Powell: Iraq Evidence May Have Been Wrong - Page 7 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-12-2004, 05:55 AM   #91
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 940
Local Time: 06:00 AM
Well done.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/...484242583.html
__________________

__________________
TylerDurden is offline  
Old 07-14-2004, 08:59 AM   #92
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 07:00 AM
'Serious flaws' in Iraq intelligence

Mr Blair said he takes "full responsibility" for any mistakes made in good faith.

In a 196 page report it says MI6 did not check its sources well enough, and sometimes relied on third hand reports.

It also says the 2002 dossier should not have included the claim Iraq could use WMD within 45 minutes, without explaining what that meant.

"More weight was placed on the intelligence than it could bear" Lord Butler said, and he criticised the government for publicly stating the JIC had "ownership" of the dossier, lending it more credibility than it might otherwise have had.

Full Report:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/bsp..._04_butler.pdf
__________________

__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 07-15-2004, 01:03 AM   #93
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:00 AM
That same report also said that Tony Blair did not attempt to mislead the Public.


The fact remains that Saddam Hussien FAILED to verifiably disarm of all WMD in violation of multiple UN resolutions and 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. Member states of the UN are authorized to "use all means necessary" to bring about compliance with the resolutions in regards to Saddam's Iraq.

Saddam failed to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, 20,000 bio/chem capable shells just to name a few things. 12 years of peaceful UN inspections failed to accomplish the objectives of the UN resolutions in achieving the complete verifiable disarmament of all of Saddam's WMD. The previous 12 years showed that only military force could insure that Saddam was verifiably disarmed. The use of military force was in fact long overdue, as it had become evident at least by 1998 that Saddam had no intention of ever fully complying with the international communities demands there by making military action a necessity.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-15-2004, 01:14 AM   #94
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Basstrap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 10,726
Local Time: 03:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The fact remains that Saddam Hussien FAILED to verifiably disarm of all WMD in violation of multiple UN resolutions and 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement.
my god....why don't you just put this in your signature, it would save you having to type it in every single post you make.

Q Do you agree with abortion, sting?
A The fact remains that Saddam Hussien FAILED to verifiably disarm of all WMD in violation of multiple UN resolutions and 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement
__________________
Basstrap is offline  
Old 07-15-2004, 01:25 AM   #95
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:00 PM
That is a fact that Saddam Hussien failed to verifiably disarm of all WMD in violation of multiple UN resolutions and 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire agreement. It seems that no matter how much Sting repeats the blindingly obvious people will still try to ignore it.

We have found banned Chemical weapons, mustard gas, sarin and cyclosarin so it is flawed to say that we have found no WMD, we have in fact found WMD however no stockpiles have been found. Found the tools that Saddam could use to produce biological weapons and have found that he retained banned missile programs that exeeded the UN limits. It has now been established that the Baathist regime did in fact go to Niger in search of yellowcake and Mr. Wilsons claims that it was all a lie have been proven false, the British, French and Italian intelligence agencies have stood by it. The Russian government admitted that Iraq/Al Qaeda links were known to their intelligence agencies prior to the war - was all their intelligence also analysed by the comittee on intelligence?. Saddam did not comply and he was removed, there may have been systematic problems in judging the threat posed by Saddam but if worrying too much resulted in the toppling of one of the planet's most murderous tyrants, worrying too little resulted in 9/11 and I am sure that that is a better place to be than the recieving end of a preventable attack. The man had the intent and the capacity to create the means, prempting him was right and I think is a very good thing.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-15-2004, 04:22 AM   #96
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
The use of military force was in fact long overdue, as it had become evident at least by 1998 that Saddam had no intention of ever fully complying with the international communities demands there by making military action a necessity.
I find this interesting. If it was evident by at least 1998 that Saddam had no intention of complying and that military force was a necessity, then why did several members of the Bush administration, including Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, in public addresses in early 2001 state that Saddam Hussein posed no major threat because he had no access to weapons and that the (then) present sanctions were effectively containing him? If it was so evident 3 years prior that force would be necessary, why would there be no threat 3 years later? Could it possibly be because he did disarm to the point that he wasn't a threat? And to further that point, if in Feb. 2001 he posed little to no threat whatsoever, how could he pose such an immediate threat less than a year later that we had to invade immediately? That kind of turnaround from a non-threat to an imminent threat with the capability to cause mass terror seems a little far-fetched to me.

