If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Sydney Morning Herald)   Colin Powell calls for evidence before Iraq strikes   (smh.com.au) divider line 343
    More: Hero  
•       •       •

5456 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Sep 2002 at 8:23 AM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



343 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2002-09-02 01:23:13 AM
"So as a first step, let's see what the inspectors find, send them back in."
Yeah, I am sure Saddam would welcome them with open arms. Just more people in the way when the bombs start falling.

Didn't Colin want to talk to Osama before hitting Afghanistan as well? For some reason I get the feeling that during Desert Storm there was a conversation between Colin Powell and "Stormin' Norman" that went something like this:"Colin, do you read the fine print on the toilet paper before you wipe? Stop BSing and let's kick some Iraqui a$$!"
 
2002-09-02 01:49:14 AM
Or maybe he's the only member of the current US Administration who is not completely out of touch with a lot of the Republican Party opinion, almost the entire Democrat Party opinion and, not to mention, world opinion.

Saddam is certainly a fruitcake.

But the US really should try to go about things in a legal, UN sponsored way. If military action is called for, ensure you've got backing from your allies and regional powers.

And you wonder why world opinion seems to be rather unfairly anti-US? Maybe because you act like you don't give a shiat about anyone else. Of course that's going to piss people off.

Cue to the redneck assholes who are now going to rant the usual "USA! USA! We don't give a fark about anyone else cuz we got the biggest guns" and accuse me of being anti-American (which I'm not) etc etc ad nauseum.

Yawn

Mr Mephisto
 
2002-09-02 02:07:34 AM
USA! USA! We don't give a fark about anyone else cuz we got the biggest guns
 
2002-09-02 02:24:46 AM
I doubt that he will be able to hold this position with all the hardliners around him.
 
2002-09-02 02:33:38 AM
Doesn't sound like he's planning on being around if Bush wins a second term.
 
2002-09-02 02:41:26 AM
Mr Mephisto unfortunately, the International Community as represented by the UN are the reason that Saddam was not ousted during Desert Storm. From all appearances they are too concerned with being civilized and appeasing the Arab nations to deal with the problem until it blows up in their faces... kind of like a certain wall paper hanger from back in the late 1930's. Every time we do what the UN wants us to do we wind up having to do it all over again or dealing with even worse consequences. If we are going to kick Saddam's butt, let's do it and go about our business; if we aren't then let's leave him alone for the rest of the world to deal with. One way or the other let's poop or get off of the pot. The longer the debate rages the more it will cost and the more prepared Saddam will be to resist.

Colin Powell's job as Sec/State is to advise FOR deplomacy... doesn't mean he's right, but that IS his job. IMHO he takes that job to extremes, but I would rather have him doing that than being a war hawk and not providing balance to the "Let's kick butt!" crowd. I just wish he wouldn't whine quite so bad while doing it. He usually winds up sounding like he thinks we can NOT do anything without the International Community approving. Let's face it... no matter what we do the IC is going to disapprove of our actions, simply because we are the most powerful nation right now and they think they look important kicking sand in our faces.

Let Saddam deliver a Dirty Nuke or biologic attack to any of their countries and we would be the scapegoat they would blame... "You knew that he was able to attack us and you didn't do anything to prevent it!" ***Whine, whine, whine*** So take your choice... kick Saddam in the butt now or let him continue to build weapons with the money we send him for food for his people and hope that when he usues them he doesn't kill too many of our friends.

BTW, if you decide to let him alone, I wouldn't suggest taking any vacations anywhere near Israel or any of the Arab countries rich in minerals like oil. He has already proved that he will attack neighboring nations and that he hates Israel. His first target will be whichever he thinks he can get the most out of... a few dead Jews or the mineral wealth of one of his "buddies".
 
2002-09-02 02:48:47 AM
The UN are there to be farking civilised - and it's not the "United Western States", so "appeasing the Arab nations" is part of it's job, cause as members they're just as good as the US.

I'm not saying that Saddam is one helluva guy and should live to see many years of happy weapons building - but kick your "shoot first, then ask the world for moral support" habit. Fry Saddam, fine with me - but at least take the time to get the UN mandate, it can't be that hard...
 
2002-09-02 04:41:58 AM
The UN are there to be farking civilised - and it's not the "United Western States", so "appeasing the Arab nations" is part of it's job, cause as members they're just as good as the US.

Except for the slave traders and mass murderers on the Human Rights Commission (snicker). All the UN does is to let the little kids pretend that they are big kids.

The UN has no credibility with me. Appeasement will eventually blow up in their faces--again.

But Colin's right. Let's see the evidence.
 
2002-09-02 05:49:41 AM
Bullshiat! Now is the time to take care of that prick, so that in another ten years we aren't looking back saying "we should have finished the job ten years ago" like we are now.
 
2002-09-02 08:29:52 AM
I think it's pretty obvious by now that the ongoing 'war' against Saddam is a huge drain on us (U.S.) both financially and from a personnel standpoint. Think of the cost of enforcing the no-fly zone for 12 years! I think that we should simply get out of Iraq and let the locals sort it out. At the same time we should increase our oil imports from Russia, Mexico and Canada to minimize our dependence on Arab oil.

Finally, we as consumers can simply stop buying gas from companies that purchase Arab oil. We can talk with our pocketbooks and maybe make a difference.
 
2002-09-02 08:30:38 AM
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Either way, there is a lot of smiting to be done in the name of one god or another.
 
2002-09-02 08:31:15 AM
Sadly!
 
2002-09-02 08:37:31 AM
Inappropriate use of the hero tag. Using one's brain does not make one a hero, even if one is a member of the Bush Misadministration.
 
2002-09-02 08:37:59 AM
I agree that we should wait for the inspectors to go in. I don't think that any attacks should just go ahead.

However, I do have huge problems with letting the UN deal with things - they'd take forever to come up with nothing.

Better all round to get some covert force in to deal with Saddam? Or would that make him into a martyr, and whoever replaces him would be massively worse???
 
2002-09-02 08:38:32 AM
I find it incredibly amusing that a General in the 'Gulf War' is the only member of the current administration that is against armed conflict with Iraq! The campaign starts here....
Colin Powell for President!
 
2002-09-02 08:42:30 AM
Bush needs this war to keep a high approval rating and win reelection. That is pretty much the only reason why he wants to attack Iraq. That and the opportunity to access their oil.
 
2002-09-02 08:43:21 AM
Great use of the Hero tag!

It's good to see someone using their head and thinking for a change...
 
2002-09-02 08:45:08 AM
dufus, well done for believing all the crap. it's dicks like you who make people want to bomb the US in the first place. You honestly don't know what you're talking about, you're so sucked in by the hype.
 
2002-09-02 08:46:10 AM
We'll see how good an idea it is when Israel gets involved, the ME recruits a few more million people to hate us and we're paying 4 bucks a gallon.
 
2002-09-02 08:46:57 AM
Doesn't it appear an obvious strategy ploy for the US to make Iraq attack insinuations in the wake of 9/11? Even if it never happens, it still seems like a good pro-active stance to appear to be on the verge of attacking our most apparent enemy, in essence telling any would-be next Afghanistan that we're on the hair trigger.
 
2002-09-02 08:47:21 AM
Like Iraq will ever let the inspectors back in. I think it should be like a DUI, you refuse the test you automatically lose your licence.

Give Saddam a timeline for the return of inspectors: if they are not allowed back in send in the troops and whoop your ass. If he has nothing to hide he should let them in, if he doesn't he muct have something cooking in his underground bunkers.
 
2002-09-02 08:50:02 AM
sorry, no good at html. see this link for the EXPERT'S (head weapon inspector's) opinion on whether Saddam is up to anything.

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=13788
 
2002-09-02 08:50:19 AM
The UN needs to take orders from America, not the other way around. We supply 90% of their funding and 85% of their troops, not to mention their headquarters.

The US is a nation deeply committed to its own sovereignity, and most of us find it very disturbing that the rest of the world wants us to curb our policies at the whim of an out-of-touch, naive, UNELECTED group of foreign diplomats.
 
