Political:Powell Spoke.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Stack
y'know I rarely agree with Evan (except, juding by his website, in gaming tastes) but I don't see him as a troll. Persistent, yes. But a troll, no. A troll would just pop in the General area and shout "America is evil". He contributes a lot to the non-General forums (yes, we do have them still ;)), something a troll wouldn't do. And whatever one might think of his views, he is consistent.

Geez, I'm definding way too many people I tend to disagree with today... ;)

If I ever go to France or Germany, you guys owe me a beer (well, wine in France - I've never heard of a good French beer!)

---

*bows wide* Thank you. Your Beer is reserved here ;)

By Evan van Eyk

Quote:

---

In the threat analysis of the Pentagon, it was said that one major drawback if Iraq burns his oild wells.

---

Of course it would be bad. The last time he did it It turned day into a weird twilight/night, the smoke was toxic, and we would have to put them out. I am not sure what it would do to satilite images.

First off do not America's willingness and prepareness to go to war as a wanting or desire to do so.

The simpliest reasons why a nation or group goes to war is that what ever is being fought over is not worth compromise by both sides and is so important that they are willing to die for it.

Here America wants Iraq to disarm and for Saddam to leave. We are not willing to back down on these issues. Do we want war to resolve thes issues? No. We worked with the UN to get inspectors back in the hopes that they could garuntee Iraq has disarmed. This would have been satisfactory to us and have prevented a war. We also and still will accept Saddam's exile as a resonable means to an end. However Saddam does not want to leave and he does not want to give up his WMDs. His only compromise was to play hide and seek with UN inspectors to releave pressure. The US wants him and his weapons gone no compromise. Hussein wants to stay in power and keep his weapons no compromise. Thus war.

Last summer when talk of wanting to disarm Iraq first started. The international community cried out wanting another UN resolution to be voted on and called for no unilateral action. The US went to the UN and got that resolution in th hopes that it would be tough and intollerant of Iraqi games. After all this we believe Iraq is still playing these games. The UN still wasn't sure and wanted more proof. Yesterday we gave that proof. Everyone agrees that Iraq hasn't been forthcoming hasn't declared all their weapons and have placed obsticles in front of the inspectors. All violations. Yet we still here "give them more time" and "they haven't found any weapons" as an arguement not to get tougher ie go to war.

I can only see the difference between the allies as this. Germany and France have not come to that crossroads compromise vs no compromise. I have heard it acused that the US wanted war no matter what happen. It can be accuse of France, Germany, and the UN of wanting to ignore any violation no matter what happen. I see it as this the US was going to be strict to the law while the UN was going to be leanant.

It is strength needed to deal with Iraq. Being strict and tough is all this Hussein knows. Read about this man and how he grew up, Strength is all he'll respect it is all he will listen to.





I believe we are all (most of us) critical thinkers here. I would not dismiss anyone's opinion as just blind patriotism.

I don't like Saddam. I personally wish that someone with a brain cell in Iraq would shoot Saddam 30 times (more if the weapon uses a bigger clip or belt feed), then share that brain cell with the rest of the blind populace so they can realize what a bad leader Saddam was, and use his corpse as an asswipe in some stingy public restroom.

IOW, I want him out.

HOWEVER, if there is to be military action, I'd be more certain if the UN support the action.

Otherwise, I feel more safe in the Pacific if there is a show of military force when North Korea decided to start up their nuclear facilities. Kim Jong Il is nothing more than a toddler in an adult body throwing a tantrum because no one is paying attention to him. What a dork.

Send more voluntary UN weapons inspectors, preferably single and have signed a waiver stating that should they be taken hostages, US will not make any attempt to rescue them.

I wanted to write an extended post about how mindsets are different between the USA and Europe, and why violence must always be the last option, and so on.

Apart from the fact that I have work to do instead, I just didn't feel like it.

There will be a war against Iraq.
The USA wanted it, the USA will do it. Colin Powell could have shown a piece of paper saying "Sadamm ownz WMDs" or an interview from Hussein saying he does indeed have WMDs, the war will happen.
I hope Saddam will be disposed of.
I hope not too many innocent civilians or soldiers from both sides will die.
I hope the consequences of the war won't be worse than what it tries to prevent.

