So, did anybody ELSE actually watch Colin Powell's presentation to the UN Security Council this morning?
Total victory - Powell.
Even France is backpedaling. They've already issued a statement changing their position from "War is not an option" to "War is an option of last resort"... and they haven't even had time to analyze and digest the findings.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Y'know, not wanting to bust your bubble or anything, but getting France to back down is like being the big powerful jock, and losing your virginity to the class slut. Woohoo, you did it, but so did the scrawny little nerd a tenth your size.
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
I got to hear most of it on the radio. Sounds like the Russians still are not with the program.
I no longer have any major objections.
Send in the bombs, there ought to be bombs, well, maybe next week.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote: First, they acknowledge that our colleague, Mohamed ElBaradei, is coming, and they know what he�s coming for, and they know he�s coming the next day. He�s coming to look for things that are prohibited. He is expecting these gentlemen to cooperate with him and not hide things. But they�re worried. �We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?� What is their concern? Their concern is that it�s something they should not have, something that should not be seen. The general is incredulous: �You didn�t get a modified. You don�t have one of those, do you?� �I have one.� �Which, from where?� �From the workshop, from the Al Kendi (ph) Company?� �What?� �From Al Kendi (ph).� �I�ll come to see you in the morning. I�m worried. You all have something left.� �We evacuated everything. We don�t have anything left.� Note what he says: �We evacuated everything.� We didn�t destroy it. We didn�t line it up for inspection. We didn�t turn it into the inspectors. We evacuated it to make sure it was not around when the inspectors showed up. �I will come to you tomorrow.� The Al Kendi (ph) Company: This is a company that is well known to have been involved in prohibited weapons systems activity.
Posted by RANCH4x4 (Member # 750) on :
We'll be at war soon.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I give it until after the 14th, when Blix will make his next report.
Predictions: Blix will report that the Iraqis are still not forthcoming.
The US will pressure the UNSC for a vote on a war resolution.
The holdouts will complain and bicker, but all those with veto powers will eventually come around.
Aerial bombing of military targets will commence shortly thereafter.
Posted by Ultra Magnus (Member # 239) on :
YES!! I couldn't wait any longer.
This is good news.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
OTOH, if the Iraqis actually were to start complying as they are supposed to under the resolutions, I could wait indefinitely.
However, I remain unconvinced that there's any greater chance of that happening than there is of my being whisked away by pixies to the Land of Nymphomanic Eightteen-Year-Old Tori Amos Lookalikes.
Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :
Killing people is so awesome!
Posted by RANCH4x4 (Member # 750) on :
My Air force colonel is telling us we are waiting for the new "super tank" to unveil before heading over to Iraq. Suppose to be out sometime this month.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I'm impressed.
Not by the evidence presented, which is so insubstantial that I can't help but marvel at the utter, brilliant absence of ANY thrustworthy data gathered over the past ten years, but by Powell's vivid interpretation of it.
-satellite images? Haven't seen that level of pixelation since, oh, 1970 (their resolution was deliberately blurred, of course, but when you're rallying international support, sharing intelligence on a need-to-know basis is not a clever tactic to employ). Chemical plant or K-Mart, ambiguity runs wild!
-trucks? Why weren't they tracked BEFORE and AFTER leaving the compound, if there was that much suspicious movement?
-ICBMs? The moment Saddam launches ONE, he finds himself on the business end of one THOUSAND with superior guidance systems. I'm quaking in my boots now that his new toys have a demonstrated range of 1000 clicks.
-taped conversations about nerve agents? Uhm, right. No secret codes? When your lines are tapped? Recordings of discussions THAT open are fabricated and you know it.
quote:it's a faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaake!
-terrorism? Saddam is now intrinsically linked to every right-winger's favorite buzzword, despite both the CIA *and* MI5 failing to implicate him, and we're supposed to take Powell's word for it?
Let the grudge-match begin! Jihad vs. MacWorld, all bets are off.
Posted by newark (Member # 888) on :
Killing people is not a great 'thing'. It is a terrible tragedy.
I heard the speech on C-Span. I wasn't impressed. Then again, from having read magazines such as Time and Newsweek, my view may have been biased. According to the reports in those magazines, the administration is building a case upon the information provided by informants considered not credible by the CIA. This agency has a name for this type of intelligence-Kuridtint.
As for the ricin poison camp in northeast Iraq, I hope none of you believe this camp is under President Hussein's control for it isn't. This camp is in the northern no-fly zone. If we know the camp is in an area which our planes, both British and American, are patrolling, then why haven't we bombed or at least gain control of the facility?
As for the other bits of released intelligence, I agree with the other nations that the inspectors must verify wheter or not these facilities are actually being used for the reasons stated by the US.
The taped conversations could have taken place in the last ten years, or been doctored. I doubt the latter.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:-trucks? Why weren't they tracked BEFORE and AFTER leaving the compound, if there was that much suspicious movement?
