Well Secretary Powell laid out the case and has shown Iraq to be in material breech of 1441 and other past resolution and the ceasefire agreement. I am wondering what are some thoughts, did it convince anyone, did you watch it?
Printable View
Well Secretary Powell laid out the case and has shown Iraq to be in material breech of 1441 and other past resolution and the ceasefire agreement. I am wondering what are some thoughts, did it convince anyone, did you watch it?
Sorry, I was on my way to work when Secretary Powell spoke, so I was unable to listen in. I'll have to catch the highlights with Brit Hume tonight. :)
Too bad Sea tyger it was very good presentation. Try to catch the whole thing on Cspan or where ever it will be re-aired.
I was very impressed with the Iraq-terrorist connection.
And what British Foreign Minister Jack Straw had to say was icing on the cake.
Decent. Showed more evidence than I expected.
Won't convince those who don't wish to be.
I saw it on TV and found nothing of interest, Powell presented - however it was a review ( but pro-American ).
He showed the tape with the officer talk, whcih had the following content:
"Have you received the message? If yo and you followed its orders, destroy the message!"
"Have you brought it away? - Yes Its all away!"
While the second one might indicate that the two officers were speaking about WMDs, it could be any secret material common with any army - sadly there was no note on the context of that tape.
The first one is nothing remarkable - every military has secret messages, why should Iraq be different - for anything we know that could be the plan of two officers for a surprise party for Saddam's birthday.
The next thing I saw was a video tape. It was meant to show an Iraq fighter-craft - well it could have been a flying cow as well, the quality was terrible bad. I think the US have better equipment in their plane.
Concluding, I have to say, there was nothing convincing. The photos shown were to small to see anything, the tapes were out of context ( 'do not trust any quote you have not torn out of context yourself' ) and the video showed nothing than someblack and white dots.
However I do not think they showed the public the interesting stuff or sensitive information- I would not do that either, so its completely up to the Council members.
It should be noted that the "smoking gun" evidence of the Cuban Missile Crisis was not quite the smoking gun people today make it out to be. High ranking British officials, for example, questioned what they were viewing - a bunch of images with stuff circled and arrows drawn all over. Some said to consider the source, the CIA.
Total victory: Powell.
Evan was apparently watching some other program, as I never saw a fighter jet (but did see a picture of an unmanned drone Iraq outfitted with spray tanks to spray biological agents.)
He must also have heard a garbeled version of both tapes, as the second one clearly had one agent telling another to remove all mentions of "nerve agents" from a location, while the first one said that they had "evacuated" (not "destroyed" or "prepared for inspection") materials prior to the inspection team's arrival.
"I'm afraid that you have forgotten some" is not typical chatter.
The thing that amazes me is how much they showed. I mean let's face it the US has not proven that they could so easily watch a country so well since Cuba. Man I figure the Chinese Minister was a bit worried. In that smae note I think that is the exact reason why it was not more of a smoking gun. Do you really want the world to know everything your counrty can find out? I doubt it. I think you have to look more at the big picture, If they showed all that imagine what they have NOT shown.
Also the fact that the US is pushing this so much is the part that gfreaks me out the most. The have got to be scared to be wanting to convince everyone this badly.
Of course this is all IMHO
Even France is backpedaling. They've already issued a statement changing their position from "War is not an option" to "War is an option of last resort"... and they haven't even had time to analyze and digest the findings.
I don't like France....I get the distinct feeling that a Unified world is something they do not want...even though it saved there asses twice now
IMHO
Julian, I'm not quite sure I follow you regarding a "unified world".
I think one problem with the Europe vs. America debate - if not the problem - is a matter of perspective. Western Europe and America can look at the same thing and see two totally different things. I think it helps to understand why different peoples think different things. The French and Germans both learned in WWII that war has some pretty horrible consequences. Both nations suffered the humiliation of conquest and occupation and in so doing learned some rotten consequences of war. They have also been through a number of brutal wars all over the Europran continent. With the EU becoming more of a reality, from their perspective it is, in my opinion, logical to believe there has to be another way than war.
