Quote:
Originally posted by lordjeebus
A very interesting question.
On one hand, I'd agree that the US couldn't have had "solid evidence" that something didn't exist.
On the other hand, I seem to recall the US demanding that Saddam prove that he had no WMDs -- that failure to provide such evidence would be grounds for war.
|
There was, at a minimum, evidence that wmds existed in the past. If it was, as proposed by superbelt, that these weapons fell into disrepair and the agents became inactive, why not present them for inspection? All the experts pointed to also say that they had not been presented with enough material to account for all previously known weapons.
So, in effect, the question was not "prove that you have nothing" but "prove that the weapons we know you had are no longer in existence".