Powell Giving Speech To UN

KLAX · Thu Feb 06, 2003 1:00 am

Colin Powell is currently presenting some very interesting evidence to the UN at the moment, I am watching live on CNN.

-Clovis

KAUSpilot · Thu Feb 06, 2003 3:12 am

From what I heard the recorded conversations were pretty incriminating, but I think everyone with any sense already knew the kind of games Saddam was playing. At least now Saddam's supporters (France, Russia) have been confronted with raw evidence rather than assertions and inference.

The UN/US will probably give Saddam a few more weeks to shape up or else it's showtime.....

artsyman · Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:12 am

Germany have stated that no matter what evidence is shown, they will not support war against IRAQ. So basically, Powell could show photo's of Saddam riding a nuclear missile and Germany is staying out of it.

Jeremy

manni · Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:34 am

...or else it's showtime...

And thats' where it's all about, isn't it? Show. Maybe it's a show for you, sitting in front of your TV. But for millions of others it is the hard reality. Enjoy yourself.

.

KAUSpilot · Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:38 am

Who crapped in your pancakes manni? Time to turn off your computer and get back to the peace rally.

N79969 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:38 am

If your head is buried in the sand, your ass can be kicked pretty easily.

I think Powell has laid the case out and now the world has to decide what it wants to do:

a. Make existing UN resolutions worth less than the paper they are printed on
b. Enforce its own resolutions.

I am sure the war will take a toll on the 150,000 Belgians that are surrounding Iraq.

FDXmech · Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:40 am

>>>Germany have stated that no matter what evidence is shown, they will not support war against IRAQ.<<<

So hypothetically, if the UN authorized the use of force to compell Iraq to disarm and Germany didn't support the effort (in whatever capacity) , would that make Germany anti-UN and a unilateralist nation?

NoUFO · Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:44 am

Germany have stated that no matter what evidence is shown, they will not support war against IRAQ. So basically, Powell could show photo's of Saddam riding a nuclear missile and Germany is staying out of it.

Yeah, I wonder why our chancellor supports the continuation of inspections in Iraq. So far, he doesn't seem to be interested in any outcome.

NoUFO

N79969 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:44 am

FDXMech,

I think so. You are onto something.

Staffan · Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:48 am

Where has Germany stated that?

Staffan

I LOVE EWR · Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:48 am

I am sick of the Bull$h** politicing going on in the UN. If a country (France/Germany) are against the war, well then they should shut up and let the United States and the rest of the countries handle Sadamm our way.

Oops I forgot France doesn't want a new regime in Iraq due to the fact that they are the only Western Country to have economic ties to Iraq today...my bad.

NoUFO · Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:50 am

would that make Germany anti-UN and a unilateralist nation?

"Anti-UN" may be a bit too strong but overall: yes - that's why I dislike this categorical 'No'. Minister Fischer obviously doesn't feel comfortable with it, too but his sphere of influence is limited.

NoUFO

777236ER · Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:51 am

The big problems a lot of people have with a war are:

1. What's the reason? He's not a particular threat. Removing him won't make anything safer. Al Quada showed that danger doesn't have to come from a country and a leader.

2. Why ignore other problems, like North Korea and Zimbabwe?

Oops I forgot France doesn't want a new regime in Iraq due to the fact that they are the only Western Country to have economic ties to Iraq today...my bad

Oh please! How much money did US companies make by selling arms to Iraq? Don't be fucking stupid.

N79969 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 4:56 am

-236ER,

France did business with Iraq before and after the Gulf War. France was arming Saddam for years before the Gulf War with Exocet missles and what not.

France loses money if Saddam goes.

747-451 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:01 am

"Oops I forgot France doesn't want a new regime in Iraq due to the fact that they are the only Western Country to have economic ties to Iraq today...my bad"

Oh please! How much money did French/German companies make by selling arms, chemicals, technology, cars, trucks, oil equipment to Iraq? Don't be f**** stupid....

"Why ignore other problems, like North Korea and Zimbabwe?"

Oh, so you want the US to worry about that too? Make up your mind either you want the Us to do something or nothing...and by the way, where are France and Germany mediating these disputes..you know they are world powers to, or so they would lead us to believe...

