quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith as for my thoughts, i haven't read the whole transcript, does anyone know where i could find it? a quick search on google didn't turn up anything..

http://tester.tranceaddict.com/foru...02&pagenumber=4
i posted a fox news link to the whole adress near the bottom of the page (in the middle-ish of the report, sorry for being fox, but its the straight up speech, no 'spin' added )

quote:

it's true, saddamn must co-operate, but i don't see how he hasn't. the inspectors are crawling all over the country, including in his personal palaces. the only possible issue is the refusal to allow U2 spyplanes, i'm surprised powell didn't mention that. actually maybe he did, i'm not going to comment further till i read the transcript.

in that page i also argue how iraq hasnt cooperated. as i also stated here, powell presents a case not for proof of smoking guns but rather proof that iraq is not cooperating

___________________
If God is the answer, it must have been a very stupid question.

To Powell's Speech.
-First of, with Bush's speech on the State of the Union, he said that the evidence that Powell was going to present today, would be enough to prove that Iraq was a danger and is lieing .
-Secondly, many sources said before hand that Powell would present a case so strong, that it would be compared to the evidence of when Cuba had missiles and weapons, which made and gave the support to the US in order to stop that problem with Cuba .
-Thirdly, as I watched Powell's speech, he did comment and defend the point on why the US and the World should get Saddam out, and what the evidences ment. Really, I was expecting more, moreso, I was expecting to be surprised to what Powell would have brought, but really, the evidence that he showed was more like Human evidence, satellite pictures, there was nothing concrete, just assumptions. Also, the tapes, its something you have to look closer in a case of starting a war, its not enough to back up Bush's ATTACK IRAQ tactic, really.
And I think what France and the rest of the UN said is the best to now, hence the fact that Powel did not show the ENOUGH evidence in order to start a war.

Also, today, Saddam Hussein will be in ABC or CBS or something like that for an interview, or they will be airing yesterdays interview, Im not sure, but I will be looking forward to what he has to say.

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade 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. Once again, as with the above quote, 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 reason they didn't do that is because there are no "weapons of mass destruction", or if there are, they are old, rusted, and useless. of course, if there WERE, then the U.S. would have, as you said, informed the inspections teams ASAP. the fact that they didn't shows that there was nothing to hide on the Iraqi part. just think about it... if they DID have that kind of information, and told the inspectors who would have, like you said, have subsequently caught the iraqis with their "pants down", then that would have been TREMENDOUS evidence for ANYONE. but hey, they didn't, surprise surprise.

also, those photos of that chemical factory or whatnot, could be absolutely anything. notice the "STUNNING" attention to detail? three labels in total on the left photo... they labelled the SECURITY building for christ's sake. WOW! that will convince me to go to war with iraq!!! a security shed!!!!!!! what a flagrant violation of UN mandate!!!!

what is this, the pre-industrial age? where is the technology? where are the zooms of photos taken from $billions+ satellites? where are the infrared photos showing heat signatures that could only be made by massive chemical factories? where are the radar shots? where are the heuristic analyses? where is any of that? instead, they give us a black and white photo of a few buildings that, for all we know, could be photos of a damn 50 year old soviet bunker in siberia.

and furthermore, where is the ground intelligence? i recall reading the words of some U.S. intelligence expert, who said (paraphrasing), "though we can get accurate photos, no one can see through walls. for anything conclusive, you have to have people down there collecting concrete evidence firsthand." i totally agree with this. what has the U.S. done in this regard?

and that conversation between two Iraqis. what a joke. what, based on two men sharing some fears for the inspection, you're going to build evidence for WAR? for all we know, they could be arguing how the inspectors will wag their fingers at them, because "the vehicle" they were referring to didn't have seat belts, or working brakes, or something. christ.

this reminds me of the gulf war. even then, the "evidence" that the U.S. had was laughable. indeed, the "conclusive evidence" that was used to justify the war, saying that the iraqi tanks were on the saudi arabian border, was total b.s. they claimed this based on "top secret" satellite photos (which are to this day classified). in actual fact, however, the tanks had retreated long before, which was physically confirmed afterwards by commercial russian satellite photos. but the U.S. went to war anyway. the fact that their "evidence" was horrendously flawed was only brought about later, and heavily glossed over.

and you know what? the same thing will happen this time. if this war goes through (which i think it will, U.N. or not), eventually it will be proved that the U.S. had flawed or fabricated evidence. and they'll gloss it over again. and then after another few years they'll make up a new war to feed the military machine. repeat ad nauseam.

who is the U.S.? what business do they have, half a world away, trying to discipline a country that they know nothing about? all attempts of the west to shape the middle east have FAILED and failed horribly. obviously, this is just a bid for oil. controlling the world's second largest source of oil is a valuable commodity.

i'm sure many will disagree with all this. but mark my words, just as the U.S. has to this date failed to show "conclusive" evidence, or to have presented a REAL reason to justify any of their previous aggressions and wars to date, this war will be no different.

Last edited by Alccode on Feb-05-2003 at 23:14

quote:

Originally posted by Izzy http://tester.tranceaddict.com/foru...02&pagenumber=4 i posted a fox news link to the whole adress near the bottom of the page (in the middle-ish of the report, sorry for being fox, but its the straight up speech, no 'spin' added )

thanks izzy, i printed the transcript for review.

here it is for others:
Transcript

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

Originally posted by JohnSmith the only possible issue is the refusal to allow U2 spyplanes, i'm surprised powell didn't mention that.

actually the regime allowed a week ago U2 planes to fly over iraq


oh and Renegade! impressive post!

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

really? where did you hear that? i got this from the transcript, haven't finished reading though.

quote:

Iraq also has refused to permit any U-2 reconnaissance flights that would give the inspectors a better sense of what's being moved before, during and after inspections.

would be interested to hear what your source is malek, every bit helps.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

it was on tv the other day...where will i find it now? :-/

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

i found it, its in french, so bare with me

excrept from the interview of Tarek Aziz (questions are in bold).

M. Blix vous a également demandé de coopérer sur les avions espions U2, la possibilité d'interviewer des scientifiques irakiens en privé et le vote d'une loi constitutionnelle interdisant à l'avenir la production d'armes de destruction massive.
Sur ces trois points nous allons coopérer avec M. Blix. Il viendra ici le 8 février, mais je préfère lui laisser la primeur de notre réponse. Je voudrais simplement vous faire remarquer, en ce qui concerne les U2, qu'il est fondamentalement injuste de nous demander d'accepter le survol de notre territoire par ces avions espions au moment même où l'Amérique programme ouvertement une invasion de notre pays.

-->>M Blix also asked you to cooperate on the questions of the U2 spy planes, the possibility of privatly interviewing iraqi scientists and a vote on a law forbidding any productionf of WMD in the future

Answer: We will cooperate on these 3 points with M. Blix, he will come here on feb 8th, but i want to leave it to him for the announcements of our answers. I wish to add about the U2s, it is fundamentally unjust to ask us to accept that our territory be flown over by these spy planes at the same time where the USA are openly preparing an invasion of our country.

Mais vous avez bien accepté le survol de votre territoire par ces avions avant 1998...
Oui, mais c'était à une époque où les États-Unis ne préparaient pas l'invasion de notre territoire. Cette exigence des avions U2 est vraiment scandaleuse, mais, encore une fois, je ne veux pas préjuger de ce que donneront nos entretiens avec M. Blix.

--->> But you let these planes to fly over your territories in 1998...

Answer: yes, but it was at a time where the USA weren't preparing an invasion of our territories. This demand is really scandaleous, but again, i don't want to prejudge what our meeting with M. Blix will result in.


He's accepting it, but at the same time, he's waiting for m blix to come over so they can discuss about it. Aziz's position is understandable, you don't want to give everything to your enemy when he'll attack in the coming weeks. Thats' really asking him to bend over so he can get royally fucked.

What Aziz wants, is that the result of these spy missions are shown to the whole UN security counsel. Not only kept to the US (but then again he's dreaming in color).

http://www.figaro.fr/international/...05.FIG0122.html

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

thanks malek. i wish i could read french. heck, i wish i could read arabic or farsi!

anyway, it seems he "will" concede to those planes, but hasn't yet. which does not make rumsfeld a liar when he says that he "hasn't" allowed the planes to go over.

i see why he wouldn't though, what with an imminent attack, and the former use of UNSCOM as spies.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

quote:

i know i am taking this comletely out of context, but i appreciate the fact that you admit there is a real (legal) justification for war on iraq.

Yep, there is a very good chance that Hussein is in violation of 1441 (I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not sure if the US allegation that the Iraqis are preventing UN access to scientists - one of the few independantly verified parts of the speech - constitutes, in itself, a direct violation of the resolution) but I'm not sure that that in itself is justification to go to war. From the looks of it (i.e. from the date of the photographs and intelligence reports), the US have been monitoring Iraq heavily over the past 12 months, and have still yet to identify a serious material breach of resolution 1441. There was the missile that travelled longer than it's allocated 150 mile range (though still no where near far enough to be of any threat to any country other than the sympathetic Arabic countries surrounding Iraq) and those crop dusters - or whatever they were - that "could" be used to deliver anthrax, but I feel that it's still important to note that not one solid piece of evidence has been uncovered in the time that the inspectors have been there.

Given this fact, even if - with the evidence presented today - Powell has shown Hussein as being in violation of Resolution 1441, there is still a big difference between Hussein violating a single resolution (like I've said many times before, he's not the only leader in the world flaunting resolutions at the moment) and Hussein posing a genuine threat to the world. Powell failed to address any of the moral concerns regarding this war, and it certainly came across as an excercise in trying to find any excuse possible to march into Bagdhad, rather than a genuine demonstration of Hussein's threat to the global community.

Remember, thousands of innocents will die should this war go ahead. For this to be in any way justifiable, the evidence is going to need to be solid and the threat very real - we can't cheapen the value of human life by demanding anything less.

quote:

although we may differ as to whether going to war in this case is still morally right or wrong and may or may not be the best solution, such opinions are for to the individual to decide and im glad we can respect each others viewpoint.

Ditto.

quote:

wow renegade excellent post. i'd like to put that up on my website if you would let me!

Thanks, and yeah sure, I'd like that very much. Give me a few hours to rewrite parts of it (as now I can refer to the transcript instead of just doing everything from memory) but apart from that you're welcome to post it whenever you like.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

besides the general knowledge that this world is ridiculously corrupt, i dont see why everybody has to keep on pointing out how hypocritical the US has been over the years. Who cares, everybody knows this, and what country has not played there hands under the table? exactly my point. none. sorry about all the pessimism, but personaly, i just think this world is fucked, and that its the godamn masons that have caused most of this shit (haha no im not insane, look at how many presidents of the US have been masons! and not to mention they (bloody masons) control the g-7 also). bleh, im not making sense here, but i am content with my puritanical misanthropia.

ps: the United Nations is just as useless as its predecesor, the league of nations. The UN always takes action to late, and has never been affective enough in my opinion, and there are a million and one more reasons i could state, but being that its past my bedtime, i am going to hit the sack. ( And that bastard mason started the league of nations which then became the UN, so yes the UN was a mason creation also.)

Last edited by ftnb on Feb-06-2003 at 03:47