powell tells it like it is

...on the wisdom of going through the UN in the first place:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-singer021003.asp

Excerpt:


Currently, the U.N. acts more as a protector of international criminality than as the enforcer of the world order envisioned by its charter. The Security Council, if not quite in cahoots with the gang leaders, is like a police force that has long ago given up imposing something close to the rule of law.

In this context, the American decision to go to the Security Council for authorization was a bit of a non-sequitur: the collision of the order the U.S. is creating with the old order.

The war in Iraq is about smashing a particular gang, which will send a powerful message to the other gangs that the U.S. is no longer going to tolerate gang rule. If the U.S. is Eliot Ness, out to take on organized crime with a select band of Untouchables, the Security Council is the corrupt police establishment that can only look bad if America succeeds.
More...
 
Quote from KymarFye:

I've refrained from participating in this forum for a couple of days, tampa, ever since you decided to make it your personal platform, and especially as I do not feel you've shown any convincing interest in a civil and rational discussion. In my observation, you've consistently employed tactics that you now claim to deplore when used by others - ridicule, mockery, and direct insults, and so on. Your protests on this score suggest either the rankest hypocrisy or deficient mental faculties. As for the rest of this bitter, multi-page tear you've been on, I've seen little reason to respond to your confusing mix of empty assertions, manipulative exaggerations, and false distinctions.

Since you now claim, however, to be ready to undertake a real discussion, and are insisting on the importance of certain "issues," I'll offer my take, though I won't try to pretend that I'm doing so for your benefit. I just hate to see false or extreme claims left unchallenged in a public forum. I also think that your handling of these issues illustrates to some small extent what I was describing above, though, frankly, I think the truth of the matter is too obvious to require additional proof. Your posts speak for themselves.

As for the first of your three "issues," you again bring up Bush's misstatements regarding an inspections report on nuclear weapons development in Iraq. You've never provided any details, but I believe you're referring to a statement that was made on the occasion of Blair's most recent US visit, when Bush confused a '98 report with a '91 report. The White House immediately acknowledged the error. It appears to me that only you and a few others who make a custom of drawing paranoiac inferences from incidents of no intrinsic meaning have chosen to make anything of it.

Then, echoing unhinged accusations that came from observers like Katrina vanden Heuvel of THE NATION, you then turn to the famous "aluminum tubes," and claim that the Bush Administration deliberately misrepresented their actual or potential utility in nuclear weapons development. Typically, you write as though you possess certain knowledge of the truth of the matter, stating that these tubes are "not suitable" for use in nuclear weapons development. I don't know where you obtained qualification as a nuclear expert, but, if indeed you possess such qualifications, you should know that many of your colleagues disagree with you. Powell spent some time on the issue at the UN, both acknowledging the controversy and outlining the Administration's position in some detail. You may choose to disagree with the analysis, or to favor the analysis of someone else who may support your position, but you have given no basis whatsoever for your further charges of dishonesty.

Finally, you suggest that the launching of remotely piloted planes carrying chemical or biological agents is "laughable." I share your opinion in part, in that I find it difficult, though not impossible, to imagine a scenario under which such a direct attack on US territory would be in Iraqi interests. I can't pretend, however, to possess certain knowledge of Iraqi strategy and tactics, or to be able to predict the circumstances that might obtain five years from now if Hussein and his regime were allowed to continue weapons development and a military build-up unhindered. In any event, I consider the issue a minor one at most, as I believe the larger issue of direct and indirect threats to the American populace, and inarguably to American and allied interests, to have been amply demonstrated on many other scores. I also suspect that many uninformed observers would have considered the whole 9/11 scenario to have been laughable if it had been presented to them ahead of time. Get real - fanatical zealots in separate cities boarding planes, hijacking them with box cutters, and flying them into the WTC and the Pentagon?
More...

My goodness, you are a long winded fellow - were you like that when the rat was still alive?

