Full Version: Powell's Address to the UN
For everyone out there that actually saw the hour and a half address to the Un today by Powell, Are you convinced? We were shown satellite photos of active bases, we heard conversations from higher ups within Iraq and we heard Powell talk about testing on civilians of Iraq. With standing these things being false I must admit that I am finally convinced that action needs to be taken.
I agree that action needs to be taken. I don't think war is the only option though. Hopefully, Powell made his case to the major players, or should I say, those who stand to lose the most if Saddam breaks out and begins a campaign of intimidation.
I am happy that Powell made the case--he's the most convincing voice in this administration. Anybody else would have come off like a shyster salesperson.
The UN could make a proposal to Iraq: Hand over Saddam, put down your arms, accept UN occupation, point out where the WMDs are hidden, and let the UN render them harmless. The alternative would be invasion by US and other nations' troops leading to forced occupation. To sweeten the pot, the UN could guarantee that Iraq would keep all rights to its oil reserves. Otherwise, the country would lose all claims to raw materials during the forced occupation.
Sending Powell to the UN is the best move the US has done since this whole Iraq deal started. I just wish our present administration had the foresight and wisdom to work closely with the UN from the start. Oh well, better late than never, eh?
I am happy that Powell made the case--he's the most convincing voice in this administration. Anybody else would have come off like a shyster salesperson.
The UN could make a proposal to Iraq: Hand over Saddam, put down your arms, accept UN occupation, point out where the WMDs are hidden, and let the UN render them harmless. The alternative would be invasion by US and other nations' troops leading to forced occupation. To sweeten the pot, the UN could guarantee that Iraq would keep all rights to its oil reserves. Otherwise, the country would lose all claims to raw materials during the forced occupation.
Sending Powell to the UN is the best move the US has done since this whole Iraq deal started. I just wish our present administration had the foresight and wisdom to work closely with the UN from the start. Oh well, better late than never, eh?
QUOTE(AuthorMusician @ Feb 5 2003, 05:05 PM)
I am happy that Powell made the case--he's the most convincing voice in this administration. Anybody else would have come off like a shyster salesperson.
You make it sound like he should run for Prez in 2008!
I'd vote for him
the Bush administration actually came out after his speech and said that since Powell did such a good job that they didn't want to come out with another speech. But France, Russia, and China are still saying to let the inspector's do their job now. Unfortunately with Powell making this address he compromised our information and told Iraq part of what we know. But he knew that going into the speech. Basically he came out and put some information on the table to say to the world "look he's hiding stuff and if you can't see that with this information you never will"
QUOTE(Limpubus @ Feb 5 2003, 05:19 PM)
Unfortunately with Powell making this address he compromised our information and told Iraq part of what we know. But he knew that going into the speech. Basically he came out and put some information on the table to say to the world "look he's hiding stuff and if you can't see that with this information you never will"
Oh well
Here is a link to everything from Powell's speech:
Powell's UN Speech & Proof
i spent most of the time laughing my butt off wndering what the Iraqi Ambassador's face must have looked like...pale or green?
And here is the Denial Game played by the Iraqi Ambassador:
Ante up...Denial Time
Doesn't matter what he said..mark my words. Those that oppose the war will keep moving the "burden of proof" goal post ever further down the field. Most oppose war no matter what, unfortunately they usually waste our time about being open minded when apparently they have no such illusions. I agree with what he basically said, "The inspectors are not there to try and find anything.." they are simply there to observe what Iraq has been doing or has done. To think otherwise is asinine. Do you really thing in a country the size of California you are going to find anything if they want it hidden? Well, otherwise pretty damning of Iraq IMHO.
Darcaine
Darcaine
Well, I'm convinced. I think there is now no denying the terrible facts: Iraq has buildings - and trucks. 
What I found most telling about Powell's speech was the extent to which everything had to be slanted. A small example: Iraq has a committee to monitor the inspectors - as would we were our country subject to such an inspection - as would any country. But Powell had to characterize the word "monitor", redefining it to mean "obstruct": he claims that "to monitor" means "to spy on them and keep them from doing their jobs". This is the rhetoric of desperation. If the administration's "evidence" is so compelling, why resort to such transparent tactics? Mmmaybe because the "evidence" isn't so compelling after all?
It is interesting, GoAmerica, that in the second article you cite, the bulk of the "denial" is done by the Associated Press, not Lt. Gen. al-Saadi. The "suspicious" buildings which have been under UN surveillance, the US "intelligence" reports which contradict the observations of the inspectors, the "mobile food laboratories" which Blix and his team have determined to be just that - none of these are raised by Hussein's spokesperson, but by the AP reporter and the UN inspectors themselves. It looks like Iraq doesn't even have to bother with denial...
I guess for some of us one element of the "burden of proof" is, well... proof. Those who are promoting war no matter what, need no proof - they never have. Hussein's guilt has been presumed from the outset and Bush will have his war regardless. Why waste our time cobbling together "evidence" when - Darcaine is quite right - those who want proof won't be satisfied with anything less?
What I found most telling about Powell's speech was the extent to which everything had to be slanted. A small example: Iraq has a committee to monitor the inspectors - as would we were our country subject to such an inspection - as would any country. But Powell had to characterize the word "monitor", redefining it to mean "obstruct": he claims that "to monitor" means "to spy on them and keep them from doing their jobs". This is the rhetoric of desperation. If the administration's "evidence" is so compelling, why resort to such transparent tactics? Mmmaybe because the "evidence" isn't so compelling after all?
It is interesting, GoAmerica, that in the second article you cite, the bulk of the "denial" is done by the Associated Press, not Lt. Gen. al-Saadi. The "suspicious" buildings which have been under UN surveillance, the US "intelligence" reports which contradict the observations of the inspectors, the "mobile food laboratories" which Blix and his team have determined to be just that - none of these are raised by Hussein's spokesperson, but by the AP reporter and the UN inspectors themselves. It looks like Iraq doesn't even have to bother with denial...
I guess for some of us one element of the "burden of proof" is, well... proof. Those who are promoting war no matter what, need no proof - they never have. Hussein's guilt has been presumed from the outset and Bush will have his war regardless. Why waste our time cobbling together "evidence" when - Darcaine is quite right - those who want proof won't be satisfied with anything less?
QUOTE(Wertz @ Feb 5 2003, 07:16 PM)
Well, I'm convinced. I think there is now no denying the terrible facts: Iraq has buildings - and trucks.
What I found most telling about Powell's speech was the extent to which everything had to be slanted. A small example: Iraq has a committee to monitor the inspectors - as would we were our country subject to such an inspection - as would any country. But Powell had to characterize the word "monitor", redefining it to mean "obstruct": he claims that "to monitor" means "to spy on them and keep them from doing their jobs". This is the rhetoric of desperation. If the administration's "evidence" is so compelling, why resort to such transparent tactics? Mmmaybe because the "evidence" isn't so compelling after all?
It is interesting, GoAmerica, that in the second article you cite, the bulk of the "denial" is done by the Associated Press, not Lt. Gen. al-Saadi. The "suspicious" buildings which have been under UN surveillance, the US "intelligence" reports which contradict the observations of the inspectors, the "mobile food laboratories" which Blix and his team have determined to be just that - none of these are raised by Hussein's spokesperson, but by the AP reporter and the UN inspectors themselves. It looks like Iraq doesn't even have to bother with denial...
