He was vaccinated, but before anyone jumps to the conclusion that vaccinations don't work, he was also being treated for myeloma, which weakened his immune system.
I was of the opinion that there was more to it. 84 is a good run, in any event.
Who's to know if there isn't more to it? There are so many untruths flying around these days. Although, I will accept this at face value, until I know differently.
I meant that Covid wasn't the primary cause. The multiple myeloma and treatment thereof didn't help him much for avoiding death from Covid. I don't suspect anything else. I could have been clearer.
More or less sums up my opinion on the guy...
(https://i.imgur.com/nXOMgjj.png)
Quote from: Shiranu on October 18, 2021, 11:35:16 PMMore or less sums up my opinion on the guy...
In fairness, he came clean years later and said that he regretted that profoundly. But spilled blood is still spilled blood. Can't undo that.
Quote from: Hydra009 on October 18, 2021, 11:40:58 PM
In fairness, he came clean years later and said that he regretted that profoundly. But spilled blood is still spilled blood. Can't undo that.
Perhaps he did... and if so, then I don't hold it against him as a person.
And I know this is preaching to the choir, but as a political figure his lies were a large part of 900,000 dead Middle Eastern civilians, 7,000+ dead American soldiers, 8 trillion dollars in taxpayer dollars thrown down the drain, between 37 and 59 million Iraqi, Afghanis, Syrians, Pakistanis and Yemeni displaced from their homes and the creation of a new organization so radical that even the Taliban thinks they go way too far.
Somethings cant be just waved away with a, "Whoopsie, my bad, sorry about that."
"Whoopsie" years and years later, well past the time it could possibly be politically disadvantageous, to boot.
I want to like the guy, but jeez, he was mum for far longer than an ethical person would be. If I was tricked into saying some BS and I found out about it and had all sorts of deaths (Iraqi and American) on my conscience, I'd be talking to the press THAT DAY.
Yeah....shock and awe doesn't win the war. Twenty years of attrition and a 4-year election cycle can loose a war, however.
Quote from: Shiranu on October 18, 2021, 11:35:16 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/nXOMgjj.png)
I watched Powell's testimony to Iraq's WMD as it happened in real time on CNN, and it was monumentally hard for me to understand how so many were swayed by Colin Powell's testimony, including many so called liberal skeptics. He limited his evidence to fuzzy pictures of 18 wheelers that had moved locations. Just for the record, 18 wheeler semi trucks are designed for the specific purpose of moving things, and they are constantly engaged in that activity throughout the world. Then he showed diagrams of what "could" be inside. The diagrams were childlike, showing a hopper where nuclear waste "could" be poured in, which then connected to what might also pass for a bread making machine, followed by a conveyor belt where the bombs came out. It was unimaginably unbelievable testimony that didn't even approach the magnitude of proof.
Now I get that many liberals are not skeptics, and are hardly capable of making logical deductions, and given by what I observe about American society today, I would not have been so horrified back then about how people can believe anything without reasonable evidence.
On top of that, Powell had been lobbying the Bush Administration not to invade for the previous months, while the former head of the Iraq weapons inspections team could find no evidence for any such WMD. But Powell was known as a team player, and once the captain of the team decided an unwarranted invasion was in his best interests, Powell, switched his position almost overnight. I don't know what to make of that. Being a team player is good, unless the team wants to play dirty.
No, I never forgave Colin Powell. Team player does not justify unethical behavior where the human consequences are of such great magnitude.
At the time, America was in a state of 9-11 hysteria, and of course logic tends to go out the window when people are hysterical. So I hold American society equally responsible to what Powell did.
Bush and Cheney probably really thought the WMDs existed, or they would have 'planted' some. Imagine if they got caught doing that.
Powell was a huge political and military disappointment. I was squarely in his corner prior to his UN speech. He was a general and a chief of staff of the pentagon. He clearly understood intelligence and how it was gathered and how it was tested. Yet he got up in front of the world and knowingly lied to us. Do NOT tell me (I was in Army intel for 10 years or so, so don't tell me he did not know how to vet intel.--I did and I was a lowly field agent.) he did not know he was lying. His words years later meant nothing; he sold his soul to Bush/Cheney, who are clear war criminals and he should be included in that category as well!