The American perspective is, in my opinion, different. I think Americans are looking at this from the perspective of Pearl Harbor and September 11. Both times America slept while its enemies made ready. Both times America ignored a problem that could have been confronted earlier - not easily, and not without pain, but in 20/20 hindsight it would have been better to have been proactive.
Maybe I'm wrong about the European perspective and maybe I'm wrong about the American one.
I also don't want to sound like I'm a moral relativist. There is a right and a wrong. And as I've said before, I disagree with the position of France and Germany. But I do believe that one owes it to oneself to understand how reasonable people could come to a conclusion one disagrees with.
That Hussein is a threat, all seem to agree. That Iraq has not complied fully with weapons inspectors, all seem to agree as well. What is the disagreement? Two questions, I think. The first - is Iraq an immediate or short-term threat? The second is, what should be done?
People of intelligence and good conscience can disagree on those, despite the gravity of the situation and their consequences. Both perspectives can be very wrong. If the American view is right and nothing is done, the cost can be thousands or more dead Americans after some biological terror is unleashed. If the Americans are wrong, the consequence can be more suffering for the Iraqi people and a potentially less stable Middle East for a vain purpose.
Keep in mind that Powell must have provided the other members with this data, that they might analyze it at their leisure, so that they can make their own conclusions.
Also keep in mind that when, several times, Powell described information that came from "friendly intelligence services" He did not mean our own. Basically, he's saying "this is what some of your OWN intelligence agencies told us." While some of these countries may not trust us, they tend to trust their own, and not ignore their reccommendations
Actually, I agree with Dan's analysis. I've noticed that sometimes, European and American point of view can be very far apart, for historical reasons.
I've not yet seen Powell's speech so I can't comment on it otherwise.
Oh, one last thing : Julian, please posts with statements like "I don't like XXX". When you happen to be from the aforementionned XXX, you can't help being a bit annoyed, especially if a rather fuzzy explanation follows.
I was unable to hear Sec. Powell speak this morning, but I intend to listen to a full repeat broadcast this evening when I get home.
I was, however, listeing to a fellow (last name of Kagan, didn't catch his first name -- apoliogies for this) on NPR (National Public Radio) the other day who laid out the basic differences between European and American mindsets regarding conflict at the moment.
First point: Euorpe went through two horrible, brutal, bloody wars in the 20th century, each of which threatened to end the whole of their way of life. As such, European leaders have, since WWII, attempted to move towards non-military approaches in many matters. The steps have often been imperfect, but there is an unstated goal of moving more towards international legal bodies and away from combative solutions. The United States, conversely, has not had an active war on its own territory for quite some time and hasn't had foreign troops actively invading its territory since the 19th C.
Second point: European powers used to be, well, powerful. Now they are not, at least in comparison to the United States. When France, England, and Germany had a more dominant military force, and thus world role, they tended to be more aggressive and posturing. Now that they are less powerful they are less aggressive. Conversely the United States used to be pretty weak and, during those times, tended to push more for non-intervention and finding solutions other than military ones. Now that the US is the "sole superpower" (although China might not entirely agree) our foreign policy is much more aggressive and less interested in international tribunals.
Now these points are not 100% accurate in all instances, yet they are good general benchmarks for comparison of tone between the United States and European countries in general. YMMV, of course.
Given this, France & Germany are following the general pattern that they have established over about the past couple of decades.
Admittedly my personal taste would be to move towards a world where more international cooperation (yes, very much including from Iraq) and international law would be the norm and less resorting to war and violence. This may be a dream, but it is a hopeful one.
That tape was taken by the Iraqis, & discovered during the last round of hide-n-seek back in 1998. The jet was a Mirage F-1, with a centerline 2000l droptank converted into a bio-chem sprayer. Still, it doesn't seem to matter. A live transmission showing Saddam and Osama sitting on live nukes while stirring a fresh batch of Anthrax while thumbing their noses at UN inspectors, and France & Germany's governments will still say that it only proves that the inspections need more time...Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
The next thing I saw was a video tape. It was meant to show an Iraq fighter-craft - well it could have been a flying cow as well, the quality was terrible bad. I think the US have better equipment in their plane.
Proven correct within 5 minutes.Quote:
Originally posted by qerlin
Won't convince those who don't wish to be.
That is why I consider it a waste of time undergoing the fiction of a debate with some people on this forum.
That is why I considered Powell's address to the UN as just slightly above a complete waste of time and energy. Did it convince anyone? Maybe. Please reread qerlin's post. Did it strengthen the UN's image with the world in general and Iraq in particular? I'll let you know but not holding my breath.
So both camps will strut and crow since they will only see what they wanted to see. And we will be entertained by more crap on this and other fora!
A plane of French make and manufacture, non?Quote:
The jet was a Mirage F-1, with a centerline 2000l droptank converted into a bio-chem sprayer.
The French being the only people to have sold weapons to Iraq, of course... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by First of Two
A plane of French make and manufacture, non?
Oh, not at all, the Russians sold many, many tanks and aircraft. We blew a lot of them to bits during the 1991 war, if you recall.
And the Chinese.
And the Brits.
The Egyptians, The Yugoslavians,
And occasionally, the US.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...raq/index.html
This is cool, too, but a bit long. It gives an idea of "business as usual" in Iraq, as well.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...603-unscom.htm
A bit of the UNSCOM reports of 1998. I especially enjoyed the "Documents" and "Concealment" sections.
If you are one of these people to whom "different opinion than yours" means "crap", I'd suggest you just don't bother participating in a debate, since it's obvious you'll either hear agreeing advice, or crap.Quote:
Originally posted by Kaiddin
And we will be entertained by more crap on this and other fora!
Sorry if this seems harsh from me but... well to be honest I get tired of seeing most Europeans on this board trying to be polite while on the other side some Americans don't mind throwing insults and never apologizing. Debates may be heated, right, they don't have to turn into a unilateral epithets contest.
Anyway... like I said some months ago, who cares about Iraq anyway. If the USA want to go to war, they will go to war. It's as simple as that. What I think of it is irrelevant.
History might tell us who was right. Or not. For now, I just hope not too many people will be killed (on both sides).
And now I think I'll definitely avoid this particular subject. It'd be like discussing whether phase pistols in Enterprise break continuity or not.
My point was that everyone sold weapons to Iraq before the Gulf war. Actually, I could even nitpick the fact that, of all things, the USA choosed to show a French plane.Quote:
Originally posted by First of Two
Oh, not at all, the Russians sold many, many tanks and aircraft. We blew a lot of them to bits during the 1991 war, if you recall.
Eh, rejoice : if all Iraq has is French weapons, then most of them are probably broken now.
Great we are a mud-throwing again - this time even without me getting the starting throw ;)
But I want to do my part as well, but this time on me myself :)
I just read, that a German Engineer was sentenced for 6 years in jail for selling tools to Iraq, which may used for manufacturing Gun-*** ( oh my, how do you call the front part where the bullet comes out - yeah I know its silly, but nevertheless I do not know the word ). He used another company to buy that tools - the head of that companyies selling department was also sentenced for two years ( he could proof, he knew no where that tools went ). The jordian Contact man is in arrest in Hungary and will be delivered to Germany soon.
One is forced to think of the joke currently doing the Internet rounds:Quote:
Originally posted by C5
The French being the only people to have sold weapons to Iraq, of course... :rolleyes:
Journalist: "So, Mr Bush. How do we know Iraq has all these illegal weapons?"
Bush: "Because we keep our receipts!"
Or something like that.
Yet again, the "With us or against us" rears its ugly head. Dan seems to be the only person currently posting a reasonable perspective at present.
As to those who dismissively, aggressively and arrogantly lump all those who disagree with you, or question the accuracy, content and/or sources of Powell's evidence, into the peacenik/Euro/pro-terrorist/pro-Hussein/anti-American stereotype, welll, good luck to you. If you wish to simply follow a politician's words without question, have a great life.
We learned that lesson down here at the beginning of last year (2002), when the Federal government produced photographic evidence that asylum seekers had thrown their own children overboard to get the attention of the Royal Australian Navy, and prevent them from turning the boat back out of Australian waters.
"Look at them!" crowed John Howard and Philip Ruddock, "We don't want people who would do that in this country!"
And they won an election on it.
Guess what? 3 months later, the rest of the photos were released, weren't they? The ones which showed the boat was sinking and everyone was in the water, not just the children.
They lied. They lied thru their teeth, bald-faced and unashamedly.
Now I'm not saying Powell/Bush et al are lying - they may well be telling the truth. But to attack anyone who questions the evidence of political figures which supports the agenda of those political figures is the height of not only arrogance, but evidence in itself of blindingly mindless following of one's own politicians.
The people questioning the evidence are essentially saying: "Would it stand up in court?"
I haven't seen Powell's presentation, so I cannot directly comment on it. From following what people here have said, it sounds, however, like it probably wouldn't stand up in court, or would at least be grounds for appeal.
Whatever the case, the evidence must be compelling for a person to be convicted of a crime that would lead to the death penalty. Considering that's what's being planned for several thousand (or more) Iraqis, I don't see that it's unreasonable to expect a nation to hold to the same standards as the prosecutors in a capital case.
And for those of you who are preparing the "We can't divulge intelligence sources" argument...well, tough shit, basically.
You want people to believe you? Provide sources. If you can't, or won't, expect an argument. There's been more than enough time to protect the intelligence sources there - or if you can't, don't try and use their evidence to support you.
And if you do try and use it...expect a "You've got to be kidding" type of response. Perhaps it's a problem with the division on the board between the Military/Intel guys and the Civilians.
As a civilian, I expect and demand a reason before I support an action my government takes - or any government, for that matter (though I only actually have a say in mine). I do not, will not, not ever, "Follow Orders". Moreover, those reasons must be logical, and coherent, and presented with supportive, corroborated evidence - not just the "say so" of some politician or general.
In the mean-time, however, a message for the more aggressive species of Hawk that is nesting on the boards.
As incredulous as it may seem to you that people are dismissing Powell's evidence, as absurd as it may seem to you that people are questioning the motives of the US administration in this whole Iraq matter...
...it is every bit as incredible and absurd to people on the other side that you believe what your president is telling you, and that you accept Powell's evidence at face value.
So how about we lay off the personal attacks for a while, hmm?
How about we stop throwing out trolling comments like "I don't like the French"?
How about we stop labelling the "other side" as ignorant morons who couldn't find their arses with a piece of toilet paper?
Quote:
Originally posted by Aldaron
The people questioning the evidence are essentially saying: "Would it stand up in court?"
http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?vts=020520031425
Unfortunately, the UN has no unbiased jury.Quote:
Following a White House breakfast that Bush had with congressional leaders in advance of Powell’s presentation, Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said: “If I had this evidence before a jury that was an unbiased jury, I could get a conviction.”
Yeah, right, exactly what I mean. After all if I'm sick of crap thrown around here it must be because I'm anti-European. Give me a break.Quote:
Originally posted by C5
If you are one of these people to whom "different opinion than yours" means "crap", I'd suggest you just don't bother participating in a debate, since it's obvious you'll either hear agreeing advice, or crap.
Let me guess, I'll come right out and say it, since I have no opinion of Evan because he has proven himself not worth an opinion that makes me anti-European? I guess sincer I have opinions about Iraq, that makes me anti-European?
This is just bullshit! I wonder why I bother!
Quote:
Originally posted by Kaiddin
Let me guess, I'll come right out and say it, since I have no opinion of Evan because he has proven himself not worth an opinion that makes me anti-European?
I wonder why that is? So anybody who agrees not blindly to your opinions, which you fail to base with facts is not worth an opinion?
Impressive. You made up your mind with 2 audio tapes about a war. You know what we can do, at this time, with computers, ain't you? If you want, I can send you a tape of Mickael Jackson saying he loves Hitler.... Easy to do...
Can't you see these proofs ain't proofs, and that you can't kill people for that?
