[MD] Barbarian attack

[Platt Holden]

Mike said:
> 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?

Iraq had WMD, used them and hid or destroyed them. What's negative 
about that?

> 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".

As the quote says, Iraq could scramble jets with bio-bombs within 45 
minutes.  

> > 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!)

When did Bush say the threat was imminent as you charged? Can you 
gracefully accept the fact that he said just the opposite? 
 
> 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.

What "animosity" between Saddam and Al-Qaeda? And I guess you don't 
consider his mass murder and brutal torture of his political opponents 
"terrorist tactics." 

> > 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.

Saddam's links with Al-Qaeda have been documented.

> 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.

If you don't consider the invasion of Kuwait international terrorism, 
we have a difference of opinion. If you think I scored a point, so be 
it.  

> > > 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?

Anyone who orders the mass murder of his own people and sanctions 
throwing dissidents alive into wood chippers is a barbarian.
 
> And needless to say, we in the West are above using torture in any
> circumstance. Right?

When fighting terrorists you sometimes have to use terrorist methods. 
Or would you, like Arlo and others, rather invite the terrorists to 
swallow some sugar cubes laced with LSD, dance together around a 
maypole and then have group sex? :-)

Regards,
Platt