"What's the reason? He's not a particular threat. Removing him won't make anything safer. Al Quada showed that danger doesn't have to come from a country and a leader."

No but with Iraq out of the way there wont be a producer of weapons and a safe haven for terrorists....duh.

N79969 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:04 am

That's what I am waiting for...for Germany and France to take the lead on enforcing for the UN.

N79969 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:04 am

Since Chirac invited Mugabe to Paris, maybe he should take the lead dealing with that country.

777236ER · Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:05 am

747-451, safe haven for terrorists? Uh...I think you'll find that's most countries. How long were the September 11th hijackers in the US for?

If you can say that France doesn't want a war because it'll loose money, then I can say that the US wants a war because the arms manufacturers get to build lots of shiny new guns.

LHMark · Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:11 am

There's a difference between allowing people from another country to settle and live what seems to be a happy life in your land (like the hijackers in the US) and sponsoring people from another country with weaponry, money, asylum, or ideology (like alleged activity between Baghdad and Al-Qaida.

N79969 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:22 am

-236ER,

Despite all the idiotic myths making their way around Europe, the US has never started a war to promote the arms industry. We sell stuff just like Europe and Japan.

France has oil deals with Saddam and the next Iraqi government may not want to pay bills that Saddam ran up.

You can say what you want but it will be invalid.

FDXmech · Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:30 am

>>>Al Quada showed that danger doesn't have to come from a country and a leader.

Yes, but it doesn't mean it can't come from a country and a leader (eg. N.Korea, Iraq).

>>>What's the reason? He's not a particular threat.

He's not complying with U.N. resolutions to rid him nation of WMD.
Why doesn't he comply? What is his reason to retain his hidden stockpiles? Do you think his motivations are for the good of mankind? Do you think it's in our best interest to resolve this situation later rather than sooner. Later might mean contending with an Iraq with a nuclear weapon or proliferation of his other WMD to terrorist groups.

You might respond there is no hard link or any link at this juncture to prove this. Well first of all, how would you know he didn't/won't proliferate these weapons, with any certainty? Are you putting your mindset into a tyrant? And even if he didn't, yet, will the world now have to live with the nagging fear that their wellbeing is now in the hands of Saddam's whims.

I've read posts in long ago topics how the U.S. didn't involve itself into WW2 until the world was well into this tragedy, and might never have gotten in if Japan didn't attack and Germany didn't declare war on us first.

And they are right.

Yet it wasn't because FDR was ignorant, he was most certainly not, his hands were basically tied.
It was because (over-simplification coming) the American public wanted nothing to do with a conflict they felt was someone elses fight and didn't pose an immediate threat to them. And the congress, in tune with the public, put severe limits on anything that could be construed as non-neutral.
And the world burned.

I see striking parallels.

777236ER · Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:47 am

Despite all the idiotic myths making their way around Europe, the US has never started a war to promote the arms industry. We sell stuff just like Europe and Japan.

Yet.....

France has oil deals with Saddam and the next Iraqi government may not want to pay bills that Saddam ran up.

You can say what you want but it will be invalid.

I can quite easily say "It would help Boeing, Lockheed and all the arms companies for the US to go to war, and it would definatly help Bush as it would distract the population from affairs at home.

You can say what you want but it will be invalid."

If you can be cynical, why can't the rest of us?

KLAX · Thu Feb 06, 2003 5:55 am

Yeah, not our fault that France enjoys doing buisness with ruthless dictators, even inviting them to the Elysee for lunch from time to time.
It is about oil. On BOTH sides of the Atlantic.

