Colin Powell, in front of the UN Security Council, laid the groundwork, and much more regarding the situation with Iraq. If you weren’t able to see it, here is a link to the speech.
So, was he convincing?
Well, I watched it in my AP European History class today. Unfortuneatly, no one was being quiet and I didn’t have a good view of the TV. However, I did notice that Powell seemed rather hesitant when saying some parts of his speech. Did anyone else notice this?
I wasn’t convinced, although I think the Iraqi delegate only hurt his cause by later saying that he was amazed that there was thoughts that they had used chemical weapons against their own people.
COUGH KURDS COUGH
I wasn’t convinced. A month ago, I felt more certain that Saddam had to be taken out at all costs. Much of what I’ve read in the interim has caused my feelings to moderate. My vote would be to let the inspectors complete their task and render a final report to the UN.
Actually, he was using a sort of ‘UN cadence’. They all sound like that–it’s to make it easier for the translators.
No, I need someone to hit me over the head with a 2x4!
[ul]
[sup]In case you didn’t guess, that was an unqualified YES.[/sup][/ul]
I wasn’t convinced by the transcript but it’s not like my opinion is gonna change anything.
I wasn’t convinced at all, but sadly where Bush goes, the Blairites will surely follow.
Considering he didn’t reveal everything he knew, I think what he did reveal was pretty damaging.
But then, I was convinced before hand.
And as for letting the inspectors do their job…they are. It is Saddam Hussein who is not
I was convinced.
I listened to the report on CNN satellite radio. Powell did not seem hesitant to me during the speech. There were a couple of times where he seemed to pause but I can’t imagine having to give a report of that length with out a pause or two to collect your thoughts.
Yes
I was convinced that Saddam is a Really Bad Guy. Actually, I went into yesterday already believing that.
I was not convinced, however, that laying waste to Baghdad and elsewhere in Iraq is the answer. If the U.S. does that, it will only breed more resentment toward the U.S. and a resulting massive influx of recruits for al Qaeda. Thanks, Bush, for giving my two young children a world of insecurity to grow up in.
It really boils my blood that Bush is making a big deal about Saddam’s links to al Qaeda, when there are 3-4 other countries with stronger ties to these terrortists. What’s the bug up his butt regarding Iraq anyway? (As if we didn’t already know the answer to THAT …)
The same fears were expressed before Desert Storm and of course it did not happen. Being in support of getting rid of Saddam does not necessitate being in support of laying waste to any part of Iraq.
I understand your concern for your children’s future. I do not however understand why your statement isn’t: “Thanks, Bush and Saddam…” (plus a few other characters, such as…er…bin Laden.)
He is trying to build support and sending a message to those 3/4 countries that supporting al Qaeda isn’t a good idea. If you are dealing with a bunch of bullies, taking out the biggest bully discourages the others. But why does this rise to the point it boils your blood? Surely, you are not advocating taking action against those countries.
It isn’t oil, if that is your idea. We could have done that in 1991 or undermined OPEC by doing away with the embargo on Iraq. Why are you not suspicious of France, who has strong oil ties to Iraq at present?
I don’t doubt for a minute that Sadam is a dangerous, cruel madman.
However, I would have thought with the billions and billions of dollars thrown at the CIA and military spy technology over the years that Powell could have whipped up a better PowerPoint program than this!
Was I convinced - not really…but he did create enough doubt that even the most dubious countries should really feel obligated to take a serious look at what is going on in Iraq. They will find something in Iraq eventually, but the UN presentation certainly wasn’t a slamdunk.