terratogen wrote:
] Most of the world didn't see Suddaam as a serious threat to
] even his neigboring countries anymore. If Suddaam was
] released from the UN weapons inspectors, would he rebuild?
] Probably. Was he compliant with the UN inspectors? Yes- They
] were asking him to provide info for something which apparently
] doesn't exist. Thats not reasonable.

] He had no arms.

Thanks for the explanations. I'm still a bit confused though on how you can say that he had no arms, since it's clear to me that he did. Is the difference in opinion coming from the way we define "arms"? For myself, I've seen ample evidence that Saddam was in flagrant violation of the U.N. Resolutions that required him to disarm. For example, from Kay's report in October 2003, at http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/speeches/2003/david_kay_10022003.html

Kay: What have we found and what have we not found in the first 3 months of our work?

We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations during the inspections that began in late 2002. The discovery of these deliberate concealment efforts have come about both through the admissions of Iraqi scientists and officials concerning information they deliberately withheld and through physical evidence of equipment and activities that ISG has discovered that should have been declared to the UN. Let me just give you a few examples of these concealment efforts, some of which I will elaborate on later:

Then follows a long list of weapon-related activities (such as research on ricin and aflatoxin) which clearly should have been disclosed to the UN, but were not. Clandestine networks of laboratories, reference strains of live toxins, this list (and many other items that have been discovered, which I can link if you would like), were a clear indicator that Saddam and his sons were continuing arms programs, and had no intention of cooperating with the UN.

Or is it that when you say "arms", you mean specific stockpiles of ready-to-fire weapons, and that until/unless those stockpiles are discovered, the war is not justified?

I guess I'm also curious... If we *do* find a stockpile of such weapons in Iraq, or learn that such a stockpile was stashed in a neighboring country such as Syria, would that change your opinion?

RE: Blair Defends War Decision