Colin Powell's Latest Speech

[FiveB247]

Too Little too late? Iraq has tried to divide the UN?

If anyone hasn't noticed...the US has deploying troops, planes and other invasion instruments to the Middle East for a few months now (all throughout the UN discussions). Iraq did break 1441, yet the UN Security Councul hasn't approved such actions of invasion. It's to the point of absurdity where the US should have simply started bombing Iraq from the beginning to save themselves and others the rhetoric and pursuits of invasion and war.

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 3-5-03 @ 3:54 PM

[Death Metal Moe]

I agree for the 1st time with you Five. I don't know why the US and the many other nations that have agreed to help haven't just ignored the Impotant UN Security Council that will NEVER take action and just start what they want.

I hear that the hot ass summer that they're afraid of fighting in rapidly approaches. What are we waiting for? Fuck the UN and do what you need to Bush!

They have everything they need for days or weeks now and the Pro Inspection people just keep stalling and stalling. Just ignore them and do the right thing.

<IMG SRC="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=njdmmoe">
<A HREF="http://www.unhallowed.com">www.unhallowed.com</A>
<b>DEATH FACTION 4 LIFE!</b>
<A HREF="http://www.pub21.ezboard.com/bonaarmy">JOIN THE O&A ARMY!!!</A>

[HBox]

I agree. I may be against the war, but if we are going to go, we oughta just go now. The longer we wait the more dangerous it is for our troops and NO ONE wants that. Its not as if Bush is taking any of these inspections seriously anyway. Jesus Christ himself could say Iraq has no weapons and Bush still wouldn't believe.

[high fly]

I think we'll be attacking in the next 10 days.

"Sure I'm happy to see you; haven't you noticed that lump in my sock?"

[FiveB247]

I'm by no means for invasion. But it makes you wonder about where the intentions and agenda of US policy is. They keep kinda going along the side with the UN resolution and Security Council..but never leading the way. Constantly building up military in the Middle East and such...it's apparent and obvious they were planning on attack regardless of international approval or not. So when they go all the way to bring it out more into the light? Notions of unilateral actions, disregard for UN, etc... Seems to me like they had to sell the war to the US public. And even that wasn't completely successful. For our troops sake and the innocents...as well as for the sake of us here, it will be quick and painless. Hopefully it won't turn ugly and create more unstabality and unrest in the Middle East amoungst other areas of nations in the world.

[Bergalad]

I hate appearing to argue with you all the time Five, but almost all of your posts are so insane and misguided I feel compelled to say something.
They (the US) keep kinda going along the side with the UN resolution and Security Council..but never leading the way.

They aren't leading the way????? WE'RE ONE OF THE ONLY ONES DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IRAQ! The rest of the Council is sitting on their hands in fear and/or deceit.
Hopefully it won't turn ugly and create more unstabality and unrest in the Middle East amoungst other areas of nations in the world.

I would like to think you actually feel this way, but I don't believe you want this at all. Your kind would love for this to be a disaster, and the more deaths the better to push your vitrolic agendas. The content of all your previous posts bears this out. The last thing you want is for Bush to succeed, to be right about acting. Then you and every other appeaser will have to find something else to decry the United States on. I recommend starting with reality tv shows...

[Spank Daddy]

What are we waiting for? Fuck the UN and do what you need to Bush!

Agreed.........Part of the cease fire agreement Iraq signed 12 years ago stated total disarmament. It's been clear they have not done that for years, so the "authority" to resume the war is already in place. I am tired of trying to appease countries that have no interest in doing the right thing. Anyone who says this is all about oil for the US should look at France, Germany and Russia who are afraid of their own secret sweetheart oil deals going down the drain. I pray for the safety of all our troops, and the innocent people of Iraq, and when all is said and done, the world will see that the removal of Saddam needed to be done.

[FiveB247]

Bergalad you couldn't be more incorrect. The words I wrote above is what I feel and believe. You say "my kind"? Association with extremist views is always a way to belittle an idea or notion, whether it be calling someone communist, socialist or an anarchist....it's wordplay to associate with already negative or derogatory terms. I said and believe whole-heartily what I wrote. I wish harm to no one. And if you wish to think or believe otherwise, you are incorrect.

You are correct..the US is leading the way...like usual...to war. Are you going to deny the fact that the US has been bombing Iraq via 'missions' and 'no fly zone bombings' and such? These operations have been going on for years. The US has been building up military forces since the 'diplomatic solution' began. As usual the US wants to push more blame towards the resisting party (then deserved), this time being Iraq for non-compliance.

