New US Evidence on Iraq

Hobart

I saw the highlighted and edited version of Colin Powells' speach to the UN on Wednesday Evening. A brief summary can be found here and I quote briefly:

The special Security Council session appeared to be less an attempt at direct persuasion of reluctant allies than a PR exercise aimed at rallying international and American public opinion behind Washington's case for war

Now IMHO Powell presented no evidence of a smoking gun. I saw 1(one) photograph of a truck outside of a compound, which was held as evidence of the movement of chemicals. I also say a comically put together 'illustration' of a mobile chemical lab, which I have no idea what it was used for as it was certainly not evidence. I also saw/heard a transcript of a telephone call alledgely from an 'Iraqi' scientist and a government official. Which purported to show 2 guys trying to hide the evidence of the entire Iraqi Nuculer program.

In short I am still not convinced. And even less so by this so-called evidence. Anybody else see it? Have any comments?

DadaKopf

I'm always amused at Washington's use of arial photographs. When Washington wants to create a bit of nuclear paranoia, they whip out some arial photographs and instantly bring people back to the Cuban Missile Crisis. They're trying to raise people's fears (and subsequent support for war) by linking people's minds to previous crises like this. When people fear for reasons like this, what other justification do they need? Why do they need to see evidence? Fear blinds people.

Of course those photos proved nothing. Absolutely nothing.

And now there's Britain's plagerism embarrassment. It's becoming clearer and clearer how flimsy the justification of this war is and I suspect even people who were previously in favour of it are now changing their minds.

Here's that essay that Whitehall ripped off: http://meria.idc.ac.il/journal/2002/issue3/jv6n3a1.html.

Borzoi

Lets be honest;

If the US produced a picture of Saddam holding a shell labeled 'Chemical Weapon' in one hand and a copy of yesterday's Baghdad Times in the other, some people would demand more proof.

What is required is for the US to release it's intell to the UN arms inspectorate teams, and for them to produce the evidence - if any exists.

Greenfool

The absolute, grotesque pit of US government hypocrisy comes in a report in the new york times which says that the US government plans to allow Turkish soldiers to occupy the Kurdish region of Iraq. Since Turkey also has an appalling history of oppressing and persecuting its Kurdish population, (the Ilisu dam is an example) this development finally dispels the last remaining fiction that America cares about the Kurds. Apparently the Kurds are being sold down the river - again! - this time because America needed to trade something for permission to use Turkish air bases for the coming war.

So much for the long-standing lie that America would support an autonomous Kurdish territory. This is a classic example of being delivered from the frying-pan into the fire.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/07/international/europe/07TURK.html

Occidental

Originally posted by Hobart
I saw 1(one) photograph of a truck outside of a compound, which was held as evidence of the movement of chemicals. I also say a comically put together 'illustration' of a mobile chemical lab, which I have no idea what it was used for as it was certainly not evidence.

Had a quick glimpse of this on Sky and couldn't believe what I was seeing. I will now avoid Dublin docks and I'm most certainly never going near Rotterdam. As for wooden crates, well don't get me started.

Loomer

Colin Powell's evidence reminded me of Johnny Cochrane using the Chewbacca Defense in Chef's court case in a South Park episode:

[Court]

Johnny Cochrane: Ladies and gentlemen of this deposed jury, you must now decide whether to reverse the decision on my client Chef. I know he seems guilty. But ladies and gentlemen [pulls down a Picture of Chewbacca] this is Chewbacca. Now think about that for one minute. That does not make sense. Why am I talking about Chewbacca when a man's life is on the line? Why? I'll tell you why. I don't know. It doesn't make sense. If Chewbacca does not make sense you must acquit. Here look at the monkey [holds up a monkey], look at the silly monkey.

[A juror holds in a laugh and his head explodes]


Oh how I laughed

What ye are basically saying here is that Colin Powel presented lies and fabrications to the foreign ministers of the members of the security council...
Think about that for a minute rather than monkeys and wookies:rolleyes:
mm

Loomer

Ok Man - Well actually I'm not convinced of the relevence of Powell's "compelling" evidence. I think one could make a case case against the validity of Powell's evidence as much as one could accept them at face value.

