[Stone Mountain]

And, why is the burden on the U.S. and the UK and not Saddam Hussein and neigboring Arab countries?

Because the US and UK claimed there were WMD there and used that as a justification to attack Iraq? We made the claim; we should be able to substantiate it.

[hirn_man]

Other than some anthrax(non military) that we gave to the Iraqi department of agriculture what WMD are you referring to?
VX gas? Sarin? Mustard gas?
I don't think so.

[SunStar]

Because the US and UK claimed there were WMD there and used that as a justification to attack Iraq? We made the claim; we should be able to substantiate it.

Yes, I suppose we should have been able to surveil the entire span of Iraq's borders for 12 years as he moved and/or hid the weapons from the UN and allied forces.

[Luis Gonzalez]

In 1991 Saddam Hussein signed an agreement in order to stop the Allied Forces from marching into Bahgdad, and overthrowing his government, at the time of the signing of the document, Iraq had WMD's as well as chemical and biological weapons, their existence a matter if record.

Per the letter of the 1991 cease fire, Saddam had a specific period of time to disarm, and discard all WMD's, twelve years later, he failed to demonstrate that he had kept to the accords of the 1991 cease-fire for twelve consecutive years.

Tired of waiting around for Saddam to turn in the proper pa[perwork to the UN, we went in to take a look ourselves.

We're still doing it.

Saddam didn't like the notion of our coming to take a look-see, and ordered his troops to stop us. These troops have been rendered useless, and Saddam, exhibiting all the characteristics of a truly poor host, is nowhere to be seen.

Hope that helped.