Flare Sci-fi Forums
Flare Sci-Fi Forums Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Flare Sci-Fi Forums » Community » The Flameboard » That's it, Iraq . . . (Page 5)

  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   
Author Topic: That's it, Iraq . . .
Grokca
Senior Member
Member # 722

 - posted      Profile for Grokca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well FOT you are making my point of more inspections quite well, Thank you. From the discussions you've had with your little internet friend, it shows that the US evidence has got to be checked out on the ground to be validated. So again good reason to have inspections, poor reason to go in killing a bunch of Iraqi civilians.
And it still doesn't answer why this evidence was not given to the inspectors in the first place, so they could do their jobs. You know, like the famous resolution that the US admin. keeps bandying about.

--------------------
"and none of your usual boobery."
M. Burns

Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
The_Tom
recently silent
Member # 38

 - posted      Profile for The_Tom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because it's fun to quote things at length, especially stuff that landed in my mailbox a few minutes ago forwarded from my Media Studies prof:
quote:

Subject: A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage


FAIR
(Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting)

MEDIA ADVISORY:
A Failure of Skepticism in Powell Coverage
Disproof of previous claims underlines need for scrutiny

February 10, 2003


In reporting on Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 5 presentation to the United Nations Security Council, many journalists treated
allegations made by Powell as though they were facts. Reporters at several major outlets neglected to observe the journalistic rule of
prefacing unverified assertions with words like "claimed" or "alleged."

This is of particular concern given that over the last several months, many Bush administration claims about alleged Iraqi weapons facilities
have failed to hold up to inspection. In many cases, the failed claims-- like Powell's claims at the U.N.-- have cited U.S. and British
intelligence sources and have included satellite photos as evidence.

---

In its report on Powell's presentation, the New York Daily News (2/6/03) accepted his evidence at face value: "To buttress his arguments, Powell
showed satellite photos of Iraqi weapons sites and played several audiotapes intercepted by U.S. electronic eavesdroppers. The most dramatic featured an Iraqi Army colonel in the 2nd Republican Guards Corps ordering a captain to sanitize communications." The Daily News gave no
indication that it had independent confirmation that the photos were indeed of weapons sites, or that individuals on the tapes were in fact who
Powell said they were.

In Andrea Mitchell's report on NBC Nightly News (2/5/03), Powell's allegations became actual capabilities of the Iraqi military: "Powell
played a tape of a Mirage jet retrofitted to spray simulated anthrax, and a model of Iraq's unmanned drones, capable of spraying chemical or germ weapons within a radius of at least 550 miles."

Dan Rather, introducing an interview with Powell (60 Minutes II, 2/5/03), shifted from reporting allegations to describing allegations as facts:
"Holding a vial of anthrax-like powder, Powell said Saddam might have tens of thousands of liters of anthrax. He showed how Iraqi jets could spray that anthrax and how mobile laboratories are being used to concoct new
weapons." The anthrax supply is appropriately attributed as a claim by Powell, but the mobile laboratories were something that Powell "showed" to be actually operating.

Commentator William Schneider on CNN Live Today (2/6/03) dismissed the possibility that Powell could be doubted: "No one disputes the findings
Powell presented at the U.N. that Iraq is essentially guilty of failing to disarm." When CNN's Paula Zahn (2/5/03) interviewed Jamie Rubin, former State Department spokesperson, she prefaced a discussion of Iraq's response to Powell's speech thusly: "You've got to understand that most Americans watching this were either probably laughing out loud or got sick to their stomach. Which was it for you?"

--

Journalists should always be wary of implying unquestioning faith in official assertions; recent history is full of official claims based on
satellite and other intelligence data that later turned out to be false or dubious. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, the first Bush administration rallied support for sending troops to Saudi Arabia by asserting that classified satellite photos showed the Iraqi army mobilizing on the Saudi border. This claim was later discredited when the St. Petersburg Times
obtained commercial satellite photos showing no such build-up (Second Front, John R. MacArthur). The Clinton administration justified a cruise
missile attack on the Sudan by saying that intelligence showed that the target was a chemical weapons factory; later investigation showed it to be a pharmaceutical factory (London Independent, 5/4/99).

