What did everyone think of the address to the UN by Colin Powell? I thought the evidence was extremely compelling. I realize that probably 10% if the people on here watched it so do some research and make a post. How can anyine still defend Saddam Hussein in his actions of evil? The time for war is here and the time for dissarmament by force will soon be upon us.

"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.

Hey Board,

HERE are some of my other post on Iraq:

LOOK at the sanctions that has Iraq has imposed on its OWN ppl

How could say the sanctions that the US has imposed on Iraq when we're the biggest provider of food to that country and even when it gets there Hussein doesn't give the food to his people. It's ashame that the Iraqi ppl have to suffer due to the ignorance of their leader. Our sanctions may be killing the Iraqi people, but WHo is being held accountable for these sanctions, whose falt is it that we must place these sanctions on Iraq to contain Hussein, whos falt is it that the food that does get there isn't getting to where its suppose to be, Who's falt is it that the Iraqi ppl are gased and killed by there own leader on Purpose. It's Saddam Hussein's fault, period. No one wants to see innocent kids and families being killed, but Saddam Hussein himself. All his palaces that cost millions to build and what about the Iraqi ppl. It's ashame that they have to live like they do, and it's ashame that America is the biggest provider of aid to practically every third world nation and in the end we only get spit on and painted as the enemy worldwide. If it wasn't for Amercia Europe and the middle east would be ran by some Hitler follower. Our government has did nothing on purpose to harm the Iraqi ppl. Yes, they have and still are suffering from the UN sanctions that was agreed to by most nations, because of Saddam's failure to disarm and he continues to play hide-go-seek and if you want to face a mad man with nukes 10 years from now then fine, maybe one day we'll live in some dictorial society where we're treated like dirt and trash like Saddam treats his people.

Best Wishes,

Josh M.

He's an avil man and if we allow him to continue what he's doing for 10 more years, more than 80,000 ppl will die, no question about it and then everyone will blame America for allowing genocide to occur and then we'll be back in another situation that requires us to pull all the load of a war against an Iraq who would be bigger and even more evil.. At least our intentions will have more positive then negative intentions like from Saddam who kills and starves his own people just for the fun of it. I promise you Iraq will kill more in this war then the Americans. They intentionally kill mass villages and blame it on Amercica to make it look like our country bombed innocent people on purpose. Or they'll put military equipment and soldiers in schools and hospitals. It's so sad that they would stoop that low just to save their butts. So all I'm saying is it's either NOW or NEVER... and if you look at the situation and analyze aside from peace this and peace that then it seems like it to me that it would make sense to get rid of Hussein before it's too late. War is not a good thing at all, but like I said before sometimes an evil has to knock out another evil in order to create a good, and in this case I fully accept a war with Iraq.

Best Wishes,

Josh M.

Presentation from Colin Powell:

