I saw most of Blix's speech. The Bush crowd will not be happy campers. Blix pretty specifically refuted some of Powell's specific claims in his last speech. Blix said detailed studies of a time sequence of satellite photos did not back some of Powell's speciofic assertions. That gave Powell a big frown. The French representative really kicked ass. You need to see if you can catch the replay on C-span. They had the French guy. I doubt if it was shown on most of the media. As I didn't see it all, I'm not sure if there is enough footage that Fox the Christian Broadcast Network, Rush etc. can cobble together enough to make it look like Blix finally nailed it down for the pro-war crowd. The CNBC anlysis didn't think it played too well for the pro-war crowd. Of course he predicted for the financial markets that the US would start a war anyway. How did the rest of you see it?
Originally posted by glynch ...Blix pretty specifically refuted some of Powell's specific claims in his last speech. Blix said detailed studies of a time sequence of satellite photos did not back some of Powell's speciofic assertions. That gave Powell a big frown. Actually, what he said was that it could have been something else. He did not say that it didn't back Powell, or what the likelihood was that a different explaination for the vehicles was correct. The French representative really kicked ass. Oh geez. Depends on your interpretation, I guess. One analyst I heard said the whole basis for the French speech was erroneous. The French rep presented the recent examples inspections are starting to make progress, yet the inspection process was meant to veirfy Iraqi compliance, not uncover what Iraq was hiding. Not let Saddam take baby-steps when pressure was increased on him. The second part that I think was comical about the French rep's speech was that most of the positives he mentioned...an non-chaperoned interview with 1 Iraqi scientist, allowing spy-plane flights (which Saddam wants to now when/where, and now reportedly won't gaurantee their safety), etc. were all 'breakthroughs' that would not have occurred if American forces were not positioned on Iraq's borders. That's a definition of success for the inspectors? Ha. That said, I think this whole crisis has been a major FU by Bush. His gung-ho-go-it-alone approach from the start has been a miserable failure (and not just on Iraq, but in almost every other foriegn policy area). His motivation may very well be because of Saddam's threat to the World and the US, but you should be able to at least convince the population of our closest ally. The bar to judge him by doesn't include the French, but even by the lowest of thresholds he has failed as an international politician.
Even Blair is gonna have a lot of pressure from his people to keep the UK out of the war at this point. Powell is on right now with little to say other than shots at the legitimacy of the UN and jabs that the UN inspectors are incompetent and fall for Iraqi tricks.
Rumors on the Arab Bulletin Boards are saying that the right hand man to Sadaam has defected to U.S. Could be complete crap, but that's what I'm hearing.
I guess we should just wait for Iraq to actually use WMD so that we have cold hard proof. Is that what it would take?
Right now, some arab dude is posting... Rumors on Clutch City say that Mobley is getting traded for Garnett. Could be crap but thats what I'm hearing
Watching Colin Powell talk in circles in order to gain some sort of support for this war is sad. You can almost feel their (old europe) eyes rolling, mine are...
There are many many holes left in this. Blix said too that that are many items that are still missing, 1441 was about full compliance and disarmament, and they have yet to do either. Where is the VX? The anthrax? As well as the warheads they have yet to show proof to have been destroyed? What about the missiles that are in violation of the 155km range missiles? This is a cat and mouse game they are playing and if in an unpartisan way you can honestly say to yourself that you believe the Iraqi gov't has disclosed everything, then you have certainly been fooled.
There is no such thing as a Pro War Crowd you dipsh!t. And when I say you I am referring to anyone that has uttered 'Pro War'. Supporting military action is not wanting war. War is sad and terrible and unfortunately necessary in some cases. Reading some of this vomit is aughable. Spin away...
Yeah....no proof....just blow them away!! I support military action if it is justified and if other forms of negotiation have been exhausted. I feel the lives of our troops and the ideals of our constitution require this. If we are invading Iraq to have access to the Oil reserves, then just say so and prove the economic benefits in the long run for the US and I will accept the decision. Almost the ENTIRE world disagrees with us. We need specific evidence that Iraq poses a threat to the United States in order for us to attack. I truly don't give a damn about Kuwait and those other midieval monarch dictatorships that we prop up. I'm sick of us wasting our tax funds on support to Egypt, Syria, Israel and all of these nations for peace. Let them figure it out. We'll buy their oil and sell them Coca Cola. The US is the Lone Superpower in the world for one reason only: its economic might. So lets keep our economy efficient and our products selling globally and not act irrationally and cause negative world sentiment about the US that will ultimately affect our economy because of international declines in sales of US corporations.
Identify the tyrant, wage war against the tyrant, then (eventually) control the tyrant's possessions. It's imperialism at its finest, really.
You can bet the exiled Iraqi's are getting excited about their prospects right now, but true imperialism would just take the whole damn country.
