A Usenet persona calling itself Galen Hekhuis wrote:

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:56:14 GMT, "Michael Daly"
wrote:

On 24-Feb-2005, Scott Weiser wrote:

First, he was a brutal tyrant who was murdering
his own people wholesale and was engaging (and condoning) the most heinous
sorts of torture, rape and brutality imaginable.

Which also describes US treatment of prisoners in Iraq.

I've kind of wondered about this.Who thought Abu Ghraib was a good place
to continue to keep prisoners? From what I understand, the place had a
pretty bad rep even before the US got there. Why not just tear it down?

Because US Intelligence wanted to use it's reputation as one of the methods
of breaking the prisoner's ability to resist questioning.

For that matter, why did US generals and others use Saddam's palaces?

Why shouldn't they? They were unoccupied, which meant that US troops did not
have to either build new buildings or displace residents from their homes,
and they were fortified (heavily) which provided security against insurgent
attack...and they were the access points for the vast network of underground
bunkers and tunnels, so it was necessary to occupy them if for no other
reason than to prevent the insurgents from getting into the tunnels.

And if our soldiers got to bathe in gold-plated tubs and sleep on silk
sheets, well, so what? To the victors go the spoils, and they deserved every
bit of the luxury after what they accomplished.

Having an occupying army billeted in luxury smacks more of "new boss same
as the old boss" than it does of any kind of "liberation."

Do you really think that the Iraqi people are so stupid that they can't
differentiate US liberators from Saddam Hussein? That sounds somewhat
elitist, if not racist, to me.

Besides, most of that "luxury" had been thoroughly bombed beforehand.


Second, he was facilitating
and harboring terrorists, which threatened world peace and facilitated the
9/11 attacks.

No one has ever made a credible link between Saddam and 9/11.

Even George W Bush has said he has seen no evidence to link Saddam and
9/11.

And yet there is a link. You just haven't heard about it because the liberal
press has been concealing it. Go read some back issues of Soldier of
Fortune. They reported on the links shortly after the war started.


--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser