Rebuttal of Colin Powell's Speech to the UN

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

Sorry to add yet another Iraq topic.

This essay is about to be submitted to an anit-war site: it needs to be cleaned up a bit, but will be posted pretty much as is.

The following is a critical analysis of the speech made by Colin Powell in front of the United Nations on the 5th February 2003. It is worthwhile remembering that the evidence presnted by Powell represents - by and large - the entire case that the United States currently has for their proposed military invasion of Iraq.

He seemed to split the speech up into five major categories (in that he addressed each of the major issues in turn, without much overlapping) so I suppose that’s the way I’ll talk about them here.

The first area dealt with Iraqi deception, and he attempted to prove the lengths to which the Iraqi government went to in order to cover up its “production of weapons of mass destruction”. It was essentially a series of character judgements of the Iraqi state, rather than a genuine presentation of direct evidence.

There were three recorded messages in the speech, all, really, were attempts to demonstrate just how subversive the Iraqi’s were being in their attempts to throw off the UN Inspectors.

The first recorded message was between a colonel and a brigadier general in the Iraq army, and was, probably, the most convincing evidence presented:

COL: We have this modified vehicle. #

GEN: Yeah. #

COL: What do we say if one of them sees it? #

GEN: You didn’t get a modified… You don’t have a modified… #

COL: By God, I have one. #

Here, the colonel has contacted the general - as you can see - with the concern that he possesses a “modified vehicle” ahead of a visit from Mohamed El Baradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). The phrase “By God, I have one” would appear - in the translation - to be an show of panic, but I wonder how accurate the translation is (As’Ad AbuKhalil - a Political Science professor at the California State University - was another to take issue with the accuracy of the translation). It should be remembered, that while the phrase “By God” - used in English - may be an expression of exaggerated awe or angst (as in “By God, what is that thing?”) the divine reference in Arabic may well be a more passive expression relative to the phrase “in all honesty” in English. It is important to remember that much can be lost (or gained) in the translation. We should be looking for direct evidence in the translation rather than rhetoric that may seem - in the way it has been translated - to be condemning. Thus, here no direct evidence has been given by either party, and the US seems to be relying more on the appearence of “panic” rather than upon any admission of guilt. The second part of the message is more illuminating though:

GEN: Which? From the workshop…? #

COL: From the al-Kindi Company #

GEN: What? #

COL: From al-Kindi. #

GEN: Yeah, yeah. I’ll come to you in the morning. I have some comments. I’m worried you all have something left. #

COL: We evacuated everything. We don’t have anything left. #

GEN: I will come to you tomorrow. #

One of the more interesting points here is the mention of the “Al Kindi Company”, and a point the Powell dwelled on briefly after the message had played. In his words “The al-Kindi Company: This is a company that is well known to have been involved in prohibited weapons systems activity”. The difficulty here is that the are two Al Kindi companies in Iraq, but we may as well address the threat that each poses before continuing. Remember, the claim here - that the “modified vehicle” constitutes evidence of Iraqi non-complience - is highly dependant on this link between the modified vehicle (a phrase which, in itself, is inconclusive) and this “Al Kindi company” which Powell has described as being involved in “prohibited weapons systems”.

The first Al Kindi company ( fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/faci … jesira.htm ) and was well known to the Americans both before and after the Gulf War. There is little doubt that the organisation was involved in reasearch into prohibited weapons (they were researching weapons grade uranium for one) and was heavily bombed in 1991 and 1998. The three Al Jesira sites (out of seven in total) known to be used in the research of nuclear weapons were bombed into insignificance, the Al Kindi company included. While it has been rebuilt since, it no longer has a nuclear program and production there is limited to “small, defensive missiles with a range of less than 93 miles” (as I understand it, these missiles are permitted under Resolution 1441). Thus, the threat Powell speaks of here has been heavily bombed twice in the past decade or so, and has been subsequently rebuilt as a mere shadow of its former self, and its activities are well known to Americans and inpectors alike.

The second Al Kindi company ( ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/troublingfirms.html ) specialises in the production of Veterinary Medicines, suspected - at one stage - of also producing anthrax (this was prior to the first wave of UN inspections). Initial investigations revealed nothing, though new US suspicion arose recently, and a suprise inspection was conducted on December 22nd. Bugging devices (used to record conversation that may be indicting, or indicitive of Iraqi subversion) were left there and a second suprise inspection followed in January. Despite the close attention, no evidence of prohibited activity whatsoever has been uncovered.

Thus, what we essentially have here, is an issue concerning the “evacuation” (once again, I wonder how much rhetorical merit the US have gained from this translation) of a vehicle modified by either an obsolete arms factory (that produces items permitted under the UN Resolution) or a Vet Clinic. I’ll leave it to the reader to ponder whether or not this conversation constitutes the solid evidence of WMDs that the US have been looking for.

The second message was similar, with a higher official talking to a lower official about the upcoming visit of some specific part of a UN inspection team. To quote CNN, one official said:

“They are inspecting ammunition you have … for the possibility there are forbidden ammo”

And the other replied:

“We sent you a message yesterday to clean out the areas, scrap areas, abandoned areas. Make sure there is nothing there.”

Here they speak of “forbidden ammo”, yet there is no necessary connection between the “ammo” and the “cleaning” referred to by the second soldier. That is, the UN are coming to examine “the possibility there are forbidden ammo” and the reply is “clean out the areas, scrap areas, abandoned areas” yet there is no definite connection to suggest that the two points are related (that is, just because one is saying that the UN are on their way to look for ammo and the other one says to clean the place up a bit, it requires some degree of “presuming the conclusion” to assume that the second officer is telling the first to clear out the “forbidden ammo” he “by chance” possess). If I were the UN inspection team, I would probably quite appreciate having the “scrap areas, abandoned areas” cleaned up - might make it easier to search the place without all that mess!

Once again, it could be construed as evidence of the Iraqis cleaning out evidence of WMDs in anticipation of UN inspections, or it could be construed in a number of ways. The phrases are ambiguous and taken out of any meaningful context. As with the preceding transcript, it strikes me as very odd that US intelligence can tap into so many calls, and be precise enough in their tracing to identify the people speaking and the sites they are referring to, yet cannot convey this information to inspection teams who would have - if the allegations are correct - ample time to catch the Iraqis with their pants down. If this really is evidence that the Iraqis are moving large amounts of weaponry, then surely the US could have instructed the UN to visit these sites as quickly as possible (you cannot dispose of evidence pertaining to chemical and biological weaponry overnight) and would have long found the “smoking gun” they seek by now.

The third message (which appeared much later on) seemed irrelevant to me, with one official telling another to take the phrase “nerve agents” out of a report. Taken out of context, the phrase is meaningless and could have been referring to anything. I’ll leave it to your own judgement though.

Continuing the theme about how deceptive the Iraqis were being, Powell decided to declare the Iraqi declaration (of weapons it possessed) as “rich in volume, but poor in information and practically devoid of new evidence” on behalf of Mr Blix suggesting that - essentially - Iraq was keeping valuable information away from the inspectors. Perhaps Mr Powell forgot the part where Hans Blix said of the declaration “In the fields of missiles and biotechnology, the declaration contains a good deal of new material and information covering the period from 1998 and onward. This is welcome.” Which goes somewhat against Powell’s follow up statement: “Saddam Hussein and his regime are busy doing all they possibly can to ensure that inspectors succeed in finding absolutely nothing”. However, not only have Iraq voluntarily surrundered a great deal of information to the Inspection Team, they have also not stood in the way of the inspection teams wishing to inspect sites. While Hans Blix was disappointed that the Iraqi co-operation was “passive rather than proactive” and that they hadn’t been given access to all the scientists they were interested in speaking to (which has demonstrably changed since this first report) Iraqi co-operation was still good enough to warrant a “B” assessment. In Hans Blix’s own words:

“Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far with UNMOVIC in this field. The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt. We have further had great help in building up the infrastructure of our office in Baghdad and the field office in Mosul. Arrangements and services for our plane and our helicopters have been good. The environment has been workable. Our inspections have included universities, military bases, presidential sites and private residences. Inspections have also taken place on Fridays, the Muslim day of rest, on Christmas day and New Years day. These inspections have been conducted in the same manner as all other inspections. We seek to be both effective and correct.”

