posted on February 5, 2003 06:09:24 AM new
Okay, It hasn't been stated yet but I figured I'd start this so all can make a comment on his address to the U.N.
Amen,
Reverend Colin
our websites.
Rt. 67 cycle
http://www.rt67cycle.com
Reverend Colin
http://www.reverendcolin.com
posted on February 5, 2003 06:47:03 AM new
Yes, we'll be watching Powell speech. What gave me a chuckle this morning was hearing on the news that an Iraqi newspaper had an article in it saying everything Powell said was lies. ... Speech hasn't been given yet...but Saddam knows, and reports it's all lies. They referred to this as a 'pre-buttal'.
posted on February 5, 2003 09:01:06 AM new
Well he just concluded his presentation. And with the facts & evidence he presented, there can be NO doubt as to Saadams failure to comply.
To those that suggest the U.S. would present a "Premptive strike", I say this, it would not be premptive but a response to the failure of Saadam to comply with his agreed to "cease fire" of 1991. There was no agreement of surrender or a surrender treaty ever signed.
Saadam has failed to comply to the letter of that agreement and any actions that will happen now will be justified.
posted on February 5, 2003 10:20:22 AM new
Just like we allowed the Republicans to put Trickle-Down Economics into play because they demanded it so much, let's let them also go after Saddam? LOL!
NEW YORK, Feb. 5 — "While supporters of the Bush administration’s hard line on Iraq found U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s address to the U.N. Security Council compelling, there was no indication that it swayed skeptics of the need for military action if Saddam Hussein fails to account for the weapons of mass destruction that Powell charged he is hiding."
I believe that the inspectors should be allowed to continue their inspection.
posted on February 5, 2003 11:54:09 AM new
It figures I'd be out and miss Powell's statement to the UN. I did catch the rehash on CNN. Thought he did a very good job.
"Powell fails to sway U.N. skeptics "
Helen, France isn't a skeptic They are a non entity. You talk about the U.S. being Oil Whores. What do you think is keeping France on Sadaam's side? By the way. Skeptic's are just that, skeptics. Non swayable, Hide behind someone else, Cowards.
Why we would want their blessing, let alone support, is a mystery to me.
If we were talking about a child molester and said pervert was in your town or city, I'll bet all would be up in arms. Whether it was just conclusions or fact.
posted on February 5, 2003 02:31:20 PM new
Powell presented a good case, imo. Powerful and compelling. There's only so much 'info.' he could 'give up'. The audio tapes offered proof of the games Saddam is playing with moving things around so the UN inspectors can't locate them.
Henry Kissinger, who stated Powell has the respect of most UN leaders, thought he made a good case too.
posted on February 5, 2003 03:08:47 PM new
The Jerk - I'd be interested in hearing the reason you would like to see the inspections continue. What would the purpose of that be, since we've seen today Saddam is moving the illegal items around, working harder to hide, rather than disclose them? I guess I'm trying to understand what good you think continuing to play this game will do.
Also did it bother you at all to hear of HOW Saddam has used some of the chemical weapons on people. Sure reminded me of Hitler and what he did to people that the world ignored for a while.
Or is it just that you don't want war at any cost?
posted on February 5, 2003 03:18:39 PM new
At this point, I don't have much of a problem with deposing Saddam. He's a clear and present danger to the region and to our allies in the area, primarily Israel. And I am not concerned about unilateral action at this point either, as sometimes, you just have to go do what needs to be done. If you have to shoot the dog, shoot the dog and get it over with!
What IS causing me to stop and say, "HOLD ON!" is that the DURING and AFTERWARDS has been extremely vague from Washington aka the White House. I'm not suggesting that we reveal tactics or actual battle plans, but as a conscientious American, I want to know just how far Bush is willing to go to get Saddam.
Will Bush stay the course? He clearly hasn't with Afghanistan and Osama and Al-Queda. That concerns me greatly. Unfinished jobs of clear and present dangers I am not happy about that.