Apart from that, we may discuss more or less politely about it, but that won't change an iota in what will happen. That would be like arguing whether the Captain should beam down on an hostile planet with the landing party or not.

I don't think I will discuss further on this subject.

Dan : Champagne, Bordeaux, Burgundy, Alsace... you name it, it'll be waiting for you ;)

Whoa. Amazing what you miss if you don't log on for 16 hours.

OK, personal opinions on the Powell speech. The photographic evidence was not clear. As Evan pointed out, a truck at that distance is just a rectangular thingy. There's no way you could claim with any accuracy whether it's a decon truck or Sammy's Pizza making a delivery.

The signal intercepts were more convincing, although the UN should have appointed a neutral translator to satisfy all parties that the Americans hadn't been "selective" when interpreting certain phrases (please note, I'm not claiming that the US would do such a thing, only that some will undoubtedly claim so). I do agree with Evan that the presented transcripts were only the most interesting the US has, which could be where it falls down slightly. After all, if the Iraqis have set up (as Blair called it) a "massive infrastructure of deception", you'd expect more than a couple of conversations about hiding weapons or removing mention of them in documents. Still, this was the most convincing part of the argument.

The Al-Qaeda link was less convincing. Powell stated that hatred and a mutual enemy would be enough to bring Saddam and Al-Qaeda together. Possibly. But remember, Saddam is well aware of Al-Qaeda's feelings about Iraq as a secular state. He must know that Bin Laden at one time wanted to assassinate him. Do you really think a man as paranoid as Hussein - one so paranoid he kills people as a matter of course if there's even the slightest sign of less than blind obedience - would hand a group like Al-Qaeda weapons of mass destruction knowing full well they might turn against him in the future.

On a related matter, British Intelligence reported back in August 2002 that any relationship between Hussein and Al-Qaeda likely foundered early on due to mutual distrust.

All in all, I'm still not convinced that war is necessary to complete the goal of disarming Hussein. The depth of the information provided by Powell may actually hurt the US case - if you have that level of intelligence, why don't you turn it over to the inspectors? Why weren't we told this months ago? And I'm afraid my views on the "it would compromise intelligence assets still in the field" argument are much the same as given in an earlier post.

I will support a war, if a second UN resolution is passed. I believe France will as well. Despite some posturing by Chirac, I don't think France will use its veto on the UNSC. The best they could do, if they wish to maintain their position as a moral one and silence critics who say they're out for their own interests, is to abstain from the vote. There have been a lot of French officials interviewed on UK television, and the core position as I read it is that they will support a war, if a second resolution is passed. They're worried (and I have to admit I am) about the US taking pre-emptive action without the backing of international law (which does exist - in fact we're basing the case for war on Iraq's defiance of it), because of the precedent it sets.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter

The signal intercepts were more convincing, although the UN should have appointed a neutral translator to satisfy all parties that the Americans hadn't been "selective" when interpreting certain phrases (please note, I'm not claiming that the US would do such a thing, only that some will undoubtedly claim so). I do agree with Evan that the presented transcripts were only the most interesting the US has, which could be where it falls down slightly. After all, if the Iraqis have set up (as Blair called it) a "massive infrastructure of deception", you'd expect more than a couple of conversations about hiding weapons or removing mention of them in documents. Still, this was the most convincing part of the argument.

The Al-Qaeda link was less convincing. Powell stated that hatred and a mutual enemy would be enough to bring Saddam and Al-Qaeda together. Possibly. But remember, Saddam is well aware of Al-Qaeda's feelings about Iraq as a secular state. He must know that Bin Laden at one time wanted to assassinate him. Do you really think a man as paranoid as Hussein - one so paranoid he kills people as a matter of course if there's even the slightest sign of less than blind obedience - would hand a group like Al-Qaeda weapons of mass destruction knowing full well they might turn against him in the future.

