Did Powell's presentation convince you?

[uh Clem]

Yeah, well, you're pretty ripe yerself, pal...

[DaShi]

Ripe and ready!

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Berzerker

A few months after the Gulf War, the St Petersburg Times exposed the lie that satellite photos revealed Iraqis massing on the border with Saudi Arabia for a second invasion. We were lied to then, so why would the GOP/Dems discover morality now?

As we speak, government and private experts around the globe are examining the photos Powell released. If the U.S.' conclusions based on them were incorrect we'd be hearing it now.

Originally posted by aaglo
They show a satellite pic of a truck, and they say it's a portable weapons lab...

AFAI recall you're mixing up two very different parts of his speech. In one part of the speech, he showed nearly a dozen regular cargo trucks pulling up to a chemical weapons facility before an inspection (when this many trucks almost never come all at one time normally). In another part, he went over human sources' descriptions of Iraq's mobile chemical weapons facilities. He never said that a truck in a satellite photo was a weapons lab, you did.

Anyway I don't know if I like this poll, there should be an option that says 'they are in violation of 1441, but I still don't think war is the answer'. A lot of people here seem to be against war and say 'I'm not convinced', but would at least admit that 1441 is being violated.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Any discussion, unless, of course, it is actually about Hitler and/or Nazi Germany.

So i cant refer to nazi germany when discussing genocide, tank tactics, or international diplomacy. Then Goodwins llaw is follishness.

The Molotov-Rippentrop pact is the premier example in recent history of two powers which were sworn idelogical enemies allying for reasons of strategic interest. To exclude it when someone is claiming that two powers could not ally because they are ideological enemies is to prevent serious discussion - its tantamount to censorship (now if I were to say that its like what the Nazis did i think THAT would require the invoking of Goodwins law)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Darius871



Anyway I don't know if I like this poll, there should be an option that says 'they are in violation of 1441, but I still don't think war is the answer'. A lot of people here seem to be against war and say 'I'm not convinced', but would at least admit that 1441 is being violated.

Thats just me. I like to take things one step at a time. First step is to establish consensus that 1441 WAS violated. (And i was particularly interested in seeing if Powell had actually cahnge any minds) then a discussion of what to do about it. Look for another poll tomorrow.

[uh Clem]

The Molotov-Rippentrop pact is the premier example in recent history of two powers which were sworn idelogical enemies allying for reasons of strategic interest.

...an "alliance" that lasted less than 2 years, btw.

[Alinestra Covelia]

I was not convinced before, and I am still not convinced now.

In the international stage, Colin Powell is probably the most highly regarded member of the Bush administration at the moment. This still doesn't explain why America is so interested in Iraq, or exactly what Iraq has done that many other violent regimes have not.

I don't particularly like Saddam Hussein, but I do believe in minimizing casualties. If America is just waging a war of opportunity against an unsuitable dictator, then it will require more solid assurances that oil supply is not the sole reason, and that America will get involved in the rebuilding process.

Something akin to the rebuilding of Afghanistan would do a fair bit to reassure the world that America is not a mere imperialist, and is genuinely interested in assuring global peace. Saddam Hussein is a despicable character, but America needs to make sure that in removing him, the world does not come to view it as the next tyrant.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Alinestra Covelia
I was not convinced before, and I am still not convinced now.

In the international stage, Colin Powell is probably the most highly regarded member of the Bush administration at the moment. This still doesn't explain why America is so interested in Iraq, or exactly what Iraq has done that many other violent regimes have not.

Alinestra, Iraq is among a handful of regimes that are totalitarians states, possess and are developing weapons of mass destruction, are implicated in support of terrorism, and have a history of regularly attacking their neighbors. Many countries have done one or two of these things, only Iraq has done all four. In addition Iraq is in a unique position in international law - The gulf war, which started due to their aggression, was ended by a ceasefire conditional on their disarmament of WMD - these agreeemnets were then reaffirmed in UN resolutions - no other country has the same obligations that Iraq does.

[GePap]

There are two wonderfull little points about the "Iraq-Al Qaeda" connection in the NYTimes today:

1. Zarqawi gets much support from members of the Qatari royal family: he is suspected to have been provided a safehouse there. Whats in Qatar? The main US headquarters in the region for the war. Intersting.

2. Powell may have stated the wrong town: he stated that there is a Chemicals factory run by Ansar al_islam in the town of Khurmal: but Khurmal is controlled not by Ansar al-Islam but by the Komal Islami Kurdistan, a party allied wiht the main Kurdish factions, allied with the US. Some Kurdish officals say the US must have been mistaken with the name and meant the town of Beyara, not Khurmal.

Notice also how Powell hardly mentions Ansar al-Islam and focuses more on Zarqawi.

Of course, if having ties to terrorism and WMD means you will give them to Terrorist, one has to wonder why saddam didn't give WMD to Hamas of Islamic Jihad long aog: what, he likes Irrael? His ties to those organizations are clear, and yet he seems never to have been interested in giving WMD to them to destroy Israel. Agin, i wodner why?

[lord of the mark]

FYI

Syria apparently agrees with Iraq that Powell was lying through his teeth.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Notice also how Powell hardly mentions Ansar al-Islam and focuses more on Zarqawi.

Evidently we captured a Zarqawi deputy, and he talked. Lots of new info that wasnt available previously.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
TOf course, if having ties to terrorism and WMD means you will give them to Terrorist, one has to wonder why saddam didn't give WMD to Hamas of Islamic Jihad long aog: what, he likes Irrael? His ties to those organizations are clear, and yet he seems never to have been interested in giving WMD to them to destroy Israel. Agin, i wodner why?

Yet another variation on "he has em and he hasnt uded em yet, so theres nothing to worry about"

Im supposed to be privy to Saddam's grand strategic plan, where hamas and israel fit into it all????? Im not

Answer - A. He wont ever give them to terrorists or B. He might, but not at this stage in the plan for some unknown reason

Proabability of B - Im not sure, but not zero - too high to take a chance on, IMHO, especially since he has no right to have these weapons ANYWAY, and since he is a totalitarian genocidaire.

[lord of the mark]

French have confirmation

FYI

' French Defense Ministry spokesman Jean-Francois Bureau said Thursday that French intelligence backed up parts of Powell's presentation.

"There are a certain number of questions evoked by Mr. Powell that we had information on. Others, perhaps less," Bureau said. He did not elaborate.'

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
There are two wonderfull little points about the "Iraq-Al Qaeda" connection in the NYTimes today:

1. Zarqawi gets much support from members of the Qatari royal family: he is suspected to have been provided a safehouse there. Whats in Qatar? The main US headquarters in the region for the war. Intersting.

"The Qatari royal family member was Abdul Karim al-Thani, the coalition official said. The official added that Mr. al-Thani provided Qatari passports and more than $1 million in a special bank account to finance the network.

Mr. al-Thani, who has no government position, is, according to officials in the gulf, a deeply religious member of the royal family who has provided charitable support for militant causes for years and has denied knowing that his contributions went toward terrorist operations. "

A deeply religious member of the royal family, who holds no government position - sounds alot like what is going on in Saudi also. Hope Qatar cracks down on this guy. Qatari govt doesnt completely control everything that happens in Qatar - its not a totalitarian state like Iraq.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

Yet another variation on "he has em and he hasnt uded em yet, so theres nothing to worry about"

Im supposed to be privy to Saddam's grand strategic plan, where hamas and israel fit into it all????? Im not

Answer - A. He wont ever give them to terrorists or B. He might, but not at this stage in the plan for some unknown reason

Proabability of B - Im not sure, but not zero - too high to take a chance on, IMHO, especially since he has no right to have these weapons ANYWAY, and since he is a totalitarian genocidaire.

Please!!

There is a reason why most IR theorists can't understand this war at all: Threat annalysis has to be based on some rational way of measuring threats, not on mindless fear. We have incontrovertible scienctific proof that a large asteroid will one day hit the earth and do a number on Human civilization. Where are the 20 billion a year to make sure this doesn't happen, or that we lessen the damage? It can happen in a month, of any year, and yet I see no one moving to try to counter such an obvious and real danger. Why? cause in the end, it would be cost ineffective, and while we know the possiblity of us being hit is high, the probability at any one point in time is low. Yopu worry about Iraq giving WMD to Al Qaeda? Then go after Al Qaeda!!! They are the ones who won't be detered, the ones that fit outside of IR theory. Americans killed by Saddam sicne 1990- about 320. Americans killed by Osama sicne 1998-3000. Are those numbers so hard to understand?

No, the threat of Saddam giving WMD to terrorist is as high today as it was in 1999, in fact, given all that you argue, tha threat of Saddam giving al qaeda WMD was much higer in 1999 and 2000 and 2001 than it is today, or will be tommorrow. You can't present anything other than a 'feeling' or a 'fear' to buttress your case. That isn't enough, or should not be enough, though sadly it is for most people. Give me a reasonable argument and I will listen. Base your assesments on fearmongering, and I will take them for what they are.

There are only two valid cases for a war on Iraq right now, which is what we are all discussing:

1) the moral case, which would back war with Iraq at any time.
2) the Iraq as an experimental test case for the new national security policy of this admin. a policy that has been in the works in the minds of men like Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Armitage since 1992.

Any arguments about WMD are a smokescreen to obscure the fact that argument #2 is the real reason for this war.