-ICBMs? The moment Saddam launches ONE, he finds himself on the business end of one THOUSAND with superior guidance systems. I'm quaking in my boots now that his new toys have a demonstrated range of 1000 clicks.
-taped conversations about nerve agents? Uhm, right. No secret codes? When your lines are tapped? Recordings of discussions THAT open are fabricated and you know it.
Point by point:
1. Spy sattelites don't work that way, and you know it. That George Clooney movie? It lies.
2. Nobody said ICBM's. Ballistic missiles. With capabilities beyond what Saddam is allowed to have. This is a violation, plain and factual. Can they reach you? No. And apparently you're self-centered enough that that satisfies you.
3. Please. Fortunately, the other nations' intelligence services know more about faking communications than you do. If it was fake, their intel people (especially France's) would jump all over it in a nanosecond. You, on the other hand, have all your intel data from an episode of a SF series, can be expected to know better than they?
I know who the fake is here. I'm responding to him right now.
Posted by Antagonist (Member # 484) on :
First, I hardly think that personally insulting a fellow forum-goer is hardly proper etiquette. as the old saying goes "If you don't have anything good to say... shut the frell up"
And in reference to the comment about foreign intelligence community picking up on potentially faked communications, I would like to point out that one has hardly enough time to analyze all of the information presented. I highly doubt that even the most skilled of intelligence experts would have an easy time simply listening to those recordings or glancing at those blurred satellite images and delcaring "Eureka! You son of a bush! You doctored those!
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
Besides, even if parts of the evidence are found to be faked, there is very little reason for any party to make that fact public. Save for those parties that won't be believed anyway.
What worries me more is the sudden jump from "He defied 1441" to "Thus, war it is". That's not what 1441 says, AFAIK.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
If by total victory you mean a case for futher inspections then yes Powell won. Chapter 10 of 1441 says that friendly nations are requested to provide this evidence to UN inspectors. One has to wonder why this evidence was not supplied to the inspectors when needed. Powell claims that Iraqis are moving stuff before the UN inspectors are getting there, well why not tell the inspectors to get over there instead of providing the evidence weeks or months later. This evidence will have to be checked out by the inspectors on the ground to confirm US intelligence. Already Dr. Blix is refuting some of this evidence. All this means is that the US government is finally living up to it's responsibilities under resolution 1441.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:...well why not tell the inspectors to get over there instead of providing the evidence weeks or months later...
Yes, why not, hmm?
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
It would have helped if the Bush people had been more up front from the begining. I suppose it could have endangered sources of information, but somehow I don't think we have many spies inside on this one.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Spy sattelites don't work that way, and you know it. That George Clooney movie? It lies.
True, but then, you've got dozens of spies up there in phased polar orbits that monitor every square inch of Iraq 24/7, not to mention a whole fleet of U2's and UAV's performing reconnaissance, so don't sell me this bullshit, m'kay?
Nobody said ICBM's. Ballistic missiles. With capabilities beyond what Saddam is allowed to have. This is a violation, plain and factual. Can they reach you? No. And apparently you're self-centered enough that that satisfies you.
The hell? I question the validity of Powell's presentation, material that will inevitably lead to the deaths of countless soldiers and civilians alike if acted upon, and YOU of all people have the insolence to call ME self-centered? You picked the wrong person to lecture, asshole.
Please. Fortunately, the other nations' intelligence services know more about faking communications than you do. If it was fake, their intel people (especially France's) would jump all over it in a nanosecond. You, on the other hand, have all your intel data from an episode of a SF series, can be expected to know better than they?
I know that faking communiques is child's play with modern hardware, and that these were laid on so thick there's no condition I'm buying into them.
I know who the fake is here. I'm responding to him right now.
Amusing. One could say the same for the credulous such as yourself.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Oh, and Powell's speech on humanitarian violations? As long as the US doesn't sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he's a HYPOCRITE, plain and simple.
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
I suppose that if the US is going to war, then good luck to them. If they decide to wait then that's good too. Frankly I don't give a rat's arse anymore.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Oh, and Powell's speech on humanitarian violations? As long as the US doesn't sign the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he's a HYPOCRITE, plain and simple.
Does not follow.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"What worries me more is the sudden jump from 'He defied 1441' to 'Thus, war it is'. That's not what 1441 says, AFAIK."
True. According to the resolution:
"The Security Council,
"4. Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraq�s obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below;
"11. Directs the Executive Chairman of UNMOVIC and the Director-General of the IAEA to report immediately to the Council any interference by Iraq with inspection activities, as well as any failure by Iraq to comply with its disarmament obligations, including its obligations regarding inspections under this resolution;
"12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;"
In other words, the immediate response to a report of non-compliance by Iraq is for the UN to meet and decide what to do, not a declaration of war.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Right. Upon reciept, the UN will meet and discuss international tiddlywinks rules.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Originally posted by E. Cartman: I know that faking communiques is child's play with modern hardware, and that these were laid on so thick there's no condition I'm buying into them.
