Heres Your Smoking Gun

Richard G · 4th February 2003, 01:01 PM

Am I the only one that has seen this?

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...%5E663,00.html

4th February 2003, 01:03 PM

If true, it would certainly convince me at last.

Reginald · 4th February 2003, 01:04 PM

Its been posted on another thread. However Given that is effectively (if proven) sufficient evidence to let rip with everything, I cant help wondering why there seems to be no mention of it on either CNN or the BBC? If anyone can find any further data on this please post.

Ian Osborne · 4th February 2003, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Richard G
Am I the only one that has seen this?

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...%5E663,00.html

It's the first time I saw it. If it was true, it would've been shouted from the rooftops, so my money's on it being fake.

4th February 2003, 01:33 PM

This has only just begun to circulate. Israel wanted it kept quiet right now anyway, since the Powell speech is tomorrow.

Most of the information is already known to US and British intelligence, but the question has always been when and how to make it known. Two weeks ago Tony Snow (FOX) gave a Friday afternoon five minute brief to Sean Hannity on Hannity's national radio program. Snow mentioned that Bush was holding onto something, apparently, until the very last moment which was exceptionally hot, and which was exceptionally convincing. The material would be released, he said probably the same time the bombs dropped. The thing is, releasing the information would mean some one who gave us the information (and his family) would die for giving it to us. As the attack begins we would be sending in teams to bring out the informer(s) and his/their family, but they didn't expect the extraction teams to completely succeed.

Now comes this news that the Israelis have brought out this bodyguard and his family. I can only HOPE that this is the same source Snow was referring to. If so, we don't have to worry about that source being killed for supplying us with that sensitive information, which we already have. If not, well, we have some one else to rescue.

Brown · 4th February 2003, 01:40 PM

My only comment is that the photo of Hussein reminds me of the famous photo of Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-Tung) swimming in the Yangtze River.

Mr. Skinny · 4th February 2003, 02:58 PM

Is the Herald Sun a reputable newspaper, or is it considered a tabloid, or matriarchial totalitarian leftist communist publication? I'm not familiar with it, sadly.

4th February 2003, 11:50 PM

I am also curious about this....Anybody know anything about this newspaper, and has the story been corroborated anywhere else? Are all of the big news agencies just feeling like being real nice to Bush and not ruining his big surprise? The evidence Powell says he will reveal sounds nothing like this.

-Baggle

5th February 2003, 12:29 AM

I saw it on rense.com last month, which leads me to believe that the story is not credible. Here is the link:
http://www.rense.com/general34/arsenal.htm

Pyrrho · 5th February 2003, 06:55 AM

Looks like a typical tabloid to me...

rikzilla · 5th February 2003, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ssibal
I saw it on rense.com last month, which leads me to believe that the story is not credible. Here is the link:
http://www.rense.com/general34/arsenal.htm

Rense is not only a UFO believing nut, but is also an unabashed anti-semite. Note how he posts massive amounts of anti-Israel and anti-Jew articles. With this article...to his assumed credit, he publishes it....(in a nod to fairness perhaps)....yet he can't help but append anti-Israeli commentary that he gets from his devotees who are angry that the article was posted at all.

Now, understand, this is not the first defection of a Saddam confidante from Iraq. Saddam's own son-in-law defected in 1995 and told of massive NBC programs being concealed by Iraq.

For you to assume this story is not credible has no logic. It is not the first inkling of Iraqi non-compliance. It is not enough to attempt to rebut this article,...you must also attempt to rebut this

After you read that thread I'd be curious to know whether you still believe the information concerning this article is still "not credible".

Also, as I type this Colin Powell is busy mentioning more specific examples of Iraqi non-compliance. You might want to get started on rebutting all that as well.

In conclusion, it is obvious to anyone with an open mind and average intelligence that the preponderance of evidence shows that Iraq is in non-compliance with UNSC demands. The next question is; "What will the UN do about it?" The UNSC's answer to that question will go a long way towards demonstrating it's relevance in the real geopolitical world.

-zilla

5th February 2003, 08:25 AM

I don't know about the UNSC, but it looks like we have a pretty good handle on coordinates of targets in Iraq. It appears that this will be bloody, short, and will feature some use of WMDs ... ours.

Roadtoad · 5th February 2003, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger
I don't know about the UNSC, but it looks like we have a pretty good handle on coordinates of targets in Iraq. It appears that this will be bloody, short, and will feature some use of WMDs ... ours.

Don't bet the rent on that. I could well imagine all hell breaking loose in the Security Council if that were to happen.

Bloody and short? I'm not so sure about that, either. Part of the force that's in place now no doubt includes Civil Affairs people, who have probably been bombarding Iraqis near the border with leaflets and the like, not to mention shortwave broadcasts (which would be necessary, given that many Iraqis from what I understand are illiterate), all of which would be suggesting strongly that it would make more sense to surrender early, rather than die late.