Will Bush be willing to go into Baghdad and do house to house fighting, even though it means heavy losses on our side as well as innocent men, women, and children being killed there?
That's what I'm referring to.
I also want to know just how he intends on handling the situation AFTER Saddam and his Horror is only a bad memory in Iraq. Unless we are IN CHARGE and ALL THE WAY, the various factions will break down order and Civil Wars will break out. We'll have to put those down, so they'll all turn on us to focus on us so that once we're out of there, they can go back to killing each other. That's very bad for the whole region and that's the reason why we want Saddam out of there in the first place.
Bush/The White House has got a *LOT* of mileage to cover before I approve of us going in there! My requests for our plans is a reasonable one, not overly cautious, but prudent.
posted on February 5, 2003 03:25:54 PM new
About Australia...
After reading the article, in which no evidence was stated linking al-Qaida and Saddam, I read the linked speech by John Howard and he said nothing about al-Qaida. That story may have been an exaggeration of Howard's concern and not based on actual evidence.
I have to wonder how a short period of time, during which the investigators can complete their job will give Saddam time to develop or add to those weapons that he may already have. But hell, Saddam is going to kill us tomorrow so we need to get rid of him today! Next it will be Iran after we leave Iraq just like we left Afghanistan.
The telepnone conversation was strange. What government official would divulge information about hiding nerve gas on the telephone.? Even common criminals know about the risk of using telephones.
But it's a done deal anyway. Bush is going to war with or without UN approval. It's a hopeless case.
Helen
According to CNN tonight, 78% of Americans believe that the Bush adminstration will deceive them in regards to the Iraq war and 50% believe that their government will deceive them on all issues.
posted on February 5, 2003 04:14:14 PM new
Borillar - Was Powell's presentation what helped you come around?
As to what happens afterward, I've read that the intention is to have the UK stay in there for three years. Least that's what I've read is being talked about. Also on who will run Iraq I posted a URL of the suggestion of the administration and the UK. He is a progressive, who they believe is MOST respected by the many different factions in Iraq.
I'm so surprised to read your first paragraph, that I'll decline addressing the other you claimed.
[ edited by Linda_K on Feb 5, 2003 04:16 PM ]
posted on February 5, 2003 04:27:09 PM new
Here it is....tread topic that wasn't of interest to anyone, I guess.
Mr Chalabi, who is a progressive liberal, is far from universally popular among Iraqi exiles. However, successful talks in Tehran, and Iranian assistance in getting him into Iraq, shows he has galvanised considerable support from the Iraqi opposition.
Analysts believe disunity in the Iraqi opposition would make it near impossible to form a transitional government from its ranks, leading to speculation that the US will have to effectively occupy Iraq for a year or longer to maintain order.
posted on February 5, 2003 05:24:15 PM new
Americans Don't Trust Donkeys
"A Washington Post poll finds that when respondents were 'asked which party is more trusted to keep America safe, the Republican margin was 47 percent to 16 percent.' That's a difference of 31 percentage points--and it can't bode well for the Dems going into the next election."
- James Taranto's Best of the Web, 2/3/03
And to see poor ole Teddy Kennedy commenting on Colin Powels's address:
"I'm concerned about the safety of the people of Iraq if we invade"
My response to Teddy is:
'When you care enough to tell the truth about how you killed Mary Joe, I'll start listening to what you care about.
posted on February 5, 2003 06:11:22 PM new
I'm waiting to read the comments about Powell's presentation from the 6-7 democrats who will be running for theie party's nomination.
Want to see who is going to say Powell didn't make a good case.....and what the reaction to that will be.
posted on February 5, 2003 06:15:21 PM new
>Borillar - Was Powell's presentation what helped you come around?