I guess for some of us one element of the "burden of proof" is, well... proof. Those who are promoting war no matter what, need no proof - they never have. Hussein's guilt has been presumed from the outset and Bush will have his war regardless. Why waste our time cobbling together "evidence" when - Darcaine is quite right - those who want proof won't be satisfied with anything less?
What I found most telling about Powell's speech was the extent to which everything had to be slanted. A small example: Iraq has a committee to monitor the inspectors - as would we were our country subject to such an inspection - as would any country. But Powell had to characterize the word "monitor", redefining it to mean "obstruct": he claims that "to monitor" means "to spy on them and keep them from doing their jobs". This is the rhetoric of desperation. If the administration's "evidence" is so compelling, why resort to such transparent tactics? Mmmaybe because the "evidence" isn't so compelling after all?
It is interesting, GoAmerica, that in the second article you cite, the bulk of the "denial" is done by the Associated Press, not Lt. Gen. al-Saadi. The "suspicious" buildings which have been under UN surveillance, the US "intelligence" reports which contradict the observations of the inspectors, the "mobile food laboratories" which Blix and his team have determined to be just that - none of these are raised by Hussein's spokesperson, but by the AP reporter and the UN inspectors themselves. It looks like Iraq doesn't even have to bother with denial...
I guess for some of us one element of the "burden of proof" is, well... proof. Those who are promoting war no matter what, need no proof - they never have. Hussein's guilt has been presumed from the outset and Bush will have his war regardless. Why waste our time cobbling together "evidence" when - Darcaine is quite right - those who want proof won't be satisfied with anything less?
The problem is you don't listen or read what the experts are saying and miss the point of the UN resolution. The stuff is there, well documented and never shown to be destroyed and quite the contrary looks as if they are making more. But, I digress...you will continue to move the burden to the US when that is totally incorrect thinking. I suppose after this mess is over and the US or one of our allies brings the trucks to your house for your inspection..you will simply dismiss it as not proof. I can live with that Wertz...just don't pretend to want to know more.
Here is an apt analogy, Wertz and Darcaine were looking at the houses on a street...Darcaine shouts WERTZ! Look over to the left thats a pink HOUSE! Wertz yawns looks casually to the right...prove it..I don't see it.
Darcaine
"You can lead a horse to water......."
QUOTE(Darcaine @ Feb 6 2003, 12:28 AM)
Darcaine
"You can lead a horse to water......."
But you can't make it take off the blindfold, look at the water, admit it is infact water, then eventually drink it...
Sleeper
Proof?
I heard voices on a phone saying dubious things, but there was no identification as to whether these were in fact Iraqi officers, Syrian officers or even CIA operatives.
I saw satellite photographs of bunkers labelled as chemical weapons stores, but no dates. Nothing to identify where these bunkers were, when the pictures were taken or what was actually within them.
Powells arguement seemed to be; There are security guards,so there must be chemical weapons. Well I saw no guards at all. Just a hut with the words 'Security post' besides it.
If I am to be honest, I saw nothing to prove any claim so far made by the Bush administration of anything much at all. In a court room, none of this proof would amount to anything. Powell talked about what people had said, but he offered little if any evidence that these people really existed, he spoke of possible Iraqi weapons systems, chemical weapons stores and mobile production facilities, and he did not prove that any of it actually exists.
Having said that though...
Do I believe what America says? No.
But do I believe that America is lying? No.
I think Powell gave a fairly good account of what he had to offer, despite that he really didn't have much at all. If this is the best proof that America has to offer to the rest of the UN that Iraq is a threat, then I for one don't buy it. Not as proof.
But if I have to decide as to who is telling the truth, Saddam Hussein or the Bush administration, then Bush wins... just.
I think the UN ought to sanction an attack with the stated aim of ending Saddam Husseins regime, and giving the people of Iraq the chance to decide for themselves, under UN protection, who should run their nation.
But I have to add, that I am not convinced of Saddams potential threat to the rest of the world on the basis of Powells 'evidence'.
I heard voices on a phone saying dubious things, but there was no identification as to whether these were in fact Iraqi officers, Syrian officers or even CIA operatives.
I saw satellite photographs of bunkers labelled as chemical weapons stores, but no dates. Nothing to identify where these bunkers were, when the pictures were taken or what was actually within them.
Powells arguement seemed to be; There are security guards,so there must be chemical weapons. Well I saw no guards at all. Just a hut with the words 'Security post' besides it.
If I am to be honest, I saw nothing to prove any claim so far made by the Bush administration of anything much at all. In a court room, none of this proof would amount to anything. Powell talked about what people had said, but he offered little if any evidence that these people really existed, he spoke of possible Iraqi weapons systems, chemical weapons stores and mobile production facilities, and he did not prove that any of it actually exists.
Having said that though... Do I believe what America says? No.
But do I believe that America is lying? No.
I think Powell gave a fairly good account of what he had to offer, despite that he really didn't have much at all. If this is the best proof that America has to offer to the rest of the UN that Iraq is a threat, then I for one don't buy it. Not as proof.
But if I have to decide as to who is telling the truth, Saddam Hussein or the Bush administration, then Bush wins... just.
I think the UN ought to sanction an attack with the stated aim of ending Saddam Husseins regime, and giving the people of Iraq the chance to decide for themselves, under UN protection, who should run their nation.
But I have to add, that I am not convinced of Saddams potential threat to the rest of the world on the basis of Powells 'evidence'.
Sleeper Darcaine: Your last few posts are off topic. If you guys wish to bash liberals in general or me personally, please start an appropriate thread. And, Darcaine, your analogy is inapt. We are looking at the same house. Beyond that, it's not worth debating the point with you. The problem is that I believe only what I see - not what I've been told to see.
My reservations about Powell's evidence (shared by many in this country and most outside this country), are, as I pointed out, irrelevant. George W Bush is ruling by fiat - he will have his war. Evidence does nor figure. You guys should be delighted. Why waste time running down those who give a damn about justice? We don't matter. Go celebrate the coming death and destruction for which you've been aching for so long.
My reservations about Powell's evidence (shared by many in this country and most outside this country), are, as I pointed out, irrelevant. George W Bush is ruling by fiat - he will have his war. Evidence does nor figure. You guys should be delighted. Why waste time running down those who give a damn about justice? We don't matter. Go celebrate the coming death and destruction for which you've been aching for so long.
One must understand that Powell's report was aimed at the UN. The same organization which has admitted Iraq has not accounted for literal tons of chemical weapons. Unless someone wishes to suggest Powell was lying the only conclusion which could reasonably be reached is the obvious one, Iraq is hiding WMD.
Really?!
Really?!
QUOTE(turnea @ Feb 5 2003, 08:26 PM)
One must understand that Powell's report was aimed at the UN. The same organization which has admitted Iraq has not accounted for literal tons of chemical weapons. Unless someone wishes to suggest Powell was lying the only conclusion which could reasonably be reached is the obvious one, Iraq is hiding WMD.
Really?!
Really?!
But..that would require an act of critical thinking here!
Darcaine
I don't like the tone this thread is starting to take. I already deleted one COMPLETELY off topic comment. I don't want to do any others.
Get used to the fact that some people will agree with you, some won't. No need to be nasty about it.
Get used to the fact that some people will agree with you, some won't. No need to be nasty about it.
The point of my post was to illustrate more clearly the situation as I see it.
1.The UN admits Iraq has tons of VX, anthrax, etc. that they have not shown to weapons inspectors as destroyed.
