How very reasonable of you. Had you come out and said what you did in your last post, I would have a different attitude towards you. I do have to take issue with your civilian casualty estimates. I think that is TOTALLY bogus. 210,000 for the first Gulf War? Is that what you said? Come on. You cannot believe that. It's just not possible.<hr></blockquote>
Why is this not possible? The figures came from a declassified CIA report sometime in 2000. It was printed in the LA Times, the BBC and numerous other papers. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is true. It might have been 400,000...perhaps?
btw...the UN recently projected 500,000 Iraqi casualties (dead and injured) this time around...so that 210,000 doesn't sound too far off base.
And...here is what happens if a scientist starts quoting figures that her 'freedom-loving', wonderful government doesnt like:
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>from Tulkas:
You are assuming precision bombing.
You also assume that the bomber crews know to the nearest square yard where to aim that 'smart bomb'.
You therefore are assuming that US intelligence knows precisely the locations of the alleged WMD.
If we have the intelligence, then share it with the inspectors, dammit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I am assuming that when using a fuel-air or thermobaric bomb, they know or suspect that a specific facility contains hardened surfaces and/or chem/bio weapons. These are not the precision bombs used to take out buildings and bunkers during the first gulf war. A facilty is usually more than a couple square yards in size, usually hundreds or thousands or square yards in size. They don't need to put this think through a window, ventatlation shaft or door, so that kind of accuracy is not needed. These are bunker killers used in Afganistan. They punch through the hardened surfaces, release their fuel-dense warheads and ignite, sucking massive amounts of air into their epicentre, burning up chem and bio agents in the process. Short of a tactical nuke, these are the best way to destroy hardened bunkers and/or chem/bio weapons.
So, as far as intelligence as to where the weapons are, it's only required that they know of a bunker to target, not that it has to have chem/bio weapons. The weapon is meant to take out the bunker/facility itself, with the added benefit that if there were chem/bio weapons stored inside, they will be destroyed with the bunker.
As to sharing info with the inspectors, I beleive they have been and are accelerating that process right now. However, as the inspection parties have been shown to be compromised in terms of intelligence, the US must limit what they share in order to not compromise their own intelligence techniques, personel and other assets.
I do have to take issue with your civilian casualty estimates. I think that is TOTALLY bogus. 210,000 for the first Gulf War? Is that what you said? Come on. You cannot believe that. It's just not possible.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's also the half million children under 5 years old that the UN estimates died from easily preventable diseases in the aftermath of the war due to sanctions and the US strategy of targetting water treatment and sanitation facilities.
See what happens when you **** with Kuwait, Iran, Israel, the US, and the world's safety and security? You get your people killed, and you (should) get killed too.
There's also the half million children under 5 years old that the UN estimates died from easily preventable diseases in the aftermath of the war due to sanctions and the US strategy of targetting water treatment and sanitation facilities.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And yet, Hussein has the funds to build and rebuild oppulent new palaces...
I don't mean to pick on you stupider, but I've noticed both here and the macnn forum lounge a tone that the US caused all the suffering in Iraq out of malice--implicitly obsolving SH from any responsibility. This clearly is not the case.
Iraq could have withdrawn from Kuwait peaceably to avoid attack. It did not, hence, the bombing of water and sanitation facilities. They could have been rebuilt, but SH chose not to.
I think that the issue should be "how can we make the Inspectors effective and get them to truly find the smoking gun?"
if we have these sattelite images, then fly the inspectors to these locations, they have hellicopters . . . if they are forcibly stopped . . . then it smells lie a smoking gun
The evidence in the talk was compelling but should not be part of a skien of assertions that are being partially and/ or completely contradicted bythe supposed sources:
recently CIA MI5 questions about evidence
and also teh Kurds surprise about the "poison camp" in their midsts
anyway, with this info and the sattelite imagery there s the potential for some Red Handedness .. .we should do it and get even the French on board
Well i'll try to make some clarifications on the french positions, even if i have not all the keys.
1) the french public opinion is agains this war, even if she consider that Saddam is an ugly bloody tyrannic dictator
2) the french governement will follow US at least but they have to convice their public opinion. In order to do that, they have to demonstrate that they have push the peacefull process of inspection in his latest limits. In other word we have try everything, been very kind with Iraq, but we are, very, very sorry, we have to go in a war.
