Did Powell damage his reputation for presenting crap in front of the UN?

[MRT144]

i think powell was pressured into it, and thats sad.

and thats it duncan...we reefer madness crazed lefties think he was lying. i dont think he was lying at all. i just dont think we can go invade a nation for phantom reasons.

[The Mad Monk]

"Phantom reasons" = lies, by another name. You're accusing him lying.

[notyoueither]

So explain to me this. Supposedly many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died due to sanctions. Those sanctions are in place due to Saddam not fully cooperating with terms of the last cease fire.

Now the US led by Bush wants to put an end to the charade of the 'peace' with Iraq. OK. Maybe 10,000 people get wasted and then the sanctions end. What is that compared to the hundreds of thousands of dead due to the 'peace'?

[MRT144]

im accusing the adminstration of lying and powell of being coerced into believing the lie.

[The Mad Monk]

Since when has Powell shown himself to be coercible?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by MRT144
im accusing the adminstration of lying and powell of being coerced into believing the lie.

Glad you're there to cast your vote. Now what about the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis? What about them?

[Berzerker]

Those sanctions are in place due to Saddam not fully cooperating with terms of the last cease fire.

No, they are in place because the US said they would veto any attempt to lift the sanctions until the regime was changed. The UN resolution held out the promise that sanctions would be lifted if Iraq complied with inspections, but the US blew that out of the water AFTER the cease fire. So, even if Iraq complied, the sanctions would stay in place. Peace and compliance is not what the US wants, we want regime change...

[MRT144]

hmmm, americans killing iraqis through sanctions or americans kiling iraqis through warfare. neither is good, after the war what certainty is there? who will rise to power? will we try to force democracy on them? how much money and terrorsim will continue because of this?

the only certainty is that another generation of arabs will hate american "imperialism" and terrorism will not end because of this.

this is a personal vendetta the likes i have only seen from miriam.

[notyoueither]

hmm. I think it is the UN that has imposed sanctions. I don't recall the French or Germans out in full force against them. I do recall them being out against action that would end the sanctions... which would end up with fewer Iraqi casualties than the sanctions have produced.... if my information is correct.

Hmm. Who is right here?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Berzerker
The UN resolution held out the promise that sanctions would be lifted if Iraq complied with inspections,

Which Saddam has never done.

but the US blew that out of the water AFTER the cease fire. So, even if Iraq complied, the sanctions would stay in place. Peace and compliance is not what the US wants, we want regime change...

So, Clinton was after a regime change too? Seems a little ahead of his time.

[MRT144]

so youre saying explicitly killing people is better than providing incentives?

[Berzerker]

Which Saddam has never done.

Why should he? The sanctions wouldn't be lifted if he did comply. The US made it clear shortly after the Gulf War it would not comply with UN resolution 687 either.

So, Clinton was after a regime change too? Seems a little ahead of his time.

He was, he never reversed Bush 1's policy that the US would veto any attempt to lift the sanctions even if Iraq complied. Think about it, UN resolution 687 said that the sanctions would be lifted if Iraq disarmed and complied with inspections. But the US, having the power to veto lifting the sanctions, said it would block lifting the sanctions - that was in itself a violation of the UN resolution. The whole point of the sanctions was to get Iraq to comply, buy if Iraqi compliance would do nothing to lift the sanctions, compliance was not our goal.

Another lie we are often told is that Iraq kicked the inspectors out in 1998. No, the inspectors were ordered out by Clinton prior to a bombing campaign. And according to Scott Ritter, the CIA was using the inspections to spy on Iraq and Saddam and that the Iraqis knew this was going on.

How about one more lie? The Saudis and the American people were told Iraq was massing troops on the Saudi border after it's successful invasion of Kuwait. The reason was to invade Saudi Arabia. Satellite photos were the "proof", but a few months after the Gulf War, it was discovered the satellite photos were phony - a lie to get the Saudis to let us "defend" them from a non-existent invasion. Why all the lies?

[Alexander's Horse]

I saw tonight on TV that Powell used a Taliban terrorist group in North Eastern Iraq which I have mentioned on this forum as evidence of Saddam's links with terrorism.

First off, this group is operating in an area Saddam does not control (against the Kurds). Second, its supported by Iran. Third, its leader hates Saddam Hussein, is in exile in Holland and trying to overthrow him.

*shakes head* This information is in the public domain.

[The Mad Monk]

Okay, I'll bite -- details, please.

[Sava]

Hey! I can take a picture of my apartment complex and write "Chemical weapons plant on it" and present it as evidence!

What little respect I had for Powell is gone after that retarded presentation yesterday. He's just the Bush admin's token black guy.