2. Iraq was told eleven years ago to do just that.
3. Unless Powell is lying, Iraq is actively hiding things from the inspectors.
4. Even without Powell's evidence, Iraq is not cooperating with U-2 Plane flyovers, and scientist interviews both of which are required by the resolution.
This is the choice the UN is faced with, allow Iraq to continue violating their resolutions or demand Iraq comply with a deadline and a clear military threat for non-compliance.
Where have I gone wrong?
1.The UN admits Iraq has tons of VX, anthrax, etc. that they have not shown to weapons inspectors as destroyed.
2. Iraq was told eleven years ago to do just that.
3. Unless Powell is lying, Iraq is actively hiding things from the inspectors.
4. Even without Powell's evidence, Iraq is not cooperating with U-2 Plane flyovers, and scientist interviews both of which are required by the resolution.
This is the choice the UN is faced with, allow Iraq to continue violating their resolutions or demand Iraq comply with a deadline and a clear military threat for non-compliance.
Where have I gone wrong?
QUOTE(moif @ Feb 5 2003, 08:10 PM)
Proof?
I heard voices on a phone saying dubious things, but there was no identification as to whether these were in fact Iraqi officers, Syrian officers or even CIA operatives.
I saw satellite photographs of bunkers labelled as chemical weapons stores, but no dates. Nothing to identify where these bunkers were, when the pictures were taken or what was actually within them.
Powells arguement seemed to be; There are security guards,so there must be chemical weapons. Well I saw no guards at all. Just a hut with the words 'Security post' besides it.
If I am to be honest, I saw nothing to prove any claim so far made by the Bush administration of anything much at all. In a court room, none of this proof would amount to anything. Powell talked about what people had said, but he offered little if any evidence that these people really existed, he spoke of possible Iraqi weapons systems, chemical weapons stores and mobile production facilities, and he did not prove that any of it actually exists.
Having said that though...
Do I believe what America says? No.
But do I believe that America is lying? No.
I think Powell gave a fairly good account of what he had to offer, despite that he really didn't have much at all. If this is the best proof that America has to offer to the rest of the UN that Iraq is a threat, then I for one don't buy it. Not as proof.
But if I have to decide as to who is telling the truth, Saddam Hussein or the Bush administration, then Bush wins... just.
I think the UN ought to sanction an attack with the stated aim of ending Saddam Husseins regime, and giving the people of Iraq the chance to decide for themselves, under UN protection, who should run their nation.
But I have to add, that I am not convinced of Saddams potential threat to the rest of the world on the basis of Powells 'evidence'.
I heard voices on a phone saying dubious things, but there was no identification as to whether these were in fact Iraqi officers, Syrian officers or even CIA operatives.
I saw satellite photographs of bunkers labelled as chemical weapons stores, but no dates. Nothing to identify where these bunkers were, when the pictures were taken or what was actually within them.
Powells arguement seemed to be; There are security guards,so there must be chemical weapons. Well I saw no guards at all. Just a hut with the words 'Security post' besides it.
If I am to be honest, I saw nothing to prove any claim so far made by the Bush administration of anything much at all. In a court room, none of this proof would amount to anything. Powell talked about what people had said, but he offered little if any evidence that these people really existed, he spoke of possible Iraqi weapons systems, chemical weapons stores and mobile production facilities, and he did not prove that any of it actually exists.
Having said that though... Do I believe what America says? No.
But do I believe that America is lying? No.
I think Powell gave a fairly good account of what he had to offer, despite that he really didn't have much at all. If this is the best proof that America has to offer to the rest of the UN that Iraq is a threat, then I for one don't buy it. Not as proof.
But if I have to decide as to who is telling the truth, Saddam Hussein or the Bush administration, then Bush wins... just.
I think the UN ought to sanction an attack with the stated aim of ending Saddam Husseins regime, and giving the people of Iraq the chance to decide for themselves, under UN protection, who should run their nation.
But I have to add, that I am not convinced of Saddams potential threat to the rest of the world on the basis of Powells 'evidence'.
I would think the governement would NOT lie from evidence. The president will get taken out of office or his powers will be abolished or creditability tarnnished
first off, using a little logic it is clear that the "intercepts" are fake. the Israeli government had had soldiers working in western iraq for several months as of sept 29, 2002- http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/Sh...SubContrassID=0 -
it is also known that the Israeli government has faked communications in the past to get america to bomb their enemies http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/ostrovsky.html
the us has used false tapes in the past http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
and commercially available software is capable of mimicing very closely voices of dead people http://www.rense.com/general12/ld.htm if it is avaiable to the general public it is generally obselete.
add into this that they are talking about WMDs over open airways when past inspection teams have had spies on them. were they real, they would speak in a code (the fox approaches the hen house, move the chickens)
onto the photos: they are so garin and unclear they could be showing anything. the government has satelites that can count the number of pimples on your forehead, let alone get decent pictures of weapons sites.
compare these photos: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/powellevidence.jpg and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/mikeevidence.jpg
this shows they could be anything.
and blix's feellings on it: (from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...889135,00.html)
The chief UN weapons inspector yesterday dismissed what has been billed as a central claim of the speech the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, will make today to the UN security council.
Hans Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived.
some people are saying that iraq isn't cooperating enough they aren't telling them where all the weapons are. think of it this way: the BATF shows up at you door saying the have credible evidence you have an arsenal of guns. you swear up and down you don't, they insist you let them search your house, to which you agree (not having anything to hide) the turn your house upside down and inside out, yet find jack. they then say one of your friends told them you had weapons, yet they still can't find anything no matter what yet they insist you tell them where the guns they KNOW you have are (can't well give info ya ain't got) you tell them you don't have any guns, they then arrest you because you were not cooperating enough. sound kind of familiar?
it is also known that the Israeli government has faked communications in the past to get america to bomb their enemies http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/ostrovsky.html
the us has used false tapes in the past http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/osamatape.html
and commercially available software is capable of mimicing very closely voices of dead people http://www.rense.com/general12/ld.htm if it is avaiable to the general public it is generally obselete.
add into this that they are talking about WMDs over open airways when past inspection teams have had spies on them. were they real, they would speak in a code (the fox approaches the hen house, move the chickens)
onto the photos: they are so garin and unclear they could be showing anything. the government has satelites that can count the number of pimples on your forehead, let alone get decent pictures of weapons sites.
compare these photos: http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/powellevidence.jpg and http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/mikeevidence.jpg
this shows they could be anything.
and blix's feellings on it: (from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...889135,00.html)
The chief UN weapons inspector yesterday dismissed what has been billed as a central claim of the speech the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, will make today to the UN security council.
Hans Blix said there was no evidence of mobile biological weapons laboratories or of Iraq trying to foil inspectors by moving equipment before his teams arrived.
some people are saying that iraq isn't cooperating enough they aren't telling them where all the weapons are. think of it this way: the BATF shows up at you door saying the have credible evidence you have an arsenal of guns. you swear up and down you don't, they insist you let them search your house, to which you agree (not having anything to hide) the turn your house upside down and inside out, yet find jack. they then say one of your friends told them you had weapons, yet they still can't find anything no matter what yet they insist you tell them where the guns they KNOW you have are (can't well give info ya ain't got) you tell them you don't have any guns, they then arrest you because you were not cooperating enough. sound kind of familiar?
They are searching for weapons in a country as big as California. The evidence was convincing enough for Joe Biden. It should be convincing enough for anyone who does not have their head buried in the sand or frequent loony tune, conspiracy theorist websites.
www.whatreallyhappened. com is a site dedicated to the truly gullible. Let us keep debate in the real world. I would hate us to slip down to alien abductions and Zitchen theories.
www.whatreallyhappened. com is a site dedicated to the truly gullible. Let us keep debate in the real world. I would hate us to slip down to alien abductions and Zitchen theories.
Sorry but I gotta....Ummm Unabomber or whatever..real clever by the way to take the name of a mad dog killer. That should get ya lots of dates...but to the point do you believe every piece of propaganda you come across on the net? Or only the ones that agree with your view?
Dont you realize the internet is the single most prevelant place for prevarication ever created?
Powell did a great job. He was clear he was concise and the evidence is decent. I wish for the nay sayers we had more to show the world but for the intel ops I am glad we didnt.
Over 50 nations have now signed on to support military action in Iraq. That is not what I call unilateral action. Most of them in the immediate region.
GBYA
Aahz
Dont you realize the internet is the single most prevelant place for prevarication ever created?
Powell did a great job. He was clear he was concise and the evidence is decent. I wish for the nay sayers we had more to show the world but for the intel ops I am glad we didnt.
Over 50 nations have now signed on to support military action in Iraq. That is not what I call unilateral action. Most of them in the immediate region.
GBYA
Aahz
Unabomber, try as hard as I might, I couldn't quite follow your logic......
One of the links you listed had nothing to do with intercepts, the third is a conspiracy theory website ( IMO the weekly world news of theory sites.)
You seem to come at this from a standpoint of ........If there is a chance this is all a conspiracy...Then it absolutely is.
I'm not sure if the 'gun' is smoking enough to go to war, but I think Gen. Powell laid out a pretty good case for the fact that Iraq is in breach of UN resolution 1441....among others.
One of the links you listed had nothing to do with intercepts, the third is a conspiracy theory website ( IMO the weekly world news of theory sites.)
You seem to come at this from a standpoint of ........If there is a chance this is all a conspiracy...Then it absolutely is.
I'm not sure if the 'gun' is smoking enough to go to war, but I think Gen. Powell laid out a pretty good case for the fact that Iraq is in breach of UN resolution 1441....among others.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Feb 6 2003, 01:18 AM)
Sleeper Darcaine: Your last few posts are off topic. If you guys wish to bash liberals in general or me personally, please start an appropriate thread. And, Darcaine, your analogy is inapt. We are looking at the same house. Beyond that, it's not worth debating the point with you. The problem is that I believe only what I see - not what I've been told to see.
My reservations about Powell's evidence (shared by many in this country and most outside this country), are, as I pointed out, irrelevant. George W Bush is ruling by fiat - he will have his war. Evidence does nor figure. You guys should be delighted. Why waste time running down those who give a damn about justice? We don't matter. Go celebrate the coming death and destruction for which you've been aching for so long.
My reservations about Powell's evidence (shared by many in this country and most outside this country), are, as I pointed out, irrelevant. George W Bush is ruling by fiat - he will have his war. Evidence does nor figure. You guys should be delighted. Why waste time running down those who give a damn about justice? We don't matter. Go celebrate the coming death and destruction for which you've been aching for so long.
Liberals, who said anything about Liberals, In fact I have never uttered that word until this very post. I was talking about horses.
Sleeper
Haha this is great. You liberals trip me out! Here we have one guy stating that
"Bush will have his war....regardless of justice."
Just out of curiosity Wertz.....how many more people does Saddam need to gas before he can "justifiably" be taken out ? 10 ? 10,000 ? Maybe a cool 1.5 million to make it an even 3 million ? Justice.....HAH.....give me a break dude.
Unabomber....first off ...great name guy ! Theres no doubt youre a peace loving liberal ! The mathmatical probabilities that youve proposed are blowing me away ....I just cant seem to wrap my mind around it! Im sure your theroy is right! Thats really libations and BBQ pits for the huge celebration Iraq has planned due to Saddam pronouncing Iraq a democracy.....after all ...he is the elected president !!!
Thanks for the entertaining read guys!
Wertz you are right on one point though ....we will go into Iraq....regardless of the UN. I just wonder what you'll say when we uncover all the hidden weapons? Guess all the footage we will see when that time comes will be faked as well. Hell ...now that I think about it....I bet all of this is staged in Hollywood, in studio 57....I bet Saddam is really Charelton Heston!!!
Again, thanks for a most entertaining read !
"Bush will have his war....regardless of justice."
Just out of curiosity Wertz.....how many more people does Saddam need to gas before he can "justifiably" be taken out ? 10 ? 10,000 ? Maybe a cool 1.5 million to make it an even 3 million ? Justice.....HAH.....give me a break dude.
Unabomber....first off ...great name guy ! Theres no doubt youre a peace loving liberal ! The mathmatical probabilities that youve proposed are blowing me away ....I just cant seem to wrap my mind around it! Im sure your theroy is right! Thats really libations and BBQ pits for the huge celebration Iraq has planned due to Saddam pronouncing Iraq a democracy.....after all ...he is the elected president !!!
Thanks for the entertaining read guys!
Wertz you are right on one point though ....we will go into Iraq....regardless of the UN. I just wonder what you'll say when we uncover all the hidden weapons? Guess all the footage we will see when that time comes will be faked as well. Hell ...now that I think about it....I bet all of this is staged in Hollywood, in studio 57....I bet Saddam is really Charelton Heston!!!
Again, thanks for a most entertaining read !
Juber3,
I would like to believe that also, but it is my experience that ALL governments lie to get what they want, and some more than others. The Bush administration has no credibility in my mind, because it has not demonstrated anything by which I can judge it. It has kept just about everything it can under security wraps, and is asking the UN to accept its definitions of the facts rather than the facts themselves.
That is not to say they are lying, just that they are not sharing all they say they know.
QUOTE
I would think the government would NOT lie from evidence. The president will get taken out of office or his powers will be abolished or creditability tarnished
I would like to believe that also, but it is my experience that ALL governments lie to get what they want, and some more than others. The Bush administration has no credibility in my mind, because it has not demonstrated anything by which I can judge it. It has kept just about everything it can under security wraps, and is asking the UN to accept its definitions of the facts rather than the facts themselves.
That is not to say they are lying, just that they are not sharing all they say they know.
turnea,
The only thing I see that's wrong with your logic is not thinking about alternatives to war.
That's all.
As I said before, I agree something has to be done about Iraq and Saddam. I just don't think that war is the only alternative.
Regarding the validity of the evidence that Powell put forward, I don't for one moment think the evidence is irrefutable, and in this situation, it does not matter what I think. President Bush has already made that perfectly clear. However, the rest of the world has made it perfectly clear to Bush that it matters what they think. Now that election season has started, Bush might pay attention to what I think and what the rest of the Union thinks.
I see only one constructive way out of this: strong action through the UN where Iraq is guaranteed full control of its assets (oil and others) on the conditions that 1) Saddam takes a long vacation in North Korea, and 2) Iraq voluntarily disarms completely and submits to UN occupation while a new government forms.
The US must demonstrate to the world that the UN does work and is our only hope for avoiding worldwide conventional/chemo-bio/thermonuclear devastation.
Any nationalistic, unilateral, preemptive action is beyond folly and falls into the realm of insanity.
goamerica: Powell would be the only Republican I could vote for because he is a liberal humanist. However, he has already expressed no desire to run. This might change, but I doubt it.
He'd become the Republican Jimmie Carter: a scapegoat for our own failures.
"War is sometimes a necessary evil, but it is always evil" - Guess Who (hint: see previous line)
The only thing I see that's wrong with your logic is not thinking about alternatives to war.