Powell gave clear evidence that Iraq is not fullfilling the requirements set foward by the resolution. The consequence was supposed to be disarmament by force (i.e. military intervention). But hey, I guess that has changed... Insane

-Clovis

747-451 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 6:05 am

"747-451, safe haven for terrorists? Uh...I think you'll find that's most countries. How long were the September 11th hijackers in the US for?"

certainly not for decades, like in Iraq. Secondly groups like Islamic Jihad, hizballa etc. have had operations in Iraq for quite a while.

http://library.nps.navy.mil/home/tgp/tgpndx.htm

"If you can say that France doesn't want a war because it'll loose money, then I can say that the US wants a war because the arms manufacturers get to build lots of shiny new guns"

No, the US is enforcing UN1441. Secondly, the arms business isn't as lucrative as the chemicals, technology, cars, trucks, power equipment business they do with Iraq...Actually, the French and Germans are being stupid, since BASF, Aventis, Rhone Poulenc, TotalFina, Hoecshtetc etc will bebefit even more from an SH free Iraq....since they are so much into whoring themselves for moolah.

manni · Thu Feb 06, 2003 6:27 am

'...I'm sure the war on will take a toll on the 150000 Belgians that are surrounding Iraq..'

Your not well informed N79969, as far as I know, none of my countrymen are going to take part in the upcoming massmurders in Iraq. But you already knew that, and seams to be proud that your countrymen will do the job. If that makes you happy, so let it be.

Talking about peace rallys KAUSpilot, apparently a large crowd of pacifist threw stones at the US army in the port of Antwerp. Very humiliating for the US troops who are transporting military goods from Germany to the Gulf via Antwerp.

N79969 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 6:27 am

I don't really regard myself as a cynic. This war will not help Bush at home.

777236ER · Thu Feb 06, 2003 6:29 am

It won't? Without the war you honestly don't think everyone would be focusing more on the crapedout economy and big business scandles?

Stratofish · Thu Feb 06, 2003 6:29 am

unilateral, anti UN

... you sure you don´t have these sunglasses on with the mirrored side facing you???

Stratofish

N79969 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 6:39 am

-236ER,

Again you confuse cynicism with insight. The majority of American people are not for war. It is unpopular and his ratings are falling because of it.

The bottom line is that Saddam is a threat to peace. The lesson of 9/11 is that a cave-dweller with a satellite-phone, a mere $400,000, and 19 willing individuals can execute mass murder and mass destruction.

If we look beyond our noses, we can see the next threat: a megalomaniac that has used WMD on his own people and is aggressively trying to get a nuke.

A war and resultant terrorist retaliation has the potential to wreck our economy and financial markets. That will make Bush real popular.

I am not completely convinced that US should take on the risks of preemptive war on its own. But I repeat...This potential war is not an oil grab, an electoral ploy, a gift to defense contractors, or anything else like it.

777236ER · Thu Feb 06, 2003 6:43 am

The lesson of 9/11 is that a cave-dweller with a satellite-phone, a mere $400,000, and 19 willing individuals can execute mass murder and mass destruction.

Exactly. Getting rid of Iraq will not solve this and if anything will cause more hate in Arab countries against the US.

If we look beyond our noses, we can see the next threat: a megalomaniac that has used WMD on his own people and is aggressively trying to get a nuke.

North Korea? We're talking about Iraq here.

A war and resultant terrorist retaliation has the potential to wreck our economy and financial markets. That will make Bush real popular.

The economy and financial markets are already wrecked. At least this gives Bush an excuse.

But I repeat...This potential war is not an oil grab, an electoral ploy, a gift to defense contractors, or anything else like it.

So if you can repeat that, how come no one else can say that France and Germany aren't just against war for the money? Don't be hypocritical.

N766UA · Thu Feb 06, 2003 6:51 am

Bush is doing what he knows is best for the US in the long run, regardless of the peronal toll. Clinton would bomb a few SAM sites, say he fought Iraq, and go back to trying to win popular approval. It helps him, but hey, he's a selfish kinda guy.

FDXmech · Thu Feb 06, 2003 6:55 am

...you sure you don´t have these sunglasses on with the mirrored side facing you???

Stratofish, I posed a rhetorical question. If the U.S. went to war without the sanction of the UN, is that equivalent to Germany not backing the UN if it decided in favor of it? I made no accusation, and apologize for the confusion.

>>>Without the war you honestly don't think everyone would be focusing more on the crapedout economy and big business scandles?s.<<<

That's a very weak and overused argument in favor of not going to war. Do you think Mr Blair is using a possible conflict to increase his popularity? To the best of my knowledge, no. He's probably sticking his neck out 14 feet to do the right, albeit, very unpopular thing, exhibiting leadership on a critical and explosive issue. Same with Mr Bush.