OK, there must be some subtelty of the english language I failed to grab, since on my end I never said you were anti american. Then again maybe my wordbook was lying, or I failed to understand a joke.Quote:
Originally posted by Kaiddin
Yeah, right, exactly what I mean. After all if I'm sick of crap thrown around here it must be because I'm anti-European. Give me a break.
Let me guess, I'll come right out and say it, since I have no opinion of Evan because he has proven himself not worth an opinion that makes me anti-European? I guess sincer I have opinions about Iraq, that makes me anti-European?
This is just bullshit! I wonder why I bother!
I just had the impression from your previous post that you said every disagreeing comment was crap, and reacted to that. I did not, read, NOT, said you were anti european. Actually, I now could say a number of things I think you are, but anti European would not be amongst the first.
And now I'm going to have some well deserved sleep. Read you tomorrow for a new round of mindless flaming if this thread hasn't been locked since or has evolved to something more interesting and intelligent (wich I doubt).
Yeah this statement is very anti-European. Very pro-US!Quote:
Originally posted by Kaiddin
Proven correct within 5 minutes.
That is why I consider it a waste of time undergoing the fiction of a debate with some people on this forum.
Guess this one is too. After all if you think the UN is much akin to the Imperial Senate in The Phantom Menace, you must be anti-European.Quote:
That is why I considered Powell's address to the UN as just slightly above a complete waste of time and energy. Did it convince anyone? Maybe. Please reread qerlin's post. Did it strengthen the UN's image with the world in general and Iraq in particular? I'll let you know but not holding my breath.
Both camps? Hmmm. That must be the anti-European and the pro-American. Give me a break.Quote:
So both camps will strut and crow since they will only see what they wanted to see. And we will be entertained by more crap on this and other fora!
I thought there was only one person on these fora that could spin that bad.
For those of you who haven't seen, the full text can be found at:
http://www.msnbc.com/news/869007.asp
or
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030205-1.html
with slides and audio.
Because, I think you are a troll. You appear to be here just to sling mud at the US with your War crime chant.Quote:
Originally posted by Evan van Eyk
I wonder why that is? So anybody who agrees not blindly to your opinions, which you fail to base with facts is not worth an opinion?
Do I expect everyone to share my opinion, No.
But I respect those like Ramage, Aslan and others who are not here just to try and piss people off.
Notice that I did not include First of Two in my short list? Or Cyberludite?
Give it a thought. Prove me wrong. Or can you!
Quote:
Originally posted by holyone
Impressive. You made up your mind with 2 audio tapes about a war. You know what we can do, at this time, with computers, ain't you? If you want, I can send you a tape of Mickael Jackson saying he loves Hitler.... Easy to do...
Can't you see these proofs ain't proofs, and that you can't kill people for that?
Well after all there is a reason why tapes are only rarely agreed as proof in court - at least its that way in Germany.
However I do not think that the US lied on that - I just think they choose the best ones which they claim to bolster their position - anyone would do that. The task of the Council is now to seed out the true facts, and I mean facts without influence of either side - anti or pro war - and afterwards make a decision not for France, not for Germany, not for the US but for the world community including Iraq.
BTW, neither France nor Germany have ever said there will be no war at any point. It was just said that at the current point France and Germany do not see any step take to resolve the situation peacefully.
And as I said before I only saw a review on the speech, not the whole one itself and commented on the parts I saw and heard. Nothing to get angry about.
And I have you pegged too!Quote:
Originally posted by C5
Actually, I now could say a number of things I think you are, but anti European would not be amongst the first.
Smug arrogance. Who would have thought?Quote:
And now I'm going to have some well deserved sleep. Read you tomorrow for a new round of mindless flaming if this thread hasn't been locked since or has evolved to something more interesting and intelligent (wich I doubt).
As far as I'm concerned this thread id finished.
Fortunately for you, your intelligence service is far more adept at determining what is authentic and what is not than you are.Quote:
Originally posted by holyone
Impressive. You made up your mind with 2 audio tapes about a war. You know what we can do, at this time, with computers, ain't you? If you want, I can send you a tape of Mickael Jackson saying he loves Hitler.... Easy to do...