That's all.
As I said before, I agree something has to be done about Iraq and Saddam. I just don't think that war is the only alternative.
Regarding the validity of the evidence that Powell put forward, I don't for one moment think the evidence is irrefutable, and in this situation, it does not matter what I think. President Bush has already made that perfectly clear. However, the rest of the world has made it perfectly clear to Bush that it matters what they think. Now that election season has started, Bush might pay attention to what I think and what the rest of the Union thinks.
I see only one constructive way out of this: strong action through the UN where Iraq is guaranteed full control of its assets (oil and others) on the conditions that 1) Saddam takes a long vacation in North Korea, and 2) Iraq voluntarily disarms completely and submits to UN occupation while a new government forms.
The US must demonstrate to the world that the UN does work and is our only hope for avoiding worldwide conventional/chemo-bio/thermonuclear devastation.
Any nationalistic, unilateral, preemptive action is beyond folly and falls into the realm of insanity.
goamerica: Powell would be the only Republican I could vote for because he is a liberal humanist. However, he has already expressed no desire to run. This might change, but I doubt it.
He'd become the Republican Jimmie Carter: a scapegoat for our own failures.
"War is sometimes a necessary evil, but it is always evil" - Guess Who (hint: see previous line)
QUOTE(Mingus @ Feb 6 2003, 01:53 AM)
Haha this is great. You liberals trip me out!
Avoid mocking others beliefs. You know, the members here DIDN'T have to share with you their political leanings. Had they not done so, you would have had no post since you didn't present any views of your own.
Take these debates seriously and respect this place.
QUOTE(Jaime @ Feb 5 2003, 08:38 PM)
I don't like the tone this thread is starting to take... Get used to the fact that some people will agree with you, some won't. No need to be nasty about it.
But, Jaime, some people do need to be nasty. It's what happens when they don't have a sound argument. Indeed, in many cases, it is their argument - and, while it's worth discouraging, it is a sad fact that we all need to get used to.
QUOTE(Juber3 @ Feb 5 2003, 08:56 PM)
I would think the governement would NOT lie from evidence. The president will get taken out of office or his powers will be abolished or creditability tarnnished
Your optimism is refreshing, Juber. We don't see that in you often.
The fact is, Jubes, our government lies to us all the time - and it seldom has any impact on the president's position - though, in recent history, one president has resigned and another has been impeached for just that. (You might find this amusing, btw.) Hell, even George Washington never said "I cannot tell a lie." The alleged integrity of our leadership is no argument here - it is wishful thinking.QUOTE(Mingus @ Feb 6 2003, 01:53 AM)
Just out of curiosity Wertz... how many more people does Saddam need to gas before he can "justifiably" be taken out? 10? 10,000? Maybe a cool 1.5 million to make it an even 3 million?
He can justifiably be "taken out" if/when it is proved that he is in violation of his treaty with the UN. And then it will be up to that body to decide whether he is to be "taken out" or not. The US is not a world policing body - never mind a world prosecutor, a world judge, and a world executioner. I realize of course, that we have a sorry history of assassinating heads of state who displease us, but the fact that we have been in the business of murder (however "justifiable") in the past does not make it morally right.
And if we're to be in the business of taking out every head of state whose country has killed dissidents within its borders - or even its own citizens - there would not be a world leader left on the face of the planet. Arguing a double-standard - or a treble- or quadruple-standard - is specious.
QUOTE
Thats really libations and BBQ pits for the huge celebration Iraq has planned due to Saddam pronouncing Iraq a democracy.....after all ...he is the elected president!!!
We're not in much of a position to talk about the integrity of presidential elections, Mingus. You might wanna re-build your house with different materials before throwing that particular stone.
QUOTE
Wertz you are right on one point though... we will go into Iraq... regardless of the UN.
Yep - in the long, long history of nations making seriously bad mistakes, we're about to make one of the biggest.
QUOTE
I just wonder what you'll say when we uncover all the hidden weapons?
I believe what you mean is "if we uncover any hidden weapons".
QUOTE
Guess all the footage we will see when that time comes will be faked as well.
You seem to be attempting to apply irony to the one point on which you could be right. You think faking evidence would be beyond a US administration? What is this, National Naiveté Day?
For the record, I am not claiming that Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction. He may well. It's just that we have yet to see the evidence. And I'm sorry: What Powell presented yesterday was not even a gun - never mind the smoke. Should evidence of such weapons ever turn up, I would fully support whatever the UN decides to do by way of their treaty having been breached - including the solicitation of military action through the Security Council. But until such evidence does turn up, the US is acting like a maverick - at best; actually, more like a murderous bully similar to - well, Saddam Hussein.
QUOTE(Mingus @ Feb 6 2003, 06:53 AM)
Unabomber....first off ...great name guy ! Theres no doubt youre a peace loving liberal ! The mathmatical probabilities that youve proposed are blowing me away ....I just cant seem to wrap my mind around it! Im sure your theroy is right! Thats really libations and BBQ pits for the huge celebration Iraq has planned due to Saddam pronouncing Iraq a democracy.....after all ...he is the elected president !!!
I am not a peace loving liberal first and foremost. I chose it cause it was better then "conservative" to describe me, I am a socio-anarchist, who believes that the chance for peacefully changing the corrupt system has long past and the only option left is violent overthrow of the government.
QUOTE
Thats really libations and BBQ pits for the huge celebration Iraq has planned due to Saddam pronouncing Iraq a democracy
no they aren't. Mike Rivero (webmaster of WRH.com) is making a point that those photos could be ANYTHING! And he said they were have a SUPER BOWL PARTY!QUOTE
One of the links you listed had nothing to do with intercepts--Dontreadonme
I assume you mean the haaretz daily link. and actually it does. it is PROOF the IDF had soldiers in western Iraq. they were likely NOT doing what they claimed to be doing though (it is much more efficient and much cheaper too use UAV's [which Israel has] or satellites[which they also have access to]) the following is from Mideast facts.com(it is an archived copy though) The manner in which Israel's Mossad tricked the U.S. into attacking Libya was described in detail by former Mossad case worker Victor Ostrovsky in The Other Side of Deception, the second of two revealing books he wrote after he left Israel's foreign intelligence service. The story began in February 1986, when Israel sent a team of navy commandos in miniature submarines into Tripoli to land and install a "Trojan," a six-foot-long communications device, in the top floor of a five-story apartment building. The device, only seven inches in diameter, was capable of receiving messages broadcast by Mossad's LAP (LohAma Psicologit-psychological warfare or disinformation section) on one frequency and automatically relaying the broadcasts on a different frequency used by the Libyan government. ( http://search.cometsystems.com/search.php?...bya_mossad.html ) now using very little logic, it is clear that Israel is up to their old tricks! (just as a side note-Mossads official motto is: by way of deception, thou shalt do war) and at freemasonrywatch, Mr. Ostrovsky explains it himself ( http://www.freemasonwatch.freepress-freesp....com/libya.html )hugo, I could say the same thing for any number of mainstream press sites (fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc..., just take your pick) the mainstream press since 9-11 has been censoring themselves at the request of the white house! a free press? hardly. all news agencies in America are controlled by ten corporations. when CNN echoes fox, what can the world media mean? how can Americans be surprised to learn most of the wrold condemns our continuing blockade of Cuba? American media is a business, and it has a mission, not to inform Americans, but to entertain them. the media is a source of titalation, not information. and oh boy, a us congressman was convinced. but ya know, Powell doesn't need to convince the senate and house, but the American people and the world.
and yes, something needs to be done about Saddam, but it should come from the IRAQI people themselves, and they prefer Saddam over America! they know that America is responsible for the sanctions which have killed millions of innocents, and all from preventable diseases. (the sanctions were set up by bush Sr btw, not the Un, same with the illegal no fly zones) Saddam knows he doesn't have to fear his people, in fact he armed all the members of the ba'ath party that were old enough under Iraqi law (25) to own guns, does that sound like a dictator who is afraid of his people? yet it is nearly impossible to get any type of gun here in the land of the free!
Iraq is NOT in violation of 1441, Blix said so himself (at the UN last week) they are cooperating the amount it says they must (ie, provide unfettered access anywhere UNMOVIC (the inspectors) wish to go) I am done for now. and you know what, I love destroying shills!
QUOTE(Darcaine @ Feb 5 2003, 11:50 PM)
Doesn't matter what he said..mark my words. Those that oppose the war will keep moving the "burden of proof" goal post ever further down the field. Most oppose war no matter what, unfortunately they usually waste our time about being open minded when apparently they have no such illusions.
I think that is somewhat harsh. I strongly oppose war with Iraq, yet from the outset I have had no doubts that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was attempting to create or acquire more. Whether or not Iraq has these weapons was bever the basis of my opposition to war.
QUOTE(unabomber @ Feb 6 2003, 04:33 PM)
I am not a peace loving liberal first and foremost. I chose it cause it was better then "conservative" to describe me, I am a socio-anarchist, who believes that the chance for peaceful changing the corrupt system has long past and the only option left is violent overthrow of the government.
I have to ask - if you believe that the only option left to us is violent revolution, what are you doing on a debate forum?
I don't mean this in a nasty way - I am just honestly curious.
QUOTE(JonBon @ Feb 6 2003, 04:40 PM)
QUOTE(unabomber @ Feb 6 2003, 04:33 PM)
I am not a peace loving liberal first and foremost. I chose it cause it was better then "conservative" to describe me, I am a socio-anarchist, who believes that the chance for peaceful changing the corrupt system has long past and the only option left is violent overthrow of the government.
I have to ask - if you believe that the only option left to us is violent revolution, what are you doing on a debate forum?
I don't mean this in a nasty way - I am just honestly curious.
I believe in revolution, but the American people are not ready for it. a revolution cannot happen until a mass majority of the citizens have lost faith in the judicial system, and too many still believe they are free. I see it happening within the next decade though. and maybe I can change the minds of just one or two people, while I am here. so in a nutshell, I am biding my time.
The topic of this thread is Powell's UN address to the UN. If you want to discuss the concept of revolution, please start a new topic in the appropriate forum.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Feb 6 2003, 02:05 PM)
For the record, I am not claiming that Hussein has no weapons of mass destruction. He may well. It's just that we have yet to see the evidence. And I'm sorry: What Powell presented yesterday was not even a gun - never mind the smoke. Should evidence of such weapons ever turn up, I would fully support whatever the UN decides to do by way of their treaty having been breached - including the solicitation of military action through the Security Council. But until such evidence does turn up, the US is acting like a maverick - at best; actually, more like a murderous bully similar to - well, Saddam Hussein.
It seems that some still misunderstand the reason for the UN to send inspectors to Iraq. They are not there to search for WMD. They are there to review the evidence that Iraq has destroyed their WMD, the WMD in particular that UN inspectors had found and documented before they were forced to cease their inspections by SH. Perhaps it would help if everyone was to read the resolution 1441
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/11/08/resolution.text/
Iraq is not allowing U2 spy planes to fly over Iraqi air space this is a violation
"-- UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles; "
Iraq has not fully cooperated with the UN inspectors this is a violation
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../iraq_blix_dc_3
As to Iraq hiding WMD, it would be a simple matter to simply load all of the prohibited material onto trucks and simply move them when necessary around a country the size of California. Without road blocks throughout Iraq the UN inspectors have no hope of finding any such trucks.
I do not believe we will be able to obtain the full support of the UN in our efforts against SH. France, for one is doing too much business with Iraq.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/039.html
SH has aligned himself with terrorists. Would it not suit his purpose to supply terrorists with any of his many chemical weapons? Do we need another Sept. 11? This time with Chemical Weapons?
How long should the world wait for SH to comply? The world wishes we had not waited as long as we did with Hitler, or with Osama Bin Laden.
Unabomber,
ummm....you've destroyed nothing.
Ok......we have soldiers in northern and southern Iraq....your point? But I don't want to get in the way of your conspiracy theory.
I totally agree, I am not a fan of nation building.
Yes with all the freedom of the press over there, we know what's in the Iraqi's hearts.
Your statement contradicts itself. He wouldn't have to arm Ba'ath party members if he wasn't afraid of his own people.
You may want to actually READ the text of UN 1441. They have not proven anything that is called for by the resolution and that has been brought up by Gen. Powell.
ummm....you've destroyed nothing.
QUOTE
it is PROOF the IDF had soldiers in western Iraq. they were likely NOT doing what they claimed to be doing though
Ok......we have soldiers in northern and southern Iraq....your point? But I don't want to get in the way of your conspiracy theory.
QUOTE
and yes, something needs to be done about Saddam, but it should come from the IRAQI people themselves,
I totally agree, I am not a fan of nation building.
QUOTE
and they prefer Saddam over America!
Yes with all the freedom of the press over there, we know what's in the Iraqi's hearts.
QUOTE
Saddam knows he doesn't have to fear his people, in fact he armed all the members of the ba'ath party that were old enough under Iraqi law (25) to own guns, does that sound like a dictator who is afraid of his people?
Your statement contradicts itself. He wouldn't have to arm Ba'ath party members if he wasn't afraid of his own people.
QUOTE
Iraq is NOT in violation of 1441, Blix said so himself (at the UN last week) they are cooperating the amount it says they must (ie, provide unfettered access anywhere UNMOVIC (the inspectors) wish to go
You may want to actually READ the text of UN 1441. They have not proven anything that is called for by the resolution and that has been brought up by Gen. Powell.
donttread, I meant he was arming the members of the ba'ath for free. every one over the age of 25 is permitted to own any gun they can pay for. did you know there are something like 30-40 gunshops in baghdad alone? and the only pre-esiquite to buy a gun is being of legal age. unlike the land of the "free" where people are turned down for unpaid parking tickets (this has happened to people I know)
I never said we have soldiers in northern and southrn iraq (though we do) the IDF (israel defense force)has a group elite mossad soldiers (much like our SEALS for example) in western iraq, they were likely seting up another "trojan" much like they did in libya, (which lead us to bomb tripoli, based on FALSE radio transmissions) funny how you left that out. try this: read this peice by Victor Ostrovsky: http://www.freemasonwatch.freepress-freesp....com/libya.html in whichhe describes the operation in libya, then read the haaretz article: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/Sh...SubContrassID=0
then add two and twoo, and you get: False transmission out of Iraq gets intercepted (it really isn't THAT hard!)
strange how the just happen to "intercept" a transmission out of iraq discussing WMD over open airwaves, when support for this war is collapsing at warp speed. and remember mossads OFFICAL motto (it's on their emblem) BY WAY OF DECEPTION, THOU SHALT DO WAR
I never said we have soldiers in northern and southrn iraq (though we do) the IDF (israel defense force)has a group elite mossad soldiers (much like our SEALS for example) in western iraq, they were likely seting up another "trojan" much like they did in libya, (which lead us to bomb tripoli, based on FALSE radio transmissions) funny how you left that out. try this: read this peice by Victor Ostrovsky: http://www.freemasonwatch.freepress-freesp....com/libya.html in whichhe describes the operation in libya, then read the haaretz article: http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/Sh...SubContrassID=0
then add two and twoo, and you get: False transmission out of Iraq gets intercepted (it really isn't THAT hard!)
strange how the just happen to "intercept" a transmission out of iraq discussing WMD over open airwaves, when support for this war is collapsing at warp speed. and remember mossads OFFICAL motto (it's on their emblem) BY WAY OF DECEPTION, THOU SHALT DO WAR
QUOTE
I never said we have soldiers in northern and southrn iraq (though we do)
Yes, I was replying that we, also, had soldiers in Iraq, does that mean they are involved in fabricating transmissions too?
