1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Did Colin Powell Convince You ?

Discussion in 'The OT' started by Frapp, Feb 5, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Feb 5, 2003 #1 of 32
    Frapp

    Frapp Icon

    524
    0
    Apr 23, 2002
    :us:

    Mr. Powell seemed to have some interesting photographs as well as recordings that he released today.

    He basically confirmed what many of us suspected has been going on in Iraq.

    Did he convince you ?
     
  2. Feb 5, 2003 #2 of 32
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,906
    209
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    I was already 'convinced' before General Powell addressed the U.N. What's more important, are the members of the U.N. Security Council convinced?
     
  3. Feb 5, 2003 #3 of 32
    platinum

    platinum Godfather/Supporter

    334
    2
    Oct 28, 2002
    Yes, those recordings are pretty good proof of what we already know, that Saddam is a lying tyrant with WMD.
     
  4. Feb 5, 2003 #4 of 32
    firephoto

    firephoto Icon

    863
    0
    Sep 12, 2002
    I would also say that I was already convinced and Colin Powell's presentation just reaffirmed what I had already concluded.

    The information presented was excellent, but it leaves me with the feeling that they know so much more. I hope the UN gets this feeling also, but if they don't then they can fade away into history due to their lack of action.
     
  5. Feb 5, 2003 #5 of 32
    Steve Mehs

    Steve Mehs Hall Of Fame

    11,498
    5
    Mar 21, 2002
    As others said, I was also already convinced, but his address to the UN helped back it up and set it in stone. I'm lucky enough not to have any clases from 10:10A to 12:20P so I got to watch his whole presentation along with the reactions from other nations.
     
  6. Feb 5, 2003 #6 of 32
    Jasonbp

    Jasonbp Godfather

    334
    0
    Jun 17, 2002
    I didn't see the hole thing (only about 30 minutes) but from what I saw I am now convinced.
     
  7. Feb 5, 2003 #7 of 32
    STXJim

    STXJim Legend in my own mind

    552
    0
    Apr 22, 2002
    I saw about 45min before I had to go to work.
    I was convienced.........
    PLEASE...let's settle this without a war!
     
  8. Feb 6, 2003 #8 of 32
    Nick

    Nick Retired, part-time PITA DBSTalk Club

    21,906
    209
    Apr 23, 2002
    The...
    "PLEASE...let's settle this without a war!"

    THAT is up to Saddamn. All the SOB has to do is 'fess up.
     
  9. Feb 6, 2003 #9 of 32
    bunkers

    bunkers Legend

    190
    0
    Dec 16, 2002
    I was convinced before and especially now. I read all 22 pages on the way home from work today. Its incredibly damning -- and remarkably, its only a fraction of the goods we have on them.

    What are we waiting for? Get those inspectors outta there, leave the hollywood elite and Mandella and lets go. Time to stop being so damn P.C. with the UN and just do whats right. Did anyone on the street here give a crap when Russia was over stomping on afghanistan against the will of the UN? They WERE trying to takeover the country -- this is (in my honest opinion) going to be a liberation of the Iraqi people. Yes, the followup will be long and difficult, but its necessary, unfortunately, IMHO.

    Folks, record the "the real saddam" show on discover -- and you'll really discover how awful this guy is. Iraq is basically a more civilized, more developed country -- being run by a regime much like the taliban and enforced via. terror on a daily basis. THe truth will never be known till he and his regime (and family and top coherts) are no longer

    Any of these reluctant UN security councel nations that don't back the US in a couple weeks can blame Saddam and not the US.
    They'll all be there in the end, you'll see. Its just posturing still. If Germany or France isn't there in the end, they'll have more to loose than the US. We don't need their military help, just there blessing and cooperation. Its amazing how thankless some of these european countries are, considering ~50ish years back we saved their a$$es from hitler and then rebuilt Europe after WWII with our own money.

    It just so "happens" that the existing oil deals in Iraq are signed between France and Iraq and Russia and Iraq -- and if the regime ends, those contracts will be drawn up again. Wah wah -- poor little France and Iraq might have to compete with the rest of the world on rights to the Iraqi oil fields -- and who will buy our 2nd rate planes, tanks and arms after Saddam is gone?

    The US may not be doing it for oil (or oil as the primary reason), but France and Russia most definately ARE dragging their feet because of the oil contracts -- and saying how they care so much -- those two faced bastards.
     
  10. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    I didn't see the speech, it came on at 5am here.:nono: But I of course have seen highlights all day long. The general concensus of the pundits is that it was powerful and presented much new information(finally!). It would appear that its significance was deliberately downplayed probably so it would have more impact and not be a letdown. The strategy seems to have been wildly successful.

