U.S: 'Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction', page 2

Well first off those are not my words; they�re from the articles.

��The European media to save face in light of the swift victory�

You think the whole European media was against the war? A large proportion, including some of the most powerful papers where all for it.

�How can the ideas that Saddam Hussein hid his WMD by considered surreal or impossible? Why would he have hid them? Because he did not want anyone to find them.�

This was my original view on the weapons. I thought that a reasonable quantity of chemical or biological agents would be found, but no nuclear. This however, is not the line the U.S and Britain took. They spent a whole year trying to convince us that Iraq possessed numerous nasty things and that they had hard evidence of their existence. Hard to have hard evidence of something�s existence if you don�t even know where it is.

�Some of these weapons are deployable within 45 minutes of an order to use them� (Jack Straw)
If they where hidden or buried by Saddam as they are now saying, It would be a little difficult to deploy them in 45 minutes don�t you think?

And is it really so surreal and impossible to think that they are leading us blindfold along a path of their own choosing, or even that they were downright lying? Remember much of the evidence they gave for the existence of these weapons was indeed fabricated, like claim that Iraq had sought to acquire uranium from an African country, which was disproved by the International Atomic Energy Agency when it discovered that documents on which the claim had been made were crude forgeries.

And now they say it�s not important, it doesn�t really matter. Bit like a starving man running through a cactus patch to get to a biscuit, then when he gets there saying he doesn�t really feel hungry.

The mass graves and the deaths caused by Saddam are not relevant to this argument, terrible as they all are. These where not the reasons given for war. If stopping that was the reason for the war, then why not use that and say so? Or why not have done it at the end of the first Gulf war instead of leaving those thousands to be slaughtered when they thought we would protect them?

Let�s not forget that the whole basis of resolution 1441 was to gain support for the U.S to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction. If these claims are found to be false, then the war would indeed be illegal. Now you may say �who cares, the people are free� etc, but I can tell you a lot of people will care, and what do think will happen if and when the U.S tries to make a case for invading, say, Iran or Syria? No one will believe what they say.

There is indeed a conspiracy in all of this, and it lies within our governments. They have been deliberately misleading everyone over this whole escapade and they will continue to do so. To me it increasingly looks like they are working to an end game that is known only to themselves. The scant attention they give to any public concerns on what they are doing, the irrelevancy of such things as evidence and reasoning along with the lip service they are given to the Israel/ Palestinian problem in the form of the farcical �road map to peace� says to me that they know where they are going with this, that they are waiting for or reaching for something outwith our knowledge. They are merely prodding us along the same path with scant regard of any consequences for themselves, and wither anyone calls their bluff or proves them right or wrong. Like they know it won�t matter a damn in the end.

Of course, many of us on this site have plenty of ideas of what the end game is