Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Until they are found I can't defend. Now its quite possible that Saddam didn't have any WMD's and provoked war by ignoring the resolutions and interfearing with the weapons inspectors because he was just an idiot. I am also not overly worried if Syria has them because if they do they would have to be raving lunatics to give them to any terrorists to use. If they did so and we were able to link them to it, they would cease to exsist as a government, at least with Bush in office.
Now if your thoughts are Iraq must have had WMD's and they must directly threaten the US for there to be just cause for war then I don't think you will be satisfied anytime soon, but I would like you to answer one question as well.
Did Bill Clinton lie about WMD's?
|
Well, maybe I'm on your ignore list, but you keep restating that Saddam was interfering with inspectors.
The inspectors claim they had open access leading up to the war. Worse, they also claim that our own intelligence agencies were giving them outdated/useless information that had them running all over the country to dilapidated warehouses.
That's what the UN inspectors claim. Those are their statements. They made more, but those ones really ought to not be ignored if one is to argue that the justification hinges, in part, on the notion that Saddam's regime was not abiding by the rules as laid down by the UN and its inspectors.
When I raised this earlier last year, people blasted Hans Blix as having a particular agenda. Now it just seems like his statements are being outright ignored.