In the present instance, journalists have a responsibility to put U.S. intelligence claims in context by pointing out that a number of
allegations recently made by the current administration have already been debunked. Among them:

* Following a CIA warning in October that commercial satellite photos showed Iraq was "reconstituting" its clandestine nuclear weapons program at Al Tuwaitha, a former nuclear weapons complex, George W. Bush told a
Cincinnati audience on October 7 (New York Times, 10/8/02): "Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have
been part of his nuclear program in the past."

When inspectors returned to Iraq, however, they visited the Al Tuwaitha site and found no evidence to support Bush's claim. "Since December 4 inspectors from [Mohamed] ElBaradei's International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have scrutinized that vast complex almost a dozen times, and reported no violations," according to an Associated Press report (1/18/03).

* In September and October U.S. officials charged that conclusive evidence existed that Iraq was preparing to resume manufacturing banned ballistic
missiles at several sites. In one such report the CIA said "the only plausible explanation" for a new structure at the Al Rafah missile test
site was that Iraqis were developing banned long-range missiles (Associated Press, 1/18/03). But CIA suggestions that facilities at Al Rafah, in addition to sites at Al Mutasim and Al Mamoun, were being used to build prohibited missile systems were found to be baseless when U.N.
inspectors repeatedly visited each site (Los Angeles Times, 1/26/03).

* British and U.S. intelligence officials said new building at Al-Qaim, a former uranium refinery in Iraq's western desert, suggested renewed Iraqi development of nuclear weapons. But an extensive survey by U.N. inspectors in December reported no violations (Associated Press, 1/18/03).

* Last fall the CIA warned that "key aspects of Iraq's offensive [biological weapons] program are active and most elements are more advanced and larger" than they were pre-1990, citing as evidence renewed building at several facilities such as the Al Dawrah Vaccine Facility, the
Amiriyah Serum and Vaccine Institute, and the Fallujah III Castor Oil Production Plant. By mid-January, inspectors had visited all the sites
many times over. No evidence was found that the facilities were being used to manufacture banned weapons (Los Angeles Times, 1/26/03).

The Associated Press concluded in its January 18 analysis: "In almost two months of surprise visits across Iraq, U.N. arms monitors have inspected 13 sites identified by U.S. and British intelligence agencies as major 'facilities of concern,' and reported no signs of revived weapons
building."

Regarding the number of allegations made by the Bush and Blair governments that have washed out on inspection, former U.N. weapons inspector Hans von Sponeck told the British newspaper The Mirror (2/6/03) following Powell's U.N. presentation:

"The inspectors have found nothing which was in the Bush and Blair dossiers of last September. What happened to them? They are totally embarrassed by them. I have seen facilities in pieces in Iraq which U.S. intelligence reports say are dangerous.

"The Institute of Strategic Studies referred to the Al Fallujah Three castor oil production unit and the Al Dora foot and mouth center as
'facilities of concern.' In 2002 I saw them and they were destroyed, there was nothing. All that was left were shells of buildings. This is a
classic example of manipulating allegations, allegations being converted into facts."

Responsible journalists should avoid playing a part in such a conversion by making a clear distinction between what has been alleged by the U.S. government and what has been independently verified.




--------------------
"I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
First of Two
Better than you
Member # 16

 - posted      Profile for First of Two     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
While this may seem reasonable, there is something to consider that I clearly must reiterate.

If any countries's intelligence agencies had any good doubts about what Powell said our photo experts said was in the photos, especially the agencies of Russia, Germany, France, and China, who would do just about anything to thwart the US at this juncture, wouldn't you expect them to say so?