And as far as "short," don't forget that if we get Hussein out, we'll have to work on nation-building in the area. Not an easy task, given that Hussein has had years to build on the antipathy we generated by not only leaving him in power, but by ignoring the atrocities against the Kurds.

5th February 2003, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rikzilla

Rense is not only a UFO believing nut, but is also an unabashed anti-semite. Note how he posts massive amounts of anti-Israel and anti-Jew articles. With this article...to his assumed credit, he publishes it....(in a nod to fairness perhaps)....yet he can't help but append anti-Israeli commentary that he gets from his devotees who are angry that the article was posted at all.

Sorry, but after so many bogus articles being printed on the site you have to doubt the credibility of whatever else is posted. I read rense.com for laughs really. Obviously there is some truth in there but you have to dig for it. With respect to the article in question, the story has been out for a long time yet has not been picked up by any major media outlets. I think that is enough to doubt its credibility.

Quote:

Now, understand, this is not the first defection of a Saddam confidante from Iraq. Saddam's own son-in-law defected in 1995 and told of massive NBC programs being concealed by Iraq.

I understand but this particular defection and the information that is claimed is too big to just be ignored by the mainstream media.

Quote:

For you to assume this story is not credible has no logic. It is not the first inkling of Iraqi non-compliance. It is not enough to attempt to rebut this article,...you must also attempt to rebut this

After you read that thread I'd be curious to know whether you still believe the information concerning this article is still "not credible".

Also, as I type this Colin Powell is busy mentioning more specific examples of Iraqi non-compliance. You might want to get started on rebutting all that as well.

In conclusion, it is obvious to anyone with an open mind and average intelligence that the preponderance of evidence shows that Iraq is in non-compliance with UNSC demands. The next question is; "What will the UN do about it?" The UNSC's answer to that question will go a long way towards demonstrating it's relevance in the real geopolitical world.

-zilla

Hey, I have never said that Iraq was in compliance. I believe they are in non-compliance, I believe they still have banned weapons. Powell's presentation further strengthened that belief. I still do not believe, however, that they are a threat to the U.S.. But as I have said before, I have no problem with our going into Iraq and removing Saddam. That is the only way to effectively deal with him.

DanishDynamite · 5th February 2003, 12:07 PM

Roadtoad:

Quote:

Don't bet the rent on that. I could well imagine all hell breaking loose in the Security Council if that were to happen.

And not just in the Security Council. IIRC, the so called "tactical" nukes have about a third the power of the Hiroshima bomb which destroyed a city. No one in world, however, will care about this detail. The only thing that will be remembered is that the US used nukes to invade a Third World country.

5th February 2003, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Roadtoad: And not just in the Security Council. IIRC, the so called "tactical" nukes have about a third the power of the Hiroshima bomb which destroyed a city. No one in world, however, will care about this detail. The only thing that will be remembered is that the US used nukes to invade a Third World country.

Yes, and I hope North Korea takes note of it.

DanishDynamite · 5th February 2003, 12:32 PM

Brooklyn Dodger:

Quote:

Yes, and I hope North Korea takes note of it.

They will, and if they don't already have nukes, the pressure to make some will increase.

5th February 2003, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Brooklyn Dodger: They will, and if they don't already have nukes, the pressure to make some will increase.

I think we can handle that.

DanishDynamite · 5th February 2003, 12:40 PM

Brooklyn Dodger:

Quote:

I think we can handle that.

By nuking them as well?

5th February 2003, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Brooklyn Dodger: By nuking them as well?

No. Remember Osirak?

DanishDynamite · 5th February 2003, 12:50 PM

Never heard of it. Enlighten me.

5th February 2003, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Never heard of it. Enlighten me.

That's was the Iraqi nuclear reactor that the Israeli's bombed in the early 1980s.

DanishDynamite · 5th February 2003, 01:02 PM

So your way of "handling it" would be to bomb NK's nuclear reactors and thus unleashing the second Korean War. Nice.

c0rbin · 5th February 2003, 01:07 PM

Wasn't that the same dude that went down in Columbia last weekend?

Allah be merciful!

5th February 2003, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
So your way of "handling it" would be to bomb NK's nuclear reactors and thus unleashing the second Korean War. Nice.

A second technique is to bomb their "million target army".

A third technique is to just tell the South Koreans that they are on their own, remove our forces from South Korea, and let others worry about it.

What is your preference?

5th February 2003, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by c0rbin
Wasn't that the same dude that went down in Columbia last weekend?

Allah be merciful!

