Colin Powell Statement - More "Evidence"?

[Fencer128]

Hi,

I'm just off out - so I won't have a chance to post back on the responses for a couple of hours. I've just heard soundbytes from the recent Powell statement. It said something (if I'm not mistaken) to the effect of:

"Iraq is building more of the missiles they're currently destroying".

I didn't see/hear all of it so maybe this has already been expalined?

"Why don't the US tell the inspectors to go check this out before releasing their info - that way they can catch him in the act and the world will be able to believe such 'evidence'"

Cheers,

Andy

 

[StageLeft]

It would be damning and definitely beneficial for the US to prove that statement.

I'm sympathetic to the war stance but I think we have to admit that the US is not being totally straightforward with some of the things they're saying - there has still been no link made between saddamn and alqueda beyond what the bush administration says. Is CIA still denying it? I'm gonna go with what they say.

 

[davee]

god i wish they would give him something worthwhile to say about iraq🙁

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
It would be damning and definitely beneficial for the US to prove that statement.

I'm sympathetic to the war stance but I think we have to admit that the US is not being totally straightforward with some of the things they're saying - there has still been no link made between saddamn and alqueda beyond what the bush administration says. Is CIA still denying it? I'm gonna go with what they say.

Yes, they have denied it. There is no connection.

 

[JellyBaby]

Originally posted by: davee
god i wish they would give him something worthwhile to say about iraq🙁

You're not elite enough to deserve that information. You'll just have to believe you can't be told for National Security Interests.

 

[exp]

*yawn* Why is Powell wasting his time with this BS? It's obvious that Iraq still has WMDs and has no intentions of giving them up. The audio intercepts alone are enough to confirm that, and these missile violations are just the icing on the cake. I think everyone should be able to make up their minds about Iraq's compliance by now, on the basis of Powell's tapes alone.

Either you think Iraq has come clean and the audio tapes are complete fabrications, in which case you can discard any further "evidence" (as you put it) from the U.S. by the same logic. You have made a deliberate choice to consider Saddam Hussein to be more credible that Colin Powell, and no further efforts by the U.S. could possibly change that.

Or you believe that the tapes are genuine, in which case further evidence is irrelevant and the case for Iraq being in material breach has been made.

More debate is a pointless waste of time at this point. We have tapes from the U.S. and now we have proscribed missiles from the inspectors themselves. Everyone should know where they stand on Iraq...quit riding the fence.

 

[davee]

Originally posted by: exp
*yawn* Why is Powell wasting his time with this BS? It's obvious that Iraq still has WMDs and has no intentions of giving them up. The audio intercepts alone are enough to confirm that, and these missile violations are just the icing on the cake. I think everyone should be able to make up their minds about Iraq's compliance by now, on the basis of Powell's tapes alone.

Either you think Iraq has come clean and the audio tapes are complete fabrications, in which case you can discard any further "evidence" (as you put it) from the U.S. by the same logic. You have made a deliberate choice to consider Saddam Hussein to be more credible that Colin Powell, and no further efforts by the U.S. could possibly change that.

Or you believe that the tapes are genuine, in which case further evidence is irrelevant and the case for Iraq being in material breach has been made.

More debate is a pointless waste of time at this point. We have tapes from the U.S. and now we have proscribed missiles from the inspectors themselves. Everyone should know where they stand on Iraq...quit riding the fence.

he's making the case for war,some countries want the inspectors
to keep working but i dunno its hard to see him voluntarily disarming

 

[exp]

he's making the case for war,some countries want the inspectors to keep working but i dunno its hard to see him voluntarily disarming

Yeah, I know. It just seems like Powell is wasting his time, because I really can't envision any people or countries changing their mind about Iraq at such a late date. But then again, I don't know what's going on behind closed doors so maybe I am mistaken. *shrug*

 

[michaelh20]

I myself don't see why missles that can travel x kms over 150 is really that important an issue.

There's also the middle ground, you know, perhaps Powell & Company are a little overeager to find evidence of WMD and read more into satellite photos and intercepts that is actually there? I wouldn't go so far as to say they are lying, but perhaps they are fudging it just a little bit?

