[MD] Barbarian attack

[Michael Hamilton]

On 2/22/06, Platt Holden <pholden at davtv.com> wrote:
> 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?

Saddam had WMD in the past, but it was never proved that he had them
in 2003. It was, however, widely claimed by the government and the
media as a justification for war.

> > 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.

This was never proved. The question is, if Saddam had this capability,
why didn't he use it to defend himself?

> > > 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?

I never charged that Bush declared an imminent threat. Blair did.

> > 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?

Saddam was secularist. Al-Qaeda don't like secularists (to put it mildly).

> And I guess you don't
> consider his mass murder and brutal torture of his political opponents
> "terrorist tactics."

I consider the domestic "terrorist tactics" of Saddam to be
distinguishable from the international "terrorist tactics" of Al-Qaeda
(both are deplorable, of course).

> > > 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.

I'm glad that you're acknowledging my point. Saddam's links with
al-Qaeda were documented. This was a lie used to persuade the people
of Britain and the US to support the war. Saddam and Bin Laden hate
each other almost as much as they both hate the US.

> > 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.

Would you agree that anyone who sells arms to such a barbarian can
also be considered 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? :-)

Sounds like a plan! :-D

Regards,
Mike