tommorrow colin powell speaks - 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 02-05-2003, 01:46 AM   #1
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 4,422
Local Time: 03:41 PM
tommorrow colin powell speaks

and then we will all hear the u.s. evidence against iraq.

what it will be, I don't know, but I'm curious to find out.
__________________

__________________
JOFO is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 02:10 AM   #2
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:41 AM
Here is an opinion piece.

Quote:
Only by Swallowing Big Lies Can Powell Justify a War
Robert Scheer

February 4 2003

We know in advance that Colin Powell's performance will be flawless. His military career has prepared him well to execute the orders of his commander in chief, no matter what his doubts as to their morality, efficacy or logic. Making a seamless case for preemptive war on Iraq to the United Nations, the secretary of State can draw on his decade of wartime experience in which he publicly justified the deaths of more than a million Vietnamese, tens of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Laotians and Cambodians.

It took two decades for Powell, in his autobiography "My American Journey," to acknowledge that all the destruction brought down upon Indochina by the U.S. was based on an uneducated, unfocused and enormously costly policy that he and other military leaders had known to be "bankrupt."

But duty, apparently, required they not tell the public the truth.

"War should be the politics of last resort. And when we go to war, we should have a purpose that our people understand and support," he wrote, summarizing Vietnam's lessons.

Does anybody outside of the extremist claque of think-tank warriors bending the president's ear really think we are at the point of "last resort" with Iraq, a poor country half a world away that is already divvied up into "no-fly" zones, crawling with U.N. inspectors and still shattered economically and militarily from two previous wars? Or that the American people, so divided and apathetic in polls on the subject, "understand and support" why we would start a firestorm in Baghdad and then send our young men and women to fight in its streets?

Regardless of Saddam Hussein's record of cruelty and regional power ambitions, as a military man Powell should be employing a straightforward equation: Does the target pose a direct threat to U.S. security? In the case of Iraq in 2003, the answer can be yes only if Powell is prepared to swallow a trio of Big Lies, the first of which is that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction that pose a real threat to the U.S. or our allies.

"There is no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s," said the U.N.'s chief nuclear weapons inspector, Mohamed ElBaradei.

Less clear is whether Iraq has made at least token efforts to replenish stocks of biological and chemical weapons. In any case, Iraq can deliver payloads only to regional enemies, and the most likely target, Israel, is armed with nuclear weapons.

However, Powell has gone way beyond these facts, claiming U.N. inspectors found that Iraq was concealing and moving illicit material. The U.N.'s chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, categorically denied this in an interview last week with the New York Times, part of a comprehensive rebuke to White House exploitation and media misinterpretation of his balanced, dispassionate report.

Similarly, Powell and the president have employed an irresponsible pattern of exaggeration and innuendo in an attempt to link Iraq to Al Qaeda. This shameful canard molds a few extremely fuzzy and circumstantial bits of proto-evidence into an absurdly convenient "proof" that taking over Iraq will help prevent anti-American terrorism.

In a New York Times report Sunday, sources inside U.S. intelligence agencies "said they were baffled by the Bush administration's insistence on a solid link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden's network," they were upset that "the intelligence is obviously being politicized" and that "we've been looking at this hard for more than a year and you know what, we just don't think it's there." Blix also said there was no evidence Iraq had or planned to supply weapons to Al Qaeda.

All of which brings us to the most outrageous Big Lie of the Bush administration: that delaying an invasion to wait for the U.N. to complete inspections would endanger the U.S. The fact is that for more than a decade the military containment of Iraq has effectively neutered Hussein, and there is no reason to believe that can't continue.

Of course, there is a case to be made for keeping up pressure on Iraq to cooperate further with the U.N. It is, however, counterproductive to transparently lie to a skeptical world and immoral to denigrate the inspection process because we are afraid it will undermine our cobbled-together rationale for going to war.

As Powell knows from his Vietnam experience, lies have a way of catching up with you. Years from now, if the U.S. is still spending billions trying to micromanage the Middle East and reaping its rewards in blood, Bush will be marked indelibly, like Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon before him, as a leader who went to war on a lie.





Maybe he will show them this picture.

Evidence of Saddam meeting with a dealer of Weapons of Mass Destruction.