Yes, the Israeli astronaut was one of the pilots from the Osirak mission. You are correct!

pgwenthold · 5th February 2003, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

A third technique is to just tell the South Koreans that they are on their own, remove our forces from South Korea, and let others worry about it.

You know, if we cared at all about the South Koreans this might not be so good, but that's not why our troops are there. Our government is not nor has it ever been concerned about the well-being of the South Koreans, only about stopping the spread of the evil red hoard.

5th February 2003, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by pgwenthold

You know, if we cared at all about the South Koreans this might not be so good, but that's not why our troops are there. Our government is not nor has it ever been concerned about the well-being of the South Koreans, only about stopping the spread of the evil red hoard.

Yeah, it's all about their oil.

Doctor X · 5th February 2003, 01:44 PM

BWA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Sorry . . . that made me laugh . . . so is this true or should I buy a "Q" bracelet. . . .

--J.D.

karl · 5th February 2003, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rikzilla

Also, as I type this Colin Powell is busy mentioning more specific examples of Iraqi non-compliance. You might want to get started on rebutting all that as well.

In conclusion, it is obvious to anyone with an open mind and average intelligence that the preponderance of evidence shows that Iraq is in non-compliance with UNSC demands. The next question is; "What will the UN do about it?" The UNSC's answer to that question will go a long way towards demonstrating it's relevance in the real geopolitical world.

Well, it didn't take long before Iraqi officials had "rebutted" every little piece of evidence that Colin Powell presented. I tend to believe Bush over Saddam, but I was disappointed -- though not surprised -- that the US didn't have anything that would "stand up in court." It's easily within the power of the US government to fake all of it if they needed to, which is what the Iraqis are saying. There is no meaningful chain of custody for the evidence, so it's essentially worthless. The conversations on the tapes could have been made by a couple of actors and a sound technician for all we know. And the problems with the satellite photos are too numerous to list. Conspiracy nuts worldwide must be having a field day.

What was the point of this? I don't see how Colin Powell could have expected to convince anyone who wasn't already firmly in his camp.

Doctor X · 5th February 2003, 03:18 PM

Let me field that one. . . .

Sure, Powell cannot convince those already firm.

However, I think the mature countries--yes, that does, despite all appearances, includes France--know if the US wanted to "fake" stuff they would have done it with great abandon or had just invaded.

This is for countries like France who need an "out," and for those--also Senators, people--who do want the feeling that Bush is going with a coalition rather than on his own. We can argue until the bovines return to the domiciles about whether or not Bush has a coalitions; however, the appearance is very important.

--J.D.

Roadtoad · 5th February 2003, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Let me field that one. . . .

Sure, Powell cannot convince those already firm.

However, I think the mature countries--yes, that does, despite all appearances, includes France--know if the US wanted to "fake" stuff they would have done it with great abandon or had just invaded.

This is for countries like France who need an "out," and for those--also Senators, people--who do want the feeling that Bush is going with a coalition rather than on his own. We can argue until the bovines return to the domiciles about whether or not Bush has a coalitions; however, the appearance is very important.

--J.D.

Half the time, I'm convinced no one will take action until there's a smoking crater where there used to be American troops. I'm sorry, I think France is simply looking for an excuse to avoid any action, to avoid acting like adults.

5th February 2003, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by karl

Well, it didn't take long before Iraqi officials had "rebutted" every little piece of evidence that Colin Powell presented. I tend to believe Bush over Saddam, but I was disappointed -- though not surprised -- that the US didn't have anything that would "stand up in court." It's easily within the power of the US government to fake all of it if they needed to, which is what the Iraqis are saying. There is no meaningful chain of custody for the evidence, so it's essentially worthless. The conversations on the tapes could have been made by a couple of actors and a sound technician for all we know. And the problems with the satellite photos are too numerous to list. Conspiracy nuts worldwide must be having a field day.

What was the point of this? I don't see how Colin Powell could have expected to convince anyone who wasn't already firmly in his camp.

First, I disagree about the nature of the evidence. No, it isn't that it was courtroom evidence. It was not meant to be. But it was not faked either. It will convince those who will be convinced by evidence, and those who will never be convinced will remain unconvinced.

In the United States the debate over the last few months was less over whether Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, or whether he had or was attempting to get WMDs, but whether the war on terrorism was waylaid when President Bush had been going after Osama bin Laden. Instead of going after him and Al Qaeda, we are now going after Iraq. Sec. Powell's final segment addressed this question, and it was here that people needed to be convinced. I believe this is where he did a very good job. If he did nothing else in his presentation that was worthwhile, establishing the connection between Iraq, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups finally puts to an end the presumption of innocence many had given Iraq in the war on terror.