Bush, Powell, Chaney and the others have been doing nothing more then prepping for war and whipping the citizenry into buying it. According to the US, they have info about hidden weapons, chemical/ biological weapons, weapons of mass destruction...and that Iraq is hiding them..and in many cases the US has said they know of such places.

So I ask you this if, If the US is leading the way as you put it, why are they obviously with holding information which can obviously help a diplomatic solution be gained? Why hasn't the US mentioned such items which could make huge impact on UN approval for invasion or solution? Obviously if the US knew such info and it led to the finding of such weaponry, the Security Council would further inspections and if Iraq didn't comply, invasion would easily be agreed upon. So why the lack of info or effort by the US?


On another note, trying to buy Turkey into being a willing party for the US troops to dwell and invade from isn't exactly leading the way (Neither is with Saudi Arabia).

[A.J.]

Interesting thoughts from Andrew Sullivan:

"BUSH AND CLINTON: I've been thinking lately about the alleged vast difference between Bill Clinton's foreign policy and George Bush's. To listen to some Europeans, you'd think it were night and day. But on the key issues at stake now, the principles of U.S. foreign policy are pretty much indistinguishable between Clinton and Bush. On Iraq, Clinton's stated objective, after the failure of sanctions, was regime change. The other day, I quoted the former president who, in his language at least, was no less hawkish than Bush:

"What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? ... Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

MORE MULTILATERALIST: The difference, of course, is 9/11 and the simple fact that Bush has, shall we say, a different relationship with the follow-through than his immediate predecessor. Even in practice, on, say, the unilateral question, there's the Kosovo precedent, which shows that Clinton was prepared not merely to defy certain powers, i.e. Russia, to do what he wanted; but he was also prepared to bypass the U.N. altogether if necessary. In this narrow sense, Bush is actually more multilateralist than Clinton. He's heading into an uncertain Security Council vote which he need not have pursued. Even on an issue like the Kyoto accord, the differences are exaggerated. No one seems to point out that ratification of Kyoto was killed not by Bush but by the Senate under Clinton which voted it down 95 - 0. Again, the difference with Bush is that he connected this action with words. Clinton was a master at saying what others wanted to hear. What I'm getting at is that the distinctions are by no means as great as some would have it; that some of our problems today are not a function of Bush but of world events; and that Clinton's facility with schmooze and inaction didn't solve the problems of a unipolar world; it merely delayed them a while. That period of glorious avoidance is now over - for good and ill. But very similar policies endure."




<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

[FiveB247]

Why is it that people assume ...not going to war and invasion automatically means Saddam will continue building weapons or that the US or UN will allow for such items or actions? It's a huge misnomer. If war is avoided (for the time being anyways), UN inspectors and the international community would not let Saddam slide like he has in the past...cause even he knows the US is waiting to invade. I'm not holding Saddam or Iraq to be honest and true, but I believe more inspections along with Iraqi compliance can only lead to less killing and more peaceful and diplomatic solutions.

That article you posted AJinDC it's very good...although I don't agree on all points. Bush has mostly been led my a one party Congress (with little opposition)....while Clinton always had problems passing items through due to a more split Congress and a Republican party calling for his head by the time his little Monica scandal came round.

[A.J.]

Bush has mostly been led my a one party Congress (with little opposition)....while Clinton always had problems passing items through due to a more split Congress and a Republican party calling for his head by the time his little Monica scandal came round.

Clinton had a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate from 1993-95 -- until the "Republican Revolution" of 1994.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">

A Skidmark production.

99-44/100%

[FUNKMAN]

this a a simplistic view but it's the first thing that comes to mind:

The US should approach it in this way:

IRAQ has been stalling for too long and the Inspectors are being hindered from doing their work in a timely manner so:

We are going to include our Military and the Military of other nations on the Council to speed the process up. NOT TO MAKE WAR!, just to locate the weapons of mass destruction that we know are somewhere.
If the IRAQ Army begins to fire upon us, then we fire back in self-defense.

To me it would be meaningless to destroy all of Saddam's Palaces. If you remove Saddam from power then the Palaces can be used for other purposes that would be beneficial to the people, such as made into Hospitals or Care Centers.

All nations included in the Council should agree that the Inspections are being delayed and hindered and that they should all make up a Military Task-Force to advance the Inspections...

And to "only" use force if necessary...