One of the major problems that Blix cited in his report ( washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/wo … 12703.html ) was the fact that Iraq was refusing to allow U2 flights over the country (important, apparently, for surveyance) or to allow any aircraft to fly over the No-Fly Zone in the south (presumably for security reasons). In recent days, Iraq has now permitted both (the UN can now use the U2 planes and can send in helicopters etc over the no-fly zone) and Hans Blix and his inspection team - after recent talks in Baghdad - remain confident that Iraqi co-operation has been and is continuing to improve. Iraqi non-complience is slowly becoming a less relevent excuse for warfare.

Moving on, the second part of the speech dealt with supposed evidence pertaining to Iraqs production of chemical and biological weapons, and most of it was heavily dated and skewed so that Iraq could be allowed no right of reply. For instance, Powell accused the Iraqis of possessing large amounts of biolgical agents “before the Iraq/Iran war” and then challenged Iraq and suggested that the fact that it had not been accounted for was evidence enough that Iraq was guilty of this material for 20+ years and that it was up to Iraq to prove that it had been destroyed. And if I may side-track for a moment, that was another main thrust of Powell’s speech - that the burden of proof is on the Iraqis rather than the Americans. That is, that the Iraqis are guilty until proven innocent. Quite what you can do to prove that you don’t have any WMDs apart from saying “I don’t have any WMDs, come in and take a look” is beyond me, and severly subverts my own conceptions of justice - but then maybe that’s just me.

Anyway, Powell made a long list of substances that Iraq used to have, and punctuated these statistics with graphic references as to how potent these materials really are, using his pen-lid, at times, as a point of reference. Nonetheless, throughout all the statistics he provided, none, from memory, were more recenent than 5 years old (i.e. 1998 or earlier, the time, he said, when Hussein “booted out the inspectors” when it was actually Bill Clinton who kicked out the inspectors at that point). Once again, he made numerous assertions that Iraq did have this that or the other at some point in time (most of which was supplied to it by the US anyway - not that it should matter of course) and once again demanded that Iraq prove that - after 7 years of inspections - it no longer had these materials. Once again, Powell and his government are the protagonists, the ones pressing for a war, so why should the burdern of proof be on the Iraqis? Could I justly accuse a man of murder and assert that he prove otherwise, especially given that I am the one determining the merit of the evidence he presents in the first place?

The only present (i.e. post 1998) evidence he presented on the issue was that of satellite photographs taken of Iraqi sites supposed to be producing chemical/biolgocial weapons. By his own admission, the photgraphs require expert analysis to be made meaningful, but I’m sure that we can examine them and do our own analysis:

This image is from the BBC website. It was a lot more clear in the presentation, but essentially what Colin Powell was trying to show was a site busy with activity in November and then being bulldozed in December. In the first image he presented (you can’t see it on the image above) he showed a warehouse (the big square thing in the image on the left) being surrounded by trucks, tents, personnel and other things that, in his view, demonstrated that the site was active. Now I have no qualms with the summation, the site was active (which seemed to be the point Powell wished to stress the most - that something was happening there in November) but I still see no proof that this site was a production site for WMDs. Perhaps you need to have a better trained eye than I do, but to conclude that the site was used to store/produce weapons merely because there were trucks/security there, you would - in my eyes - need to draw quite a long bow indeed. If the site was being monitered so closely, after all, surely they would have noticed massive missles being loaded into the back of the trucks? Or, if it’s not quite that simple, but if they were so sure that the site was producing weapons, then surely they could have traced the trucks to wherever they were headed, passed the information onto the UN and demanded a thorough search of the relevent complexes? Surely this would have provided the excuse for a war that they were looking for?

Besides, I think that the subsequent slides (and the commentary provided by Mr Powell) actually end up working aginst the US in their assertion that Iraq are moving weapons around at will. Look at the dates separating the pictures: one month. That is, going by this case study, it takes one month from the point at which weapons are removed from a factory, to the point at which it is demolished “and the top soil removed” (Powell’s own words) to remove any evidence of weapons from the site. Remember, as I said earlier, you can’t just sweep chemical/biolgical/nuclear weapons production under the carpet overnight. Toxins and radioactivity have the habit of staying around long after the responsible materials have been removed, and the UN inspectors aren’t stupid. They aren’t just looking for boxes labelled “Weapons of Mass Destruction”, they are thoroughly analyising the sites thought to have housed weapons production plants. If there had been large scale chemical/biological weapons production plant at a particular site, it would take a long time to clean it all up. You couldn’t just throw everything into a few boxes, drive them away and then deny everything. Even if the Iraqi officials had a few days warning prior to UN inspections (which, most of the time, they don’t) disposing of the evidence isn’t that easy, it’s a long process (a month in the above case) and I’m sure that with the US’s satellite monitoring capabilites, sneaking large amounts of chemical weapons around the country would be pretty difficult. But perhaps the Iraqis are able to get tip-offs about which sites the inspectors will be visiting, giving them time to move weapons around in advance of their arrival? Not likely. According to the Guardian (an English newspaper): “He [Blix] also contested the theory that the Iraqis knew in advance what sites were to be inspected. He added that they expected to be bugged “by several nations” and took great care not to say anything Iraqis could overhear”.

To quote Phyllis Bennis:

“Contrary to Powell’s pronouncements, Hans Blix said the UNMOVIC inspectors have seen ‘no evidence’ of mobile biological weapons labs… and no evidence of Iraq hiding and moving material used for weapons of mass destruction.”

The “mobile labs” mentioned here correlate to the assertion made by Powell that Iraq are manufacturing biological and/or chemical weapons on the move - an elaborate procedure staged on the back of trucks. Hans Blix, once again, dismissed this suggestion out of hand, saying that he had already been alerted to this possibility by the US (that is, well in advance of Powell’s speech) and that searches uncovered nothing. See here: truthout.org/docs_02/020603A.htm .

As you should be able to see, US “evidence”, in this case, amounts to little more than mere speculation.

The third part of the speech had to do with Saddam Hussein’s attempt to build a nuclear weapon, and it failed to tell us anything that we didn’t already know. Basically, Powell ran through a long list of items that Hussein had either procured or attempted to procure, and how these may be tied in with the aim of building a nuclear bomb. Yet, even by Powell’s own admission, Hussein does not yet have all the components necessary to build one, even if he wanted to. He went on at length about the “aluminium tubing” that could be used in the production of a nuclear bomb, despite the fact that this issue had been addressed by the IAEA several weeks before. Taken from the BBC website (an article concerning the allegations made against Iraq, written on 20/01/03):

"There was better news for Iraq on the mystery of its attempted import of thousands of aluminium tubes.

The suspicion was that it wanted these for centrifuges to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb but Mr ElBaradei’s report to the Council said that the IAEA analysis “indicated that the… tubes sought by Iraq… appear to be consistent with reverse engineering of rockets” as Iraq had asserted."

So on the nuclear front, much as we had suspected. Saddam doesn’t have a nuclear bomb, and couldn’t make one even if he wanted to.