And if anything (for the cynics), the uncertainty of a looming war is not helping the market.

N79969 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 6:58 am

Getting rid of Saddam will get rid one potential supplier of WMD to next terrorist group. He has stockpiles of VX, botulin, anthrax, and other stuff documented by the UN. Getting rid of Saddam and rebuilding Iraq with a more democratic regime might have unexpected positive consequences in the Arab world. Everyone keeps assuming that because Saddam did not take part in 9/11 that he will not help in the next one. That is a very expensive bet potentially.

North Korea will not hesitate to destroy Seoul and Tokyo. There could be potentially millions dead in minutes. I suppose you think that the US should go ahead and roll the dice just for the sake of being consistent.

If you think the economy and markets are wrecked now, then you haven't seen nothing yet. The US is not even in an actual recession. The US economy is still growing albeit slowly. A war or a terrorist attack could cause tremendous economic damage to the world. That does not absolve the world of the responsibility of enforcing its own resolutions against Saddam. A Saddam-initiated war could be far, far worse.

Do I really think that France's opposition is based purely on their business dealings with Saddam? No, I actually don't. I think they oppose the war on their delusional belief that they are holding the grounds of moral superiority by opposing war initiated by the "Hyperpower." I think they are idiots. However their position is tainted by the fact that they have been dealing with Saddam while sanctions were in place.

N79969 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 7:03 am

And also tainted by the fact that a very large percentage of French and Germans assert the US is going to fight for oil. (business interests). It is a load of crap on both sides of the Atlantic.

N766UA · Thu Feb 06, 2003 7:07 am

Since when did the French have any say in what we do anyway? Oh yeah, let's take military advice from France. They only let Hitler waltz into their capital.

N79969 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 7:10 am

Two words: Maginot Line

777236ER · Thu Feb 06, 2003 7:11 am

Well of course, N766UA, the US shouldn't listen to anyone should it? Even Allies. We all know you're better than us anyway.

N79969 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 7:23 am

All facetiousness aside, I think the US is listening for an alternative to war from our allies that would actually get results in disarming Saddam. The silence is deafening. All we hear is bashing of the President and nothing of any substance like: 1. You supported him in the 80s 2. You want oil 3. It is a personal vendetta and so on.

travelin man · Thu Feb 06, 2003 7:25 am

I love the fact that everyone is calling the US a "warmongerer" when it was the US that got the inspectors back into Iraq in the first place. Without US pressure, who here thinks the inspectors would be back in Iraq? Anybody? Show of hands!

heavymetal · Thu Feb 06, 2003 7:30 am

Talking about peace rallys KAUSpilot, apparently a large crowd of pacifist threw stones at the US army in the port of Antwerp.

A 'stone throwing pacifist'? Gotcha.

They definately put the 'twerp' in Antwerp.

Thumper · Thu Feb 06, 2003 7:46 am

Again you confuse cynicism with insight. The majority of American people are not for war. It is unpopular and his ratings are falling because of it.
Latest poll taken today after Powell spoke show:
In favor of war with Iraq-75%
Against war-25%
Looks like America is going to replace all K-Marts and Wal-Marts in Iraq with Targets!

Illini_152 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 7:56 am

Talking about peace rallys KAUSpilot, apparently a large crowd of pacifist threw stones at the US army in the port of Antwerp.

I saw that too. Are they proud of themselves? Showing how brave they are, attacking men and women that are just doing their job and following orders. Knowing that these men and women of honor won't retaliate against their childish actions.

It is couragous to fight for one's ideals in the face of overwhelming superiority. It is not couragous to attack those that won't fight back. If they were my countrymen attacking allied troops, I would be ashamed of them, and of my country.

But you do what you want, that's just me.

--
Mike

Stratofish · Thu Feb 06, 2003 8:00 am

" Stratofish, I posed a rhetorical question. If the U.S. went to war without the sanction of the UN, is that equivalent to Germany not backing the UN if it decided in favor of it? I made no accusation, and apologize for the confusion."