No. It was Bush's State of the Union speech. I wasn't at all imprerssed with most of the outright lies he made, the distortions (which we here in the RT do know better is why I say that), and the emotional appeals. That is not what has changed my mind. What I did find that stuck with me is that Saddam not only cannot be trusted, but once he finishes his WOMD, he will most certainly use it to take over the Middle-East. Which, IMO, I am all for, since he is secular and would certinaly kill off any Al-Queda he found. Unfortunately, that would allow him to surround Israel and move WOMD just up to the boarder. His insane hatred for Israel and WOMD would certainly get the world into a third world war. Clearly, history will likely show is that NOW is the time to get rid of him and the WOMD there.
BUT . . .
Is Bush the Man for the job?
If you want a WAR done right -- you hire a Democrat to do it! Democrats stick to it, follow it through, and are willing to make commitments in the long run to see that the conquered country does not fall into chaos, ignorance and superstition. Sorry, Linda, but Bush hasn't impressed me in the least with his meandering from Terrorism, Osama, Al-Queda, and putting us into a very, very unstable postion in Afghanistan -- all because he won't stay the course!
So . . .
I want to see a "Marshall Plan" for Iraq. I want to see how we will be there to ensure the peace, set up the government, get rellief in there, smooth over hurt feelings, and to moderize the country. When Bush can provide the long-term plan, I'll be happy to back him up on this.
As far as sending in the British ~ that's just palming the situation off on someone else, IMO. And once Britian has had enough disaster in Iraq, it'll be up to US to go in there AGAIN to clean it up! I say - do it right the first time!
posted on February 5, 2003 06:34:55 PM newpalming the situation off. God...there's just no pleasing you. The Bush administration is talking about doing this BECAUSE of people who are like minded to you. He hears the criticism about his doing this because of oil arguments. It was stated that's why he' like to see the UK run it for a while afterwards. To prove to the 'non-believers', his intent. BUT SEE......even that's not going to help..according to you....he's just palming the responibility off.
If you want a WAR done right -- you hire a Democrat to do it! Yea, if you can find a democratic leader who's willing to do so. I've haven't heard any of the 6-7 supporting the war with Iraq.....other than voting to give the president the decision making powers to go to war.
And we do still have troops in Afghanistan. We are proving for their citizens. We are still fighting some left-over AQ. You guys all #*!@ about the costs....and the buget deficit but still want us to be rebuilding Afghanistan more than we all ready are? Again, it seems to me there's no pleasing those who think that way.
posted on February 5, 2003 09:29:55 PM new
When Powell started beating his fist on the desk in the UN I was just so happy he didn't take his shoe off and use it. --- That's a historic image not needing emulation on top of all the other totalitarian affections being adopted.
posted on February 5, 2003 09:51:25 PM new
LoL can you imagine? Powell , like Kruschev, banging his shoe against the desk demanding the entire mid-east while yelling , "We need to destroy Saddam this winter or we'll all be dead. Then, Iran's going to kill us tomorrow so we need to get rid of him today!!!
posted on February 5, 2003 10:09:13 PM new
>You guys all #*!@ about the costs....and the buget deficit but still want us to be rebuilding Afghanistan more than we all ready are? Again, it seems to me there's no pleasing those who think that way.
Ah, Linda! >sigh!< You can see the dots, but can't connect them. I have every faith that if you continue to try hard enough, you'll develope that talent sooner or later.
posted on February 5, 2003 10:12:57 PM new
I missed the speech by Powell. No news media would give out a specific time to tune in, so a lot of folks missd it. Did he really pound on the podium? Christ, that's been a serious fo-pah [sp?] since Kruschev! Back then, it reminded the Free World of Adolph Hitler ranting! I wonder if the Russian Embassador was able to keep a straight face at the irony?
posted on February 6, 2003 07:22:53 AM new
That link illuminates the situation, Krs!!!
Helen
excerpt...
Removing Hussein would also sandwich Iran, part of the "axis of evil," between U.S. military bases in Afghanistan to the east and Iraq to the west. If the United States were to have its military poised on both sides of the Iranian border, Tehran would have to become very careful about taking actions that could threaten U.S. interests. In addition to threatening Iran, the U.S. would send a strong signal to other countries in the area opposed to U.S. influence in the Middle East.