The fourth part of the speech concerned Iraq’s links with Al Qaeda, and was even more spurious than the preceding parts of the speech. The entire argument rested on the assumption that Hussein had links with a man named “Abu Musab Zarqawi” which Colin Powell made little effort to verify. The evidence presented to link Zarqawi to Saddam Hussein basically consisted of the fact that Zarqawi went to Baghdad for medical treatment and ended up staying there for a few months (the fact that Zarqawi and his operation are mainly based in the Kurdish areas to the north of Iraq - areas outside of Hussein’s control - was quickly skipped over).

To be sure, Powell made out a great case as to why this “Zarqawi” is a threat to global security (making sure to specifically spell out the threat he posed to the nations present at the council - Spain, Italy, Russia etc) but his ties to Hussein were undeniably tenuous at best. Apparently the fact that he and some of his factions were working within Iraq (as I said, mainly in the areas outside of Hussein’s control) and that he had met with some Iraqi officials were enough to suggest that Hussein had ties with Al Qaeda, but, needless to say, there was little evidence presented to support this assumption. If Zarqawi is such a threat, then it is he who needs to be stopped. If these threats are coming out of the Kurdish part of Iraq, then I fail to see what Baghdad has to do with it. Also, he asserted that “Iraqis visited Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and provided training to al-Qaeda members” in the early 1990s and that this was grounds to condemn Hussein. But didn’t the US do exactly the same thing? Did they not fund and train Al Qaeda and Bin Laden? I’m not angling at hypocracy here, merely that Hussein may well have funded Al Qaeada many years ago, but that it does not constitute any grounds for war (otherwise, would any of the countries who lost citizens in the Sept 11 disasters be able to lay a similar claim against the US for funding these terrorists?).

“Ambition and hatred are enough to bring Iraq and al-Qaeda together” Powell continues, barely acknoledging the fact that the Secularism of Hussein and the theism of Bin Laden drive them further apart than a common hatred of the US ever could bring them together. Though perhaps As’ad AbuKhalil does a better job at dismissing the Iraq and Terrorism argument:

“The claims of terrorism links remain hollow: even the State Department report ‘Patterns of Global Terrorism’ states that Iraq has not been involved in terrorism since 1993. As for a Bin Laden link, that was not proved, but alleged without any substantiation… Two groups mentioned by Powell have been largely defunct since 1985. Two others, the alleged ‘Zakawi network’ and Ansar al-Islam, operate in northern Iraq, outside Saddam Hussein’s control. The leader of Ansar al-Islam has denied having any links to either Hussein or Bin Laden. The Arab media is reporting that the Zakawi story was provided by Jordanian intelligence, which has a record of torture and inaccuracy. Prince Nayif, the minister of interior and chief of the Saudi effort in the ‘war on terrorism,’ denied ever hearing about the two al-Qaeda members sneaking from Iraq into Saudi Arabia.”

Or, perhaps I could just point out that both the FBI and CIA ( news.independent.co.uk/world/mid … ory=375403 ) deny the links. Either way, I think it that the link between Iraq and terrorist activity has been adequately dealt with.

The last part of the speech (which was much shorter than the other parts) was essentially a moral condemnation of Hussein’s human rights record, which - while being technically accurate - was rife with hypocracy, and as much a justification for a pre-emptive stike on the US as it was justification for a pre-emptive strike on Iraq. Firstly Powell cited Iraqi violation of UN resolutions and treaties, which - while they may be valid, do not excuse the fact that many other countries are guilty of violating many more (and much more serious) resolutions than Iraq, and the fact that the human rights record of the US (as well as their violation of similar UN treaties/resolutions) has been, especially for a western country, abysmal. Secondly - in a statement that nearly had me cough up beer through my nose in shock - Powell condemned Hussein for gassing his own people in 1988.

Now I’ve already run through this before, so I won’t labour the point, but essentially most of the chemical weapons used by Hussein against the Kurds in 1988 were supplied by the US and after the event, the US government (headed by Bush snr, and of which Powell - unless I am very much mistaken - was a part) actually increased the export of such weapons to Iraq. Thus, to spell it out more bluntly, Powell condemns the Iraqi president for murdering his own people when it was his government who supplied him with the means to commit such an action, and his government who - being so outraged by these “humanitarian attrocities” - increased the supply of such weapons after the event. I’m not sure what else to add, as the US begging along the “human rights” angle really does speak for itself.

Anyway, overall, having said all that I have, I believe that Powell came across quite confidently and spoke forcefully and passionately. I am proud that he has - or at least has been shown to have - convinced Bush to pursue the UN angle as far as possible. I doubt that any of the other individuals holding Bush’s strings would have come across quite so convincingly, so in that sense, at least Powell presented a semi-reputable argument and presented the bare, necessary legal justification for a war on Iraq. Having said that, though, much of the information was aged and outdated, and virtually all of it relied on “human accounts”, or - to put it another way - “things that people told us”. In a court of law, that would be classified as hear-say and conjecture, and I’m not sure it would be enough to convict Hussein of the crimes with which he has been charged. I’m fairly certain I’ve addressed most of the substantiated points (in the sense that there is evidence supporting the claims that reaches beyond mere hearsay and conjecture) and if I haven’t, then I’d be happy to address it should you remind me of it (as my memory ain’t what it used to be).

The speech did little to convince me that a war on Iraq is the right thing. Powell did not address the many deaths certain to occur from such an action (and this is by far the most major issue to be considered in the justification for war) nor did he address what would happen once Hussein had been deposed as leader. Neither was that tiny, unmutterable “O” word mentioned. The speech did moderately well in detailing why the US might be legally justified in going to war, but did nothing to clarify why war is the best available option, or why other diplomatic avenues have necessarily been depleted.

Perhaps, to finish with, perhaps I could pose these questions:

  • If the evidence presented in the speech is as conclusive as the US have said, why did they wait - up to twelve months in some cases - to communicate it to the UN? Wouldn’t it have been better to have communicated it to UNSCOM or UNMOVIC and have the threat dealt with earlier on (Saddam Hussein being the ticking time-bomb that he is… )?

  • Given that much of the evidence presented here came within the few months preceding the speech (just a few days beforehand in the case of one of the recorded messages) why was the push for war so strong in September/October of last year before much of the evidence was available? On what, exactly, was this push for war based? Could it be that the desire for war preceded all evidential justification? Could it be (hush, hush) that the initial push for war was based on something other than the issues raised here by Powell?

  • Why is the onus of proof being placed so heavily on the Iraqis? Given that it is the US who are making the deafening call for military action, why have they offered so little evidence to support the fact that Iraq may be hiding something? Why are they so against giving the UN inspectors more time to find this definitive proof that they seek? Why are they being allowed to manipulate the natural course of justice in this sense, by being able to dictate the rules of their game to everyone else?

  • If Iraqi co-operation continues to grow as it has done in recent days, will that be enough to satisfy the US government? If nothing turns up, will that merely be further evidence of “Iraqi deception”? If the discovery of a WMD is justification for war, then why must the absence of a WMD indicate that they just must be hidden “real good”? Is there anything Iraq can do to avoid a miltary conflict?

I’m sure that, given more time, there are more questions I could raise about Powell’s “compelling” speech, but I suppose I’ll leave it there. I doubt very much that I have been successful in rendering Powell’s speech “false” or “useless”, but hopefully I have accurately represented the view that runs contrary to those presented by Colin Powell in front of the UN and - from here - I suppose that it is left up to you - the reader - to decide which view point is the more meritorious.

Any thoughts/suggestions/noted errors?