__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 02:27 AM   #3
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 04:41 PM
Hello,

Interesting piece deep. I'm personally still not convinced that a war is necessary at this moment. Last weekend I read an interview with a high (Swedish) weapon inspector who inspected Iraq the last time. He acknowledged that it took them a few years to get going, but when they finally got to speed they were able to find and destroy (almost) all weaponry Iraq had at that time.

As for Powell's 'evidence', I'm sceptical. First, he was going to present undeniable evidence that Iraq still has WMD. Yesterday I read in a paper that Powell would not really present undeniable evidence, but indications that Iraq is not complying. Today, I hear that there will be some sort of multimedia blitz in a 1 1/2 show to the Security Counsel. I'll first have to see it to believe it.
The point remains that if the evidence presented today isn't as clear as the Bush administration has always claimed it is, then I think they can forget it. Most of the world will then never believe their claims anymore. They'll just be like some schoolkid who always screams he has all the toys in the world, but you're not allowed to see it, or play with it, because he don't want anyone to know where those toys are.

C ya!

Marty

*edit: hey deep! Where's that opinion piece you just posted? The only thing that's now left is a picture. IMO, that piece was way better (because who is shaking hands with Saddam?)
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 02:40 AM   #4
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Lets not forget that its up to Iraq to prove what happened to 30,000 chemical and Biological munitions and thousands of tons of Anthrax, and VX Nerve Gas, just to name a few things that they have and have not given over or shown evidence of their destruction.

Iraq has in the past blocked any inspections attempt it felt the need to. The inspectors are not armed and they cannot overcome Iraqi military forces guarding Iraq's most sensitive WMD sites. Iraq is a big country and the inspectors are ill equipped to be able to find everything. The inspectors cannot ultimately do for Iraq what they have been required to do. Their job is chiefly verify that it is done.

While the inspector had a lot of success in the 1990s, it was more of Iraq attempting throw the UN a bone in order to get the sanctions lifted. In addition, Iraq learned a lot from the way UN inspectors operate and had four years to hide and prepare for the possibility that inspectors would be on the ground in Iraq again.

As all of the UN resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules and the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire state, it is Iraq that must disarm and prove that it has disarmed.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 02:51 AM   #5
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:41 AM
powell has pictures..all kinds of pictures, that he will bringing tommorrow..
not naked pictures either.
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 02:56 AM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Popmartijn
Hello,


*edit: hey deep! Where's that opinion piece you just posted? The only thing that's now left is a picture. IMO, that piece was way better (because who is shaking hands with Saddam?)

Sorry, I put it back.

That man is Donald Rumsfield, U. S. Secretay of Defense.

He is on the television everyday in the U.S. pushing for war on Iraq. The picture was taken in the 80s went he worked for President Reagan.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 02:59 AM   #7
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:41 AM

deep-
i think donald shook charlie manson's hand in the 70's.
plez post that..

db9
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 03:02 AM   #8
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:41 AM
be careful what you ask for.

Quote:
What About Those Chemical Weapons?
The Saddam in Rummy's Closet
by Jeremy Scahill

"Man and the turtle are very much alike. Neither makes any progress without sticking his neck out."

Donald Rumsfeld

Five years before Saddam Hussein's now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.

That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld's December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed "topics of mutual interest," according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. "[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world," Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. "It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems."

Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States "in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be 'contrary to U.S. interests' and has made several moves to prevent that result."

In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination."

The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. "Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists," the U.N. report said. "The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun."

Prior to the release of the UN report, the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons."

Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, "We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular."

Compared with the rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick's reaction was hardly a call to action.

Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department "evidence." On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name."

A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld's aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld's achievements helping to "reopen U.S. relations with Iraq." The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.

Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan's Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:

"First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved."

In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department_in the name of "increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market"_pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam "transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military."

In 1988, Saddam's forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they "believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs."

In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.

Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq's use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.

Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld signed on to an "open letter" to President Clinton, calling on him to eliminate "the threat posed by Saddam." It urged Clinton to "provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish."

In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world's attention to Saddam's chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had "available evidence" Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing.

Washington now speaks of Saddam's threat and the consequences of a failure to act. Despite the fact that the administration has failed to provide even a shred of concrete proof that Iraq has links to Al Qaeda or has resumed production of chemical or biological agents, Rumsfeld insists that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

But there is evidence of the absence of Donald Rumsfeld's voice at the very moment when Iraq's alleged threat to international security first emerged. And in this case, the evidence of absence is indeed evidence.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 03:16 AM   #9
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:41 PM
Funny "Robert Scheer" did not mention the state of containment and sanctions today. He seems to forget that 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. So much for containment.

