Does anyone else think Powell is just gonna THROW DOWN today?

[Ben E Lou]

I have a feeling he's going to convince even the U.N. today. He doesn't seem the kind of guy who'd put himself out there for a hunch or for less-than-solid evidence.

[stkelly52]

Whatever evidence that the US has, it must be VERY convincing. THe US high ups don't seem to have a doubt in their minds. I am certain that what ever he says will have the rest of the UN quite certain as well.

[Fritz]

I think most of the U.N. can not be swayed.

[Bee]

From what I've read, I don't expect Powell to present anything that the other countries on the Security Council don't already know. At most, I would expect him to present evidence of things that were assumed but not proven. I seriously doubt it will be enough to convince the majority of those opposed, although it might convince a few that are sitting on the fence.

[Easy Mac]

If there was anyone who cold convince me, it would be Powell. He's the only one who so far hasn't seemingly blindly supported a war from the get-go. Does that mean I'll automatically be swayed, no. But so long as he gave some credible evidence, I wouldn't feel as bad about seeing soldiers being sent into the fields.

But still no hard evidence, I'm still not for it, but I will always support my sodiers, they will always have my utmost respect.

[sachmo71]

Would that be awesome if he really did throw down and start challenging the Iraqui ambassador to a fight? Then hit him with a chair an toss him into the turnbuckle? He could have turnbuckles brought in...he's a very important guy.

[Bonegavel]

Supposedly, we have intercepted transmissions of Iraqis laughing at the inspectors at how they missed this or that or how they just moved the 'materials' out in time to avoid them. Also, Israel has Sadaam's head body guard (Kevin Costner perhaps?) and he is giving the locations of underground biochem weapons and the remaining 15,000+ warheads, etc, etc, etc.

Even with all this evidence, I am convinced that the impotent UN will do nothing with it. They will simply shift their arguments elsewhere.

[stkelly52]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Would that be awesome if he really did throw down and start challenging the Iraqui ambassador to a fight? Then hit him with a chair an toss him into the turnbuckle? He could have turnbuckles brought in...he's a very important guy.

I know that you are being funny, but have you ever seen video of Tiawan's legislature in session? Your description here isn't too far off.

[ACStrider]

I don't think it really matters what Powell does. It seems that those people for war will be even more energized and fervent by the evidence that he proposes and those opposed will continue to ignore the facts proposed. It just seems that no matter what anyone says, the key powers are still arguing along the same lines (US and England yea, Germany, France, Russia ney). It took arm twisting just to get another (the seventeenth) resolution passed in the UN. I think that these nations are thinking that the US is determined for action, so any support is just an attempt at getting a piece of the pie. So, in sum, will Powell's speech make any difference in world opinion? No, the nations opposed will still be opposed, but it could be sending a message..."We're going in...here's our case...if you want to come in with us, ya better jump in now". The opposition nations might reluctantly throw support just like they did for the resolution last November.

[ACStrider]

Originally posted by sachmo71
Would that be awesome if he really did throw down and start challenging the Iraqui ambassador to a fight? Then hit him with a chair an toss him into the turnbuckle? He could have turnbuckles brought in...he's a very important guy.

Hussein has already challenged Bush to a duel. Does that count?

[ACStrider]

Dola.
Sorry...forgot the dola on the above.

[Airhog]

hmm Do I see a new reality show in the making? World-leaders Deathmatch anyone?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally posted by BoneGavel Even with all this evidence, I am convinced that the impotent UN will do nothing with it. They will simply shift their arguments elsewhere.

I'm of pretty much the same opinion.

[Alf]

The stock market is going up here in France => usually means that there will be no war => Powell did not convince them yet

[Easy Mac]

dow's up here too. Everytime it looks like war lately it plummets.

[henry296]

Check out cnn.com. It seems Powell did mention some damaging stuff including links between Iraq and Al-Quada and weapons of mass destruction.

Todd

[Mike D]

People are not as excited about the prospects of war as they are about protection.

This war will send a strong message to any rogue state that if you mess with the world, you will get the holy crap knocked out of you.

You have to pay to play, basically. And Iraq is gonna pay. Powell's presentation was very limited based on what we really know, but very, very convincing none-the-less.

[Anrhydeddu]

UN says that Iraq must disarm. Iraq has clearly not disarmed. And folks are still sticking their heads in the sand. So why have any rules or accountability if they are not enforced?

[Qwikshot]

Guess war winds are blowing...

[Fritz]

Powell's presentation failed to move me one way or the other.

[Bee]

Odd thing. Almost immediately after Powell's speech, I got a call from my cousin. He's in the reserves and has been called up. He'll be headed to the middle east after a 2 week training.

