Colin Powell making the case

Is that a Power Point Presentation?

I like NBC's cutaways to the office in Baghdad. Note all those who will be dead by the end of the day.

Hello?

Hello

Hello?

Hello!

yes it is...

Saddam: Do you Moto™?

They'll find ways.

Yup. Powell's last sentences in his summary were really good.

i like how everyone that's spoken so far after powell - with the exception of jack straw - speak with an insane amount of ambiguity.

hearing the foreign ministers speaking...

leave it to the mexicans to show the french how to get to the point and cut away with the B.S.

oooh, oooh, oooh... the Spanish Foreign Minister just verbally bitch-slapped the French prime Minister.

Yeah. It's called taking the case to the people, meaning the American People.

In Castilian, I hope.

Making the case against Iraq, detailing how they've illegally and covertly pursued chemical, biological and, perhaps, nuclear weaponry, has never been of much concern to me. I'd take all of these assertions on faith, if only because damn near every country in that region is doing the same thing. I've always been for some kind of action against Iraq, but a full-scale military invasion? That's a tough one.

The case I'm waiting to see presented to the American public and the world at large is the lengths to which we must go in restructuring the Iraqi government. As touched on by Thomas Friedman in his NY Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/05/opinion/05FRIE.html" target="_blank">column</a> this morning, I'm wondering how everyone will feel about an extended (several years, at least) U.S. occupation of Iraq that will inevitably spur violent reprisals from active terrorist organizations, who, I'm sure, will be none-too-keen on seeing a semi-secular democracy flowering right next door.

This is a massive commitment that will cost an untold number of lives, not to mention billions of dollars. Our efforts to modernize Iraq (and, by extension, the Middle East) will ebb and flow; it could, at times, seem like a lost cause. And it may very well be. Our nation building record is pretty spotty, especially when our aspirations don't necessarily dovetail with those of the nation being built (or, in this case, re-built). If there is a massive rejection of our actions post-Saddam -- i.e. a resistance to a perceived imposing of our democratic will on the Middle East -- a larger war could loom.

Will the Iraqi people be happy to get rid of Saddam? Most Middle East experts say "yes", but after that? We haven't a fucking clue. My feeling is that the bigger the coalition, the better our chances of avoiding further conflict; the problem with this, however, is that it will probably muddy the rebuilding of the Iraqi government. Still, if we go it alone, or with a smaller coalition comprised mostly of our usual allies, there's that possibility of widespread opposition.

It's a fucking mess, and my apprehension is owing to the fact that I think we have the wrong administration for the job (too many conflicting oil interests at play). Honestly, I hold most of them in contempt as human beings, but if we must go forward with this, my hope is that, with the world watching, they'll be on their best behavior.

Succinctly: it's a crap shoot that could either make the world a better place, or touch off World War III. Are y'all ready for this?

First, a Dictatorship is not really a form of Government as we know it. It's a Dictatorship. Anything would be an improvement. Hell, socialism would be an improvement as long as the rights of individuals were spelled out, recognized and enumerated in a mutually agreed upon document -huh...sound familiar?

A dictatorship, sure, though we do overstate the amount of fear in which the Iraqis live. Most Iraqis enjoy a wider range of freedom than, say, the Saudis; so long as they don't criticize Saddam publicly, they don't need to worry about "disappearing".

But that's beside the point. I'm looking at the bigger picture here, not the immediate benefits. Tougher economic times likely await the Iraqis before things improve. This is to say nothing of who's going to end up running the show. The same factional clusterfuck currenty plaguing Afghanistan is probably what they have to look forward to.

I think the fear is that we'll end up with no government--just a big mess of warring factions, ethnic groups with old blood grudges taking vengeance on each other, and warlords taking over territories. If we go in there without a firm plan about what to do AFTER we remove Hussein, that IS what will happen. Other than that, I'd be happy to send our troops in and remove Saddam. I'd be happy to have a UN coalition systematically remove every dictator in the world from power.

