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

From: Peter Metcalfe <metcalph_at_dp8rvjsrrJDUEijZc1rOY47qaDeGgX2njQcZhNGRkEEf_SFlExOADTbLIM10K1kO3s2>
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 21:55:21 +1300


At 08:58 AM 10/10/03 +0100, you wrote:

> >"Did Bush say
> >Saddam had tried to buy uranium from Niger?"

> From the 2003 "State of the Union" address :

>"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
>significant quantities of uranium from Africa. "

The CIA disbelieved these claims primarily because they know that Iraq has enough yellowcake uranium ore already under IAEA auspices and they presume that Saddam's regime could easily divert sufficient ore to crashstart their nuclear programme should they decide to restart it. The first point is unarguable but the second is a matter of judgement.

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. 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.

> > or "Did Bush say Iraq was an
> >'imminent threat'?"
>
> From the 2003 "State of the Union" address :
>
>"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when
>have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us
>on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and
>suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come
>too late."

>[Intended implication - the threat is imminent, but not visible.

Read the first sentence again. "Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent".

>Note also
>the link with terrorists that remains unproven, and unaccepted by the US
>intelligence community.

Wrong. The link with Al-Qaida is unproven, the link with other terrorist groups is not.

>"America will not accept a serious and mounting threat to our country, and
>our friends and our allies."
>
>["Serious and mounting" - how does this differ from "imminent"?]

Serious means the situation is bad. Mounting means that it is worsening. Imminent means that the shit can hit the fan anytime now. A threat can be serious and mounting without it being imminent.

>"...for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will
>lead a coalition to disarm him. "

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

And this is bad because?

--Peter Metcalfe            

Powered by hypermail