[Mike D]

The only way this is "unmoving" is to assume that Powell is part of an vast network of lies and conspiracy that stretch far and wide and Hussein is America's 'patsy'. Or it's the simple, cruel, truth.

"Why should any of us give Iraq the benefit of the doubt?" Powell asked. "I don’t, and I don’t think you will either after you hear this next intercept."

He then played an intercepted conversation between two commanders in the Iraqi Republican Guard. Capt. Abrahim was giving orders, and the person repeated everything he heard to make sure the orders were clear. The message was this: "Remove the expression 'nerve agent' wherever it comes up in the wireless instructions."

"There can be no doubt. Saddam Hussein has the weapons and the capability to produce more -- many more," he said. But "if biological weapons seem too terrible to contemplate (which he had just explained in detail), chemical weapons are equally chilling."

Powell said Saddam has used chemical agents on his own people and on the Kurds in northern Iraq. Echoing statements made by weapons inspectors, he said Iraq hasn’t accounted for "vast amounts" of chemical weapons, including 515 artillery shells with mustard gas and 30,000 empty munitions that could hold 500 tons of chemical agents.

Iraq denies it has ever weaponized VX nerve gas -- a single drop of which could cause death within minutes. But Powell said evidence shows Iraq does, in fact, have VX, yet it may be hard to find because Baghdad has integrated banned weapons programs with legal programs, otherwise known as "dual use infrastructures."

"Any inspections in such facilities would be unlikely to turn anything prohibited," Powell said. "Call it ingenious or evil genius, but the Iraqis designed their chemical weapons program to be inspected."

Powell also displayed satellite photos showing cargo vehicles and decontamination vehicles moving chemical weapons. He said the U.S. conservatively estimates Iraq has 100 to 500 tons of chemical nerve agents.

[Bee]

Personally, I found the initial conversation more compelling. The one where they basically said "the inspectors are coming, did you clean out all the forbidden ammo like we told you."

[Fritz]

It was unmoving because no significant new information was added. The presentation would be very moving if you were a person wanting to be moved, or you were not terribly informed.

I agree that the conversations were interesting, but hardly shocking.

[Ben E Lou]

In my opinion, the most damning direct evidence would have to be the recorded conversations.

[Bee]

I agree that there was no "smoking gun", but it did seem to confirm all the suspicions that were out there (like Iraq knowing where the inspections were going to take place, despite the Inspection Team itself saying otherwise).

[CamEdwards]

I thought the evidence presented by Powell was VERY compelling... but again, the UN has already declared Iraq in material breach. That's why I thought it was so important that Jack Straw said what he did (basically "if the UN fails to act now, then it is a failure, because it's only weapon is that of words).

[Bee]

I don't think it will be enough to sway any of the members who have been opposed. I'm guessing we'll be going in without UN approval in a couple weeks.

[RainRaven]

The U.S is going in reguardless of what the rest of the U.N thinks. I saw some of the Powell peice but missed the clips of the intercepts (I was in my History college class during that part). I find the evidence very interesting.. and most of all glad to see there is something to point to for once instead of "oh just trust us on this one". Do I want war.. no.. I don't think that is a great choice and do not trust our politcians to send our men and women into a war which they themselves do not understand the risks involved. Mother's and Father's will be griefing at the loss of there sons and daughters soon and I hope not many will have to in this conflict. I don't suggest that we just stick our head in the sand and act like nonthing is going on but that doesn't mean I find comfort in the fact that good friends will be over there (one in the navy, two other in the Coast guard) If they are indeed called over to that area.

[Easy Mac]

Can I ask this though, how is this policy any different from the US's:

Powell said that the United States has learned through human intelligence sources that Saddam Hussein warned Iraqi scientists that there would be "serious consequences" to them and their families if they provide sensitive information to inspectors and that scientists were forced to sign documents that said they understood that divulging information was punishable by death.

Here, if our scientists or spies give out info, if they aren't assassinated silently, they're thrown in jail for life with no parole. Of course they wouldn't freely give up their scientists, and neither would we.

I haven't seen the briefing or anything, so I cannot comment, but I didn't read anything that made me go wow. Guess I'll go turn it on and see for myself.

[Anrhydeddu]

Because the rules for Iraq are clearly the result of the consequences of their actions against Kuwait. The condition for ending that war was the UN resolution. They have not kept their end of the resolution. When the rules have been set, they should be obeyed. When the rules have been broken, there should be consequences.

It's not a good thing to go to war in the Middle East. But if we don't difuse the ticking time bomb, we are going to wish in hindsight that we had done so.