    So what did we learn today? Saddam's a slippery bastard who probably still has some WMDs and is STILL trying to hide them from inspectors? Yeah, but we all suspected that anyway. It's no big surprise. The connections to al Qaida? That's certainly interesting but it also seems to be the most tenuous and least verifiable coming AFAIK almost exclusively from prisoners at Camp Zero. There may very well be some truth to it, they're both our enemies after all, but after a year in a wire cage, one is probably willing to tell one's captors anything they want to hear. The training camp identified is in the Kurdish north only under nominal control of Saddam. The implication is that Saddam has a "representative" there. And here's a question. If we have positively identified this camp, why haven't we already bombed the crap out of it? We'd do it just about anywhere else we thought al Qaida was training their goons. We control the skies there and bomb something about once a week anyway. Nobody would say boo about it if we can show it's what we say it is. Wiping out al Qaida wherever they are IS an issue of our own personal national security. We don't need permission from anyone to go after them. I don't understand it. Once again bin Laden & Co. seems to be taking a back seat to Hussein Ltd.

    France, Germany and Russia understand Saddam's no choir boy. And yes, somewhere mixed in is probably economic and/or national interests they're not advertising. But if you think we're pushing military action strictly to make the world safe for democracy, you really should get out more often. The bottom line is that they're arguing against war, "those two faced bastards". And last time I checked, war is not good for children and other living things.

    Here's the situation. Saddam is isolated and boxed in. The chances of him using the WMDs he has hidden or is maybe producing in "mobile labs" is slim and none, unless he is attacked. At this point his prime motivation is to survive and whatever WMDs he may have will be used to that end. And I suspect if he realizes all is lost, his final act of vengence will be to try and transfer any WMDs that remain to anti-American terrorists. Does any of the above paragraph sound terrifically unreasonable to anybody?

    Now we come to the useless, irrelevent, chicken-hearted UN. But let me get this straight. Wasn't the Gulf War fought under the auspices of the UN? Aren't the resolutions broken by Saddam we are citing as justification for the upcoming war UNresolutions? Wasn't the current UN resolution(1441 is it?) passed unanimously by the UN Security Council?

    So it seems the UN is handy as long as they do exactly what we want them to do, and the UN is stupid, worthless and anti-American whenever they DON'T do exactly what we want them to do. Ya think somebody could use an "arrogance check" here? And I'm not talking about the French or "old Europe".

    One of the main functions of the UN is to try and prevent wars. It's probably the major reason they exist. Some of its members consider a country who hasn't shown the least inclination or ability to start a war with anybody for at least ten years, and has international inspectors on the ground in an effort to insure this situation doesn't change, is not an immediate threat to anyone.

    The next few weeks should be interesting. After some diplomatic footsie, I assume the next step is to introduce a resolution for military action, possibly Britain will be our frontman. I suspect after lots of wrangling and behind the scenes arm twisting it will pass, maybe with some abstentions. Nobody is really going to stand in our way because pragmatically they know Saddam is toast and they have much more to lose by opposing US too strongly. I think many have legitimate concerns of the aftermath, a religious WWIII being the worst case scenario. But even then, France, Germany and Russia realize which is their default side and who is likely to win, if anyone can be considered to win.
     
  11. Dgenx321

    Dgenx321 Legend

    212
    0
    Jan 1, 2003
    I'm saying 3 weeks before the first bomb drops. We just proved to the world that Saddam is lieing to the UN and if France wants to sit by thats fine, they sat by in WWII too.
     
  12. John Corn

    John Corn Hall Of Fame

    5,046
    0
    Mar 21, 2002
    Surprisingly conclusive. Then again, I wasn't expecting anything new at all because of intelligence concerns, and I certainly wasn't expecting outlining the ties with terrorism. Kind of a speech for everyone.

    Most surprising to me was Straw's equating the UN with the same situation the League of Nations was faced with and which ultimately condemned it to irrelevance. I wouldn't have expected that kind of introspection from the British adminstration.

    Although now that North Korea has fired up its nuclear reactors, I still maintain it should have been priority #1. I get the feeling the intransigence of the UN has delayed us from dealing with that issue.
     
  13. scooper

    scooper Hall Of Fame

    6,434
    59
    Apr 22, 2002
    Youngsville NC
    I beleive North Korea is being dealt with - it's just that we can't show it in public. If you see a big spat between China and North Korea, you'll know it didn't work out.
     
  14. Karl Foster

    Karl Foster Hall Of Fame

    1,849
    0
    Mar 23, 2002
    Why does the American press put so much credence on what France says. If I remember correctly from history, France has been overrun twice in 40 years by their neighbor who amassed a huge army on their border. They didn't even have the foresight to protect themselves when they had to. Why should we take military advice from them as to when it is appropriate to act. Thousands of American, British, and Canadian men died to liberate their country, as they didn't have the ability to prevent being attacked themselves.
     
