Colin Powell Press Conference - what do we think?
Discussion
I just caught some of this on R5. Unfortunately I didn't catch enough to form an opinion. The bits I did hear - if true, which I suppose we have to assume they are - sounded convincing enough. The trouble is, what I head only confirmed Saddams intention to build nasty weapons. I'm still unsure whether that's suffiecient reason to invade...
I'm sure that it's taken Colin (Colin not Coalin) ages to draw those images of Iraq on his laptop. And as for the link with Osama Bin Laden and his troop of funsters erm... bo
cks and I think deep down we all know it. If we attack Iraq then applying the same logic we'd have to depose half of the world's leaders ending with China... and I think that really would be the end, a la nuke.
cks and I think deep down we all know it. If we attack Iraq then applying the same logic we'd have to depose half of the world's leaders ending with China... and I think that really would be the end, a la nuke.
Hi All,
The problem with all intelligence estimates and reports is that they are either accepted and believed in by the people they are prepared for or they are not. History is full of examples where intelligence was correct in it's conclusions, but these were overlooked, or discounted by the leaders who received them.
Filter that through the need of governments to sustain their self-interests, and intelligence is often ignored.
But, having said that, one must be prepared to look at the overview rather than insisting on specific, undeniable, proof of Iraq's intentions and actions. Anyone who thinks that reconnaissance sattelite images are ever going to show a couple Republican Guards carrying a missile wearing the label 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' really isn't all there. A pattern of deception will emerge from layers of intelligence which will point to a conclusion. I think Powell clearly demonstarted that conclusion today.
It's also very probable that the UK and US have much more detailed intelligence information which they are witholding from public scrutiny. This is for several reasons.
First, the need to protect sources and methods. If the Iraqi's knew which people were supplying information to the West, they would move to instantly eliminate this source. If methods of electronic intelligence gathering were made public, the Iraqi's could cease to transmit information in that manner. Finally, many of the sites identified as containing WMD are being withheld in order that they can be included in a Target List so that they can be eliminated at the outset of any hostilities, preventing them from inflicting casualties upon coalition forces, Israel or the Iraqi people. If our knowledge of these sites were made known, Iraq would either move the sites, reinforce them, or deploy them early in any conflict in a 'Use them or Lose them' philosophy.
The United Nations is currently balancing on a precipice. It has resolved that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face disarmament by force in Res. 1441. Additional time for the Inspectors is ludicrous as their job is not to detect every single weapon which may exist, but merely to determine whether Iraq is complying with the UN resolution to disarm. Clearly they are not, even the most recent report by Hans Glick spells this fact out. If the UN is to survive as a World Governing Body, they must be prepared to act upon their own resolutions. If not, they will go the way of the League of Nations, which failed in large part due to their inability to enforce it's resolutions which it set on paper into real action. World history would surely be different if they had done so. Jim '85TE
The problem with all intelligence estimates and reports is that they are either accepted and believed in by the people they are prepared for or they are not. History is full of examples where intelligence was correct in it's conclusions, but these were overlooked, or discounted by the leaders who received them.
Filter that through the need of governments to sustain their self-interests, and intelligence is often ignored.
But, having said that, one must be prepared to look at the overview rather than insisting on specific, undeniable, proof of Iraq's intentions and actions. Anyone who thinks that reconnaissance sattelite images are ever going to show a couple Republican Guards carrying a missile wearing the label 'Weapon of Mass Destruction' really isn't all there. A pattern of deception will emerge from layers of intelligence which will point to a conclusion. I think Powell clearly demonstarted that conclusion today.
It's also very probable that the UK and US have much more detailed intelligence information which they are witholding from public scrutiny. This is for several reasons.
First, the need to protect sources and methods. If the Iraqi's knew which people were supplying information to the West, they would move to instantly eliminate this source. If methods of electronic intelligence gathering were made public, the Iraqi's could cease to transmit information in that manner. Finally, many of the sites identified as containing WMD are being withheld in order that they can be included in a Target List so that they can be eliminated at the outset of any hostilities, preventing them from inflicting casualties upon coalition forces, Israel or the Iraqi people. If our knowledge of these sites were made known, Iraq would either move the sites, reinforce them, or deploy them early in any conflict in a 'Use them or Lose them' philosophy.
The United Nations is currently balancing on a precipice. It has resolved that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face disarmament by force in Res. 1441. Additional time for the Inspectors is ludicrous as their job is not to detect every single weapon which may exist, but merely to determine whether Iraq is complying with the UN resolution to disarm. Clearly they are not, even the most recent report by Hans Glick spells this fact out. If the UN is to survive as a World Governing Body, they must be prepared to act upon their own resolutions. If not, they will go the way of the League of Nations, which failed in large part due to their inability to enforce it's resolutions which it set on paper into real action. World history would surely be different if they had done so. Jim '85TE
Absolutely on the money, unfortunately with all these constraints he still has to put across a convincing argument, a difficult balancing act. The sooner it all kicks off the better, as Deltaf pointed out N Korea is a bloody good example of what will happen in Iraq if he isn't dealt with now
>> Edited by apache on Thursday 6th February 10:28
>> Edited by apache on Thursday 6th February 10:28
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff