Colin Powells speach before the UN

HeavyMetal BankFisherman · 02-05-2003, 08:40 PM

I think Colin Powell made the case. He has got to be one of the greatest speakers of all time. Well prepared, organized, believable.

At the least he brings some legitimacy to the US case. He is probably the only member of our current administration that has any respect from the rest of the world.

Things should play out by the end of the month. One way or the other.

GutshotApe · 02-06-2003, 06:08 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by HeavyMetal BankFisherman:
He is probably the only member of our current administration that has any respect from the rest of the world.

Public perception is a curious thing. Powell's speech reflected the Administration's position. If Bush says it, "the world" doesn't believe it. If Powell reads the speech, "the world" does? Personally, I don't care what the

French think.

CATCH AND EAT · 02-06-2003, 07:03 AM

Or the Germans either. Those two countries have their opinionated beliefs. Just can't stand either of them right now. On with it and lets get it over with.

We also need to finish our job in Afganistan. We were only 2/3rds the way done there. Reminds me of our 1st go round in Iraq. The Taliban will not give up and we will end up going back in and cleaning up another mess soon. GW made the same mistake as Sr. did by not finishing the job. He should have paved that country first and then help rebuild it.

And now N. Korea stepped it up a notch with 1st strike threats today. Just not sure why we stirred up that pot. That situation will be extremely dangerous and the consequences heavy. Talk about a crazy man in control.

Silver Hilton · 02-06-2003, 01:30 PM

I agree, Korea is turing into a very worrisome situation. Their past behavior is troublesome, and it sure smells like they're planning on taking advantage of our distraction right now.

Lunker · 02-06-2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GutshotApe:
Public perception is a curious thing. Powell's speech reflected the Administration's position. If Bush says it, "the world" doesn't believe it. If Powell reads the speech, "the world" does? Personally, I don't care what the French think.

And you thought Powell was not too smart

[img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/dork.gif[/img]
Remember, Bush is the dumb one

02-06-2003, 03:33 PM

I was convinced during the Iran/Iraq war.

Boedy · 02-06-2003, 03:36 PM

N. Korea must be high to talk that kind of smack.

I think its all talk as they know we would Nuke them in a heart beat if they tried anything like a first strike.

GutshotApe · 02-06-2003, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Lunker:
And you thought Powell was not too smart

[/QB]

I guess you are referring to a post I made a while back about affirmative action. I never said I thought Powell wasn't too smart. I happen to believe he is very intelligent. I said some people think he's a little slow and that his rise to the pinnacle of power was not all merit-based - and that this is the regrettable effect of affirmative action. No matter how smart, capable and accomplished someone like Powell may be, as long as there is AA there will be a question in many minds about the his real capabilities.

02-06-2003, 09:49 PM

Colin Powell is a confused Democrat and part of the reason we have to go back to Iraq.

1pump · 02-06-2003, 11:13 PM

Huh?!? Powell isn't part of the reason. The political landscape has changed dramatically since '91. It didn't make any sense to prolong the war when it was already won. In hindsight, we should have ran Saddam out of town. But that wasn't the objective then. Kicking him out of Kuwait was the goal. And if we redefined the goal as the overthrow of Saddam and the occupation of Iraq, our coalition "partners", not to mention the Soviets, would have blown a gasket.
I keep hearing this tired argument that we didn't get it done. We got that job done. This is a new one. It just happens to be in the same place.

Silver Hilton · 02-07-2003, 07:30 AM

GSA,

I just read a great book by David Halberstam on the foreign policy situation throughout the 90's, called War In Times Of Peace, I believe. The picture it paints of Powell is that he rose rapidly through the military based on merit. While AA may taint the opinions of the common man about Powell, apparently those who know him are quite confident of his skills and effectiveness.

I've seen him speak. He comes off as one very impressive individual. I'd love to have him as candidate for president.

As a side note, you might enjoy the book, though it was kind of a tedious read. It paints a very clear picture of Clinton as being disengaged from the overseas issues, paying much more attention to the domestic situation. It also has a fascinating discussion about the evolution of war fighting protocols as used in the Gulf War and upcoming conflicts.

02-07-2003, 07:37 AM

1 pump,
Should we have stoped fighting the Germans during WWII when they were down and left Hitler in power? In the Arab world we showed weakness by not finishing the job and so we have the mess that we're in today. It wasn't only Powell but he was part of it.

Silver Hilton · 02-07-2003, 07:44 AM

Keta,

I thought it was Bush that made that call. My recollection is that the generals wanted to go in and finish the job, but Bush didn't want to risk the troops.

02-07-2003, 08:17 AM

Bush was advised by many others but it was his call.

Tilla · 02-07-2003, 05:40 PM

Powell did a nice job and showed a lot of credibility.
I don't think Bush could do that.

HOGTIDE · 02-08-2003, 09:22 AM

I thought Powell did an excellent job on his presentation. Lots of pressure. He was strong and clear attempting to make his point for nearly an hour.

I don't think he really showed us anything that we didn't already assume. But he did do a solid job of presenting the collective package.

bigfishon · 02-08-2003, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Boedy:
N. Korea must be high to talk that kind of smack.

I think its all talk as they know we would Nuke them in a heart beat if they tried anything like a first strike.