 

[davee]

Originally posted by: exp

he's making the case for war,some countries want the inspectors to keep working but i dunno its hard to see him voluntarily disarming

Yeah, I know. It just seems like Powell is wasting his time, because I really can't envision any people or countries changing their mind about Iraq at such a late date. But then again, I don't know what's going on behind closed doors so maybe I am mistaken. *shrug*

the latest news i saw says that the us and britain expect to get their second resolution authorizing war passed,russia fra and ger wont use their veto and the tv stuff is just preparing the public for war ,gettin the public onside

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: davee

Originally posted by: exp

he's making the case for war,some countries want the inspectors to keep working but i dunno its hard to see him voluntarily disarming

Yeah, I know. It just seems like Powell is wasting his time, because I really can't envision any people or countries changing their mind about Iraq at such a late date. But then again, I don't know what's going on behind closed doors so maybe I am mistaken. *shrug*

the latest news i saw says that the us and britain expect to get their second resolution authorizing war passed,russia fra and ger wont use their veto and the tv stuff is just preparing the public for war ,gettin the public onside

I don't know where you get youe information - but I've just been watching (BBC news) a joint press conference between France, Germany and Russia where they basically outline that they will oppose any 2nd resolution on the grounds that it is not necessary and is only being introduced to short circuit the inspection proscess to a war. They also "claim" to have China supporting them.

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: exp
*yawn* Why is Powell wasting his time with this BS? It's obvious that Iraq still has WMDs and has no intentions of giving them up. The audio intercepts alone are enough to confirm that, and these missile violations are just the icing on the cake. I think everyone should be able to make up their minds about Iraq's compliance by now, on the basis of Powell's tapes alone.

Either you think Iraq has come clean and the audio tapes are complete fabrications, in which case you can discard any further "evidence" (as you put it) from the U.S. by the same logic. You have made a deliberate choice to consider Saddam Hussein to be more credible that Colin Powell, and no further efforts by the U.S. could possibly change that.

Or you believe that the tapes are genuine, in which case further evidence is irrelevant and the case for Iraq being in material breach has been made.

More debate is a pointless waste of time at this point. We have tapes from the U.S. and now we have proscribed missiles from the inspectors themselves. Everyone should know where they stand on Iraq...quit riding the fence.

You don't have to believe that those tapes are fabricated, merely that they're taken out of context. For all the public knows they could be talking about any subject - not *merely* WMD.

I would like to believe I was wrong about the US's motives and to be convinced they are correct. I've yet to be so.

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

Originally posted by: michaelh20
I myself don't see why missles that can travel x kms over 150 is really that important an issue.

If you lived in Isreal you would understand.

There's also the middle ground, you know, perhaps Powell & Company are a little overeager to find evidence of WMD and read more into satellite photos and intercepts that is actually there? I wouldn't go so far as to say they are lying, but perhaps they are fudging it just a little bit?

Well, that's the weapons inspectors view on the photos - ambiguous at best. IMHO these massive decisions should be based on expert knowledge by those on the ground - the WMD inspectors.

Andy "Convince me - I'm not a bigot"

 

[AntaresVI]

Originally posted by: michaelh20
I myself don't see why missles that can travel x kms over 150 is really that important an issue.

There's also the middle ground, you know, perhaps Powell & Company are a little overeager to find evidence of WMD and read more into satellite photos and intercepts that is actually there? I wouldn't go so far as to say they are lying, but perhaps they are fudging it just a little bit?

I think that the point here is that there should be no middle ground. If they violate the UN treaties by so much as a missile traveling one extra kilometer, they are in breach of the treaty. Who cannot agree to that? I think the point is self-evident.

That said, they are in breach of the treaty. Giving them more inspection time on top of the previous eight years won't do a single thing. All we'll see is more deception, more lies, and more WMD production by Iraq. The UN resolution has been violated, now it is up to the UN to either enforce its treaties or to admit that it is toothless and thereofre useless.