Better to go to war in the Middle East than in the middle of the US. The arguments made today by the US have done nothing short of convincing me that standing behind our leaders is the best option we have when it comes to Iraq. Sure we can all speak out against war but when the time comes to actually go to war there should be no question of our loyalty to our country and our World community.

[CamEdwards]

Originally posted by Easy Mac
Can I ask this though, how is this policy any different from the US's:

Powell said that the United States has learned through human intelligence sources that Saddam Hussein warned Iraqi scientists that there would be "serious consequences" to them and their families if they provide sensitive information to inspectors and that scientists were forced to sign documents that said they understood that divulging information was punishable by death.

Here, if our scientists or spies give out info, if they aren't assassinated silently, they're thrown in jail for life with no parole. Of course they wouldn't freely give up their scientists, and neither would we.

I haven't seen the briefing or anything, so I cannot comment, but I didn't read anything that made me go wow. Guess I'll go turn it on and see for myself.

The difference is, the UN requires Iraq to allow full access to their scientists because of the pattern of deceit and lies told since 1991. Iraq has also promised full access and disclosure by it's scientists... which was yet another lie.

[Easy Mac]

Originally posted by couriers
Better to go to war in the Middle East than in the middle of the US. The arguments made today by the US have done nothing short of convincing me that standing behind our leaders is the best option we have when it comes to Iraq. Sure we can all speak out against war but when the time comes to actually go to war there should be no question of our loyalty to our country and our World community.

I don't see how me speaking out against the government during war is wrong. I will support my troops, and support them in anything they do, but I don't have to support the reasoning behind it. Those are 2 completely different things. If people didn't speak out against Vietnam, who knows how long that would have occurred.

I in now way begrudge our soldiers, they are doing their job. Nor do I begrudge those who support the war, they have their reasons, just as the opposition has theirs. Just b/c you don't support the cause doesn't mean you don't support the peolpe whose lives are at risk.

So Cam, if there was a simlar resolution for the US, we would freely give up oiur nuclear scientists, our chemical scientist., or anyone who had deep knowledge of hidden government workings. I agree they should be mde to come forward, but if the US were in the sam position, I somehow seriously doubt it.

[Bee]

If the US had been soundly defeated in a war by a superior power, had severe sanctions against it for more than a decade, and had agreed to provide full access to our scientist and disarm to lift those sanctions...I'd be surprised if the people wouldn't demand the government to do whatever was required.

Originally posted by Easy Mac
I don't see how me speaking out against the government during war is wrong. I will support my troops, and support them in anything they do, but I don't have to support the reasoning behind it. Those are 2 completely different things. If people didn't speak out against Vietnam, who knows how long that would have occurred.

I in now way begrudge our soldiers, they are doing their job. Nor do I begrudge those who support the war, they have their reasons, just as the opposition has theirs. Just b/c you don't support the cause doesn't mean you don't support the peolpe whose lives are at risk.

FTR, I never said that you couldn't speak out against the war even during times of war. Furthermore, I never said that you had to follow, believer or support in any way those that have lead us to war. What I did say was that your loyalty should be with your country and the World community. These are 2 completely different things as you have stated. If your idea of supporting your country and the World community is to actively speak out against a war in Iraq then more power to you. I for one have chosen to support my country in a different manner. Both position would be of support and neither would be more right or wrong than the other. What would be wrong is to run and hide from the reality of war by crossing over boarders in an attempt to ignore the entire situation.

My position is a positive one for those against war and those for war in this particular situation. I have absolutely no problem with those that fight against war with words of encouragement and peace. However, I have complete respect for those that are pushing for an end to the dilemma even at the cost of war.

[Easy Mac]

Cool, my bad, i read it incorrectly

[Fritz]

what the fuck does loyalty have to do with the "world community?"

Originally posted by Fritz
what the fuck does loyalty have to do with the "world community?"

Does this really need to be spelled out for you? Either get with the program or get off the bus.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by couriers
Does this really need to be spelled out for you? Either get with the program or get off the bus.

dear god! The guy at the counter said this bus was going to Chattanooga for the 54th Annual Jitterbug-a-thon and Chili cookoff.

I'M ON THE WRONG BUS!

Originally posted by Fritz
dear god! The guy at the counter said this bus was going to Chattanooga for the 54th Annual Jitterbug-a-thon and Chili cookoff.

I'M ON THE WRONG BUS!

I'll accept that

[Mike D]

Powell said that the United States has learned through human intelligence sources that Saddam Hussein warned Iraqi scientists that there would be "serious consequences" to them and their families if they provide sensitive information to inspectors and that scientists were forced to sign documents that said they understood that divulging information was punishable by death.