He also does not understand the fact that the Weapons inspectors do not have the capability to get past an Iraqi T-72 tank should the inspectors actually get on the trail to finding something.

Containment is almost gone, deterence is gambling with millions of lives, covert action won't succeed, revolt will not either. The only option is either for Saddam to finally comply with the resolutions, or for the US military to do that for him if he refuses. Saddam has 12 years to comply with these resolutions.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 03:37 AM   #10
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 03:41 PM
This guy "Jeremy Scahill" does not understand or talk about the ramifications of an Iranian victory over Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war. He does not realize that US troops have to be deployed to the region to fight the Iranian military as it moved south to occupy Kuwait, and the Saudi Oil fields just south of there.

All of the Helicopters that Jeremy Scahill mentions in his article are transport helicopters. Jeremy Scahill does not understand the context of the threat that existed in the 1980s from Iran. He also seems to forget that all of Iraq's ATTACK HELICOPTERS came from the Soviet Union. So did nearly all of its tanks, armored personal carriers, Artillery, and other weapons systems. But since Jeremy Scahill is unsucessfully attempting to do a smear job on Donald Rumsfeld, you will not hear any of this.

What exactly did Jeremy Scahill suggest that Rumsfeld do about Iraqi chemical attacks? Did he suggest military action to weaken Iraq so Iran would win, something that the USA, Soviet Union, Persian Gulf Region and most of Europe did not want to see. What besides saying something, action not words, would he of liked the USA to do, considering the threat the Iranians posed to the entire Gulf Region do to their growing ability to defeat the Iraqi military on the battlefield. Sanctions to cut of the Iraqi military from supplies thereby allowing Iranian military units to overrun Iraq, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Yes that would be truely wonderful.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 06:57 AM   #11
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:41 AM
It will be a performance. That's really all politics are anymore.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 08:29 AM   #12
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 08:41 AM
check this.
the man w the goods..
Attached Thumbnails
mdf198241.jpg  
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 10:54 AM   #13
us3
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 165
Local Time: 07:41 AM
Powell Changes Speech at Last Minute to Satisfy Democrats
(2003-02-05) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, at the eleventh hour, has altered his presentation to the U.N. Security Council to try to satisfy the concerns of Congressional Democrats, as well as U.S. critics elsewhere in the world.

Previously, Mr. Powell planned to show images and documents demonstrating that the Iraqi government has weapons of mass destruction and is deliberately deceiving U.N. inspectors.

However, the White House has become convinced that even with such evidence, the U.N. and Democrats in Congress will still oppose action to disarm Saddam Hussein.

So, instead, Mr. Powell will present the following accusations against Iraq:

--Saddam Hussein personally owns guns, and uses them.
--Iraq produces oil, the combustion of which will doom the planet to a second ice age.
--Saddam supports the death penalty and uses it.
--Some Iraqis, including government officials, drive Sport Utility Vehicles (SUV).
--Saddam believes Iraq is better than other countries.
--Saddam is decisive, often seeing issues in black-or-white terms, rather than countless shades of grey.
--Many Iraqis are meat eaters.
--Many Iraqis are "pro-life," opposing abortion.

A few Democrats who have previewed the script for the presentation expressed outrage at Iraq, and wondered why President Bush has not previously gone public with this "damning evidence."

"We are ready to authorize the use of overwhelming force," said one unnamed Senate Democrat. "This crazed dictator must be stopped before his ideas spread throughout the region."
__________________
us3 is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 11:02 AM   #14
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:41 AM
Come on, Saddam is bad. But please, not THAT bad.

You are scaring me.
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 02-05-2003, 11:13 AM   #15
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 07:41 AM
I am watching his presentation right now.


So far no smoking gun. I don't think he is winning anyone from the sceptics side.

I am sure supporters will say he is doing a good job. Not a lot of minds will be changed.


The Anthax bit makes one wonder if the claim that not accounting for their Anthax production and storage is such a crime.

Then the U. S. is guilty. The Anthax that killed Americans in 2001 was determined to be of high grade U. S. orgin.

I was hoping for something clearly convincing.

The pictures and graffics are not clear and are subject to interpetation.
__________________

__________________
deep 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 10:41 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