In my opinion, international support is vital to this situation. I am sure it has been stated somewhere in this forum, but it comes off to many people as the U.S. acting alone, "bullying" other nations into following or into looking other way.

The potential threat of chemical weapons is a serious and should not be overlooked in an attempt to be as polite a nation as possible. But the decision must be made only with full participation of other nations as well.

The emphasis on this being solely a U.S. decision needs to be lessened. Even if it involves additional prodding to get other nation's to commit.

The worst case scenario is that the US declares war on Iraq, and one by one, its supporting nations back away. Eventually U.S. "warmongering" could generate enough attention and outcry that nations ally with Iraq, and the world is potentially fucked.

Mandela is <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030205/ap_wo_en_po/af_gen_south_africa_mandela_us_1" target="_blank">blathering</a> again too...

POST OF THE DAY!

Terrific thread to read so far. Everyone who has posted has articulated their points well. I also agree with either this will work really well or could be WW3. One of the things that struck me was the Britsh rep's final comments about the former league of nations that had the chance to act against former dictators and had failed before it was too late(ala Nazi Germany).

Although I am very worried about a plan after the war for Iraq and am pretty convinced that democracy couldn't work there (in fact, its pretty impossible for it to work there), I still think we need to go in and get this sucker. Powell convinced me beyond any doubts I had.

And I really doubt this will lead to WW3. I don't think any country is going to support Iraq with anything but lip service and political manuevering. Just my opinion though.

Hope you're right smirk. WW3 means I don't get to play Dead or Alive 5 Plastic Surgeon.

It's a tough thing to decide (about WWIII), but nobody in the region really likes Saddam. They may tolerate him, or be worried about a replacement government and what it would do to the region (i.e. democratize it), but if he goes down, people won't cry. It will eliminate all the propaganda he puts out to hurt us (the starving people that we [of course meaning he] has hurt with sanctions, or whatever) and it will help to stabilize the region.

I think that WWIII would have an equal chance of happening with or without Saddam in power. The only difference would be who started it.

It's not about supporting Iraq, it's the prolonged Western meddling in Middle Eastern affairs that could unite the entire region against a common enemy.

We're going to be right in the middle of a region where we are hated for a very long time (our plan does call for a prolonged occupation, but we're not discussing that right now). The last time we did that (Gulf War I), bin Laden galvanized a groundswell of support for al-Qaeda. Any false steps or *perceived* false steps (i.e. anything that can be spun against us by the national mosques or the likes of Al Jazeera and their ilk) could lead to a full-scale war with the entire region. At the very least, it could spark an increase in terrorist activity against our troops.

This invasion is highly precarious. It's not just about removing a bad man from power; it's about effecting an ideological shift where the most vociferous segment of the population doesn't want it (not just Iraq, but the entire region). And our case will become increasingly difficult to make with every innocent civilian killed.

Personally, I think the fewer fingerprints we leave on any attempts at modernization (which I am for, of course), the better.

Even with all this "new and convincing information" this:

<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/02/05/nkorea.nuclear.ap/index.html" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/02/05/nkorea.nuclear.ap/index.html</a>

scares me a helluva lot more and should be where we are focusing our attention...thats just my opinion though...

Let's see, right now that Arab world hates us and wants us dead.

But we shouldn't liberate Iraq because then the Arab world would hate us and want us dead.

We wouldn't want to jeopardize that groundswell of support now would we?

As long as we support Israel the Arab world is going to hate us. Supporting Israel is our right and won't change. That is the main reason for our low standing in the Arab world and its unfortunate. But when about any gesture of goodwill isn't going to change their mind (since Israel is all that matters) we shouldn't be timid in Iraq for risk of offending them.

I think we are focusing attention there. We are moving the USS Carl Vinson in the area (well, it is "replacing" the USS Kitty Hawk "if" it goes to the Gulf, but the Vinson is a much more formidable machine than the Kitty Hawk (oldest carrier in the US fleet). This could be the first move toward bringing something that isn't the oldest carrier in the Navy to the Far East. For a long time Yokosuka has been the dumping ground for the oldest carrier in the fleet (before Kitty Hawk, the USS [i]Independence[/i} was the oldest in the fleet and based at Yokosuka), but this could be a move to upgrading defenses in the area. In addition to this, we have forces throughout Japan and Korea. While 37,500 are the front-line forces, we have lots of troops in that general area that could immediately reinforce Korea.

