We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq, and these are policies that we are going to keep in place, but we are always willing to review them to make sure that they are being carried out in a way that does not affect the Iraqi people but does affect the Iraqi regime's ambitions and the ability to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and we had a good conversation on this issue.

Secretary Colin L. Powell at a press conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Amre Moussa on February 24, 2001.

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2001/933.htm

Yeah, so whats your point?

That's old.

2 Years and 7 months old, we all know theres no wmd's.

People like to know things that they don't alreay know. I.e. Saddam's whereabouts or Osama's whereabouts.

Secretary Colin L. Powell at a press conference with Egyptian Foreign Minister Amre Moussa on February 24, 2001.

My first post was a joke. I think you other people might want to take a look at that date, then read the paragraph one more time.:)

Yep.

Powell knew. But he lost out to Rumsfeld et al on this one. Powell is known to have shared his doubts with Jack Straw. But the hit first, think later brigade won out, and now the US is reaping the consequences.

Mark my words, Bush will lose the next election, if it is free and fair, unlike the lat one. And provided there isn't an orchestrated terrorist alert/ attack beteen now and then.

I can just see Chirac laughing in Bush's face.

"Pardon? You want help monsieur? From me, oui?" Chirac got a bigger applause than did Bush at the UN today.

And why is Bush running to the UN now? I thought they were irrelevant?

I heard the other day that Condoleeza Rice said something very, very similar about Iraq not actually having any WMDs at around the same time Colin Powell said that.

Originally posted by rhizome17 I can just see Chirac laughing in Bush's face.

"Pardon? You want help monsieur? From me, oui?" Chirac got a bigger applause than did Bush at the UN today.

And why is Bush running to the UN now? I thought they were irrelevant?
It's amusing isn't it. But then we all know that the only reason the US wants UN help now is because Americans are being killed and they'd rather that happen to others when they've made another mess of something, but they're still not allowed to have a say in Iraq's future.

Here in the UK the Joint Intelligence Commissioner was interviewed at the Hutton inquiry yesterday. Things coming out include gems such as when he had written the report and a #10 aid asked him to take out a statement that said that 'Saddam only poses a threat re the use of Chemical weapons if attacked. 'This obv means that either, Saddam wasn't a threat, no case for war, or that the Commissioner was being told how to do his job better by someone with no background in Intelligence so he's not capable of performing his role.

The other thing was that they neglected to say that the 45min claim in the dossier was made regarding short range artillery weapons, not a threat to us (although they still haven't found any). It's still against the Resolutions but it's hardly along with the case for war which was presented before the World. His response was obviously along the lines of 'it's not my responsibility to correct mistakes made in my name'.

Originally posted by monkee
I heard the other day that Condoleeza Rice said something very, very similar about Iraq not actually having any WMDs at around the same time Colin Powell said that.


It's amusing isn't it. But then we all know that the only reason the US wants UN help now is because Americans are being killed and they'd rather that happen to others when they've made another mess of something, but they're still not allowed to have a say in Iraq's future.

Im pretty sure Bush wants the UN money only. And help with police crap. blah blah blah. This whole crap sucks.


edit: the quote supposedly attributed to Rice
"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."


Have sex:hump: Not war.:)

Originally posted by PScott
Im pretty sure Bush wants the UN money only. And help with police crap. blah blah blah. This whole crap sucks.


edit: the quote supposedly attributed to Rice
"We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

That's the quote I was thinking of. Thanks. :) She said it in a tv interview which I saw a clip of the other day I think.

My bad about the troops, I meant a UN police presence :). I just put 2 and 2 together and came up with 4.5 (closer than 5 I think :) ) because the US elections are approaching and it may not make for good reading if the opposition can say x amount of US troops have been killed since the war and continue to be killed.

They should definately not get any financial help from the UN. It's the problem of the US/UK not the problem of the UN. You go to war without consent then don't expect it to be seemingly justified with cash injection that the people of Iraq may need. Don't you feel that if the US wants financial help from the UN then it should pass complete control over to the UN as to what to do with the money in the rebuilding of Iraq?

Originally posted by rhizome17
Yep.

Powell knew. But he lost out to Rumsfeld et al on this one. Powell is known to have shared his doubts with Jack Straw. But the hit first, think later brigade won out, and now the US is reaping the consequences.

Mark my words, Bush will lose the next election, if it is free and fair, unlike the lat one. And provided there isn't an orchestrated terrorist alert/ attack beteen now and then.

I can just see Chirac laughing in Bush's face.

"Pardon? You want help monsieur? From me, oui?" Chirac got a bigger applause than did Bush at the UN today.

And why is Bush running to the UN now? I thought they were irrelevant?

Sorry, but you don't know how it is over here. Bush will win. The only way he could lose is if every non-member of the Republican party bands together and votes democratic. That means NO Green Party this time. People don't want to abandon their principles though, and incumbants always have a big advantage anyways.

Originally posted by Nimreitz
Sorry, but you don't know how it is over here. Bush will win. The only way he could lose is if every non-member of the Republican party bands together and votes democratic. That means NO Green Party this time. People don't want to abandon their principles though, and incumbants always have a big advantage anyways. I feel that Bush could gather all of the American public in one place sprinkle his accumulated man juice on them and still win the election no problem. Sucks really.

yes, unless the Dems pull something quite major out of their collective arses, Bush will be re-elected. There is no candidate currently in the running with a chance, Hillary might have the best shot but she's smart enough to know her chances in 2008 are way better.

oh well, maybe its cos the people I know live in New York :S and they seem to be quite confident that Bush's support levels can only go one way. But can the country (or the world) handle another 4 years of Bush. It is not like things are going to get better or anything.

ANd Vagegast, looks like Powell preempted the report that came out today, by about 2 1/2 years... 'no firm conclusions' reached on WMD in Iraq. It that worth killing thousands of Iraqis and hundreds of Americans for?

Originally posted by Perles
yes, unless the Dems pull something quite major out of their collective arses, Bush will be re-elected. There is no candidate currently in the running with a chance, Hillary might have the best shot but she's smart enough to know her chances in 2008 are way better. Wesley Clark beat Bush in a CNN/Time poll and a Gallup poll:

Clark: 49%
Bush: 46%

Dean: 46%
Bush: 49%

http://www.pollkatz.homestead.com/files/image001.gif

You would know this--even Republicans are worrying--unless you live under a rock.

A choice between a man who went to Vietnam, and one who dodged. :S
I don't like the idea of former military men becoming civilian leaders. But it has to be better than the evolutionary-throwback incumbent.

Originally posted by monkee
I heard the other day that Condoleeza Rice said something very, very similar about Iraq not actually having any WMDs at around the same time Colin Powell said that.


It's amusing isn't it. But then we all know that the only reason the US wants UN help now is because Americans are being killed and they'd rather that happen to others when they've made another mess of something, but they're still not allowed to have a say in Iraq's future.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Iraq

looks like troops are needed

It's the classic story. You see it a thousand times, in a thousand places. Boy wants to invade country for no real reason. World says he can't do that right now. Boy comes up with a whole bunch of reasons why he has to invade right now. World is not convinced by any of them. Boy says that if the world doesn't want to play, then he's going to invade anyway and the world can just go be irrelevant. The world warns that if he invades, he's probably going to get hurt, and not to come crying to the world when it happens. Boy doesn't listen. Boy invades. Boy gets hurt. Boy comes crying to world. World tries to be nice, and asks if boy will just promise not to go invading countries without it next time? Boy says no, he was right to invade and would do it again, but that the world should now help out anyway, and anyway the whole thing is the world's fault. And world says....

what does the world say! What does the world say?:o :confused:

World gives the finger. (H)

Gotta love a happy ending.

I think in this case, world will help boy out, but make boy pay out of his pocket money, and make boy do extra chores. And maybe some lines thrown in for good measure.

Originally posted by PScott
http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=World&cat=Iraq

looks like trops are needed
Maybe I got 4 then. :D

lol @ boy invades smaller boy story and responses.

Jack Straw was 'interviewed' about the findings in the US report that came out yesterday about there being no WMDs found in Iraq yet. In Straw's response to the questions he seems to think that the reports from 12yrs ago about Iraq possessing WMDs are more accurate than anything from the past year. Maybe he forgets that the WMDs that are mentioned in the 12yr old reports were in fact supplied by the US and UK.

From those polls it seems that either the US needs to be attacked (pref for Bush as his ratings rocketed then) or the US needs to invade a country at around the time the elections are taking place. The cynic in me will be looking out for events like this towards the height of election time.

So inspections find NOTHING in Iraq, and they get invaded. Inspections find radioactive material in Iran (nothing confirmed regarding weapons use) and the US threaten to tell tales on them to the UN.

What the hell is going on...

(Don't tell me, I already know the answer)