<img src="http://www.grandfunkrailroad.com/covers/livealbum100.gif">



This message was edited by FUNKMAN on 3-6-03 @ 11:30 AM

[FiveB247]

The US using 3,000 bombs isn't exactly diplomatic nor will it cut down on civilian casualities or colateral damage.

Inspections have been the most successful since inception of them regarding Iraq. The inspectors have had full limits in searches and there has been no mention of anything regardless (this time around). So once again I ask....if the US knows of such weapons, hidden and places...why aren't they helping in a diplomatic way to find these items out and destroy them?

AJin Dc...true the Congress was in the Dems power from 93-95....but Clinton had more opposition to contend with then Bush does nowadays.

[Bergalad]

Are you going to deny the fact that the US has been bombing Iraq via 'missions' and 'no fly zone bombings' and such? These operations have been going on for years. The US has been building up military forces since the 'diplomatic solution' began.

The US and British fire at targets ONLY after we have been targeted and/or fired at. These are not pre-emptive strikes, they are self-defense actions. Of course I am not going to deny that we patrol the no-fly zone; are you going to deny that the Iraqi air defense units are trying to murder our pilots?

As usual the US wants to push more blame towards the resisting party (then deserved), this time being Iraq for non-compliance.

Wait. Who else is to blame for Iraqi non-compliance other than Iraq? You say in the above quote that we are blaming Iraq more than they deserve? Who's fault is it Iraq broke the Resolution?!

So I ask you this if, If the US is leading the way as you put it, why are they obviously with holding information which can obviously help a diplomatic solution be gained? Why hasn't the US mentioned such items which could make huge impact on UN approval for invasion or solution?

Because the information comes from classified sources that cannot be compromised. Any hints of where and how we get the information can easily put the collectors and the methods used in danger. Hell, we gave the UN and the world freshly declassified intelligence and no one wanted to believe what we showed them. Why bother with trying again?
On another note, trying to buy Turkey into being a willing party for the US troops to dwell and invade from isn't exactly leading the way

Turkey wanted NATO's help with defense, so the US went to bat for them and stood up to the French and Germans to get Patriot PAC-3's there to protect them. The troop issue is seen by the not-so secular government as a way to both aid the Turkish budget both now and after any war. The Turk military knows that US forces are necessary and wants them there, so look for another vote on the issue. Try not to spin everything so badly.

[Bergalad]

Why is it that people assume ...not going to war and invasion automatically means Saddam will continue building weapons or that the US or UN will allow for such items or actions?

I don't know why we would think that. I mean, he only has done this a couple of times before. I am sure he wouldn't do it again, right? Oh, and you are correct...the US will not allow for "such items or actions" later because we are going to take care of it now.
I'm not holding Saddam or Iraq to be honest and true, but I believe more inspections along with Iraqi compliance can only lead to less killing and more peaceful and diplomatic solutions.

Can you say "appeasement"? Seig Heil!

[FiveB247]

Bergalad...the US has been hitting targets such as missle defense systems amongst other similar targets for quite some time now. It's all prepping for war. The US carries out these strike and have been for some years now. It's ongoing and in the news.

I never said Iraq wasn't to blame for 1441 being broken....I said we are blaming them for items that aren't true such as terrorist connections as well as over stating our agenda. The came out with their "discovery of smoking guns" stoies....and it was everywhere in the media. Those missiles where known of and mentioned in UN reports since 98'. Like I said, the US is placing more blame on the resisting party (Iraq)..then proof or validity holds. And you keep passing over this item...where does it say if 1441 is broken...the US is to act with invasion? It's not UN backed nor has the Security Council aproved such items. If you are going to argue in the terms of 1441 and UN law...follow it all the way through. Cause the US isn't complying with it either.

And as for the US keeping info top secret as you say...that's a pile of BS! If Iraq is the threat that the US is accusing them of being...they would have no problem mentioning locations to the UN, for them to check. And obviously it could be classified. Not everything the UN does is so out in the forum as you mention it.

As for Turkey...their nation and government is harshly against it. It failed going through one time and they are trying to give it another go. The US offered somewhere in the realms of 5 billion in aid and such. Sounds more like a payoff then a "willing ally".

And your mention of appeasement is ridiculous. Seig Heil? Give me a break...Hitler invaded nations and they kept "appeasing him". What has Iraq done that the International is appeasing him? You call me names and claim my notions are absurd...but you are the one claiming such ignorance.