If you notice the french foreign minister, said some importants things after the Powell speech : France will use the force (go to war with US) if any others solutions have failed, Iraq did not play the game with the inspectors : there is an obvious lack of cooperation. Inspectors have to checked the infos showed by Powell (but he did not said it was absolute proof).
The job of french governement is hard, he has to deal with an hostile public opinion who do not wanted war, and he has to be in good relationships with USA. The french governement know that the war will arrive anyway, but he wish that this war will be based upon the UN will to make it less unpopular.
AS a former french ambassador of UN said, that people of the two countries (US and France) have a different point of vue on the subject because :
- a) French and US did not experiment WW2 in the same way ---> the idea of war is thus more impopular in France
- b) US have a very bad experience after 9/11 and did not support anymore to wait until the next attack, and decided to make a preemptive war. Pre-emptive war is entirely a new concept, never dealt before by the UN, who leads to a tremendeous numbers of questions.
War with Iraq is a very complex issue, with a lot of questions and implications.
I don't mean to pick on you stupider, but I've noticed both here and the macnn forum lounge a tone that the US caused all the suffering in Iraq out of malice--implicitly obsolving SH from any responsibility. This clearly is not the case.
Iraq could have withdrawn from Kuwait peaceably to avoid attack. It did not, hence, the bombing of water and sanitation facilities. They could have been rebuilt, but SH chose not to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't speak for anyone else here (or at any other forum) but I continue to be staggered by the double standards openly applied in this matter.
Being Saddam Hussain's cheerleader is not my aim, I'll leave that to hypocritical wanker's in America who supply tinpot dictators when it suits them (it's happening right now) and then use paper thin rhetoric to denounce them as evil. It really has gone beyond satire.
That said, defending the deliberate bombing of water treatment and sanitation facilities as an necessary tactic in a so-called war where you massively outgun the other party is just wrong. I'd love you to explain the big moral difference between that and and poisoning water supplies.
And the other response by the macho guy, who thinks Iraqi children shouldn't **** with the US is just bizarre.
Apparently the 9/11 deaths were unforgiveable no matter what the US might have done in the past because they were innocents.
Seems like a sound principle to me, shame it doesn't apply to anyone outside the US.
[quote]See what happens when you **** with Kuwait, Iran, Israel, the US, and the world's safety and security? You get your people killed, and you (should) get killed too.<hr></blockquote>Grow up. Iraq already got spanked for Kuwait, Iran, and Israel. They have never to my understanding threatened the US or the world directly, unless you count the damage done to the precious oil umbilical. If you think the US or world would give a rats-ass about Kuwait without oil, try to imagine Afghanistan before 9/11 and all the suffering that the Taliban caused and no-one gave a damn about, or any state in Africa.
The best part about all this is the US had the chance to take care of this whole issue at the end of the GWI, but succumbed to regional real-politik and stupidity. After all can't topple Iraq and let Iran get an upper hand, and you don't want to piss off Turkey by letting all those Kurds appear to have a chance at a Kurdish state. But the real comedy came when the US called on the Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south to rebel against Sadam, and then stood idly by. No fly-zones--lets call them a device for assuaging guilt.
And yet, Hussein has the funds to build and rebuild oppulent new palaces...
...
Iraq could have withdrawn from Kuwait peaceably to avoid attack. It did not, hence, the bombing of water and sanitation facilities. They could have been rebuilt, but SH chose not to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd just like to add to this, if I may.
A friend of my wife's family is one of the founders of End Hunger Now, a non-profit group in Raleigh NC that has sent *many* resources to Iraq in the form of humanitarian aid. He recently spent a while in Iraq, because the group wanted to know what the *heck* was going on with their donations.
He was interviewed on NPR after he got back, and it was... illuminating. He's a Reverend, and a highly spiritual and pacifistic man, but the experience was apparently disturbing for him.
He stated that they did not request, at any time, meetings with Iraqi officials, instead they wanted to discuss the situation with lower level folk who have been nominally responsible for disbursements, etc. Instead, they found themselves in the continual presence of Iraqi officials and military folks. (Sound familiar?) The people who they came to see seemed very scared and nervous, and deferred many questions to the 'handlers'.