I think the media is focused on Iraq, not necessarily the administration. N. Korea just isn't as big a topic of conversation right now.

So we should make a bad situation worse by plopping our troops right in the center of an unfriendly environment, and hang out for a few years while we impose democracy on a country surrounded by a bunch of nervous theocracies whose survial instincts force them to allow and condone virulent anti-American sermons in their national mosques? You do realize this course of action will only create more converts for al-Qaeda?

Trust me, this is a situation waiting to explode if not handled with extraordinary finesse. Storming into Iraq without broad international support is suggestive of anything but finesse.

Not necessarily. If we were to demand that Israel eliminate the illegal settlements.... well, we probably wouldn't become the hero of the Muslim world, but we would go a long way toward deflecting criticism of our blind, unbending support for Israel, which would certainly help us better make our case on the floor of the UN and to the world at large. If defending Israel is our "right", then it is our responsibility to inveigh against them when they do wrong.

We've got to get some leverage in the Arab world before we appoint ourselves its saviors.

BTW, Israel is not "all that matters" (though it is one helluva trump card). Bin Laden rallied young Saudis to his cause by railing that the U.S. was defiling holy land by stationing its troops in their country.

(Edited for the removal of a minor error.)

A sub-commitee was form a year later, but the report was shelves because of the election Bush/Clinton (It would have damage Mr Bush)

So now they are not lying, this time they are giving us the truth. I doubt it.

Yes, buy you're also of the opinion that we simply shouldn't do anything in Iraq. If you don't see them as a danger and Saddam's behavior worthy of removal, then I don't expect you to see my point. Fact is, they're going to hate us with or without a war in Iraq.

Israel might not be the only thing that matters, but its 95% of it. You're dealing with a Muslim world that overwhelmingly believes that the true perpetrator of 9/11 was Israel. Its a population that by large percentages, if they can actually be persuaded to have sympathy for 9/11 victims, still believes that America got what was coming. Most don't believe that it was Osama bin Laden.

Waiting for them to "get it" and be open to anything remotely resembling acceptance of Israel and the United States as anything less than the "Big Satan" seems like a pretty big leap of faith.

Its a region that has an irrational hatred of Israel, and the United States is guilty just be association. I believe Iraq to be a threat to our national security and a horrific human rights abuser to boot, so worrying about offending the "Arab street" seems a pretty weak excuse given that they're going to have that same irrational hate whether we protect ourselves or not.

See, this is the kind of simplifying that pisses me off. I am *not* of the opinion that we "shouldn't do anything" in Iraq. I might be vehemently against our approach, and genuinely worried about the consequences, but I am *not* for the continued governance of Saddam Hussein. If you want to continue this discussion, you'll please do me the favor of not making such ridiculous assumptions.

First off, I see a lot of funny numbers and generalizing up there that I *know* you can't back up.

The problem here is that you've got to separate the Muslim "Street" (i.e. the poor and uneducated) from the Moderate Majority (i.e. the.... well, most likely, *poor* and educated). Most Middle East experts I read hold that the Moderate Majority yearn to be free of the Fundamentalist stranglehold gripped tightly around the neck of Islam (that's certainly the sentiment expressed by Muslims who I've talked to), but they fear violent reprisal should they make any meaningful attempts at reform (which is why some reform-minded Muslim scholars write under carefully guarded pseudonyms). This silence assures that the most resonant voice coming out of the region will be one of zealotry; thus, allowing irrational hatred to fester relatively unchecked, and creating the kind of repugnant spectacle that we saw in the moments following 9/11 (e.g. people dancing in the street, burning American flags, etc.).

Most Muslims in the region, though, have great sympathy for what happened on 9/11. They might have different ideas than you on the root cause of the attack, but, like any decent human being, they were shocked and appalled by the day's events.