Here, if our scientists or spies give out info, if they aren't assassinated silently, they're thrown in jail for life with no parole. Of course they wouldn't freely give up their scientists, and neither would we.

I'd like to answer this as a member of the armed forces who holds a clearance (as do all armed forces personnel) of one level or another.

If I were divulge secrets, I would be held for treason.

If the United Nations placed a resolution on the USA to divulge information about being in material breech of an agreement the USA signed and the USA agreed to allow unhindered response from it's personnel in regards to the material breech, I would be allowed to speak.

However, if the USA were trying to hide something and thought I would blow the cover, they may then threaten me with death and what am I going to do? Obey the man with the gun in my face, not the "harmless" inspectors.

I hope that answers your question, Easy Mac!

[Mike D]

It was unmoving because no significant new information was added. The presentation would be very moving if you were a person wanting to be moved, or you were not terribly informed.

My stance has not changed because I was in step for years. If you really believe those are the only people that 'should' have been moved by that, I'd say you have an anti-war agenda.

I too respect those who don't want to go to war. I don't either. I'm just surprised that there are a large group of people who are convinced there is another solution to this mess and can say nothing more than, "Do nothing." That certainly wouldn't move anybody!

I have practically begged people on this board to provide me with an alternative to ridding Iraq of WMD and they refuse to give me a legitimate answer.

And trust me, if there was one, they would be spilling there guts like I and other are about kicking the living crap out of Iraq. But the "simple, cruel truth" of the matter is that there isn't one.

[Fritz]

Originally posted by Dutch
My stance has not changed because I was in step for years. If you really believe those are the only people that 'should' have been moved by that, I'd say you have an anti-war agenda.

did I say "should?" I assume a key purpose of the presentation was to drum up support for US action if we decide to take any. In this respect I found the brief lacking. Those who oppose military action will likely be unmoved. Those on the fence will likely want more of a smoking gun, and those who are willing to support military action are unlikely to become less willing.

As far as my personal stance, I don't think I have shared that with the Forum. I am not significant enough to have an agenda.

[Mike D]

As far as my personal stance, I don't think I have shared that with the Forum. I am not significant enough to have an agenda.

For what it's worth, I would like to hear your (and everyones) personal stance. I wouldn't be so vocal myself if I hadn't heard from others here with opinions (whether they be in agreement or not).

I know nothing we say on these boards will change the world, but it's actually fascinating to hear what others opinions are. Especially from this crowd which I respect everyone's opinions. Even Andy's.

As for insignificant, speak for yourself! I have an agenda to help open the eyes of my fellow FOFC brothers who believe that we want to invade Iraq because "it sounds like fun!".

Hell, a Republican in charge, it would be much more cost effective to make up a bunch of lies and inuendo's against Mexico. Much cheaper to invade than some hostile country on the other side of the world.

You should have an agenda too.

[dawgfan]

Originally posted by henry296
Check out cnn.com. It seems Powell did mention some damaging stuff including links between Iraq and Al-Quada and weapons of mass destruction.

Todd

I'll need to look at his evidence more closely, but upon first inspection the links he claims between Iraq and Al Qaeda are not very convincing - mostly a lot of assertions, little in the way of concrete evidence.

[sabotai]

I think we should go to war with Iraq. I think we should have awhile ago. But to be honest, I'm not sure is Bush's reasons for going to war are honest. IOW, I think he's using this whole weapons of mass destruction as kind of a smoke screen for the real reasons he wants to go to war. I'm not sure what those reasons are, it's really more of a feeling I get, plus lookign at how swiftly he moved his focus from Al-Quida to Iraq. He seemed to make that jump out of no where.

[Qwikshot]

Originally posted by sabotai
I think we should go to war with Iraq. I think we should have awhile ago. But to be honest, I'm not sure is Bush's reasons for going to war are honest. IOW, I think he's using this whole weapons of mass destruction as kind of a smoke screen for the real reasons he wants to go to war. I'm not sure what those reasons are, it's really more of a feeling I get, plus lookign at how swiftly he moved his focus from Al-Quida to Iraq. He seemed to make that jump out of no where.

Because Iraq is a physical target that can't hide like the Al-Qaeda. We failed to get the ringleaders, so instead of spending years trying to find them, Bush pushes all that anger onto Iraq which has been a stubborn thorn in the side...

[astralhaze]

I think we need more Iraq threads. There aren't nearly enough.

[Anthony]

because Iraqi threads are sooo trivial compared to "POLL: What game will Jim make next?"