Let's see if we can be more brief in response.

a) '91 or '98 doesn't cut it. He said the report said that Iraq was on the verge of developing a bomb. No such report was EVER issued - not in 1991, not in 1998, nor in 2003.

b) It is true, I have no more expertise in nuclear technology than George Bush. And it's true that experts may disagree. So I am going with the UN inspectors who saw the tubes, and confirmed their numbers and use.

c) It is not laughable to assume that a group of thugs could hijack an airplane. It is laughable that Iraq could float a boat large enough to launch a fair size plane, sail it out of the Persian Gulf, around the Cape, across the Atlantic, snuggle up along our shore, and not be detected.

 

Tampa, you really blew it (again). After reading your post prior to this one, a very civil post to be sure, I was prepared to accept your olive branch despite your profanity in previous pages.

Then I scrolled down to find this, your latest example of an unhinged mind.

It is apparent that you are schizophrenic to say the least. You didn't even give me a chance to respond to your civil post before posting this one! And almost a full half-hour passed between your civil post and the post you now quote me on.

What is your problem, other than having no social skills whatsoever?

I don't mind my intellect being questioned, or my political beliefs, and I rather enjoy sparring back and forth with other ET members. Unlike you, I can take what I dish out, and expect nothing less. So call me what you will - a warmonger, unpatriotic, a liar, a mindless follower of our president, all those words that are insulting but at least within acceptable standards of decorum.
 
Quote from tampa:



My goodness, you are a long winded fellow - were you like that when the rat was still alive?

Let's see if we can be more brief in response.

a) '91 or '98 doesn't cut it. He said the report said that Iraq was on the verge of developing a bomb. No such report was EVER issued - not in 1991, not in 1998, nor in 2003.

b) It is true, I have no more expertise in nuclear technology than George Bush. And it's true that experts may disagree. So I am going with the UN inspectors who saw the tubes, and confirmed their numbers and use.

c) It is not laughable to assume that a group of thugs could hijack an airplane. It is laughable that Iraq could float a boat large enough to launch a fair size plane, sail it out of the Persian Gulf, around the Cape, across the Atlantic, snuggle up along our shore, and not be detected.

Have you tried a local pet shop to get a new rat?

And might I suggest the local chapter of: Pompous. Long-winded Pseudo Intellectuals Anonymous?
More...

As to the Bush statement and whatever import we're supposed to attribute to it, if you don't provide some news report or other piece of evidence - both his statement or statements and the evidence of dissembling - it's impossible to judge. All we have are your assertions and inferences. The IAEA did, for instance, report in '98 that Iraq was close to developing a nuclear weapon back in '91. Again, if you're referring to the statements around the Blair visit, the White House acknowledged the error, and most of us have moved on.

You mischaracterize what the UN inspectors stated regarding the aluminum tubes. Al-Baradei reported the Iraqi explanation for them, and stated his opinion that the explanation was tenable. He could not "confirm" their "use," because they had not been used. Regardless of the truth of the matter, which may never be known, your response in effect concedes that you had no valid basis for your charges of dishonesty - merely your opinion and your suspicion, based upon 1) your choice of which experts to believe, and, obviously more important, 2) your desire to make a point.

The UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) are actually rather small - much smaller than, say, a Cessna. I confess that I don't know what it takes to launch them, but transporting them would not be difficult.

I suppose I could keep my responses shorter, perhaps by leaving out evidence and logic. Maybe instead of making the effort to consider serious matters seriously, I should offer up a bitter, empty, intermittently foul multi-post rant instead. I'll think about it.
 
Quote from KymarFye:

I suppose I could keep my responses shorter, perhaps by leaving out evidence and logic. Maybe instead of making the effort to consider serious matters seriously, I should offer up a bitter, empty, intermittently foul multi-post rant instead. I'll think about it.
More...
Nah, don't stoop to his level. One foul-mouthed blowhard is too many as it is.
 
Quote from hapaboy:


Tampa, you really blew it (again). After reading your post prior to this one, a very civil post to be sure, I was prepared to accept your olive branch despite your profanity in previous pages.

Then I scrolled down to find this, your latest example of an unhinged mind.

