Mike Patterson wrote:
On Sun, 07 Dec 2003 23:42:02 GMT, PhysicsGenius
wrote:


Mike Patterson wrote:


I have the impression that you are one of the folks who believe that
the invasion of Iraq was based on a false claim of Iraqi complicity in
the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

No, I'm one of the folks who believe that the invasion of Iraq was based
on a false claim of Iraqi ownership of WMDs.


Oy. You're either a troll or oblivious to the world around you.

After the first Gulf war Iraq submitted documents inventorying their
biological and chemical weapons and delivery systems to the UN. Most
of those were never relinquished, which was the point of the YEARS of
attempts at inspections by the UN, which were blocked and evaded by
the government of Iraq.

As I said before, you got facts, I'm listening, but you look more like
either a politically motivated ignoramus or a troll right now.

As my sig indicates, the questions isn't "were there Iraqi WMD?", it's
"where ARE they?". Are they still in Iraq? In Iran? Jordan? London?
Israel? New York harbor?

The CIA and Bush were 100% sure where they were before the war began,
right? So that leaves us with 3 possibilities:

1) The bombs are still right where they were. Likelihood: Impossible.
After all, they looked and the bombs aren't there now.

2) The bombs moved. Likelihood: Improbable. How does one move a
presumably massive arsenal (you mentioned "delivery systems") in such a
way as to be hidden from the most advanced satellite recon in the world
while simultaneously fighting a losing war? And even if you moved it,
how would you keep it hidden from same? Neighbor countries would
probably less than enthusiastic about taking the hot potato after what
happened in Iraq.

3) They lied. (Or possibly worse: They are so imcompetent that they
really did think there were bombs there.) Likelihood: It's happened
many times before.