As for Israel, you're right that there is irrational hatred directed toward the country (and vice-versa), but, due in no small part to the stick-in-the-eye illegal settlements, there's a perfectly rational anger, as well. At the risk of sounding like a broken record here, if we criticized Israel for the settlements, demanded a pull-back, and fought for a return to Barak's concessions, we'd gain a good deal of diplomatic leverage in the region that might quell *some* of the resentment directed toward the U.S. At the very least, it would give us new diplomatic leverage that we'll need when we set up shop in this tumultuous region.

But honestly..... I don't care about offending the Muslim Street; I just don't want to expand and mobilize it.

(Minor, nit-picky edits only.)

Iraq is a bus, driven by a deranged psycho, and packed with explosives. We must:

A) Eliminate and replace the driver.
B) Neutralize the explosive contents.
C) Get the bus back on the road.

Without:

A) Losing control of the bus.
B) Losing the explosives.
C) Losing interest.

Beaks and Call I agree mostly with both of you. Make no mistake about Arab hatred towards Israel its pure anti-semtic B.S. What Germany started in WW2 the arabs want to finish make no mistake.

Sadly Clarence, I was not making generalizations that I can't back up. The following are the results of a massive Gallup poll of 9 major Middle Eastern countries in early 2002.

*More Muslims condemned the war in Afganistan than would condemn 9/11 (77% vs. 67%)

*Almost 66% refused to believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by Muslims.

*Those hostile to America outnumbered those who were not by 2 t0 1.

*And even more sadly, the two most hostile nations to the U.S. in the poll were Kuwait and Saudi Arabia whom we aided in the Gulf War.

*A large percentage selected "other" when asked who perpetrated 9/11 is reference to Israel, the widespread true culprit in the Muslim world.

I like the premise of Jan DeBont's "Speed" better.

If anything has been made clear by this whole sordid and pathetic game of "inspections" its that Saddam is not going to give up power in Iraq until he's in a bodybag or a cage. We've taken a strong stand against him, presented clear evidence not only of past and continuing sins, but of very real threats to the U.S. and the region. We've said "please, help us deal with this bad man" to which MANY nations have said yes.

Somehow though, opposition from France and Germany constitutes the "world opinion" being against our action, which I think is ridiculous. The story they and the media don't want you to know is how France in particular and Russia have a LOT to lose financially if they lose their deals they currently have with Saddam. But of course, that doesn't have any bearing on their position, they're just morally superior.

The UN didn't even want to make a first resolution, but they did after watering it down substantially. Now they've realized that Saddam couldn't even follow that simple order, and they have to do something about it.

The inspections are a joke and Saddam is making all involved look like fools. They aren't working first of all, and frankly hunting weapons was NOT what the resolution said. It said he had to basiaclly lay all the weapons at the UN's feet and blow them up on his own. Never were we supposed to go find them.

Other than letting this crap continue and in the same breath further show the UN to be a meaningless and innefectual entity, what should our "approach" be? Surely you don't see a peaceful transfer of power from a stepping down Saddam Houssein.

Troubling numbers to be sure, but they don't back up your assertion that most Muslims "overwhelmingly" believe that Israel perpetrated 9/11, if only because several of the countries involved -- Jordan, Morocco and, most crucially, Saudi Arabia -- censored the question pertaining to Arab responsibility.

Similarly, I don't think 9% of the Muslim world calling 9/11 justified represents a "large" percentage maintaining that we got what was coming.

All this said, I am in complete agreement that the current state of Islam in the Middle East is equal parts frustrating and infuriating, with much of the responsibility falling on the cowardly and venal leaders of countries like Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. But I do *not* agree that the only way to remedy this widespread hatred and ignorance is by establishing, through massive force, some ideological beachhead in Iraq. There is no quick fix to this predicament. It's going to take years to undercut the Fundamentalist movement that took flowered back in the 1950's partially as a reaction to perceived American Imperialism in Iran. But this is another argument for another time.

Back to Iraq. The U.S. is going to have to learn to fight this battle through the U.N., which they're slowly, if obstinantly, beginning to accept. After all, just as many countries were initially against tackling the Iraq problem once again, the U.S. was similarly pissy about dealing with the U.N., preferring to go it alone with as few allies as possible, arguing that the countries still-vague ties to al-Qaeda, ties which are still being <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/02/international/middleeast/02INTE.html" target="_blank">fiercely debated</a> within the FBI and CIA, were reason enough for us to invade. As we know, the Bush Administration wisely acceded to the protests ]of a large section of the world community, and, now, we are once again hemming Saddam in, giving him the rope with which he will eventually hang himself *if* we keep the pressure on.

Yes, Saddam will continue to lie, stall and hide, and the inspectors will continue to be led astray, but if we stay on these fuckers, and continue to pressure Russia (which will come around soon enough, since their profitable nuke deal is with Iran) we'll form a much larger coalition, avoid unecessary dissent with the other major nuclear power, and get rid of the Very Bad Man (actually, he'll go into exile, which is the likely end result no matter when we invade). That's the easy part. It's what comes after, and how we conduct ourselves, that continues to concern me.

This is all a big tap dance, but it must be done to ensure that we don't build up more resentment toward the U.S. from our enemies *and* our allies. The best way to do this is to work the UN. Sure, it's a nightmarish bureaucracy peopled in part with villains and hypocrites, but the same can be said of the House and Senate. As the world's only remaining superpower, our voice within this body should be stronger than ever, not absent.

As for France's shady business dealings in Iraq, I agree those are troubling. So are Cheney's.

Great, great post Clarence. I mean that.

I especially agree with your point about giving the rope for Saddam to hang himself. I personally feel that the first resolution was that rope, and I'm afraid that if the UN had its way we'd be giving him rope for the next 12 years. At some point enough is enough.

Yes, let's be careful. The war in Afghanistan was coupled with massive food drops and a pretty concerted effort to make the point that this war was not against Islam. But still, most of the "Arab street" didn't buy it. That's unfortunate. Let's be careful, but not let the "what if" game keep us from doing what needs to be done.

But again, well said, and I agree with about all of it.

And if people like you are the only ones who make decisions no progress will ever be made. Arabs hating Jews has little to do with anti semitism and a lot to do with the politics of the region. When Arab regimes get there people to focus on Israel they forget about their problems with their own leaders, and also...Israel has made some pretty crappy moves towards the Palestinians.

and Colin Powell realized that France wasnt going to look at the 27 8x10 color glossy photographs with the circles and arrows , and a paragragh on the back explaining what each one was.....

No need for that. They just want to put in another 300 or so inspectors. Just keep inspecting and inspecting and inspecting.

While Saddam keeps moving and moving and moving.

Funny thing, there was never a paper trail linking Hitler to the gas chambers and ovens.

Well, if we make him keep moving them, he'll never get a chance to use them...

Whoops! Dropped one!

Damned butterfingered movers!

lol I appreciate the vote there Ned. I guess you think Hamas and Hezbollah which are at the forefront of in their words " driving Israel into the sea " are moderates and deserve to have their say in the matter. Its much more than settlements to these people. I suggest you open your eyes and look at the histories of these people before you turn this into a Palestinian/Israel debate. Over 1 million Palestinians were slaughtered and driven outa Jordan(because they were gaining numbers) and no one says anything about it because its Jordan. I think thats a disgrace in the Arab world same way as it is a disgrace how they overlook how Turkey drove out the Kurds.

I'd also like to hear your thoughts on the people in Gaza and other parts of Palestine that came out dancing in the streets recently(More than 10 more like a few thousand) when they found out about the Columbia tragedy and celebrated the death of the first Jewish astronaut Ilan Ramon. You think that was because they love him or hate him. Perhaps you need a refresher course in Anti-Semitism friend.

The thing is, William Safire, whose CIA information is usually spot-on, claimed weeks ago that we know most of the weapons are being hidden in Syria.