Originally posted by GT100FV
So you are disagreeing with what the Resolutions said that Saddam must do?
Like I said, the burden of proof was on him, not us. The fact that we haven't found what we'd looked for, doesn't mean that it was a lie. If we
knew that it didn't exist, why would we continue looking after we got there?
Why not just go straight for the oil, like many here think is the sole reason we attacked. Maybe Saddam did destroy his WMD(unlikely), but more
likely it's either A- still in Iraq(probably not), or B- in Syria. It's not as if he didn't have time to move it. He knew the limitations of
satellite intel(hence the difficulty in Desert Storm finding Scud launchers), and could have very easily used the windows where Satellites weren't
able to watch, to move.
Firstly, The burden of proof was imposed on Iraq by the USA, and the tools of that proof - the UN inspectorate - were ridiculed by the Bush
administration, dubbed ineffective, useless and pointless. The Bush administration used the UN inspectorate as patsies in its own set-up.
As for your second point, you've been and gone and reached into the realms of fantasy.
We've established that Saddam Hussein is/was a ruthless guy. We have a farily good idea that, within his own country, he committed a fair few nasty
events. We also have a fairly good idea that he gassed several villages (in 1988) to quell an inssurection in that part of Iraq.
So, given this record, what kind of subhuman, monstrous dictator says or thinks the following
"These guys - who I hate with a passion and want to see the downfall of their country - are coming to get me, my normal forces aren't up to stopping
them, I'm going to have to make a run for it because they will kill me (eventually!) if they find me and the only thing I can delay them with is my
fantasticly secret Weapons of Mass destruction.
So heres what I'm going to do - I'm going to either bury them in the sand or ship them off to another country"
So why would he do that, exactly? What advantage is it to him? How, exactly, does that benefit the Ba'ath party, ensure his survival and give the
troops invading "his" country the bloody nose that his conventional forces can't do?
Remember - you've been told that this guy HATES the USA - you've gone to "protect your freedom" remember. I'm fairly sure he really wouldn't
give a stuff if he gassed several thousand American soldiers, dropped a dirty bomb on them or sprayed them with anthrax or some other such nasty.
Or - to put it another way, god help the USA if it ever faces an enemy that has a technological edge over it because in the face of an enemy, that
might be slowed or even stopped by using nukes and WMD, you are more likley to dump them into the Marianas trench in the Pacific, or bury them in the
desert in Nevada, because if someone who was a "threat to your freedom, and a menace to the world as a whole" isn't going to use them on troops
invading "his" country, your own government which sees itself as the "leader of the free world" certainly is not.
Please, get some perspective and THINK about it. You are towing the party line, and swallowing it by the spoonful. Your argument makes no sense.