[MD] Barbarian attack

[Michael Hamilton]

On 2/22/06, Platt Holden <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> Mike:
>
> > The fact that, despite an enormous search opeation, no concealed
> > weapons have been unearthed.
>
> Who has searched Syria where Saddam is said to have sent his WMD?

And if we do search Syria, and WMD are not found, will you tell me
that the Syrians sent them to Iran? Why did the Iraqis (and now the
Iranians) have to prove a negative, while the US never has to prove
their accusations?

> > We in England were told by the Blair administation that Saddam had the
> > capability to launch WMD within 45 minutes, and I find it unlikely that
> > such claims did not circulate in the US media as well. A bit of
> > selective memory at work here, Platt?
>
> Who in the Blair administration said that?

Here is a link to a pdf of the dossier published by the Brish
government in September 2002:
http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/iraqdossier.pdf

Here is a quote: "As a result of the intelligence we judge that Iraq
has: ... military plans for the use of chemical and biological
weapons, including
against its own Shia population. Some of these weapons are deployable
within 45 minutes of an order to use them".



> Bush specifically denied an
> imminent threat in his state of the union speech in 2003.:
>
> "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."

May I say that the logic of this argument makes a mockery of US
intelligence capabilities (no pun intended, honest!)

Still, it's a good example of the way in which the UK and US
governments kept changing their justification for war.

> So much for "selective memory."
>
> > They can't have been the fundamentalist Muslim barabarian terrorists
> > that you're banging on about, because Saddam was violently secular.
>
> Saddam and Al Qaeda had much in common including use of terrorist
> tactics and hatred of the U.S.

Saddam and the US were great pals until the first Gulf war. But in any
case, you've changed the subject. You cited the existence of terrorist
training camps in Iraq with Saddam's approval; a highly suspect claim
in the light of the animosity between Saddam and al-Qaeda. Appealing
to Saddam's "terrorist tactics", as if it justifies your claim, is
vague rhetoric.

> > I said _international_ terrorism, Platt. The myth was circulated that
> > Saddam had links to al-Qaeda. But, as you say, Saddam was a nasty piece
> > of work who ruled by _internal_ terror. The pretext of liberation was,
> > however, one of the last to be adopted for the Iraq war, as the noses of
> > our leaders and media were beginning to resemble that of Pinocchio.
>
> You don't consider Iraq's unprovoked attack on Kuwait "international?"

I'd call it 'war' or 'invasion'. To lump it in with the secretive
international terrorist activities of al-Qaeda might be convenient for
you, if you with to gloss over the way in which, as I pointed out, our
governments and media told us that Saddam was directly linked with the
activities of al-Qaeda.

Platt, I've noticed that you like to respond to phrases in isolation,
without reference to the arguments that are going on. When I point out
that the link between Saddam and international terrorism (i.e.
al-Qaeda) was false, you try to define the invasion of Kuwait as
"international terrorism", just to score rhetorical points.

> > Who's excusing him? Saddam was a bastard. ('But at least he was our
> > bastard'... back in the '80s!) And on what grounds do you lump him into
> > your "barbarian" category with the fundamentalist Muslims?
>
> Your selective memory must have blocked out Saddam's reign of murder
> and torture.

Not at all. Saddam was a bastard (but please don't forget that he was
Our Bastard). I was merely attempting to determine your criteria for
calling someone a "barbarian" (up until now you've appeared to use it
exclusively for Muslims).

And needless to say, we in the West are above using torture in any
circumstance. Right?

Regards,
Mike