Cork

Originally posted by Loomer
Ok Man - Well actually I'm not convinced of the relevence of Powell's "compelling" evidence. I think one could make a case case against the validity of Powell's evidence as much as one could accept them at face value.

I agree with this. If this was presented by anybody but Powell. This evidence would not convince me.

But Powell has credibility. Still - I am undecided.


Saddam must go. But the forth coming UN report will be interesting. It will all dfepend on this report.

growler

on the surface it looks rather harmless but without access to the photos over a period of time and being trained in how to interpret such images we (well me anyway) really aren't in a position to judge, big missile shapes are much easier to accept than what may be a few caravans and nice mound of earth.

its a poor reflection on public opinion that people are so ready to reject everything that the US says out of hand , but if someone were to show me the blueprint for a nuclear weapon/ anthrax / botulism / star wars etc. i wouldn't know it either.

chances are it's just propaganda, those who want to believe it will.

Originally posted by Loomer
Ok Man - Well actually I'm not convinced of the relevence of Powell's "compelling" evidence. I think one could make a case case against the validity of Powell's evidence as much as one could accept them at face value.

Is there any part of colin Powells presentation that you might specifically, tell me is a lie on Mr Powells part?

I agree, that it's not compelling, in some respects, but it does raise serious questions in others.
Take the taped phone conversations, for instance.
To dismiss them, you would have to say that they are fabrications.
Otherwise, it's proof of further, hide, hide, hide.

I personally, find it very suspicious indeed , that, some months after, the inspectors come back to Iraq, only now is there a willingness to let U2 spy planes have a look.

I can't help thinking,somebody there in Iraq were saying, hey, don't let them use those yokes yet lads, untill we're sure, we've "evacuated" most of the evidence.

It brings me back, to my student days again and when, the Tvlicence inspector called...We hid the telly,but we still got fined though, he knew, we must have had it....
( I blame the spy down in Xtravision for that..:D )
mm

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

yankinlk

Originally posted by daveirl
And this is why I say let the inspectors continue with the threat of immediate millitary action. People who say that the inspectors would be doing their job if there wasn't this threat of action are kidding themselves but with an immediate threat of action we are getting results, so this is why I can't see why the UKUSA can't wait 6 or 12 months while letting them do their jobs.

...and so you have proved the paradox. Bush is blamed for threatening war and not letting the inspectors do their job, and yet we all know without the threat of war the inspectors wont get to do their job.

face it. bush hasnt made a step wrong yet. why does everyone assume hes not playing the game the only way it CAN be played.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Originally posted by daveirl
And this is why I say let the inspectors continue with the threat of immediate millitary action. People who say that the inspectors would be doing their job if there wasn't this threat of action are kidding themselves but with an immediate threat of action we are getting results, so this is why I can't see why the UKUSA can't wait 6 or 12 months while letting them do their jobs.

I 100% agree with this post. I'm increasingly begining to think that war might not be as inevitable as everyone is being led to believe.
The mere presence of the forces are putting pressure on Sadam's brutal regime.
mm

I personally, find it very suspicious indeed , that, some months after, the inspectors come back to Iraq, only now is there a willingness to let U2 spy planes have a look.

The Iraqis never had a problem with the UN spy planes...Their position was "We cant guarantee their safety unless the US/UK stop their illegal flyovers/bombing"...They had no problem with it being there...Had the US/UK stopped these excursions they could have guaranteed safety

I'm increasingly begining to think that war might not be as inevitable as everyone is being led to believe.

What?...I cant see how some people are still believing the lies, the propaganda...Its all horsesh1t...Bush is going to war...His mind is made up....Next week apparently...

Powells evidence the other day was nothing significant...The phone conversations.."Have you hid all the weapons of Mass Destruction....Yeah, yeah.. Dont tell the Americans"...I mean seriously...A joke...Nothing in any way justifying the mass murder about to take place

face it. bush hasnt made a step wrong yet. why does everyone assume hes not playing the game the only way it CAN be played.

Yes...Holding the world to ransom...Buying off International Support with the oil he's about to steal...About to kill thousands of Iraqis (and most probably a few Americans) all in the name of Big Business...This is hardly a game...

