[lbo-talk] I don't get it..

[andie nachgeborenen]

My point was not that we knew he didn't have them when
he didn't use them, but we knew he didn't have them,
and we knew that the US govt knew, when it decided to
attack him. The argument _does_ hold up, because see
the difference in the treatment of N. Korea, ruled by
a similarly minimally rational dictator, but whom the
US fears would use the nukes we know it has if we
attacked them. jks

--- Thiago Oppermann <thiago_oppermann at bigpond.com>
wrote:
> On 18/7/2003 12:16 AM,
> "lbo-talk-request at lbo-talk.org"
> <lbo-talk-request at lbo-talk.org> wrote:
> 
> >> I always said --
> >> you can look it up in the archives -- that we
> _knew_
> >> that there were no WMDs, otherwise the US would
> not
> >> have attacked Iraq.
> > 
> > I'll take your word, Justin, that you always
> "knew." But Saddam surely had
> > weapons in 1991, and the US attacked him in
> Kuwait. So I think that part of
> > your argument doesn't hold up. It is true,
> however, that the US prefers
> > attacking weaker countries -- the more disarmed
> the better. But the first
> > Gulf War took place before the UN sent inspectors
> into Iraq, and only a few
> > years after the disastrous Iran/Iraq war.
> > 
> > DP
> 
> I think one of the reasons the argument doesn't hold
> up is that Saddam,
> despite what was said about him, was a minimally
> rational man and knew that
> had he used gas against the US, Baghdad would be
> turned into an expanse of
> glass. 
> 
> Ultimately, his having WMDs, but not using them even
> when his regime faced
> annihilation, corrodes the pretext for war just as
> much as his not having
> them. 
> 
> Thiago Oppermann
> 
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com