Actually, the WMD issue will be dealt with by President Bush the day the war begins. It is he, not Sec. Powell, who is the Salesman in Chief. I'm sure he will do a good job. But the Al Qaeda-Iraq connection was the one link that had eluded the US government in the debate until now, and the one thing that many Americans held out as the very thing whose absense kept them from supporting the war. Well, Sec. Powell has stated a pretty good case for that link. For all the publicity the WMD issue will get tomorrow in the news, it's the terrorist connection that is the REAL smoking gun.

karl · 6th February 2003, 03:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Sure, Powell cannot convince those already firm.

However, I think the mature countries--yes, that does, despite all appearances, includes France--know if the US wanted to "fake" stuff they would have done it with great abandon or had just invaded.

This is for countries like France who need an "out," and for those--also Senators, people--who do want the feeling that Bush is going with a coalition rather than on his own. We can argue until the bovines return to the domiciles about whether or not Bush has a coalitions; however, the appearance is very important.

Unfortunately, that's not the way it worked out on an international level. France, Russia and China each have the option to veto a UN resolution that supports a war against Iraq. And they are still opposed. The typical response to the evidence is just that it warrants further investigation.

France is looking for an "out" not to start a war, and they got one. The evidence wasn't beyond every reasonable doubt, which is what it would take before they approve what is effectively a death sentence for maybe hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

6th February 2003, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by karl

France is looking for an "out" not to start a war, and they got one. The evidence wasn't beyond every reasonable doubt, which is what it would take before they approve what is effectively a death sentence for maybe hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

I can't tell you how I hope for the scenario you describe. First of all, we will go along with the UK in requesting a new UNSC resolution, despite our understanding that a new one isn't required. My hope is that it is vetoed. We will be going to war against Iraq anyway, and we will have the support of many nations as we do.

Once the dust settles it will become apparent that the UNSC, and indeed the UN itself is irrelevant. Much as the League of Nations was irrelevant in its time. Fine for small conflicts, but when something really major comes along, we see what we are seeing now.

The land on the East River can be better used as the site of the new Yankee Stadium as well as new office and apartment space. The UN can relocate its headquarters to Paris or Beijing.

karl · 6th February 2003, 05:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

I can't tell you how I hope for the scenario you describe. First of all, we will go along with the UK in requesting a new UNSC resolution, despite our understanding that a new one isn't required. My hope is that it is vetoed. We will be going to war against Iraq anyway, and we will have the support of many nations as we do.

Most people are convinced the US and the UK will go to war against Iraq even without UN approval, but which nations do you seriously expect will support it, apart from perhaps Israel? Voting for your side is one thing -- cheering you along when you disregard the result of the vote and go to war anyway is quite another.

6th February 2003, 06:00 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by karl

Most people are convinced the US and the UK will go to war against Iraq even without UN approval, but which nations do you seriously expect will support it, apart from perhaps Israel? Voting for your side is one thing -- cheering you along when you disregard the result of the vote and go to war anyway is quite another.

You mean aside from most of Eastern Europe, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt (that's right!), and most of the Middle East. Nelson Mandela will give us a raspberry, maybe, nut he might want to explain the high rate of child rape in South Africa and why GWB has to come to his rescue on AIDS. And why Mandela's relatively quiet about Zimbabwe.

In the meantime, we will have to go and do the world's work on Iraq, since the world averts it's eyes.

Oh, and that new site for Yankee Stadium is looking better and better.

karl · 6th February 2003, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger

You mean aside from most of Eastern Europe, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Jordan, Egypt (that's right!), and most of the Middle East.
...

That sounds a lot like wishful thinking. According to recent polls, 90 percent of Italians are opposed to a war against Iraq (MSNBC), and 87 percent of the Spaniards (BBC). Berlusconi and Aznar don't strike me as the kind of people who would commit political suicide.

Jon_in_london · 6th February 2003, 07:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by karl

Berlusconi and Aznar don't strike me as the kind of people who would commit political suicide.

Does Tony Blair?

6th February 2003, 07:51 AM

What about Australia?

4th February 2003, 01:01 PM	#1
Richard G Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 940	Heres Your Smoking Gun Am I the only one that has seen this? http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...%5E663,00.html
Richard G Muse Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 940

4th February 2003, 01:03 PM	#2
Guest Posts: n/a	If true, it would certainly convince me at last.
Guest Posts: n/a

4th February 2003, 01:04 PM	#3
Reginald Graduate Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 1,641	No Its been posted on another thread. However Given that is effectively (if proven) sufficient evidence to let rip with everything, I cant help wondering why there seems to be no mention of it on either CNN or the BBC? If anyone can find any further data on this please post.
	__________________ No one's in the dark, no one's in the corner and no one's in the wardrobe just waiting to pounce.

