Colin Powell believes U.S. is losing Iraq war

Secretary of State Colin Powell has privately confided to friends in recent weeks that the Iraqi insurgents are winning the war, according to Newsweek. The insurgents have succeeded in infiltrating Iraqi forces "from top to bottom," a senior Iraqi official tells Newsweek in tomorrow’s issue of the magazine, "from decision making to the lower levels."

This is a particularly troubling development for the U.S. military, as it prepares to launch an all-out assault on the insurgent strongholds of Fallujah and Ramadi, since U.S. Marines were counting on the newly trained Iraqi forces to assist in the assault. Newsweek reports that "American military trainers have been frantically trying to assemble sufficient Iraqi troops" to fight alongside them and that they are "praying that the soldiers perform better than last April, when two battalions of poorly trained Iraqi Army soldiers refused to fight."

If the Fallujah offensive fails, Newsweek grimly predicts, "then the American president will find himself in a deepening quagmire on Inauguration Day."

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/index_np.html#insurgents




Yep all those saying we where doing so well in Iraq, were WRONG. I said it then I'll say it now. We are doing badly in Iraq. When will you republicans come to terms with that. Jr dropped the ball in so many ways dealing with Iraq.


http://www.i-club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73170&page=2&pp=20&highlight=War+Iraq

Nice little thread where I said this was going to happen and the rest of the world knew it and most of us Democrats saw it coming but some how you Republicans missed it entirely.

Thanks for the link...

Colin Powell is a very smart man. When people look back on this egregious administration, they will most likely remember Powell as the sole voice of reason

Yep all those saying we where doing so well in Iraq, were WRONG. I said it then I'll say it now. We are doing badly in Iraq. When will you republicans come to terms with that. Jr dropped the ball in so many ways dealing with Iraq.



I seriously doubt that Colin Powell, as Secretary of State, is running around telling people that the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq. The source also makes the idea much less credible, as Salon.com is one of the most famously biased liberal papers out there. It's the liberal equivalent of the O'Reilly factor.

Pointing out that if a major offensive fails, the war effort will be in trouble, is such a truism that I can't believe anyone would read that and seriously say "Man, this is going worse than I thought." Every war depends on the major battles being won. Saying that there are important battles, and that therefore the war is in trouble, is like saying "man, if we don't win the war, then we won't win the war."

Yep all those saying we where doing so well in Iraq, were WRONG. I said it then I'll say it now. We are doing badly in Iraq. When will you republicans come to terms with that. Jr dropped the ball in so many ways dealing with Iraq.


Who says we are doing "so well" in Iraq? Doesn't "so well" mean "great?" Give me a quote.

I've heard people say we are doing good things and making progress, but doing well? I've heard the democrats complaining even when we were in Afghanistan... so what's new from the crybabies?

I'd suggest this is going silky-smoothe compared to the Soviet Union's experience in Afghanistan.

Why do you think so many people are fighting us off? What is it they think they stand to lose?

Unregistered you seem kinda... happy... at this news...

I seriously doubt that Colin Powell, as Secretary of State, is running around telling people that the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq. The source also makes the idea much less credible, as Salon.com is one of the most famously biased liberal papers out there. It's the liberal equivalent of the O'Reilly factor.

I don't know if he is saying it or not but I wouldn't doubt it because he was the only voice of reason when everyone else was rushing into war, plus I doubt very seriously that he is going to be resuming his post as Secretary of State if Bush wins his re-election bid.

I will say one thing though. If it is true that insurgents have infiltrated every level of the Iraqi Forces as is being reported then we are in some serious trouble over there because we rely on those forces so heavily for these operations in Falluja and the like. This could indeed turn into a "quagmire" if we don't know who is the bad guy and who isn't when it comes down to Iraqi forces.

Someone tell me why our servicemen and women are dying if it isn't WMD's as was previously the reason? I mean can you really change your justification for war after the fact??? :confused:

Unregistered you seem kinda... happy... at this news...


You are a moron. My friends are there, in Iraq. Yeah im happy they are getting shot at. I was point out that what I said was true.

I seriously doubt that Colin Powell, as Secretary of State, is running around telling people that the U.S. is losing the war in Iraq. The source also makes the idea much less credible, as Salon.com is one of the most famously biased liberal papers out there. It's the liberal equivalent of the O'Reilly factor.

Pointing out that if a major offensive fails, the war effort will be in trouble, is such a truism that I can't believe anyone would read that and seriously say "Man, this is going worse than I thought." Every war depends on the major battles being won. Saying that there are important battles, and that therefore the war is in trouble, is like saying "man, if we don't win the war, then we won't win the war."


You still don't get it, we won't be doing well anytime soon in Iraq because of bad planning and scaling down of troops. And that is Jr's. doing. When people stand up that are on the other side and make him take blame for his poor planning and his one sided mentallity. And Colin Powell isn't the only one saying this. I posted this because Republicans seem to take what Powell says better than unbiased media. (Not that Salon.com isn't biased.) And untill Powell or one of his aids comes out and says this is false then I'll agree with the article. Again all over the world they have been stating that things are getting worse in Iraq, and now its fianlly coming out from higher up in the Republican party.

You still don't get it, we won't be doing well anytime soon in Iraq because of bad planning and scaling down of troops. And that is Jr's. doing. When people stand up that are on the other side and make him take blame for his poor planning and his one sided mentallity. And Colin Powell isn't the only one saying this. I posted this because Republicans seem to take what Powell says better than unbiased media. (Not that Salon.com isn't biased.) And untill Powell or one of his aids comes out and says this is false then I'll agree with the article. Again all over the world they have been stating that things are getting worse in Iraq, and now its fianlly coming out from higher up in the Republican party.

Uh, what is it I didn't get? You got a salon posting that claims to have heard that Colin Powell privately (ie, not in a public forum, so we don't really know if it happened) said the war is going bad. I think the one who is missing something here is you, and that thing you're missing is the point of my post. I don't believe Colin Powell is saying this. Lots of people are claiming the war is going horribly. They are mostly democratic partisans or other anti-war activists. There are not too many military strategists out there talking about it that way.

And, the second thing you missed is the point about fallujah: Yes, it's a crucial battle. That's what a war is. So saying "We have to win in fallujah or else" says absolutely nothing about whether the war is going good or bad. All it says is "we have to win the important battles, or we won't win the war."

Now do you understand?

Perhaps this is a bit off-topic, but I saw a great special on Colin Powell on PBS last week. It showed the tension that Powell has with the rest of Bush Co.

While it may not be founded, it is certainly feasible.

You are a moron. My friends are there, in Iraq. Yeah im happy they are getting shot at. I was point out that what I said was true.

No reason for personal attacks.
It sure looked to me like you were gloating about this news.
I could be wrong of course.

Uh, what is it I didn't get? You got a salon posting that claims to have heard that Colin Powell privately (ie, not in a public forum, so we don't really know if it happened) said the war is going bad. I think the one who is missing something here is you, and that thing you're missing is the point of my post. I don't believe Colin Powell is saying this. Lots of people are claiming the war is going horribly. They are mostly democratic partisans or other anti-war activists. There are not too many military strategists out there talking about it that way.

And, the second thing you missed is the point about fallujah: Yes, it's a crucial battle. That's what a war is. So saying "We have to win in fallujah or else" says absolutely nothing about whether the war is going good or bad. All it says is "we have to win the important battles, or we won't win the war."

Now do you understand?


Your still missing it and putting people saying the war is not working well as a partisan stance. Its not. More and more people are saying this and not just "democratic partisans or other anti-war activists". The point of the article is showing how its not just them and even if its rummored that Powell said this the fact that he HASN'T disputed this makes me wonder if its true or not.

And I didn't bring up the fallujah because I don't think its even relevent. The fact that Powell has not disputed this is though.

No reason for personal attacks.
It sure looked to me like you were gloating about this news.
I could be wrong of course.


Then don't make stupid statements!!!! Why would I be happy that our men and woman that serve this country are dieing?! No matter that I have friends or didn't that are in the force, a comment like yours is a stupid comment and nothing but a attack on what I said.

Your still missing it and putting people saying the war is not working well as a partisan stance. Its not. More and more people are saying this and not just "democratic partisans or other anti-war activists". The point of the article is showing how its not just them and even if its rummored that Powell said this the fact that he HASN'T disputed this makes me wonder if its true or not.

And I didn't bring up the fallujah because I don't think its even relevent. The fact that Powell has not disputed this is though.

Fallujah is the critical battle you talk about in your first post, where you made this thread.

Now, my point is: Yes it is partisans saying this. There aren't too many ex military or military strategists out on the airwaves predicting doom or saying the whole war is lost. There are still battles to be won, of course, but does the fact that a war isn't finished mean it's going terribly? I'll repeat what I said before: Name another time in history where an entire country was conquered, a powerful military was literally obliterated, and a relatively hostile zone was occupied for several years with a loss of a thousand men. Just name one time that's happened.

Then don't make stupid statements!!!! Why would I be happy that our men and woman that serve this country are dieing?! No matter that I have friends or didn't that are in the force, a comment like yours is a stupid comment and nothing but a attack on what I said.

The idea to is to criticize the other person's argument or statement, not the other person himself. That is what I meant.

I thought it looked like gloating, you said it wasn't, I'm satisfied, case closed.

Fallujah is the critical battle you talk about in your first post, where you made this thread.

Now, my point is: Yes it is partisans saying this. There aren't too many ex military or military strategists out on the airwaves predicting doom or saying the whole war is lost. There are still battles to be won, of course, but does the fact that a war isn't finished mean it's going terribly? I'll repeat what I said before: Name another time in history where an entire country was conquered, a powerful military was literally obliterated, and a relatively hostile zone was occupied for several years with a loss of a thousand men. Just name one time that's happened.


Thats the whole link I quoted....

Like I said this is only the start of this. It will only get worse. If we leave in a year that zone will become a warzone. Also you are forgetting all those injured and loss of limbs. On top of this miltary officials have said this. We discussed that in this forum before. And people outside of the US have been saying it too. You can't police a nation that doesn't want to be policed. But unfortuantly we put it this way so now we have to deal with it. And to call Iraq having a powerful military is well wrong. You did see how long it took us just to roll over them. This is the first time we are nation building like this, so would be hard to compare to anyone else. Pluss this is a different type of hostile zone so you really can't compare it to anything else. And I'll say again things will only start to get worse before they ever get better if they ever will. And don't forget to count how many Iraqies have died since we got there.....

