Replies

If SH had no WMD's, why on earth didn't he present proof that he did not have them and avoid the war? Your argument is illogical to me. Please advise...

One cannot present proof that one does not possess something. It is like saying, prove to me that you don’t own a Buick. No matter what you say, you could still have one hidden somewhere. It is impossible to “prove” that something does not exist. Saddam said he no longer had weapons of mass destruction. US intelligence said that not only did he have the weapons but there was a significant threat that he would use those weapons. We went to war to find and destroy those weapons. Now we can’t find any real evidence that they indeed do exist. We have been looking for them for 5 months (since the end of the major war effort). The UN inspectors looked for them for 6 months prior to that. If the US intelligence was so sure (enough to send soldiers into harms way) then where are the weapons?

"One cannot present proof that one does not possess something."
That's BS.
And you know it.
Destruction of WMD leaves signs of such.
And to dispose of it, one must BUILD a place to do so.
You don't just burn it or throw it into a dump.
Though one may hide such in a dump.

Chemical weapons must be rendered inert inside a sealed room, usually via remote manipulation.
Biological weapons are rendered useless through various means depending on the agent.

This all leaves obvious signs of such activity.
All Sadman had to do was allow people to inspect such establishments.
He didn't.
Too bad.

Now run along and cry in your beer about your boy losing and get over it.
There's more work to be done, and you can either be helpful, or a hinderance to it.
I suggest being helpful, but so far all you've been able to do is parrot the liberal 'Bush lied' mantra.
Which is neither helpful or constructive.

Again, if you think it's so easy to find WMD, then you go and find them.
There were 14 years AT LEAST in which to comply with even the surrender agreement signed at the end of Desert Storm.
He did not comly, even with the NON-WMD provisions of said agreement.
Instead, 14 years were spent giving money to terrorists, and burying stuff in various places.

If he was complying, why do that?

Thanks for the coherent reply. We however knew that he had them at one time...just ask the Kurds...he should've been able to provide proof of their (the WMD's) whereabouts or destruction...surely there would be some proof left behind(of their destruction). My fear is that he may have already dispensed them to the terrorists. Maybe we were too late... Your thoughts?