Powells Speech to the U.N.

[Evanauto]

Secretary of State Colin Powell, methodically making his case that Iraq has defied all demands that it disarm, presented tape recordings, satellite photos and informants' statements Wednesday that he said constituted "irrefutable and undeniable" evidence that Saddam Hussein is concealing weapons of mass destruction. "Clearly, Saddam will stop at nothing until something stops him," Powell told a skeptical U.N. Security Council, saying Baghdad's denials represent a "web of lies."

In his presentation, Powell:

Asserted that Iraq "bulldozed and graded to conceal chemical weapons evidence" at the Al Musayyib chemical complex in 2002 and had a series of cargo vehicles and a decontamination vehicle moving around at the site. Powell said that was corroborated by a human source.

Said Iraq is working on developing missiles with a range of 1,000 kilometers — about 620 miles — or more, putting Russia and other nations beyond Iraq's immediate neighbors in potential danger.

Played audio tapes of what Powell said were intercepted phone conversations between Iraqi military officers. One was a purported discussion about hiding prohibited vehicles from weapons inspectors. Another dealt with removing a reference to nerve agents from written instructions.

Cited informants as saying that Iraqis are dispersing rockets armed with biological weapons in western Iraq.

Presented declassified satellite pictures that he said were 15 munitions bunkers. Powell said four of them had active chemical munitions inside.
Said Iraqi informants claim that Iraq has 18 trucks that it uses as mobile biological weapons labs.

[moongod]

thanks...i was watching american history x while all that was going on.

[Alakazam]

Good, now we can let the bombs rain down on Saddam & Company.

[Slizor]

Good, now we can let the bombs rain down on Saddam & Company.

Surely you would have this "evidence" analyzed first?

[DrNatchKilder]

i'm a bit skeptical with all those evidences, after all Powell has not said antything new.

Are the UN inspectors so easy to fool as Powell says?

[Alakazam]

At 2/5/03 02:35 PM, Slizor wrote:

Good, now we can let the bombs rain down on Saddam & Company.

Surely you would have this "evidence" analyzed first? :

I would say no just so I could slap you senseless in another debate [which would make 3 in a row], but I just finished an 1100 word discourse based upon your linguistic ignorance [you know what I am talking about].

We have already analyzed the evidence, and while doing so, it should be used to point inspectors to specific places in Iraq that house WoMD be it truck, automobile, or bunker so we can find that "smoking gun" so idiots like France will not be able to complain. Other than that, they are in breech of UN Resolution 1441 [as I proved before] coupled with this evidence, makes a stronger case for war.

[nafs]

At 2/6/03 01:11 AM, Alakazam wrote:

At 2/5/03 02:35 PM, Slizor wrote:

Good, now we can let the bombs rain down on Saddam & Company.

Surely you would have this "evidence" analyzed first? :

I would say no just so I could slap you senseless in another debate [which would make 3 in a row], but I just finished an 1100 word discourse based upon your linguistic ignorance [you know what I am talking about].

We have already analyzed the evidence, and while doing so, it should be used to point inspectors to specific places in Iraq that house WoMD be it truck, automobile, or bunker so we can find that "smoking gun" so idiots like France will not be able to complain. Other than that, they are in breech of UN Resolution 1441 [as I proved before] coupled with this evidence, makes a stronger case for war.

The vidence could be fabricated... The US has been known to do that before. And yes, the evidence needs to be analyzed by the inspectors and other experts in the subject. Saying it doesn't need outside analyzation is ignorant and stupid.

[TheEvilOne]

At 2/6/03 01:41 AM, Hannetz wrote: The vidence could be fabricated... The US has been known to do that before. And yes, the evidence needs to be analyzed by the inspectors and other experts in the subject. Saying it doesn't need outside analyzation is ignorant and stupid.

It could be fabricated... but I don't think so. I don't see Colin Powell as the kind of man who would present fake photos to the UN. Besides, since were on the subject of analysis, would we really present fake evidence if we knew it could be analyzed and proven to be fake?

[Slizor]

I would say no just so I could slap you senseless in another debate [which would make 3 in a row], but I just finished an 1100 word discourse based upon your linguistic ignorance [you know what I am talking about].

All for little ol' me? Why are you continuing in debate that you "slapped me senseless in"(and thus won and finished it)? Seems to me that it is not finished.

We have already analyzed the evidence

I'm talking about the UN, not the ever-so-biased US.

Other than that, they are in breech of UN Resolution 1441 [as I proved before]

You gave no evidence at all, that is not a supported arguement, thus is not proven. I thought you were going to stop posting about it, yet you clearly seem to have some unresolved issues, maybe you should talk to your mother.

[Alakazam]

At 2/6/03 05:36 PM, Slizor wrote: blah blah blah blah blah blah blah :

I looked at your profile and realized that you are nothing more than a punk high school kid. This explains why you casually dismiss all the evidence presented to you and simply slap another brick in that ENOROMOUS Wall of Ignorance™.

[Alakazam]

But anyway, the case against Iraq grew stronger [at least at home]so now we must wait for yet another U.N. resolution to be passed by our allies.

[D2Kvirus]

"Powell said" does not constitute as "there is plentiful evidence that proves this." The sooner you work that out, the sooner the fearmongering can stop, and you can realise the real monsters are busy on Capitol Hill, fucking you every day of your life.

[WadeFulp]

Come on people, how much evidence do you need? We KNOW, it's a FACT, that Iraq had a ton of Anthrax in the past that wasn't destroyed. We KNOW, it's a FACT, that Iraq hasn't accounted for this antrax and has provided no proof that it was destroyed. We KNOW, it's a FACT, that a teaspoon of Antrax caused much hard and problems in the USA when it was mailed to government officials and others in the media. So based on this alone why should we allow for this Anthrax to go missing? With the quantities he had he could shut down entire countries economically if enough sites were contaminated. This man is crazy and needs to give up his weapons. He has yet to do this, so we need to do it for him. This shouldn't even be debateable.

2+2 = 4
Saddam + Missing Anthrax = War

[AukeSam]

At 2/5/03 02:18 PM, Alakazam wrote: Good, now we can let the bombs rain down on Saddam & Company.

What if all that Powel showed is FAKE?
I mean, the so called "evidence" may as well be thought up and realised by Bush!

[Slizor]

I looked at your profile and realized that you are nothing more than a punk high school kid. This explains why you casually dismiss all the evidence presented to you

Red herring. My age has nothing to do with the analysis of evidence by an independent body.

To say that I am "nothing more" is to seriously underestimate me, I am not my age, I am not what I do and I am not what mainstream closed-minded catogary that you chose to put me in. I am a socially and politically aware person who is being and has been educated about the world. I have come a long way, people on this board can attest to this fact, and I will not be niavely dismissed by someone who does not know me as you. You want an arguement about politics? Then I'm your man, if I wanted to have an utterly pointless arguement, then I would go to you, for, despite all of your scientific ambitions, you don't have/use evidence.

[Slizor]

We KNOW, it's a FACT, that Iraq had a ton of Anthrax in the past

This is a fact (mainly because the "west" gave him it.)

that wasn't destroyed.

This is unproven.

We KNOW, it's a FACT, that Iraq hasn't accounted for this antrax and has provided no proof that it was destroyed.

Indeed, but the UN resolution does not call for it.

We KNOW, it's a FACT, that a teaspoon of Antrax caused much hard and problems in the USA when it was mailed to government officials and others in the media.

Indeed, it is quite potent.

So based on this alone why should we allow for this Anthrax to go missing?

We shouldn't! But should we intefere with the work of a sovereign state?

quantities...economies blah

The possiblities of their use are endless, but would he use them?(I deleted the text, then decied to make a point.)

This man is crazy and needs to give up his weapons.

Can you prove he is crazy?

He has yet to do this, so we need to do it for him.

Debatable.

This shouldn't even be debateable.

Damn democracy!

2+2 = 4
Saddam + Missing Anthrax = War

Hey! That rhymes!

[rezgwu]

At 2/7/03 01:16 PM, WadeFulp wrote: Come on people, how much evidence do you need?
2+2 = 4
Saddam + Missing Anthrax = War

Some people will never believe that war is necessary.

[Alakazam]

At 2/7/03 04:59 PM, Slizor wrote:

I looked at your profile and realized that you are nothing more than a punk high school kid. This explains why you casually dismiss all the evidence presented to you

Red herring. My age has nothing to do with the analysis of evidence by an independent body.

Hardly a red herring. You casually dismiss any line of reasoning, or simply flat out plain english [UN Resolution 1441 for example] in favor of your Wall of Ignorance™. Ergo, you are a punk high school kid which equates to "I am always right."

:~D

[TheEvilOne]

At 2/7/03 05:15 PM, Slizor wrote:

(Wade's statement) We KNOW, it's a FACT, that Iraq hasn't accounted for this antrax and has provided no proof that it was destroyed.

Indeed, but the UN resolution does not call for it.

Yes, it does. That's the whole point. The resolution didn't put the burden on the United States to prove it--it put the burden on Iraq to disprove it. That's the whole point of inspections. They aren't there to look underneath every rock in the Iraqi desert to try to find weapons. They are there to verify Iraq's claims that they no longer have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is supposed to show them proof that the weapons have been destroyed. As Wade said above, vast quantities of anthrax that we KNOW that they had remain unaccounted for. There are other chemical and biological agents that are unaccounted for as well. Iraq must show proof of their destruction, and if they do not, then we have war. Period.

[Alakazam]

At 2/7/03 05:15 PM, Slizor wrote:

This is a fact (mainly because the "west" gave him it.)

that wasn't destroyed.

This is unproven. :

If you are suggesting that we need to prove that Saddam destroyed his anthrax then this is an impossible proof of a negative. You attested to the fact that Saddam had anthrax. He needs to show the world, according UN resolution 1441 that he has disarmed [destroyed his WoMD].

