Empty promises and propaganda

[Davidu]

I think Saddam is dead... so these weapons are of no use to him now.

If he is still alive, he could have no use for some burried weapons he cannot use.

[lowzeewee]

There is still a SLIGHT possibility that he will launch the missiles only after the american soldiers start to slack after thinking he is dead since Iraq is already taken by them. ;)

But if there are really no WMD,as in he doesn't use any WMD at all,then it means that USA had accused him of having WMD just to invade Iraq >:(

[Edric O]

Why is it Edric that every time I post a response to this idiotic logic that you ignore it then post it again on another thread? I'll repeat it again.

MARTYRDOM! MARTYRDOM! MARTYRDOM!

Hopefully you will respond this time instead of hiding in another thread.

Oh, I know this ridiculous argument of yours all too well, Miles. What you are saying, basically, is that no matter what Saddam did or didn't do, he must have been guilty. GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.

If we couldn't find any proof whatsoever, it must have been because he was hiding it! If he confessed, he was obviously guilty and should have been punished. If he didn't confess, he was obviously just trying to hide it and should have been punished MORE!

This is like the Salem Witch Trials:

"Let's drown the witch! And if she survives, that means she's guilty, so we'll hang her!"

A pre-war article about the WMD mockery said it best:

In a normal trial, it is the task of the prosecutor to prove that the accused is guilty. Here, however, the accused is presumed to be guilty and is required to furnish proof of his innocence! Not only that, he is expected to show the greatest enthusiasm in helping the prosecution to find the necessary proof - that he is, in fact, guilty!

I refuse to subscribe to that diseased logic. Until I see EVIDENCE of the existence of WMD's, I will presume Saddam Hussein to be innocent.

And the fact that he wouldn't use his supposed WMD's even to save his own life makes his innocence almost certain.

[Edric O]

And now for the rest of your Bush-worshipping arguments, Miles:

He was convicted on the fact that he did NOT show the world that he had destroyed them. That was his charge in resolution 1441, and he did not live up to it. Were we honestly to believe him on his word? And do you still believe that he destroyed them on his own? Saddam is not stupid though, and I believe that he either buried them in extremely difficult places to find, or moved them to another country just so he could play anti-american fools like you.

Leaving aside the fact that there is only dubious evidence that he had them in the first place (i.e. that they hadn't been destroyed in the first Gulf War), I find this logic of yours to be something the nazis would use in a trial: "Were we honestly to believe him on his word? And do you still believe that he destroyed them on his own?" - you are simply making assumptions on what another man would or wouldn't do, and giving a death sentence based on it! Despite your complete LACK of ANY evidence, you're just saying to Saddam: "Well, I still think you're lying. Guards!"

I'm not aware of any free country where death sentences are given based on what other people think about the accused.

The Chaos and looting is beginning to subside, and efforts are now being made to organize an Iraqi government. This takes time, and the Iraqis will live better when it is all said and done.

Of course it will subside eventually, but the damage has already been done. That was my point. And I'm sure an Iraqi government will be installed eventually - an obedient vassal of the US, that is.

Raising the American flag was a public relations mistake, but the soldiers were fired upon from that crowd. They have the right to defend themselves.

None of the soldiers was killed. On the other hand, 10 people were killed from that crowd. You do the math.

The flag was indeed a PR mistake, but it did express a well known state of fact: Iraq is a conquered territory, and the Americans are the "glorious" conquerors.

There has not been enought time for those promises to be fulfilled, although it is evident that steps are being taken to fulfill them, although, you, blind in your fanaticism either fail to see them, or ignore them.

Well, I'm not the one blindly supporting an imperialist warmonger...

As for them taking steps to correct the situation, of course that's what they're doing. They're taking steps to throw a smokescreen over their true intentions, and get away with as much as they can.

[SurlyPIG]

A pre-war article about the WMD mockery said it best:

In a normal trial, it is the task of the prosecutor to prove that the accused is guilty. Here, however, the accused is presumed to be guilty and is required to furnish proof of his innocence! Not only that, he is expected to show the greatest enthusiasm in helping the prosecution to find the necessary proof - that he is, in fact, guilty!

Why are you so eager to rush to the defense of Saddam? I know he's a communist but why do you treat him with more respect than his idol Stalin?

This argument is erroneous because of what we already know. We knew Saddam has had weapons since the Iran-Iraq war. We saw him make them. We saw him use them. Why the HELL should we believe they magically disappeared? Do you think he destroyed them himself? I've said this about a dozen times and not ONE of you petty little American-hating weasels has answered me...