I do not think we will be "nuking" anyone, since we as all other contries who who have followed the UN policies have disarmed and diasembled ALL weapons of MASS destruction, "nukular, atom, nutron bombs and the like", not to mention the biolgical weapons. If they do have them and we do not I think we are in a serious situation at the moment. I also think we may be spreading our troups a bit thin to be able to affectivly cover the whole mess, unless our alies are going to fully back us and go in fighting also.

Boedy · 02-08-2003, 08:53 PM

What???

I keep reading your post over and over trying to believe what I am reading.

Bigfish it looks like you are saying that the US has no WMD nuke or otherwise.

Is that what you are saying?

[ 02-08-2003, 09:56 PM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

bigfishon · 02-08-2003, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Boedy:
What???

I keep reading your post over and over trying to believe what I am reading.

Bigfish it looks like you are saying that the US has no WMD nuke or otherwise.

Is that what you are saying?

According to UN policies ALL weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION were to be disarmed and disassembled (that policy was for all country's including the US) the fact that they have been found to have not complied to that policy is what this war is about, we have evidence proveing they have weapons of mass destruction & that they have the means to produce such weapons & that they are producing such weapons. Do you think we are so much better than all the other countrys that we should have these weapons and they should not? Do you think we are in the wronge for takeing a stand to make them comply with those policys? Do you trust them to comply with those policys without force to do so? Suddam Hussain is not the nice old guy next door who passes his time in the greenhouse raising orcids, he is a very dangerous man who needs to be stoped and cannot be trusted.

Boedy · 02-10-2003, 10:25 AM

.Big I think you missed my point I was not saying that we shouldn�t go into Iraq at all, anybody that has read anything I have posted here would tell you where I stand on that.

What I was questioning was your statement that the USA not having any Nuke's or other WMD per some UN mandates.

Quote:

Originally posted by bigfishon:
�According to UN policies ALL weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION were to be disarmed and disassembled (that policy was for all country's including the US)�

Are you kidding me you don�t really believe the USA has destroyed all its WMD per some Imagined UN mandate outlawing all WMD do you? Are you making some point that I am just missing? You can�t be so ill-informed that you think the mandate for Iraqi disarmament applies to the whole world can you?

The US has shown that we are responsible with WMD where as Saddam has shown his willingness to use them on his own people

[ 02-10-2003, 02:00 PM: Message edited by: Boedy ]

HeavyMetal BankFisherman · 02-10-2003, 09:45 PM

Powell made the case. Iraq is and has been in violation of UN resolution 1441 since November 8, 2002 when it was adopted. There has been no change in compliance since then. Just more retoric from a desperate regime stalling for time.

Recent stall tactics by Iraq should be dismissed as just that. We have seen this before. It's been twelve years of this.

The few European nations opposing NATO defensive deployments to Turkey, wanting UN forces in Iraq, are just trying to put off the inevitable. A show of force by the US that will prove to the world the sheer magnitude of the US military. They must be squirming in thier seats. Knowbody wants to admit they can't take you in a fight. Especially when there is no chance against the bully. But if that's what we have to be the so be it.

Unfortunately it looks like the task of maintaining world order will inevitably fall upon us, the USA. Our apparent allies have gotten cold feet.

Oh well. It's not like anything they would contribute would even make a dent in the huge cost this war will bring. I wonder if actually it may be more that they don't want to break out the pocket book. Go figure.

France and Germany's maneuvers are doomed to fail due to the support we have from other european nations. The UK, Italy, Spain, Poland, not to mention all the former eastern block countries standing in line to be our allies.

With the entire 101st Airborne being deployed. That was the final signal.

War should be a last resort. But if it starts, regardless of you views.

Just remember to:
Support Our Troops!

Because they are already fighting. And they are Americans.

:depressed:

ReelTrouble · 02-10-2003, 10:45 PM

Just to clear a few things up between Bigfish and Boedy.

Unfortunatly, the UN cannot say that WOMD cannot be produced, for a simple reason. If all countries do not have them, but one secretly makes one, the entire world will be controlled by the one country who has them. For this reason contries who have been responcible and are trustworthy, are allowed by UN juristiction to have Nuclear weapons. (But a dissarmament of most weapons was called for) .However, Iraq is not one of these countries, Sadam showed his irrisponcibility when he killed almost all of the curds with bio-weapons and eliminated them from his country, that is why we cannot allow him to have these weapons.

As for the US nuclear arrsenal, you were both a little right. The us is currently disarming MOST of their WOMD. At the hight of the cold war, the US aresenal of Nuclear weapons reached 35,000. since then, the us has been disarming these weapons and currently has around 7000 WOMD. So while the disarming is happening, like Bigfish said. It is certainly not complete, as Boedy said. The interesting thing is, the US could have a huge arsenal of WOMD in around a month. the 7000 are just the ones ready, and only 3000 of those are operational, or ready to fire. Another note, the US still has functioning plutonium mines and refineries, and facilities capable of creating all kinds of WOMD.

Anyways, just had to lay down some facts so everybody is on the same page when it comes to this issue

PS. dont quote me on those #s of WOMD, but i know they are within a thousand or so of the acctuall number.

Silver Hilton · 02-11-2003, 08:05 AM

Also, let's be real, the UN can't make any of the major nations do anything. It is a body of diplomacy and persuasion, and an organizational structure tohave the discussions like we're having now. If it were a real police organization, it would have to have a meaningful standing army that was of a size to be a credible force against any of the major members. It doesn't.

The US has historically neglected and ignored the UN, except when it serves our needs to use it as a tool.