Did Powell damage his reputation for presenting crap in front of the UN? - Page 3

lord of the mark · February 6, 2003, 10:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Gatekeeper,

I They want this info to be passed to the weapons inspectors so they can verify it. This is what the US should be doing all along IMO.

.

The inspectors are supposed to verify that the Iraqis have established a death sentence for any scientist who cooperates with the inspectors?? How are they supposed to do that????

SlowwHand · February 6, 2003, 10:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Ahem.

You call that evidence, eh? Kinda thin don't you think? A bunch of fuzzy photos with a piece of alleged recording between Iraqi military personnel.

Looks bad. Powell put his own reputation behind this, and that did him no good.

What do you think?

Start a new poll.
"Are Urban Ranger, Sava, and friends Blind As A Damned Bat ?"

lord of the mark · February 6, 2003, 10:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I saw tonight on TV that Powell used a Taliban terrorist group in North Eastern Iraq which I have mentioned on this forum as evidence of Saddam's links with terrorism.

First off, this group is operating in an area Saddam does not control (against the Kurds). Second, its supported by Iran. Third, its leader hates Saddam Hussein, is in exile in Holland and trying to overthrow him.

*shakes head* This information is in the public domain.

The group is al ansar.

AL ansar controls al ansar territory - The pro-US kurds do not.

Iran has supported them in the past - so? both iraq and Iran have supported Hamas as well.

Al ansar has not any time lately attempted to overthrow Saddam. They mainly fight against the secular, pro-US kurds, who are Saddams enemies. There is evidence that Al ansar has close links to Iraqi intelligence.

Krekar, who has been bouncing back and forth between holland and Norway, does deny links to Iraq. But then he also denies links to Al qaeeda, so hes not particularkly credible.

Hope this helps

lord of the mark · February 6, 2003, 10:32

Either Saddam is in material breech of UNSC 1441, or Colin Powell is a flat out total lier, a bigger lier by far than Bill Clinton, the biggest lier since Richard Nixon, at least. There aint no middle ground.

Iraq says he did lie outright.

The French, Russians, etc have not. Instead they simply state that inspections should go, tripled in number. IF what Powell said was true (and again this is not denied by France, Germany, or Russia) a tripled inspection force will be no more effective than the current one.

lord of the mark · February 6, 2003, 10:33

Mary McGrory, liberal colomnist in the Washington Post, who was opposed to admin policy on Iraq up till now, states in the AM's column that Powell persuaded her.

SlowwHand · February 6, 2003, 10:39

So, as I said...

SlowwHand · February 6, 2003, 10:40

"You are in the courtroom of world opinion.... You have denied they exist, and I want to know if I understood you correctly.... I am prepared to wait for my answer until hell freezes over. And I am also prepared to present the evidence in this room!" - Adlai E Stevenson

Lefty Scaevola · February 6, 2003, 10:44

Quote:

Originally posted by paiktis22
and Oil is the main issue here of course.

Only to the Euroweenies, who, unlike the USA, get their oil from Iraq. Oil is not the reason for USA belligerence on Iraq, it is the reason for Euro appeasment.

SlowwHand · February 6, 2003, 10:50

I said elsewhere that the last report I read (yes, I read.

) that the USA gets a whopping 9% of our oil from Iraq.

I also said that piddling amount could be pumped in Texas alone.
A true statement, yet again.

Lefty Scaevola · February 6, 2003, 10:52

Last figure I saw in print for it was 2%

Imran Siddiqui · February 6, 2003, 11:00

Quote:

Maybe he'll think about it again after Dubya loses the next election.

IF. The way it looks now, Kerry (who is the front runner) would probably get trounced.

SlowwHand · February 6, 2003, 11:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
Last figure I saw in print for it was 2%

I would expect you to be more informed than me.

Well, hell. We can get that from Abilene.

SlowwHand · February 6, 2003, 11:08

And Imran, Kerry ain't bad. Just a little FYI.

