posted on Aug, 21 2004 @ 12:42 AM
bob thats the part i dont understand. if i assume that those who say he had no WMD at all which is bunk because we gave them to him...why did he act
so defiant with the inspectors? if a man has nothing to hide he doesnt act this way. as many times as i've thought about it it makes no sense to
give them a hard time and kick them out and ultimately make it harder on your people to live their daily lives if you have nothing to hide. was it
worth it for his to people starve for over 10 years??? was it worth it to the iraqi economy? (well it was for saddam when it came to germany france
but lets not take into consideration what he openly declared to the UN, in fact lets ignore it.
lets ignore the fact the US government gave him those stockpiles. lets ignore that as well.
lets just ask a simple question if you're faced with the option of letting some people look at your weapons just to make sure you arent up to
anything sneaky or face sanctions and all kinds of headaches in the future up to and including your physical removal from power wouldnt it make more
sense to simply comply for a few years and get them out of your hair ASAP by simply cooperating? especially if we go along with this notion he had
nothing to begin with, then his actions really make no sense.
i had my car searched once, i didnt feel like going through the headache of being harassed even more so i let them go ahead and get it done and over
with so i could go on my merry little way. i knew i had nothing to hide and it would be faster and easier on everyone for me to let them search the
car. well they found nothing and i was left alone afterwards. same concept applies here. those who fight it generally have a reason to fight it,
such as they have things to hide.