4th February 2003, 01:15 PM	#4
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,383	Re: Heres Your Smoking Gun Quote: Originally posted by Richard G Am I the only one that has seen this? http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/com...%5E663,00.html It's the first time I saw it. If it was true, it would've been shouted from the rooftops, so my money's on it being fake.
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

4th February 2003, 01:33 PM	#5
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a	This has only just begun to circulate. Israel wanted it kept quiet right now anyway, since the Powell speech is tomorrow. Most of the information is already known to US and British intelligence, but the question has always been when and how to make it known. Two weeks ago Tony Snow (FOX) gave a Friday afternoon five minute brief to Sean Hannity on Hannity's national radio program. Snow mentioned that Bush was holding onto something, apparently, until the very last moment which was exceptionally hot, and which was exceptionally convincing. The material would be released, he said probably the same time the bombs dropped. The thing is, releasing the information would mean some one who gave us the information (and his family) would die for giving it to us. As the attack begins we would be sending in teams to bring out the informer(s) and his/their family, but they didn't expect the extraction teams to completely succeed. Now comes this news that the Israelis have brought out this bodyguard and his family. I can only HOPE that this is the same source Snow was referring to. If so, we don't have to worry about that source being killed for supplying us with that sensitive information, which we already have. If not, well, we have some one else to rescue.
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a

4th February 2003, 01:40 PM	#6
Brown Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Twin Cities, Canada Posts: 12,184	My only comment is that the photo of Hussein reminds me of the famous photo of Mao Zedong (Mao Tse-Tung) swimming in the Yangtze River.
	__________________ Klaatu: I'm impatient with stupidity. My people have learned to live without it. Mr. Harley: I'm afraid my people haven't. I am very sorry. I wish it were otherwise. -- The Day The Earth Stood Still, screenplay by Edmund H. North "Don't you get me wrong. I only want to know." -- Judas in Jesus Christ Superstar, lyrics by Tim Rice

4th February 2003, 02:58 PM	#7
Mr. Skinny Alien Cryogenic Engineer Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Dayton, Ohio Posts: 8,192	Is the Herald Sun a reputable newspaper, or is it considered a tabloid, or matriarchial totalitarian leftist communist publication? I'm not familiar with it, sadly.
	__________________ U.S.L.S 1969-1975 "thanks skinny. And bite me. :-) - The Bad Astronomer, 11/15/02 on Paltalk "He's harmless in a rather dorky way." - Katana "Deities do not organize, they command." - Hokulele

4th February 2003, 11:50 PM	#8
Baggle Guest Posts: n/a	I am also curious about this....Anybody know anything about this newspaper, and has the story been corroborated anywhere else? Are all of the big news agencies just feeling like being real nice to Bush and not ruining his big surprise? The evidence Powell says he will reveal sounds nothing like this. -Baggle
Baggle Guest Posts: n/a

5th February 2003, 12:29 AM	#9
ssibal Guest Posts: n/a	I saw it on rense.com last month, which leads me to believe that the story is not credible. Here is the link: http://www.rense.com/general34/arsenal.htm
ssibal Guest Posts: n/a

5th February 2003, 06:55 AM	#10
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678	Looks like a typical tabloid to me...
Pyrrho Man in Black Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,678	__________________ The Skeptics Society \| The Skeptics Society Forum \| Skepticality Promoting SCIENCE and CRITICAL THINKING

5th February 2003, 07:39 AM	#11
rikzilla Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 5,001	Quote: Originally posted by ssibal I saw it on rense.com last month, which leads me to believe that the story is not credible. Here is the link: http://www.rense.com/general34/arsenal.htm Rense is not only a UFO believing nut, but is also an unabashed anti-semite. Note how he posts massive amounts of anti-Israel and anti-Jew articles. With this article...to his assumed credit, he publishes it....(in a nod to fairness perhaps)....yet he can't help but append anti-Israeli commentary that he gets from his devotees who are angry that the article was posted at all. Now, understand, this is not the first defection of a Saddam confidante from Iraq. Saddam's own son-in-law defected in 1995 and told of massive NBC programs being concealed by Iraq. For you to assume this story is not credible has no logic. It is not the first inkling of Iraqi non-compliance. It is not enough to attempt to rebut this article,...you must also attempt to rebut this After you read that thread I'd be curious to know whether you still believe the information concerning this article is still "not credible". Also, as I type this Colin Powell is busy mentioning more specific examples of Iraqi non-compliance. You might want to get started on rebutting all that as well. In conclusion, it is obvious to anyone with an open mind and average intelligence that the preponderance of evidence shows that Iraq is in non-compliance with UNSC demands. The next question is; "What will the UN do about it?" The UNSC's answer to that question will go a long way towards demonstrating it's relevance in the real geopolitical world. -zilla
	__________________ "You have not experienced Shakespeare until you have read him in the original Klingon." -Chancellor Gorkon "inside Mr .Skinny lives a big man" -pillory (18 Jan 2007)

5th February 2003, 08:25 AM	#12
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a	I don't know about the UNSC, but it looks like we have a pretty good handle on coordinates of targets in Iraq. It appears that this will be bloody, short, and will feature some use of WMDs ... ours.
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a

5th February 2003, 11:57 AM	#13
Roadtoad Bufo Caminus Inedibilis Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Gone. Posts: 15,738	Quote: Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger I don't know about the UNSC, but it looks like we have a pretty good handle on coordinates of targets in Iraq. It appears that this will be bloody, short, and will feature some use of WMDs ... ours. Don't bet the rent on that. I could well imagine all hell breaking loose in the Security Council if that were to happen. Bloody and short? I'm not so sure about that, either. Part of the force that's in place now no doubt includes Civil Affairs people, who have probably been bombarding Iraqis near the border with leaflets and the like, not to mention shortwave broadcasts (which would be necessary, given that many Iraqis from what I understand are illiterate), all of which would be suggesting strongly that it would make more sense to surrender early, rather than die late. And as far as "short," don't forget that if we get Hussein out, we'll have to work on nation-building in the area. Not an easy task, given that Hussein has had years to build on the antipathy we generated by not only leaving him in power, but by ignoring the atrocities against the Kurds.

5th February 2003, 11:59 AM	#14
ssibal Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by rikzilla Rense is not only a UFO believing nut, but is also an unabashed anti-semite. Note how he posts massive amounts of anti-Israel and anti-Jew articles. With this article...to his assumed credit, he publishes it....(in a nod to fairness perhaps)....yet he can't help but append anti-Israeli commentary that he gets from his devotees who are angry that the article was posted at all. Sorry, but after so many bogus articles being printed on the site you have to doubt the credibility of whatever else is posted. I read rense.com for laughs really. Obviously there is some truth in there but you have to dig for it. With respect to the article in question, the story has been out for a long time yet has not been picked up by any major media outlets. I think that is enough to doubt its credibility. Quote: Now, understand, this is not the first defection of a Saddam confidante from Iraq. Saddam's own son-in-law defected in 1995 and told of massive NBC programs being concealed by Iraq. I understand but this particular defection and the information that is claimed is too big to just be ignored by the mainstream media. Quote: For you to assume this story is not credible has no logic. It is not the first inkling of Iraqi non-compliance. It is not enough to attempt to rebut this article,...you must also attempt to rebut this After you read that thread I'd be curious to know whether you still believe the information concerning this article is still "not credible". Also, as I type this Colin Powell is busy mentioning more specific examples of Iraqi non-compliance. You might want to get started on rebutting all that as well. In conclusion, it is obvious to anyone with an open mind and average intelligence that the preponderance of evidence shows that Iraq is in non-compliance with UNSC demands. The next question is; "What will the UN do about it?" The UNSC's answer to that question will go a long way towards demonstrating it's relevance in the real geopolitical world. -zilla Hey, I have never said that Iraq was in compliance. I believe they are in non-compliance, I believe they still have banned weapons. Powell's presentation further strengthened that belief. I still do not believe, however, that they are a threat to the U.S.. But as I have said before, I have no problem with our going into Iraq and removing Saddam. That is the only way to effectively deal with him.
ssibal Guest Posts: n/a

5th February 2003, 12:07 PM	#15
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Roadtoad: Quote: Don't bet the rent on that. I could well imagine all hell breaking loose in the Security Council if that were to happen. And not just in the Security Council. IIRC, the so called "tactical" nukes have about a third the power of the Hiroshima bomb which destroyed a city. No one in world, however, will care about this detail. The only thing that will be remembered is that the US used nukes to invade a Third World country.

5th February 2003, 12:22 PM	#16
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by DanishDynamite Roadtoad: And not just in the Security Council. IIRC, the so called "tactical" nukes have about a third the power of the Hiroshima bomb which destroyed a city. No one in world, however, will care about this detail. The only thing that will be remembered is that the US used nukes to invade a Third World country. Yes, and I hope North Korea takes note of it.
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a

5th February 2003, 12:32 PM	#17
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Brooklyn Dodger: Quote: Yes, and I hope North Korea takes note of it. They will, and if they don't already have nukes, the pressure to make some will increase.

5th February 2003, 12:35 PM	#18
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by DanishDynamite Brooklyn Dodger: They will, and if they don't already have nukes, the pressure to make some will increase. I think we can handle that.
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a

5th February 2003, 12:40 PM	#19
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Brooklyn Dodger: Quote: I think we can handle that. By nuking them as well?

5th February 2003, 12:46 PM	#20
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by DanishDynamite Brooklyn Dodger: By nuking them as well? No. Remember Osirak?
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a

5th February 2003, 12:50 PM	#21
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	Never heard of it. Enlighten me.

5th February 2003, 12:56 PM	#22
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by DanishDynamite Never heard of it. Enlighten me. That's was the Iraqi nuclear reactor that the Israeli's bombed in the early 1980s.
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a

5th February 2003, 01:02 PM	#23
DanishDynamite Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: In the cold Posts: 10,802	So your way of "handling it" would be to bomb NK's nuclear reactors and thus unleashing the second Korean War. Nice.

5th February 2003, 01:07 PM	#24
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	Wasn't that the same dude that went down in Columbia last weekend? Allah be merciful!
c0rbin Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 1,806	__________________ By convention there is color, By convention sweetness, By convention bitterness, But in reality there are atoms and space. --Democritus (c. 400 BCE)

5th February 2003, 01:16 PM	#26
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by c0rbin Wasn't that the same dude that went down in Columbia last weekend? Allah be merciful! Yes, the Israeli astronaut was one of the pilots from the Osirak mission. You are correct!
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a

5th February 2003, 01:25 PM	#27
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 12,074	Quote: Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger A third technique is to just tell the South Koreans that they are on their own, remove our forces from South Korea, and let others worry about it. You know, if we cared at all about the South Koreans this might not be so good, but that's not why our troops are there. Our government is not nor has it ever been concerned about the well-being of the South Koreans, only about stopping the spread of the evil red hoard.
	__________________ "Baseball is a philosophy. The primordial ooze that once ruled our world has been captured in perpetual motion. Baseball is the moment. Its ever changing patterns are hypnotizing yet invigorating. Baseball is an art form. Classic and at the same time...progressive. Baseball is pre-historic and post-modern. Baseball is here to stay." (Stolen from the side of a lava lamp box, and modified slightly)

5th February 2003, 01:36 PM	#28
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by pgwenthold You know, if we cared at all about the South Koreans this might not be so good, but that's not why our troops are there. Our government is not nor has it ever been concerned about the well-being of the South Koreans, only about stopping the spread of the evil red hoard. Yeah, it's all about their oil.
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a

5th February 2003, 01:44 PM	#29
Doctor X Suspended Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,470	BWA!HA!HA!HA!HA! Sorry . . . that made me laugh . . . so is this true or should I buy a "Q" bracelet. . . . --J.D.
Doctor X Suspended Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,470

5th February 2003, 03:09 PM	#30
karl Thinker Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Uppsala Posts: 231	Quote: Originally posted by rikzilla Also, as I type this Colin Powell is busy mentioning more specific examples of Iraqi non-compliance. You might want to get started on rebutting all that as well. In conclusion, it is obvious to anyone with an open mind and average intelligence that the preponderance of evidence shows that Iraq is in non-compliance with UNSC demands. The next question is; "What will the UN do about it?" The UNSC's answer to that question will go a long way towards demonstrating it's relevance in the real geopolitical world. Well, it didn't take long before Iraqi officials had "rebutted" every little piece of evidence that Colin Powell presented. I tend to believe Bush over Saddam, but I was disappointed -- though not surprised -- that the US didn't have anything that would "stand up in court." It's easily within the power of the US government to fake all of it if they needed to, which is what the Iraqis are saying. There is no meaningful chain of custody for the evidence, so it's essentially worthless. The conversations on the tapes could have been made by a couple of actors and a sound technician for all we know. And the problems with the satellite photos are too numerous to list. Conspiracy nuts worldwide must be having a field day. What was the point of this? I don't see how Colin Powell could have expected to convince anyone who wasn't already firmly in his camp.

5th February 2003, 03:18 PM	#31
Doctor X Suspended Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,470	Let me field that one. . . . Sure, Powell cannot convince those already firm. However, I think the mature countries--yes, that does, despite all appearances, includes France--know if the US wanted to "fake" stuff they would have done it with great abandon or had just invaded. This is for countries like France who need an "out," and for those--also Senators, people--who do want the feeling that Bush is going with a coalition rather than on his own. We can argue until the bovines return to the domiciles about whether or not Bush has a coalitions; however, the appearance is very important. --J.D.
Doctor X Suspended Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 1,470

5th February 2003, 03:23 PM	#32
Roadtoad Bufo Caminus Inedibilis Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Gone. Posts: 15,738	Quote: Originally posted by Doctor X Let me field that one. . . . Sure, Powell cannot convince those already firm. However, I think the mature countries--yes, that does, despite all appearances, includes France--know if the US wanted to "fake" stuff they would have done it with great abandon or had just invaded. This is for countries like France who need an "out," and for those--also Senators, people--who do want the feeling that Bush is going with a coalition rather than on his own. We can argue until the bovines return to the domiciles about whether or not Bush has a coalitions; however, the appearance is very important. --J.D. Half the time, I'm convinced no one will take action until there's a smoking crater where there used to be American troops. I'm sorry, I think France is simply looking for an excuse to avoid any action, to avoid acting like adults.

5th February 2003, 03:32 PM	#33
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by karl Well, it didn't take long before Iraqi officials had "rebutted" every little piece of evidence that Colin Powell presented. I tend to believe Bush over Saddam, but I was disappointed -- though not surprised -- that the US didn't have anything that would "stand up in court." It's easily within the power of the US government to fake all of it if they needed to, which is what the Iraqis are saying. There is no meaningful chain of custody for the evidence, so it's essentially worthless. The conversations on the tapes could have been made by a couple of actors and a sound technician for all we know. And the problems with the satellite photos are too numerous to list. Conspiracy nuts worldwide must be having a field day. What was the point of this? I don't see how Colin Powell could have expected to convince anyone who wasn't already firmly in his camp. First, I disagree about the nature of the evidence. No, it isn't that it was courtroom evidence. It was not meant to be. But it was not faked either. It will convince those who will be convinced by evidence, and those who will never be convinced will remain unconvinced. In the United States the debate over the last few months was less over whether Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, or whether he had or was attempting to get WMDs, but whether the war on terrorism was waylaid when President Bush had been going after Osama bin Laden. Instead of going after him and Al Qaeda, we are now going after Iraq. Sec. Powell's final segment addressed this question, and it was here that people needed to be convinced. I believe this is where he did a very good job. If he did nothing else in his presentation that was worthwhile, establishing the connection between Iraq, Al Qaeda, and other terrorist groups finally puts to an end the presumption of innocence many had given Iraq in the war on terror. Actually, the WMD issue will be dealt with by President Bush the day the war begins. It is he, not Sec. Powell, who is the Salesman in Chief. I'm sure he will do a good job. But the Al Qaeda-Iraq connection was the one link that had eluded the US government in the debate until now, and the one thing that many Americans held out as the very thing whose absense kept them from supporting the war. Well, Sec. Powell has stated a pretty good case for that link. For all the publicity the WMD issue will get tomorrow in the news, it's the terrorist connection that is the REAL smoking gun.
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a

6th February 2003, 03:21 AM	#34
karl Thinker Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Uppsala Posts: 231	Quote: Originally posted by Doctor X Sure, Powell cannot convince those already firm. However, I think the mature countries--yes, that does, despite all appearances, includes France--know if the US wanted to "fake" stuff they would have done it with great abandon or had just invaded. This is for countries like France who need an "out," and for those--also Senators, people--who do want the feeling that Bush is going with a coalition rather than on his own. We can argue until the bovines return to the domiciles about whether or not Bush has a coalitions; however, the appearance is very important. Unfortunately, that's not the way it worked out on an international level. France, Russia and China each have the option to veto a UN resolution that supports a war against Iraq. And they are still opposed. The typical response to the evidence is just that it warrants further investigation. France is looking for an "out" not to start a war, and they got one. The evidence wasn't beyond every reasonable doubt, which is what it would take before they approve what is effectively a death sentence for maybe hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

6th February 2003, 04:06 AM	#35
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a	Quote: Originally posted by karl France is looking for an "out" not to start a war, and they got one. The evidence wasn't beyond every reasonable doubt, which is what it would take before they approve what is effectively a death sentence for maybe hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians. I can't tell you how I hope for the scenario you describe. First of all, we will go along with the UK in requesting a new UNSC resolution, despite our understanding that a new one isn't required. My hope is that it is vetoed. We will be going to war against Iraq anyway, and we will have the support of many nations as we do. Once the dust settles it will become apparent that the UNSC, and indeed the UN itself is irrelevant. Much as the League of Nations was irrelevant in its time. Fine for small conflicts, but when something really major comes along, we see what we are seeing now. The land on the East River can be better used as the site of the new Yankee Stadium as well as new office and apartment space. The UN can relocate its headquarters to Paris or Beijing.
Brooklyn Dodger Guest Posts: n/a

6th February 2003, 05:26 AM	#36
karl Thinker Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Uppsala Posts: 231	Quote: Originally posted by Brooklyn Dodger I can't tell you how I hope for the scenario you describe. First of all, we will go along with the UK in requesting a new UNSC resolution, despite our understanding that a new one isn't required. My hope is that it is vetoed. We will be going to war against Iraq anyway, and we will have the support of many nations as we do. Most people are convinced the US and the UK will go to war against Iraq even without UN approval, but which nations do you seriously expect will support it, apart from perhaps Israel? Voting for your side is one thing -- cheering you along when you disregard the result of the vote and go to war anyway is quite another.