In fact, at one point they had Tariq Aziz himself, Iraq's foreign minister, join a meeting. Rev. Buchanan decided that this was too good an opportunity to pass up, so they group changed their focus from interviewing aid workers to interviewing Aziz. Rev. Buchanan asked him 'some very hard questions', and got... well, mostly nothing 'he is a consummate politician'. However, one answer he did share, which I will paraphrase here...
"Given that you have had the oil for humanitarian aid program, given that you have sold oil illegally, which has been documented, given that we and many other groups have sent humanitarian aid directly, how is it that your people are starving, that their water supplies are not repaired, that the entire infrastructure of your society is still in ruins?"
"The focus of Iraq is the security of Iraq. Once the security is taken care of, then other things can be dealt with. All resources now need to be diverted to ensuring security. The infrastructures can wait."
Note that, as the Rev. did on air:
He did not deny the illegal oil sales. In fact, Rev. Buchanan stated that he seemed pleased by them.
He did admit that resources have been, and still are, diverted to the military. (Sending food to starving children? Chances are you're feeding troops. )
He flat out said that the basic infrastructure that is needed to support basic life in Iraq 'can wait'.
When asked by the interviewer on NPR how he felt about war against Iraq, the Rev. stated that before the trip he was utterly against it. Since that trip, however... he doesn't see how it can get any worse for the Iraqis if war comes, and that the current situation has to end. He did not say he supported a war, but he did say his position is less certain than it was.
Personally, I would like very much to talk to him in person to find out more, but haven't yet had the chance.
<strong>Until the Constitution says that the US is bound by the will of the UN Security council even when it disagrees and think the said security council is being dense or spineless and must fashion its foreign policy based on this, then your point has no weight. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sounds like "our hero" was involved in covering up massacres in both Vietnam and Panama, and involved to his neck in the Iran Contra scandal.
Everyone has such a great impression of Powell the consumate soldier who has such a "glorious career". I watched him yesterday presenting all that alleged evidence. Next time I watch him, I will bear in mind that he is not a particularly honest or ethical person and his claims should be treated with a large dose of skepticism.
At least 2 of his claims (Blix re. mobile labs, CIA re. Iraq links with al'qaida) have been shot down in flames already.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>Sounds like "our hero" was involved in covering up massacres in both Vietnam and Panama, and involved to his neck in the Iran Contra scandal. </strong><hr></blockquote>
According to NPR (that right-wing mouthpiece ), the Vietnam and Panama situations were ones that got dumped in his lap after the fact. I can't comment on Iran-Contra.
The NPR piece went so far as to say that experiences such as the one in Vietnam went far to form Powell's position that the US should never again get involved in a military situation where the goals are nebulous, the support at home vague, and the strategic situation constantly in flux. His record since then has seemed to support this assertion.
At least, if you trust NPR.
[quote]<strong>At least 2 of his claims (Blix re. mobile labs, CIA re. Iraq links with al'qaida) have been shot down in flames already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, if you look at Blix's comments about the mobile labs, he only says that there is no evidence for them that the inspection teams have found. Note he does *NOT* say that there is any evidence *against* them, only that the inspection team hasn't found them. Uh, duh, but that's why they're mobile, right?
The Iraq/al Qaeda (WTH *is* the proper spelling, anyway?) link is probably the weakest point, by far.
Sounds like "our hero" was involved in covering up massacres in both Vietnam and Panama, and involved to his neck in the Iran Contra scandal.
Everyone has such a great impression of Powell the consumate soldier who has such a "glorious career". I watched him yesterday presenting all that alleged evidence. Next time I watch him, I will bear in mind that he is not a particularly honest or ethical person and his claims should be treated with a large dose of skepticism.
At least 2 of his claims (Blix re. mobile labs, CIA re. Iraq links with al'qaida) have been shot down in flames already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Always ready to try and dig up dirt on someone if they disagree with your politics, right Sam?...even if the dirt is skewed, distorted or just an outright lie, it's gets easier every time, right?
