powell tells it like it is

Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Very hard to figure the opposition's position here.

Do the crime, do the time.

Game over.

You know, it really is that simple.

No matter how they spin it, no matter who they want to blame for other violations of law, the bottom line is that Hussein is so busted that we all laugh at it.

Here is what it boils down to: What is the value of law if it is not enforced? Resolutions lose their meaning if not enforced.

Time to end the talk and act like the police force of the world we rightfully are.
More...

Man:mad: you lost your marbles??? What's wrong with you and your cronies?
WHO THE f&%k farted and and my tax $$$$$ go to support death -on some bs accusations- against an already decimated county and its third class dictator ????

You want to enforce the law? International or domestic or both??? Clean up the frigging house first. READ THE F&^%ing UN resolutions history and who the REAL VIOLATORS ARE!

Bust them all up --the hypocrites in office first- then decide to go kill someone else:mad: :mad:

Read you friggin pinheads!!

Powell fails to make case USA TODAY
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinio...05-oppose_x.htm

Downing St dossier plagiarised
The government's carefully co-ordinated propaganda offensive has taken an embarrassing hit after Downing Street was accused of plagiarism
http://www.channel4.com/news/home/z...06/dossier.html

Only by Swallowing Big Lies Can Powell Justify a War
http://www.latimes.com/la-oe-scheer...,3853474.column


Taken together, the smorgasbord of old allegations, show-and-tell and hearsay that Powell presented would fall disasterously short of proving a case against an accused person in an American court of law, where the standard of proof must be "beyond a reasonable doubt." The flashy presentation did not conceal holes in the American case that a U.S. Navy battlegroup could sail through with room to spare. The Americans have argued that the Security Council is not a court of law, and that the standards of proof are different, and need not be beyond a reasonable doubt. But early in his presentation Powell himself used judicial language when he claimed that Iraq had earlier been "found guilty" of "material breaches" by the Security Council.

The American legal system, often held as an example to the world, applies such strigent standards in order to protect a single accused person from being wrongly denied his freedom or life. If the United States attacks Iraq, not one accused person, but thousands of innocent people may lose their lives. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees estimates that 600,000 people may be forced to flee their homes, and millions more may well be exposed to hunger, illness, danger and chaos for years to come. Is all of this worth it, when, as France's President Chirac once again underlined on 4 February, that a perfectly viable, non-violent alternative exists? In response to a reporter's question about criticisms that one hundred UN inspectors cannot possibly disarm a country the size of Iraq, Chirac pointed out that the first inspection regime destroyed more Iraqi weapons than all of the deadly American firepower directed at that country in 1991 and since. The solution to any shortage of resources, if the inspectors should complain of one (so far they have not), said Chirac, is to increase those resources.

Powell said that by passing Resolution 1441 putting in place the inspections last November, the Security Council has given Iraq a "last chance" to disarm. It appears that it was the United States that had a last chance to convince the world that what is needed instead is a US-led invasion of Iraq that could devastate the whole region for years to come.

The early indications, judging from the speeches of the Chinese, Russian, French and other foreign ministers seated around the Security Council table, are that the world remains convinced that inspections should be given a chance to work, Iraq, which presents no immediate threat to anyone, should urgently do everything possible to cooperate, and as President Chirac said, "war is always the worst solution.



Vinny Longs$$t back from under the rock?
 
TRADER 556 Sez: "my tax $$$$$ go to support death -on some bs accusations- against an already decimated county and its third class dictator ????"

TRADER 556 I think you better start with simple LOGIC, we probably have hours and hours of intercepts (phone conversations) in IRAQ relative to SADDAM ORDERING the use of CHEM and BIO Weapons.

The UN Inspectors are not going to find them. The inspections are a WASTE of TIME.

IRAQ has borders with IRAN, SYRIA, and JORDAN, all very porious - ANYONE or ANYTHING think can slip through.

Do you think the United States should take a chance that none of the Tonnes and Tonnes of BIO or CHEM weapons makes it out of IRAQ in the hands of some TERRIORIST ORGANIZATION.

END GAME is coming and NONE TO SOON.

WE ARE GOING IN to STOP DEATH and DESTRUCTION.
 
First of all WHO Said there was even going to be a WAR if the US and Coallition Forces roll into IRAQ.


To have a WAR in the first place the other Side - IRAQ must have a WILL TO FIGHT for something.

The will to Fight for SADDAM is missing.

I seriously doubt that after going through two horrendously costly Wars that the rank and file Iraqi wants to fight for SADDAM.

Question is will the IRAQI Armed Forces fight and next question what will they fight with and how will they be communicated with?

Without Communication, they are just a bunch of people that are dressed in Fatiques and holding AK-47s.

That's right, how will they transmitt orders to the front and communicate with their troops, because the first night of bombing military communication will be totally taken out.

Once that happens the IRAQI Generals that have HALF a BRAIN will start thinking for themselves, and that will be the end of SADDAM.

In IRAQ nothing will FLY or Move on the Ground without being blown up, once the campaign begins.

Groups of Military in an organized group will not be able to move.

If the Iraqi are smart they will follow the instructions on the leaflets being dropped.


There will be very little fight and a lot of IRAQIs running for cover, and surrendering in mass.

WHY - put yourself in their shoes, their lives have been a LIVING HELL since 1979 when SADDAM took power.

Bottomline they are tired of SADDAM, they are ready for a REAL LIFE.
 
There were war protestors also against Hitler. I am for the war against Saddam but I'm not stupid as for why they let Saddam at the head of Bagdad such a long time. And since Bush Father and Saddam made business together in the past I doubt that it is not just a comedy (So I laughed when Bush Junior played the comedy of Saddam wanting to assassinate his father hahaha what a farce sure they don't want people suspect the link that was discovered a few years ago by Times journalists even before eleven september between Bush and Saddam who perceives each 10 millions £ on the same contract. ). Nazis and Arabs were in fact allied during world war II. Hitler said he appreciates Arabs. And since Bush Family and Rockfeller are connected to Nazis well...:


http://www.baltech.org/lederman/913chase.html


"G.W. Bush's father, George Bush, was a Rockefeller puppet according to Ronald Reagan and had numerous former Nazis involved in his presidential campaign. G.W. Bush's grandfather, Prescott Bush, managed Wall Street front companies that raised money for Hitler and shipped supplies to the Nazis. These companies were seized by the U.S. government in 1942 under the Trading With the Enemy act."

"Presidents Roosevelt and Truman considered Standard Oil's executives and Rockefeller to be traitors to America. "

For detailed biography on "Bush Property Seized--Trading with the Enemy"

http://www.kmf.org/williams/bushbook/bush2.html


Quote from MondoTrader:

what? no war protestors want to respond to this thread? Gee, what a suprise. They are stupid and cowardly at the same time.
More...
 
Now a very funny scoop :

Blair Plagiarized Student Paper Because MI6
Refused to Fabricate al Qaeda Link


http://cryptome.org/mi6-mi6.htm


The report, released by the British government last Monday, is
entitled "Iraq - Its Infrastructure Of Concealment, Deception And
Intimidation". It is reproduced online at
http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page7111.asp (references below to
page numbers relate to the downloadable Word version).

The first sentence of the document claims that it draws "upon a
number of sources, including intelligence material".

This is somewhat misleading.

The bulk of the 19-page document (pp.6-16) is directly
copied without acknowledgement from an article in last September's
Middle East Review of International Affairs entitled "Iraq's Security and
Intelligence Network: A Guide and Analysis".

http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a1.html

The author of the piece is Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate
student at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. He has confirmed
that his permission was not sought; in fact, he didn't even know
about the British document until Glen Rangwala, a Cambridge-based Iraq
analyst,mentioned it to him.

It's quite striking that even Marashi's typographical errors and
anomolous uses of grammar are incorporated into the Downing Streetdocument.

For example, on p.13, the British dossier incorporates a misplaced
comma:

"Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head"..

Likewise, Marashi's piece also states:

"Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head"..
 
keymarfye, you deleted your response too fast....so I'll be a sport just for you and just for this post will use fewer exclamations/caps. agin immediately reposted after you deleted yours. Folks thxfor the pm and heads up on keymar's post. agin do yourself a favor and read what people post and check your replies. Look bud, no offense to you. I know most people are hard working honest and want the best. Take the bs brainwashing from the media puffery, look at the large picture, get to the history- ALL OF IT- and then form an educated opinion.

FRuiTY PeBBLe quotes:"I feel sorry for you, trader556"
WOWOW you do have a mirror in front of you. Now uncover the rest aliases of yours, and look intensely you just may discover who you are. You know FPC S_E long list (that's why the opposition to ID check and aliases on ET)



Ok ok ok back to the thread theme on powell and UN "evidence submission"

Powell doesn't face basic questions like these:

You cite Iraq's violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions to justify the U.S. launching an all-out war. But you're well aware that American allies like Turkey, Israel and Morocco continue to violate dozens of Security Council resolutions. Why couldn't other nations claim the right to militarily "enforce" the Security Council's resolutions against countries that they'd prefer to bomb?

