Powell's case to the UN

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by Cloudyvortex
Richard, Saddam has weapons. He had them in the past and there is nothing to even suggest that he has destroyed them. If we don't destroy them (the weapons) now, he will either use them (unlikely) or sell them (inevitabley). This is very cold of me, but if someone is to die (and someone is going to), better an Iraqi than me. I guess you are one of the few (well, few in any position of power) who honestly believe that Saddam (for the last time, it isn't a country, state, or nation, but a strongman and his millions of slaves) does not have weapons.

You are by no means stupid, just naive. You also probably feel the same way about me.

Whatever. :p

:lol: :lol:

Quite the contrary. The real difference between our positions is that I'm not so flippant, and I don't look at life as being about "me or an iraqi" until it's necessary to do so - particularly given the history of Allied indifference to the Iraqi people.

Naive would indicate a lack of experience with this sort of thing. You're over a decade younger than me, and it shows. Because I've seen this movie before. I remember predicting at a dinner table in June that Iraq would invade Kuwait - and I didn't have the CIA's resources. I remember the US responding to Saddam's threats by insisting that border disputes between Iraq and Kuwait were not a concern of the United States, and not doing a thing to prevent a war when warnings were available from better sources than my dinner table. I remember Bush saying that the invasion was no big deal, only to correct himself and insist that "this will not stand" after the Thatcher meeting. I watched, incredulous, as hundreds of thousands of troops went to defend Saudi Arabia, an authoritarian and backward monarchy that supported terror (and obviously still does) from a thug of equally questionable morals.

I watched the US obliterate Iraq with a bombing plan designed to destroy "the head" of the country, only to learn later that US forces achieved all goals more quickly, and killed fewer civilians if the air force had actually focused more on the targets the army wanted - namely soldiers and tanks in the desert, far from any civilian settlement or facility. I laugh, now, when I hear the old statement by Colin Powell about how "first we're going to cut it off, then we're going to kill it" - because I can now read dozens of accounts from his colleagues about the bombs wasted on targets near civilians that would have been better used doing what Colin said he aimed to do.

I watched as all this happened to help "liberate" Kuwait - only to find Kuwait is now ruled by the same autocrats that ruled it before, with the difference being that half the Kuwaitis now hate the country that liberated it. I remember the stories confirming that high ranking military leaders beleived that "liberating Kuwait was not worth the life of a single American soldier" - and I agreed.

I remember changing positions from anti-war activist to silent observer as I watched the 24th Mech and Co. advance up the Euphrates beyond Kuwait's borders to accomplish what I thought WAS a worthwhile goal, only to see them stopped and ordered to sit on their hands as Saddam crushed domestic resistance. Oh, and I remember how Saddam Hussein was Adolf Hitler moving into the Rhineland months before, but suddenly Saddam Hussein should be left in power because the stability of the region (!) was too important to jeapardize, and Saddam was stability.

And I remember how we in the west oppose the use of WMD and acts of aggression, except if it's against Kurds and Iranians - although we're quick to complain about the Kurdish deaths when it's convenient years later. And I remember the Kurd situation being left in stasis, because resolving it might actually require getting the same justice for the Kurds in Turkey, and we can't have that.

And best of all, I remember a decade of cruise missle attacks and sanctions. Yes - sanctions! Wasn't good enough to let them work in 1990-91, but waiting over a decade is no skin off our back once the fat f*cking Emirs aren't threatened. We've waited a decade now, and look how successful those were, too? Successful at making life short and miserable for millions of Iraqis, but we kept them going, presumably, because they've been so useful at preventing Saddam from getting WMD, right? Yet another case of the Iraqi people suffering for Saddam. Fantastic policy.

The trick here, Cloudy, is to be a little more skeptical. Do I want Saddam dead? Yes. I've wanted that as a conscious wish since I was 14 (in 1984). I thought he was an enemy of civilization the moment I understood the history of the Iran-Iraq war, and I still think the same today. Do I want Iraq liberated? Yup. Do I beleive that bad history is a reason to avoid good policy? Nope. But as citizens, our first job is to think, not to endorse. After what I've seen, I'm not signing on for anything until I'm convinced it's going to be done for the right reasons, and done right. I'm getting there, but I still need a lot more of both.

R.III
 
Originally posted by sgrig

There are still questions to be asked - if the US had some information about Hussein's WMD, and where and how he is hiding them, why not share some of the information with the inspectors to help them actually find it?

Exactly. Why do the US not give those informations to the inspectors? If they know that Iraq has those weapons, why do they not give those informations to the UN? That should be proof enough. And who says, that even if Iraq has WMD a war is the only solution?
 
Saddam Husseins sons are mad.
If bin laden would hadnt been so mad he would never let atta fly in the WTC.
Some may call him a genius but i call him a lunatic becuase if you do something like that you know you lived your last hours...
 
Originally posted by Cloudyvortex
Richard, Saddam has weapons. He had them in the past and there is nothing to even suggest that he has destroyed them. If we don't destroy them (the weapons) now, he will either use them (unlikely) or sell them (inevitabley). This is very cold of me, but if someone is to die (and someone is going to), better an Iraqi than me. I guess you are one of the few (well, few in any position of power) who honestly believe that Saddam (for the last time, it isn't a country, state, or nation, but a strongman and his millions of slaves) does not have weapons.

You are by no means stupid, just naive. You also probably feel the same way about me.

Whatever. :p

Bush and his Republican Guard have weapons. There is nothing to suggest that he will detroy them. To the contrary, he has a tendency to try to back out of treaties agreeing to disarm. He will either use them (against relatively defenseless countries that pose no threat other than an increase in terrorist activity in response) or sell them (as previously Republican Guard administrations did to the target in question). Better to go after a real threat (North Korea) or to show that a heavily armed Democracy (or monarchy or whatever the hell it is these days) can resist the temptation to use and sell its toys at will. Better to spend energy promoting altenative sources of energy and treating SUV drivers as enemy combatants rather than patriots so as to not have to be dependent on which way the scuds fly in that region of the world. To think that iniating a resumption of armed conflict will make us safer is something that is at least naive.
 
If Al-Queda is in Iraq, and Powell says it is, that alone is a strong justification.

We crushed the Taleban for harboring them, why should Saddam be an exception?

The Taleban had no chemical/biological weapons to give Al-Queda, Saddam does. Thats adds emphasis and urgency to the situation.

I have posted several times that I am uncomfortable with the US being the one to "fire first", becoming the agressor. I think many people feel the same way.

If we let the enemy strike first, we are probably setting ourselves up for a new, much more horrible 9-11 attack with chemical weapons.

Im afraid I cant justify waiting for that to happen. And it will happen, if we let it.

I say go.
 
Those that demand a smoking gun will not likely be satisfied. No one else should object. It may not be exactly a smoking gun, but that would be enough evidence to convict in a US criminal court, where the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. In particular the intercepts and the three eyewitnesses are compelling. The premise that the Iraqi disclosures are in any way valid was demolished. The only thing that I was disappointed in was the lack of really clear nuclear signs. What he showed was troubling, but not damning.

What was damning was the clear and solid evidence of systematic concealment. That, to me, is sufficient. As Secretary Powell repeatedly said, this was not an attempt by the UN to find violations. This was supposed to be an attempt by Saddam to demonstrate his virtue. Other nations have done so in the past. Iraq has not attempted to do so here. Sec Powell has a smoking gun to that extent at least.

While I understand those that say that no one will be convinced, I think they miss the point. This is not preaching as much as it is record keeping. Senator Bradley made a very solid point when he said that a unilateral war with Iraq would create the kind of breeding ground which Al Queda uses for its troops. This is true to a point.

However, there are going to be those, and they tend to be influential, that will take the time to investigate before acting. This record is for them. The point is to be in stark contrast to Saddam's naked greed in the 1990 invasion. many will ignor the facts, but not everyone, and not the future. As much as anything that is to whom Powell spoke today, the future. He did it quite well.

J

PS RIII, you need some prctice a tolerating fools. It is better to suffer fools than to be one.
 
Iraq today harbors a deadly terrorist network headed by Abu Musab Zarqawi, an associate and collaborator of Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda lieutenants.

Zarqawi, a Palestinian born in Jordan, fought in the Afghan war more than a decade ago. Returning to Afghanistan in 2000, he oversaw a terrorist training camp. One of his specialities and one of the specialties of this camp is poisons. When our coalition ousted the Taliban, the Zarqawi network helped establish another poison and explosive training center camp. And this camp is located in northeastern Iraq.
:hmm:
 
What this report tells me is that Iraq has been deceiving the inspectors. I have little doubt that they still have WMD (I wouldn't want to toss all that investment), and Iraq has been concealing them. I don't particularly buy the Al-Qaeda connection, though - it's too tenuous.

The real question before me now is "what next?" Iraq has been charged by the US and Britain, and Saddam needs to give a valid explanation and defense. The evidence provided needs to be validated by other countries as genuine. Scientists need to be interviewed. U2 flights must be allowed. If the charges still hold, and Iraq openly refuses to disarm, then the UN should go in.