His evidence was 100% clear and compelling on why we now need to get rid of Saddam. Rather he made a compelling case to link Saddam with Bin Laden doesn't really matter to me. I just want Saddam out and I want the Iraqi ppl to stop being treated like worthless pieces of trash by a leader who has no heart and no clear thinking, he's a mad man and he's crazy and if ANYONE believes anything he says or believes we should not go to war to replace him is strange lol. I mean what else do we have to know about this man to not go to war with him. If we don't go to war now then we sure will 5 years from now and he'll be even more dangerous or lethal. If we don't go to war now Hussein will kill even more of his own ppl while the world sits back and watches genocide occur and then the world will ask the United States to handle the situation just like we did in Kosovo and by then it will be too late. He will then be strong enough to attack in nation in Europe and possible nuke America's west coast. If not now WHEN???? Please someone answer this question, PLEASE?? For those who say if America should show the UN where the Nukes are, we have shown them where we think they are but Iraq has concealed and hidden all the evidence of any weapons! Iraq not only needs to be disarmed, but Hussein needs to go, and I think that's really the bottom line. America cannot allow Iraq to know our intelligence sources, that would greatly hamper our ability to find out classified info from countries like Iraq, Iran, N. Korea, etc.. Iraq must be shown the threat of war in order for them to act in any way shape of form. Why is it that Iraq is now signing all sorts of laws that bans WMD in there country, why now, why not last year or 5 years ago, it's because they don't care, they're great at hiding and making he UN inspectors look like a bunch of kids trying to hide-go-seek. Yes we know that the US helped Iraq to defeat Iran, but at that time Iraq did not pose a threat to the US or Britain. Now he does and if we look at his timeline it shows a man who is willing to go all out in any lengths to get what he wants, when he wants it. A "crime against peace" lol Please don't tell me Saddam is peace. This may be a crime but it's not a crime against peace. It's a crime against an evil man to disarm him and to uncover all of his programs and to free the Iraqi ppl from oppression from there own government. The US holding the world hostage, it seems to me that Iraq is holding the world hostage. They're continuing to hide band weapons and there not planning to give them up, they will play games with the UN's mind, your mind, and anyone else's mind who wants to be fooled. I've read many Hussein biography's and this man is the greatest propaganda leader since Hitler and he's great at what he does, but I'm not going to be fooled and I hope the rest of the world isn't fooled either. IS IRAQ A THREAT?? YES..... They now possess missiles that have longer ranges then the UN permits and the audio tapes Powell presented proved that they are hiding something. I trust Secretary of State Colin Powell more then any other leader on this planet. He's my role model and I've read his autobiography and this man is a true leader. He fought in Vietnam, he's knows what war does, he knows that lives are lost, if you've read his bio he talks about the fellow soldiers he knew one day and were gone the next, but someone has to stand tall in the midst. IF anyone would be against the war in Iraq, it would be Colin Powell. Sometimes you have to choose, either you trust Saddam Hussein or Colin Powell, you choose. I also have no doubt in my mind that Al-Quaeda had some contact with IRaq. They may not be best of buddies but I don't need photos or intelligence to tell me that. You also talked about how the US gives disinformation. Well Iraq has given more disinformation to the rest of the world and the UN then all countries on and out of this planet COMBINED! I'm not a Bush supporter at all but I am a Powell suporter and war is needed to disarm Saddam and get rid of his oppressing regime. How much longer should we wait, or can we wait any more longer? You know why America is given a double standard? Because we give more mone to all third-world nations then any other nation(s) combined, we give hundreds of millions of dollars yearly to the UN, and as a superpower we have the responsibility of ensuring peace worldwide. It's funny because, everytime some country in in trouble, who do they call 1st: AMERICA, but when we need help and when we see a threat approaching from countries like Iraq, who helps us: NO ONE. So why not go out on our own, it's only fitting, I mean who helps us anyways when we're in need. We get stabbed in the back by the world more then all of the world's nations combined. At some point we have to be independent and do what we see is best, and in this case, with or without UN backing Saddam has to go. For the sake of the world, for the sake of me, for the sake of you, the Iraqi people, my future kids, the Middle East and all of mankind. The UN wouldn't declare a war until Saddam nuked there HQ's and by the nit'd be too late for action, so we have come to the end of the road. The Iraqi ppl have been suppressed by Saddam since his inception as Offical Dictator of Iraq! I think we've watied too long actually. Maybe we shouldn't have helped him to defeat Iran in the 80's but you know what, we have to forgive our wrongs and look towards the future and I don't want a future with Saddam in it. Whoever feels like Saddam is complying, eventhough the UN has said they still haven't accounted for his biological and chemical agents that were never discovered during the inspections in the 90's and they just said some of his missles exceed the limit of what the UN sanctions allow, must not have read the papers lately. HE HAS FAILED TO DISARM ANYTHING! It's sad that we have to come to a war to disarm him ,but like I said before it takes an evil to make a right. War is an evil, but in the end, it will be a good.

Best Wishes,

Josh M.

I've never doubted Iraq was hiding WMDs, and his speech did nothing to address my problem with the war: Are we going to do more harm or good if we invade? Looking at America's record, I doubt it.