 

[davettt]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: davee

Originally posted by: exp

he's making the case for war,some countries want the inspectors to keep working but i dunno its hard to see him voluntarily disarming

Yeah, I know. It just seems like Powell is wasting his time, because I really can't envision any people or countries changing their mind about Iraq at such a late date. But then again, I don't know what's going on behind closed doors so maybe I am mistaken. *shrug*

the latest news i saw says that the us and britain expect to get their second resolution authorizing war passed,russia fra and ger wont use their veto and the tv stuff is just preparing the public for war ,gettin the public onside

I don't know where you get youe information - but I've just been watching (BBC news) a joint press conference between France, Germany and Russia where they basically outline that they will oppose any 2nd resolution on the grounds that it is not necessary and is only being introduced to short circuit the inspection proscess to a war. They also "claim" to have China supporting them.

Andy

i beleive davee's theory is that when the us press for a second res.
the french etc. will realize that not backing the US will give them less influence in the post-war carve up

 

[Fencer128]

I think that the point here is that there should be no middle ground. If they violate the UN treaties by so much as a missile traveling one extra kilometer, they are in breach of the treaty. Who cannot agree to that? I think the point is self-evident.

That said, they are in breach of the treaty. Giving them more inspection time on top of the previous eight years won't do a single thing. All we'll see is more deception, more lies, and more WMD production by Iraq. The UN resolution has been violated, now it is up to the UN to either enforce its treaties or to admit that it is toothless and thereofre useless.

I hope that a war wouldn't be started (hypothetical I know) because one missile travels one kilometre over the prescribed distance. If that were the only violation (which I guess it isn't) then that would be massive overkill (highlight the word 'kill').

I don't see how the UN is "useless" if the security council (which is only a part of the UN) is considered "useless" by whomever. You may decide by your own opinions that the security council has no "teeth", but to write off all of the good humanitarian work the UN does because you don't agree with the security council is too much IMHO. The security council is but one part of the UN - let us not forget that when we (frequently) declare it "useless".

Andy

 

[davettt]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

Originally posted by: michaelh20
I myself don't see why missles that can travel x kms over 150 is really that important an issue.

If you lived in Isreal you would understand.

There's also the middle ground, you know, perhaps Powell & Company are a little overeager to find evidence of WMD and read more into satellite photos and intercepts that is actually there? I wouldn't go so far as to say they are lying, but perhaps they are fudging it just a little bit?

Well, that's the weapons inspectors view on the photos - ambiguous at best. IMHO these massive decisions should be based on expert knowledge by those on the ground - the WMD inspectors.

Andy "Convince me - I'm not a bigot"

the wmds report that iraq is doing a "slow to work" on disposal and are not really co-operating

 

[Pacfanweb]

The point that everyone is missing is that the inspectors are not really inspectors. They are not there to seek out and find Iraq's WMD's or other arms.
They are supposed to be simply overseeing the destruction of these weapons......that Iraq is supposed to be destroying in accordance with the umpteen resolutions the UN has passed.

The fact that the inspectors are having to go look for and uncover weapons that Iraq previously claimed it didn't have is reason enough to go to war.

 

[AntaresVI]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

I think that the point here is that there should be no middle ground. If they violate the UN treaties by so much as a missile traveling one extra kilometer, they are in breach of the treaty. Who cannot agree to that? I think the point is self-evident.

That said, they are in breach of the treaty. Giving them more inspection time on top of the previous eight years won't do a single thing. All we'll see is more deception, more lies, and more WMD production by Iraq. The UN resolution has been violated, now it is up to the UN to either enforce its treaties or to admit that it is toothless and thereofre useless.

I hope that a war wouldn't be started (hypothetical I know) because one missile travels one kilometre over the prescribed distance. If that were the only violation (which I guess it isn't) then that would be massive overkill (highlight the word 'kill').

I don't see how the UN is "useless" if the security council (which is only a part of the UN) is considered "useless" by whomever. You may decide by your own opinions that the security council has no "teeth", but to write off all of the good humanitarian work the UN does because you don't agree with the security council is too much IMHO. The security council is but one part of the UN - let us not forget that when we (frequently) declare it "useless".