2

Can’t tell us? Heard that before.

A recording of people talking about a modified vehicle. This has absolutely no relation to WMDs. It could be a jeep with nifty systems for desert warfare, maybe mounting a new TOW system or something. Not one mention of WMDs.

Likely involved in mounting new non-WMD weapon systems, or maybe building radars, rocket engines, anything. And apart from that, where is the evidence to support this claim?

Again, this recording does not mention anything related to WMDs. IT is about the old 122mm rocket cases. The inspectors found some old cases and the USA kicked up a fuss as though they proved Iraq has WMDs, when in fact those rockets are actually rather small unguided munitions from a Grad or a Hind. Given the fuss the USA made over the last batch of OLD ammunition found, yes, the Guard are cleaning up any other old munitions. Again, no evidence to support the USA’s claims.

Again from a recording, supposedly. It’s only proper for the Iraq military to destroy communications. Would you expect the USA to publish their military communications?

Assertions again. Where’s the evidence?

Coloured arrows??? As for the cleanup truck, we have them in Australian military bases too, yet we don’t have chemical and biological weapons (generally). All military bases should have such teams, and many do.

So… they saw trucks? Preparing to move “ballistic missile components”? First, how do they know what people were intending to put on the trucks? Second, ballistic missile components are not in any way illegal. As for the caravan of trucks, we do that all the time in Australia’s military; things are always being moved around; food, tanks, mechanical parts, systems, everything. It’s normal.

“to move missiles”? How do they know what people were intending to do? If you watch any military base, you will see trucks moving things around, from one base to another. Get satellite images of USA military bases and you’ll see it.

At last an admission.

  1. But wait a moment… I thought the USA was claiming Iraq had been playing this game of moving things all through the 90s! Meaning, it is simply normal movements of military hardware.

  2. Of what nature? He just admitted he doesn’t know what was being moved. Hmm, the logical holes are many.

“Permit” U2 flights? Since when has the USA needed permission to spy on people? A U2 was recently downed just into the border of South Korea after a flight into the North. A while back a USA spy plane was downed in Chinese territory. That, and the USA already has their aircraft flying in Iraq’s sovereign territory.

Evidence? I thought not.

“UNSCOM estimates”. That’s nice. But apart from evidence of bad record-keeping, is there evidence of the existence of such materials?

It is indeed evidence. Of bad record-keeping. And that’s all.

So, he claims to have sources who claim to have seen something and known what they were looking at? Any evidence to support your claims, Mister Powell? Pictures? Blueprints and construction schedules? Anything? Where are these witnesses, so your claims of their existence can be confirmed? Oh, that’s right, they’re hidden away for their own protection…

Here at least he is on target. I’ve seen this video myself, ages ago. Iraq did indeed develop modules to add on to aircraft to deploy aerosols. Is developing that system illegal? If it is to deliver LSD, tear gas, insecticides? Granted, it is likely intended to deliver very dangerous weapons. But it is not evidence that Iraq has WMDs.

Again, a war against bad record-keeping.

Has anyone provided evidence that Iraq “weaponised” VX? Didn’t think so.

  1. So you “know” it? Evidence? Didn’t think so.

  2. So they look like normal civilian operations, even to your experts? Perhaps you should listen to your experts.

This guy’s in hiding too, right? Were they simply moving their anti-chem/bio-terrorism unit from one base to another?

This supposedly from a recording of a discussion between two of the elite Republican Guard. Bullshit. First, these are elite troops, who live and breathe security. Second, they know they are being listened to. Would they really say this crap? It’s not evidence that the USA cooked up this crap, but it’s about 90% certain, in my opinion, that these elite troops could not possibly be stupid enough to say this.

  1. They weren’t “chemical warheads” as he says. They were 122mm short-range, unguided rockets from a Grad or [/i]Hind[/i].

  2. As Hans Blix said: “There are no chemical or biological agents or weapons of mass destruction or linked to weapons of mass destruction”.

The USA has chemical weapons. The USA has used such weapons. And the USA has no compunction about using them again, against neighbours and against his own people.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16938

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/11/bush.weapons.security/index.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/12/11/1039379882833.html

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002/t10092002_t1009ha.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TET210A.html
http://english.pravda.ru/world/2002/10/10/37987.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65162,00.html
http://www.aclu.org/action/dpinnocence107.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innoc.html
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16938

And at last another admission. Good. For a change.

Any evidence for this? Or are we to simply take the USA’s word for it? The word of a nation which has killed over half a million civilians since 1940, has tested chemical and biological weapons on its own people, and is even now threatening to use nuclear weapons again?

So, even though the IAEA still says Iraq has absolutely no nuclear weapons programme, Powell can somehow say Iraq does have one? If the best experts in the world say Iraq doesn’t have nukes, how can Powell claim otherwise? Where is his evidence?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/06/sproject.irq.inspections/

What proof does the USA have for this claim? None.

So, because Iraq buys aluminium tubes, and USA manufacturing standards are realy crappy, this means Iraq is making nukes? Sorry, there is no logic in that. Try harder.

So Iraq is buying things which could be used in a nuclear arms industry? But could also be used in a few dozen other industries? Wow. Since the IAEA says Iraq isn’t working on nukes, and these items can be used for all sorts of things, that sort of totally destroys any indication of guilt regarding these tubes and magnets.

Wow, Senator Joseph McCarthy would have loved you, Mister Powell. Casting aspersions and such, delivering damning opinions, without a single shred of evidence.

Did Iraq really make such an admission? I’d like to see it. If so, is this what Iraq is guilty of? Breaking a range limit on missiles? Breaking a treaty? Heck, the USA is famous for breaking treaties. Does the “Trail of Tears” ring any bells? Over three hundred treaties with the native Americans broken. The Anti Ballistic Missile treaty, broken. If breaking a treaty is reason to attack a nation, surely that means the USA needs to be attacked, yes?

  1. “Likely” means nothing, when we’re discussing evidence to be used as an excuse for a war which will kill thoudands.

  2. The engines being imported does not mean they were to be used in military applications. Australia uses rocket engines all the time for research.

  3. UNSCOM may have prohibited the use of such engines in surface to surface missiles, but that doesn’t mean Iraq used them for that purpose. The law here prohibits murder, but that doesn’t mean I have committed murder.

  4. That final point about exceeding range limits only matter if the USA first proves that Iraq installed those engines in a prohibited manner, which it has not.

Prove it.

A little scare tactics? Show the Europeans they can be targeted by these hypothetical missiles and hope they’ll all be so scared they’ll jump into line? Sorry, but USA-drawn maps showing who can be hit by imaginary missiles does not in any way constitute evidence.

A test stand? Wow. So building rocket gantries is also illegal? China has many such tall gantries. They use them in their space programme. Personally I doubt Iraq is trying to join the space race, but I fail to see how building a test gantry breaches anything.

UAVs are indeed well-suited to such purposes. And to many other purposes, such as battlefield surveillance. The USA uses them to launch missiles at Afghani civilians. Heck, even Australia has UAVs. Again, this doesn’t even come close to proving Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.

  1. Where’s the evidence of these claims?

  2. The USA has ties to terrorism going back decades. The USA organised, trained, equipped, and funded the Afghani rebels against the Soviets in Afghanistan. The USA did that nasty little Iran-Contra deal. The USA supported Noriega, until he decided to go his own way. The USA organised civilians in Vietnam to fight the North Vietnamese in the same way they organised the Afghanis who later became the Taliban. The USA has ordered its intelligence services to conduct assassinations. The USA recently announced it would support rebels within Iraq.
    http://members.aol.com/bblum6//ecuador.htm

  3. The USA has been involved in more assassinations than just about anyone: http://members.aol.com/bblum6//assass.htm

There is still no evidence of any link between Iraq and Al Quaida. The photograph of a camp in the desert means nothing. Heck, it’s most likely the Iraqi infantry out on an exercise.