These actions do not bode well for other global powers. Russia and France both have extensive oil relationships with the Hussein regime. European nations have also been increasing investment in Iran's oil and gas sector. U.S. companies are banned from investing in Iranian industries due to ongoing U.S. government commercial sanctions against Tehran to punish it for alleged links with international terrorism. Any such attempt by the U.S. to destabilize or change the current Iranian government would be in direct opposition to European interests. Iran is well aware of this threat; Tehran has not offered support to the United States in its proposed invasion of Iraq, but it has not spoken out strongly against it for fear of U.S. reprisals.
The question now is how long global powers will stand in direct opposition to U.S. plans in Iraq. The Bush administration has not backed down, warning that a new Iraqi government may cancel all existing oil deals between Baghdad and nations hostile to U.S. interests. The administration has said that if it receives support from nations such as Russia and France in the Security Council, that Washington and the new Iraqi government will honor their current deals signed with Saddam Hussein.
For these nations, they have to make a choice about what they are willing to sacrifice. Will they stand against U.S. global hegemony and risk economic losses? Or will they allow the United States to spread its influence where it likes, participating in U.S strategy in order to preserve some economic benefits. Indeed, Russia's oil industry is already nervous. Last week the president of the Russian Oil and Gas Producers' Union, Yuriy Shafranik, stated that, "Russia should cooperate more closely with Western countries ... to protect its interests in Iraq."
posted on February 6, 2003 08:04:59 AM new
This is a revelation?? I posted that a side benefit of this would be an American military presence in the region that would curb some of these countries' "enthusiasm" months ago.
And as to the money the war costs, that will be billed to Iraq. If the French and Russians want to pick up the dice, they have to be prepared to lose. The administration is not going to be "business as usual" with partisan obstructionists.
Iran is not protesting because it is a bitter enemy of Iraq and it is likely Hussein is helping stir the liberal vs fundamentalist fighting going on there. There is tremendous pressure in Iran to normalize relations with the US. These elements would be dramatically enhanced.
posted on February 6, 2003 08:34:29 AM new
Desquirrel, "it's all about oil" is on the tip of your tongue
Why didn't anyone notice that Powell's cartoon trucks had 20 wheels instead of the eighteen he claimed? And that camp "RIGHT THERE!" is in northern Iraq - not even in an area controlled by Saddam but instead in the "no-fly" zone that US and British bombers bomb most every day. If it's so threatening to us all why haven't they simply bombed it away?
posted on February 6, 2003 08:40:49 AM new
DeSquirrel,
We're not talking about "enthusiasm", or "enhancing" US relations with Iran. Did you read the entire report?
Although I did not mention the word, "revelation", I found the link informative. I don't generally read your asinine comments - generally focused on a poster. I possibly missed your attempted mid-east erudition.
Have you also mentioned that France and Russia are concerned about the creation of US "permanent" military facilities in Iraq?
posted on February 6, 2003 09:00:15 AM new
It's ironic that none of the anti war protesters have mentioned the comments aired by several Kuwaiti citizens.
All expressed their concern about the production of anthrax in roaming mobile labs & the capability of air dispersal by Iraqi Mirage jets (read French manufactured fighter jet).
All were concerned of the threat of Saadams new generation of rockets & chemical agents. Of his nuclear threat.
But what do the Kuwaiti citizens know, they are only on the front lines of the threat
NEWS FLASH, NEWS FLASH, NEWS FLASH
It has just been reported that the French are rethinking their position in supporting America, England & the other European countries.
(I'm waiting in high anticipation that the French will join in condemning Saadam.....NOT)
Ah, Linda! >sigh!< You can see the dots, but can't connect them. I have every faith that if you continue to try hard enough, you'll develope that talent sooner or later.