Powell fires parting salvo at Iran

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 19 2004, 12:57 AM
Colin Powell calling "WMD" is as likely to get people excited assomeone yelling "free ice cream" at the north pole.

Is the "reliable information" as good as the ones about Iraq trying to buy aluminum tubes? Saddam's stockpiles of WMDs? Those lovely "tips" from the middle of nowhere, used in Presidential speeches even after the CIA said it was likely not true?

He might be right, he might be wrong... but I don't think many people are 100% confident in his statements on this sort of situation.

I agree with you there, Alex. The man is Secretary of State though and it is his job. This is an ongoing issue, not a new one. All he did was answer a question a reporter asked stating that he's seen evidence that "suggests" Iran has been "working on a delivery system". No surprise there. US administrations have been dealing with that issue since the 90s.

[Rolo]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 18 2004, 09:57 PM
He might be right, he might be wrong... but I don't think many people are 100% confident in his statements on this sort of situation.

IMHO - The real underlaying policy is how do we get the mullahs from power? Sanctions is one way to undermine their hold on power, however since we have many bewildered people in the west then we need to give them a reason ... Nuclear weapons could be one of the reasons, however with the current climate in world politics, then the western world will probably end up with doing nothing, and just letting the iranian people get oppressed for the next 10 years. And in those 10 years we will have to fight off mullahs trying to start civil wars in their neighbour countries - like Iraq, Afghanistan, and spreading their fundamentalist belief to muslims in europe, russia, china etc.... once the 10 years are over, then I´m sure someone will say "why didn´t the US do more to remove the mullahs from power?", and then the US will blame canada ;-))))

[RawAlex]

Rolo, might I ask the obvious (but sort of dumb) question:

Who has the right to say the Mullahs have to go?

It's a serious issue. Is the US and the US alone the judge of "good leadership" (maybe the boy can remove himself)? How do you decide that someone "has to go"? Is not the act of attempting to remove of kill the current leaders of a country in fact a declaration of war on them?

I am really starting to feel that the US wants to make everyone free, even if they have to force them to be free (which isn't really very free, now is it?).

Alex

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 19 2004, 09:10 AM
Rolo, might I ask the obvious (but sort of dumb) question:

Who has the right to say the Mullahs have to go?

It's a serious issue. Is the US and the US alone the judge of "good leadership" (maybe the boy can remove himself)? How do you decide that someone "has to go"? Is not the act of attempting to remove of kill the current leaders of a country in fact a declaration of war on them?

I am really starting to feel that the US wants to make everyone free, even if they have to force them to be free (which isn't really very free, now is it?).

Alex

Thats a really good question. I have some too. Were Germans freed at the end of World War II? Were the Japanese freed at the end of World War II? Are the citizens of nonconsensual governments "free" in the first place? I'd say Germans citizens are "free" today. How did they get that way?

How about the UN sending troops into countries such as Ivory Coast? How about the UN sending troops into North Korea in 1950? And why DIDN'T the UN send troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968?

Can the UN decide any better than the US can? Are such actions more ethical when decided by a majority of nations with no vetoes than by any one nation?

[RawAlex]

Colin, Japan and Germany are the results of "world war"... Ivory coast is a result of, well, internal strife.

Can't compare the two properly.

Can't even compare German to Iraq... the scale and situation just is no the same.

Getting back to the original topic, it turns out that Powell's source is once again "questionable"...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/...iran/index.html

Nice to have the media prove me right for having doubts.

Alex

[Nickatilynx]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 19 2004, 12:21 PM
Colin, Japan and Germany are the results of "world war"... Ivory coast is a result of, well, internal strife.

Can't compare the two properly.

Can't even compare German to Iraq... the scale and situation just is no the same.

Getting back to the original topic, it turns out that Powell's source is once again "questionable"...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/...iran/index.html

Nice to have the media prove me right for having doubts.

Alex

LOL

Alex , you are always right.



























in your own mind

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 19 2004, 03:21 PM
Colin, Japan and Germany are the results of "world war"... Ivory coast is a result of, well, internal strife.

Can't compare the two properly.

Can't even compare German to Iraq... the scale and situation just is no the same.

In your post that I replied to, you implied that being "forced" to be free isn't "really free". At the end of World War II the nonconsensual governments of Japan and Germany were forced into becoming constitutional democracies. They were forced ... and now they are free. What does the scale have to do with my observation? If Afganistan, Iraq or both become stable democracies then I would argue that they are free and it happened as a result of war. History shows over and over again that you can occupy a nation's capital, replace its leaders and leave the people with a far better life than they had before. All of this happens against the will of many of the citizens themseves who in the end realize it was actually all for the better. Yes, the same people who were armed and fighting back. Bizarre? Nope. Just the way it goes.

I guess you could take the point that no one is free. After all, we are all slaves to our governments in various degrees. The concept of "free" would loose its meaning in that case though. At any rate, I prefer to think of myself as living under Rousseau's "Social Contract".

-------------- repeat ------------------

Were Germans freed at the end of World War II? Were the Japanese freed at the end of World War II? Are the citizens of nonconsensual governments "free" in the first place? I'd say Germans citizens are "free" today. How did they get that way?

How about the UN sending troops into countries such as Ivory Coast? How about the UN sending troops into North Korea in 1950? And why DIDN'T the UN send troops into Czechoslovakia in 1968?

Can the UN decide any better than the US can? Are such actions more ethical when decided by a majority of nations with no vetoes than by any one nation?

[Almighty Colin]

Originally posted by RawAlex@Nov 19 2004, 03:21 PM
Getting back to the original topic, it turns out that Powell's source is once again "questionable"...

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/11/19/...iran/index.html

Nice to have the media prove me right for having doubts.

Alex

I don't think a single person disagreed with you. Most here have the same belief you do. Iran is likely to be developing nuclear weapons. The debates in this thread are about what type of action should be taken to prevent that - not about the reliability of the "source" of Powell's intelligence. Questionable "intelligence"? Well, duh. All intelligence is questionable. If it weren't they wouldn't call it "intelligence". What did Powell say in the first place? He said he has information which "SUGGESTS" they are developing a nuclear weapon.