We saw what he did to Halabjah in 1988, now where did those weapons go, Edric?

[Davidu]

Saddam is a communist? Man, you learn new things every day... (!!!)

Maybe he used all of those weapons! In Iran and against is own people... maybe he ran out of WMDs.

Who knows?

[Edric O]

Perhaps Ace is still using the McCarthy definition of "communist" - any person or organization who is opposed to the US government. ::)

Saddam was a military dictator with no particular political spin. Economically speaking, Iraq was an average capitalist country under his rule.

Now, as to why I defend him:

As a matter of fact, I defend the TRUTH. Saddam was indeed a cold-blooded killer and an oppressive dictator, but that's not what we are talking about. In the matter of holding illegal weapons, he was completely innocent.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Your opinion on what he would or wouldn't do is irrelevant. Do you have any EVIDENCE that he still had those WMD's? If not, he is innocent by default. Maybe the WMD's got destroyed in the first Gulf War. Maybe Saddam actually destroyed them himself! You have no proof to say otherwise.

[SurlyPIG]

The thirteenth dodge.

I repeat, we've seen him use WMDs before, he murdered 3000 Kurds with them. What do YOU think happened to these WMDs? Do you think they just disappeared?

Oh, and my definition of communist includes Soviet, selfish, hypocritical, cold-blooded, murderous, dictator etc.

[Gobalopper]

In the last round of inspections the UN inspectors found illegal missiles after Saddam said he had none. There is your example of him having illegal weapons Edric.

[Miles]

Perhaps Ace is still using the McCarthy definition of "communist" - any person or organization who is opposed to the US government. ::)

Saddam was a military dictator with no particular political spin. Economically speaking, Iraq was an average capitalist country under his rule.

Hehe ;D, sorry, I just have to laugh at this one.

Now, as to why I defend him:

As a matter of fact, I defend the TRUTH. Saddam was indeed a cold-blooded killer and an oppressive dictator, but that's not what we are talking about. In the matter of holding illegal weapons, he was completely innocent.

If you have evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it.

Your opinion on what he would or wouldn't do is irrelevant. Do you have any EVIDENCE that he still had those WMD's? If not, he is innocent by default. Maybe the WMD's got destroyed in the first Gulf War. Maybe Saddam actually destroyed them himself! You have no proof to say otherwise.

but that's not the point Edric. Saddam not only had the responsibility to destroy his weapons, but the responsibility to prove that he had done so. He IS guilty of this. The UN knew that they could not trust him on his word, which is why resolution 1441 was passed.

Because of this, you have no proof that he was innocent, which is why this all began in the first place. However, it is FAR too early to declare anything. We simply have not had enough time to search all the suspected sites. Whether they are in Syria, Iran, or buried deep in the desert, we will trace them and find them. Then the truth will be known.

[Miles]

Oh, I know this ridiculous argument of yours all too well, Miles. What you are saying, basically, is that no matter what Saddam did or didn't do, he must have been guilty. GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT.

If we couldn't find any proof whatsoever, it must have been because he was hiding it! If he confessed, he was obviously guilty and should have been punished. If he didn't confess, he was obviously just trying to hide it and should have been punished MORE!

This is like the Salem Witch Trials:

"Let's drown the witch! And if she survives, that means she's guilty, so we'll hang her!"

A pre-war article about the WMD mockery said it best:

In a normal trial, it is the task of the prosecutor to prove that the accused is guilty. Here, however, the accused is presumed to be guilty and is required to furnish proof of his innocence! Not only that, he is expected to show the greatest enthusiasm in helping the prosecution to find the necessary proof - that he is, in fact, guilty!

I refuse to subscribe to that diseased logic. Until I see EVIDENCE of the existence of WMD's, I will presume Saddam Hussein to be innocent.

And the fact that he wouldn't use his supposed WMD's even to save his own life makes his innocence almost certain.

And Edric dodges it again. ::) I gave you the reason that he probably wouldn't use WMD if he has them. It is logical, and given what we know and have observed of Saddam, is likely, yet you fall back on, "IF he had them, he would have used them"--pathetic. I just told you why this was false.

And let's go to that "Innocent until proven guilty" argument. Saddam Hussein proved his guilt when he used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Now we gave him a slim chance to come clean after the Gulf war, with strict guidelines on how he could do so. He failed to do this, so the original judgement stood.

