"You do selectively read. Read your own link and see what precipitated the departure of the UN.
do know what happened prior to 16 December 1998. But there's a BIG difference between being KICKED OUT by Saddam and leaving the country voluntarily.
"From what I hear, I think the parents of fallen US soldiers are proud of their children, their country, and our President.
"Implicit in your posts is that unless weapons are found they did not exist. Bad logic
How do you mean, implicit in my post? All I said to 4holer is that his remark (No Saddam Found = He Didn't Exist) was indeed simple-minded. Please do read my posts more carefully!
"What a stupid word twisting going on here.
Stupid? I believe it all makes pretty good sense...
"3. Iraq did not co-operate promptly and willingly with the UN inspectors in 1991. Not even in 1992 to 2003.
True. Guess why Iraq didn't do so. If the UN Security Council would have been a completely independent body with consistent policies throughout the 12 years of inspections, an attack on Iraq would have been totally acceptable. But the UN Security Council has been anything but consistent in its policies and inspections over all these years, mainly, if not entirely, due to the fact that some countries, with a veto power, have used the sanctions to accomplish their own political interests. One country in particular, the US, stated they would not support (or would even veto) a resolution for the lifting of the sanctions even in the case Iraq complied with all resolutions.
Now guess why Saddam didn't cooperate with the UN during all these years. Because he knew that the sanctions wouldn't be lifted anyway and that some countries tried very hard, through the UN Security Council, to get him out of power.
"4. Thanks to the coalition forces Britain, Denmark, Poland and the USA there will not be WMDs in Iraq in the future.
Prior to this war, and according to UNSCOM, UNMOVIC and IAEA, there wasn't a threat comming from Iraq, as Bush and Blair (and Aznar, you forgot about him
) repeated over and over again. And as things are now, 2 months after the Saddam Regime fell, the combined weapons inspectors' assessment of the situation in Iraq has already been proven more accurate than the assessment by the coalition forces, Spain included.
"And the coalition was backed verbally by 40+ brave countries.
And wasn't backed, both verbally as oficially, by the rest of the world, nor did the coalition have a specific UN Security Council Resolution. (Resolution 1441 can only be applied in case WMD's are actually found.)
"The discussion about how easy or difficult WMDs are to find, or how easy or difficult WMDs are to hide inside or outside the country, is fruitless.
Is it? Mind you, I might even agree with you if it wasn't for the fact
that Bush, Blair and the other Hawks have made numerous statements saying they had evidence
, they had documents
, which all proved Iraq was an imminent
threat to the US.
"The bottom line is that a somewhat better world has been created for all people who are uneasy having WMD capability in the hands of ruthless and brutal dictators. It is no more complicated than that.
It is A LOT more complicated than that.
"As an extra bonus the latter includes the Iraqi people as well.
Don't jump to conclusion too early, please. See what happened in Afghanistan and what is actually happening there NOW.
"I mean, Saddam cannot be found, so therefore, under the liberal rhetoric here (the US) and the UK about fabricated evidence, etc. he never existed and was also fabricated.
Guess what Mr Keneth Adelman, Member of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee
, told the Washington Post on April 10th?
"..with fear of Saddam almost gone, the United States should have the information on Iraq's WMD in the next five days
Guess what he said on May 17 to the same newspaper?
"It was possible that Saddam's whole program of WMD was a gigantic hoax. Not a hoax perpetrated by the Bush administration, mind you, but by Saddam himself. Saddam may, said Adelman, have launched "a massive disinformation campaign to make the world think he was violating international norms, and he may not have been."
Mind you, this guy is on the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee !!!
And you complain about 'liberal rhetoric'?
" Obviously, the WMD were not destroyed (if they had been I'm sure Saddam would have been able to prove it (what dictator would give up the chance to make a US president look like an absolute IDIOT))
Don't you see that now, while there is still not a single trace about any WMD's and people are slowly starting to wonder why, Bush already looks like a complete IDIOT? He was the one that said they had evidence
, that there was an imminent
threat, yet nothing has been found yet, not even Saddam himself.
"Therefore, because there is no proof of their destruction, and they did exist, Saddam must have had them.
Yes there is proof of their destruction. Read the Weapons Inspectors reports. There all online. You complain about 'liberal rhetoric' yet your argument (He had them, no proof, he still
has them) is based on wrong and incomplete information.