[quote]US forces ... dropped uranium tipped shells across the desert (over 40 tons of radioactive uranium was scattered),<hr></blockquote>
DU is not radioactive. It is a toxic heavy metal such as lead, but it is not radioactive. Check out the DU thread that I think you left after a while...
No, just that it's difficult for me to put 100% faith in someone who can't check simple empirical facts when reporting them as gospel. What else was passed along unchecked? I'm sure it's a mixed bag, as with most sources... as long as you realize it *is* likely to be a mixed bag, and not 100% accurate.
Just as the CNN talking head stating that 12.5kpmh = Mach 6 during the Columbia disaster reminded me to question what I hear, so does this.
No, just that it's difficult for me to put 100% faith in someone who can't check simple empirical facts when reporting them as gospel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's hardly 'a simple empirical fact'.
If you asked the average person if the depleted uranium used to tip anti-tank shells was radioactive then only a tiny fraction would say no.
Even then most of the people who didn't confidently answer wrongly would have been tipped off by being asked the question.
People fact check things they think they might have wrong, dates, times, estimates of numerical values of things. They don't fact check their understanding of the half-lives of the various isotopes of uranium.
If that's his only credibility problem, then he's doing okay by my reckoning.
And, by the way, depleted uranium *is* radioactive, it just has a much longer half-life than U-235 making it negligible compared with background radiation. But I assume that was covered in the other thread.
Comments
[QB]SJO:
How very reasonable of you. Had you come out and said what you did in your last post, I would have a different attitude towards you. I do have to take issue with your civilian casualty estimates. I think that is TOTALLY bogus. 210,000 for the first Gulf War? Is that what you said? Come on. You cannot believe that. It's just not possible.<hr></blockquote>
Why is this not possible? The figures came from a declassified CIA report sometime in 2000. It was printed in the LA Times, the BBC and numerous other papers. But that doesn't necessarily mean it is true. It might have been 400,000...perhaps?
btw...the UN recently projected 500,000 Iraqi casualties (dead and injured) this time around...so that 210,000 doesn't sound too far off base.
And...here is what happens if a scientist starts quoting figures that her 'freedom-loving', wonderful government doesnt like:
<a href="http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2003/01/05/news/nation/4874382.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/2003/01/05/news/nation/4874382.htm</a>;
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: Samantha Joanne Ollendale ]</p>
<strong>from Tulkas:
You are assuming precision bombing.
You also assume that the bomber crews know to the nearest square yard where to aim that 'smart bomb'.
You therefore are assuming that US intelligence knows precisely the locations of the alleged WMD.
If we have the intelligence, then share it with the inspectors, dammit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, I am assuming that when using a fuel-air or thermobaric bomb, they know or suspect that a specific facility contains hardened surfaces and/or chem/bio weapons. These are not the precision bombs used to take out buildings and bunkers during the first gulf war. A facilty is usually more than a couple square yards in size, usually hundreds or thousands or square yards in size. They don't need to put this think through a window, ventatlation shaft or door, so that kind of accuracy is not needed. These are bunker killers used in Afganistan. They punch through the hardened surfaces, release their fuel-dense warheads and ignite, sucking massive amounts of air into their epicentre, burning up chem and bio agents in the process. Short of a tactical nuke, these are the best way to destroy hardened bunkers and/or chem/bio weapons.
So, as far as intelligence as to where the weapons are, it's only required that they know of a bunker to target, not that it has to have chem/bio weapons. The weapon is meant to take out the bunker/facility itself, with the added benefit that if there were chem/bio weapons stored inside, they will be destroyed with the bunker.
As to sharing info with the inspectors, I beleive they have been and are accelerating that process right now. However, as the inspection parties have been shown to be compromised in terms of intelligence, the US must limit what they share in order to not compromise their own intelligence techniques, personel and other assets.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: Tulkas ]</p>
<strong>
I do have to take issue with your civilian casualty estimates. I think that is TOTALLY bogus. 210,000 for the first Gulf War? Is that what you said? Come on. You cannot believe that. It's just not possible.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's also the half million children under 5 years old that the UN estimates died from easily preventable diseases in the aftermath of the war due to sanctions and the US strategy of targetting water treatment and sanitation facilities.
