It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Powell Lays Out Case Against Saddam

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 5 2003 @ 01:41 PM
UNITED NATIONS Secretary of State Colin Powell laid out America's case for military action against Iraq Wednesday, providing "irrefutable and undeniable" evidence that Saddam Hussein is hiding weapons of mass destruction.

[Edited on 01/29/03 by nyeff]

posted on Feb, 5 2003 @ 02:10 PM
The only way the nuts out there will finally give in that Saddam is bad is if we have pictures of Saddam sleeping with his weapons.

posted on Feb, 5 2003 @ 02:30 PM
I would like to see that... Saddam spooning a rocket filled with VX... sweet smile on his face, psychotic dreams in his head.

posted on Feb, 5 2003 @ 05:01 PM
I think some people won't be happy until Saddam sends some missiles into Isreal,gases some of his people,or invades a country.Oh wait,he has already done that.
I wonder what he will have to do to get people to realize he is threat.

posted on Feb, 5 2003 @ 05:10 PM
Saddam, Sheron, Blair, osama, bush. There all #in crazy and are playing with out lives. Are you ready for the draft? After we get done with saddam were gonna have to take care of North Korea

posted on Feb, 5 2003 @ 05:20 PM
No_hope, your just a coward. You probably still suck your thumb and sleep with a teddy bear. Bush is doing this for OUR protection.

[Edited on 5-2-2003 by grunt_ignited]

posted on Feb, 5 2003 @ 05:58 PM

Originally posted by grunt_ignited
Bush is doing this for OUR protection.
[Edited on 5-2-2003 by grunt_ignited]

Protection!?! Keep telling yourself that.

- Saddam invaded 'who' since 1991? And That was for a whopping TWELVE HOURS! Hitler & Napolean were in hell calling him a wussy!
( side note: can anyone else NOT take Saddam seriously after seeing what the 'South Park' boys did with him!
- The CBW's he posses you can make, no real cause for war
- Deliver to the US? By FedEx, sure.

Funny how we don't hear about "THe War on Terror" anymore, huh? Just Iraq. All this time trying to prove Al Qeda is in bed with Saddam, when Al Qeda is ramping up on a global scale.
Do you think the dollar total we've spent so far on the Iraq ramp up is less than what we've spent on the terror hunt? Nope.
Which one will make us safer; bombing the Beejeebus out of a limp pud who is already in a box or spending money for bounties on the heads of terrorist who can bring destruction to Western targets?
My solution? Turn the various Special Forces loose against Al Qeda with the sole focus of bringing in scalps, Terrorize the Terrorist in other words. We can function like the Mossad against these cells and prosecute with extreme prejudice. It would be the equivalent of the 'Whack a Mole' carnival game: they pop their head out of hiding to start something and BOOM!

But, then again, it wouldn't serve Bush as well as a gandiose campaign against a fixed target with assured victory now would it?

posted on Feb, 5 2003 @ 07:29 PM
Michael Savage (a radio talk show dude) but it in an interesting way. He pointed out that there has never been found one document that had Hitler's signature indicating he was aware of the Final Solution, the attempted genocide of the Jews, Gypsies and other "undesirables", yet no rational human being on this planet can deny the massacre that occured or Hitler's culpability, nor would any sane man suggest to not intervene if he were carrying it out today.

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 10:55 AM
IRAQI TERRORISTS POWELL IDENTIFIES AS LINK BETWEEN SADDAM AND AL QAEDA RULE KURDISH TERRORITY NOT CONTROLLED BY SADDAM AND SAY THEY OPPOSE SADDAM "As part of Secretary of State Colin Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council today, he said there was a "sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network" the nexus being a small, little known terrorist group called Ansar al-Islam, which is now at the center of the U.S. case. Powell showed a satellite photograph of what he said was a chemical weapons training center in Northern Iraq, used by al Qaeda and protected by Ansar al-Islam. "Baghdad has an agent in the most senior levels of the radical organization, Ansar al-Islam, that controls this corner of Iraq," said Powell. The group, whose name means "Supporters of Islam," rules a remote portion of the autonomous northern Kurdish territories in Iraq near the Iran border, which is not controlled by Saddam Hussein. In fact, their leaders say they seek to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his government...In an interview with ABCNEWS, the man considered the leader of Ansar al-Islam, Majamuddin Fraraj Ahmad, who is also known as Mullah Krekar, denied all allegations that he is in any way linked to al Qaeda. "They are our enemy," he said, adding that his group opposes Saddam Hussein because, unlike Osama bin Laden, Saddam is not a good Muslim."

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 11:05 AM

"This is the heart of the matter. Much of the US evidence must be accepted, if it is accepted at all, on trust. Mr Powell's sources were mostly anonymous defectors, detainees, third country spooks and US intelligence. His overall case was undercut by the recycling of old tales about al-Qaida "poison plotters" in Baghdad. He refused to accept the IAEA's conclusions on Iraqi nuclear bomb-making. His evidential interpretations were often harsher than those of Hans Blix. Mr Powell certainly did the UN a service in finally opening his Iraq dossier to public view. But the way forward must now be expanded, intensified inspections equipped with this new evidence, as France proposes. Iraq must disarm. The US and Britain must not jump the gun." 02.06.03


"Some information supplied by Iraqis came from defectors whose locations have never been disclosed. Robert Baer, a former CIA case officer, cautioned that it is impossible to judge the credibility of human sources from Powell's presentation. "I don't trust it without the whole context," said Baer, who recruited foreign agents for the CIA in the 1990s. "In the absence of that, you have to just trust the administration . . . They have all the marbles." If the human intelligence is so good, he added, why haven't the U.N. inspectors found a mobile chemical laboratory "

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 11:09 AM
Well who are going to trust? Iraq or the U.S.

I 'll take Powell and Bush's word over Saddam any day.

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 12:03 PM

Originally posted by nyeff
Well who are going to trust? Iraq or the U.S.

I 'll take Powell and Bush's word over Saddam any day.

Wrong question & that's where I think the gung-ho crowd is lead astray.
We don't trust or should have to trust Saddam. We need to trust good Intel. We need to trust un-political Intelligence Agencies. And then we ask the question of whether or not the loss of American life is warranted.

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 02:49 PM
"And then we ask the question of whether or not the loss of American life is warranted."

So, let's ask the boys in blue whether or not they think it's warranted. After all, they're the ones at risk. I'd love to see such a poll! Somehow, I think you'd find a whopping majority saying yes, it's worth it, and it's their immediate lives that are at that would kinda tell you something....

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 03:27 PM
I look at the situation with a little bit of hind sight.

We can either sit back and wait for Saddam/terrorists to kill more people.Or we can stop it right now.

In WW2 a lot of people think we should have jumped in and stopped Hitler a lot sooner than we did.We kept to ourselves because it was a European problem.By the time we got involved the loss of life and money was huge.
Now we have a chance to be pro-active and deal with right now.I think the U.S. evidance is correct.If you look back at Saddams life,all the murders(about 450 in the first couple days he took control) rape and torture he has commited or had done for him,The U.S. doesn't need to make anything up.
I have heard people say "why not contain Saddam"
It sounds like a good idea but,how long are we supposed to contain him.A year,10 years the rest of his life.Who is going to pay for it?And do you really think Saddam would allow containment.?

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 03:44 PM
Gazrok - Bad sampling group! Hell, my brother is retired 2 years already and he's walking around with a perpetual woody to get recalled!

nyeff - I'm with you on everything except a couple points:
- Terrorist, the known kind, the ones who drew first blood, should be our focus & not waiting for them to kill more people. Saddam is many things bad, but there's no proof of him being related to what's gone against us to date.
- Saddam is not now, before or ever will be comparable to Nazi Germany. In Iraq's heyday, where they even in the top 20 of military powers in the world? Nazi Germany was a mobilized, industrial military juggernaut. Saddam & army are the Hells Angels - yeah they're tough compared to what's around them but when DA MAN comes a knocking in numbers....what cha gonna do!?!?

