Powells speech, flawed?

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: SnapITBlix dismissed the evidence, to me, that means that an unbiased source knows better...

Blix is one man on foot. The US had thrown their intelligence resources at Iraq including spies and aerial photography. Do you really think the one guy walking around knows better? He's already been denied access on more than one occasion and has yet to be able to interview the scientists over there. I think it's a little presumptious to assume he has the whole picture.

Bush is one man on foot too....

Do you think he's alone, do you think he listens to the inpectors and the US intelligence, of course he does... Blix is not one guy walking around, what he does is that he evaluates the information given...

apparently he doesn't because he has dismissed evidence before

When did he dismiss evidence and why did he do it?

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: dabuddha
ok
your question was is Powell's speech flawed?
the answer to that is no. Few details might have been inaccurate but the overall message of the report was not.
now, answer my question please

Ok, i will, i believe that more inspections, until the inspectors believe they are finished, destuction of what is found and cooperation of ever nation is a good thing...

I don't think that rushing to war is the answer in this case...

wow, for once i agree with you. but i'm looking at this one step further. It'd be naive to think Iraq would "willingly" allow the destruction of any WMD found and the production sites. And in this case, with the terrorist ties, we really have no choice but to strike first. We made that mistake before with Bin Ladin and so many people had to pay with their lives. pacifism is nice in theory but will not work in this world today

I have yet to see any terrorist ties...

I don't think that Irak is an immidiate danger to anyone at this point...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: dabuddha

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: dabuddha ok your question was is Powell's speech flawed? the answer to that is no. Few details might have been inaccurate but the overall message of the report was not. now, answer my question please

Ok, i will, i believe that more inspections, until the inspectors believe they are finished, destuction of what is found and cooperation of ever nation is a good thing... I don't think that rushing to war is the answer in this case...

wow, for once i agree with you. but i'm looking at this one step further. It'd be naive to think Iraq would "willingly" allow the destruction of any WMD found and the production sites. And in this case, with the terrorist ties, we really have no choice but to strike first. We made that mistake before with Bin Ladin and so many people had to pay with their lives. pacifism is nice in theory but will not work in this world today

Willingly? No. Blix isn't being allowed in willingly either. There will be protests and crying and fist shaking. In the end he will allow it, because his alternative is to go to war with the rest of the world. He does this, he removes what I see as the only intermediate step between just tagging sites, and his death. That is why he allows inspections, because he realizes that he has no real choice. Will he like it? Nope, but how is he going to stop it? Any site can be eliminated. If shooting starts, he knows he is dead. He puts an army between his site and ground forces, they get bombed. He has no choice. People claim he is Hitler. Hitler had an army to be reckoned with. Saddam does not.

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: axiom
UN Inspectors do not destroy materials. That is not what they were sent to Iraq to do. They were sent to account for the weapons that Iraq has. Giving them the authority to destroy weapons is impossible when Iraq actively seeks to conceal their weapons as Powell proved.

SnapIT: I don't think you can consider something flawed because there are people that have conflicting intelligence information. Take Global Warming as an example. Some say it's a problem, some say it is not, yet decisions are still made assuming it is a problem and decisions are made assuming it is not a problem. Does that make their causes flawed? You've got to consider the entire speech judge it.

Yes, but when the information is so extremely conflicting, and the people who live there says it isn't there, and they are supporting the US, i tend to believe them...

The thing is, it is hard to find where the truth is when there are lies (or disinformation) involved...

 

[SnapIT]

Originally posted by: axiom
13 years of inspections and now we are 'rushing to war'? Ehm, how many years does one have to wait to not be considered 'rushing to war'?

You've got to evaluate the last 12 years of work with Iraq along with the last 6 months to give a solid evaluation of this situation.

It seems strange to me that it's ok to wait for 12 years and then suddenly, it has to be done as fast as possible...

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: axiom
UN Inspectors do not destroy materials. That is not what they were sent to Iraq to do. They were sent to account for the weapons that Iraq has. Giving them the authority to destroy weapons is impossible when Iraq actively seeks to conceal their weapons as Powell proved. SnapIT: I don't think you can consider something flawed because there are people that have conflicting intelligence information. Take Global Warming as an example. Some say it's a problem, some say it is not, yet decisions are still made assuming it is a problem and decisions are made assuming it is not a problem. Does that make their causes flawed? You've got to consider the entire speech judge it.