It is apparent that you are schizophrenic to say the least. You didn't even give me a chance to respond to your civil post before posting this one! And almost a full half-hour passed between your civil post and the post you now quote me on.

What is your problem, other than having no social skills whatsoever?

I don't mind my intellect being questioned, or my political beliefs, and I rather enjoy sparring back and forth with other ET members. Unlike you, I can take what I dish out, and expect nothing less. So call me what you will - a warmonger, unpatriotic, a liar, a mindless follower of our president, all those words that are insulting but at least within acceptable standards of decorum.

But DON'T continue to use profanity. Not because you may think it bothers me (it doesn't! It REALLY doesn't!) but because it has no place here. If you have to resort to profanity, there are several other boards on the Internet where you will be most welcome.

Now be a good boy or you won't get any dessert.
More...

...oh my goodness, it's OK to call for the destruction of a nation, the deaths of women and children, but one should not use the "S: word...it's not civil.

Well, I stand corrected...pardon me...now tell me again, how many dead women and children is acceptable in this adventure?
 
Quote from tampa:

...oh my goodness, it's OK to call for the destruction of a nation, the deaths of women and children, but one should not use the "S: word...it's not civil.

Well, I stand corrected...pardon me...now tell me again, how many dead women and children is acceptable in this adventure?
More...
This post epitomizes your pathetic mindset. I could, and shall pose the exact same question to you: How many dead American women and children is acceptable to you?

And it's OK to call for the destruction of your very own nation?

Yep, your responses to any posts that attempt reason, i.e. Kymar's previous ones, only accentuate what most of us on this board (except Candle and a couple of other comrades-in-closets) know: you are incredibly naive.

You did, however, earn some points for lack of profanity! Perhaps dessert will be awarded to you come the next recess period.:D
 
Quote from tampa:



...oh my goodness, it's OK to call for the destruction of a nation, the deaths of women and children, but one should not use the "S: word...it's not civil.

Well, I stand corrected...pardon me...now tell me again, how many dead women and children is acceptable in this adventure?
More...

Your posturing on behalf of the Iraqi people is much harder to tolerate than your language and your insults.

You appear to think that some policy of benign neglect would demonstrate greater concern for the Iraqis than would the removal of the Ba'ath regime as soon as possible.

Reversion to prior policies would mean leaving the Iraqis indefinitely under the control of a totalitarian kleptocracy that keeps itself in power through the systematic use of terroristic violence. In this regard, the comparisons to Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union under Stalin are quite fair. For the vast majority of Iraqis, neglect would mean lives of continued privation and hopelessness under international sanctions. Given the Ba'ath ideology of conquest, the actual history of the Ba'ath regime, and the likelihood that sanctions would eventually either be eliminated or substantially weakened, neglect would very likely mean eventual re-immersion of the populace in military conflict directed outward, though a civil war (between the regime and its opponents) is certainly another distinct possibility (and already a low-level reality), as the recent history of Iraq under the Ba'ath Party includes both.

In short, the idea that the Iraqis would be better off on their own (or Hussein's own) is at least debatable, and would remain so even if the dubious casualty estimates offered up from anti-war quarters proved accurate. Rebels under arms in the north and south, in exile, or in prison have already shown what they prefer, and there is substantial evidence from defectors and other sources that most Iraqis, as well as most Arabs, would welcome Hussein's downfall. Even many anti-war activists claim that they would, even if they offer no way to achieve that outcome.
 
Wimps, weasels and monkeys - the US media view of 'perfidious France'

Dissenters in Europe become the first victims - of a war of words

Gary Younge in New York and Jon Henley in Paris
Tuesday February 11, 2003
The Guardian

The "petulant prima donna of realpolitik" is leading the "axis of weasels", in "a chorus of cowards". It is an unholy alliance of "wimps" and ingrates which includes one country that is little more than a "mini-me minion", another that is in league with Cuba and Libya, with a bunch of "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" at the helm.