Quote from: Cassia on October 19, 2021, 08:42:12 AM
Bush and Cheney probably really thought the WMDs existed, or they would have 'planted' some. Imagine if they got caught doing that.
Those two knew they were lying. They 'knew' he had WMD because the US game them to him during the Iraq/Iran war, when we heavily backed Sadam. Cheney wanted oil for his company and talked Bush into backing him (who was an oil guy himself).
Quote from: Cassia on October 19, 2021, 08:42:12 AM
Bush and Cheney probably really thought the WMDs existed.
I question this. Bush? Maybe. But his advisors, most that were from New American Century, had totally different reasons for invading Iraq. They were part of what has been called an intellectual think tank, but who were actually naive enough to think we could force Western Capitalism into the Mideast by military action. That worked with Japan and Germany but those were entirely different situations, for different reasons, and an entirely different strategy. The Bush inner circle was just a bunch of fools with big weapons. Cheney was probably smart, but also an asshole.
Quote from: SGOS on October 19, 2021, 09:04:45 AM
I question this. Bush? Maybe. But his advisors, most that were from New American Century, had totally different reasons for invading Iraq. They were part of what has been called an intellectual think tank, but who were actually naive enough to think we could force Western Capitalism into the Mideast by military action. That worked with Japan and Germany but those were entirely different situations, for different reasons, and an entirely different strategy. The Bush inner circle was just a bunch of fools with big weapons. Cheney was probably smart, but also an asshole.
Yeah, I think that Bush being a very religious asshole who consulted with his skydaddy (who can't be wrong) and was picking up where his real daddy left off...probably convinced himself on WMDs. We know all too well that these types of believers don't need real evidence. The back-up plan being that it is still the right thing to do anyways. Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted their war no matter what and Powell was gonna be a team player. I still can hardly believe they didn't have a plan to plant the gun if they knew there were no WMDs.
Quote from: SGOS on October 19, 2021, 09:04:45 AM
I question this. Bush? Maybe. But his advisors, most that were from New American Century, had totally different reasons for invading Iraq. They were part of what has been called an intellectual think tank, but who were actually naive enough to think we could force Western Capitalism into the Mideast by military action. That worked with Japan and Germany but those were entirely different situations, for different reasons, and an entirely different strategy. The Bush inner circle was just a bunch of fools with big weapons. Cheney was probably smart, but also an asshole.
From what I learned, the US Govt from Regan on knew of the chemical weapons Iraq had and used. There is evidence that the US was one source of those weapons as well. So, at the very least Bush/Cheney and Co. could state that Sadam did have left over chemical weapons from the Iran/Iraq war, because they partially supplied them to him. If nothing else, it was a convenient lie to use. The neo-cons were willing to use whatever arguments to get them the power and money they desired.
Iraq's use of chemical weapons
Main article: Iraqi chemical attacks against Iran
In a declassified 1991 report, the CIA estimated that Iran had suffered more than 50,000 casualties from Iraq's use of several chemical weapons,[258] though current estimates are more than 100,000 as the long-term effects continue to cause casualties.[89][259] The official CIA estimate did not include the civilian population contaminated in bordering towns or the children and relatives of veterans, many of whom have developed blood, lung and skin complications, according to the Organization for Veterans of Iran. According to a 2002 article in the Star-Ledger, 20,000 Iranian soldiers were killed on the spot by nerve gas. As of 2002, 5,000 of the 80,000 survivors continue to seek regular medical treatment, while 1,000 are hospital inpatients.[260][261]
According to Iraqi documents, assistance in developing chemical weapons was obtained from firms in many countries, including the United States, West Germany, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and France. A report stated that Dutch, Australian, Italian, French and both West and East German companies were involved in the export of raw materials to Iraqi chemical weapons factories.[262] Declassified CIA documents show that the United States was providing reconnaissance intelligence to Iraq around 1987â€"88 which was then used to launch chemical weapon attacks on Iranian troops and that the CIA fully knew that chemical weapons would be deployed and sarin and cyclosarin attacks followed.[263]
On 21 March 1986, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that "members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops, and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons." The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement.[264][note 10] A mission to the region in 1988 found evidence of the use of chemical weapons, and was condemned in Security Council Resolution 612.
Victims of the 1987 chemical attack on Sardasht, West Azerbaijan, Iran
According to Walter Lang, senior defense intelligence officer at the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, "the use of gas on the battlefield by the Iraqis was not a matter of deep strategic concern" to Reagan and his aides, because they "were desperate to make sure that Iraq did not lose". He claimed that the Defense Intelligence Agency "would have never accepted the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but the use against military objectives was seen as inevitable in the Iraqi struggle for survival".[189] The Reagan administration did not stop aiding Iraq after receiving reports of the use of poison gas on Kurdish civilians.[265][266]
The United States accused Iran of using chemical weapons as well,[253]: 214  though the allegations have been disputed. Joost Hiltermann, the principal researcher for Human Rights Watch between 1992 and 1994, conducted a two-year study that included a field investigation in Iraq, and obtained Iraqi government documents in the process. According to Hiltermann, the literature on the Iranâ€"Iraq War reflects allegations of chemical weapons used by Iran, but they are "marred by a lack of specificity as to time and place, and the failure to provide any sort of evidence".[267]: 153 
Analysts Gary Sick and Lawrence Potter have called the allegations against Iran "mere assertions" and stated, "No persuasive evidence of the claim that Iran was the primary culprit [of using chemical weapons] was ever presented."[267]: 156  Policy consultant and author Joseph Tragert stated, "Iran did not retaliate with chemical weapons, probably because it did not possess any at the time".[268]
At his trial in December 2006, Saddam said he would take responsibility "with honour" for any attacks on Iran using conventional or chemical weapons during the war, but that he took issue with the charges that he ordered attacks on Iraqis.[269] A medical analysis of the effects of Iraqi mustard gas is described in a U.S. military textbook and contrasted effects of World War I gas.[270]
At the time of the conflict, the UN Security Council issued statements that "chemical weapons had been used in the war". UN statements never clarified that only Iraq was using chemical weapons, and according to retrospective authors "the international community remained silent as Iraq used weapons of mass destruction against Iranian
as well as Iraqi Kurds."[271][272][138]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Iraq_2
He had multiple myeloma and also Parkinsons. Of course it was the Covid that killed him.
Quote from: Jason Harvestdancer on November 12, 2021, 05:24:35 PM
He had multiple myeloma and also Parkinsons. Of course it was the Covid that killed him.
seriously????????
Quote from: Mermaid on November 13, 2021, 12:08:53 PM
seriously????????
I'm prone to agree with Jason; while Covid might have tipped him over the edge, it's a bit of a stretch to say that Covid was the actual killer; unfortunately this is this case in a lot of Covid deaths and makes our numbers look far worse than they are.
And no, that doesn't mean I don't think the numbers aren't absolutely terrible or that I don't think people need to start using their brains and take steps to reduce the spread... but I do think it is intentionally being misreported at times to spark up fear for more media views and give the government an excuse to seize more powers that it will not willingly hand back.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 14, 2021, 12:57:32 AM
I'm prone to agree with Jason; while Covid might have tipped him over the edge, it's a bit of a stretch to say that Covid was the actual killer; unfortunately this is this case in a lot of Covid deaths and makes our numbers look far worse than they are.
Information that comes from major world and national health organizations seem to agree that Covid is under-reported in a major way. Estimates vary from twice as many to ten times as many cases. From my rural Virginia county, I can say that I know of no one who has died of Covid. Instead, an unusually large number of hospitalizations seem to be reporting mysterious forms of pneumonia. But this is a exceptionally conservative/red neck area the majority of which that is not vaccinated.
It is possible that Colin Powell was diagnosed incorrectly, but probably not. I assume he has access to more than just home town physicians with a coroner that also runs the local hardware store.
Well, the thing that tips you over is the cause of your death. That's why you are dead. Because if that doesn't happen, you'd live. When a 40 year old dies from a heart attack, something tips over and he dies from a heart attack. When a very healthy 20 year old get hit by a bus, his body cannot handle the massive trauma and he dies. Because 'it tips over', you see. Something always tips over and the organism cannot continue the state of being alive.
So yeah, Colin Powell has died of Covid-19. It doesn't matter hoıw old he was or how many illnesses he already had. That's what a pandemic is. That's why it is so important to control and contain outbreaks from turning into pandemics. Tons of people who would have lived with tons of conditions and illnesses have died of Covid-19 because it is a pandemic. Probably, many more than we know.