If anything that is determined to be a threat is destroyed, practical military functioning ceases. Saying we have to have a war because inspectors dont have authority is a specious argument. Put a team in that has authority. Done. Also if Saddam has weapons hidden in his garage, and cant get into it, they are pretty useless. BTW Powell did show one thing conclusively. We have the ability to do some serious monitoring. Stick to confirmed targets, and destroy them. Uncertain as to a sites purpose? Drop troops in without warning and inspect. Destroy as needed. Repeat.

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: axiom
UN Inspectors do not destroy materials. That is not what they were sent to Iraq to do. They were sent to account for the weapons that Iraq has. Giving them the authority to destroy weapons is impossible when Iraq actively seeks to conceal their weapons as Powell proved.

SnapIT: I don't think you can consider something flawed because there are people that have conflicting intelligence information. Take Global Warming as an example. Some say it's a problem, some say it is not, yet decisions are still made assuming it is a problem and decisions are made assuming it is not a problem. Does that make their causes flawed? You've got to consider the entire speech judge it.

Yes, but when the information is so extremely conflicting, and the people who live there says it isn't there, and they are supporting the US, i tend to believe them...

The thing is, it is hard to find where the truth is when there are lies (or disinformation) involved...

true but did you read the article
they're not saying it doesn't exist, they're just saying the location is wrong
its still there

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: axiom
13 years of inspections and now we are 'rushing to war'? Ehm, how many years does one have to wait to not be considered 'rushing to war'?

You've got to evaluate the last 12 years of work with Iraq along with the last 6 months to give a solid evaluation of this situation.

It seems strange to me that it's ok to wait for 12 years and then suddenly, it has to be done as fast as possible...

its not being done as fast as possible, we've been evaluating him for the last 12 years or so, since the gulf war (and even before)
can't always drag your feet or you'll lose your initiative and the casualty rate will be much higher

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: axiom
UN Inspectors do not destroy materials. That is not what they were sent to Iraq to do. They were sent to account for the weapons that Iraq has. Giving them the authority to destroy weapons is impossible when Iraq actively seeks to conceal their weapons as Powell proved. SnapIT: I don't think you can consider something flawed because there are people that have conflicting intelligence information. Take Global Warming as an example. Some say it's a problem, some say it is not, yet decisions are still made assuming it is a problem and decisions are made assuming it is not a problem. Does that make their causes flawed? You've got to consider the entire speech judge it.

If anything that is determined to be a threat is destroyed, practical military functioning ceases. Saying we have to have a war because inspectors dont have authority is a specious argument. Put a team in that has authority. Done. Also if Saddam has weapons hidden in his garage, and cant get into it, they are pretty useless. BTW Powell did show one thing conclusively. We have the ability to do some serious monitoring. Stick to confirmed targets, and destroy them. Uncertain as to a sites purpose? Drop troops in without warning and inspect. Destroy as needed. Repeat.

But this leads to the original argument (which has lasted for 12+years). First, Saddam signed a treaty (in order to end the war) stating that he would disarm and not produce WMD. Second, it becomes apparent that Saddam is not abiding by this treaty. Third, he plays a decade long game of inviting inspection teams and then kicking them out, or blocking their access. This continues today.

At what point do you say "enough is enough"? Right now, Saddam has been threatened by the UN which has basically said

Stop. And if you don't stop we'll say "stop" again.

SnapIT, as you've said, Saddam is unstable, a liar, and a detriment to his own country. How much more evidence do you need to decide that he needs to be stopped?

 

[dabuddha]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: axiom
UN Inspectors do not destroy materials. That is not what they were sent to Iraq to do. They were sent to account for the weapons that Iraq has. Giving them the authority to destroy weapons is impossible when Iraq actively seeks to conceal their weapons as Powell proved. SnapIT: I don't think you can consider something flawed because there are people that have conflicting intelligence information. Take Global Warming as an example. Some say it's a problem, some say it is not, yet decisions are still made assuming it is a problem and decisions are made assuming it is not a problem. Does that make their causes flawed? You've got to consider the entire speech judge it.

