Secretary of State Colin Powell called the situation in Iraq “deeply troubling” in an address to the U.N. Security Council Wednesday morning. Some ISU community members believe that U.S. military mobilization is just as troubling as Iraq’s actions.

“I’m not persuaded,” said Joel Moses, professor of political science. “The last six months were a charade.”

Moses said President Bush has been intent on using Sept. 11 as a pretext to deal with Saddam Hussein.

Rep. Tom Latham, R-Iowa, said the United States has been on heightened security since Sept. 11.

“It’s not extraordinary steps at this point as far as being at the heightened state of alert,” Latham said.

Powell said in his address, “Saddam Hussein and his regime are concealing their efforts to produce more weapons of mass destruction.”

He presented several graphics and audio clips as proof that Iraqi officials are moving weapons, people with knowledge of weapons, documents and hard drives from computers in an effort to conceal weapons of mass destruction.

Jim Hutter, adviser to the ISU Democrats and associate professor of political science, said Powell’s presentation and evidence was “very strong and credible.”

But Matt Denner, president of ISU Greens and junior in political science, disagreed and said, “I don’t think this is enough to go to war.”

Questions were raised about Powell’s intended audience.

Hutter said the address was given in an open session, rather than a closed hearing as an attempt to allow the public to see the evidence.

Omar Tesdell, co-founder of Time For Peace and a Daily columnist, said he believed Powell had a well-planned and “quite theatrical presentation.”

“But I think the administration failed to show a quality of evidence that would even hold to the standard of proof in an American court of law,” Tesdell said.

Hutter said an analogy to a trial is reasonable for the situation. He said the jury of this trial is U.S. public opinion. Polls will show what the verdict will be, he said.

“I think Secretary Powell made a compelling case against Saddam Hussein this morning,” Latham said. “Some action may be necessary, but I don’t know how soon.”

Bush has initial support because he is the president and has had continuing support from Sept. 11, so he will automatically have support, Moses said.

Hutter said several options are now open to the United States. The government can put diplomatic pressure on Iraq and avoid war or it can minimize military activity and use missiles against the sites where Powell said weapons of mass destruction have been discovered. The last option would be all-out war, Hutter said.

Tesdell said the main option should be to let inspectors work before using force against Iraq. He said he believes Iraq will not attack unless threatened.

“Saddam Hussein has shown himself to be cruel and ruthless, but not suicidal. As some political scientists have stated recently, history shows that Hussein has usually resorted to attack only when threatened,” Tesdell said.

Denner said he believes attacking Iraq will lead to destabilization of the Middle East and “will not be simply war on Iraq but an explosion of conflict in the Middle East.”

Moses said a similar impact could be felt in Europe, specifically in Great Britain.

“[British Prime Minister Tony] Blair is running against his own public,” Moses said. Polls have indicated about 80 percent of Great Britain is against war. “If this is a bloody war, I could see governments in Europe toppling because of parliamentary votes of no confidence,” Moses said.

The United Nations’ decision about whether or not to support U.S military action could also affect public opinion of Bush’s intentions for war.