I'll repeat what I said before: Name another time in history where an entire country was conquered, a powerful military was literally obliterated, and a relatively hostile zone was occupied for several years with a loss of a thousand men. Just name one time that's happened.

Germany, after WWI in the Weimer republic.

Germany, WWII- Well known that the Red Arny raped and pillaged well after the the treaty and occupation, thus encouraging any able bodied German to fight for their lives and property. Hard to qauntify Russian loss, but the German loss was huge.

But then you may not 'believe' that this occured. Maybe you should raise the bar to 100,000.

Ok... thread closer.

Colin Powell is officially re-named Colon Powell.

Ok... thread closer.

Colin Powell is officially re-named Colon Powell.

LOL!!! best thread closer evar. CASE CLOSED!

Germany, after WWI in the Weimer republic.

Germany, WWII- Well known that the Red Arny raped and pillaged well after the the treaty and occupation, thus encouraging any able bodied German to fight for their lives and property. Hard to qauntify Russian loss, but the German loss was huge.

But then you may not 'believe' that this occured. Maybe you should raise the bar to 100,000.

What are you smoking? Take a look at the casualty totals for the war...what, 40 million worldwide, 20 million in Europe!?

WWI-20 million.

That's your idea of a successful campaign compared to Iraq!?

My point is that those wars cost HUGE amounts of life for territory gain. In contrast, a full scale invasion and years of occupation in Iraq have not been relatively so costly.

I'll repeat what I said before: Name another time in history where an entire country was conquered, a powerful military was literally obliterated, and a relatively hostile zone was occupied for several years with a loss of a thousand men. Just name one time that's happened.


I can't help it if your point is unclear. You asked the above question, I gave you an answer.

What this has to do with your point, I'm not sure, as you are the one proposing this false rhetorical.

I'd throw in a few more countries as well, but your quiblling over a subjective term like 'powerful military' would waste a lot of our time :).

I can't help it if your point is unclear. You asked the above question, I gave you an answer.

What this has to do with your point, I'm not sure, as you are the one proposing this false rhetorical.

I'd throw in a few more countries as well, but your quiblling over a subjective term like 'powerful military' would waste a lot of our time :).

I think you need to reread my question. How is WWII and I an example of a war fought more painlessly and with fewer casualties than Iraq!? Is 40 million dead a war that's going well, whereas 1000 dead in years is poor???

Germany, after WWI in the Weimer republic.

Germany, WWII- Well known that the Red Arny raped and pillaged well after the the treaty and occupation, thus encouraging any able bodied German to fight for their lives and property. Hard to qauntify Russian loss, but the German loss was huge.

But then you may not 'believe' that this occured. Maybe you should raise the bar to 100,000.


You are a complete idiot.

Ah yes, tweedle dee and tweedle dum, in unison, broadcasting their ineptness. The masters of fallacies, oozing out poor arguments and sensless questions.

You asked for any war. Was this not your question?:

"Name another time in history where an entire country was conquered, a powerful military was literally obliterated, and a relatively hostile zone was occupied for several years with a loss of a thousand men. Just name one time that's happened."

You did not say, compare said war to Iraq, or any other war for that matter.

"How is WWII and WWI an example of a war fought more painlessly and with fewer casualties than Iraq!? Is 40 million dead a war that's going well, whereas 1000 dead in years is poor."

Doesn't sound like the above question too much.
I don't know the answer to that, as I think it is a poor attempt at being rhetorical. Too be honest, I thought you were questioning the amount killed after said war began, as in during an occupation of a post-war zone. "more painlessly" :)

Ah yes, tweedle dee and tweedle dum, in unison, broadcasting their ineptness. The masters of fallacies, oozing out poor arguments and sensless questions.

You asked for any war. Was this not your question?:

"Name another time in history where an entire country was conquered, a powerful military was literally obliterated, and a relatively hostile zone was occupied for several years with a loss of a thousand men. Just name one time that's happened."

You did not say, compare said war to Iraq, or any other war for that matter.

"How is WWII and WWI an example of a war fought more painlessly and with fewer casualties than Iraq!? Is 40 million dead a war that's going well, whereas 1000 dead in years is poor."

Doesn't sound like the above question too much.
I don't know the answer to that, as I think it is a poor attempt at being rhetorical. Too be honest, I thought you were questioning the amount killed after said war began, as in during an occupation of a post-war zone. "more painlessly" :)

Yeah, is english your first language? did you see "with a loss of a thousand men" there? WWII is NOT a war where the battle was fought with a loss of a thousand men. Neither is World War I.

Now, to be honest, I can't see how you would think that....unless of course you need a refresher in sentence construction.

I don't know the answer to that, as I think it is a poor attempt at being rhetorical.

You only think it's rhetorical because it happens to be a good point that you (and others) choose to forget -or- never grasp.