<strong>
There's also the half million children under 5 years old that the UN estimates died from easily preventable diseases in the aftermath of the war due to sanctions and the US strategy of targetting water treatment and sanitation facilities.</strong><hr></blockquote>
And yet, Hussein has the funds to build and rebuild oppulent new palaces...
<a href="http://www.msnbc.com/news/863736.asp?0cl=cR"; target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.com/news/863736.asp?0cl=cR</a>;
<a href="http://www.iran-pars.com/english/e-a4.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.iran-pars.com/english/e-a4.htm</a>;
<a href="http://www.mideastnews.com/PALACEs.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.mideastnews.com/PALACEs.htm</a>;
<a href="http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/19/iraq.palaces/"; target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9712/19/iraq.palaces/</a>;
<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2288895.stm"; target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2288895.stm</a>;
I don't mean to pick on you stupider, but I've noticed both here and the macnn forum lounge a tone that the US caused all the suffering in Iraq out of malice--implicitly obsolving SH from any responsibility. This clearly is not the case.
Iraq could have withdrawn from Kuwait peaceably to avoid attack. It did not, hence, the bombing of water and sanitation facilities. They could have been rebuilt, but SH chose not to.
if we have these sattelite images, then fly the inspectors to these locations, they have hellicopters . . . if they are forcibly stopped . . . then it smells lie a smoking gun
The evidence in the talk was compelling but should not be part of a skien of assertions that are being partially and/ or completely contradicted bythe supposed sources:
recently CIA MI5 questions about evidence
and also teh Kurds surprise about the "poison camp" in their midsts
anyway, with this info and the sattelite imagery there s the potential for some Red Handedness .. .we should do it and get even the French on board
1) the french public opinion is agains this war, even if she consider that Saddam is an ugly bloody tyrannic dictator
2) the french governement will follow US at least but they have to convice their public opinion. In order to do that, they have to demonstrate that they have push the peacefull process of inspection in his latest limits. In other word we have try everything, been very kind with Iraq, but we are, very, very sorry, we have to go in a war.
If you notice the french foreign minister, said some importants things after the Powell speech : France will use the force (go to war with US) if any others solutions have failed, Iraq did not play the game with the inspectors : there is an obvious lack of cooperation. Inspectors have to checked the infos showed by Powell (but he did not said it was absolute proof).
The job of french governement is hard, he has to deal with an hostile public opinion who do not wanted war, and he has to be in good relationships with USA. The french governement know that the war will arrive anyway, but he wish that this war will be based upon the UN will to make it less unpopular.
AS a former french ambassador of UN said, that people of the two countries (US and France) have a different point of vue on the subject because :
- a) French and US did not experiment WW2 in the same way ---> the idea of war is thus more impopular in France
- b) US have a very bad experience after 9/11 and did not support anymore to wait until the next attack, and decided to make a preemptive war. Pre-emptive war is entirely a new concept, never dealt before by the UN, who leads to a tremendeous numbers of questions.
War with Iraq is a very complex issue, with a lot of questions and implications.
<strong>
I don't mean to pick on you stupider, but I've noticed both here and the macnn forum lounge a tone that the US caused all the suffering in Iraq out of malice--implicitly obsolving SH from any responsibility. This clearly is not the case.
Iraq could have withdrawn from Kuwait peaceably to avoid attack. It did not, hence, the bombing of water and sanitation facilities. They could have been rebuilt, but SH chose not to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I can't speak for anyone else here (or at any other forum) but I continue to be staggered by the double standards openly applied in this matter.
Being Saddam Hussain's cheerleader is not my aim, I'll leave that to hypocritical wanker's in America who supply tinpot dictators when it suits them (it's happening right now) and then use paper thin rhetoric to denounce them as evil. It really has gone beyond satire.
That said, defending the deliberate bombing of water treatment and sanitation facilities as an necessary tactic in a so-called war where you massively outgun the other party is just wrong. I'd love you to explain the big moral difference between that and and poisoning water supplies.
And the other response by the macho guy, who thinks Iraqi children shouldn't **** with the US is just bizarre.
Apparently the 9/11 deaths were unforgiveable no matter what the US might have done in the past because they were innocents.
Seems like a sound principle to me, shame it doesn't apply to anyone outside the US.