Originally posted by CQD
The Iraqis never had a problem with the UN spy planes...Their position was "We cant guarantee their safety unless the US/UK stop their illegal flyovers/bombing"...They had no problem with it being there...Had the US/UK stopped these excursions they could have guaranteed safety



What?...I cant see how some people are still believing the lies, the propaganda...Its all horsesh1t...Bush is going to war...His mind is made up....Next week apparently...

Powells evidence the other day was nothing significant...The phone conversations.."Have you hid all the weapons of Mass Destruction....Yeah, yeah.. Dont tell the Americans"...I mean seriously...A joke...Nothing in any way justifying the mass murder about to take place



Yes...Holding the world to ransom...Buying off International Support with the oil he's about to steal...About to kill thousands of Iraqis (and most probably a few Americans) all in the name of Big Business...This is hardly a game...

Well, the govt of sadam Hussein, is more truthfull, honest and humane, and doesn't tell any lies either...?

Why couldn't the Iraqi's guarantee the safety of U2 planes, a few months ago and they can now??
It wouldn't have anything to do with what they might have seen a few months ago, by any chance??

So , you regard the phone conversations, in powells presentation a joke...He presents jokes to the foreign ministers of the security councils members, how convenient of you to think that :rolleyes:
mm

Loomer

People make the point that Bush/Blair are doing the right thing by mounting pressure of attack to force the Iraqi leadership to comply with Resolution 1441.

While I wish in my heart of hearts that this were true if you knew the daily figure charged to the US/UK people for the mobilisation and upkeep of there armed forces in the Gulf region I would be very skeptical of an about face if the inspectors job was allowed to run its full course to a satisfactory conclusion. I will endeavour to try and find some figure for this.

Taking all this into consideration I and a number of people view any attempt to discredit the Iraqis efforts at disarmament as a veiled attempt to bypass the UN's role in the world as overseer so as to complete unfinished business and secure oil reserves that will guarantee US oil supply up to 2050.

Call me a skeptic and anti-american if you will but considering the key players involved, this is the conclusion I have come to.

Loomer

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/12/14/nirq14.xml

For UK's part Ministry of Defence has calculated that cost of war would be 1.5 billion Sterling

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Business/reuters20030208_69.html

American estimates range from $61-$200 billion!!!

Add to that the cost of humanitarian aid.

Not to mention 159000 Gulf War veterans are recieving disability payment suffering from "Gulf War Syndrome"

http://www.dailykos.com/archives/000284.html

But its all worth it, ... Right???

Loomer

Funny Stuff

http://cagle.slate.msn.com/news/PowellUN/PowellSpeechgifs/1/deadder.gif

utopio

Originally posted by Borzoi
Lets be honest;

If the US produced a picture of Saddam holding a shell labeled 'Chemical Weapon' in one hand and a copy of yesterday's Baghdad Times in the other, some people would demand more proof.

What is required is for the US to release it's intell to the UN arms inspectorate teams, and for them to produce the evidence - if any exists.

Even when they find thousands of evidences,
why war??
america forgets one thing: They are to blame for all these troubles. Who trained Al Quaida? The CIA! Who gave Iraq such weapons to use them against the Iran? The USA!
And I don't think that the Iraq is such a huge danger that they have to be attacked. And Saddam they surely never will get, he will hide hisself and will take all his weapons with him.

yankinlk

Originally posted by daveirl
Do you think he is going to give the inspectors 6 more months if that's what they ask for?

I dont think he won't necessarily...but I don't think he can tell us that one way or another ahead of time. As soon as he shows weakness to bow to pressure from Europe, (or greens, or antiamericans, or antiwars or nudists spelling out the word peace) then the game is up.

I think its too easy to be 100% anti amercian/bush/war or be on the other side and be like KILLKILLKILL...the issues are WAY more complicated than that.

and to cqd and the others that say this all about oil...i say "whats your point?" the americans want the oil, the french want the oil, ze germans would take a can or two...who doesnt want some of it?

utopio

Originally posted by yankinlk


and to cqd and the others that say this all about oil...i say "whats your point?" the americans want the oil, the french want the oil, ze germans would take a can or two...who doesnt want some of it?

