[Alberta's Child]

Then let the U.N. deal with Iraq, since it was their inspectors who were dealing with "Iraqi intransigence."

[dirtboy]

Then let the U.N. deal with Iraq, since it was their inspectors who were dealing with "Iraqi intransigence."

Any of the involved parties at the close of the Gulf War had the perogative to re-start hostilities if Saddam was in non-compliance of the cease-fire terms, which he was.

[GETMAIN]

Then let the U.N. deal with Iraq, since it was their inspectors who were dealing with "Iraqi intransigence."
---
Because it would be US citizens and allies dying at the hands of the alleged weapons. Example -- You overhear your neighbor talking about how he likes to molest children. You tell the police about it but they say there is nothing they can do about because they can't find the proof. Do you continue to let your children play at the neighbor's house?

[Poohbah]

Then let the U.N. deal with Iraq, since it was their inspectors who were dealing with "Iraqi intransigence."

Ah. You are looking for an excuse to do nothing.

I never found anyone willing to accept their end of a proposed bet on this issue. Curious...

If you were wrong about Iraq having WMDs, then you'd SURELY have no problem accepting the mission of cleaning up the consequences of a WMD attack against the United States...

...without protective gear of any sort.