It is very likely that the images were "fuzzed" because the event was being televised.
It is also likely that considerably less "fuzzed" materials were given to the delegates privately.
Keep in mind that Powell's public speech was not the only presentation he made that day.
As to what can be defined and agreed-upon as a chemical truck vs., say, a pizza truck... the various intelligence agencies have more expertise than we do at that. Enough so that any attempted deception by US would be uncovered very quickly. (though a nanosecond was probably an overestimation.)
If you haven't heard anything to the contrary from anybody else's intel services, especially those of countries that do NOT back the war, by the time the inspectors report again (2/14), they're almost certainly authentic.
[ February 06, 2003, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: First of Two ]
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Citing the British dossier, entitled Iraq - its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation in front of a worldwide television audience Mr Powell said: "I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that the United Kingdom distributed... which describes in exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities."
***
But on Channel 4 News last night it was revealed that four of the report's 19 pages had been copied - with only minor editing and a few insertions - from the internet version of an article by Ibrahim al-Marashi which appeared in the Middle East Review of International Affairs last September.
***
The content of six more pages relies heavily on articles by Sean Boyne and Ken Gause that appeared in Jane's Intelligence Review in 1997 and last November. None of these sources is acknowledged.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Our government, not being entirely honest?!? get away.
Actually, even more amusing is No. 10's persistant assurances that the whole thing is genuine. oh, and we know the Iraq thing is serious now- the BBC has a logo for it .
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:Recently, I asked two former C.I.A. directors, James Woolsey and Robert Gates, to talk about the problem of analyzing an incomplete set of evidence�the same challenge that stymied intelligence analysts in the days before December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001.
Woolsey, who served as President Clinton's first C.I.A. director, said that it is now illogical to doubt the notion that Saddam collaborates with Islamist terrorism, and that he would provide chemical or biological weapons to Al Qaeda. "At Salman Pak"�a training camp near Baghdad�"we know there were Islamist terrorists training to hijack airplanes in groups of four or five with short knives," Woolsey told me. "I mean, hello? If we had seen after December 7, 1941, a fake American battleship in a lake in northern Italy, and a group of Asian pilots training there, would we have said, 'Well, you can't prove that they were Japanese'
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Gee, if only they'd PAID ATTENTION to those reports back then, instead of only now lumping together anyone who might ever fall into one of the following groups:
a) Have brown skins, b) Be Muslim, c) Carry knives, d) Want to hijack a plane at some point in the future.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
No comment!!!!!!
Forget Iraq! Why am I the only one to think that North Korea is the real problem?? And in contrast to Iraq, North Korea has Nukes!! Unfortunately it hasn't got any oil or other valuable resources, and it doesn't threaten poor innocent - Palestinian-slaughtering - Israel!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
And for those reasons, the UN isn't paying any attention to North Korea, and is instead demanding the US handle it.
A double standard so obvious Ray Charles could see it.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
mostly because the Bush administration has been instigating the NK situation and the international community sees that..
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
How do you "instigate" something by requiring that a country hold itself to the treaty it agreed to?
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
we set a great example by pulling out of the treaties we agreed to.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
By issuing a policy document from the State Department in September 2002 which tries to justify the principles of preemptive strikes. Now, if your country has been singled out by the most powerful country in the world, wouldn't you get worried?
I'm not justifying North Korea's actions, but at the same time, it really looks like the US was announcing that it would attack anyone it wants to. That would sure get ME worried...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
You'll have to point out the part of that that refers to North Korea.
You'll also have to try to make a valid comparison between withdrawing from a treaty, in which a country gives due notice of its intend long before the treaty is withdrawn from, (example: The US and the BMD agreement) and abrogating a treaty, wherein a country simply ignores the treaty it negotiated and does whatever the hell it wants to from the get-go (example: The North Koreans and the WMD/energy treaty.)
Of course, if you fail to see the difference, I don't hold out much hope for you.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: You'll have to point out the part of that that refers to North Korea.
Whoops, sorry. I was talking about the part on PDF page 19... which is where they start talking about preemptive strikes and other options.
quote:You'll also have to try to make a valid comparison between withdrawing from a treaty, in which a country gives due notice of its intend long before the treaty is withdrawn from, (example: The US and the BMD agreement) and abrogating a treaty, wherein a country simply ignores the treaty it negotiated and does whatever the hell it wants to from the get-go (example: The North Koreans and the WMD/energy treaty.)
Oh, I agree completely... as I said, I'm not approving of what they're doing at all. Just interpreting what they're probably thinking...
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
quote: we set a great example by pulling out of the treaties we agreed to.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)