Face it, the Bush administration sold this war in part on lies. That he failed to verifiably disarm is a moot point. That is not how the administration sold this war. They tried that route, but when they saw it wasn't rallying the kind of support necessary, they sprinkled a little Al Qaeda/terrorism pixie dust and then things took flight.

And as of yet the "Coalition of the Willing" have absolutely and utterly failed to provide any compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein posed anything even remotely resembling an imminent threat to the United States or it's allies. To me that is the damning factor. A few canisters here and there, but nothing that suggests an imminent threat which needed immediate military action to prevent.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-15-2004, 12:04 PM   #97
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,641
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


I find this interesting. If it was evident by at least 1998 that Saddam had no intention of complying and that military force was a necessity, then why did several members of the Bush administration, including Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice, in public addresses in early 2001 state that Saddam Hussein posed no major threat because he had no access to weapons and that the (then) present sanctions were effectively containing him? If it was so evident 3 years prior that force would be necessary, why would there be no threat 3 years later? Could it possibly be because he did disarm to the point that he wasn't a threat? And to further that point, if in Feb. 2001 he posed little to no threat whatsoever, how could he pose such an immediate threat less than a year later that we had to invade immediately? That kind of turnaround from a non-threat to an imminent threat with the capability to cause mass terror seems a little far-fetched to me.

Face it, the Bush administration sold this war in part on lies. That he failed to verifiably disarm is a moot point. That is not how the administration sold this war. They tried that route, but when they saw it wasn't rallying the kind of support necessary, they sprinkled a little Al Qaeda/terrorism pixie dust and then things took flight.

And as of yet the "Coalition of the Willing" have absolutely and utterly failed to provide any compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein posed anything even remotely resembling an imminent threat to the United States or it's allies. To me that is the damning factor. A few canisters here and there, but nothing that suggests an imminent threat which needed immediate military action to prevent.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 07-15-2004, 10:11 PM   #98
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Sting, A_Wanderer you're missing the point of the thread and a lot of the articles being posted. Sting you can put that "failed to verifiably disarm" speech in here in every second post if you want, but it's not what we're talking about.

If thats all the Coalition claimed was their reasoning for war, you would have had Bush speeches going "Well, we don't know if we have them or not, but they might, and Hussein won't tell us either way, and cos he won't, we're going to find out". That would create a very different pre war debate.

Instead there's loads of fear. We KNOW they are there. We KNOW he'll use them or sell them. We KNOW this could happen at any time. We MUST act immediately.

Very different, and thats the point. The article posted at the top of this page (Sydney Morning Herald article) discredits Powells entire speech to the UN. That was a crucial speech in gaining support from governments, the media and the public. And it was B.S.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 07-15-2004, 10:15 PM   #99
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:00 AM
Diemen,

You have mis-understood what Powell and others said at the begining of 2001 as they were entering office. They said that they had not seen evidence of a NEW build up of WMD material and that a coalition was still enforcing an embargo and sanctions remained in place.

They NEVER stated that Saddam Hussien did not pose a threat nor did they state that Saddam Hussien had complied with the UN resolutions or that he had verifiably disarmed of all WMD. Saddam at that time in 2001 had still failed to account for Thousands of Liters of Anthrax, Hundreds of Pounds of Mustard Gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells according to UNITED NATIONS Weapons inspectors who had been kicked out two years earlier.

The Bush administration announced upon entering office that they were going to work hard to resolve the problems regarding Iraq's failure to comply and cooperate with the resolutions and UN inspectors.

No one has ever stated that Saddam was a "non-threat". The basis for the war in Iraq is Saddam's failure to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. This basis is grounded in the UN resolutions and the results from UN inspections. When Iraq kicked out UN inspectors in November 1998, the UN inspectors then stated that Saddam had failed to account for thousands of liters of Anthrax, hundreds of pounds of mustard gas, and over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells to name a few things.

This fact has stood every year since 1998. The Bush administration attempted to resolve the issue in 2002 and gave Saddam one last chance. Saddam did not take it and returned to the same bullshit games he played in the 1990s. The invasion started in March 2003 and successfully removed Saddam from power.

At any time, Saddam could send all or part of his 400,000 man military into neighboring countries with whatever conventional and non-conventional weapons they had. This is why the UNITED NATIONS at the end of the Gulf War required Saddam to VERIFIABLY DISARM of all WMD and passed those resolutions under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations which allow for the use of military force to bring about compliance. Resolutions 678, 687, and 1441 all authorize the use of military force if Saddam fails to verifiably disarm of all WMD.

In light of Saddam's past behavior, the unprovoked invasion and attack of 4 different countries, the murder of 1.7 million people in Iraq and neighboring countries, the widest use of WMD by any leader in history, the United Nations felt Saddam's possession of WMD was a grave threat to the world which is why multiple resolutions were passed authorizing the use of military force if Saddam failed to completely disarm. Saddam stopped all cooperation with the UN inspectors in 1998 which is why I site that date as the date when it became obvious to most people that Saddam was never going to comply with the resolutions.

Bill Clinton made the US policy toward Iraq one of "regime change" after Saddam kicked out the inspectors in 1998. Unfortunately, while this was the correct policy, no serious effective action was taken in the regard until Bush began to in 2002.




The Bush administration has NEVER lied about anything! Yes, liberals can cherry pick various pieces of intelligence used in some speaches which have not turned out to be accurate, but that is the nature of intelligence. Every day in the CIA at US military intelligence headquarters through out Iraq and in Afghanistan, people involved with intelligence analyze things and take actions based on things that later turn out to be not entirely accurate or flat out wrong.

The Administration central case for war against Saddam was his failure to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. The #1 document in that case is UN resolution 1441 which was authored by the United States and then approved by a 15-0 vote in the Security Council. The speech that Bush gave in Ohio or Nebraska listing a piece of intelligence that later turned out not to be true is the moot point. The vast majority of those speeches sited by liberals happened after Congress and the United Nations had authorized war in October and November of 2002 if Saddam did not comply.

The intelligence listed in some of those speeches were supporting points, but not the central case for war as outlined by the President to the global community in September of 2002.




"And as of yet the "Coalition of the Willing" have absolutely and utterly failed to provide any compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein posed anything even remotely resembling an imminent threat to the United States or it's allies. To me that is the damning factor. A few canisters here and there, but nothing that suggests an imminent threat which needed immediate military action to prevent."

The United Nations already determined in 1991 that Saddam was a grave threat to the entire world and had to be disarmed or face the use of military force to do just that. The UN inspectors found thousands of pieces of evidence which showed this when they were on the ground from 1991-1998 in Iraq.

I remind you that Saddam, according to United Nations inspectors failed to account for thousands of liters of ANTRHAX, hundreds of pounds of Mustard Gas, over 20,000 bio/Chem capable shells, just to name a few things.

It has never been incumbent upon any member state of the United Nations to prove that SADDAM had WMD. It was incumbent upon SADDAM and SADDAM alone to prove that he had verifiably disarmed of all WMD. Those were the terms of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement and are backed up by multiple UN resolutions.

What the Coalition finds or does not find now in Iraq is irrelevant to the case for war. The war was based on his failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD and to account for thousands of stocks of WMD. To this DAY, Saddam has failed to do that.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-15-2004, 10:31 PM   #100
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
Sting, A_Wanderer you're missing the point of the thread and a lot of the articles being posted. Sting you can put that "failed to verifiably disarm" speech in here in every second post if you want, but it's not what we're talking about.

If thats all the Coalition claimed was their reasoning for war, you would have had Bush speeches going "Well, we don't know if we have them or not, but they might, and Hussein won't tell us either way, and cos he won't, we're going to find out". That would create a very different pre war debate.