2002-09-02 08:51:55 AM
Can anyone tell me what Allah looks like? Then we can pit him and Jesus against eachother in an all out battle royale. Or maybe it should be him and god? I dunno.
 
2002-09-02 08:53:30 AM
BoozeCannon: Where you make up... I mean, get, those figures from ???
 
2002-09-02 08:54:37 AM
I thought America was after Osama. It seems to me like they're getting nowhere with him and are now trying to take it out on Saddam. Seems like a Shrubya way of thinking.
 
2002-09-02 08:54:50 AM
PhastPhrog: Where you get grammar? Me big envy.
 
2002-09-02 08:55:44 AM
Me fail English ? That unpossible.
(ooops)
 
2002-09-02 08:55:51 AM
The Bush administration's tactics are working perfectly. They WANT you (and the world) to think, "Gee, they're crazy, they're warmongers, they want to attack everyone..." First rule in war, diplomacy and tiddlywinks is to make your opponent fear and respect you. See the case of Ronald Reagan vs. USSR, 1980s.

This strategy is especially important with backwards-ass totalitarian dictators. When you're in a gutter fight with a dirty, knife-wielding drunk, you don't discuss Marquis de Queensbury rules, which is what going to the U.N. basically is.

Any president of the U.S. would be doing the same thing, be it Bush, Clinton, Gore, anyone. It's called realpolitik.
 
2002-09-02 08:56:06 AM
"09-02-02 08:51:55 AM SarcasmoCan anyone tell me what Allah looks like? Then we can pit him and Jesus against eachother in an all out battle royale. Or maybe it should be him and god? I dunno."

We could probably get the Devil to throw in w/ Jesus and God for the common cause and then we'd have a killer threesome in a WWF tag-team title event throwdown!
 
2002-09-02 08:57:41 AM
the US pays 22% (not 86%) 0f the funding of the UN, when they pay that at all because they're usually years late anyway.
 
2002-09-02 08:57:51 AM
Threesome? HOT.
 
2002-09-02 08:58:44 AM
BoozeCannon: Just because you're one of the biggest, strongest country around, doesn't mean you should control everything. If you let your brains act instead of your balls sometimes, maybe you wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.
 
2002-09-02 08:58:59 AM
Colin Powell aka General Tom.
C student.
30 generals before him for joints of chief of staff.
mediocrity par excellance, but an important symbolic figurehead, the dream of the black Republican.
 
2002-09-02 09:01:24 AM
Duuhh !!
 
2002-09-02 09:02:07 AM
Why Iraq? Why not North Korea - they have stronger terrorist links, a more advanced chemical/bio weapon programme, missiles etc.
 
2002-09-02 09:03:25 AM
I hope you don't actually believe that we are going to let Saddam just sit there and continue to murder his own countrymen, do you? Because what happens when he grows bored of killing rebels?

"USA! USA! We don't give a fark about anyone else cuz we got the biggest guns" -- Are you really that farkin stupid? Do you think that we don't care about anyone else? Why do you think that we stopped the invasion to Kuwait? Oil? Surely you aren't that stupid! It was to stop Saddam from gaining the wealth that came with Kuwait! Had he gotten his hands on all of that money, he would surely have chemical and nuclear capabilities already. Then what do we do? Kill hundreds of thousands while nuking their country in retaliation for nuking us or the U.K. or Russia?

Go back to sleep little girl. Let the real men get the job done while you cuddle up under the blanket of freedom!
 
2002-09-02 09:03:45 AM
BoozeCannon:
US funding /GDP of UN is miniscule compared to most nations.

And while it is fine to be committed to sovereignty, but to demand respect of sovereignty
is not an argument to invade other countries.

"it is a disrespect of our sovereignty if you want to criticize us invading other nations"
 
2002-09-02 09:03:49 AM
Colin Powell, the man with "the" brain in the US government
 
2002-09-02 09:04:18 AM
He finally speaks. Of course it is going to end up like every other issue he has spoken up on. The conservatives will gang up on him and he'll shut up bc he doesn't want to appear to be opposed to the president. How someone with a military background can be so spineless is beyond me. He ends up backing down everytime he says something that could even possibly run counter to Bush's opinion.
 
2002-09-02 09:04:21 AM
FREE FLAMEWAR TEMPLATES. GET YOUR FREE FLAMEWAR TEMPLATES HERE

"The Bush/Shrub Administration would (broad assumption based on no personal experience or knowledge) an attack on Iraq. The U.N. (negative/positive appraisal based on no personal experience or knowledge). (Target of flame) you don't know what you're talking about. Only I hold the key to the almighty book of universal knowledge, and I'm skimming through the cliffnote version as we speak. fark you coont dick biatch.
 
2002-09-02 09:05:11 AM
Bah, wether you have "evidence" or not, it's still illegal to attack Iraq without authorization from the UN security council.
 
2002-09-02 09:06:42 AM
Rhollmer: "You want me on that wall!!! You NEED me on that wall!!!" eh...?
 
2002-09-02 09:08:32 AM
maybe it's just my opinion (shared by many in and out of the states) but saddam just doesnt seem to pose any actuall
military threat to anyone any time soon, concidering how
compromised the 'gulf war' and many years of sanctions have left him and his country ... keeping inspectors in iraq like before would most definitely keep him in check, but of course such a goal would be far too simple for the complexe world we live in ..., so it seems we're headed for the alternative by leveling bahgdad initiating god knows what by god knows who ...

it still blows my mind when i think how demonized saddam has been made in the wests eyes, yet how essential the US govt saw him as being to regional interests during the 80's, during which time he was argueably FAR more *ahem* evil then when he became the wests most fashionable patsy during the 90's ...

one scenario plays out in mind more and more as i hear more
and more of his great evil-ness and all that jazz: what if, after his exhausting war with iran and his unsuccessfull bid to claim kuwait, he really has just accepted the fact that he's down for the count...but, so as not to appear weak, spouts off about being able to defeat the great satan if aggression was brought to iraq...
i mean, it's not like he's going to say "they'll kick our assess again. real good." i dunno, personaly i just dont see him as having any real means of establishing a foothold in the region, knowing the US is sweating down his neck, any aggressive move on his part would be suicidal ... i really dont think he'll do anything to provoke an attack on himself, i suppose that's where bush and co. have to get creative and scheme up something fishy,
i suppose that's exactly what is being dreamed up right
now in washington ...time will tell
 
2002-09-02 09:10:07 AM
How someone with a military background can be so spineless is beyond me.

Anyone with a military background knows that the PTB are gonna do what they want. Regardless of the right or wrong of their actions. (And yes, Been there, done that. That's why I'm a civilian now.)

And honestly IMHO if they are looking seriously at getting rid of Sadam now, it's because they have someone they think who will be easier to handle lined up to take his place.
 
2002-09-02 09:10:09 AM
But sarcasmo is above it all, of course. If we were as knowing and incisive as Sarcasmo there'd be nothing to argue about, ever!

Your oh-so-clever seen it all before, knowing comment is as tired and unoriginal as the posts on this thread. How ironic!! Something you know all about, I'm sure.
 
2002-09-02 09:11:18 AM
Jay_Vee: Oil.
 
2002-09-02 09:11:27 AM
Speedyj: I like cheese.

Care to rebut?
 
2002-09-02 09:11:49 AM
Aegus:
I completely agree with you. I find it absurd that the Bush administration is basically trying to convince us not to worry about Osama. I don't care whether he remains a threat or not, as the leader of al-Queda he needs to be brought to justice. If he's dead, I want to know he's dead. If he's alive, I want us to find him.

Personally, I think Bush either knows Osama is dead and won't tell us so that we continue to live in fear that he might mastermind another attack, or he's deliberately letting Osama remain at large so that a year or so from now when we're done with Iraq he'll have another excuse to invade another Arab country. It's all about keeping that "War on Terror" continuing indefinitely.
 
2002-09-02 09:14:11 AM
Only cocks like cheese. Real mean eat Homous.

What you got to say about THAT, huh?
 
Displayed 50 of 343 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report