A good speech by Colin Powell.



...Let me put the question to you directly and clearly in the simplest terms that I can. The question simply is: has Saddam Hussein made a strategic, political decision to comply with the United Nations Security Council resolutions? Has he made a strategic, political decision to get rid of his weapons of mass destruction? That's it in a nutshell.

The question is not how much more time should be allowed for inspections. The question is not how many more inspectors should be sent in. The question simply is: has Saddam Hussein made a strategic decision, a political decision, that he will give up these horrible weapons of mass destruction and stop what he's been doing for all these many years?

That's the question. There is no other question. Everything else is secondary or tertiary. That's the issue. It's an issue that's been on the table for 12 years. It's the issue that was put to Saddam Hussein in 1991 after the gulf war. And over a period of years, in resolution after resolution after resolution, the same question was put to him, the same challenge was given to him, the same instruction was given by the international community, by the Security Council, to Saddam Hussein: disarm, give up these weapons of mass destruction, stop threatening your people, let your neighbors live in peace, no longer fearful of these kinds of weapons. And for 12 years, Saddam Hussein has given the same answer back repeatedly: no, I will not. . . .

Now let's be clear what Resolution 1441 is all about. It's not just a bunch of meaningless words. Every one of those words was fought over. It's not about inspectors, it's not about an inspection regime. It is about Saddam Hussein . . . in the first part of that resolution being found guilty again, reaffirming his guilt over the preceding 11 years of possessing, of developing with the intention of having, and potentially using, weapons of mass destruction.

That resolution in the first instance was about Saddam Hussein continuing to be in material breach of multiple previous resolutions, 16 of them, that demanded his disarmament. It was about giving Saddam Hussein in the next instance one last chance to come clean and disarm. That was the clear purpose of the resolution: one last chance. You have been in material breach, you have been guilty, you still are guilty. We're giving you one last chance to make that strategic choice, make that political decision to give up these horrible weapons that threaten humanity, to give them up, come into compliance. Once again, join with your neighbors in trying to build a better neighborhood; come into compliance, one last chance. . . .

To those who say that force must always be a last resort, I say that I understand the reluctance to use force. I understand the hesitation to take human life. I have seen the horrors of war. I have been where the dying is done. I agree with those who say that lives must only be sacrificed for the greatest of causes; we should do everything possible to avoid war. We have done that, and no one believes that more deeply than President Bush. That's why he went to the United Nations. That's why he persuaded all 15 of us on the Security Council to give Saddam Hussein one last chance.

It is always a hard thing for citizens to accept the prospect of war, and it should be. But consider the chilling fact: Saddam Hussein also knows what war is like. He has used war and weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors and against thousands of his own citizens. And in this post-Sept. 11 world, getting those appalling weapons out of his hands is the only way to guarantee that he won't use them again and that he won't make common cause and pass them on through his terrorist connections for use practically anywhere in the world.

Consider what could happen if Saddam Hussein, a tyrant who has no scruples and no mercies, concludes that the governments of the world will not condone military action under any circumstances . . . a terrible message will go far and wide to all those who conspire to do harm, to all those who seek to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

That retired General sure has a way with words.

yes, very convincing, very good speech. Except that it came just after a report by the inspectors that clearly showed that, willingly or unwillingly, Iraq IS disarming.
I do not care about what Saddam thinks. I do not want him to become a saint. I just want to know if Iraq is still a threat or not. And it is clearly on the way of peacefully, if not voluntarily, disarming.

As I said before, I see the little game played at the UN versus Saddam as similar to the "mean cop & nice cop" story we see in many movies.
The mean cop frightens the suspect, putting his gun next to his throat. The nice cop keep talking to him, saying he'd better telle evrything because his colleague is going to get mad. Together, they manage to break the suspect's resistance. He begins to talk. He his going to confess his crimes, and he will be sent to jail.
So, is it time fot the "mean cop" to press the trigger ? By doing so, HE would become the outlaw.

Check into how South Africa disarmed - compare notes & then with all sanity believe that Hussain is disarming. He is playing the UN like a fool

Even Blix says

weapons of mass destruction Iraq may still possess:

Up to 10,000 litres of anthrax
Scud missile warheads fitted with deadly biological and chemical agents
Pilotless aircraft, or "drones", that intelligence reports say far exceed the 150 kilometre (93 mile) limit allowed by the UN.

Blix himself said in a Time magazine interview that "of course Hussain has absolutely no credibility"

This, maintenance of U.N. credibility, is one of the better arguments supporting war IMO. It is one of the main reasons I think "whether we should attack Iraq" is a debatable issue. Unlike many war-protesters I've talked to/heard about, I do not think the pro-war position is so ludicrous that it merits scorn and/or ridicule.

However, I completely disagree that the primary issue is whether Iraq intends to maintain biological weapons. To limit yourself to that question would be to deliberately and drastically narrow your perspective. Superior to that issue are the costs of war, the benefits of war, and the costs/benefits of alternatives to war.

Have you never heard of the law not being enforced to its fullest? For instance, when a police officer lets you off from a speeding ticket? Does such action undermine the law? I would say it does slightly. Do I think they should give speeding tickets EVERY time? No, I don't. That's because, in addition to considering whether the law is broken, you should consider whether the purpose and intent of the law is being served and whether the available punishment is appropriate. The reason you sometimes don't get a speeding ticket when you're caught speeding is because the officer either doesn't percieve your actions as a significant threat to public safety or he thinks the fine is a disproportionate punishment for your crime (or you're a cute girl). Granted, Saddam has commited a far more serious crime, but he's certainly not getting off without consequence and he's really not the threat he was when the resolution was written.

I think Bush's strategy of saying - we will have a vote & you will be counted is a smart move. The expectation from France etc is that the US won't go for a vote if it is expected to be vetoed. A veto and then action anyway will have far greater consequences for France & Russia than it will for the US. It would strengthen the US and greatly weaken them. I doubt Russia will veto & if France does then they will be isolated and rendered impotent.

The contradiction of the US attitude is that, on one hand, it says "Saddam has been making fun of UN resolutions for 12 years, it is time to give him a lesson in the sake of international order", but on the other hand, they say "With or without a UN vote to support us, we will make this war, and we don't give a damn about UN". By doing so, they would commit an act against international laws far more critical that the one they are supposed to punish !
Even Kofi Annan has been clear on that matter.

This is completely wrong. 17 resolutions authorize war, 1441 states serious consequences - what would they be if it was not force?

France is going full-blast to torpedo the US, for what reason? Certainly nothing to do with the welfare of the Iraqi people - it is 100% about trying to make France look like it is important. It can't work because France isn't important - the UN is the only single vehicle that France has to have a voice & soon they will lose that.

The US pays one 3rd of the UN bills, is the only force strong enough to enforce it's resolutions & has supported the UN route in this process, but the US does not need the UN to act - this will be shown very clearly very soon.

I think Bush is going to force a UN vote to call france's bluff - they foolishly assumed that by stating they would veto no matter what is proposed, that the US would not take it to a vote. They must be aghast to see that the US will force them to veto - this will squash France in the long run & really show just how irrelevant they are.