tommorrow colin powell speaks

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
gabrielvox said:
Like the US would play THAT or admit to it if it did indeed happen??? Cmon now!

You're giving too much credit to a very devious dictator. In the diplomatic world, Saddam had to be treated very harshly and confidently, because he would step all over someone he perceived as "weak." Intellectual diplomacy, as such, was not an option in dealing with him. The only thing he understands is violence.

Melon
 
1) I do not believe anything was doctored.
2) I do not believe that Saddam has complied.
3) I do not believe the UN will do anything about this situation.
4) I do not believe it is wise to go it alone.


I do believe Powell did an excellent job with what he had to present. He made a very good case using circumstantial evidence to prove Iraq was not cooperating.

The problem is we knew that already. Hans Blix said that Iraq was not cooperating.

The real question is did he do enough to convince me that we have just cause to go it alone? I said, for me to fully embrace the use of force my family and country had to be in danger. I do not believe that case was made.

The most interesting thing that I heard him say was the Al-Qaeda operations coming from Iraq. I am very curious about this. I am sceptical about this, and would like to know more. I read somewhere that Germany was investigating credible links in theis area.


Peace to All.
 
Last edited:
Dreadsox said:
1) I do not believe anything was doctored.
...


Peace to All.

I agree.

If they presented doctored evidence, it would have been something that would be universally condemned.

Like Saddam dangling a baby!
 
I'm surprised at some of the excuses you are making for this evidence. Oh maybe they were talking about the nerve of the agents and not the nerve agents? Let's look at that conversation.

"Remove." "Remove."
"The expression." "The expression, I got it."
"Nerve agents." "Nerve agents."
"Wherever it comes up."
"Got it. Wherever it comes up."
"In the wireless instructions." "In the instructions."
"Correction. No. In the wireless instructions."
"Wireless. I got it."
"Nerve agents. Stop talking about it. They are listening to us. Don't give any evidence that we have these horrible agents."

Powell said Iraq has tested chemical weapons on death-row inmates. so you doubt that a man who has tested chemical weapons on innocent Iraqi Kurds would also test weapons on inmates?

Are you going to deny that a British police officer was KILLED in a raid that yieled deadly ricin poison that Iraq can make?

Are you going to say that Saudi Arabia is lying when it says it arrested al qaeda members coming in their country from Iraq?

Are you going to deny pictures that show trucks leaving suspected chemical-weapons plants?

I can understand people who wouldn't support this war without evidence. I am one of those people. But how can you continue to poke holes in the evidence presented? The evidence not presented is probably worse. And the evidence presented is grim.
 
sharky said:
I can understand people who wouldn't support this war without evidence. I am one of those people. But how can you continue to poke holes in the evidence presented? The evidence not presented is probably worse. And the evidence presented is grim.

Sharky, I think this an excellent statement. I pretty much agree. But, I expected more from the presentation. I expected some kind of a clear and present danger case to be made.

Again, I believe he has all of the stuff. My initial impression is that Powell did nothing more than prove what Blix said last week. Iraq is not being cooperative.

I am still on the fence. I have reread the transcript about three times tonight. I am moving a little more in the we must take action direction, but I am still missing that sence of urgency. I am not convinced yet that increased inspections and a renewal of sanctions is not the answer.
 
Last edited:
sharky said:


"Remove." "Remove."
"The expression." "The expression, I got it."
"Nerve agents." "Nerve agents."
"Wherever it comes up."
"Got it. Wherever it comes up."
"In the wireless instructions." "In the instructions."
"Correction. No. In the wireless instructions."
"Wireless. I got it."
"Nerve agents. Stop talking about it. They are listening to us. Don't give any evidence that we have these horrible agents."

Not to belittle any of your points, but wasn't this Powell's explanation of the conversation rather than the actual translation itself?
 
meegannie said:


Not to belittle any of your points, but wasn't this Powell's explanation of the conversation rather than the actual translation itself?

no, it was the literal translation.
 
