1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Powell On Iraq's Declarationa

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ShinyTop, Dec 19, 2002.

  1. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    Watching Colin Powell on CNN regarding Iraq's declarations. It would appear Iraq treated the requests with contempt. A large part of the declaration was poorly doctored copies of UN reports on the subject, only removing the parts that were critical of Iraq. It would seem that Saddam has not changed his spots.
     
  2. bruzzes

    bruzzes Truthslayer

    Yes.
    We all knew that the progression of the play will be performed in four acts.
    Act 1 was the resolution.
    Act 2 was Iraq's report.
    Act 3 is the material breach
    Act 4 will be Jan 29th when war starts.
     
  3. IamZed

    IamZed ...

    When Junior wacks Sadam, he should turn around and slap his dad.
     
  4. Coot

    Coot Passed Away January 7, 2010

    Wow...I just flipped on the network news to get one of their takes on it, and here comes Brokaw. About a minute on what Powell had to say and about 4-5 minutes with one Iraqi spokes-hole after another decrying that they have no weapons.
     
  5. aedumo

    aedumo Veteran Member

    Who was that CNN journalist that sympthasised with Saddam in '90?
     
  6. Sierra Mike

    Sierra Mike The Dude Abides Staff Member

    Peter somebody...can't remember his name. We all thought there was no way in hell we'd go in the rescue his ass if he ever cried for help.

    Arnett...that's his name.

    SM
     
  7. aedumo

    aedumo Veteran Member

    they shouldve taken his passport away from him and let him become an iraqi.
     
  8. Omar

    Omar Registered User

    With war in the Middle East imminent, it is clear that the United States has painted itself into a corner. The Bush administration's success in engineering international support for a preventive war in the Persian Gulf is impressive, both politically and diplomatically.

    But Washington's case rests on two crucial errors.

    A. It understates the very real risk that an assault on Iraq will trigger a counterattack on American civilians. And even when that risk is admitted, the pro-war camp conflates it with the threat of unprovoked attack by Iraq in the future.

    Many Americans still take for granted that a war to topple Saddam Hussein can be fought as it was in 1991: on American terms.

    Even when they recognize that the blood price may prove greater than the optimists hope, most still assume it will be paid by the U.S. military or by people in the region.

    Until very late in the game, few Americans focused on the chance that the battlefield could extend back to their own homeland. Yet if a U.S. invasion succeeds, Saddam will have no reason to withhold his best parting shot -- which could be the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) inside the United States.

    Such an Iraqi attack on U.S. civilians could make the death toll from September 11 look small. But Washington has done little to prepare the country for this possibility and seems to have forgotten Bismarck's characterization of preventive war as "suicide from fear of death."


    B. America's political leaders have not just lost faith in deterrence as a means to contain Iraq, they have also lost sight of the fact that, when it comes to a showdown between two countries that both possess WMD, deterrence can work both ways. The United States is about to poke a snake out of fear that the snake might strike sometime in the future, while virtually ignoring the danger that it may strike back when America pokes it.

    True, not everyone demanding an American attack ignores the immediate threat such an attack might raise -- but even this camp misreads that threat, thinking it reinforces the urgency of preventive war.

    The consequences, they argue, will only get worse if Washington waits. This argument may seem like common sense at first. But it dangerously confuses two sets of odds: the chance that Iraq will eventually challenge America even without being provoked, and the risk that Baghdad will retaliate against Washington if struck first.

    The probability that Iraq could bring off a WMD attack on American soil may not be high, but even a modest probability warrants concern.
     
  9. Copzilla

    Copzilla dangerous animal Staff Member

    In the words of Winston Churchill, my signature block describes my feelings on this post.

    Inaction is not an option, and diplomacy has failed.
     

Share This Page