My point concerning the assertions in Powells speech, is that you are taking a past event and without proof turning it into an absolute today:
QUOTE
then add two and twoo, and you get: False transmission out of Iraq gets intercepted (it really isn't THAT hard!)
If you use the same logic, then you have to admit that since Hussein had WMD's, and brutally tortures and represses his citizens, he HAS to still have them, and still be torturing them today.
QUOTE(Wertz @ Feb 6 2003, 08:05 AM)
He can justifiably be "taken out" if/when it is proved that he is in violation of his treaty with the UN.
The UN decided Iraq was in violation of security council resolutions before the new resolution was even.
From UN Security Council Resolution 1441:
QUOTE
Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions... in particular through Iraq's failure to co-operate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency).
In addition he remains in material breach of the current resolution
QUOTE(Resolution 1441)
False statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and co-operate fully in the implementation of this resolution, shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations
QUOTE(Resolution 1441)
UNMOVIC and the IAEA shall have the free and unrestricted use and landing of fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft, including manned and unmanned reconnaissance vehicles
The UN claim Iraq has not accounted for tons of chemical and biological weapons and has refused to assure inspectors they will not fire upon U-2 planes used for surveillance by the UN.
Iraq is in violation of its treaty with the UN. The UN has admitted as much already.
Some links mentioning Saddam's violations of Resolution 1441:
NOTE: The Paragraph numbers that are next to the link are paragraph numbers of the article & not of the Resolution
Violation of UN Sanctions: Paragraph: 2, 6 & 17
Violation of UN Sanctions
Bogus Declaration: Paragraph: 2
Materials: Paragraph: 6, 8 & 19
FoxNews
Chemical Warheads that were undeclared
Undeclared Warheads
Nuke Documents found in Iraqi scientist’s home
Nuke Documents
NOTE: The Paragraph numbers that are next to the link are paragraph numbers of the article & not of the Resolution
Violation of UN Sanctions: Paragraph: 2, 6 & 17
Violation of UN Sanctions
Bogus Declaration: Paragraph: 2
Materials: Paragraph: 6, 8 & 19
FoxNews
Chemical Warheads that were undeclared
Undeclared Warheads
Nuke Documents found in Iraqi scientist’s home
Nuke Documents
TOPIC: COLIN POWELL'S ADDRESS TO THE U.N. ON FEBRUARY 5, 2003.
I have deleted more off topic posts in this thread than usual. One more and this thread is closed.
I have deleted more off topic posts in this thread than usual. One more and this thread is closed.
Once believing that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, I'm now believe it with proof. Powell had an excellent presentation of it. Now, war? It's inevitable.
Colin Powell gave a good speech, no doubt, but it does raise some questions.
1. Since the US has such great surveillance abilities, and all this evidence about WMDs in Iraq, why has the US not been sharing this information with the inspectors, who could have not only helped to verify it, but could have actually found what they were looking for. If we were trying to avert war, wouldn't this have made sense?
2. The weakest part of the presentation was the supposed Iraq-al Qaeda links. This link is based on one man, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He is an operative of Ansar al-Islam, a group which, by the way, operates in the Kurdish Autonomous Zone in northern Iraq, a place where there is a provisional Kurdish government friendly to the US. If Ansar indeed offered al-Qaeda operatives a safe haven, remember that, again, this was in a part of Iraq that does not have a link to the government of Iraq. And if the presence of al-Zarqawi and Ansar are reasons for war, why are we doing nothing about the leader of Ansar al-Islam, Mullah Krekar, who lives in Norway. The United States has not even made an extradition request. Krekar denies any connection of Ansar with al-Qaeda. Even if he is lying, this is a tenuous link to the government in Baghdad anyway.
3. Powell never mentined the report of Mohammed el-Baradei, chief of the IAEA team charged with Iraq's nuclear disarmament, delivered to the Council:
"No evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities … has been detected to date… Nor have the inspections thus far revealed signs of new nuclear facilities or direct support to any nuclear activity. The IAEA expects to be able, within the next few months, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained proactive cooperation by Iraq, to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme."
4. OK, the audio tapes. The only problem is, we have no way of knowing if they are real, or if they are real, that they are from the current round of inspections. In the past, we have not always been above using disinformation to drum up war support. Remember the doctored satellite photos shown to Saudi Arabia to show them Iraqi troops were building up for an invasion into Saudi Arabia? Or how Bush has said that Iraq kicked out the inspectors in 1998 (the inspectors were withdrawn at the request of the United States)? I think the world deserves a bit more concrete evidence.
It is becoming more and more likely that the United States will obtain a Security Council resolution authorizing war. If it does, its main argument will most likely be that it must go to war with Iraq to uphold international law. The United States has systematically undermined international law with regard to Iraq, by refusing to acknowledge the basis (disarmament) for lifting the sanctions, by committing repeated acts of illegal aggression against Iraq (like the Desert Fox bombing), and by deliberately making the sanctions hit Iraqi society as hard as possible for purely political reasons. The United States enforces a double standard, in which itself and its allies are exempt from legal requirements while states it decides to target are not.
This war will be a war of aggression, a violation of international law, and the only reason countries may vote to support it is that the US has so much as said that the war will happen with or without their support.
Finally, since our surveillance in Iraq is so good, why do we need to go to war at all? Why CAN'T we use this awesome technology to help the inspections, instead of as a prelude to massive war?
1. Since the US has such great surveillance abilities, and all this evidence about WMDs in Iraq, why has the US not been sharing this information with the inspectors, who could have not only helped to verify it, but could have actually found what they were looking for. If we were trying to avert war, wouldn't this have made sense?
2. The weakest part of the presentation was the supposed Iraq-al Qaeda links. This link is based on one man, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. He is an operative of Ansar al-Islam, a group which, by the way, operates in the Kurdish Autonomous Zone in northern Iraq, a place where there is a provisional Kurdish government friendly to the US. If Ansar indeed offered al-Qaeda operatives a safe haven, remember that, again, this was in a part of Iraq that does not have a link to the government of Iraq. And if the presence of al-Zarqawi and Ansar are reasons for war, why are we doing nothing about the leader of Ansar al-Islam, Mullah Krekar, who lives in Norway. The United States has not even made an extradition request. Krekar denies any connection of Ansar with al-Qaeda. Even if he is lying, this is a tenuous link to the government in Baghdad anyway.
3. Powell never mentined the report of Mohammed el-Baradei, chief of the IAEA team charged with Iraq's nuclear disarmament, delivered to the Council:
"No evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities … has been detected to date… Nor have the inspections thus far revealed signs of new nuclear facilities or direct support to any nuclear activity. The IAEA expects to be able, within the next few months, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained proactive cooperation by Iraq, to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme."