The continuing silence from that sector implies far more than does anything else.

--------------------
"The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
First of Two
Better than you
Member # 16

 - posted      Profile for First of Two     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Thank you. From the discussions you've had with your little internet friend, it shows that the US evidence has got to be checked out on the ground to be validated.
If you go back and reread, you'll notice that he is saying that he has no doubt that all these claims HAVE been validated by more than one source. Before they even got to Powell.

Myself, I have no doubt that anything Hussein can hide from a group of inspectors, he can hide from a bigger group. Indeed, this past group has given him time to do so, as well as time to study how they do things, the better to thwart them with.

Wouldn't have to do it again if it'd been done right the first time... except you'd never have gotten Iraq to go along with it.

--------------------
"The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
TSN
I'm... from Earth.
Member # 31

 - posted      Profile for TSN     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"All nukes are is a really really efficient way of killing people..."

Yes, there are a very very efficient way of killing people indiscriminantly and en masse. They are, however, a very very inefficient way of killing any specific people.

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Omega
Some other beginning's end
Member # 91

 - posted      Profile for Omega     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, not necessarily. Underground bunkers would also be targets against which nukes could be an appropriate weapon. Nor is killing a bunch of people necessarily a bad thing (defined as something that would lead to an outcome less preferable than would have occured without the nuke). All depends on the situation, but under any, they're extremely specialized weapons that still have a place on occasion.

--------------------
"This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!"
- God, "God, the Devil and Bob"

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
PsyLiam
Hungry for you
Member # 73

 - posted      Profile for PsyLiam     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Nor is killing a bunch of people necessarily a bad thing.

That's twice he's said it now, and I'm still amazed.

--------------------
Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
TSN
I'm... from Earth.
Member # 31

 - posted      Profile for TSN     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Nor is killing a bunch of people necessarily a bad thing..."

Be one of them.

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Austin Powers
Slightly warped
Member # 250

 - posted      Profile for Austin Powers     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Originally posted by Grokca:
quote:
Well FOT you are making my point of more inspections quite well, Thank you. From the discussions you've had with your little internet friend, it shows that the US evidence has got to be checked out on the ground to be validated. So again good reason to have inspections, poor reason to go in killing a bunch of Iraqi civilians.
And it still doesn't answer why this evidence was not given to the inspectors in the first place, so they could do their jobs. You know, like the famous resolution that the US admin. keeps bandying about.

Exactly. If the U.S. believe in their evidence, then they should send the inspectors to validate their (proposed) findings - and cooperate with the inspectors from the start, not withhold apparently crucial information for so long. Why the delay if it's so important??

By the way who says the satellite images haven't been tampered with. Any Photoshop buff could do the trick. By which I don't want to imply that this HAS happened - I just want to make you think about the possibility. After all, faking evidence to use it as a pretext for war has happened quite frequently in the history of warfare.

Originally posted by First of Two:
quote:
If any countries's intelligence agencies had any good doubts about what Powell said our photo experts said was in the photos, especially the agencies of Russia, Germany, France, and China, who would do just about anything to thwart the US at this juncture, wouldn't you expect them to say so?
They did say what everybody knew. That the evidence presented didn't reveal anything new or unknown up to now. And they insisted on giving the inspectors more time for thorough research. War doesn't solve the problem - but it will create a lot of new ones!

Originally posted by TSN:
quote:
Yes, there are a very very efficient way of killing people indiscriminantly and en masse. They are, however, a very very inefficient way of killing any specific people.
That's an important point. Nukes should NEVER be used - no matter what the circumstance. They shouldn't have been invented at all, but unfortunately that mistake can't be undone. But certainly they shouldn't be used in this conflict either. Talk about opening Pandora'a Box!! When the U.S. used nukes in WW2 on Japan, the situation was different. They were the only ones who had that weapon. If the U.S. used nukes nowadays, then what would stop say North Korea, Pakistan, India, Russia, China, ... from saying "Hey if you can, why can't we?".
Armageddon would be just a small step away, doesn't anyone in the higher ranks sense that?