Decades after this nightmare ends, this will be the main topic I guess: "How many people have actually died of Covid 19". They are going to look back and write articles like we did/do for 16th century plague. But then considering the huge difference between 16 and 21st century... I mean...OK I don't know what kind of an analogy is required. How many people they thought have died in the WWII and then 50 years later? I don't mean the exact numbers, I mean the difference.
Just the government corruption alone...
I remember a discussion I had about a mutual friend that recently died. The person I was talking to asked, "What did he die of?" Neither one of us knew exactly what it was, and I somewhat glibly replied, "Old age I guess." After all, he was 80+ years old. It was quickly pointed out that every death has a cause that is more specific than just "old age." Every death involves a failure of some organ or system. Granted in "old age" there are a lot more organs ready to fail than in a 20 year old, which is why old people seem to die so often, I guess. So is it important whether the cause is a failed heart, diseased liver, or an infected lung? I guess that's a personal perception, but during a pandemic medical experts seem to believe it's important to be more precise that just, "It could have been this or that." And if one cares to take the time, the actual specific cause can be identified, which seems to be preferred over a simple shrug of the shoulders, and breezing by the actual cause.
QuoteWhen a 40 year old dies from a heart attack, something tips over and he dies from a heart attack.
Right, but if he weighed 500 pounds, hadn't gone outside or off his ass in 5 years, smoked 10 packs a day... there is a lot of context left out by just saying, "He had a heart attack.".
Quote from: Shiranu on November 14, 2021, 03:43:37 AM
Right, but if he weighed 500 pounds, hadn't gone outside or off his ass in 5 years, smoked 10 packs a day... there is a lot of context left out by just saying, "He had a heart attack.".
But that's the thing about medical science, or any science; Attempts are made to include contexts. That's how we know that obesity, smoking, and lack of exercise contributes to heart attacks. Over the years, those contexts were observed and recorded until actual correlations could be identified. Leaving the context out is what the tobacco "scientists' did to create the perception that smoking was not that harmful.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 14, 2021, 12:57:32 AM
I'm prone to agree with Jason; while Covid might have tipped him over the edge, it's a bit of a stretch to say that Covid was the actual killer; unfortunately this is this case in a lot of Covid deaths and makes our numbers look far worse than they are.
And no, that doesn't mean I don't think the numbers aren't absolutely terrible or that I don't think people need to start using their brains and take steps to reduce the spread... but I do think it is intentionally being misreported at times to spark up fear for more media views and give the government an excuse to seize more powers that it will not willingly hand back.
If he died because he got covid, this is a covid death. He'd be alive today if Covid weren't a factor. It's not muddy. Just because someone has pre-existing conditions, that doesn't mean the virus didn't kill them.
If I have arthritis and got shot in the head because I was too slow (due to my arthritis) to run away from an assailant, my cause of death would be a gunshot wound. Contributing factors are not what actually caused my death. That's how it works in medicine, and that's how it works in reality.
I don't understand the need to cast shadows on this concept.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 14, 2021, 03:43:37 AM
Right, but if he weighed 500 pounds, hadn't gone outside or off his ass in 5 years, smoked 10 packs a day... there is a lot of context left out by just saying, "He had a heart attack.".
His cause of death is a heart attack. People without those traits have heart attacks. But I think this is not the corr4ect way to look at to something related to a pandemic.
Quote from: Shiranu on November 14, 2021, 03:43:37 AM
Right, but if he weighed 500 pounds, hadn't gone outside or off his ass in 5 years, smoked 10 packs a day... there is a lot of context left out by just saying, "He had a heart attack.".
And yet the heart attack is still the cause of death.
That "Colin Powell had cancer and Parkinsons" is a deflection from the argument that Covid kills a lot of people, so why not just say, "Covid is not that big of a deal, because death kills way more."
It's a common tactic among Trumpers to downplay covid (since it made Daddy Don look bad) by falsely claiming that covid deaths are inflated due to people with underlying health problems dying from covid. Apparently, covid deaths only count if you're 100% healthy and get done in exclusively by that.
But I've got news for those dumbasses: infectious disease has ALWAYS disproportionately killed people already in bad health. FFS, that's the main reason we've worn masks for months. How the F do people forget basic stuff like that?
It's a bullshit argument put forth by people who think JFK jr is still alive and think the demon sperm lady is a better doctor than Fauci. Absolute clownshoes.