The best part about all this is the US had the chance to take care of this whole issue at the end of the GWI, but succumbed to regional real-politik and stupidity. After all can't topple Iraq and let Iran get an upper hand, and you don't want to piss off Turkey by letting all those Kurds appear to have a chance at a Kurdish state. But the real comedy came when the US called on the Kurds in the north and Shiites in the south to rebel against Sadam, and then stood idly by. No fly-zones--lets call them a device for assuaging guilt.
<strong>
And yet, Hussein has the funds to build and rebuild oppulent new palaces...
...
Iraq could have withdrawn from Kuwait peaceably to avoid attack. It did not, hence, the bombing of water and sanitation facilities. They could have been rebuilt, but SH chose not to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'd just like to add to this, if I may.
A friend of my wife's family is one of the founders of End Hunger Now, a non-profit group in Raleigh NC that has sent *many* resources to Iraq in the form of humanitarian aid. He recently spent a while in Iraq, because the group wanted to know what the *heck* was going on with their donations.
He was interviewed on NPR after he got back, and it was... illuminating. He's a Reverend, and a highly spiritual and pacifistic man, but the experience was apparently disturbing for him.
He stated that they did not request, at any time, meetings with Iraqi officials, instead they wanted to discuss the situation with lower level folk who have been nominally responsible for disbursements, etc. Instead, they found themselves in the continual presence of Iraqi officials and military folks. (Sound familiar?) The people who they came to see seemed very scared and nervous, and deferred many questions to the 'handlers'.
In fact, at one point they had Tariq Aziz himself, Iraq's foreign minister, join a meeting. Rev. Buchanan decided that this was too good an opportunity to pass up, so they group changed their focus from interviewing aid workers to interviewing Aziz. Rev. Buchanan asked him 'some very hard questions', and got... well, mostly nothing 'he is a consummate politician'. However, one answer he did share, which I will paraphrase here...
"Given that you have had the oil for humanitarian aid program, given that you have sold oil illegally, which has been documented, given that we and many other groups have sent humanitarian aid directly, how is it that your people are starving, that their water supplies are not repaired, that the entire infrastructure of your society is still in ruins?"
"The focus of Iraq is the security of Iraq. Once the security is taken care of, then other things can be dealt with. All resources now need to be diverted to ensuring security. The infrastructures can wait."
Note that, as the Rev. did on air:
He did not deny the illegal oil sales. In fact, Rev. Buchanan stated that he seemed pleased by them.
He did admit that resources have been, and still are, diverted to the military. (Sending food to starving children? Chances are you're feeding troops.
He flat out said that the basic infrastructure that is needed to support basic life in Iraq 'can wait'.
When asked by the interviewer on NPR how he felt about war against Iraq, the Rev. stated that before the trip he was utterly against it. Since that trip, however... he doesn't see how it can get any worse for the Iraqis if war comes, and that the current situation has to end. He did not say he supported a war, but he did say his position is less certain than it was.
Personally, I would like very much to talk to him in person to find out more, but haven't yet had the chance.
<strong>Until the Constitution says that the US is bound by the will of the UN Security council even when it disagrees and think the said security council is being dense or spineless and must fashion its foreign policy based on this, then your point has no weight. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Somehow I missed this.
Article VI of the Constitution. Give it a go.
Three links amongst thousands:
<a href="http://hcclibrary2.net/chronicle/colinpowell.html"; target="_blank">http://hcclibrary2.net/chronicle/colinpowell.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010514&s=corn20010502"; target="_blank">http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010514&s=corn20010502</a>;
<a href="http://www.worldworks.org/politics/cpowell.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.worldworks.org/politics/cpowell.htm</a>;
Sounds like "our hero" was involved in covering up massacres in both Vietnam and Panama, and involved to his neck in the Iran Contra scandal.
Everyone has such a great impression of Powell the consumate soldier who has such a "glorious career". I watched him yesterday presenting all that alleged evidence. Next time I watch him, I will bear in mind that he is not a particularly honest or ethical person and his claims should be treated with a large dose of skepticism.
At least 2 of his claims (Blix re. mobile labs, CIA re. Iraq links with al'qaida) have been shot down in flames already.