Dreadsox said:
The most interesting thing that I heard him say was the Al-Qaeda operations coming from Iraq. I am very curious about this. I am sceptical about this, and would like to know more. I read somewhere that Germany was investigating credible links in theis area.

Not that I?d think Al Qaeda operations come from Iraq, but there?s an intersting point in what you say, Dreadsox.

If we always think America should target the "real" terrorists (means going after Al Qaeda instead of Iraq), Germany should help out there. After all, some of the terrorists lived in Germany for quite some time.

If Germany doesn?t support the upcoming war (which is fine by me), they should maybe offer to go after Al Qaeda with more power, to secure the American brother diplomatically that they are willing to work together when it comes to "real" terror.

If France would agree, America would have more allies on a real front to possibly secure long term security interests and to save lives - who knows? I don?t hear enough of the fight against the Al Qaeda.
 
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars:

The german chancelor always pointed out that he will support the fight against terrorism, but not only the german, but also the british and the french secret service are pretty sure that Saddam and Bin Laden are more likely to fight against each other than to be alies. (Well the British prime minister seems to have "better" informations than his own secret service, but that's another story)

Our governments are just pretty sure that the war against Saddam is not part of the war against terrorism and we don't want to be ever again part of a war where another country is attacked.

Germany never had so many troups in foreign countries since the end of Worldwar II - just to support the United States in the war against terrorism.
But imho you can't fight with armies against terrorists.
Also several members of the Green Party and members of the SPD pointed out that if Saddam uses B/C Weapons against our friends our "Fuchs" Tanks (who are specialiced for a/b/c defense) will of course support the USA, also we never wanted to support that attack.

Klaus
 
meegannie said:
It wasn't the one that was on the screen when they were playing the recording.

This was from Powell's own rehash but its almost the same. Although I'm sure SOME of you may think he has CHANGED the words that the Iraqis said.

So here you go. To please those who think a part of it was taken out of context.

Hello
Hello
May I help you sir?
Who is this?
Captain Ibrahim, Sir.
Captain Ibrahim how are you?
God bless you sir.
How is your health?
May God perserve you.
How are you?
Good praise God sir.
Captain Ibrahim
Yes sir.
Write this down.
Yes, sir. [pause] Hello?
Hello?
Go ahead, sir.
Hello. Ibrahim?
Yes sir?
Captain Ibrahim?
I am with you, sir.
Remove.
Remove. [Repeats instructions]
The expression.
The expression.
Nerve agents.
Nerve agents.
Wherever it comes up.
Wherever it comes up.
In the wireless instructions.
In the instructions.
Wireless.
Wireless.
Okay, buddy.
[Consider it] done, sir.

Geez, now that I look at this, I can totally see how Powell is spinning the truth to fit his beliefs. I mean, when he rehashed this conversation to the UN he TOTALLY left out all the hellos!
 
lol sharky, your point (and frustration) is well taken, but for me, I'm always going to be skeptical of the "case" made by a hawkish Republican administration that seems hell bent on bombing Iraq.

Bush's administration has the intelligence data in their hands and they can present that data with whatever spin best suits their agenda.

A lot of numbers get thrown around by those attempting to "make a case" against Saddam and one starts wondering which numbers are factual, and where did they come from?

To wit:

STING2 said:
...Saddam is now smuggling 4 Billion dollars worth of goods into the country every year, some of it capable of helping Iraq's WMD programs.

I'm not saying that there isn't some validity in Bush's case against Saddam and, indeed, the evidence Powell presented, but I'm going to eye this evidence with skepticism, because I know Bush is fully intending to bomb Iraq. So the "case" he's making is really an afterthought to appease the doves.
 
Klaus said:
whenhiphopdrovethebigcars:

The german chancelor always pointed out that he will support the fight against terrorism, but not only the german, but also the british and the french secret service are pretty sure that Saddam and Bin Laden are more likely to fight against each other than to be alies. (Well the British prime minister seems to have "better" informations than his own secret service, but that's another story)

Our governments are just pretty sure that the war against Saddam is not part of the war against terrorism and we don't want to be ever again part of a war where another country is attacked.

Germany never had so many troups in foreign countries since the end of Worldwar II - just to support the United States in the war against terrorism.
But imho you can't fight with armies against terrorists.
Also several members of the Green Party and members of the SPD pointed out that if Saddam uses B/C Weapons against our friends our "Fuchs" Tanks (who are specialiced for a/b/c defense) will of course support the USA, also we never wanted to support that attack.

Klaus

Yeah, I just thought Germany should do more ass licking. But with the latest remarks of Rumsfeld, I am convinced that the diplomatic situation is fucked up anyway, no matter what they do.

Big brother is sooooo angry that Germany doesn?t help with troops.... tsk tsk.
 
out of curiousity...

is there ANYTHING that the united states, russia, england or any other country (or group of countries) that prevents germany from having a "large" army?

i highly doubt it, but im curious.
 
Flag,

During the Cold War, Germany had one of the largest and best equipped military's on the planet. This was allowed to help NATO deter a Soviet led Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. They still do today but its getting smaller. Their strongest points are their ground troops. The USA would definitely welcome a German Armored Division for a possible war against Iraq. The Leopard II is one of the best Tanks on the planet.
 
Does it not bother anybody that portions of Powell?s presentation were plagiarized? That the new secret evidence was published publicly Sept, 2002?

link here



Downing St dossier plagiarized Iraq
Published: 6 February 2003
Reporter: Julian Rush
The government's carefully co-ordinated propaganda offensive took an embarrassing hit tonight after Downing Street was accused of plagiarism.
Read sample of the accused plagiarised text
The target is an intelligence dossier released on Monday and heralded by none other than Colin Powell at the UN yesterday.
Channel Four News has learnt that the bulk of the nineteen page document was copied from three different articles - one written by a graduate student.
On Monday, the day before the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell addressed the UN, Downing Street published its latest paper on Iraq.
It gives the impression of being an up to the minute intelligence-based analysis - and Mr Powell was fulsome in his praise.
Published on the Number 10 web site, called "Iraq - Its Infrastructure of Concealment Deception and Intimidation", it outlines the structure of Saddam's intelligence organisations.
But it made familiar reading to Cambridge academic Glen Ranwala. It was copied from an article last September in a small journal: the Middle East Review of International Affairs.
It's author, Ibrahim al-Marashi, a postgraduate student from Monterey in California. Large sections do indeed appear, verbatim.
A section, for example, six paragraphs long, on Saddam's Special Security Organisation, the exact same words are in the Californian student's paper.
In several places Downing Street edits the originals to make more sinister reading.
Number 10 says the Mukhabarat - the main intelligence agency - is "spying on foreign embassies in Iraq".
The original reads: "monitoring foreign embassies in Iraq."
And the provocative role of "supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes" has a weaker, political context in the original: "aiding opposition groups in hostile regimes."
Even typographic mistakes in the original articles are repeated.
Of military intelligence, al-Marashi writes in his original paper:
"The head of military intelligence generally did not have to be a relative of Saddam's immediate family, nor a Tikriti. Saddam appointed, Sabir Abd Al-Aziz Al-Duri as head..." Note the comma after appointed.
Downing Street paraphrases the first sentence: "Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head during the 1991 Gulf War."
This second line is cut and pasted, complete with the same grammatical error.
plagiarism is regarded as intellectual theft.

Sample text
Government dossier: (page 13), published Jan 2003
"Saddam appointed, Sabir 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Duri as head during the 1991 Gulf War. After the Gulf War he was replaced by Wafiq Jasim al-Samarrai.
After Samarrai, Muhammad Nimah al-Tikriti headed Al-Istikhbarat al-Askariyya in early 1992 then in late 1992 Fanar Zibin Hassan al-Tikriti was appointed to this post.
These shifting appointments are part of Saddam's policy of balancing security positions. By constantly shifting the directors of these agencies, no one can establish a base in a security organisation for a substantial period of time. No one becomes powerful enough to challenge the President."
al-Marashi document: (section: "MILITARY INTELLIGENCE", published sept 2002 - relevant parts have been underlined
 
Back
Top Bottom