DanS · February 6, 2003, 11:13

Last figure I saw in print for it was 2%

The 9% figure is more correct. It was at that level until about August 2002 and will likely revert to that figure after a war.

SlowwHand · February 6, 2003, 11:24

Woo-hoo! I was more righter than Lefty!

DuncanK · February 6, 2003, 12:07

The poll numbers are out to answer this question.

39 percent found him “very convincing” and 27 percent “fairly convincing.” Eight percent found him “not that convincing” and 3 percent said he was “not at all convincing.”

Yay Powell!

Willem · February 6, 2003, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
So explain to me this. Supposedly many hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died due to sanctions. Those sanctions are in place due to Saddam not fully cooperating with terms of the last cease fire.

Now the US led by Bush wants to put an end to the charade of the 'peace' with Iraq. OK. Maybe 10,000 people get wasted and then the sanctions end. What is that compared to the hundreds of thousands of dead due to the 'peace'?

Good point.

Willem · February 6, 2003, 13:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
I saw tonight on TV that Powell used a Taliban terrorist group in North Eastern Iraq which I have mentioned on this forum as evidence of Saddam's links with terrorism.

First off, this group is operating in an area Saddam does not control (against the Kurds). Second, its supported by Iran. Third, its leader hates Saddam Hussein, is in exile in Holland and trying to overthrow him.

*shakes head* This information is in the public domain.

The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation ran an article about that group recently and they had a photo that clearly showed the Iraqi official named by Powell standing next to the leader of the group. They both looked quite please with themselves.

Now possibly he was there only as an observer, but there is certainly some sort of connection going on. And no the photo wasn't supplied by the US, and the story had obviously been completed long before that official had been identified by Powell.

And you don't have your facts straight, the leader is living in Oslo, Norway. They had an interview with him there.

Willem · February 6, 2003, 13:41

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Either Saddam is in material breech of UNSC 1441, or Colin Powell is a flat out total lier, a bigger lier by far than Bill Clinton, the biggest lier since Richard Nixon, at least. There aint no middle ground.

Iraq says he did lie outright.

The French, Russians, etc have not. Instead they simply state that inspections should go, tripled in number. IF what Powell said was true (and again this is not denied by France, Germany, or Russia) a tripled inspection force will be no more effective than the current one.

Even the French are concerned about the evidence presented. They publicly stated that they'll be expecting some answers from Iraq soon.

Sava · February 6, 2003, 18:04

I don't think Powell is lying. I just think that he and the people around him are looking at what little evidence they have on Iraq and simply spinning it to say what they want it to. I heard that "intercept" that they played

. It sounds like an exchange of drugs between two stoners: (and I'm not quoting, I'm just giving an example of the type of talk they used)

"You got the stuff?"
"Yeah I got the stuff?"

It's so non-specific that they could be talking about their wives' vibrators. By no means do I think we should put American lives at risk and kill innocent Iraqis over that crap. And those aerial photos (as I mentioned before) were stupid. I could go up in a plane, take pictures of random buildings in the Southwestern deserts; and I bet the US "intelligence" agencies couldn't pick the Iraqi buildings out of a lineup.

And while Bush is distracting America with this whole Iraq thing, no one seems to notice how he's fleecing working Americans and stuffing the pockets of the rich.

lord of the mark · February 6, 2003, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
I don't think Powell is lying. I just think that he and the people around him are looking at what little evidence they have on Iraq and simply spinning it to say what they want it to. I heard that "intercept" that they played

. It sounds like an exchange of drugs between two stoners: (and I'm not quoting, I'm just giving an example of the type of talk they used)

"You got the stuff?"
"Yeah I got the stuff?"

It's so non-specific that they could be talking about their wives' vibrators. By no means do I think we should put American lives at risk and kill innocent Iraqis over that crap. And those aerial photos (as I mentioned before) were stupid. I could go up in a plane, take pictures of random buildings in the Southwestern deserts; and I bet the US "intelligence" agencies couldn't pick the Iraqi buildings out of a lineup.