<strong>Sounds like "our hero" was involved in covering up massacres in both Vietnam and Panama, and involved to his neck in the Iran Contra scandal. </strong><hr></blockquote>
According to NPR (that right-wing mouthpiece
The NPR piece went so far as to say that experiences such as the one in Vietnam went far to form Powell's position that the US should never again get involved in a military situation where the goals are nebulous, the support at home vague, and the strategic situation constantly in flux. His record since then has seemed to support this assertion.
At least, if you trust NPR.
[quote]<strong>At least 2 of his claims (Blix re. mobile labs, CIA re. Iraq links with al'qaida) have been shot down in flames already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, if you look at Blix's comments about the mobile labs, he only says that there is no evidence for them that the inspection teams have found. Note he does *NOT* say that there is any evidence *against* them, only that the inspection team hasn't found them. Uh, duh, but that's why they're mobile, right?
The Iraq/al Qaeda (WTH *is* the proper spelling, anyway?) link is probably the weakest point, by far.
<strong>Some background on Colin Powell, the man who is so highly "respected" worldwide.
Three links amongst thousands:
<a href="http://hcclibrary2.net/chronicle/colinpowell.html"; target="_blank">http://hcclibrary2.net/chronicle/colinpowell.html</a>;
<a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010514&s=corn20010502"; target="_blank">http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010514&s=corn20010502</a>;
<a href="http://www.worldworks.org/politics/cpowell.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.worldworks.org/politics/cpowell.htm</a>;
Sounds like "our hero" was involved in covering up massacres in both Vietnam and Panama, and involved to his neck in the Iran Contra scandal.
Everyone has such a great impression of Powell the consumate soldier who has such a "glorious career". I watched him yesterday presenting all that alleged evidence. Next time I watch him, I will bear in mind that he is not a particularly honest or ethical person and his claims should be treated with a large dose of skepticism.
At least 2 of his claims (Blix re. mobile labs, CIA re. Iraq links with al'qaida) have been shot down in flames already.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Always ready to try and dig up dirt on someone if they disagree with your politics, right Sam?...even if the dirt is skewed, distorted or just an outright lie, it's gets easier every time, right?
It was basically just repeating the US Army's party line and I think we are all aware how truthful that has been.
So does this kind of thing still happen, anyone know?
<strong><a href="http://www.worldworks.org/politics/cpowell.htm"; target="_blank">http://www.worldworks.org/politics/cpowell.htm</a></strong><hr></blockquote>;
Er, this source has a credibility problem...
[quote]US forces ... dropped uranium tipped shells across the desert (over 40 tons of radioactive uranium was scattered),<hr></blockquote>
DU is not radioactive. It is a toxic heavy metal such as lead, but it is not radioactive. Check out the DU thread that I think you left after a while...
<strong>
Er, this source has a credibility problem....</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yeah, I would never trust anyone who was unaware of the difference between uranium and depleted uranium.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
<strong>
Yeah, I would never trust anyone who was unaware of the difference between uranium and depleted uranium.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, just that it's difficult for me to put 100% faith in someone who can't check simple empirical facts when reporting them as gospel. What else was passed along unchecked? I'm sure it's a mixed bag, as with most sources... as long as you realize it *is* likely to be a mixed bag, and not 100% accurate.
Just as the CNN talking head stating that 12.5kpmh = Mach 6 during the Columbia disaster reminded me to question what I hear, so does this.
<strong>
No, just that it's difficult for me to put 100% faith in someone who can't check simple empirical facts when reporting them as gospel.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's hardly 'a simple empirical fact'.
If you asked the average person if the depleted uranium used to tip anti-tank shells was radioactive then only a tiny fraction would say no.
Even then most of the people who didn't confidently answer wrongly would have been tipped off by being asked the question.
People fact check things they think they might have wrong, dates, times, estimates of numerical values of things. They don't fact check their understanding of the half-lives of the various isotopes of uranium.
If that's his only credibility problem, then he's doing okay by my reckoning.
And, by the way, depleted uranium *is* radioactive, it just has a much longer half-life than U-235 making it negligible compared with background radiation. But I assume that was covered in the other thread.
[ 02-06-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>