......stop looking for WMD's in iraq.

 

Why's it so surprising? They were never there in the first place.

 

Buried in the desert, or in Iran.

 

they gotta be there.

 

or transported to Syria

 

If they weren't why wouldn't Saddam let the UN Inspectors do their job? Also if they weren't there then why did the US find small amounts of them in the desert? And if they weren't there why at the begining of the war did Iraq fire missles back at us?

Just some food for thought

 

1. Because Saddam was a sneaky dude.

2. Finding trace amounts of chemical weapons on some old missle shells hardly constitutes finding much of anything. They could have dated back to the late 80s before Saddam's possession of said weapons was banned.

3. They fired missiles back at us because they had some missiles to fire.

Circumstantial evidence doesn't make a case. Lots of circumstantial evidence piled on top of itself doesn't either (and don't think that by me extending out to this level that there was even "lots" of circumstantial evidence, because there isn't).

The end.

This country is so divided in its preference for one party or another right now that nobody is really willing to consider the other side's argument on ANYTHING. Logic is not something which applies. But that's why I gave up on talking about politics, and I'm going to go back to that now.

 

Mike sure the weapons and chemicals could have been produced before the ban. But the ban also said he was not allowed to have them and he obviously did have them. He told inspectors they had none. An obvious lie that you yourself have admitted in your post by talking about what has been found.

I agree that Saddam is very sneaky. I wouldn't put it past him that he passed the wmd's off to Syria. I also think that it is much more than coincidental that right around the time that this would have happened that huge explosion happed in North Korea on that train with the Syrians :rick:

 

Your circumstantial evidence still doesn't make a case even now that you've posted the "coulda" possibilities. Lots of circumstantial evidence piled on top of itself still doesn't do it either, and don't think that by me extending out to this level that there was even "lots" of circumstantial evidence, because there isn't.

(repetition here is of course, very intentional)

 

I don't call what was found circumstantial evidence. I call it proof. Everything found is proof that Saddam did not adhere fully to the resolutions and also that he lied about not having anything.

:inbeforeyousayohweonlyfoundalittlebitofwmdsandthe ydon'tcount: