29-01-2003 17:07									#1
	Powell to Present Iraq Evidence to UN... Finally! Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/01/28/sp...ence/index.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,884385,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,76843,00.html

Next Wednesday it seems Colin Powell will finally be presenting to the U.N. Security Council the 'evidence' that the Bush administration claims to have and that many paranoid leftists claim never existed. What will it be?

To all those who have said or at least think that supporting an invasion of Iraq is nothing but blindly following the government like Orwellian zombies without any need for hard facts: did it ever occur to you that at some point the evidence against Iraq (or at least most of it) would of course be released? Did you think we'd actually go to war without it?

The material we have will apparently prove not only that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but also that they have extensive ties to Al-Qaeda. If it is indeed a smoking gun on both of these counts, what will you have left to say? That it was a forgery?

You could make the case that Saddam Hussein having WMD is acceptable since he wouldn't use them, but who would make the case that it'd be acceptable if he has indeed actively supported Al-Qaeda in the past?

So many questions... discuss!

	29-01-2003 17:24									#3
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Just as I expected.

	29-01-2003 17:37									#4
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: To all those who have said or at least think that supporting an invasion of Iraq is nothing but blindly following the government like Orwellian zombies without any need for hard facts

Somehow people who followed the government had acces to hard evidence?
As long as there is no evidence released, those people are following their government without any hard evidence.

	29-01-2003 17:52									#5
	Suffering from ads?

The point wasn't that sentence but the question after it. Most of the anti-war activists on numerous boards and that I've talked to myself have acted like we were going to war without any proof. People that were for war weren't for it with or without facts, they were simply more willing to wait before shooting their mouths off.

	29-01-2003 18:02									#6
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Actually most people i know who were against it, were so because no evidence has been presented, and weren't ready to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, which people who are for the war obviously did.

	29-01-2003 18:10									#7
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

let's roll.

	29-01-2003 18:12									#8
	Remove this text

Anyone who trusts the government without evidence is a fool. Republican or Democratic, it makes no difference. Governments lie, they lie a lot, and one of the things they lie most about is war and the reasons for going to war.

BTW, Condi Rice said on one of the Sunday talk shows that the administration would reveal evidence of Iraq's ties to al-Qaida by the end of the week. She said that last November.

	29-01-2003 18:18									#9
	Suffering from ads?

uh Clem, exactly, and that's why I don't trust Saddam Hussein.

	29-01-2003 18:20									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Lemmy Actually most people i know who were against it, were so because no evidence has been presented, and weren't ready to give Bush the benefit of the doubt, which people who are for the war obviously did.

Ok I'll give you that, although I'll say again that most people for the war didn't trust that he had the information and just couldn't release it. Rather they wanted the administration to present the case entirely before standing for or against it, while the left seemed to jump on Bush the second the possibility of war was even brought up. My only point is that most (not all) anti-war activists should have been more patient and let Bush at least make a case before going ape-****. They acted as if they thought he would NEVER make the case, and that he would go to war without providing any proof to the American people.

Anyway I'll try and give more direction to this thread, this isn't just a pointless slam at the anti-war movement. Basically my question is just a what-if: IF Powell will reveal a smoking gun (on both counts*), what case will the movement have left? I know it's a bit early but I'm too impatient to wait until next week; I just want to know what they will have left to say. Only curious.

* - Note that I say both counts because even I'll admit that Saddam having weapons of mass destruction is not enough to attack Iraq over. However if it is proven that he has aided and embedded terrorists, then it is clearly unacceptable for him to have WMD.

	29-01-2003 18:25									#11
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

At the moment I don´t see any proof.

Let us wait till Feb. 5 and then see if it is real proof or just some piece of hot air, like the Blair Paper

	29-01-2003 18:39									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I think it's silly, anyone who needs more proof is a Neville Chamberlain kind of guy. I think Bush is looking weak for going back to the UN. He should just let slip the dogs.

	29-01-2003 18:55									#13
	Got spare money?

I'm a bit cynical about human nature and question how much of this "evidence" is based on information from defectors. Suppose you wanted out of Iraq and went to the US government. You're not going to say there are no WMD's in Iraq, are you?

If there is real evidence and the Iraqis won't destroy what they are then shown to have, start a war at that point, but not until then.

After Iraq, who will be next on the list of countries in breach of UN resolutions or accused of harbouring terrorists to be the subject of a US led war? There are quite a few to choose from.

	29-01-2003 19:06									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Neville chamberlain As if a two-bit dictator is going to be allowed roll over the entire region? He can't even fly planes around his own coutry.

Nothing like a little fear-mongering to drum up support for a "pre-emptive" slaughter

	29-01-2003 19:17									#15
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by CerberusIV I'm a bit cynical about human nature and question how much of this "evidence" is based on information from defectors. Suppose you wanted out of Iraq and went to the US government. You're not going to say there are no WMD's in Iraq, are you?

It's rumored that much of the evidence are satellite photographs.

quote: Originally posted by Jac de Molay Neville chamberlain As if a two-bit dictator is going to be allowed roll over the entire region? He can't even fly planes around his own coutry.

Yes, because Iraq was crushed in the first war and has since been impoverished by embargoes. If Saddam were left completely to his own devices he would most certainly attempt to dominate the region much like he did in 1991. And without U.S. involvement he would succeed. Thank God we're "meddling" in the region so that this will never happen.

	29-01-2003 19:34									#16
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: If Saddam were left completely to his own devices he would most certainly attempt to dominate the region much like he did in 1991.

And .....get crushed again? If he so much as farts against the wind, he would be dispatched immediately. People are over exaggerating his threat.

	29-01-2003 19:36									#17
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: And .....get crushed again? If he so much as farts against the wind, he would be dispatched immediately. People are over exaggerating his threat.

The problem is that if he built nuclear weaponry, that people would much LESS likely to dispatch him. Look at North Korea. Baby steps are being taken there (and they feel they can take more chances) because of the fear that they ALREADY have a nuke.

	29-01-2003 19:38									#18
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Jac de Molay And .....get crushed again? If he so much as farts against the wind, he would be dispatched immediately. People are over exaggerating his threat.

That's why I was sure to include 'without U.S. involvement'. In reality we would of course stop him; I was just trying to instill a little gratitude in the people who think we should stop 'meddling' in Middle Eastern affairs.

	29-01-2003 19:41									#19
	Remove this text

It's Saddam who is supposed to present evidence anyway.

	29-01-2003 19:50									#20
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by jimmytrick I think it's silly, anyone who needs more proof is a Neville Chamberlain kind of guy.

And you are Joseph McCarthy.

	29-01-2003 19:52									#21
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Lemmy quote: To all those who have said or at least think that supporting an invasion of Iraq is nothing but blindly following the government like Orwellian zombies without any need for hard facts Somehow people who followed the government had acces to hard evidence? As long as there is no evidence released, those people are following their government without any hard evidence.

I assumed there probably was hard evidence, based on my views about the Saddam's beavior.

If you see no hard evidence of saddams WMD there are two possibilities - 1. Saddam has no WMD 2. He does, but hard evidence has not yet surfaced.


If you beleive that Saddam is a rational survivor, who would give up WMD to survive, and you see no hard evidence, you will estimate that 1 is probably true.

If you believe that Saddam is a narcissistic megalomaniac with aspirations to be a modern Salah al din, and you see no hard evidence, you believe that more likely the evidence has not surfaced.

I beleive in statistics this is called a "Bayesian prior"

We could play the above out for different Bayesian priors about GWB, US intel, etc. The theory and results would be similar.

	29-01-2003 19:54									#22
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: The problem is that if he built nuclear weaponry, that people would much LESS likely to dispatch him. Look at North Korea.

The only time he's used WMD's was against targets who couldn't respond in kind. Why would he suddenly do otherwise knowing full well that his regime and country would be instantly annihilated? Even bush's own intelligence apparatus indicated that Hussein wouldn't bring the house down around him.

	29-01-2003 20:02									#23
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

We cannot respond in kind if we're not 100% certain that Iraq attacked us, hence the argument that he could give WMD to terrorists; his hands would potentially be clean. But that's been said a million times and I'm sure it won't register this time either.

