USA vs. IRAQ: part III (Official Iraq thread)

And thus begins the new chapter on the debate of war against Iraq. As I write, Colin Powell is making his case to the UN in hopes of gauging support for a pending war.

Powell is to provide intelligence video as well as audio recordings that are to suggest that Iraq not only has WMD's, but has sought to deliberately hide them from UN weapons inspectors.

 

He seems to be holding his own so far.

 

I'm away from the television for the morning. Does anyone know where interested folks (such as myself) can find transcripts of Powell's report on the net?

 

Cnn.com has a running transcript.


Edit: If you have a fast connection, C-span.org has a live video cast with realplayer.

I'm pretty sure they will have it in their archives even after the speech has been given.

 

Hey! Just saw that. thx, Jf.

For anyone else looking for it, here is the link to CNN's running transcript:

Powell presentation

 

Not a dramatic presentation, but enlightening.

- Raise your hand if you believe Iraq is complying with UN inspections.
- Raise your hand if, given Hussein's regime's history of deceit and furtive WMD production, you think maybe one more "final" ultimatum will do the trick.
- And finally, given Iraq's lies, assassination attempts, blunt refusals to recognize UN authority, genocide, apparent ties with terrorism, etc, raise your hand if you think Iraq has a good reason for having weapons of mass destruction (since "self defense" doesn't make the cut).

 

Starfire:

I'll keep my hands down.

But Iraqi links to al-Qaeda are revealed. Meetings between bin Laden and senior Iraqi officials...

As the Secretary of State said:
"We know members of both organizations met repeatedly and have met at least eight times at very senior levels since the early 1990s. In 1996, a foreign security service tells us, that bin Laden met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official in Khartoum, and later met the director of the Iraqi intelligence service.

"Saddam became more interested as he saw Al Qaida?s appalling attacks. A detained Al Qaida member tells us that Saddam was more willing to assist Al Qaida after the 1998 bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Saddam was also impressed by Al Qaida?s attacks on the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.

"Iraqis continued to visit bin Laden in his new home in Afghanistan. A senior defector, one of Saddam?s former intelligence chiefs in Europe, says Saddam sent his agents to Afghanistan sometime in the mid-1990s to provide training to Al Qaida members on document forgery.

"From the late 1990s until 2001, the Iraqi embassy in Pakistan played the role of liaison to the Al Qaida organization.

"Some believe, some claim these contacts do not amount to much. They say Saddam Hussein?s secular tyranny and Al Qaida?s religious tyranny do not mix. I am not comforted by this thought. Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and Al Qaida together, enough so Al Qaida could learn how to build more sophisticated bombs and learn how to forge documents, and enough so that Al Qaida could turn to Iraq for help in acquiring expertise on weapons of mass destruction."

I think the neo-conservatives were right after all.

 

Powell sure did his bit to keep that "wet dream" alive, eh?

 

Starfire, you still neglect to mention that war is not the only--or even the best-- solution.

How is what you posted not (melo)drama?

Other nations are seeking more peaceful solutions, including Saudi Arabia, bacause they know how a war in Iraq will destabilize the region.

Saudi Arabia's effort to end Hussein's reign without war

 

Cheveyo:

The time for talk has passed. Iraq's been CAUGHT ON SATELLITE as exacerbating its present state of material breach. Explain away the pictures and the intercepts if you can.

As for me, it's got the proof - and the high-level contacts Secretary of State Powell laid out for the world to see make it clear that Saddam also has worked with al-Qaeda, including the MURDER of an American diplomat.

 

It has been clearly demonstrated that Iraq will not offer any concessions except under threat of force. Clearly demonstrated.

Our common goal is disarmament. Diplomacy will not work--none but the most jaded minds even accept it as an option. Everything that has to be done in Iraq must be done at gunpoint, and until the current Iraqi regime is removed from power, we can never be sure that they aren't still hiding or producing weapons of mass destruction. They've shown remarkable fortitude in this regard.

Melodrama? No. Sincere truth. We can never trust Iraq to fully disram--and stay disarmed--while Saddam Hussein's regime is in power.

If man himself leaves willingly, then we'll have to see how the rest of the regime goes. But I'm not optimistic that an entire regime, a regime with a monstrous history, will just pack up and walk out. I don't think we have any realistic option but the sword.

Now I must go to work. Don't have too much fun without me

 

I think Powell did more than his job, showed pictures, videos, etc. There you go, proof is in the pudding. I wonder how people will counter this.

 

<sigh>

I continue to disdain the 'terrorism' angle for justification of military action, because it circumvents the primary issue, which is disarmament and weapons proliferation. What makes Saddam dangerous is not only the known and suspected ties to terrorism, but past history in the region and divination of future goals, combined with NBC weapons which he is required to relinquish.

I personally do not doubt that there has been communication between the two parties, and Powell presented more evidence than I thought existed today, I must admit. However, I feel that 'waving the bloody shirt of Sept 11th' is a poor manner to justify war. There simply is TOO MUCH uncertainty and not nearly enough proof (much more compelling cases can be made for invading every one of Saddam's neighbors, if the yardstick is ties to al Qaeda. It ALL goes back to Iraq's breaking of UN resolutions and proliferation).

