Powell's Speech (merged)

It was pretty obvious that Powell will come up with something that all the "allies" will consider proof, the others will call foul & no proof and the thrid parties will play dumb!

At the end of the day, the game is the same, those who will appose (read Germany) are going to appose, those who will go with the whip (read Pakistan & co.) will do just that.

Though I would like to know, what kind of "Proof" will constitute as a valid proof? It seems like nothing less than a confession from Saddam himself.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by ahmadjee: *
It was pretty obvious that Powell will come up with something that all the "allies" will consider proof, the others will call foul & no proof and the thrid parties will play dumb!
[/QUOTE]

Bhai jaaaan. Lets say UN gives a go ahead for war, a war to disarm iraq. Now keep that word disarm in mind.

Destroy Chemical WMD:

According to Mr Powell iraqis produce them in Dual Use installations.
What will the allied forces do? Bomb dual use chemical factories? Some basic chemical infrastructure is required by every single country (heck half the chemical industry has chlorine as a product or a by product). The day americans leave, these dual use site will pop up again.

Destroy Biological WMD:

They supposidly in 18 trucks. Americans dont even have Spy snaps of these and most likely dont know where they are.
Scenario 1: They know where they are:
Why dont they tell the inspectors?
Scenario 2: They dont know where they are:
Please tell me how are they doing to be eliminated?

Nuclear WMD:

According to Powell the two components Iraqis have are 1. The Design 2. Man Power

What will the UN do? Kill everyone involved? Tell iraqi scientists to leave iraq? duh! As for the designs, Its virtually impossible to take those away from any who has them. According to Al Barade iraq doesnt have an active enrichment program so you can forget about big targets.

The bottom line is, if you think logically...if the americans have a battle plan to disarm iraq, a battle plan which has specified targets. That is the intelligence which needs to be shared with the inspectors, instead of whining about 8500 lit of anthrax and 6000 shells of something else. If you know where they are, then tell the inspectors, if you dont then you dont have a case for war anyway.

but who---me yaar

it should be Iraq's responsibilty to come up and show the proof of destruction of these chemical and biological weapons. Iraq says that they have destroyed those weapons right? well then Iraq should show them the proof and shut them up, but Iraq hasn't done that yet and thats the biggest problem as to where are those weapons, and if destroyed, IRAQ HAS TO HAVE A PROOF OF THAT

shahzadqu:
So you say that if Iraq does not disarm/prove on its own and we have the knowledge to do it, we should skip a step and attack??

If Iraq fails to show the whereabouts of these weapons then we should show for them via the inspectors. Seems a lot easier that way than combat. Now, if we also fail in showing these weapons there is a dilemma.. do they even exist? or do we need to attack?

It just seems like we are skipping a step by going to war considering we have this information.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by spoon: *
shahzadqu:
So you say that if Iraq does not disarm/prove on its own and we have the knowledge to do it, we should skip a step and attack??

If Iraq fails to show the whereabouts of these weapons then we should show for them via the inspectors. Seems a lot easier that way than combat. Now, if we also fail in showing these weapons there is a dilemma.. do they even exist? or do we need to attack?

It just seems like we are skipping a step by going to war considering we have this information.
[/QUOTE]

SPOON:
You seem to have missed the entire thrust of the Powell presentation. The point is that inspectors CANNOT do the job of disarming Iraq as long as Saddam chooses to obstruct and fails to fully cooperate. The last step prior to war was/is giving Saddam an opportunity to voluntarily cooperate and disarm. Whether or not you are in favor or opposed to military action in Iraq, following the Powell presentation, it is pretty hard to argue that Iraq is either in compliance with 1441 or making a good faith attempt to comply.

[QUOTE]
The point is that inspectors CANNOT do the job of disarming Iraq as long as Saddam chooses to obstruct and fails to fully cooperate.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. When that fails we use the evidence we have to disarm him. Not the inspectors. This would probably require a new resolution. Send in dismantling teams. There are already over 100K troops ready to strike. Saddam knows this; it is this kind of demonstration of force that forced him to agree to inspections. The dismantlers should be accompanied with a squad of soldiers. Of course there would need to be a much greater number of dismantlers than current inspectors. If any dismantler is harmed or if access is refused twice, we take the location by force. If he chooses then to present us with opposition we then open hostilites.

It is a logical problem to say that we have the knowledge to disarm him but not the means without war first. Saddam will have to submit to dismantling.. otherwise he will be removed. (now stretching a little..) If this is not enough to force his agreement we could add an agreement to maintain "peacekeepers" (more like a stabilization force) or a kind of mutual defense treaty after the dismantling is complete. Though I do not believe Iraq would be at risk without its current arsenal.

The Russian reaction to Powell’s speech, views im sure that are shared by millions across the world.

Powell’s Fairy Tales: Puerile and Patronising](Powell’s Fairy Tales: Puerile and Patronising) Pravda

The “evidence” which was presented to the United Nations Security Council today by Colin Powell was a miscellany of obscure recordings which were misinterpreted by the US Secretary of State and risible satellite photographs which bore a strange resemblance to those which had been taken in Afghanistan two years before. Colin Powell described the snippets of conversation and cloudy satellite pictures as “solid evidence” that Iraq was in breach of UN SC Resolution 1441 and that this created the grounds for “serious consequences” to be applied.

He began by playing two recordings of conversations between Iraqi officials speaking about sites to be inspected by the UNMOVIC team. In one, the Iraqi claimed “We don’t have anything left”, interpreted by Colin Powell, to quote, “It was not around” when the inspectors came. There is a subtle and unsubstantiated insinuation in Powell’s remark, this being that the material had been removed. Or destroyed, in accordance with the provisions of the UN Resolution but this hypothesis was systematically ignored by the head of US diplomacy throughout his arrogant, forbearing and bullying intervention.