Instead there's loads of fear. We KNOW they are there. We KNOW he'll use them or sell them. We KNOW this could happen at any time. We MUST act immediately.

Very different, and thats the point. The article posted at the top of this page (Sydney Morning Herald article) discredits Powells entire speech to the UN. That was a crucial speech in gaining support from governments, the media and the public. And it was B.S.
If your talking about the central case for war against Saddam, then the resolutions and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire Agreement are the starting and ending point for debate.

It was the United Nations that has voted and approved multiple resolutions approving the use of force if Saddam failed to disarm. Those resolutions NEVER stated that covert intelligence from either the CIA or any other intelligence agency was required in order for military force to be authorized.

Since 1991, the use of military force against Saddam has been authorized if Saddam failed to Verifiably disarm of all WMD. Resolution 678 and 687 were the resolutions that authorized military action and the Bush administration got a further resolution authorizing military action in 2002, with resolution 1441.

Powell's speech was an attempt to confer more legitimacy upon a coming military action that was already authorized by 3 different UN resolutions. Any time intelligence is used especially on such a difficult area, it is bound to be flawed.

For example, the IAEA and other UN agency's gave Saddam a clean bill of health when it came to the production of Nuclear Weapons in 1988. We then found out in the 1991 Gulf War that Saddam was only a year away from developing a Nuclear Weapon.

That is why outside "intelligence" was never the central case in regards to the use of force against Iraq. In the resolutions, the United Nations stated that Iraq's "verifiable disarmament" or failure to would be the determining factor on whether war was needed or not. It was incumbent upon Saddam to prove he had fully disarmed to the United Nations inspectors and Saddam decided he would not do that.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 02:19 AM   #101
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 12:00 AM
Quote:
They NEVER stated that Saddam Hussien did not pose a threat nor did they state that Saddam Hussien had complied with the UN resolutions or that he had verifiably disarmed of all WMD. Saddam at that time in 2001 had still failed to account for Thousands of Liters of Anthrax, Hundreds of Pounds of Mustard Gas, over 20,000 Bio/Chem capable shells according to UNITED NATIONS Weapons inspectors who had been kicked out two years earlier.
I never said they stated that Saddam Hussein had complied with the UN resolutions or had verifiably disarmed, so don't put words in my mouth.

And with that said, I'm going to call you on this one. I give you this quote, straight from Colin Powell's mouth, from a press conference in Cairo, Egypt on February 24, 2001 (I put the most relevant part in bold), in response to a question on the sanctions on Iraq:

Quote:
We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...
Yes, there you have it. No significant WMD capability, and was in fact weakened to the point that he couldn't even bully his neighbors with conventional force.

So...what were you saying again?
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 02:37 AM   #102
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:00 PM
Perhaps the political niceties to reassure the arab world that the US had no interest in invading Arab countries went out the window when we learnt the hard way that Arab world is quite capable of sending its misery to our shores and that the only way to prevent a worse attack is to resolve any persistent threats is to take strong action. It was taken, Saddam is gone and any threat that in the next decade he could have reconstituted his weapons and furthur expoited Al Qaeda links is gone, it is not inconcievable that the regime could have reconstituted its weapons stockpiles over this decade and frankly that was too great a risk in a world where the strength of Islamist terrorism had come sharply into focus.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 03:06 AM   #103
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Diemen


I never said they stated that Saddam Hussein had complied with the UN resolutions or had verifiably disarmed, so don't put words in my mouth.

And with that said, I'm going to call you on this one. I give you this quote, straight from Colin Powell's mouth, from a press conference in Cairo, Egypt on February 24, 2001 (I put the most relevant part in bold), in response to a question on the sanctions on Iraq:



Yes, there you have it. No significant WMD capability, and was in fact weakened to the point that he couldn't even bully his neighbors with conventional force.

So...what were you saying again?