WHY ON EARTH ARE THE U.S. SO KEEN ON GOING TO WAR???

Give me some SENSIBLE reasons - not the usual "we must bomb Iraq to the stone-age to show them their place in the world for supporting Saddam for so long"!

Oh and one other thing: if the U.S. want to get rid of countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction, then they should start by going to war against themselves - before they turn to other nations. Hypocrits!

--------------------
Lister: Don't give me the "Star Trek" crap! It's too early in the morning.
- Red Dwarf "The Last Day"

Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Curry Monster
Somewhere in Australia
Member # 12

 - posted      Profile for Curry Monster     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But they need them to defend liberty, because they are so vulnerable without them. Or somesuch.
Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Grokca
Senior Member
Member # 722

 - posted      Profile for Grokca     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you go back and reread, you'll notice that he is saying that he has no doubt that all these claims HAVE been validated by more than one source. Before they even got to Powell.

You mean like the list Tom presented or that part of the claims came from a grad student. Or was it the parts that Dr. Blix has already refuted.

--------------------
"and none of your usual boobery."
M. Burns

Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256

 - posted      Profile for Cartman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"...some people do need to die on occasion..."

Set an example for the rest of humanity and start with yourself.

[ February 11, 2003, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: E. Cartman ]

--------------------
".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO

Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged
Omega
Some other beginning's end
Member # 91

 - posted      Profile for Omega     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by PsyLiam:
quote:
Originally posted by Omega:
Nor is killing a bunch of people necessarily a bad thing.

That's twice he's said it now, and I'm still amazed.
You should watch the movie "Fail Safe" some time.

Nukes should NEVER be used - no matter what the circumstance.

That's very silly. You shouldn't say "no matter the circumstance" unless you've considered every conceivable circumstance, which you haven't, or you wouldn't have said that.

not the usual "we must bomb Iraq to the stone-age to show them their place in the world for supporting Saddam for so long"!

Which is not what ANYONE has said or advocated. Aside from the relatively small portion of the population that works in Sadaam's military and is still dumb enough to resist, the vast majority of the people in Iraq would be HELPED by our removal of Housein from power.

quote:
Originally posted by TSN:
"Nor is killing a bunch of people necessarily a bad thing..."

Be one of them.

Or here's an idea: how about when we disagree with people, we say WHY, instead of making some sort of pseudo-witty comments! Wouldn't that be GREAT!?

--------------------
"This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!"
- God, "God, the Devil and Bob"

Registered: Mar 1999  |  IP: Logged
Lee
I'm a spy now. Spies are cool.
Member # 393

 - posted      Profile for Lee     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Because your pseudo-arguments don't even stretch to making pseudo-sense, so why justify them by trying to counter the nonsense you spew? I mean, Fail Safe? THAT'S your justification? Both filmed versions are terrific, and it's certainly a step upward from your usual Clancy Fantasies - or, if you will, Clantacies - but I wouldn't base a credible foreign policy on them.

--------------------
Never mind the Phlox - Here's the Phase Pistols

Registered: Jul 2000  |  IP: Logged
Wraith
Zen Riot Activist
Member # 779

 - posted      Profile for Wraith     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I suppose they have to use something Dubya has a chance of understanding.

Targeting Iraq will probably have only minimal effect on the Wah on Terrah(TM). If the weapons inspectors are given more time and help by US and other intelligance angencies then it is probable they would find these WMDs that supposedly exist. they can then didarm Saddam peacefully. These are probably not grounds for war.
However, Saddam is a brutal dictator and should IMO be taken out. Equally, I'm not at all certain that the Iraqis won't be able to hide any WMD they have. Very difficult decision.

--------------------
"I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw

Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
  This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


© 1999-2008 Solareclipse Network.

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3