In the second recording, a Republican Guard received a message from an official which stated “There is a possibility that there is by chance forbidden ammo” in the compound. Colin Powell interpreted this as a message to “evacuate it” because there was a “presence of weapons of mass destruction”. Not so. The Iraqi message could have involved anything from out-of-date shells, and we do not know whether the subject of this conversation was the cache of obsolete arms that the inspectors found lying under three years of bird excrement, to banned components. It does not automatically mean that weapons of mass destruction are involved as Colin Powell so simplistically and childishly tried to state.

The fact that Colin Powell was trying so obviously to find links where there were none, does nothing to further the notion that the Bush administration believes in the UNO as a forum of debate. Instead, it lends weight to the belief that the United States of America prefers to ride roughshod over the rest of the international community, as has long been suspected.

The next piece of “solid intelligence” was a series of reports that weapons of mass destruction were being hidden in homes or moved around the countryside in cars, or in trucks under palm trees. It is patently evident that Colin Powell, or the speechwriter, does not understand the complicated, delicate systems which compose the high-tech weaponry of today. These are not shields and spears that can be slung into the back of a truck and carted off across the desert. Colin Powell did not back up this claim with any source of evidence and as such, it is no more than hearsay and gossip, making the US Secretary of State no more than a cheap guttersnipe.

“Solid Intelligence” was supposed to be corroborated by many sources, including intelligence agencies of other countries. Again, the sources were never mentioned. If these sources were the cream of world intelligence agencies which allowed the 11th September to happen on Colin Powell’s doorstep, perhaps it would have been more plausible to leave them out of what was supposed to be a serious report.

Interspersed with interjections such as “Tell me! Answer me!” seeming as if he were addressing a convention of boy scouts, showing an utter disrespect for his colleagues on the UN Security Council, Powell went on to back up his evidence with puerile remarks such as “We know from evidence”, without ever substantiating what.

The greatest guffaw is the satellite pictures. True, Colin Powell had said before he introduced them, that they were very difficult to interpret and that experts had spent hours poring over them. In other words, in a sickeningly patronising tone, he was saying “These are so difficult to understand but I will tell you how to interpret them”, as if his misinterpretations of the recordings were a sound precedent.

**Evidently, if it took experts hours and hours to discern what they were looking at, the photographs serve as nothing regarding “solid evidence”, making the presentation of these images ludicrous. Obscure rectangular buildings were then shown, looking suspiciously like those taken over Afghanistan, which Colin Powell referred to as “one of the chemical bunkers” and then vehicles, “decontamination vehicles” or “vehicles to move missiles”. Previous claims that WMD was being produced at a similar-looking building, which was subsequently inspected, turned out to be wrong: the building was a production facility for powdered baby milk. **

One facility, he claimed, was cleaned out on 22nd December, so that when the weapons inspectors arrived, there was nothing to find. Surely they had equipment to check whether or not there were vestiges of chemical or biological weapons. It is simply not possible to load such substances into plastic bags, chuck them onto the backs of lorries and speed them off to fight the elements under some palm tree.

**Risibly, and here is the cherry on the cake, immediately after pointing out that “trucks arrived to move more missiles”, Powell stated “We don’t know precisely what Iraq is moving”. This presentation of “hard evidence” is a tissue of lies, gossip, misinterpretation, cynical manoeuvring and possibly even misrepresentation, aimed at providing a case for a war against Iraq.

The UN Security Council is not a kindergarten or a scout camp. The international community is not a class of primary school pupils to be lectured in this way by an incompetent teacher. Were this the case, Colin Powell would be the one to have a donkey’s tail pinned to his trousers when he turned around to illustrate his great case against Iraq.** If people believe this report, they will believe that there are fairies at the end of the garden. Colin Powell has managed to allow himself and his image descend from a respected world-class diplomat to some sort of confused, rambling and unconvincing Peter Pan.

Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
The Russian reaction to Powell's speech, views im sure that are shared by millions across the world.
........

[/QUOTE]

DHP: Somehow or other, I just don't see how you can describe that drivel as "the Russian reaction to Powell's speech" unless you are deliberately trying to mislead someone. It was published on PravdaOnline to be sure. But it's some guy's editorial opinion. And the guy's name was Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY, which doesn't even sound Russian to me. It carries about as much weight and is as representative as something you might write yourself.

Is it possible that millions share that view? For sure. Most likely among the illiterate masses of third world countries who live and die to hear the ravings of some fundo mullah, it is probably a very popular view. Among literate people who actually think and formulate opinions for themselves, it's probably not a very shared opinion.

myvoice, you have failed miserably to counteract the opinions of the Pravda article which is read by millions of Russians. As for the author, lol! you dont have to be Russian these days to live in Russia.

Sorry could not help pointing this out - while Powell was discussing his third point in his speech (regarding supposed BW arsenals), he stated that, "It should come as no shock then, that since Saddam Hussein forced out the last inspectors in 1998, we have amassed much intelligence indicating that Iraq is continuing to make these weapons."

Rather subtly thrown in a deceit there as anyone with half-decent rational faculties should be aware the UNSCOM weapons inspectors were never “forced out”. They were withdrawn under the orders of their then supervisor, Richard Butler, ahead of the military strikes against Iraq in late 1998. Perhaps Powell should have read the United Nations Special Commission website, which itself states: “The [UN] Special Commission withdraws its staff from Iraq”. They were never expelled, they were never kicked out. They left of their own accord, days prior to the military strikes in December 1998.

Then again, just another deceit, another lie - all part of a day’s work for Powell and his admin.