Andy

If the UN was created as a humanitarian society, let it function as such. It has no business attempting to dictate military affairs when it lacks the will to back up those directives with force if need be. In addition, if it was created to be a multinational forum, i see it failing in that regard also due to the intrusion of the interests of various countries. The UN's enforcement of its resolutions being blocked by one or two countries' private agendas defeats the purpose of the Security Council.

 

[Fencer128]

the wmds report that iraq is doing a "slow to work" on disposal and are not really co-operating

This - I do not believe - to be the case. The UN inspectors are very careful about their use of language (especially since it could trigger a war if misinterpreted). They describe the Iraqi cooperation as "proactive" and continue to list examples of increased Iraqi coperation. I fail to see how they now describe Iraq as "not really co-operating". Please feel free to post a link if you can show me otherwise (I could be wrong).

Andy

 

[davettt]

Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
The point that everyone is missing is that the inspectors are not really inspectors. They are not there to seek out and find Iraq's WMD's or other arms.
They are supposed to be simply overseeing the destruction of these weapons......that Iraq is supposed to be destroying in accordance with the umpteen resolutions the UN has passed.

The fact that the inspectors are having to go look for and uncover weapons that Iraq previously claimed it didn't have is reason enough to go to war.

well maybe

 

[AntaresVI]

Originally posted by: Fencer128
I hope that a war wouldn't be started (hypothetical I know) because one missile travels one kilometre over the prescribed distance. If that were the only violation (which I guess it isn't) then that would be massive overkill (highlight the word 'kill').

I just wanted to address this. At what point would enfocement begin? When a resolution such as this is made, it defines specific LIMITS for the missioles, in this case. If Iraq really wanted to be compliant, they would have designed missiles that did not travel as far as the limit.

They did not, however, knowing that the UN would be reluctant to enforce its resolutions, as it has thus far proven itself to be. All we do by allowing small breaches of resolutions is to encourage more infractions.

 

[Fencer128]

If the UN was created as a humanitarian society, let it function as such. It has no business attempting to dictate military affairs when it lacks the will to back up those directives with force if need be. In addition, if it was created to be a multinational forum, i see it failing in that regard also due to the intrusion of the interests of various countries. The UN's enforcement of its resolutions being blocked by one or two countries' private agendas defeats the purpose of the Security Council.

I see that as particularly ironic, given that the US has been blocking resolutions against Isreal - on many occasions - over the years. There's obstruction if you would like another example.

US/Isreal Vetos

The original UN declaration is given below

Original UN charter

To see how it behaves as a "multinational forum" please use the above link. You will find reference to humanitarian aims through:

"to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom" and "to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples"

Andy

 

[Fencer128]

I just wanted to address this. At what point would enfocement begin? When a resolution such as this is made, it defines specific LIMITS for the missioles, in this case. If Iraq really wanted to be compliant, they would have designed missiles that did not travel as far as the limit.

They did not, however, knowing that the UN would be reluctant to enforce its resolutions, as it has thus far proven itself to be. All we do by allowing small breaches of resolutions is to encourage more infractions.

I'm not setting any limits - all I'm saying is that in the example given we would be responsible (however morally) for the deaths of thousands possibly more people, because one missile went one kilometre over the prescribed distance. I'm saying that this is not an effective example.

Andy

 

[AntaresVI]

Originally posted by: Fencer128

If the UN was created as a humanitarian society, let it function as such. It has no business attempting to dictate military affairs when it lacks the will to back up those directives with force if need be. In addition, if it was created to be a multinational forum, i see it failing in that regard also due to the intrusion of the interests of various countries. The UN's enforcement of its resolutions being blocked by one or two countries' private agendas defeats the purpose of the Security Council.

I see that as particularly ironic, given that the US has been blocking resolutions against Isreal - on many occasions - over the years. There's obstruction if you would like another example.

US/Isreal Vetos

The original UN declaration is given below

Original UN charter

To see how it behaves as a "multinational forum" please use the above link. You will find reference to humanitarian aims through:

"to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom" and "to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples"

Andy

To address the Israeli vetoes properly, I'd have to know the specific circumstances of each. As for the UN, however:

to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained

This does not seem to be fitting with France and Germany's intent to veto a resolution authorizing force that was authroized in a previous resolution.