To dumb it down:

He had it, it's not all accounted for, where did it go?
This is not full disclosure per the demands of UN Resolution 1441. Ergo, he is in material breech. Want proof...read an excerpt from 1441 yourself:

Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its
obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 (1991), in particular
through Iraq’s failure to cooperate with United Nations inspectors and the IAEA,
and to complete the actions required under paragraphs 8 to 13 of resolution 687
(1991);

We KNOW, it's a FACT, that Iraq hasn't accounted for this antrax and has provided no proof that it was destroyed.

Indeed, but the UN resolution does not call for it. :

UN Resolution 1441 calls for Saddam to disarm, as 1441 iterates previous resolutions calling for the destruction of WoMD. UN Resolution 687, inferred by 1441, calls for Saddam to destroy all WoMD.

I am amazed at why you continue to embarrass yourself when anyone can simply destroy your arguments simply by reading the UN resolutions.

LOL :~D

[Alakazam]

At 2/7/03 08:34 PM, TheEvilOne wrote:

Yes, it does. That's the whole point. The resolution didn't put the burden on the United States to prove it--it put the burden on Iraq to disprove it. That's the whole point of inspections. They aren't there to look underneath every rock in the Iraqi desert to try to find weapons. They are there to verify Iraq's claims that they no longer have weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is supposed to show them proof that the weapons have been destroyed. As Wade said above, vast quantities of anthrax that we KNOW that they had remain unaccounted for. There are other chemical and biological agents that are unaccounted for as well. Iraq must show proof of their destruction, and if they do not, then we have war. Period. :

What's this? Another person from the voice of reason! It's a miracle! But do not go up against Slizor, as he as "come along away" in this BBS forum because although he is young, he is "politically aware." Now all he has to do is tell us why the entire UN is wrong and he is right. I mean, I never show evidence...*rolls eyes*

[Ted-Easton]

Alakazam, we really don't care about age. If a two year old beat me in debating, I'd respect him as much as a 40 or an 80 year old. Though most, or seemingly all younger people may have lower intelligences than some, or seemingly all older people, the case is not always so.
Age has little to do with a person's ability to debate a fact. If you refuse to debate with a person because they are young, or consider themself a punk, then you shouldn't be debating. If you only debate with people that you like, or people you agree/connect with, then that's no debate.

I didn't mean to rant, but don't take all that aimed at you, Alakazam. That's for anyone.

[Alakazam]

At 2/7/03 09:01 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: Though most, or seemingly all younger people may have lower intelligences than some, or seemingly all older people, the case is not always so. :

I have yet to see any different here.

I would respond point by point on the rest of your post, but in all reality, it does not warrant such an action. If a person cannot read plain english, constantly resorts to logical fallacies, lazily researches his position, builds a Wall of Ignorance, and is only 15 or 16, what do you think the conclusion I am going to draw?

No offense taken.

[Ted-Easton]

But being 15 or 16 isn't a cause for this. The cause for the "wall of ignorance" is they would be an ignorant person.
There are also a high number of ignorant 30-40 yar olds. This is just an ignorant person who happens to be 15-16, coincidentally.

(This is aimed at no one specifically)

[Alakazam]

At 2/7/03 11:49 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: But being 15 or 16 isn't a cause for this. :

It is a major factor. They simply do not know enough from numerous points: lack of experience, lack of knowledge etc. especially on very intense and involved topics such as politics. At most, children have cursory knowledge of such topics.

High school kid VS. United Nations. Will you mind if I put my money on the later?

[AukeSam]

At 2/7/03 01:16 PM, WadeFulp wrote: Come on people, how much evidence do you need?
2+2 = 4
Saddam + Missing Anthrax = War

You forget that the 'missing anthrax' is sent to Iraq by the USA in 1980-1988!
That also is the reason why Bush knows exactly how many Saddam has!!!

[Slizor]

Red herring. My age has nothing to do with the analysis of evidence by an independent body.

Hardly a red herring. You casually dismiss any line of reasoning, or simply flat out plain english [UN Resolution 1441 for example] in favor of your Wall of Ignorance™. Ergo, you are a punk high school kid which equates to "I am always right."

Red Herring two. This still has nothing to do with the analysis of the evidence.

[Slizor]

This is not full disclosure per the demands of UN Resolution 1441.

Full disclosure, as Resolution 1441 says, is that he is to account for all weapons he HAS, not had. he has done this with the big dossier he gave. Only until they actually find weapons which are unaccounted for will he be in material breach.

UN Resolution 1441 calls for Saddam to disarm, as 1441 iterates previous resolutions calling for the destruction of WoMD. UN Resolution 687, inferred by 1441, calls for Saddam to destroy all WoMD.

Resolution 1441 does not say, at any point, that Saddam has to account for weapons he claims he has already destroyed.

[Slizor]

Now all he has to do is tell us why the entire UN is wrong and he is right.

Yes, the entire UN is wrong, despite the fact they have not said he is in (futher) material breach of UN resolution 1441

[AukeSam]

At 2/8/03 08:43 AM, Slizor wrote:

Now all he has to do is tell us why the entire UN is wrong and he is right.

Yes, the entire UN is wrong, despite the fact they have not said he is in (futher) material breach of UN resolution 1441

I think it is weird that Saddam NOW simply must destroy his weapons!
The weapons the USA gave im in his war against Iran!
That's not right!