|
Smooth... nice, very nice. If this were my only argument, you'd be correct. Because it is not, your response with rules of logic is irrelevant.
In any case, Saddam *had* to comply with UN rules, which dictated he had to provide evidence of destruction. He did not, therefore it is reasonable to assume he has something to hide, especially with prior knowledge of his attempts to hide evidence.
Your logic is nice in theory; but in reality, Saddam must have seen the US response, and must have known that not complying would get him in trouble. So, either he was stupid and suicidal, or he was hiding something. There, was that more logical?
But even if he did not have anything to hide, he was still breaking the rules.
As for your reasons: even your agreement with point 2 doesn't matter. Saddam was defeated by the US and allies in '91; he signed a ceasefire agreement that demanded his full cooperation with UN weapons inspections. Therefore, he already acknowledged the foreign entity had the right to demand inspections. If he then changes his mind, he is in fact tearing up the ceasefire agreement, and there's a war... which makes it legal for the US to attack, making this whole discussion futile.
|