4. OK, the audio tapes. The only problem is, we have no way of knowing if they are real, or if they are real, that they are from the current round of inspections. In the past, we have not always been above using disinformation to drum up war support. Remember the doctored satellite photos shown to Saudi Arabia to show them Iraqi troops were building up for an invasion into Saudi Arabia? Or how Bush has said that Iraq kicked out the inspectors in 1998 (the inspectors were withdrawn at the request of the United States)? I think the world deserves a bit more concrete evidence.
It is becoming more and more likely that the United States will obtain a Security Council resolution authorizing war. If it does, its main argument will most likely be that it must go to war with Iraq to uphold international law. The United States has systematically undermined international law with regard to Iraq, by refusing to acknowledge the basis (disarmament) for lifting the sanctions, by committing repeated acts of illegal aggression against Iraq (like the Desert Fox bombing), and by deliberately making the sanctions hit Iraqi society as hard as possible for purely political reasons. The United States enforces a double standard, in which itself and its allies are exempt from legal requirements while states it decides to target are not.
This war will be a war of aggression, a violation of international law, and the only reason countries may vote to support it is that the US has so much as said that the war will happen with or without their support.
Finally, since our surveillance in Iraq is so good, why do we need to go to war at all? Why CAN'T we use this awesome technology to help the inspections, instead of as a prelude to massive war?
A very thought provoking post Quarkhead. Are you suggesting that the entire foundation for this war, is an ulterior American motive?
If so, what is that motive? Oil?
If so, what is that motive? Oil?
the British dossier that Powell cited in his presentation has been proven to be fake, it was partial plagerized from a post grad students essay on Iraq from before gulf war one. ( http://www.channel4.com/news/home/z/storie...06/dossier.html, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,276...,890916,00.html, http://uk.news.yahoo.com/030207/80/dsgz6.html, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politic...ics/2735031.stm, http://www.itv.com/news/1894417.html,http:...-569257,00.html, note these are international news agency sites, not kook conspiracy theorist sites)
and I still insist those photos can be anything, here is the photo from "Iraq" ( http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/powellevidence.jpg ) and here is a photo of the white house from birds eye view, ( http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?dtype...MGISwHgtuxk4%3d) and bet ya can't guess this one is from: ( http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?dtype...kAzZVZUtdbJI%3d )
now, you mean to say that the military has lower quality equipment then globeXplorer? these are commercial sat photos, and trust me, the government has better tech then this!
and if you followed my earlier link to the Osama comparison page, you will see the current administration has used false evidence to start wars in the past.
none of what general Colin "my lai" Powell has presented would hold up in a court of law. it just doesn't hold up under scrutiny! and instead of going after the evidence and refuting it, those in support of bush and the war go after the my sources that discredit all he says instead of providing proof to the contrary of what I say! typical shill behavior. the truth hurts doesn't it?
and I still insist those photos can be anything, here is the photo from "Iraq" ( http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/powellevidence.jpg ) and here is a photo of the white house from birds eye view, ( http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?dtype...MGISwHgtuxk4%3d) and bet ya can't guess this one is from: ( http://www.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?dtype...kAzZVZUtdbJI%3d )
now, you mean to say that the military has lower quality equipment then globeXplorer? these are commercial sat photos, and trust me, the government has better tech then this!
and if you followed my earlier link to the Osama comparison page, you will see the current administration has used false evidence to start wars in the past.
none of what general Colin "my lai" Powell has presented would hold up in a court of law. it just doesn't hold up under scrutiny! and instead of going after the evidence and refuting it, those in support of bush and the war go after the my sources that discredit all he says instead of providing proof to the contrary of what I say! typical shill behavior. the truth hurts doesn't it?
QUOTE
Or how Bush has said that Iraq kicked out the inspectors in 1998 (the inspectors were withdrawn at the request of the United States)
Quarkhead, can you provide some links to this, everywhere I look, I only find mention of the opposite, even from sources such as commondreams.org and truthout.org, who are very much opposed to the war, and activity try to discredit the administrations credit.
edited for spelling.
Does it have to be one motive?
There are several...Revenge, re-election, oil, religion....pick one.
There are several...Revenge, re-election, oil, religion....pick one.
As for oil, why didn't we get it in 1991, when we had it in our grasp?
Religion....we were generally on the side of Muslims in Bosnia/Kosovo.
Revenge....maybe.
Re-election....hmmmm looking like not a good strategy.
Yes, Powell cited a British intelligence dossier that may have been cut and pasted, and outdated.
Once again...if there is a possibility of conspiracy, then there absolutely must be one.
Typical shill behavior indeed.
Religion....we were generally on the side of Muslims in Bosnia/Kosovo.
Revenge....maybe.
Re-election....hmmmm looking like not a good strategy.
Yes, Powell cited a British intelligence dossier that may have been cut and pasted, and outdated.
Once again...if there is a possibility of conspiracy, then there absolutely must be one.
Typical shill behavior indeed.
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Feb 7 2003, 09:29 AM)
QUOTE
Or how Bush has said that Iraq kicked out the inspectors in 1998 (the inspectors were withdrawn at the request of the United States)
Quarkhead, can you provide some links to this, everywhere I look, I only find mention of the opposite, even from sources such as commondreams.org and truthout.org, who are very much opposed to the war, and activity try to discredit the administrations credit.
edited for spelling.
This is an interesting one. It was generally accepted in 1998 that the inspectors were withdrawn, not kicked out. This is a good example of the Media towing the official line. History, it seems, has been altered. Here's a few side by side media quotes, from then... and now:
The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them.
-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98
To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago.
--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning
--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98/
As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago.
--Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes.
--AP, 12/16/98
Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998.
--AP, 9/7/02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq.
--Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98
It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make weapons.
--Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes.
--Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98
If he has secret weapons, he's had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them.
--Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain.
--Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98
What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out.
--John King, CNN, 8/18/02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council.
--USA Today, 12/17/98
Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies.
--USA Today, 9/4/02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the most recent irritant was Mr. Butler's quick withdrawal from Iraq on Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the American representative to the United Nations, and a discussion with Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh.
--New York Times, 12/18/98
America's goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons.... To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms inspectors four years ago.
--New York Times editorial, 8/3/02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night--at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report.
--Washington Post, 12/18/98
Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons,
--Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq's prohibited weapons of mass destruction.
-- Newsday, 12/17/98
The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors' work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That's disingenuous.
--Newsday editorial, 8/14/02
they were pulled out prior to the american bombing of iraq (operation desert fox) but this should be another thread. remember, stay on topic:
powell's adress to the UN.
powell's adress to the UN.
None of this changes the facts:
Iraq is in violation of the UN's resolutions.
The UN has the choice of whether or not to enforce the resolution and how.
Powell's speech was just to re-iterate what the Security Council already knew, Iraq is in violation.
Iraq is in violation of the UN's resolutions.
The UN has the choice of whether or not to enforce the resolution and how.
Powell's speech was just to re-iterate what the Security Council already knew, Iraq is in violation.
jaime, I voluntarily retract my previous statement as it was slightly off topic, and I am enjoying this discussion and don't want it shut down.
QUOTE(unabomber @ Feb 7 2003, 03:25 PM)
jaime, I voluntarily retract my previous statement as it was slightly off topic, and I am enjoying this discussion and don't want it shut down.
Wow...just a tad bit off topic here.
Darcaine
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.