I definitely think we should go to war. Anyone who disagrees with me is an evil pinko commie rat, a supporter of Saddam Hussein, and a terrorist, who deserves to be shot for treason. Colin Powell proved that Iraq has WMD and connections to terrorism. Hans Blix says he was lying, put that's just beceause the UN is a subversive commie liberal organization that needs to be nuked after we finish blasting Iraq back to the stone age. I don't think the WMD and terrorism really matter all that much though. Hell, the US is the biggest terrorist in the world, and has huge stockpiles of WMD. I think we need the oil. It's gettingway too expensive, so if you oppose the war you're fighting against your own interests, and choosing to support an organization which is a front group for communists who want to take over the world. Anyone that stupid should be drafted and be the first to die in the war. Th Iraqis are our inferiors, so they're lives don't matter. Only America matters, and we will benfit from this war. European commies consider the US the biggest threat to international security in the world today, and I'm proud of that. Let's keep it up!

Ok so why is everyone taking this at face value? Why would you even assume this is new information? I wonder about those who would consider themselves informed because they watched the speech (as did I) but then didn't think to look for an opposing viewpoint at all. What kind of objectivity or truth can we pursue when we accept one side's word without question?

This was certainly no Adlai Stevenson moment for Powell, the case is and always has been flawed. It didn't sway public or international opinion, and for good reason, much of it waivers between half-truth, misdirection, and outright lies refuted by numerous sources. For someone who initially was the moderate dove - and the subsequent silent treament he recieved as punishment for it - Powell has become more and more the puppet of the chickenhawks in charge. It is an all-around sad sight to see.

Responding To Colin Powell:

If one believes everything Colin Powell said to the Security Council yesterday, one's first response ought to be that there's no reason to fight a war, since U.S. surveillance capabilities are so awesome that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) can easily be found. And one's first question should be why has the United States for over two months withheld this apparently so damaging evidence from those weapons inspectors, who could have verified conjectures and destroyed WMD stocks and production facilities.

If indeed the evidence presented is of the character claimed by Powell, then the United States has chosen to sabotage UN Security Council Resolution 1441, clause 10 of which "Requests all Member States to give full support to UNMOVIC and the IAEA in the discharge of their mandates, including by providing any information related to prohibited programmes."

The actual evidence may not even warrant that conclusion. What Powell served up to the Council was a sorry mess of fuzzy aerial photographs of buildings, a cute "organizational chart" of supposed al-Qaeda operations in Iraq, a couple of tape recordings that are capable of multiple interpretations and, as before, a large number of undated reports by unnamed Iraqi defectors.

Given the history of U.S. government use of disinformation to drum up support for war, from relatively subtle measures like doctoring satellite photos to convince the Saudi government that Iraq was massing troops for an invasion of Saudi Arabia in 1990 to incredibly crude ones like the continuing claims by officials from George W. Bush on down that Iraq "expelled" weapons inspectors in 1998 (as covered in the press at the time, the inspectors were withdrawn at the behest of the United States), a skeptic need not actually accept any of the evidence as presented. Even so, it's useful to go through it.

Evidence about Iraq and al-Qaeda

The weakest part of the whole presentation, and the most important, was the claims trying to link Iraq with al-Qaeda operations. In the past, the link depended on the claims about one man, Mohammed Atta, meeting with Iraqi intelligence in Prague (we've since found out that he was almost certainly in the United States at the time of the alleged meeting); now it depends on one man, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Al-Zarqawi is apparently a high-level operative of an Islamist group called Ansar al-Islam, which is operating in northern Iraq (currently an autonomous region with a provisional Kurdish government that is aligned with the United States). Although there is no evident link between this organization and the Government of Iraq (GOI), Powell claims that the GOI has a high-level agent in Ansar, who "offered al-Qaida safe haven" - although apparently few if any accepted the offer, since the supposed presence is in the part of Iraq not controlled by the GOI. The full extent of the connection between al-Zarqawi himself and the GOI is apparently that he got medical care in a hospital in Baghdad, hardly an indication of high-level Iraqi complicity in terrorist attacks against American targets.

There is no attempt to link Ansar itself to the 9/11 attacks. In fact, while apparently the mere presence of al-Zarqawi, a subordinate in Ansar, in Iraq is sufficient reason for war, the head of Ansar, known as Mullah Krekar, is living unmolested in Norway, and the United States has not even made an extradition request. Krekar denies any connection of Ansar with al-Qaeda.