Colin Powell has been asked about his statement there and as said it is not inconsistent with administration policy today. In the statement Colin Powell was refering to sanctions and sanctions ability to prevent Saddam from developing new WMD with materials from outside the country. Colin Powell never stated that Saddam did not have WMD capability or that war would never be needed to resolve Saddam's failure to verifiably disarm of all WMD.

The statement is NOT inconsistent with what the Administration has said and done over the past few years. The administration has never claimed that sanctions did not disrupt Saddam's conventional and non-conventional abilities.

Despite the cries of liberals that Sanctions were hurting just the Iraqi people, sanctions and the embargo were the only effective means at the time short of war in containing Saddam and hindering his ability's. While Sanctions and the embargo were very effective early on, new information has shown that sanctions were eroding and Saddam over the past couple of years was making 2-4 Billion per year from illegal oil sales.

In addition, my friends that were in the war found various weapons from anti-aircraft missiles and anti-tank missiles that are brand new, foreign made, and were in the possession of Iraqi forces.

Ultimately, Sanctions and the Embargo, even re-newed inspections, failed to achieve the verifiable disarmament of Saddam. After 12 years, everything short of a full scale military invasion had been tried and had failed to accomplish the verifiable disarmament of Saddam.

Today Saddam sits in a 12 x 12 cell. One hopes that someday, those that opposed the war will realize the benefits of that fact.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 03:21 AM   #104
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:00 PM
If I may add, the weapons sold to the Baathist regime were done through smuggling by among others Russian and Chinese groups, a specific example is the shipment of night vision goggles sold to Iraq by the russians just prior to the war, a tool which no doubt aided the republican guard considerably and may continue today in fighting against the Americans.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 07-16-2004, 03:46 AM   #105
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,234
Local Time: 12:00 AM
A_Wanderer, Islamic fundamendalist terrorists have made it quite clear they're willing to bring terror to the US mainland. Saddam Hussein is not an islamic fundamentalist terrorist. Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are not peers. They do not share equal status in spreading terror. Name me ONE terrorist act carried out by Iraq against the US in the last 10 years. ONE.

Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Colin Powell never stated that Saddam did not have WMD capability
Please. Let's forego petty semantics.

Quote:
Originally said by Colin Powell
He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.
He's basically saying that Saddam posed no threat re: WMDs. Can we agree on that?

Yes, he failed to verifiably disarm. He failed to verifiably disarm. He failed to verifiably disarm. He failed to verifiably disarm. He failed to verifiably disarm.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT.

HOWEVER, just because he failed to verifiably disarm does not mean we should've diverted our resources from fighting the true war on terror and invade his country when he posed no immediate threat to us. There has been absolutely NO solid evidence presented that Saddam posed an imminent threat, and really that is how this war was sold. Saddam was an imminent threat that needed to be dealt with immediately or else he might strike us first. Anti-aircraft missiles and anti-tank missiles are a far cry from weapons of mass destruction, nor do they make one an imminent threat.

I can't believe people so willingly bought into this war when it served more as a catalyst for terrorism than a deterrent, and only distracted us from concentrating on bringing in the real perpetrators of 9/11, Bin Laden and Al Qaeda. I thought we were supposed to be fighting the War On Terror, and yet here we are with Al Qaeda having regained much of it's strength, and new and big terror attack warnings almost weekly. Explain to me how invading Iraq was the right decision to make at the time it was made. Explain to me how it was the next logical step in fighting the War on Terror, since we hadn't even finished the job and captured Bin Laden and the rest of the Al Qaeda elite in Afghanistan.

I'm getting extremely tired of this 'Saddam is in a cell, this a good thing' attitude. Of course a dictator facing his crimes is a good thing, but there are countless more people who are far more deserving of being in a cell than Saddam, whom we either ignore completely or call our allies.

We didn't need to invade Iraq. Saddam had no viable ties to 9/11 or Al Qaeda. His WMD capabilities were grossly exaggerated, as has already been admitted by the administration. Much of the evidence presented for going to the war has been proven either false or exaggerated. Stop defending it as if it was the only logical choice to make at that juncture.

Now please, respond with something about failing to verifiably disarm. That'll make my day.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com