Powell to Present Iraq Evidence to UN... Finally!

[Darius871]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/28/sprj.irq.us.intelligence/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,884385,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76843,00.html

Next Wednesday it seems Colin Powell will finally be presenting to the U.N. Security Council the 'evidence' that the Bush administration claims to have and that many paranoid leftists claim never existed. What will it be?

To all those who have said or at least think that supporting an invasion of Iraq is nothing but blindly following the government like Orwellian zombies without any need for hard facts: did it ever occur to you that at some point the evidence against Iraq (or at least most of it) would of course be released? Did you think we'd actually go to war without it?

The material we have will apparently prove not only that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but also that they have extensive ties to Al-Qaeda. If it is indeed a smoking gun on both of these counts, what will you have left to say? That it was a forgery?

You could make the case that Saddam Hussein having WMD is acceptable since he wouldn't use them, but who would make the case that it'd be acceptable if he has indeed actively supported Al-Qaeda in the past?

So many questions... discuss!

[Urban Ranger]

[Darius871]

Just as I expected.

[Lemmy]

To all those who have said or at least think that supporting an invasion of Iraq is nothing but blindly following the government like Orwellian zombies without any need for hard facts

Somehow people who followed the government had acces to hard evidence?
As long as there is no evidence released, those people are following their government without any hard evidence.

[Darius871]

The point wasn't that sentence but the question after it. Most of the anti-war activists on numerous boards and that I've talked to myself have acted like we were going to war without any proof. People that were for war weren't for it with or without facts, they were simply more willing to wait before shooting their mouths off.

[Lemmy]

Actually most people i know who were against it, were so because no evidence has been presented, and weren't ready to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, which people who are for the war obviously did.

[Pekka]

let's roll.

[uh Clem]

Anyone who trusts the government without evidence is a fool. Republican or Democratic, it makes no difference. Governments lie, they lie a lot, and one of the things they lie most about is war and the reasons for going to war.

BTW, Condi Rice said on one of the Sunday talk shows that the administration would reveal evidence of Iraq's ties to al-Qaida by the end of the week. She said that last November.

[Pekka]

uh Clem, exactly, and that's why I don't trust Saddam Hussein.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Lemmy
Actually most people i know who were against it, were so because no evidence has been presented, and weren't ready to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, which people who are for the war obviously did.

Ok I'll give you that, although I'll say again that most people for the war didn't trust that he had the information and just couldn't release it. Rather they wanted the administration to present the case entirely before standing for or against it, while the left seemed to jump on Bush the second the possibility of war was even brought up. My only point is that most (not all) anti-war activists should have been more patient and let Bush at least make a case before going ape-****. They acted as if they thought he would NEVER make the case, and that he would go to war without providing any proof to the American people.

Anyway I'll try and give more direction to this thread, this isn't just a pointless slam at the anti-war movement. Basically my question is just a what-if: IF Powell will reveal a smoking gun (on both counts*), what case will the movement have left? I know it's a bit early but I'm too impatient to wait until next week; I just want to know what they will have left to say. Only curious.

* - Note that I say both counts because even I'll admit that Saddam having weapons of mass destruction is not enough to attack Iraq over. However if it is proven that he has aided and embedded terrorists, then it is clearly unacceptable for him to have WMD.

[Proteus_MST]

At the moment I don´t see any proof.

Let us wait till Feb. 5 and then see if it is real proof or just some piece of hot air, like the Blair Paper

[Capt Dizle]

I think it's silly, anyone who needs more proof is a Neville Chamberlain kind of guy. I think Bush is looking weak for going back to the UN. He should just let slip the dogs.

[CerberusIV]

I'm a bit cynical about human nature and question how much of this "evidence" is based on information from defectors. Suppose you wanted out of Iraq and went to the US government. You're not going to say there are no WMD's in Iraq, are you?

If there is real evidence and the Iraqis won't destroy what they are then shown to have, start a war at that point, but not until then.

After Iraq, who will be next on the list of countries in breach of UN resolutions or accused of harbouring terrorists to be the subject of a US led war? There are quite a few to choose from.

[Jac de Molay]

Neville chamberlain As if a two-bit dictator is going to be allowed roll over the entire region? He can't even fly planes around his own coutry.

Nothing like a little fear-mongering to drum up support for a "pre-emptive" slaughter

[Darius871]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
I'm a bit cynical about human nature and question how much of this "evidence" is based on information from defectors. Suppose you wanted out of Iraq and went to the US government. You're not going to say there are no WMD's in Iraq, are you?

It's rumored that much of the evidence are satellite photographs.

Originally posted by Jac de Molay
Neville chamberlain As if a two-bit dictator is going to be allowed roll over the entire region? He can't even fly planes around his own coutry.

Yes, because Iraq was crushed in the first war and has since been impoverished by embargoes. If Saddam were left completely to his own devices he would most certainly attempt to dominate the region much like he did in 1991. And without U.S. involvement he would succeed. Thank God we're "meddling" in the region so that this will never happen.