Powell also claims that one al-Qaeda detainee has told them that Iraq provided information about biological and chemical weapons to al-Qaeda members. Given the condition al-Qaeda detainees are being held in and the obvious incentives for them to tell a story the U.S. government wants to hear, this is very far from being actual evidence. The claim also flies in the face of common sense. Saddam Hussein has always been seen by al-Qaeda as an enemy and has himself seen Islamists as the biggest internal threat to his rule. To give them the ability to make chemical or biological weapons, weapons he sees as essential to the survival of his regime (many analysts think the primary reason the United States didn't implement "regime change" in 1991 was the threat that the GOI would use its stocks of chemical weapons in self-defense), potentially destabilizes his own rule.

Evidence about Iraq's WMD

The heart of the presentation, however, was claims about Iraq's violation of UNSCR 1441 and about its attempts to acquire WMD. This included evidence like a photograph of a shed and a truck next to a bunker, followed by a claim that such a configuration of truck and shed (the truck is apparently a "decontamination" truck) is an infallible indicator that the bunker has chemical weapons in it, and even a photograph of what an Iraqi UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) "would look like."

Powell claimed that Iraq was reviving attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon, telling us that two out of three elements were in hand. The third element, fissile material, is and has always been the stumbling block. According to Powell, "we have more than a decade of proof that he [Hussein] remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons," but no acknowledgment that in more than a decade he has been entirely unable to do so.

Nor was there acknowledgment of the assessment that Mohammed el-Baradei, chief of the IAEA team charged with Iraq's nuclear disarmament, delivered to the Council:

"No evidence of ongoing prohibited nuclear or nuclear-related activities · has been detected to date· Nor have the inspections thus far revealed signs of new nuclear facilities or direct support to any nuclear activity. The IAEA expects to be able, within the next few months, barring exceptional circumstances and provided there is sustained proactive cooperation by Iraq, to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons programme."

He also resurrected claims that Iraq's attempts to acquire certain aluminum tubes show that it is trying to make centrifuges for production of fissile material, disputing the IAEA's conclusion that those tubes are better suited to conventional artillery.

Most of the other "evidence" was unsourced or from one of the legion of defectors that has always conveniently cropped up when the United States has needed them.

The most compelling evidence was audio recordings of two conversations apparently showing Iraqi attempts to conceal evidence from inspectors. It's not possible to know whether the tapes are real, whether they are recent or from the previous inspection regime, or what exactly they are referring to. Forgetting all of these caveats, it's quite likely that the Iraqis are trying to hide not actual WMD but minor things that didn't make it into the December 7 declaration (for example, the empty chemical munitions that were recently discovered) and are trying to eliminate those discrepancies surreptitiously instead of letting the inspectors find them.

In the whole presentation, there was no acknowledgment of the true state of affairs regarding chemical and biological weapons, as concluded by the UNSCOM inspectors in 1998 and confirmed by UNMOVIC more recently. That is simply this:

There are records of how much in the way of chemical agents, biological growth medium, and other components Iraq imported from Western firms (particularly American and German ones). There is evidence of how much inspectors destroyed. There are Iraqi claims about how much was used in the war with Iran and how much was unilaterally destroyed by them. Iraq is unable to produce sufficient evidence for the inspectors to match up those different numbers. So there is some discrepancy in terms of chemical munitions - for example, Iraq claims 550 mustard-filled shells were lost after the Gulf War, but it can't prove this. There is discrepancy in terms of biological growth medium and if you take this discrepancy and make the entirely unrealistic stipulation that Iraq's fermenters were constantly and continually used for all these past years, you can get high numbers for the amounts of biological agents like anthrax that Iraq theoretically might have.

These discrepancies are enough that inspectors could not close the book on chemical or biological weapons (although they essentially did on nuclear weapons). They presumably owe at least in part to the fact that Iraq, after undergoing eight years of war with Iran, the most devastating air bombardment in history in the Gulf War, and twelve years of crippling sanctions, doesn't have all of its records nicely intact.

Is there an Iraqi threat?

It is undoubtedly true that in the past Iraq went to considerable lengths to avoid cooperating with inspections. It's possible that that is happening again - some of Powell's evidence might be real.

