Harold Pinter on U.S. Foreign Policy and Iraq

[Chris Alger]

I understand your argument to be this: If a country is led by a sadistic leader, then that country is fair game for conquest by the U.S. and it is ridiculous to argue that any such effort could be illegal or constitute "state terrorism." Why? Because unlike every other aggressor the appeals to noble motives -- as they all do -- statements by U.S. leaders must be greated with ironclad acceptance.

It gets worse when you consider the role the U.S. had in bringing Saddam to power and keeping him there when the worst of his atrocities were public knowledge. So now we have the following argument from you (please correct me if I'm wrong):

The claim that the U.S. is an illegal aggressor in Iraq is obviously false because Saddam was a criminal head of state and has been invaded by a former accomplice who now denounces him and hopes to replace him with a more pro-American government. Therefore, the U.S. has to be a liberator and cannot be an aggressor. Any other alternative is impossible, something worthy of ridicule.

This is an example of what I mean by being so addled with propaganda that war supporters do not even have the tools to articulate a coherent position.

[ QUOTE ]
"And these people support the Saddam Hussein regime and basically hold these folks up as shining examples of freedom fighters."

[/ QUOTE ]
This is an example of what I meant by outright lying. You have been called on this before and know full well that virtually no American who opposes the war is guilty of supporting Saddam and promoting terrorism. You also can't identify a single example of any antiwar leader saying anything of the sort. Yet you continue to libel me and all other antiwar activists as promoters of dictatorship and terrorism.