http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...wmd/index.html

and I guess he knows everything about and how to deal with those he suspects of having WMD: Attack NOW (ask questions later) or be forever damned!

umm what? what is the diffence. what are radiological weapons? doesnt that mean the same thing :/

ok, the whole point is for you to tell us where the proof of these weapons is, not restate what you said.

after this it gets deadly boring, but is it just me that thinks he has some explaining to do ? :/

also, i thought the USA sold saddam his weapons in the first place, so why can no trace be found? :?

[ 02-11-2004, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Zero Alpha ]

We have receipts. Does that count?

ok, the whole point is for you to tell us where the proof of these weapons is, not restate what you said. </font>[/QUOTE]AFAIK this is completely true. Saddam did use chemical and biological weapons against the shia (50% chance of being right here :D ) population in southern Iraq. And chemical and biological are recognised as weapons of mass destruction by many nations. However, there is no proof that he did possess them til the moment he was removed.

The thing that pisses so many people off Willow is that around the time Saddam was using biological weapons against the Shia's and killing the members of the Communist party the West quite liked him as he was also having a hell of a time waging war on Iran. At present we like Saudi Arabia, despite the fact that the government there is horribly oppressive, because they let us attack Iraq.

My point is that it really turns my stomache to see this as a justification for the war - the only time we've been absolutely one hundred percent certain he was killing his own people we did nothing about it. I hate the man as much as anyone else, but its ludicrous for Bush and Blair to use that as a justification.

<font color=deepskyblue>Sadly, <font color=lime>Barry</font> is correct. The USA has supported a number of individuals that later turned out to be far worse than the ones we supported them against.

Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are the two most prominent examples, but there are others. Little dictators or madmen that had no desire to see a democratic gov't of any kind. They were often just as abusive and/or opressive as those they replaced.

It is time we learned that the "enemy of our enemy" is NOT necessarily a friend - and may prove to be far deadlier or more dangerous than those they oppose.</font>