Bad Imigration Laws". Now that is funny.

FWIW Joe Moya

Hey Joe,

I live in Texas (El Paso)...are you sure americans won the war?? sure speak a lot of spanish here! :-))

Whoa there, Frenchie! The United States has no official language, nor do we have uppity language police who strive to keep the way we speak "pure".

- Man, I don't know what just got into me... ;)

let me note ahead of time i have no real belief in a god explained in the bible or koran. i also have no belief in amy spiritual movement from asia, the middle east, north or south america or any where else.

'i do not believe in beatles i believe in me'
john lennon

what is wrong with using the word god? why is someone's beliefs so bad? the belief in a god or gods has been in politics since the begining.
name for me a truly godless goverment taht worked. soviet union? north korea? china? cuba? wow those places rawk!

so keep jesus on a bumper sticker or in the oval office. works either way. just don't try to save me. please.


'to god is quasi never an issue in Europe (in most countries anyway).' yeah europe what a bastian of stability and economic might.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

dude, get off your horse for a second! that was just a question...

Yep, we "have not lanquage police"... thank goodness. Specially since most of us don't even speak (or write) english correctly.

Anywho, ...I think a point could be made that while we have no lanquage police, in area's where bi-linqualism is more common there is a perversion of the concept called " bi-linqual education". Bi-linqual education means you learn english. Instead, of - if you know english, you learn french or spanish... and, if you know spanish of french, you learn english. To me, that smacks of lanquage police like actions. And, that is unfortunate since the US is severely lacking in global communication skills in a world that is globally economic in nature.

I should should know since I am non-multilinqual and have many french-english and spanish-english speaking friends. It's a by-product of my business and have been trying to play catch up in the multi-linqual category. It really pays to be multi-linqual (literally).

FWIW Joe Moya

it truly does indeed! my remark above was a joke btw...I enjoy the bilingual community here.
it raises one issue that I see in college though: many students struggle with both languages. Although some of my colleagues who were in other colleges said the same thing in monolingual communities...so, if you are going to struggle anyway, struggle with 2 languages! :-)

as for language police....well, I believe that an org. that takes care of the respect of grammatical rules and spelling rules in the US would be quite useful...
there is one in France, Germany, England, etc...

I know that typing on a keyboard is a different problem (you type fast, do not proofread etc...) but in general, I can spot many spelling mistakes..

(such as lanquage...:-) although my guess is that Joe did it on purpose...)

Colin Powell is the only one of current administration that I have any respect for, not that that matters.

If Powell is at one end of the spectrum, Rummy is at the opposite end. What an arrogant prick (sorry). Check out his blatant lies:

http://www.newyorker.com/...tent/?030407fa_fact1

I think what you're talking about is the separation of church and state. The original intention of this ideal was to keep the government out of religion not so much to keep religion out of government. It would be just as wrong to demand that a Christian politician not make references to God as it would for the government to deem any spiritual belief "illegal".

Everyone gets their values from somewhere. The reference to God just lets everyone know where you got yours.

- Ken

thanks. this answers my question.

I believe that the US government is not supposed to promote one religion above another. Whether a politicians references to God, the bible, the ten commandments etc., promote christianity is open to debate.

Along those lines; Does the President's frequent Christian references and allusions hurt his perception in the rest of the world? Does it make it look as if he were in fact anti-Islam?

Richard

Well, that may be what you BELIEVE, but here is what the First Amendment ACTUALLY SAYS:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

(The bold is mine)

It certainly doesn't mention a prohibition on "promoting one religion over another", nor does it make any reference to "separation of church and state" as many people have been led to believe.

A president who isn't ashamed of his beliefs, who knows that his faith should permeate every aspect of his life and not be confined to Sunday mornings is a wonderful, and I might add, reassuring, thing. What, you would rather he hide his faith so as not to offend other countries? Then you'd call him a phony!

If other countries want to twist the president's Christianity into an anti-Islam stance, then they are just trying to come up with yet another reason to hate us. And Bush's faith, IMHO, is one of the main reasons (if not THE reason) some people in THIS country hate him so much. They can't stand the fact that he is a nice, honest, decent, CHRISTIAN man.

clearly some words are poorly chosen...the reference to "this crusade, this war against terrorism" after 9/11 is a very bad choice of word, with all the historical references behind it, and the fact that it was a muslim extremist group that was responsible for 9/11. this choice of words seemed like going after the muslim world instead of Al Qaeda.