---

I absolutely think thast the US translated things in their way, they did it before and it is absolutely naturally. Translation is always interpretation. If I believe Iraq has WMDs I translate it that way. I remember my Latin lessons - the title of testpapers always gave a hint at what the text was about and therefore was a guide in translation. Its the same here. US believe there are WMDs, so they automatically translate the tapes like that.

However I think if the translated tape would have been far from the truth, the Iraq delegates would have said so.


By the way, I heard of another explanation. Iraq is not allowed to sell its oil - its on of the sanctions against the country. Yet it is quite well known that they actually smuggle it in few amount with the help of trucks - modified trucks, which could be described by that tape as well - as there is no mentioning of WMDs.


I also question if there is a link between Bin Laden and Hussein, although they are quite the same. Hussein certainly does not want to have a connection to Bin Laden after September 11th - tha would be suicide and the US made quite clear what will happen to those who give bin Laden shelter. And they are not friends, but rivals. Both want power and much of it. And there is no proof that WMDs were handed over to anyone by Iraq.

The only actual connection point is there past training and their hatred for the US. Their training makes them think quite similar, bot come from well-of families and therefore have a good education, as well as Intel training. Additionally both hate the US, as do their followers. But you do not cease that hatred by bombing the country, nor do you achieve peace with it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by REG

Send more voluntary UN weapons inspectors, preferably single and have signed a waiver stating that should they be taken hostages, US will not make any attempt to rescue them.

---

Which is actually what I feared because of the US policy. I actually wondered when Saddam will decide that he no longer supports the UN inspectors ( how less that might have been ) and react to US statements of raging a war no matter the inspectors' report and take them as hostages, similar to the Afghanistan situation with the wellfare people.

Regarding the "modified truck" issue, I'm minded to agree with Powell - why would the Iraqis be concerned about the UN team seeing them unless they were something illegal under the resolution?

Also, the Iraqis have dismissed the tapes as faked, along with all of the other evidence Powell presented.

I think a war in Iraq without support of the UN will do far more harm than good.

There, I said it. That's what I think of the current political mess. That's the extent to which I will indulge in political discussions on this board.

While there are posters here whose opinions and insights I value, this forum has sadly become the wrong place to discuss political issues. The number of people who accuse dissenting opinion of irrational US-hatred, stupidity and moral hypocrisy is too high to bear.

I'm sure that my tendency to lose my temper too quickly when people use libel and slander to prove their point hasn't helped either.

Anyway, I doubt that the "goosesteppers" will stop their chest-thumping whenever they find a news item that "proves" their point. Just as the "peaceniks" will keep voicing their disagreement.
While the moderates on this board, whether they support or reject the war, will keep watching these "discussions" hoping (against hope) they might gain some insight into opposing viewpoints.

Joe, disappointed

I've not given my opinion on the actual speech.

Having had some time to evaluate his remarks, in many ways it comes to a measure of trust.

As I have said elsewhere, the famous "Adlai Stevenson moment" of the Cuban Missile Crisis was not considered a smoking gun. Consider one reaction, from the UK, which basically said - "Gee, its a bunch of fuzzy pictures with arrows and circles. And it came from the CIA, are we supposed to believe that?" To be honest, I don't think there exists a smoking gun that all would accept as a cause for war. France has, if I am not mistaken, stated that actual finding of weapons would not be sufficient. So what Powell present certainly would not convince those who did not wish to be convinced. Nothing, in my opinion, would.

Now, I am going to continue with the idea that what he presented is accurate. In my opinion, it certainly shows a lack of cooperation with the inspections process - a very strong lack of cooperation which may make the process useless. It certainly shows a country continuing to persue a program of "weapons of mass destruction". Listening to some scientists and analysts on NPR yesterday, they stated that Iraq was correct, nuclear and chemical weapons production facilities would need to be quite large and difficult to hide, but they did confirm that biological weapons could definitely be produced in such facilites that Powell presented.

Reading recent comments from Blix, hardly a proponent of war, it seems he concurs with the lack of Iraqi cooperation. From Yahoo News:

Quote:

---

"We hope at this late hour...that they will come to a positive response. If they do not do that, then our report next Friday will not be what we would like it to be."

Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, who have headed more than two months of weapons inspections in Iraq, will return to Baghdad at the weekend. The pair will then deliver a fresh report to the U.N. Security Council on February 14.

Blair has suggested that date could be a deadline for war, saying this week that he would "make his judgments" then.

---

The issue that I see is it is apparent that inspections are not working. The resolution is what is in question. And that depends on several things. First, is Iraq an immediate threat, either militarily or as a supplier of weapons? If the answer to that is yes, then war, to me, seems an option.


If Iraq is not an immediate threat, then what is to be done, especially in light of weapons inspections not working? Will more time make them work? Will sanctions work? Sanctions have been going on for a decade and have had the effect of making Iraqi civilians suffer. But just dropping the issue seems dangerous - an uncontained Iraq would, in my opinion, represent a danger, both to the US and to the region.

This is why I've been gravitating that war may be the "best" option, out of a long list of dreadful options. What would be better, but not realistic, is if the world were to stand united against Iraq, threatening massive military action. Iraq threatened by the US, UK, and a few other allies is one thing. Iraq threatened by the world would, in my opinion, be much more difficult to ignore.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
Regarding the "modified truck" issue, I'm minded to agree with Powell - why would the Iraqis be concerned about the UN team seeing them unless they were something illegal under the resolution?

Also, the Iraqis have dismissed the tapes as faked, along with all of the other evidence Powell presented.

---

Because they might smuggle oil with it, as done before - which is also a breaking of the UN sanctions - but hardly worth a war.

Of course they dismissed the tapes, but they also failed to provide a neutral translator, who could set things right - if needed.

So concluding the situation - its pretty much a game between Iraq and the US. Either side wants to get the public opinion on their side but has failed up to now and I do not think that anything will change that.

However I do not believe that France' and Germany's decision to oppose a war is of moral nature ( maybe with the exception of our foreign Minister Mr. Fischer, seeing his political background and history ). I think its for inner political affairs and money. War is expensive and both countries are in an economical regression, war would not benefit that already difficult situation. And additionally this give inner political pressure, which you do not relief if you do decisions against the public's whish.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Stack
I've not given my opinion on the actual speech.

To be honest, I don't think there exists a smoking gun that all would accept as a cause for war. France has, if I am not mistaken, stated that actual finding of weapons would not be sufficient. So what Powell present certainly would not convince those who did not wish to be convinced. Nothing, in my opinion, would.

---

I totally agree. However I would also not think that actual findings of the weapons would mean Iraq wants to use them.
The balance of fear worked for 50 years in the Cold War, why should it work not now? Nobody can sue them without threatening his own life. If Iraq uses that weapons you would see the world united fighting them - and nor leniant anymore. That would probably be massacre. Even if Saddam is not hit himself he would be virtually destroyed because his land and thus his power would vanish.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Stack
In my opinion, it certainly shows a lack of cooperation with the inspections process - a very strong lack of cooperation which may make the process useless. It certainly shows a country continuing to persue a program of "weapons of mass destruction". Listening to some scientists and analysts on NPR yesterday, they stated that Iraq was correct, nuclear and chemical weapons production facilities would need to be quite large and difficult to hide, but they did confirm that biological weapons could definitely be produced in such facilites that Powell presented.

---

The question is if that 'could' is enough to let loose hell on Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dan Stack

If Iraq is not an immediate threat, then what is to be done, especially in light of weapons inspections not working? Will more time make them work? Will sanctions work? Sanctions have been going on for a decade and have had the effect of making Iraqi civilians suffer. But just dropping the issue seems dangerous - an uncontained Iraq would, in my opinion, represent a danger, both to the US and to the region.

---

You know what Hussein would really frighten? If the US drop the sanctions. The 'threat' of the US gone would make his power fade within years. His strong military would have no feeding ground to take recruits from and neither would have a justification for existence. In fact Hussein would be shown as what he is - a brutal dictator - and no hero opposing the evil. Because if evil gets you medicine, food, education why should it be evil?
Its quite easy to convince a young man or woman to join the fight against the US if their brothers or sisters died because of insufficient medical care, caused by sanctions. That gone will leave Hussein unprotected by his propaganda - and eventually he will fall by his own people.