When my country lets people die to get oil I don't want to belong to that country.

Originally posted by utopio
Even when they find thousands of evidences,
why war??
america forgets one thing: They are to blame for all these troubles. Who trained Al Quaida? The CIA! Who gave Iraq such weapons to use them against the Iran? The USA!
And I don't think that the Iraq is such a huge danger that they have to be attacked. And Saddam they surely never will get, he will hide hisself and will take all his weapons with him.

Thats all subjective, what you're saying is that because the U.S contributed to the problem, that they shouldn't be involved in the solution..
So a View was taken at the time that Iraq defeating Iran would be good for the region?
It seems perfectly plausible to me that, the U.S would have been more worried about Iran then, considering, after the overthrow of the Shah, the Iranians were the ones burning the U.S flags.
mm

Originally posted by Loomer
[But its all worth it, ... Right???

It must be... with all the resources being committed.
Ultimately.
mm

yankinlk

to utopio... i love the "two wrongs make a right" argument used by you and countless others. ie: since america in the past hired/trained/supported some group they shouldnt be allowed to say or do anything against that group ever again because its their own fault that group exists.

halkar

It was interesting and funny to watch the new evidence on the telly last week but I am more against to war then I was before after watching all that sh!te . After all most of the evidence presented was found last year and some in last April. Why did they have to wait to bring these front? They could have given to UN last year and UN probably would have find the locations and decide for war and we have no Saddam now !!

Bottom line is US and Bush wants war and i think UN should really do all they can to stop US for that and show them who is the boss

you regard the phone conversations, in powells presentation a joke...He presents jokes to the foreign ministers of the security councils members,

That's all he did!! I am sure they where laughing off their @sses that day, after all almost all world did!! That shows how desperate they are to go for war!!! Iraq is becoming a test bed for them to show off their new war toys to the world and sell!! Money is a curse after all!!! :rolleyes:

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Balfa

The question is not if the evidence proves the existance of weapons of mass destruction, but if the existisance of those weapons requires overt military action by the US.

North Korea, Pakistan, India, China, Russia, France, The UK and the USA themselves all have weapons of mass destruction, but who's invading them?

Some might argue that in the case of Iraq, Saddam is a madman and may actually -use- them. Well with that argument I have two isues:
1. As the Saudis say, the Iraqi people should be choosing their leader, instead of the US inserting their own puppet leader as they have done in so many other countries.
2. If Bush isn't a madman, and hence -will not- be using his weapons of mass destruction, then why does he have them?

@sses

Originally posted by halkar
That's all he did!! I am sure they where laughing off their @sses that day, after all almost all world did!! That shows how desperate they are to go for war!!! Iraq is becoming a test bed for them to show off their new war toys to the world and sell!! Money is a curse after all!!! :rolleyes:

Oh I don't know about that, sure if the U.S wants to sell it's new toys to fighting parties,it's a poor reflection on the people, fighting who live there.

Again I ask, are you saying the interesting part of the presentation, the taped phone calls are hoax?
ie: that the U.S would present hoax evidence to the foreign ministers of the UNSC.
Because the bottom line there would be, if found out, the credibility damage would be terminal.
I doubt very much if they would even do or expect to get away with that.that part of Colin Powels presentation was very damning.
mm

utopio

Originally posted by Man
Thats all subjective, what you're saying is that because the U.S contributed to the problem, that they shouldn't be involved in the solution..
So a View was taken at the time that Iraq defeating Iran would be good for the region?
It seems perfectly plausible to me that, the U.S would have been more worried about Iran then, considering, after the overthrow of the Shah, the Iranians were the ones burning the U.S flags.
mm

I don't think the USA has the right to decide what is good for another country in an other continent. The USA isn't the world police!! And now the whole world has to pay for Americans mistakes. Everything they tried to repair only brought new chaos and new enemies.
And I can't see a chance of success in this war. Nothing will change when Saddam is dead. They kill him and the terror won't stop, perhaps it even will become worse. When they attack the Iraq terrorism could become uncontrollable. It is one possibility, I don't want to take this risk for one small dictator.