  15. Mark Lamutt

    Mark Lamutt Your Neighborhood Liasion

    12,527
    3
    Mar 23, 2002
    Yes, the above paragraph does seem unreasonable to me, and here's why. Saddam is isolated and boxed in. That alone makes him much more likely to use whatever WMDs he has stored and is manufacturing. He is trapped with no escape, and he knows it. He cannot give in US or UN demands. In his mind he is religiously and morally obligated to see this through to the end even though he knows that he can't win. So, knowing that he cannot prevail, he is going to take out as much of the enemy as he can before the end. And the way to maximize enemy casualties is to use your WMDs. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if he didn't launch some kind of first strike initiative here soon before the UN resolves to do anything. The man's insane, but he's also very much like a wild animal - corner them and they lash out attacking because that's their only option.
     
  16. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Sure, he's an unpredictable, dangerous, insane prick. We knew that when we were advising him how to win his war with Iran, and we know it all the better now. I don't think anyone here has ever disputed that. And right now he's one nervous, unpredictable, dangerous, insane prick. He's a survivor though(what? Five Presidents?) and probably still thinks he can survive this latest "mother of all confrontations".

    Using your wild animal analogy though, he's not only cornered, he's cornered in an iron cage with a howitzer laser locked on his balls. And he's got to keep moving just to keep from being declawed by the inspectors. Your fear is that he's going to reach through the bars and take a swipe at us. That's remedied easy enough. Don't get too close to the damn cage. Instead, your solution is that we get in the cage with him. My fear is that once we get in that cage, even if we dispatch the wild animal(and that might not be quite as easy as we imagine), we might get trapped ourselves and have to fight our way out, and there's where we stand the best chance of being mauled.

    Saddam may be insane, but he's not crazy. The way to survive is NOT to lash out at US or Israel or Kuwait, or anybody for that matter. He might as well put the gun to his temple and pull the trigger himself. I think he won't do that. That virtually eliminates any chance of survival. But if we attack and he knows it's curtains, just like the wild animal he will fight to the bitter end using every means at his disposal to delay the inevitable.
     
  17. Richard King

    Richard King Hall Of Fame

    21,331
    1
    Mar 25, 2002
    The way for him to survive is to simply do what he is doing, developing WMD's and passing them on to others to do his dirty work. I think we will find much of this kind of thing has been going on in the past and will get much worse as time marches on if he is not eliminated in some way.
     
  18. Mark Lamutt

    Mark Lamutt Your Neighborhood Liasion

    12,527
    3
    Mar 23, 2002


    jonstad, on this we are in complete agreement.

    I despise the idea of war, even if I happen to think that we're right. But I also don't think that the solution to the problem is to "not get so close to the damn cage" - that's too close a position (in my mind) to "if we ignore him he'll go away". All I know for sure is that there isn't a good solution to this problem.
     
  19. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    How long has he had these WMDs? Since before Gulf I, right? How long has Osama & al Qaida been around? At least since the first WTC attack in '93 with roots back to the the Soviet/Afgan war, correct? In all that time how many chemical, biological or radiological terrorist attacks has Al Qaida or any terrorist groups carried out? Unless you're going to try and "connect the dots" to a blind Japanese guru or a few white powder letters sent to Democratic leaders and the National Inquirer, the total is NONE!

    The weapon of choice for 9/11 was 757s and 767s. I'm sure Osama and the boys got a few chuckles out of the anthrax thing but it don't seem their style and the FBI's prime suspect is a mid-level researcher at some government lab. I'm not saying these creeps wouldn't like to spread a little sarin or small pox around Seattle or Detroit but delivery is a real bitch. No one has ever really gotten it right. Half the time the wind changes and you end up gassing yourself. It's not reliable, it's hard to handle, and it's difficult and complicated to distribute effectively. I suspect terrorists will stick with what's simple and what they know works, kerosene/fertilizer and maybe jet fuel, although the latter is going to be a lot harder to pull off now that we're on to it.

    We can't base our criteria for war on "if A, if B, if C, then maybe D!" We're going to have to go to war with everyone. If Saddam has WMDs, and if he's buddy buddy with terrorists, and if he's willing to train and supply them with his WMDs, and if the terrorists decide they're viable terror mechanisms, them MAYBE terrorists are going to attack us with WMDs. Right now we're ready to go to war on "probably A".
     
  20. jonstad

    jonstad Hall Of Fame

    6,001
    1
    Jun 27, 2002
    Well we've never been far from the cage. Even the antichrist Clinton didn't go more then a few weeks during either term without blowing up something in Iraq and took a few serious whacks at Baghdad along the way. He's never been ignored and he knows it. Sure, it's hard to tell what Saddam will do. He's no military or tactical genius that's for sure. But his strategy has always been to survive. It would be a direct violation of that strategy to lash out before he's invaded, especially with WMDs. And I'll tell you this. If we invade, more then a few in the Muslim world will consider him justified if he does use them.

    You're right. There are no good solutions. I'm afraid though we've chosen the traditional easy answer, war. And while the war itself may be easy, as wars go, I have no idea what's going to happen afterwards. And apparantly, neither does George Bush. At least he's not seen fit to let us know what's going to happen.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page