More scare tactics that have absolutely nothing to do with any possible evidence against Iraq? Great.

The proof of this claim?

Why not? Given the lies and deceptions contained in this USA speech, I personally find Iraq far more trustworthy than the USA.

Wow. Terrorists have been arrested in the USA as well. Does this mean there is a connection between the USA government and terrorist groups? I guess so…

Well, that’s just nifty that the USA can draw charts. But what does this description of the Al Quaida network have to do with Iraq? Again, there is no evidence that the Iraqi government supports this group.

So, another mysterious source tells the USA that, at best, Al Quaida is not against Iraq. Again, this does not even slightly indicate that the Iraqi government supports Al Quaida.

So, Saddam Hussein was impressed with attacks against the nation that routinely bombs his country, has screwed Iraq economically, has attacked Iraq in full force before and is threatening to do so again? Heck, I’d be impressed too, if I was him. But again, this proves nothing about connections between the two.
http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html

Prove it.

This is something Iraq is indeed guilty of, at last. However, if this is reason to attack Iraq, I would point out the USA’s own record in similar acts or barbarism:

Threatening to nuke people:
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/12/11/bush.weapons.security/index.html

Attacking sovereign nations:
http://www.ccmep.org/us_bombing_watch.html
http://americanpeace.eccmei.net/

Using chemical/biological weapons against its own people:
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Oct2002/t10092002_t1009ha.html
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TET210A.html
http://english.pravda.ru/world/2002/10/10/37987.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,65162,00.html

Killing its own citizens:
http://www.aclu.org/action/dpinnocence107.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innoc.html

Killing other civilians:
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/2/7/30418
http://www.web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/index/EUR700691999
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civpertons.htm
http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
http://www.cursor.org/stories/appendix5.htm
http://www.cursor.org/stories/casualty_count.htm
http://www.cursor.org/stories/ontarget.htm
http://www.counterpunch.org/suren1.html]Counterpunch
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,1284,622000,00.html
http://www.sfbg.com/News/36/12/ogwar.html
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=12525
http://www.counterpunch.org/blumcasualties.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/15/international/asia/15BOMB.html
http://monkeyfist.com/articles/800/
http://www.fair.org/activism/afghanistan-casualties.html
http://www.commondreams.org/news2001/1210-01.htm

Starts wars for profit, not peace:
http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,5883827%255E421,00.html
http://www.mike-warren.com/links/iraq-oil-war.html
http://www.counterpunch.org/mckinney0922.html
http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/1publications-briefings-Iraq.htm
http://www.msnbc.com/news/819220.asp
http://www.msnbc.com/news/824407.asp?0cb=-315114700
http://www.presentdanger.org/pdf/gac/0209oil.pdf
http://www.observer.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12239,825105,00.html
http://www.thedebate.org/thedebate/iraq.asp

Dresden: 60,000 dead.
Tokyo: 83,000 dead.
Hiroshima: estimated 150,000 dead in the first three months, rising to 300,000 months later.
Nagasaki: 140,000 dead.

And before anyone complains that the nukes used on civilians in Japan saved lives:

CONCLUSION

What we have are a great many baseless assertions. Each is adequately supported by circumstantial evidence only if you accept all the others. Point A is supported if you first accept Point B and Point C. Point B is supported if you accept Point A and Point C. Point C is supported if you accept Point A and Point B. This does not constitute evidence. All it makes is one gigantic, internally-consistent load of bullshit.

3

well it appears that you spent alot of time on this entry but i wish you had put a little more thought into it. you make the claim that everything is subjective but offer nothing in responce but the same subjective “bullshit” your arguing agianst.

id like to believe you are making some valid points but its hard to believewhen you say thigs like “the USA uses them to launch missiles at Afghani civilians” your language just shows your disaproval of america and not any factual evidence

in conclusion hinsight is 20/20 you can second quess everything from the past but the fact remains we have an administration in place doing the best they can… and if you cant stand behind that… move to france so the usa can still fight your wars and you can complain all you want

ps if you move to france stay out of the country side they tend to support the usa in everything after seeing so many americans get mowed down in normandy

4

If you insist. However, I tend to see it as pointing out holes in something which is supposed to be without holes. For it to justify the thousands who will die, it must be without holes. But it isn’t.

Um… Have you ever watched the news? How about that time the USA Spectre gunship massacred people at an Afghani wedding? Did you never see that?

  1. If you believe governments are there to “do the best they can”, you’re very naive.

  2. I’m not American, I have no intention of moving to France, and the USA constitution was set up deliberately so people could freely criticise the government.

Obviously you don’t watch the news then. France is not supporting the USA.

5

well a person with some understanding of philosophy you should understand that there is 2 sides to every argument everything has “holes in it” at least from a discussion stand point.

as far as a gunship shooting at a wedding i have to claim ignorance i havent heard of any such event… but if it did happen im sure the objective wasnt to disrupt a wedding if you could send me a link id love to further investigate the incident…

  1. If you believe governments are there to “do the best they can”, you’re very naive.

read what i said agian they are doing the best they can… i hope you dont see the government as doing the worst job they can.

and also read what i said about france … i realize france as a nation doesnt support the war (mostly because they are backing sadam with $$$ and weapons) but the country side that saw american armies mowed down so that france isnt speaking german today are very supportive of the usa
its like in america a certian portion of the population supports the war while another doesnt

in conclusion i dont appriciate you attacking my own alertness to whats going on if you cant even read what i have written properly.

6

AC-130 attacks wedding in Afghanistan.

Last count I saw, the USA had killed around 3,000 Afghani civilians during that campaign.

And no, there are not two sides. The USA made accusations, and utterly failed to support those accusations. There’s no other side to that. They failed. They have no justification for war.

7

proposition 1441 the justification… over ten years to disarm= USA right to attack

8

3000 civilians… not to be incensitive but thats a fairly small number how many innocent people died in the 9 11 attacks how many more would have died if the campaign in afganastan hadnt taken place?

and there are definitly two sides otherwise you wouldnt be offering a different view point then mine…

and definitly 1441 would allow war… how come iraq could produce 100 missles only at the threat of immediate attack… obviously the inspectors are unable to uphold the disarament… its not like iraq has to go to war they can merely distroy their weapons.

9

  1. What exactly do you mean by “disarm”? Are you suggesting a sovereign nation should scrap its entire military because the USA says so?

  2. Throughout those ten years, the USA has been constantly bombing Iraq. Why the hell should they do anything to please the country that continually attacks them?

  3. If “breaking a treaty” is sufficient reason to attack a nation, then the USA should be attacked. The USA breaks treaties all the time. So either “breaking a treaty” means the USA should be attacked, or “breaking a treaty” is not a valid reason to attack Iraq. Which is it?

10

  1. Actually, I think it’s more than died in the 11/9 attacks against the USA. Wasn’t it about 2,800 in New York and 100 in Washington? I’m not sure.

  2. You can’t possibly be saying “some day they might hurt us” is a valid justification for war. Are you? Hell, the USA nukes people. They wiped out two entire cities with nukes. They bombed Dresden and Tokyo flat as well. And now, once again, the USA is threatening to nuke people. Given this, surely the USA is far more deserving to be attacked because of what they might do, yes?
    cnn.com/2002/US/12/11/bush.w … index.html
    theage.com.au/articles/2002/ … 82833.html

Well, yes, there are two sides. But only one is rational and supported by facts and logic.