It is like after WWI. The allied made one large mistake - the Versaille treaty. Like with everything in life its never good if you do just half of the job. Either Germany should have been destroyed or not punished at all - any other option like a British General stated, would be a ceasefire for 20 years. He said that in September 1919.

The same will happen in Iraq. So that leaves only two options. Competele annihilate Iraq - and if that is no morally valid option - then make it a friend. Weapons do not make peace, but trust, understanding and tolerance.

WWII was not ended by the Allied marching into Berlin. The war was ended because the Allied made their former enemies friends and helped them - not isolating but making them a member of the world community - which I am thankful of. Now we have peace for 50 years, which is far more than any country's plans for Arabia achieved up to now. And there will be no new war coming from Germany - we learned our lesson, trust me. There is few which can touch the whole population, but Nazi-policy sure enough does.
If the world community could now do a similiar approach in Iraq I think that would be an overall victory - war will always be a defeat.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
You know what Hussein would really frighten? If the US drop the sanctions. The 'threat' of the US gone would make his power fade within years. His strong military would have no feeding ground to take recruits from and neither would have a justification for existence. In fact Hussein would be shown as what he is - a brutal dictator - and no hero opposing the evil. Because if evil gets you medicine, food, education why should it be evil?
Its quite easy to convince a young man or woman to join the fight against the US if their brothers or sisters died because of insufficient medical care, caused by sanctions. That gone will leave Hussein unprotected by his propaganda - and eventually he will fall by his own people.

---

You know, I'd like to believe that ... but I don't think it'd work. Saddam is rather clever you know. A few years ago, if I remember well, sanctions were lifted on Irak: just enough so that medical supplies and food (I think) could be provided to the population. If I remember well, Saddam managed to gather everything and use it for his army, all the while telling the population how the great western satan was evil, not even allowing them any food nor medicine even in their dire need.
So even if the sanctions were fully lifted, I think he's got such a firm control of his population and such an efficient propaganda that he'd be able to make them believe for a while that there still are sanctions, that the Irakis must still suffer ... and get all the benefits of lifted sanctions for him, his army, and his research. Agreed, it wouldn't last. But with the added credits, he might have enough time to develop something dreadful and do something stupid with it.

Dan wrote:

Quote:

---

What would be better, but not realistic, is if the world were to stand united against Iraq.

---

Even better, and even less realistic would be the people of Iraq rising up against Saddam and toppling his power base and then establishing a democracy.

Unreal, I know, but not unheard of. Take Brazil, for instance. We endured 20 years of a brutal military dictatorship where censorship, torture and political one-mindedness were the norm. Some tried to oppose the regime, but were viciously persecuted.

Of course, we never tried to expand our territory then (although every once and a while I hear something about plans for invading Argentina drafted and kept "for a rainy day") and pretty much kept to ourselves. So nobody paid much attention.

During that time, we achieved quite some things. The nuclear cooperation with Germany, expansion and integration within national territory just to name a few. The people even supported the regime in the beginning.

But the constant state propaganda about terrorists and the constant reports of brutal torture of political prisioners finally became too much. The people began to question the generals who ran the country. More prisons were made, and more people rallied to the streets. Eventually, a civil president was elected and slowly democracy worked its way back.

This process took 20 years, and then 20 years more to consolidate the new democracy - but hey, now we are one of the more stable democracies of the world. We even have elected a leftist president who goes out of his way to please the market :)

I do not know if it would be possible in Iraq, given our cultural differences. But I´m a firm believer in the right to Self-Determination of a people. I question myself if war is really the best option; if there isn´t any other way of getting Saddam and his cronies out of power. It seems, however, that in a matter of weeks this will be made irrelevant.

And for what´s worth: Powell did convince me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
And there will be no new war coming from Germany - we learned our lesson, trust me. .

---

Yes, in fact Germany these days strike's me as the radical Probitionist & reformed alcholic preaching outside the bar :)