I am anti war. You lot support Saddam

[Tim May]

On Dec 21, 2003, at 7:58 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
> James A. Donald
>>> Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers
>>> had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in
>>> the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and
>>> losers.
>
> Jamie Lawrence:
>> Anyone who babbles such inane false relations is a dope.
>
> You have just told us that poor little Saddam is a victim. Care
> to give us your take on the two towers?
>

Straw man. You keep bringing up the World Trade Center attack as if 
Saddam ordered it, or was involved in some central way. No credible 
evidence has been presented...not even the usually-unreliable 
sources...that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. (Whether some Iraqis 
celebrated or not is beside the point...if that were the criterion for 
launching a war, we'd be at war with Syria, Egypt, France, China, and 
Malaysia, to name a few.)

Going after the actual planners, financiers, and attackers involved in 
the 9/11 attacks is of course justified.

"Liberating" Afghanistan and letting women in Kabul bare their legs and 
all was not justified (oh, and the women in Kabul are back to wearing 
scarves).

Inasmuch as Iraq and the Baath regime was never linked in any credible 
or substantive way, beyond the merest of "maybe they met with Bin 
Laden's guys" rumors, and inasmuch as a 9/11 link was never even 
alleged by warmongers like Cheney and Perle and Rumsfield, the claim 
that Iraq was attacked because of the World Trade Center attack is 
ludicrous.

You really are, down deep, a statist. You may have changed your stripes 
from supporting the Marxist variant of statism, but what you now 
support remains statism to the core.


--Tim May