posted
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.
-------------------- "and none of your usual boobery." M. Burns
Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- Sparky:: Think! Question Authority, Authoritatively. “Believe nothing of what you hear, and only half of what you see.” EMSparks
Shalamar: To save face, keep lower half shut.
Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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.
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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.
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
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.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Right. Upon reciept, the UN will meet and discuss international tiddlywinks rules.
-------------------- "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
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 ]
-------------------- "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
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
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 .
-------------------- "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
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'
-------------------- "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
posted
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.
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!
-------------------- 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
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
.![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