  1. Hans Blix, a chap undoubtedly with more knowledge of the situation than you, says Iraq is complying and coming along nicely.

  2. Do you really think the USA will withdraw now, even if Iraq scraps every weapon they have, down to kitchen knives? The USA has been set on going to war since the beginning, regardless of international law, regardless of any evidence or lack of it, regardless of anything. And now that they have placed so much military force in that region, they can’t really afford to not have a war.

11

ok maybe on 9 11 less then 3000 people died which is inacurate it was more like 4 to 5 thousand but say it was less then 3000… 12 yrs ago the world trade canter was attacked and then 4 yrs ago the uss coal had a hole blown in the side of it… it is definitly justified to say the future threat was there… America acted in its best interest. the inaction of the past administration has finally been vendicated by president bush and the current administration.

as far as droping nukes… america was in a war with a country that was willing to fight until all their people were gone. dropping the bombs (although it was a regretable act) did stop the war… im not going to try to justify use of nuclear weapons because i cant… but the usa has never never said a thing that would indicate thier willingness to use nuclear warfare in a war with iraq… lets get that strait… those are your words and the words of all ignorant people who are more concerned with scaring people into compliance with their thoughts then looking at things with a rational open mind.
even your own links that you post say nothing about using nuclear weapons it says the usa has the capabilities. the last war with iraq tock what 5 days of actual ground forces why would you assume we would use nuclear weapons???

and quit arguing that there are not two sides you show your own ignorance in not being able to except what you dont readily agree with i acknoledge that we dont agree but you just sound silly trying to say that theres only one side.

im glad you support hans blix but saying he knows more must make him right is ubsurd not to mention he supported war less than a month ago which lead to iraq giving up 100 illegal missles. its not only the usa supporting disarming iraq it was a decicion made in the un… there not trying to take the kitchen knives out of iraq they merely want the weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of a provren mad man. and its not what i mean by disarm its what the un means by disarm dont associate this situation with my interests im merely commenting on the issues.

i checked out some of the info ADAM provided labled “constantly bombing iraq” the first link i saw was that iraq fired on a plane patroling the no fly zone… so dont even suggest that iraq is blameless in all of this.

I totally agree that america has violated treaty agreements but never has the usa violated a treaty involving the un and disarmament.

well this is my final post on this topic im no longer going to defend the greatest country in the world… if you need more justification after this wait 10 years and look in the history books The actions of the usa will speak for themselves, thanks for allowing me to comment.

12

Less than 3,000.

So what? Neither have anything to do with Iraq. Neither had anything to do with Afghanisatan, except that a couple of people involved had been to Afghanistan once. Heck, Timothy McVeigh has been to the USA; does that mean the USA needs to be bombed?

Okay, here’s a very simple lesson. If you run around bombing all these countries, you will upset lots of people. You will drive more and more people toward extremist attitudes, and generate more violent hostility toward the USA. Is that really better than inaction? That is debatable. But better than diplomatic action?

That is basically what Americans are told to avoid having to deal with the reality of their barbarous acts. The bombs were not needed. The dropping of those nukes was merely a demonstration to the Russians that the USA had nuclear weapons.

Let’s get that straight, huh? Right. I have already provided this link for you, but apparently you didn’t feel the need to read it. Here is yet another page for it.
smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/ … 55189.html
usgovinfo.about.com/library/ … 83102a.htm

smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/ … 55189.html
usgovinfo.about.com/library/ … 83102a.htm

You have utterly failed to show that there is any other side. If you wish to maintain that there is, please demonstrate what that other side is.
Side One:

  • Iraq has not attacked the USA.
  • There is no evidence linking Iraq to terrorist groups which have attacked the USA.
  • The USA is seeking to use nuclear weapons, as I have shown (please do some reading).
  • The USA has attacked and killed more civilians than Iraq has (please read the Notes down the bottom).
  • The USA has been attacking Iraq constantly for about ten years: iraqbodycount.net/
  • The USA uses chem/bio weapons against its own people: deathpenaltyinfo.org/innoc.html
  • The USA indulges in political assassinations: quixote-quest.org/resources/nati … 31302.html

Side Two:

  • Iraq has not kept very good records of the destruction of their very old chemical and biological weapons.
  • Iraq has missiles with long ranges which are unacceptable under a treaty they signed, but they are currently destroying those misslies.

Side Two doesn’t really have anything. Chemical and biological weapons deteriorate over time; in the more than ten years since that treaty was signed, those old chem/bio agents would have degraded beyond useful capacity.

I suggest you learn to read more carefully, and learn to pay closer attention to the news:

iaea.org/worldatom/Programme … orts2.html
iaea.org/worldatom/Programme … /nwp2.html
un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7664.doc.htm
un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N … r1=inspect
un.org/apps/news/story.asp?N … r1=inspect

  1. What weapons of mass destruction?

  2. How/when/where and by whom was Saddam Hussein proven a madman? Do you mean he is mad because he:

  • nuked two civilian cities?
  • tested chem/bio weapons on his own people?
  • executed 152 citizens while governor of Texas?
    What exactly is it that prompts you to call him mad? The USA news services and Whitehouse spokesmen who call him insane all the time? Do you think maybe they just might have a vested interest in giving people that impression?

Well, here you need to figure out who you think asked for what.

  • The UN asked for records of the destruction of Iraq’s old chem/bio weapons. Iraq complied, although their records apparently weren’t kept very well.
  • The IAEA said without any doubts that Iraq has no nuclear weapons.
  • The treaty the USA signed with Iraq called for Iraq to have no missiles with above a certain range, and Iraq is now destroying those missiles.
  • The UN says Iraq is complying with all demands, as per the SC document I referenced above.

Good. Now read the rest of them. The “no-fly zone” (catchy name) is not in any way a matter of international law enforcement. It is the USA’s project along with the UK and France, not the UN’s. It is an illegal occupation of Iraq’s airspace. Iraq has every right to force illegal aerial invasions out of their sovereign territory.

So it’s only a very narrowly-defined type of international treaty that matters? You can safely break the rest, even those that involve NBC weapons (ie. the ABN Treaty)?

I see. You operate from a point of patriotism. That makes it all very clear now. Thanks.

NOTES

  • Number of people killed by Suddam Hussein in the Kurdish town of Halabja in March 1988 with gas bombs: 5,000
  • Child death rate in Iraq in 1989 (per 1000 children) : 38
  • Child death rate in Iraq in 1999 (per 1000 children) : 131
  • Number of Iraqis estimated to have died by October 1999. as a result of the US sanctions : 1,500,000
  • Number of Iraqi children estimated to have died by 1997. as a result of the US sanctions : 750,000
  • Dresden: 60,000 dead.
  • Tokyo: 83,000 dead.
  • Hiroshima: estimated 150,000 dead in the first three months, rising to 300,000 months later.
  • Nagasaki: 140,000 dead.
  • On July 3, 1988 the U.S. Navy warship the Vincennes was operating within Iranian waters, providing military support for Iraq in the ongoing Iran/Iraq war. During a one-sided battle against a small number of lightly armed Iranian gunboats, the Vincennes fired two missiles at an [Iranian] Airbus, which was on a routine civilian flight. All 290 civilians onboard were killed. To which George Bush Senior said “I will never apologize for the United States of America — I don’t care what the facts are.”
13

OK, I do read this section, but I really don’t want to get involved in these huge posts cause I’ll make huge posts back and I’lll never get a degree. And no, I don’t read the links either, as I don’t have time. Your posts are huge, mainly made up of cut and paste jobbies. Make your own arguments. But I do have one comment to make.

