Re: [OpenHeroQuest] Vote RRRRRRRRRRRRR !!!!!!!!!

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_u_j36dZ9_jcQVUPEShbxQ3N00iQe1WZSTdb_lIyemaOCEn78lNXobZxzI9eM_f_dVxh>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 23:56:36 +1300


At 11:51 AM 10/10/03 +0200, you wrote:

> > The British claim is not based on the forged documents but on two
> > separate pieces of intelligence, neither of which was based on the
> > forged documents.

>But it's quite clear now that the Brits (at least) _knew_ that Iraq had
>no WMDs, and no serious WMD programmes. Even ex-Cabinet
>Ministers who were in the know are saying it !!

Untrue. What Robin Cook said was that Blair had told him (or agreed or even simply nodded depending on what papers you read) that Iraq had no usable WMDs five or so months after the September Dossier.

> > The ISC looked into this issue when the fuss
> > broke out and concluded that the intelligence assessment that Iraq
> > had tried to negotiate the purchase of uranium was reasonable.

>The IAEA declared to the Security Council that they had found _no_
>weapons-relared nuclear programmes ; and this was before the war started
>(although it had already been decided).

Which does not rule out a furtive program existing. Since the Iraqis were being far less than fully co-operative (i.e. co-operating in process but not in substance as Hans Blix put it), this is not evidence that the program never existed.

>The chief non-nuclear UN weapons expert
>Hans Blix also stated his strongly felt opinion that Iraq had no WMDs or WMD
>programmes before the war, etc.

He didn't state that before the war though.

>Saddam destroyed all of his weapons. er, that's it.

So why didn't he co-operate with the Weapons Inspectors and showing them what they asked for? If he had also destroyed the documentation, Hans Blix gave him a list of other stuff that could be provided in lieu. Iraq provided none of those things.

> > the link with other terrorist groups is not.

>Which terrorist groups ? If these are the ones currently plagueing
>the US in Iraq, then they could just as easily be characterised as
>Partisans or Resistance fighters, no matter their methods
>(they're _ugly_ methods, or desperate ones).

The ugly and desperate methods being terrorism.

> > >["Safety of our people" - the primary justification used here for war...]

> > And this is bad because?

>Because Iraq had no ICBMs, had no weapons capable of hitting the US, etc.,
>so this is a 99% false premise.

Neither did Afghanistan. What a false security that turned out to be.

--Peter Metcalfe            

Powered by hypermail