Analysis by the BBC on this issue.

...Now Mr Straw says there is a stream of intelligence showing that the regime is creating a permissive environment for terrorists including al-Qaeda to operate in.


But he gives no specifics on al-Qaeda, referring instead to Iraqi support for what he calls Palestinian terrorist organisations and an Iraqi terrorist group operating inside Iran.

There must be a temptation for London and Washington to exaggerate intelligence that fits their view of Iraq. That is not to say they have given in to it.

But perceived exaggeration or spin would be counter-productive.

The danger is that people who are sceptical about the al-Qaeda link might be less inclined to believe the American and British case that Saddam Hussein is still concealing weapons of mass destruction.

Again: I don't necessarily disagree with the alleged ties, and I certainly think that the evidence of al qaeda cooperation today exacerbates the central issue of NBC weapons. However, I do not think it is viable at all to justify war in Iraq on the basis of al qaeda cooperation, unless much more evidence is proffered.

 

Wow, here's a response.
FoxNews

An Iraqi official told Fox News in Baghdad that the "United States is just looking for a chance to go to war." The official said the intercepts used by Powell could have been "faked," and "any defector could?ve made them. That?s not proof."

Yeah, it's all faked.

 

the German Ambassador is talking now. Let's see what he says.

 

Reguardless Iraq has failed, we cant continue to play with Saddam. The weapons inspectors dont need more time they had 12 years, they need to be shown the weapons not go on an easter egg hunt. One option is left.

 

Reaction to Powell's speech:

From France: "Given the choice between military intervention and an inspections regime that is inadequate because of a failure to co-operate on Iraq's part, we must choose the decisive reinforcement of the means of inspections," [French Foreign Minister Dominique] de Villepin said.

Villepin added that U.N. inspections were working well on the ground and should be strengthened -- their numbers possibly doubled or trebled. France would provide resources including Mirage jets, he said.

"Let us double, let us triple the number of inspectors. Let us open more regional offices. Let us go further than this," de Villepin said. "Could we not for example set up a specialized body to keep under surveillance the sites and areas that have already been inspected?"

From China: Tang Jiaxuan, the foreign minister of permanent Security Council member China -- which holds a veto -- was first to speak.

He urged a continuation of inspections and told Saddam Hussein he must co-operate.

"We should respect the views of the two (U.N. inspection) agencies and support the continuation of their work," Tang told the 15-nation body.

The U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency "have been working very hard (and) it is their view that now they are not in a position to draw conclusions," he said.

From Russia: Citing the importance of unity within the international community, Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Russia still hopes for a political settlement to the Iraq situation "on the basis of complete and strict compliance with U.N. resolutions."

"Iraq should be the first to be concerned about providing final clarity about the question of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems," he said. "That is the only way to a political settlement."

From Bulgaria: Bulgaria's Foreign Minister, Solomon Passy, said Iraq should fall in line with the Security Council resolution by February 14 -- the next briefing of the council by its chief weapons inspectors -- or be forced to do so.

From Spain: "There is only one explanation for that," she said, "and that is that Saddam Hussein has not renounced his intention to use (weapons of mass destruction)."

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, who presided over the Council meeting, said he believed that war against Iraq could be avoided.

Speaking to German television ZDF hours before Powell was to present new evidence, he said the goals of U.N. Resolution 1441 could be achieved without military action if the weapons inspectors are given more time.

"When one considers the risks of military action, not just the humanitarian consequences for innocent people but also the question of regional destabilisation and the long-term consequences for the anti-terror coalition, then one must make very careful considerations," Fischer said.

 

Ha, the Iraqi Ambassador is cracking me up!

I pity anyone who buys that crap about it all being fake.

 

Yeah, it's all faked. Sure. Just like it always is. *sigh*

That allegation did not surprise me in the least. It's been used before:

The United States delegation is now trying to use it's own fabrications in the Security Council for absolutely monstrous purposes-in order to try to obtain the retroactive approval of the Security Council of the illegal acts of aggression already undertaken by the United States against Cuba, acts which the United States is undertaking unilaterally and in manifest violation of the United Nations Charter and of the elementary rules arid principles of international law."

"The peoples of the world must clearly realize, however, that in openly embarking on this venture the United States of America is taking a step along the road which leads to a thermo-nuclear world war. Such is the heavy price which the world may have to pay for the present reckless and irresponsible actions of the United States."
--Statement by Soviet Ambassador V. A. Zorin to the UN on 10/23/62, five days before the USSR announced that it would remove it's missles from Cuba.

Ahem.

Edit: Correction on detail.

 

Yeah, gotta love history.

You'd think people would learn.

 

Thats the problem with lying, you tell one lie you then have to tell another to cover that one up then another and another, before long youve told so many lies you have no idea what the truth is anymore.

 

Powells so called "evidence" is far from enough to justify a war on Iraq.
The interception of communication between Iraqi soldiers could easely have been made by the US, all you need is two guys who speak arabic and a pair of radios. Unless they have physical evidence of WMD's, I wont acknowledge their "evidence".


-Mulacki

 

cheveyo How nice of you to hijack my thread!

 

Unless you believe the U.S. is lying and made up the evidence, Powell made the case for war.

Personally, I don't think he was lying.