US sanctions? Err, I think you’ll find that’s UN sanctions. It’s everyone who has a hand in this one not just the US. Also I’'ll think you’ll find that they’re allowed to use the oil for food programme but have misused it, so it’s yet again Sadam’s fault and not the UNs.

Oh sod it.

There is a point where diplomacy no longer works. If the UN doesn’t show it is willing to enforce it’s will by force then it’s only weapon is snctions and strict language. Neither worked with Iraq, the sanctions, as you quite rightly pointed out, affected the people and not the regime. Then other countries will see weakness in world unity and do what the hell they want, throw the treaties out the window and laugh as their people die due to the only weapon available to the UN, the sanctions.

Oh and get bored sitting in UN meetings listening to some fool drone on about how we have to get rid of our WMDs, what are they gonna do about it? Starve more of my peons? Plenty more where they came from, just ban condoms.

They would have surrended eventually yes, but they were no where near surrending at the time of the bombs. Whichwould have meant 100s of thousand more casualties to both sides due to the fanatical natureof the Japanese, plus the whole world continuing on in a war footing for longer. The estimates I’ve seen quoted were 6 more months.

You seem quite oblivious to what immediate means. It means now. And when was this ‘now’. Months ago. And complete. Means everything. Why is there unaccounted for stuff. And why were there weapons which were outside the restrictions in the first place. And why wern’t they declared. They were found. The point of the inspections is not to LOOK for the WMDs but to be PRESENTED with them and check they are subsequently destroyed. According to even the most generous reading of 1441 if anything was NOT declared, which it quite obviously not, THAT IS AN IMMEDIATE BREACH. IMMEDIATE! The argument has gone past your stage Adam long long ago, the breach was done the day they handed the dossier in, it wasn’t complete. The argument is what should happen now. Inspections just haven’t worked, or are you telling me 12 years faffing around is progress. Even Ritter addmited that if we all just walked away now, in 6 months time the Iraqi WMD programmes wopuld be back to full speed again. The inspections can’t go on for ever. Eventually they’ll get booted out again. And then what? Because you seem to be against war whatever the justification.

14

So, if someone says “the nuking of Japan was a good idea”, it is wrong of me to quote the military commanders of the time? Bollocks.

I think you’ll find that the USA has been guiding UN decisions for the past few decades. Check how many times a Security Council veto has been used over the past ten years, for example. Always it’s the USA using it to protect Israel wehn the UN triews to hit them for human rights abuses. It may have come out of the UN, but it was instigated by the USA.

Possibly. Now here is an important point. The United Nations, comprising members from all around the world, says that point has not been reached. Hans Blix and Kofi Annan say the inspections are working, and bringing to light more and more all the time. Bush is the only one (although he did buy out Blair and Howard) saying they have reached and passed the point at which diplomacy becomes ineffective.

Countries doing whatever they want, regardless of the will of the international community? Doesn’t that remind you of someone? Perhaps the USA?

  1. Japan was ready to collapse within two weeks, due to the sea blockade.

  2. The Emperor wanted Japan to fight to the last man. Everyone else wanted the war to end.

  3. It always amazes me that Americans see EVERY enemy force as fanatics, as nutters, and generally not very developed. When in fact the USA is a religious state bent on war. The US president swears into office on a christian bible, as do people in court; Bush often makes references to “god” in his speeches.

americanpeace.eccmei.net/

In this context, “immediate” means the USA wants to ignore the fact that it has never supplied any evidence for its assertions, the USA is ignoring the will of the international community, the USA is ignoring the reports of the UN inspectors who say the inspections are working, and the USA wants to have a war. Everyone else sees that the inspections are coming along nicely. However, the USA people seem to swallow Bush’s crap hook, line, and sinker.

Bad record-keeping? Remeber, ten years ago the USA destroyed much of the Iraqi military, including bases and the records kept in those bases. Obviously there are incomplete records.

Answer me this simple question: Does the USA publicly display ALL their military secrets? Remember, this is the only country on Earth which has nuked civilian cities, the country that has enough nuclear weaponry to wipe out a continent, and the country which continues to produce bio/chem weapons. Also the country which tested bio/chem weapons on its own people. Shouldn’t the USA openly display all its military secrets?

Having just read 1441, I still have this question: What evidence do you have that Iraq is in breach of the specified clauses (ie. regarding NBC weapons)?

And there is your assumption again. Prove that it was incomplete.

  1. Hans Blix says the inspections ARE working.

  2. It hasn’t been 12 years. The USA forced the withdrawal of inspectors a few years ago.

  3. What should happen now: the UN should send in as many people as allowed, to inspect everything, to watch everything, and to ascertain once and for all that Iraq has no NBC weapons (given that the IAEA already stated that Iraq has no nuclear weapons capability). But NOT war. The stated cause of the USA is to get rid of Saddam Hussein. And to do so they wil bomb the hell out of Iraq’s people, and expect the Iraqis to cheer them on and welcome them with open arms and say “Thanks for killing out dictator!” while burying their daughters.

I have no doubt that Iraq and many other nations would leap into NBC weapons production as soon as they were given the chance. However, you can’t base war and death on a massive scale on what you think someone MIGHT do in the future.

15

I don’t know where you’re gettingthis “Hans Blix says they’re working” rubbish from. He’s not, he’s sitting squarely on the fence making sure that neither side can fully use his statements as a justification for their side. All that’s happened is that they now both use his statements as justifications. He says on the one hand “they’re not toothpicks”, but on the other "We found some undeclared newly developed unmanned drones that are way out of the range limits of the UN instructions. He says “They are co-operating more now”. More? They were supposed to co-operate fully from day one.

And don’t talk about Bush and Howard as if they’re puppets, they’re not. U seen Blair get a few mill from the US recently? U seen the amount of flack he’s putting up with just to keep on saying we should press for the 2nd UN resolution? I know little about Howard, but certainly Blair’s putting his leadership on the line on this one, the stakes for him are astronomically high.

Kamikaze.

Of course not, but it hasn’t been told to by the UN, while Iraq has. It’;s been told it is not allowed to have weapons over a certain range.

It’s that kind of pacifist crap which allowed Germany to take over most of Europe and commit the holocaust. Early action by the LoN, oh that wonderful body, might have stopped those dark years of world history. It is people like you Adam who stop action now, and then people like Blair and Bush that have to accept the blame for inaction when the disaster happens. That is the point of leadership, choices have to be made sometimes that the populace is unwilling to do because they’re instinctively anti-war.

Acting now can save many people in the future, if you can’t accept that then you must think the world is this wonderful daisy filled place where there are no nutters intent to wiping out every last soul who don’t agree with them.

16

From Hans Blix, actually. This is why I do quote other people, and why you monkeys should actually go to the effort of reading what I post. Here it is again:

In Blix’s words: “While cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament and at any rate the verification of it cannot be instant.”

While the USA generally makes lump-sum bribes to less developed nations such as Angola, Turkey, Cameroon, and Pakistan, it generally pays off Britain and Australia with trade deals.

Z-Force.

Well heck, the USA made an international treaty about big nasty weapons as well, and broke that treaty. ABN ring a bell?

Bullshit. Self-justifying nonsense. Germany was actively killing people, engaging in the sort of ethnic cleansing we now see in Israel, and making war. Iraq is not.

Here is something for you to consider. In the USA, many civilians have guns. Many of those people commit murders. Shouldn’t you be out there killing US citizens because some day they will commit murders? If not, why not?

The LoN was greatly responsible for WW2. Why would they stop it?

  1. You know nothing about me. So there is no valid “people like you” assertion.

  2. No. Those to blame are the ones who pull the trigger. Everyone has free will. Or do you blame WW2 on Prince Siddhartha?