But missing from the entire presentation was any serious talk about a threat posed by Iraq, either to the United States or even to any country in the region. Mere possession of WMD, even if established, is not exactly evidence of aggressive intent. And in fact Iraq has been the recipient of aggression frequently since the Gulf War (bombings by the U.S. and U.K., periodic invasions in the north by Turkey, virtual Kuwaiti annexation of Iraqi land in the south), but has not itself seriously threatened any.

The evidence about Iraq's intent to attack seems to run something like this - Saddam "gassed his own people" in 1988, therefore there is an imminent threat that he will attack us in 2003. The imminent threat is not, however, so severe as to keep us from having a full year of warmongering and bellicose rhetoric before we actually attack.

This conveniently ignores the central fact about Hussein's record of aggression. Without exception, his worse crimes were committed with full U.S. support, both material and diplomatic. The war on Iran, the massacre of Kurds in the Anfal campaign of the late 1980's, even the bloody suppression in 1991 of the "Iraqi intifada" all involved explicit measures of support from the United States - providing military intelligence, approving export of chemical and biological agents, providing "agricultural" credits, disarming rebels, and much more. The invasion of Kuwait was done in the deliberately fostered belief that the United States would not mind. Without U.S. support, Hussein knows well that he can only be a threat to his internal political enemies.

Powell did not deal with these facts, but essentially admitted the lack of any evidence of a real Iraqi threat when he fell back on the "pre-emption" argument - "should we take the risk that he will not someday use these weapons at a time and a place and in a manner of his choosing, at a time when the world is in a much weaker position to respond?" Of course, in the absence of concrete evidence, any country can make this argument against any other, which is why "pre-emption" is clearly not consistent with international law.

What if Iraq isn't cooperating?

If Iraq is not cooperating fully with inspections right now, it's important to understand why. The first round of weapons inspections started to fall apart in 1998 for one reason - the United States refused to commit to lifting the sanctions once Iraq was disarmed. This refusal was an abrogation of its own commitment under UNSCR 687.

This time, it's even worse. The United States is steadily bombing Iraq, in an escalating pattern that is no longer even vaguely linked to enforcement of the illegal "no-fly zones" but is clearly part of the suppression of air defense with which U.S. wars begin. It is building a massive military presence in the Gulf. And it is declaring openly, to all with the ears to hear it, that it will go to war with Iraq no matter what Iraq does, whether the Security Council is with it or against it.

In fact, at least one columnist, Bill Keller ("What to Expect when you're Inspecting," New York Times, November 16, 2002) has pointed out that inspections are a wonderful prelude to war because they "can significantly diminish Saddam's arsenal," thus making it easier for the United States to fight without fear of retaliation and because "inspections immobilize Iraq while we deploy."

So Iraq is in the bizarre position of being called on to disarm while being attacked by another country, and then being reviled by the "international community" for partial compliance.

It is becoming increasingly likely that the United States will obtain a Security Council resolution authorizing war. And if it does, its main argument will be that it must go to war with Iraq to uphold international law. It's important to understand ahead of time just how obscene that argument is. It's not just because the United States has systematically undermined international law with regard to Iraq, by refusing to acknowledge the basis (disarmament) for lifting the sanctions, by committing repeated acts of illegal aggression against Iraq (like the Desert Fox bombing), and by deliberately making the sanctions bite Iraqi society as hard as possible for purely political reasons (see "Economic sanctions as a weapon of mass destruction," Joy Gordon, Harper's, November 2002). It's not just because the United States enforces a double standard, in which itself and favored allies are exempt from legal requirements while states it decided to target are not.

It's because this war is a violation of the ultimate international law. It is a "crime against peace," a war of aggression. It was decided on long ago in the White House, and the only reason other countries may vote in support of it is the repeated statements that the war will happen whether they want it or not. It is the United States holding not just Iraq but the entire world hostage.

So just because I used logic from grade school it becomes obsolete? In my metaphor, a person (myself) is to our country (America) as my threatener is to Iraq. A proportion, if you will.

And you agreed, that this is a UN thing. However, I seem to remember Shrub's SotU Address saying America would fight Iraq with or without the UN backing us.