- Containment - it worked against a super power called the USSR and we were able to contain it for several decades.....we've been doing it, what makes you think we can't continue?

Side Note:
Ron Paul - (R) Texas
He was on the C-SPAN show "Washington Journal" this morning. He is called the most conservative member of Congress based on his Tax & Spending vote record. He outlined one of the best no-war arguments I've heard from either side of the isle; I highly recommend looking at the transcript of the show on their website.

[Edited on 6-2-2003 by Bout Time]

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 04:45 PM
All I was getting at with Hitler,is that we waited too long.I know Saddam does not have the same military the Nazi's had.But Saddam unchecked could cause a lot of problems.When he invaded Kuwait, Saudi Aradia freaked out. Thought they might be next.I think Saddam is a real threat to the whole area.Not so much that his military can control a lot,but that Saddam will use WMD's on Kuwait, Saudia Arabia,Isreal,Iran etc.Which means the U.S will have a bigger mess to clean up,even if he hit one country.
I also do believe that he has strong ties to terrorism.I don't by the excuse that Saddam is an athiest and al quada are muslim.Their hatred for the U.S and the west is enough to bond them.
Bin laden had no problems with U.S. help against the Russians,He should have no problems dealing with Saddam.Religion is just one of their weak excuse's to kill civillians.Not to mention that Saddam had no problems with killing Iraqi Jew's.Commen enemies breed strange friendships.
I never really thought we contained the USSR,more like a standoff.I don't the U.S. or the Russians wanted a nuclear war.I don't think Saddam cares.I suspect that if we try to contain him he will launch attacks.

IMHO, It will just be more costly if we wait too long.Both in lives and money.

[Edited on 01/29/03 by nyeff]

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 06:12 PM
I watched my WWII Color Archives DVDs by the History Channel last night and I just shook my head at how stupid the world was in allowing Hitler to build his military up while talking about his plans in public.

Leaders around the world sat on their hands till it was too late. Of course, a few leaders today are trying to avoid another Hitler scenario playing out again....but they're called Hilters themselves and even chimps. It seems the idiot peaceniks of the 1930s have spread their genes well among the world.

posted on Feb, 6 2003 @ 09:32 PM
Powell's case against Saddam convinced me and I agree with Nyeff. Saddam is EVIL and must be Eliminated!

posted on Feb, 7 2003 @ 01:00 AM

Powell's case against Saddam convinced me and I agree with Nyeff. Saddam is EVIL and must be Eliminated!

The proof proves diddly squat about Iraq! You give me a satellite picture and claim there are chemical plants at those tiny dots on the picture.

What about some close up photograph? The proof did not have a date and time or if it did, it could have been fabricated.

And the conversation could have been staged. How do I really know that this is authentic? Just because the US is providing it?

Why wasn't this proof provided 4 months ago to the UN inspectors? It would have added to their case.

It is because Bush thought everyone would have joined with the US pledge for war. But did not work out that way.

Just more Powell/Bush rubbish to justify a war.
I am totally against this war. Don't like Saddam, but this is not the way to go about it. I don't like to see innocent people dieing.

Ok if the US eliminates Hussein, then they have to worry about N. Korea and what's next? You people from the US think you are almighty, just because you are more advanced technologically.

Why couldn't the hitech spare 9/11? Or the shuttle disaster? I am sorry for those people.

Look at the Russians, they still can't handle the chechen terrorists. More pre-emptive strikes against countries = more hate against the US.

Retaliation of people around the word for what the US is doing. In other words more terrorist attacks, you cannot eliminate everybody, there will always be someone else.

Let's change the methods. Brute force never fixed anything, only temporarily.

posted on Feb, 7 2003 @ 01:10 AM
And what would those new methods be?

We should just sit back and let enemies attack, and do nothing about it?

new topics

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in