I really don't see the point of the French - to send in more inspectors. What do they hope to accomplish? Adding more people isn't going to make finding a needle in the haystack any easier.

All I'm sayin' is give peace a chance. You don't go from the prosecution's speech to the sentencing.
 
Originally posted by philippe
?Thats in the no fly zone right?
I dont know, it could be.

Saddam is still in control of some territory below the Northern NFZ, the Kurds control a portion.

If the camp is under the NFZ, its is probably not in a Kurdish area.

Terrorists camps are usualy in a deserted area, with nothing and no one around.
 
I guess we can all agree that this is the best proof we can get (not saying that it isn't debatalbe in parts, but personally I trust Powell) that iraq is deceiving the UN inspectors.

ergo: material breech of Res. 1441.

further fact from the presentation: Iraq has WMD.

consequence: disarm Iraq with all necessary means.


A pity that Bush didn't find a smarter, that is less blustering way to reach that point, he might even have reached it in consensus with Fracne AND Germany. If only he had dialed his rethorics to a lower level at the start :rolleyes:

let us all hope that as few lives as possible will be lost in the war :(
 
I would suggest sending enough inspectors to find the stuff Iraq is hiding. This means making sure they get to where they want to go in time


If the Iraqis refuse, get the inspectors in there using force. Period.
 
Originally posted by philippe
I think its not fake...But the insane Belgian media almost all think its fake...

No they don't. They can sell more papers and advertisements, and get you to watch their news programs for more than you would otherwise, if they make it more controversial than it really is.

They are not stupider than you and me. You and I get the big picture... so they probably do too.
 
Post #41- Richard III, the best post in this thread. Many of the same thoughts and experiences. I was 20 years old for the last Gulf War, and it was the eye opener from a youth of ultra-patriotic right wing Republicanism.

What will happen this time...
 
"There has never been a just one, never an honorable one - on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances... The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."

What a shameless troll Mark Twain would be today.
 
From what I've seen Powell presented evidence but not proof and most of the evidence was known for years by experts.

A drawing of a mobile biological weapon factory is not a proof for me, a satelite foto of a building without a look at the inside isn't either. Since real proof was missing, most people will have the same opinion about the Iraq situation they had before, so do I.

To make my point clear: Saddam is a criminal guilty of crime against humanity, no doubt about it, but most of the people in Iraq are not. Therefore Saddam should be controlled, but war should be avoided. If there was a court able to accomplish it, Saddam should be judged, but this probably won't happen. But don't make the population of Iraq pay for the crimes of the person who oppresses it.

Compare the cost of war, not only the material cost, to the cost of no matter how rigid controls and war will always be more expensive and include much more human losses. Send 1000 qualified inspectors for the next ten years and you still have a more humanitarian and cheaper solution than war. Evidence jusitifies to increase the amount of control and evidence was presented. In addition, most of the arab states in the region would probably easily accept such measures against Iraq, where war would lead to severe problems.
 
Originally posted by Phantom Lord
Send 1000 qualified inspectors for the next ten years and you still have a more humanitarian and cheaper solution than war.

Right on. And pressure the US to comply with resolution 1441 by helping inspectors find banned weapons. They drafted the resolution, they shouldn't be playing these games around it, contradicting ElBaradei and Blix with their own interpretation. The US, as a member nation, should work to aid and inform the inspection team, not hinder and contradict.

U2s would be helpful. The Iraqis have said that under the present circumstances they cannot guarantee the safety of spyplanes in the no-fly-zones. The US air force needs to stop drawing anti-aircraft fire, patrolling and raiding ground targets in Iraq, so that the U2s can be assured safety.

American and British agents could help. They, along with satellite or air reconnaissance, could track vehicles leaving inspection sites, so that those vehicles may be searched by UN weapons inspectors.

Your 1000 qualified inspectors, Phantom Lord, echoes the French proposal. The US has said it will veto such a plan. We'll win anyway. I don't buy the US claim that inspectors are deluded. The inspectors have made great progress so far, they say, and I trust they will have success in the months to come. To the people who feel success demands finding WMD, I recommend pounding some clay or a pillow.

Stick to Blix!
 
Before Powells FN breifing I didnt agree with a war against Iraq, and I still don't. I dont think the US should do anything without the security council agreeing. The security council is there for a reason, and I dont think the US should go over thier descision and attack Iraq. The UN scurity council should be listened too even if they are dumb sometimes...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom