# Regarding a general lack of physical evidence in Powell's presentation. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 5, 2003, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982 "2003-02-05T17:06:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![KidCharlemagne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ed8c4c/32.png) [@KidCharlemagne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KidCharlemagne)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2003, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/61 "2003-02-08T22:27:11Z")
## quote: ## Clearly there is more evidence needed to sanction a war against Iraq than a technical breach of the resolutions otherwise France and Germany would have given us the go-ahead. Read it again slowly. While I can understand that you might read that sentence the way you did if you were looking for that slant, don’t say it’s the only inference to be made. I’m not assigning a value to France’s and Germany’s opinions other than it is necessary to have their agreement for the UN to sanction a war. What is so difficult about this?? ---
**Author:** ![kniz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c37758/32.png) [@kniz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kniz)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/62 "2003-02-09T00:21:47Z")
> [@](#): > > _originally posted by vibrotronica_ > **Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have a Need to Know. This is still nominally a democracy and if we’re going to war I, as a citizen, need some pretty damn good evidence that we’re doing the right thing. “'Cause I said so!” does not qualify. Neither does “We’ve got good evidence, but we’re not going to show it to you” does not qualify, either. Neither do aerial photographs of anonymous-looking bunkers and an earnest-looking Colin Powell** > [@](#): > > _posted by kniz concerning the above_ > The Need to Know is not determined by someone saying “'Cause I said so!”. I’m sure you would like to know exactly when an attack (if there is one) will take place and what the battle plan will be. Guess what… so does Saddam. > [@](#): > > _originally posted by vibrotronica_ > **Your post, while colorful, is not coherent. I recognize that I do not need to know the operational details of this or any other war until they are written up in the history books. I never said anything like that. What I am saying is, if there is a plain and simple smoking gun cause for war, the American public need to know about it.** What is not coherent about my statement that you do not have a “need to know”? Where does your first statement mention a “smoking gun”? Read it again: > [@](#): > > **[sup]Yes, as a matter of fact, I do have a Need to Know. This is still nominally a democracy and if we’re going to war I, as a citizen, need some pretty damn good evidence that we’re doing the right thing.[/sup]** What I said was **NO! you don’t** (is that coherent enough for you?) Do you not understand that those four Iraqis that were recorded are most likely being tortured? They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time? Protecting sources is much more important than spreading the word to everyone just to make them feel important. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/63 "2003-02-09T00:27:42Z")
**kniz** : Are you arguing, then, that **vibrotronica** should accept the need to go to war purely on the administration’s say-so? The rest of the world? I think the point is that it’s one thing to say “I have evidence, but I can’t show it to you.” It’s quite another to expect a massive number of people to support war based solely on the trust of that statement. If you are correct, and we DON’T need to know the evidence, then I assume you are willing to accept that those same people who’re demanding evidence will not support the war… ---
**Author:** ![katerina2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ce73a5/32.png) [@katerina2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/katerina2)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/64 "2003-02-09T00:31:31Z")
Is the news story that broke Friday that Powell was relying on intelligence from England that was _plagiarized from a 12 year old student thesis_ not hitting the american press? It was a big deal on the Euro news tonight. Apparently Blair was creamed. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/65 "2003-02-09T00:34:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Clearly indicating that you think being asked to prove they’ve destroyed WMD is akin to asking Iraq to produce a pink unicorn. Nonsense. Suppose Iraq had taken a ton of anthrax out to the Godforsaken Desert and burned it. You might be able to go out there and determine that, yes, indeed, anthrax was burned there. But how could you determine how much was burned there? By the same token, Iraq proves they burned some anthrax, you know the immediate response is gonna be “Well, prove you burned all of it”. There is a suspicion abroad that America simply wants a war, and no amount of cooperation will satisfy. The best way to counter that is to set clear and unambiguous standards for proof. How to do that is the hard part, its easy enough to prove something exists. Proving something does _not_ exist is another thing altogether. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/66 "2003-02-09T01:24:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Nonsense. Suppose Iraq had taken a ton of anthrax out to the Godforsaken Desert and burned it. You might be able to go out there and determine that, yes, indeed, anthrax was burned there. But how could you determine how much was burned there? > > \*\* They haven’t even done that. You’re defending something that hasn’t happened as adiquate proof. Let me try this with little short words: That Has Not Happened. It’s a straw man. > [@](#): > > By the same token, Iraq proves they burned some anthrax, you know the immediate response is gonna be “Well, prove you burned all of it”. This is suposition and speculation. Please do not make stuff up and use it to try and boulster your arguements in GD. Go post it in IMHO. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/67 "2003-02-09T03:50:57Z")
I see that the pro side continues to a) ignore the fact that the U.S. has not gone after real, live al Qaeda in a section of Iraq that is, for all intents and purposes, under our control. b) be uninterested in any options that would be stronger than what we’re doing now but more limited than total war. In a situation in which there was an imminent threat of nuclear devices being placed a mere 90 miles from the U.S., JFK used a blockade. Given that Iraq has exactly one port into the Persian Gulf, it seems to me a blockade with the considerable forces already in place would be child’s play. But that wouldn’t get the Administration the satisfaction it really wants, and it would mess up their plans to get that satisfaction, since they want their invasion to happen now, before the weather gets intolerable. This is no reason to sacrifice the lives of real people, both American and Iraqi. Anyone can manufacture a crisis, and then use a hammer to solve it. It takes a person with a functioning brain to figure out how to get what he wants without having to resort to a hammer. ---
**Author:** ![Pucky\_Schumer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/74df32/32.png) [@Pucky\_Schumer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pucky_Schumer)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/68 "2003-02-09T04:39:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*How to do that is the hard part, its easy enough to prove something exists. Proving something does _not_ exist is another thing altogether. \*\* It’s easy to prove Iraq has mobile labs on trains and trucks. Only those truly committed to preconceived opinions would believe Iraq put weapons labs on mobile platforms and didn’t intend to use them to make weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/69 "2003-02-09T05:00:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pantom \* > \*\*IGiven that Iraq has exactly one port into the Persian Gulf, it seems to me a blockade with the considerable forces already in place would be child’s play. \*\* To what purpose? Really, I’m baffled as to what you think a blockade will acomplish. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/70 "2003-02-09T05:36:41Z")
I have no idea if it would work. But generally speaking, before you spill blood, you should try every other alternative available. IF the administration really wants to solve the problem of Iraqi disarmament rather than simply settle a score with Saddam, they would try this first. The fact that this hasn’t even been brought up as an alternative shows what they’re really after. _Our soldiers were not trained and equipped to carry out personal vendettas._ If my son were over there and came back in a body bag WITHOUT this or some other limited military alternative being tried first (I do have a cousin over there so this isn’t entirely an academic discussion for me), I’d be extremely upset. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/71 "2003-02-09T05:45:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by elucidator \* > \*\*Nonsense. Suppose Iraq had taken a ton of anthrax out to the Godforsaken Desert and burned it. You might be able to go out there and determine that, yes, indeed, anthrax was burned there. But how could you determine how much was burned there? By the same token, Iraq proves they burned some anthrax, you know the immediate response is gonna be “Well, prove you burned all of it”. \*\* **elucidator** , your statement does follow the rules of logic. Your conclusion follows from your hyphthesis. However, your hypothesis is utterly ridiculous. Iraq was under painful economic sanctions because they were holding on to WMDs. They were at risk of an invasion by an international military coalition because they are holding on to WMD. It would have made no sense for them to destroy their WMDs in secret. If they decided to destroy their WMDs, they would have invited the UN to witness it. Then the sanctions would have been lifted and they wouldn’t be threatened with imminent attack. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/72 "2003-02-09T07:19:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pantom \* > \*\*I have no idea if it would work. But generally speaking, before you spill blood, you should try every other alternative available. IF the administration really wants to solve the problem of Iraqi disarmament rather than simply settle a score with Saddam, they would try this first. > The fact that this hasn’t even been brought up as an alternative shows what they’re really after. _Our soldiers were not trained and equipped to carry out personal vendettas._ If my son were over there and came back in a body bag WITHOUT this or some other limited military alternative being tried first (I do have a cousin over there so this isn’t entirely an academic discussion for me), I’d be extremely upset. \*\* Yes, I can understand how you’d be upset, but you still haven’t answered my question: What purpose would a blockade serve? I can say that we haven’t airdropped marshmellow peeps over Bahgdad and thus haven’t tried “everything”, but unless I have a realistic idea of what such an airdrop would do, it dosen’t mean a thing. I ask again, point blank: What purpose would a blockade serve? What would it acomplish? ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/73 "2003-02-09T07:38:39Z")
Blocking their trade with the world. You do as was done 40 years ago: blockade with a deadline. If the deadline isn’t met, you go in. It is true that they’ve said that Saddam and his cohorts leaving would be enough to stop a war, so at least they’re giving some appearance of looking for an alternative. And as long as you’re in the business of asking point blank questions, I’ll give you one back: Why haven’t they assisted the Kurds in getting rid of their al Qaeda enclave? Their first responsibility is to protect the American people, and the first priority in that at this moment is to search out and destroy this organization wherever they’re found. Yet they’ve done nothing. ---
**Author:** ![Fugazi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/f08c70/32.png) [@Fugazi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fugazi)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 9:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/74 "2003-02-09T09:25:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pantom \* > \*\*Blocking their trade with the world. You do as was done 40 years ago: blockade with a deadline. If the deadline isn’t met, you go in. \*\* We’ve been blocking their trade for 12 years. It should start working any day now. > [@](#): > > \*\* It is true that they’ve said that Saddam and his cohorts leaving would be enough to stop a war, so at least they’re giving some appearance of looking for an alternative. \*\* Abiding by the UN Security Council resolutions would also prevent a war. Unfortunely Hussein hasn’t done so for the last 12 years. > [@](#): > > \*\* Why haven’t they assisted the Kurds in getting rid of their al Qaeda enclave? Their first responsibility is to protect the American people, and the first priority in that at this moment is to search out and destroy this organization wherever they’re found. Yet they’ve done nothing. \*\* What do the Kurds & al Qaeda have to do with the UN Security Council resolutions? How do you know what the US governments priorities are? Maybe they feel a madman with WMD’s is a higher priority than a few isolated cells of al Qaeda. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/75 "2003-02-09T17:07:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pantom \* > \*\*I have no idea if it would work. But generally speaking, before you spill blood, you should try every other alternative available. IF the administration really wants to solve the problem of Iraqi disarmament rather than simply settle a score with Saddam, they would try this first. > The fact that this hasn’t even been brought up as an alternative shows what they’re really after. _Our soldiers were not trained and equipped to carry out personal vendettas._ If my son were over there and came back in a body bag WITHOUT this or some other limited military alternative being tried first (I do have a cousin over there so this isn’t entirely an academic discussion for me), I’d be extremely upset. \*\* You assume that war should be the last resort. If the serious threat of destruction will not get him to comply with the UN resolutions then why would pussy-footin` around with anything less be effective? If I know you have a gun and you threaten me with a stick, I will be likely to hold out until you pull the gun on me. On the other hand, the fact that I know you have the gun but are willing to use the stick first may show a sign of weakness on your part. Or a sign of fear. ---
**Author:** ![bordelond](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bordelond/32/150_2.png) [@bordelond](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bordelond)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 5:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/76 "2003-02-09T17:11:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pantom \* > \*\*Blocking their trade with the world. You do as was done 40 years ago: blockade with a deadline. If the deadline isn’t met, you go in. > It is true that they’ve said that Saddam and his cohorts leaving would be enough to stop a war, so at least they’re giving some appearance of looking for an alternative. > And as long as you’re in the business of asking point blank questions, I’ll give you one back: Why haven’t they assisted the Kurds in getting rid of their al Qaeda enclave? Their first responsibility is to protect the American people, and the first priority in that at this moment is to search out and destroy this organization wherever they’re found. Yet they’ve done nothing. \*\* Not so. [U.S. Special Forces have been in Iraq since January 30th](http://www.cnn.com/virtual/editions/europe/2000/roof/change.pop/frameset.exclude.html). C.I.A. operatives have been in Kurd-controlled Iraq far longer than that. While Washington is being particularly coy about what assets are already in Iraq, it seems clear that the U.S. is doing a lot more than nothing to counter Al Qaeda affiliates in northern Iraq. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 5:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/77 "2003-02-09T17:23:21Z")
**bordelond** : that link didn’t work. Could you revise that and post it again? Thanks. **whuckfistle** : So what? If you misinterpret it as fear, the invasion takes place and you find out you’re wrong. Who really gives a damn at this point what the Iraqi government thinks? It’s about moving in slowly and purposefully, and giving every chance possible to resolve the situation without a total war. And making sure that if we do go in we continue to have enough credibility with the world to deal with al Qaeda wherever we find them, and deal with North Korea once this is done. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/78 "2003-02-09T17:28:33Z")
**Fugazi** : And? We can clearly see what the priorities of the U.S. government are. I am arguing that those priorities are wrong. As to blocking trade for 12 years, there have been restrictions on what Iraq can export, but there has **not** been a total blockade of the country, with a **definite** deadline by which complete compliance must be accomplished. It is possible that this scenario is part of the plan the Administration has, and I would be very happy if it was. But I doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![Uncommon\_Sense](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Uncommon\_Sense](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uncommon_Sense)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2003, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/79 "2003-02-09T19:04:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by pantom \* > \*\ ***Fugazi** : And? We can clearly see what the priorities of the U.S. government are. I am arguing that those priorities are wrong. As to blocking trade for 12 years, there have been restrictions on what Iraq can export, but there has **not** been a total blockade of the country, with a **definite** deadline by which complete compliance must be accomplished. > It is possible that this scenario is part of the plan the Administration has, and I would be very happy if it was. But I doubt it. \*\* I see your point, and I agree. I just don`t want this to drag out longer than necessary. We could resolve this quickly with a full on attack from the air and then evaluate our options as things progress. I don`t expect ground troops or civilian casualties right away. ---
**Author:** ![pantom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/34f0e0/32.png) [@pantom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pantom)\ **Post date:** [February 10, 2003, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982/80 "2003-02-10T02:46:07Z")
Latest news: [Kurdish Leader Assassinated by Ansar el Islam](http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/10/international/middleeast/10KURD.html) Days before 9/11, the leader of the Northern Alliance was assassinated by al Qaeda in Afganistan. And the government now has us on high alert for a terror attack. This is getting scary, and the criminal negligence of this Administration towards this supposedly “isolated” al Qaeda cell is getting more inexcusable by the minute. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/regarding-a-general-lack-of-physical-evidence-in-powells-presentation/152982.md?page=5)