Can't you see these proofs ain't proofs, and that you can't kill people for that?
If the tapes were "faked," as you desperately want to believe, French Intelligence (and every other intel group in the world) would be on them in a half-second.
You know what THEY can do, at this time, with computers.
You annihilate your own argument. Purchase a clue.
Quote:
Originally posted by Kaiddin
Because, I think you are a troll. You appear to be here just to sling mud at the US with your War crime chant.
Thank you, I take that as a compliment.
Actually I can understand you in one way, yet you are a contradicting person. You claim that I only throw mud at the US. True to a certain point. But you and many others simply ignore facts and say Amen to anything the government says and decides. Not the slightest sign of critical thinking appears in many posts made at this boards.
Nevertheless, you should read my posts more carefully. Most of the time, I describe a situation and make conclusion - not as my own, but logical conclusion which one can take.
We call it 'Thought-plays' here in Germany. E.g. ripping of the US arguments against Iraq. Showing double-moral and arbitrary argumentation. Short Spoken. What counts for me counts not for you.
In am an idealist, always was and will always be. I fought for my freedom, and paid a high price for it in my childhood. And I fight for my opinions and believes.
Maybe you are a patriot and I can see that you get harmed when somebody talks bad about the US you feel bad as well - like if somebody talks bad about your loved - one.
However if I do so, I do not do it to insult anybody or to do harm. Here in Germany patriotism and nationalism is not common in fact its viewed bad upon. Maybe because of that I cannot imagine how you feel - otherwise I would probably use more tact.
But I feel it is my obligation to raise my voice if injustice is done, thus I will not stop to critize anybody or any nation who does injustice.
But lets get things straight. I do not think Saddam is a good guy and I can only repeat for the thousands time. If there is proof for Iraq planning to use WMDs against any nation in an aggressive manner I cannot come up wiht an alternative to combat action - and will shut up.
But the proof Powell brought up is just not weighing enough. The photos he showed - actually proofed nothing. You could see a truck and on the next picture its gone. Powell says its a decontamination vehicle - but there is no sign for it. It could be a school bus. But even if its a decon-vessel that could be used for military training. I saw several decon-vessel during my military service. That does not mean Germany will do WMD-attacks on any country.
The other pictures showed some bunkers so small, you could hardly recon anything. Again this can be anything.
Maybe you can make up your mind on emotion alone, even if its such important matters. But since I am better with my mind than with intuition I want to see pure facts, which were not present for what I saw. However it is not me who decides upon that issue but the UN Security Council.
The US demand Iraq to stick to UN resolutions, yet do not apply that rule for themselves. As Lt. Khrys Antos stated in the 'debate' threat. Its no moral superiority which makes the US move, but simple military strength. I believe that is true and while I do not like that fact, its at least the truth, which is far more which any of the players in the political area stated recently.
Quote:
Originally posted by First of Two
Fortunately for you, your intelligence service is far more adept at determining what is authentic and what is not than you are.
If the tapes were "faked," as you desperately want to believe, French Intelligence (and every other intel group in the world) would be on them in a half-second.
You know what THEY can do, at this time, with computers.
You annihilate your own argument. Purchase a clue.
I doubt the US gave their originals away thus any try to analyse the tapes would fail because you cannot analyse a copy of a tape for manipulation very well. Additionally both, the video tape and the voice tape, had a very bad quality, which can hide any manipulation easily. ( remember 'In the Pale Moonlight?" ).
Bad choice of examples. In "Pale Moonlight," The deception was uncovered.
For 1/2-> Now think of that:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling that thinks nothing worth a war is worse. A man who has nothing he cares more about than he does his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself"
Your argument is unclear. Have you switched sides?
??? I do not remember that.Quote:
Originally posted by First of Two
Bad choice of examples. In "Pale Moonlight," The deception was uncovered.
However I did not mean it as example of the fact that it can be discovered or not, I just wanted to say that even people with good intentions can use such methods and thus eventually fail to protect what they want to protect. I wanted to remind you of the morality aspect of the episode not of any intel method.