If anything that is determined to be a threat is destroyed, practical military functioning ceases. Saying we have to have a war because inspectors dont have authority is a specious argument. Put a team in that has authority. Done. Also if Saddam has weapons hidden in his garage, and cant get into it, they are pretty useless. BTW Powell did show one thing conclusively. We have the ability to do some serious monitoring. Stick to confirmed targets, and destroy them. Uncertain as to a sites purpose? Drop troops in without warning and inspect. Destroy as needed. Repeat.

But this leads to the original argument (which has lasted for 12+years). First, Saddam signed a treaty (in order to end the war) stating that he would disarm and not produce WMD. Second, it becomes apparent that Saddam is not abiding by this treaty. Third, he plays a decade long game of inviting inspection teams and then kicking them out, or blocking their access. This continues today.

At what point do you say "enough is enough"? Right now, Saddam has been threatened by the UN which has basically said

Stop. And if you don't stop we'll say "stop" again.

SnapIT, as you've said, Saddam is unstable, a liar, and a detriment to his own country. How much more evidence do you need to decide that he needs to be stopped?

i don't think snapit will be satisfied even if saddam drops a nuke in his backyard

 

[Nitemare]

Originally posted by: SnapIT
Linky, wrong location?


copy and paste?

But Blair likes it...

Did not know that one Kurd knew everything that was happening both indoors and outdoors

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: BooneRebel

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: axiom UN Inspectors do not destroy materials. That is not what they were sent to Iraq to do. They were sent to account for the weapons that Iraq has. Giving them the authority to destroy weapons is impossible when Iraq actively seeks to conceal their weapons as Powell proved. SnapIT: I don't think you can consider something flawed because there are people that have conflicting intelligence information. Take Global Warming as an example. Some say it's a problem, some say it is not, yet decisions are still made assuming it is a problem and decisions are made assuming it is not a problem. Does that make their causes flawed? You've got to consider the entire speech judge it.

If anything that is determined to be a threat is destroyed, practical military functioning ceases. Saying we have to have a war because inspectors dont have authority is a specious argument. Put a team in that has authority. Done. Also if Saddam has weapons hidden in his garage, and cant get into it, they are pretty useless. BTW Powell did show one thing conclusively. We have the ability to do some serious monitoring. Stick to confirmed targets, and destroy them. Uncertain as to a sites purpose? Drop troops in without warning and inspect. Destroy as needed. Repeat.

But this leads to the original argument (which has lasted for 12+years). First, Saddam signed a treaty (in order to end the war) stating that he would disarm and not produce WMD. Second, it becomes apparent that Saddam is not abiding by this treaty. Third, he plays a decade long game of inviting inspection teams and then kicking them out, or blocking their access. This continues today. At what point do you say "enough is enough"? Right now, Saddam has been threatened by the UN which has basically said

Stop. And if you don't stop we'll say "stop" again.

SnapIT, as you've said, Saddam is unstable, a liar, and a detriment to his own country. How much more evidence do you need to decide that he needs to be stopped?

What you suggest is that the status quo continues. Saddam did not kick out the teams. We allowed them to be kicked out. I am not proposing inspections be optional. I am saying that if Saddam says no, then he will have to say it to bombers. We did not ask if we could destroy radar sites locking on our planes. We did it. Done. No, this is a course of action that involves the military breaking things, but the killing will be minimal. I know some will say that the UN wont endorse this action. Perhaps, but it would give the Germans and French an option other than a full scale war. Also, I suspect those who would bring this up also have said or believe that we can or should go alone. Well if we are going to do that, we could do this too.