Does the President look anti-Islamic to the rest of the world. I'd say yes based on media reports of the protests and snippets of reports from the various Arab news media. The President has gone at lengths to deny such but I suspect the action in Iraq, as it is interpreted, speaks louder. The US is viewed as pro-Israel and anti-Arab. Through that lens the current perception of the US as invaders and occupiers makes some sense. I don’t think those who hold that view would be persuaded much by Colin Powell's eloquent and well spoken comments. Frankly I think the only thing that may change the current protests against the US is if we win the war, secure the peace, assist in the rebuild, and leave the country and the oil to the Iraqi people. We may very well liberate Iraq and we may very well need the Iraqi people to help liberate US from a distorted world opinion.

If on the other hand all this is a ploy, a sham, to get our hands on the oil, as some have suggested, then President Bush, in deed the nation as a whole, has a lot more trouble on his hands then just world or Islamic opinion.

Chappy

thanks Chappy, that is some well articulated thoughts! entirely agree on the whole line (although my "feeling" is that the US are pro israel, not anti-arab, but definitely pro-israel...in any case, I based this on my understanding of the reported news, nothing else...I don't have access to any secured top secret info)

A little clarification here for you David.

"They can't stand the fact that he is a nice, honest, decent, CHRISTIAN man. "

No, David this is not the reason that people object to him although they are all good reasons based on his history. People that have an issue with Bush generally dont need to resort to questioing his religious beliefs just the manner and the forums in which he chooses to express them.

God should have no bearing on foreign policy, domestic policy, or for that matter politics in general.

Of all the reasons I object to Bush, his religion is by far and away the least.

That said invoking "his god" in every speech is irritating and certainly if I were of another denomination I might find it insulting, but what concerns me more are the fact that he takes advice from known fundamentalists / extremists on the Christian Right who in no way represent the majority of the 47% of people that misguidedly elected him in to office.

The presidents personal beliefs, ethics and morals are not reasons that he is elected in to office. The person elected in to office is there to lead this country domestically and internationally and create policies that make America a better place to live. They are entitled to their beliefs but they are not elected to profess them and certainly not to impose them or use them to guide political policy, and clearly the single biggest issue here would be abortion.

I wont knock the man for his beliefs, I could not care less, but when people like Karl Rove, Jerry Fallwell, Bob Jones, Franklin Graham and Deal Hudson, none of whom are moderate about anything, are the people that he meets with regularly and listens to I have a huge problem with this. These people are not the sort that would, or could be elected in to office for their incredibly extreme views and as such these are not the people that the leader of this country should be consulting with on policy.

At least 2 of the people listed meet, or used to, with the president weekly, neither of whom are representative of the majority of Americans.

Bush is free to practice his religious beliefs and invoke god weekly if he feels the need to but I dont want the leader of the free world looking for God to solve or dictate his foreign and domesticl political policy.

Anyway, lets be honest to date most people have not had to resort to questioning Bush's christianity to make the case against him. Although many dont think his religious beliefs have any place is politics. I dont care if he prays to Mecca 5 times a day and I dont care if Clinton gets BJ's under the desk in the oval office. Neither has, or should have, a bearing on the mans ability to do the job, although I'd certainly think that Clinton would probably be a little more relaxed, but there it is.

Holy Moly.... did you just use the word "Honest" to describe a politician?.... man-oh-man, now that is one way to totally wipe out ALL sense of value to your post.

Joe Moya

You don't care if Bush prays to Mecca five times a day but it is problamatic for you if he speaks with people you do not approve of. Ethics, morals and character mean everything. Otherwise a leaders vison for the country is meaningless. If you do not know whether or not your being lied to or cheated and the persons own self-interest supersedes all else then their leadership ability is useless. It is natural and makes sense for people to try to size someone up by how they come across in what they say and how they say it. Their explainations,contradictions and track record help to establish their veracity or lack of. After all what they are saying is not that important if you have no belief of its truthfulness. In general, unless a leader is particularly charismatic, if you don't like their political philosophy or agenda then just about everything about them is irritating.