That’s really stupid. A very shallow and basically dumb explanation of the point of leadership. Also a very shallow understanding of human nature.

Okay, it’s not taht I can’t accept it, but that you have no capability with logic, and are unable to support your claims. It’s simple. Follow the logic:

  1. USA bombs people in Islamic nations.
  2. People in Islamic nations get upset with the USA.
  3. The USA says “We bombed you for your own good. Don’t ya love us now?”
  4. Extremists attack the USA.
17

Fabulous debate chaps, but can I just remind you to have a brief look at the guidlines for this forum.

ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … p?t=138361

Arduous a task as it may seem, maybe looking carefully at the evidence on show, and writing respectfully finding the holes in the arguments actually presented, might help avert a slanging match.

18

No he doesn’t, I too have read his reports. He has quite clearly always said, err some co-operation, a bit more then last time. That’s surprising isn’t it, what with all the US and British troops massing on his borders. Do you really think he hasn’t always been sitting on the fence? I could take your line and twist his words and quote certain passages to show that he’s supporting war, but at least I’m honest enough to admit he’s just sitting pretty. Would you want to be the person who people could point to and say “his words meant the war started”. And on the other hand “His lies meant Iraq got away with it”.

What? Everyone has heard of kamikaze pilots. Evryone has heard of how the Japense fought to the last man on Okinawa. Everyone has heard of how many losses there were on both sides on all the pacific landings due to the verocity of the defnece of the Japenese. My point was they were clearly willing to fight to the last man, and this was a philosophy that prevailed in the Japenese army. Do you know WHY they treated POWs like shit? Cause they felt surrending was dishonourable! The Japenese clearly adhered to the conventiional defintion of fanatical.

I thought Kamikaze, and the nature of that commitment (a fanatical one) would have said it all. A quick search on Z-force brings back a operational unit of WW2 of the British/Australian. They went on crazy missions, but at least they has a CHANCE of coming back alive. The very defintion of Kamikaze means they have NO chance.

But how will a protective shield contribute to killing innocent civilians exactly. No comparision can be reasonably drawn.

I know you are against the war because you seem to think there is no justification. But your beef seems to be “America is evil so let em burn”. At every point, at every turn you have said “america did this, america did that”. Your implicit argument seems to be why shouldn’t other people be allowed to do it. Because it is wrong, that is why.

As I’ve argued before, people make conflicting demands of a government. It is up to the government to step in and decide what is best. THAT is leadership. For example, we are demanding “a terrorist attack comparable to the WTC attack should never happen to us”. On the other hand we are saying “We shoud not go to war with Iraq”. Blair believes that the latter is in direct conflict with the former because Iraq would eventually supply WMDs to terrorist groups and he is quite clearly refusing to honestly disarm. He also believes that if we don’t back up our words with action other countries will see there is no reason to follow what the UN asks. This threat must be dealt with and inspectors can never do that job unless Iraq fully co-operates, which it isn’t. Unless you want to see no evil, hear no evil and thus there’s no evil to speak of.

A brief example is that he still hasn’t let scientists be interviewed out of the country and as I’ve posted elsewhere they quite clearly lie when they do talk to weapons inspectors (see my post in “Blair a momentous moment”, P&E board). There are hundreds of others and each one he only concedes on after even more pressure is applied. The pressure has reached maximum now, there is nomore pressure to be applied than war. 1,000 inspectors couldn’t do the job, 10,000 couldn’t.

Or alternatively you can bow to populist demands as Chirac and Shroeder have, which tend to be short term and short sighted and say, no we don’t go to war. Look at America pre-Pearl harbour. There were Nazi sympatisers in government ffs. Do we never learn from history’s past mistakes?

I’ll ignore the logic comment. But please keep the direct insults to a minimum. I would like to let you know that my mark for philosophical Logic was well in the 70s, the limit you can get for Art subjects in my uni is 80%. My university is also in the top 5 in England.

Firstly you seem to think they’ll be carpet bombing Iraq. That didn’t happen in Afghanistan did it. A few civilian casualties, but a lot less than there usually are in modern war. These things are unfortunate consequences, but they are a direct consequence of going to war. Are you saying that the Afghan people would be happier under a taliban rule? If they were, why are they not under it again? Every nation that is under an opressive regime must suffer some casualties to get out from it, whether these casualties are linked to a direct uprising, or to a liberatng army. Those are the facts of life. Were there no civilian casulaties in the Normany landings? But did the French welcome their liberation and accept the price? That’s is why attempted coups have already happened in Iraq and casualties were suffered, without any outside nation being involved.

Your entire argument is based on point number 3, and this is simple to the extreme, you don’t take in to account any factors. What about the effect of the post-invasion government? If the Islamic world sees that Iraq is a better and happier place then what do they have to fear? This is, assuming, of course, that the post-Saddam government gets it right. This will be a dangerous time and a crux point in history. It will be crucial that the coalition forces instigate the right government in Iraq, it will have huge ramifications. I do not deny this and wait with baited breath and sincerely crossed fingers as the ramifications will be felt across the world.

The fact of the matter is “people in Islamic nations” are already “upset” with America.

The constant “America is going to kill millions of innocent Iraqis” thing is beginning to annoy me. In the gulf war the figures I’ve seen quoted as direct deaths from Coalition attacks were around 3,000, “later” deaths were of a much greater magnitude, but as I’ve already said in posts in other threads many of these were due to many reasons, and only a feware due to UN (or as you call it US-led, though I would point out only those who are willing to be led can be), other reasons are the attempted coup and also to the misuse of the oil for food programme and the blame for these deaths lies squarely on the present Iraqi regime. Not only that but it will be in America’s interest this time around to make sure there are as few post-war casualties as possible in order to stabilise the region.

This is the most important point I wish to address:

Hitler had clearly set out his intentions in Mein Kampf. And yet as he started invading and moving his country to a war machine footing the rest of the world stood around and watched and did not dealwith the threat. there are clear and present dangers which must be dealt with and there are remote possibilities, for example we haven’t set up an anti-asteriod programme, and there are improbalities like every gun owner is going tokill someone. You act on the first, plan for the second and ignore the last.

19

Selected quotes from Hans Blix:

So the USA has never been itnged by fanaticism? And I’m not so sure Z-Force had much of a life expectancy…

First you mentioned Iraq having illegal weapons. Then I pointed out that the USA is developing illegal weapons. Now you say the fact that the USA develops illegal weapons has nothing to do with it? Right.

  1. I don’t want America to burn at all. That’s an assumption of yours.

  2. My implicit argument is, what possibly moral high-ground can the USA take in this matter?

Wow. I do one of the hardest courses in the university Asia Week ranked as 30th in the entire Asia-Pacific region. Is my penis huge yet? Can we piss in the wind a little more? Hint: Socrates never studied philosophy at Oxford.

A few? More like a few thousand.

Why do you think that is?

Any chance you will answer this?

20

lol. I’ll leave you to it Adam, no point in arguing agianst you, you are obviously right, my logic is defecient I shall bow down to your god-like status.

Though I leave you with some of the stuff you must of accidently left out of the Blix report. I appreciate being God is a busy task.

And then later on:

You also left Blix’s conclusion out of your final quote from him. Why?:

And finally, clear proof from the mouth of the man of the moment that 1441 has been breached:

All emphasis added by me.

Why did you leave all that out? Because it doesn’t really tie in with your assertion that Blix says there are no problems. That Blix hasn’t said that the co-operation was not immediate, as 1441 explicitly asked for it to be? At least I’m honest enough to admit that he’s sitting on the fence.