[Jolly Rodgers]

The a priori existence of WMD is what pre-emption is based on.

Iraq never did possess WMD. The did possess chemical weapons at one point in history, and they did have an active biological research program. That was all prior to Desert Storm. Those materials and programs were subsequently destroyed, as evidenced by the current lack of their existence. Their only true WMD program was bombed by Israel many years ago and has never been reconstituted. The remnants were tagged and bagged and under continuing inspection by the UN.

So, to claim a priori as the justification is to confess having waged war on a false and immoral assumption.

[Consort]

So, to claim a priori as the justification is to confess having waged war on a false and immoral assumption.

Wrong. Like I said, it was pre-emption if he hadn't yet acquired WMD. Additionally, it was prevention if he had them already and we didn't give him the chance to use them. Also, it was moral to take him out on non-WMD grounds and strictly on humanitarian grounds. That's the way it is. Kant you underestand that?

[jwfiv]

JR, you called Consort's argument false and immoral.

If not immoral, your words are at the least discourteous.

Your entire argument is based upon the presumption that we have found, and will find, no WMD in Iraq.

Well, lad, I say the chase has only just begun...give it a little time..Herr Kant never tried to beat the clock.

Saddam's regime was the humanitarian disaster, and it's authors are being eradicated and cleaned up.

Your use words and intellect to persuade yourself and us that your perception is reality, but...it ain't.

[Outraged]

Those materials and programs were subsequently destroyed, as evidenced by the current lack of their existence. Their only true WMD program was bombed by Israel many years ago and has never been reconstituted. The remnants were tagged and bagged and under continuing inspection by the UN.

There is no evidence of your assumption of destruction, as evidenced by lack of proof. You imply that Saddam disallowed effective inspection and then just got Holy and decided to destroy his weaponary and then keep it secret from the U.N.(collection of dictators)...This strains credulity given the cost of his little non-existent shell-game cost him not only his throne but his life.

So, to claim a priori as the justification is to confess having waged war on a false and immoral assumption.

So, to make this statement is hollow. Saddam had known links to Osama Bin Laden and would gladly have supplied or funded terrorist groups in their world dominantion interests...Saddam WAS a threat, he violated U.N. resolutions and used said WMD on his own people...He did not comply and therefore formally breached the contract which justified action.

[activationproducts]

So why was Saddam so reluctant to have inspectors in and allow them to prove he had no weapons?

You need to understand that one of the conditions for ending the first Gulf War is that Saddam disarm of WMD's (all UN security council members agreed that he had them in 1991) and prove it. That is what he failed to do. This is the justification for Operation Iraqi Freedom. That's not too hard to understand.

[Helms]

All this begs the question as to whether a little encouragement came from some members of the EU to do this and hopefully to embarrass the Coalition, esp. USA.