It's the same as if a man gets out on parole. He must adhere to strict guidelines after his release. He must prove his compliance by checking in to his parole officer, and accounting for his whereabouts. If he fails to do so, he goes back to jail. Saddam Hussein was on parole. He failed to check in. Now, the sentence that was imposed in 1991 is reinforced.

[Edric O]

Oh, and my definition of communist includes Soviet, selfish, hypocritical, cold-blooded, murderous, dictator etc.

Selfish? SELFISH??? Ace, for God's sake, I understand it if you want to insult me, but PLEASE don't call me the one thing I hate most! Selfishness is the very essence of Capitalism. It is the very thing we communists fight against! The very name of Communism comes from "community". Brotherhood. Dedication. Co-operation. That is what Communism stands for.

Of course, every attribute you listed above (including selfish) fits the treacherous Stalinism perfectly, and is completely opposite to true Communism. We are no more cold-blooded or murderous than we are selfish, and I really don't see how you could ever think I would be any of those things.

[Edric O]

Now, Miles, it seems we have a slight communication problem here...

What exactly am I dodging? Your explanation of why Saddam wouldn't use his WMD's? That's not evidence, that's only a wild guess. You don't convict people based on what you think they might do.

Saddam was proven guilty of having WMD's some 15 years ago. How exactly does that mean he still has them now? Perhaps they were destroyed or otherwise lost in the mean time. There are many ways in which that might have happened. And as long as you have no evidence to incriminate him, he is innocent. End of story.

Of course I have no proof he was innocent. But I don't need any. GUILT must be proven, not innocence. Would you agree to being considered guilty by default and being thrown in jail for a crime until you could prove your innocence?

[Gobalopper]

Edric since when does time prove innocence when you've already been convicted?

Lets say you bought some candy 12 years ago. Well 12 years have passed and now you say that you no longer have the candy. The problem is any proof you've shown of getting rid of the candy has been shown to be false or not believable and there is evidence found that you've actually bought more candy when you weren't allowed to. Is it right to assume you still have candy?

Even the UN, which you say you back, still does not believe that Saddam has destroyed all his weapons, if they did they wouldn't have passed 1441.

Guilt was already proven, it was up to Saddam to prove his innocence, something he couldn't do.

[Acriku]

We know Saddam had them, and used them. He has no records or evidence that he destroyed the WMDs. We are left to assume that he still has them. There is no way around it. And now we are looking for them.

[Miles]

Now, Miles, it seems we have a slight communication problem here...

What exactly am I dodging? Your explanation of why Saddam wouldn't use his WMD's? That's not evidence, that's only a wild guess. You don't convict people based on what you think they might do.

As soon as he used WMD's he would be condemned by other Arabic states, those which would support him otherwise. His legacy of the "great" man who stood up to American imperialism would be destroyed. Do you deny that this is a valid deterrant?

Saddam was proven guilty of having WMD's some 15 years ago. How exactly does that mean he still has them now? Perhaps they were destroyed or otherwise lost in the mean time. There are many ways in which that might have happened. And as long as you have no evidence to incriminate him, he is innocent. End of story.

As I said, he WAS convicted, and the Gulf War was ended on his agreement that he would, not only destroy them, but prove that he had done so. He has failed to do so, so for the sake of both national, and world security, we must assume that he still has them. You are a fool if you would take the word of a madman.

And, as I said, he was released on Parole with the understanding that he would do so. He failed, so our agreement is no longer valid, which forced us into military action.

Of course I have no proof he was innocent. But I don't need any. GUILT must be proven, not innocence. Would you agree to being considered guilty by default and being thrown in jail for a crime until you could prove your innocence?

Guilt WAS proven, and he failed to live up to the agreement that was set in order for hostility not to ensue. He violated his parole, so our actions to bring justice were justified.

[Edric O]

As soon as he used WMD's he would be condemned by other Arabic states, those which would support him otherwise. His legacy of the "great" man who stood up to American imperialism would be destroyed. Do you deny that this is a valid deterrant?

That is a possibility, of course. But no more than just that: A POSSIBILITY. Given the evidence, it is far more probable that Saddam simply didn't have any WMD's. Why do you refuse to accept this option? Are you so blind in your trust of Bush's supreme wisdom that you refuse to accept the very notion that Saddam could possibly be innocent?

Like I said before, you're judging Saddam by the standards of 17th century witch trials. No matter what he does, you still think he's guilty. You leave him no way to prove his innocence! If those WMD's didn't exist in the first place, then he has no way to show that he destroyed them, so he can't prove to you that he's innocent.

You are so biased in your hatred of anything non-American that you can't even conceive the POSSIBILITY that Saddam might be innocent!

As I said, he WAS convicted, and the Gulf War was ended on his agreement that he would, not only destroy them, but prove that he had done so. He has failed to do so, so for the sake of both national, and world security, we must assume that he still has them. You are a fool if you would take the word of a madman.

And, as I said, he was released on Parole with the understanding that he would do so. He failed, so our agreement is no longer valid, which forced us into military action.

False analogy. Saddam was not released on parole. He was convicted once, and now you convicted him again for the same crime.

And I WILL take the word of a madman if I have no evidence to show that he's lying!

Edric since when does time prove innocence when you've already been convicted?

Lets say you bought some candy 12 years ago. Well 12 years have passed and now you say that you no longer have the candy. The problem is any proof you've shown of getting rid of the candy has been shown to be false or not believable and there is evidence found that you've actually bought more candy when you weren't allowed to. Is it right to assume you still have candy?

Maybe I lost the candy. Maybe I sold it. Maybe it was stored in poor conditions and I was forced to throw it away. A lot can happen in 12 years. Perhaps the candy was lost in such a way that I can't prove to you that I lost it. I might be innocent and have no way to prove my innocence. For this reason, it's up to YOU to prove that I still have the candy.

We know Saddam had them, and used them. He has no records or evidence that he destroyed the WMDs. We are left to assume that he still has them. There is no way around it. And now we are looking for them.

And what if the ones he used were the only ones he had? Or what if the others got destroyed in some other way?

[Acriku]

Edric, you are fooling yourself. Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. You can't just lose them on the road, or misplace them, or throw them away. You need to destroy them to get rid of them, and this is what Saddam was ordered to do as per agreement that he agreed to. There is no evidence of it, and Bush urged him for many many months to show the evidence for this destruction. There was none brought to light. Now, Saddam used SCUD missiles. Those are illegal and Saddam said he had none. He has them. He lied about this, he will lie about the WMDs. It is highly more probable that he has WMDs than that he destroyed them. You don't destroy WMDs without evidence or a recording of it. So, there must be evidence that he destroyed them, because he is already guilty, and the only way to be free is to destroy them and provide evidence that he did. He didn't.

[SurlyPIG]

"Maybe I lost the candy. Maybe I sold it. Maybe it was stored in poor conditions and I was forced to throw it away. A lot can happen in 12 years. Perhaps the candy was lost in such a way that I can't prove to you that I lost it. I might be innocent and have no way to prove my innocence. For this reason, it's up to YOU to prove that I still have the candy."

Plausible, but Saddam claimed no such thing. He claimed he never HAD the 'candy'. The world knows he did, but he knows the UN won't show any backbone unless they find proof. It's a game of politics, any by completely denying that he had the weapons he's almost taunting the rest of the world. Fortunately, thanks to the coalition, that has backfired...

[Miles]

That is a possibility, of course. But no more than just that: A POSSIBILITY. Given the evidence, it is far more probable that Saddam simply didn't have any WMD's. Why do you refuse to accept this option? Are you so blind in your trust of Bush's supreme wisdom that you refuse to accept the very notion that Saddam could possibly be innocent?

Even the weapons inspectors knew that he had them. They did not manage to destroy all of them before they were kicked out, so he is proven to be guilty. Yet, you honestly think that it is more likely that Saddam destroyed his WMD without the supervision of weapons inspectors. You are fooling yourself.

Like I said before, you're judging Saddam by the standards of 17th century witch trials. No matter what he does, you still think he's guilty. You leave him no way to prove his innocence! If those WMD's didn't exist in the first place, then he has no way to show that he destroyed them, so he can't prove to you that he's innocent.

as stated above, we KNOW that they existed. The question is whether or not he destroyed them.

You are so biased in your hatred of anything non-American that you can't even conceive the POSSIBILITY that Saddam might be innocent!

I suppose it is possible, and I suppose that monkeys may fly out my ass. neither seem likely.

False analogy. Saddam was not released on parole. He was convicted once, and now you convicted him again for the same crime.

The hell if he wasn't. He signed a peace deal with the coalition after the gulf war in which he agreed to terms for ending hostilities. In these, he agreed to prove the destruction of his WMD. This is a directly parallel analogy to a murderer on parol in which he violated.

And I WILL take the word of a madman if I have no evidence to show that he's lying!

Whether he was lying or not was irrelevant. The fact that he did not prove that he destroyed them violated the peace agreement. Because of this, all agreements were off, and the world is better off for his removal.