	29-01-2003 20:05									#24
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Darius871 It's rumored that much of the evidence are satellite photographs.

Would this be similar to the satellite photos of Mig 17's on the runway at Kabul airport quoted as part of the Taleban's defence capability that turned out not to have moved since the Russians left Afghanistan?

Then again, even Adolf Hitler felt he needed a pretext to invade Poland.

	29-01-2003 20:07									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Jac de Molay The only time he's used WMD's was against targets who couldn't respond in kind. Why would he suddenly do otherwise knowing full well that his regime and country would be instantly annihilated? Even bush's own intelligence apparatus indicated that Hussein wouldn't bring the house down around him.

Number 1 - he can send em without a return address, via terrorist
Number 2 - he may be more interested in his historic legacy than in survival - if he used his wmds. and US responded with nukes, that would certainly start the war of civilizations, and be a fine legacy for him
Number 3 - he doesnt think the us would dare to follow through and risk a war of civilizations, so blackmail might work
Number 4 - he uses conventional weapons, and uses his WMD to deter us.
Number 5 - He uses them when he is going down anyway, in a gotterdamerung - think Hitler in his bunker with WMD

	29-01-2003 20:24									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Number 1 - he can send em without a return address, via terrorist

A man who has been in power for as long as hussein would have very little to gain and everything to lose by going this route. Now, with the entire Western Intelligence apparatus with eyes on him, he's even more likely to go this route??
And why single hussein out for this potential threat when there are many, many countries that are capable of the same thing.? A trumped-up, speculatory threat.

quote: Number 2 - he may be more interested in his historic legacy than in survival - if he used his wmds. and US responded with nukes, that would certainly start the war of civilizations, and be a fine legacy for him

If If If If. You could apply this same rationale to about 4 or five other countries at the moment.

quote: Number 3 - he doesnt think the us would dare to follow through and risk a war of civilizations, so blackmail might work

He also made a gross miscalculation when he thought the US wouldn't respond to his Kuwait invasion. Why would he suddenly think the US wouldn't play ball in the same manner against a greater threat? We stared down someone much bigger and badder in Cuba.

quote: Number 4 - he uses conventional weapons, and uses his WMD to deter us.

see above.

quote: Number 5 - He uses them when he is going down anyway, in a gotterdamerung - think Hitler in his bunker with WMD

Speculation with no hard evidence in terms of his intelligence profile, or past behaviour, to back this up.

	29-01-2003 20:25									#27
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Number 5 - He uses them when he is going down anyway, in a gotterdamerung - think Hitler in his bunker with WMD

Actually, Nazi Germany did have WMD's, their scientists discovered the Sarin/Soman/Tabun organo-phosphate nerve gases and produced over 1,000 tons of the stuff. Is Saddam more stupid, destructive or obsessed than Hitler?

	29-01-2003 20:37									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Number 5 - He uses them when he is going down anyway, in a gotterdamerung - think Hitler in his bunker with WMD

Hitler had the capabilities to produce Chemical Weapons AFAIK and his Minions butchered a lot of people with Zyklon B which can also be used on the battlefield.

What kept Hitler from using them on Allied Troops?
The same what propably will Saddam keep from using them, i.e. the fear of retaliation.

	29-01-2003 20:47									#29
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: although I'll say again that most people for the war didn't trust that he had the information and just couldn't release it. Rather they wanted the administration to present the case entirely before standing for or against it,

How can they be for the war, if, as you said, they still want to see the evidence before standing?
Wouldn't they just don't have an opinion yet, like standing somewhere in the middle?
Now you're making it sound like everyone who waits for the evidence, and is being reasonable, actually is for the war.

	29-01-2003 21:05									#30
	Increase Your PM Length

A better parallel to the 'Hitler in his bunker' would be if Saddam like Hitler gave the order that all infrastructure in the country should be destroyed lest it fall into enemy hands. Of course the Germans were did not to follow orders. Probably because the proper paperwork was not in place.
For instance it has been speculated by some analysts that Saddam would use some trick to not only set the oilfileds on fire, but also place some deep core explosives to render the oilfields useless for years. This would really hurt the world economy and worst of all it would embarass the United States in the eyes of the world - justified or not.