[Bergalad]

I will say two things, then hopefully punch out of yet another pointless arguement with Five. There is no reasoning with people sometimes, and there are people who are blind only because they refuse to believe what they see. First:
And as for the US keeping info top secret as you say...that's a pile of BS! If Iraq is the threat that the US is accusing them of being...they would have no problem mentioning locations to the UN, for them to check. And obviously it could be classified. Not everything the UN does is so out in the forum as you mention it.

You have no concept about how the United States collects intelligence nor what the risks and methods are for collection. A few here (like Mojo who's dad apparently does this sort of thing) understand why we can't just show the world what we know. I don't have the desire or the time to enlighten you on this subject, and you wouldn't listen anyway.

Finally, in response to the rest of your post, I quote Elbert Hubbard:
Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity is not thus handicapped.

Here's to you and your lack of limits...


Punching out.

[FiveB247]

I understand full well how such methods are handled....not to the extent that someone working in that particular field would...but I have a good knowledge of how such processes and programs function.

And as for your lack of limits quote... I got one better for you.

"Naturally the common people don't want war, but after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifist for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."

Herman Goering (Hitler's Reichs-Marshall)


Bergalad, this is our society and you are the type of citizen this man speaks of. In your eyes this nation cannot do any wrong and has never done such things. It's nothing more than Blind leadership in authority. Keep buying all the BS politicians spew out...you're only fooling yourself.

This message was edited by FiveB247 on 3-6-03 @ 10:03 PM

[travis151]

Five do you agree that in 1998 when our president bombed the Former Yugoslavia he saved countless number of Muslims from Genocide? Pres. Clinton did not have U.N. backing then he just did it with out them , where was all the war protests then? I don't want to hear about U.N. sanctions on Iraq that starved the iraqi people the U.N. had program call Oil for Food since 91' but Saddam waited 5 years until he agreed to do it. Saddam has his own genocide in Iraq as it is, but nobody has the balls to stop it but us. You what proof go on the net and look at the pitcures of the thousands children who have been gas or starved to death. Open your mind and your heart don't be so stubborn.

Red Sox=More Better

[TheMojoPin]

"Beware of the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citzenry into a patriotic fervor. For Patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both narrows the mind, and when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with a hate and the mind has closed. The leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citzenry. Rather the citzenry infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this what I have done. And I am Julius Caesar."

Julius Caesar

Oh, B. B, B, B, B, B...when trying to somehow make a point (Lord only knows what it is at this point), it's best NOT to use a totally made up piece of internet glurge as a "real" quote.

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/caesar.htm

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

This message was edited by TheMojoPin on 3-6-03 @ 8:40 PM

[FiveB247]

"Open your mind and heart" ....for war? Travis...that's funny. You seem to leave out the fact of the Iraqi people; 60% of them get food from the oil for food program, which obviously will not happen during the invasion and war. And 3,000 bombs dropping doesn't exactly sound diplomatic, nor humanitarian.

Mojo...thanks for making me aware of that. I was mistaken and was under the belief it was from a reliable source and true (somewhere I read it in print..not online).

[TheMojoPin]

Mojo...thanks for making me aware of that. I was mistaken and was under the belief it was from a reliable source and true (somewhere I read it in print..not online).

Hey, you always gotta double and triple check ANYTHING you use to argue a debate. That's rule #1. I mean, STREISAND used that goddamn quote like it was real. Fucking Streisand.

Speaking of Streisand, why is it when pundits on the right attack the left, nine time out of ten they end up attacking celebrities, but pundits on the left almost always stick with attacking right-leaning politicians? Don't the talking heads on the right realize that celebrities can't actually DO anything except raise money and make asses of themselves in public?

<img src="http://members.hostedscripts.com/randomimage.cgi?user=TheMojoPin">
2% <<< FREE YERDADDY! >>> "You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[travis151]

Our government has already said there are 55,000 locations in iraq where we will be dropping food the people of that country, thats fact.

Red Sox=More Better

[FiveB247]

I'm sure plenty of civilians will be able to get to them easily around the thousands of bombs going off and invading troops. Silly me for thinking backwards. huh?

[travis151]

The war won't last long for one, and the people will be grateful when this dictator is gone. Also even though you miss quoted , Julius Ceasar was a dictator himself disbanding the Roman Republic great example for a peaceful leader.

Red Sox=More Better



This message was edited by travis151 on 3-7-03 @ 1:08 AM