And while Bush is distracting America with this whole Iraq thing, no one seems to notice how he's fleecing working Americans and stuffing the pockets of the rich.

"We have this modified vehicle. What do we say if one of them sees it?"

"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-Kindi Company?"

"What?"

"From Al-Kindi."

"I'll come to see you in the morning. I'm worried. You all have something left."

"We evacuated everything. We don't have

Does al kindi company make vibrators - no it makes chemicals. Why is worried about having something left? Who is the "one of them" Since he works at a chemical plant about to be inspected, doesnt it stand to reason that "they" are inspectors - and hes trying to hide something he doenst want the inspectors to see??
This isnt spin - its logic.

Sava · February 6, 2003, 18:43

LotM, it's un-specific crap. If this were a criminal investigation, this kind of crap would not be enough to get a warrant for pete's sake. And did it ever occur to you that Saddam might be playing the US intelligence agency? If some Iraqi generals are talking on the phone and the US picks up an intercept where they say:

"You have the super death ray laser?"

"Yes, we've got it aimed at Washington."

Are you going to believe them?

And with all the U2's and satelites watching that stupid country, why don't we have pictures of these "modified vehicles". I didn't realize modified vehicles could be launched like ICBMs and hit the US. OH GOD MODIFIED VEHICLES, I"M GOING TO HIDE UNDER THE BED NOW!

Alexander's Horse · February 6, 2003, 18:49

I'm going to get a satellite photo of my local sports oval and label the toilet block "chemical weapons laboratory", the dressing sheds "missile storage" and the oval "missile launching pad" and see if anyone can tell the difference.

Sava · February 6, 2003, 19:04

philippe666 · February 6, 2003, 19:08

Powel has a good reputation and i really think the evidence is real.
Lets defeat an man who gasses the kurds!

Willem · February 6, 2003, 19:18

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
And did it ever occur to you that Saddam might be playing the US intelligence agency? If some Iraqi generals are talking on the phone and the US picks up an intercept where they say:

"You have the super death ray laser?"

"Yes, we've got it aimed at Washington."

That is such a ludicrous statement! Do you really think they're stupid enough to do something like that. These aren't high school kids pulling some silly prank, these are calculating, devious men, who stand to lose their lives if the US gets the wrong idea. Get real!

Joseph · February 6, 2003, 21:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Gatekeeper
I think Colin Powell is a fine man and, no, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if a good deal of the rest of the planet decides the material he presented in regards to Iraq is moot. After all, the Iraqi response was so much more believable!

Gatekeeper

I want to see what he did not present. Now that is the golden ring.

Gatekeeper · February 6, 2003, 22:27

Quote:

Originally posted by Sava
And with all the U2's and satelites watching that stupid country, why don't we have pictures of these "modified vehicles".

Several things: One, the U2 spy plane requested for use by the U.N. inspectors has been denied by Iraq unless the United States and Britain agree to cease patrolling the no-fly zones while the U2 is in use. Apparently Iraq is afraid it will blow the U2 out of the sky while "defending" itself from those massive bomber raids the U.S. and Britain launch every day against schools and hospitals in the no-fly zones. Two, spy satellites are *not* geosynchronus, which means there are rather lengthy "windows" where there are no satellites over Iraq. Three, you try and identify a mobile truck carrying a lab of sorts on a busy roadway.

Quote:

I didn't realize modified vehicles could be launched like ICBMs and hit the US. OH GOD MODIFIED VEHICLES, I"M GOING TO HIDE UNDER THE BED NOW!

Hiding won't keep the body bags of U.S. and allied soldiers killed by said chemicals from coming home. Or their ashes, if they get taken out by a biological agent. You might express more concern about this if you had flesh and blood over yonder in that part of the world.

Gatekeeper

Gatekeeper · February 6, 2003, 22:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Joseph
I want to see what he did not present. Now that is the golden ring.

I doubt any of us have the proper security clearances.

Joseph · February 6, 2003, 23:20

You can have the clearances, but if you do not have the need to know, then tough luck.