Right. So why bother pretending you care about the evidence, the disarmament regime, or the whole WMD issue?
Of course you are also playing a word game. Define “direct.” Actually, don’t bother. Reread the transcript, maybe you did not see it after they added the whole text.
I am not going to take Powell’s word for anything either. We all know that Saddam is much more trustworthy.
The sattelite photos are not indecipherable to experts. Do you take the expert’s word? Do you have to see it with your own eyes to believe it? What proof would statisfy you that Iraq is the threat to the US? Only something you can see or would you take someone’s (anyone’s) word for it?
I am assuming you were also opposed to the Gulf War. No “direct threat” to us there.
Although I would agree with Beagle that it would have been more honest if you had been up front that you never cared about WMD as an issue.
Just out of curiousity, would you classify the Iraqi attempt on the life of a former President as a “direct attack”? Or would you prefer to look the other way on that as well?
Regards,
Shodan
Well, this reply will give me some flames, but this is what I, my cynical self, believes:
The pressure on the Bush administration has grown so intense that the urgency to present “proof” that it’s justifiable to attack Iraq has reached extreme levels.
This, in addition to the UN Weapons Inspectors failure to provide anything substantial backing the US’ case, has made the Bush administration falsify this so called “proof” and present it to the world.
Yes, you read it right, I think it’s F-A-K-E ! Sure, it’s cynical and taken straight out of a movie, but I do believe the war-mongers in the US of A have gone to these lengths before and it’s not the first time that “proof” has been presented to persuade the rest of the world of some evildoings by a “rogue” country, thus making it possible for the US to attack the country and having the support of the rest of the world.
Fire away…
Taking a crap ? Seriously, even in english the word have several meanings, the first of which is not “to move so that the inspectors won’t find it”. The entire interpretation of the phone conversation depends on the validity of the translation of that single word.
The thing about the UN is, they don’t really have intelligence operations on the scale the US has them. The UN depends largely in its component nations to provide the evidence that it uses to act on… which is what Poweel did for the United States today. I wouldn’t expect the UN to have better evidence than the US. What evidence the UN has produced, in the form of Hans Blix’s statement last week, pretty much does support what Powell said today.
And I don’t believe that the US would falsify what they presented today, not under the microscpe of the world. They might try to slip faked evidence in under the wire if they could, but I don’t think that Powell, one of the most trusted and trustworthy me in the international community, would stand up and proclaim faked evidence to the world.
Nice theory, but… no.
The guy from Iraq just spoke. Turns out, the whole thing was just a big misunderstanding. Whew!
I disagree. It also depends on context. Who said it, when it was said, what happened before during and after it was said.
Damn straight I was opposed to the Gulf War.
As to what I mean by a “direct threat.” I mean, show me that Iraq has both the ability and the desire to hurt the US. I would stipulate that Hussein has the desire. I have yet to see proof that he has the ability. I need to see more that a few cans of nerve gas (even he even has that). Show me that he can actually hurt me personally.
Well, hopefully it won’t be too late by then.
Exactly.
“After consultation with Diogenes the Cynic, we have decided to permit UN inspectors continue the inspections process for three more years.”
I will admit, I was hoping for an Adelaide Stevenson type moment, and I didn’t get it. My position has been solidified, and if I may say, this fence is becoming a might bit uncomfortable.
Diogenes, no offense, but you raise the bar to an impossibly high level for government to work effectively. There will always be an element of trust involved in participating in a democracy with elected representatives, one of whom is the President. They simply can’t consult with each and every member of society before taking action. You don’t have to agree, of course, but the time for making a decision is coming to a close, probably.
That’s Adlai Stevenson.
Why is time coming to a close? What’s the rush? What’s going to happen that couldn’t have happened ten years ago?
I missed most of the speech but I have always been inclined to believe that Iraq does possess biological and chemical weapons. However that alone doesn’t mean an invasion is going to help. The fact is that that an invasion makes it more likely that Iraq will either use the weapons or pass them on to terrorists or that after the war the weapons will find their way to the arms bazaar. In light of that a continuation of inspections, perhaps on a larger scale, is the lesser evil.
Adlai, short for Adelaide? Or, the law of possible non-mutual exclusivity?
Anyway, this was as good as anything Adlai presented. The Soviets could have bluffed “they aren’t nuclear missiles.” That might have been WWIII.
<sarcasm>
Yeah! Those whinning Kwaitis with their “oh, he invaded my country, please help us”, bunch of wimps And those UN-war-mongerers with their “oooh, now we have to liberate those poor Kwaitis”, bunch of hawks. Oh, and don’t get me started on the Kurds with their whimpering “oh, he gased us, he’s bad, bad, bad.” The Guld War, what a bunch of crap.
<sarcasm>
The difference is:
Adlai’s lament was that Cuba had missiles.
Adelaide’s Lament was that Nathan Detroit’s failure to propose caused cold symptoms.