Another point, I thought of, just a bit ago: So, Iraq has all these weapons, right. Do we *really* want to give them reason to use them? I mean, the US starts a war against Iraq, do you think Saddam's going to sit there "Ho-hum, what shall we do?" We'd just be asking for it.

The bottom line, for me at least, is that if we go to war, some babies aren't gonna know their daddies and mums, and I just can't...*can not* justify it.

Outspokenme--------
I suppose I kind of understand your argument, but I see some fundemental flaws in your metephor. You attempt to explain International Politics with an example from grade school.
1) When someone threatens you, they threaten one life. When someone threatens the US they threaten 280+ million people. 2) When someone punches you they punch only you. When someone drops or sets off a bomb on a city like New York or Chicago they kill 1.5+ million people. 3) You can leave the school if you feel your life to be threatened, or leave the city or state. America is here and we can't leave, of course. We are part of an international community and we must stand up to the threat we feel. That is the only way to keep from being manipulated or hurt. America will not be blackmailed. 4) It isn't just a threat to us but to the whole world. 5) It is a UN thing. They passed a resolution stating forceful penalty for a material breach. Almost everyone except France and Germany is with us.


Dumars-------
Yes people could die if we go to war. That is kinda a given. I haven't seen anything that says it will rival vietnam. I know that last time in Iraq after 3 weeks soldiers began to surrender because they were starving. We have the superior military there is no argument about that. And by superior I mean training and technology not numbers. I think it is a good point to bring up N. Korea. I think that Iraq and N.korea have been in cahoots since the begining of this whole thing. N. Korea may have more troops than us but we fight better than them. they have no technology whatsoever. It is something to have concern about but not enough of an issue to fore go the attack on Iraq. It is a pressing and immediate measure and deserves our attention now. I think Colin Powell showed us that.



"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.

I just have to say if we do go to war our butts will most likely be handed to us on a plater. Why? Well if we do go to war with iraq we will also in my opinion have a threat from south korea and the numbers that were posted on cnn.com are stuning. They have over 1 million troops ready for war and we have a measily 250,000 for iraq and north korea. We are out numbered to many to one. It scares the heck right out of me because if we do go to war people are talking about losses that rival that of vietnam. Now as for the evidence that we saw on tv that is not even the half of it and we know that. There is no way that what we saw is the only reason that we are going to war. There is plenty more but if we revealed it we would loose operatives who are undercover.

Okay, I only watched about half of the address, because then my computer shut down and I left.

I never doubted that Iraq was hiding all that stuff. But frankly, I'm no more concerned about it than I am about Shrub's own biological/chemical warfare (a legit concern).

I'm also not particularly impressed by the fact that we spy on Iraq like crazy.

And finally, yes, Iraq is a "threat". However, when I feel threatened, I don't start a fight with whoever's a threat to me. That's stupid and likely to get my *** kicked.

And again, I'd like you all to think about what the US has done to Iraq leading up to this, not just giving them chances, but the restrictions we've had placed.

It is not the US's place to go to war with Iraq, it would the the UNs.

I was convinced, the evidence is to waay much to ignore. I still think we should look for a more
peacful way to get weapons away from Saddam, but I'm afraid forceful disarmment is probably the only choice left. Saddam is a threat to the saftey of way too many lives.

*Star*

I got to watch bits and pieces of it, but I was in my world history class testing, and my teacher decided to leave the television on. I heard some audio tapes from some colonels of Iraqi forces, I suppose. But from what I saw and heard, Powell, along with the other UN members, presented very compelling information supporting a future war with Iraq.

If you didn't make time to see the presentation of the Secretary of State Colin Powell these sites have it in text and the video of it:
CNN.com
Fox News
Department of State
If you visit these sites and make the time to see history unfold right before your eyes, you will be privy to information that will convince you as it has Jookly.

"Freedom is not Free"-Korean War Memorial, Washington DC.

i was convinced, the evidence is to much to ignore. Although i wish i had a peacful way to get weapons away from Saddam i am afraid that a forceful disarment is now the most efficient way to go about it. Saddam is a threat to the saftey of far to many people.