BTW I bring this up because a military action is almost a certaintly. Now many have learned about such things through Battlefield 1942 or Counter Strike. Military actions of all sorts have existed throughout history short of full scale war, but war is what many want because that is all they can think of. I propose an option that I doubt will be followed in Washington because of the same reason. There are other ways, especially in light of our military supremacy. In a fight, if you are the superior, you do not have to punch your opponent to death. You can control the damage. I repeat this is not Hitler. WWII was such a huge war because it had to be. The Allies were in danger of losing. No such threat exists here. Troops going to hide in the bushes if we send in a team to destroy a site? No sand flea within a hundred kilometers is going to be able to take a crap without it being photographed and analyzed. We can do this, and I have not seen why it could not work. War still remains an option if needed.

 

[Miramonti]

I don't believe there's a single alqueda cell or alqueda facilities in iraq, especially in the northern areas that would continue to exist once the US found out about it. The special ops or cia or a bomber would have put an end to it immediately. Given the global anti-alqueda efforts by our special ops and cia already, this place would have been exterminated long ago if it was really verified to be alqueda.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Drop troops in without warning and inspect. Destroy as needed. Repeat.

No more movies for you.

 

[Mandrill]

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: axiom
13 years of inspections and now we are 'rushing to war'? Ehm, how many years does one have to wait to not be considered 'rushing to war'?

You've got to evaluate the last 12 years of work with Iraq along with the last 6 months to give a solid evaluation of this situation.

It seems strange to me that it's ok to wait for 12 years and then suddenly, it has to be done as fast as possible...

For the past twelve years the US was under different leadership. Different administrations have different goals and policies. The current US administration has decided that it is time to end the screwing around and bring the Iraqi problem to a close one way or another. As far as fast as possible, Saddam has had three months since the last resolution to declare his WMD and have them destroyed or provide proof that he has destroyed them. He hasn't done any of this. He just says he doesn't have any even though UN inspectors found out about all of the chem and bio weapons the last time around but got kicked out before they were able to get to them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Drop troops in without warning and inspect. Destroy as needed. Repeat.

No more movies for you.

Obviously oversimplified, however we do have the ability to destroy with some degree of control. Besides, if a motivator for Saddam is self preservation, this kicks things up to a less comfortable situation. Hardly the status quo. Again, if it does not work, you can lay waste to the entire country if that is the desire.

Edit- again, the Israelis took out nuke plants which seriously cramped his style, and we remove radar installations.
My proposal would make it a matter of policy, which is altogether different from a one time deal

 

[BooneRebel]

Originally posted by: Mandrill

Originally posted by: SnapIT

Originally posted by: axiom
13 years of inspections and now we are 'rushing to war'? Ehm, how many years does one have to wait to not be considered 'rushing to war'?

You've got to evaluate the last 12 years of work with Iraq along with the last 6 months to give a solid evaluation of this situation.

It seems strange to me that it's ok to wait for 12 years and then suddenly, it has to be done as fast as possible...

For the past twelve years the US was under different leadership. Different administrations have different goals and policies. The current US administration has decided that it is time to end the screwing around and bring the Iraqi problem to a close one way or another. As far as fast as possible, Saddam has had three months since the last resolution to declare his WMD and have them destroyed or provide proof that he has destroyed them. He hasn't done any of this. He just says he doesn't have any even though UN inspectors found out about all of the chem and bio weapons the last time around but got kicked out before they were able to get to them.

Clinton tried to do the same thing Bush is doing now, he just wasn't as successful.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Edit- again, the Israelis took out nuke plants which seriously cramped his style, and we remove radar installations.

Huge difference between those and suspected chemical and bio sites. What exactly was it again that Clinton Tomahawked?

 

[308nato]

A little more info


They would let the camp stay in operation as long as the intelligence data it was providing outweighed its current threat.

I'm sure it is being ...errrr....watched <cough>CIA, SEAL, SPECIAL FORCES<cough> from nearby.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I understand your concern Dave, and Clinton screwed the pooch. He handled things in a half hearted inept way to garner political favor, which was always a prime concern of his. His goal was not to disarm, but to lob a few missles to make himself look strong.

He also did not go in and inspect the sites, and I doubt that the level of scrutiny was applied that ought to have been. The current administration has more capable people working for it.

Saddam could block inspections with force, true, but air strikes have a funny way of convincing people that standing around guarding a building is a bad idea. Remember as I have said, war still is an option.