Never mind, I wasn´t fingerpointing at you. Many others said kinda the same.
To your question:
Germany has made it clear it does not see an immediate threat coming from Iraq and does not suport military action unless it is proved completely necessary. However our foreign minister stated that Germany does back a war only with the mandate of the UN. So if the UN decides in favor of a war Germany will follow that, or possibly will abstain from voting.

tbar220 · Thu Feb 06, 2003 8:17 am

Manni,

You're kidding right? Pacifists throwing stones at a peace rally? That tops it all off. Yeah sure

N766UA · Thu Feb 06, 2003 8:34 am

No country should base it's actions on the opinions of others.

N766UA · Thu Feb 06, 2003 8:36 am

N79969: The nazis went right around the Maginot Line. It was a failure. Hence why the French aren't good strategists.

I LOVE EWR · Thu Feb 06, 2003 8:41 am

To further N766UA and N79969 history of France's Military Power let's take a look a their Military History...

Gallic Wars - Lost. In a war whose ending foreshadows the next 2000 years
of French history.

Hundred Years War - Mostly lost, saved at last by female schizophrenic who inadvertently creates The First Rule of French Warfare; "France's armies
are victorious only when not led by a Frenchman."

Italian Wars - Lost.

Wars of Religion - France goes 0-5-4 against the Huguenots

Thirty Years War - France is technically not a participant, but manages to
get invaded anyway. Claims a tie on the basis that eventually the other participants started ignoring her.

War of Devolution - Tied.

The Dutch War - Tied

War of the Augsburg League/King William's War/French and Indian War -
Lost,but claimed as a tie.

War of the Spanish Succession - Lost. The War also gave the French
their first taste of a Marlborough, which they have loved every since.

American Revolution - In a move that will become quite familiar to future
Americans, France claims a win even though the English colonists sawfar
more action. This is later known as "de Gaulle Syndrome", and leads
to the Second Rule of French Warfare; "France only wins when America does most of the fighting."

French Revolution - Won, primarily due the fact that the opponent was
also French.

The Napoleonic Wars - Lost. Temporary victories (remember the First Rule!)
due to leadership of a Corsican, who ended up being no match for a British footwear designer.

The Franco-Prussian War - Lost.

World War I - Tied and on the way to losing, France is saved by the
United States.

World War II - Lost. Conquered French liberated by the United States and Britain.

[Edited 2003-02-06 00:55:03]

N766UA · Thu Feb 06, 2003 8:47 am

Thank you, I LOVE EWR. To add to it, they aren't very good allies if they'll choose their own interests over that of their friend. They're in it for the oil contract, not for any real good. England is a true friend and ally, they share similar views and are willing to stick with us through thick and thin. Now that's a friend.

I LOVE EWR · Thu Feb 06, 2003 8:50 am

N766UA I agree England is a true ally.

BTW 70% thats right 70% of Americans feel that the evidence Powell gave to the UN is enough to attack Iraq without support from the UN.

kaitakfan · Thu Feb 06, 2003 10:19 am

Great post I LOVE EWR. Another reason I keep you solid on my respected user list! Always presenting great material.

Anyways, I really think its funny that the ones who called Americans close minded and ignorant over the issue in Iraq are now starting to become the ignorant and close minded fools! I am very pleased to see a 75% approval rate now for war! The facts are clear, the reasons are valid now. Saddam does not want to work things out with the UN, so fuck them! I fully support immediate action in Iraq.

In a post September 11th world, our nation has no need to really care for what others tell us is right. Strange how we still waist our time with the UN. But it should be clear that we have tried our hardest to work things out. Sadly things did not work on on account of Mr.Dipshit over in Iraq. To those who cant stand the notion of war, that's great you feel your nation is not in the line of fire. Our nation is.

Enough sitting back and being little girls like so many nations are doing now. Talk is getting the US nowhere with Iraq. Lets just see how a nice of a reaction we get after a wave of B-52's, and B-1's flying over Iraq with a FULL payload ready to be emptied on key targets.

"You shall become ministers of death, praying for war" ~ Sgt. Hartman,
Full Metal Jacket. AHMEN!!

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net