Welcome to Europe, as viewed through the eyes of American commentators and newspapers yesterday, as Euro-bashing, and particularly anti-French sentiment, reached new heights. In a barrage of insults and invective which ranged from the basest tabloid rants to the loftiest columnists on the most respected newspapers, European-led resistance to America's war plans in Iraq was portrayed not as a diplomatic position to be negotiated as a genetic weakness in the European mindset which makes them reluctant to fight wars and incapable of winning them.

The front page of Rupert Murdoch's New York Post yesterday shows the graves of Normandy with the headline: "They died for France but France has forgotten." "Where are the French now, as Americans prepare to put their soldiers on the line to fight today's Hitler, Saddam Hussein?" asks the pugnacious columnist Steve Dunleavy. "Talking appeasement. Wimping out. How can they have forgotten?" A cartoon in the same paper shows an ostrich with its head in the sand below the words: "The national bird of France."

If such language is proving a headache for the diplomats, then spare a thought for the French translators, who have struggled for words to convey the full force of the venom. "Cheese-eating surrender monkeys" - a phrase coined by Bart Simpson but made acceptable in official diplomatic channels around the globe by Jonah Goldberg, a columnist for the rightwing weekly National Review (according to Goldberg) - was finally rendered: " Primates capitulards et toujours en quête de fromages ". And the New York Post's "axis of weasel" lost much of its venom when translated as a limp " axe de faux jetons " (literally, "axis of devious characters").

American wrath has been reserved for those nations which oppose their leadership, particularly following the decision to oppose shifting Nato resources to Turkey. "Three countries - France, Germany and their mini-me minion, Belgium - have moved from opposition to US policy toward Iraq into formal, and consequential obstructionism," argued the Wall Street Journal in an editorial yesterday. "If there is a war [the Turks] will face the danger of direct attack that is not feared in the chocolate shops of Brussels." The front page of the National Review blares "Putsch" with a sub-headline: "How to defeat the Franco-German power grab."

While the jibes may be puerile, the possibility that the Bush administration and commercial outlets might follow them up with punitive measures has struck some as pernicious. An ad, due to come out soon, shows three German-made cars, including an Audi and a BMW, driving towards the camera with a voice saying: "Do you really want to buy a German car?"

If there has been any European country that has attracted more contempt than others, it is France. In the Wall Street Journal, Christopher Hitchens described Jacques Chirac as "a positive monster of conceit _ the abject procurer for Saddam ... the rat that tried to roar". In the Washington Post, George Will opined that the "oily" foreign affairs minister, Dominique de Villepin, had launched France into "an exercise for which France has often refined its savoir-faire since 1870, which is to say retreat - this time into incoherence".

And in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman argued that France should be removed from the security council and be replaced with India: "India is just so much more serious than France these days. France is so caught up with its need to differentiate itself from America to feel important, it's become silly." The Wall Street Journal editor, Max Boot, argues: "France has been in decline since, oh, about 1815, and it isn't happy about it." What particularly galls the Gauls is that their rightful place in the world has been usurped by the gauche Americans."

At its ugliest, the transatlantic bile is becoming increasingly personal. When France Inter radio's correspondent in Washington, Laurence Simon, started to explain her government's position to Fox News (owned by Murdoch) she was interrupted by the presenter. "With friends like you, who needs enemies," she was told as she was taken off air.

come and enjoy neutral Switzerland http://www.myswitzerland.com/
 
It'is a bit off-topic, but I think it is related.

Anybody remembers about a year ago so called "Jenin massacre". The europians were all over Israel for killing "hundreds and hundreds of innocent civilians".

As we know now the massacre was not, but the point is THE EUROPEANS DID NOT NEED NO STINKING PROOF THEN. It was all so obivous, how could Israeli have not killed hundreds of people, they are so blood-thirsty. They also spoke on the phone to a few palestenians and got descriptions of hundreds of corpses lying on the streets of Jenin. Certainly much more credible sources of information then Collin Powell. I do not think anybody ever appologized to Israel for slander.

On the other side no evidence is good enough for them now. Talk about double standards.

BTW guess who led the charge against Israel then - of course France and Belgium. And msfe's favorite tabloid Guardian was the most anti-Israel too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top