You insist that Iraq is a grave threat to the other nations of the Middle East. But, with the exception of Israel, no country in the region has made such a claim or expressed any enthusiasm for a war on Iraq. If Iraq is a serious threat to the region, why doesn't the region feel threatened?

You say that the Iraqi regime is committed to aggression. Yet Iraq hasn't attacked any country for more than 12 years. And just eight days before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait on Aug. 2, 1990, the U.S. envoy to Baghdad gave what appeared to be a green light for the invasion when she met with Saddam Hussein. An Iraqi transcript of the meeting quotes Ambassador April Glaspie: "We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary (of State James) Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction ... that Kuwait is not associated with America." Mr. Powell, why don't you ever mention such information?
http://www.fair.org/media-beat/030206.html


<<...Why did the US come up with this so-called 'evidence' at the eleventh hour? And why is the Bush administration in such an indecent hurry to hurl the entire Gulf region into turmoil?...>>

We knew in advance that Secretary of State Colin Powell did not have the infamous 'smoking gun, we knew that Powell would not provide solid proof that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, but we did expect that Powell would present convincing evidence to the UN Assembly.

In reality, Powell's presentation, although professionally delivered, highlighted the fact that America's claims are 'long on volume but short on fact'.

The eagerly awaited presentation was a mishmash of hearsay, dubious communications intercepts, mysterious sources and secondhand reports from defectors and detainees. The latter would no doubt say that the moon was made of Feta cheese, if that would help their case.

Powell kicked off with audio intercept of a conversation between a Republican Guard and an officer in the field where the guard asks his subordinate to clear out the scrap before destroying the message. We were later treated to another snippet on similar lines relating to nerve gas.

Given that we know that the Bush administration is determined to effect regime change, and is willing to go it alone if necessary, we can hardly be expected to take these intercepts at face value.

Anybody who lives in the Arab world would have his suspicions about the first recording. It does not sound like an authentic exchange between two Arabs of differing status. Where was the elaborate greeting ritual, and how did the junior soldier dare to omit calling his superior by a respectful title, instead of just answering 'na'am, or 'ok'. He even came across as surly.

http://www.counterpunch.org/heard02062003.html


READ this next carefully, POSSIBLY Learn something:

So let's see if we have this straight. We still don't seem to have this straight:

There is no real evidence. There is no smoking gun. There isn't even a smoking spit wad. There is only, basically, a smoking middle finger.

Because there stands emasculated and completely Cheney-whipped Colin Powell, up in front of the U.N. Security Council and the world's TV cameras, scowling and pounding his fist and making a big show of indignation and showing everyone -- what? Some blurry satellite photos with little red squares? An audiotape of an alleged phone conversation between members of the Iraqi military, proving the existence of some biological agents we probably sold to them? Is he serious?

We are going to war with another impoverished, petty country for largely fabricated, faux-patriotic reasons. "Let's roll!" smirks Shrub during an appallingly vague State of the Union address, sending in 180,000 U.S. troops and gearing up to bomb the living crap out of a country that is no direct threat to us whatsoever. Do we not see?

Let's get it even straighter: There is zero proof that Iraq is producing any sort of serious WMD of any significant threat or lethal potential, certainly nothing remotely dangerous to the United States, and even the weapons we do think they might be hiding and even those few the inspectors actually found are either empty canisters with a range of about 12 miles or rusty hulls of weapons we knew they had back in 1992. Swell.

Straighter still: There is zero direct threat to the United States from Iraq. None whatsoever. No long-range nukes, no Hefty bags of anthrax, no seething cells of bearded Islamic fundamentalists heading over to sodomize our daughters and steal our Ford Expeditions and use up all the credit on our Starbucks cards. Clear?

Poor Colin. He used to be so smart, so judicious and calm and fair minded and restrained. He fits poorly into that hawk costume.

Look. Look closer. The terrorists have not won. The White House PR machine has won. We are not winning the war on terror. We are merely perpetuating it. We are guaranteeing it will last for decades to come. It is a vicious and bloody downward spiral.

Problem is, ShrubCo's got all the bombs. A-ha. Now it becomes clearer

http://www.sfgate.com/columnists/morford/



Ahhhh yes so many posts. Someone said that Iraqi people will welcome us as LIBERATORS :confused: yeah right, and I got bridge for sale!

Per optional777 post: Let's bomb the shit out of them and call it "God's vengeance"
http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13461

keymarfye, good enough for you with the caps and exclamations?
 
Quote from trader556:

keymarfye, you deleted your response too fast....so I'll be a sport just for you and just for this post will use fewer exclamations/caps. agin immediately reposted after you deleted yours. Folks thxfor the pm and heads up on keymar's post. agin do yourself a favor and read what people post and check your replies. Look bud, no offense to you

* * *

keymarfye, good enough for you with the caps and exclamations?
More...

I deleted the prior post specifically because I did not want to enter into a pointless flaming session, as it's my belief that such exchanges do little or nothing either to advance the overall discussion or to change people's minds, and are far more likely to do the opposite.

Since you appear to be willing and able at least to try to have a serious discussion, I'm happy to reply, though I won't try to respond to every element of the three articles you've variously pasted and linked. That I refrain from such a detailed response does not, however, justify your frequently stated presumption that those of us who support US policy are unfamiliar with the arguments, issues, and evidence coming from the other side. To the contrary, some of us, myself included, have frequently responded in detail to such material on ET. For my own part, I cannot at this moment recall a single instance when I have presented a significant challenge or question to the usual anti-war advocates, including yourself, and have received an answer in support of what they've argued or presented. If there actually are any points in any of the material you've just linked and pasted that you consider critical to your position, and, if challenged, that you will defend, please specify them. Until then, I'll confine my remarks here to the issue of Powell's presentation and Iraqi compliance with UN-mandated inspections, and leave other issues to further discussion, if any.

Enough time has passed since Powell's presentation for all sides to have presented their opinions of it. Those who are already convinced that the Ba'ath regime ought to be deposed or at least disarmed, or who consider Powell credible and who are willing to give the US Administration the benefit of whatever doubt, have greeted the presentation favorably, and many have voiced regret that the realities of intelligence collection may have made an even stronger argument impossible or unwise. On the other hand, most of those who have opposed an aggressive US policy, including those who consider Bush a greater danger to the world than Hussein, and who are not predisposed to trust Powell or his colleagues, remain unconvinced, and have seized upon perceived flaws in the presentation. William Safire and Senator Joseph Biden have stated their belief that Powell's case would have stood up in a court of law. Pundits, politicians, and officials on the other side, from the writers for "alternative" publications all the way to Iraq's own representatives, with usual suspects from the left wing of the Democratic Party and its European counterparts in between, make opposite claims. Members of both camps have used the opportunity to re-cycle or press familiar arguments within the altered, post-Powell context.

In short, no surprises here. It may be worth noting the reaction of those in the effective "middle" of the controversy, however: The experts, including current inspections chief Blix and former inspections chief Rolf Ekeus, among many others, have acknowledged that Powell presented at least some strong evidence and arguments, and have further stated their belief that Iraq has been uncooperative, and has failed to satisfy the clearly stated requirements of Resolution 1441, not to mention prior resolutions that go back at least to the end of the Gulf War. In the meantime, the idea that the Iraqis have been fully cooperative - actively and comprehensively aiding the inspectors in their work, as was required of them - is too laughable for anyone not in the direct employ of the Iraqi government to put forward. When the inspectors today trumpet "good progress" in ongoing negotiations with the Iraqis, they are implicity confirming the main point of Powell's argument - that Iraqi behavior has been and up to this moment remains non-compliant. On this note, the latest French proposal - for a significant increase in the number of inspectors - amounts to a tacit concession that Iraqi non-cooperation has been severe enough to require countermeasures.

As for the great mass of non-experts, it appears from opinion polls that the American public was moved somewhat by Powell, but would still strongly prefer the UN's backing prior to any US-led military action. Effects of world opinion appeared at first to have been marginal at best, but those who remain uncertain or persuadable may at least have been softened up.

Whether you choose to believe that Powell's presentation was wholly or largely fair, or wholly or largely dishonest, it remains a significant marker. Furthermore, you would have to believe that it was false in every significant respect to reach the conclusion that Iraq was complying with the UN, not in "material breach" of 1441, and not acting as though it in fact had something to hide. From this perspective, Powell's task was an easy one, and most observers have at least implicitly acknowledged that he was successful.
 
Iraq' being in compliance with "1441" is not my problem - my problem is a world wide loose bound network of terrorists out to bring down my nation by any means. My Government with it's obsession with Iraq and "1441" has poured such physical and emotional capital into this effort that it has lost sight of the real threat - the motley, yet capable band of dedicated extremists determined to succeed.

Taking out the Iraqi regime,turning the nation into a parking lot will do nothing to diminish the terrorist threat. In fact, our "success" in in Iraq will tie us down, and bleed our resources for years to come. It will also further the cause of our real enemies.

I do not know if my leaders are inept, foolish, or just trying to cover up their failure to defeat terrorism at it's core, but the issue of "resolution 1441" is absurd.

When my President declared a War on Terrorism shortly after 9/11 I supported the effort - but this is not what I had in mind. And this will not accomplish the stated goal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top