"Nate Perkins"
Rick Cook

Doug Miller wrote:
, Nate Perkins
"Fletis Humplebacker"


Maybe someone over there can explain in terms you
can understand that the UN had mandated that
Saddam was to destroy his WMDs under UN
supervision. Ya see, no one trusted him at that point.

Subsequent investigations have all concluded that he did exactly
that, shortly after the first Gulf War.


Ummm, no, they didn't, and, no, he didn't. What part of "under UN
supervision" do you not understand? Saddam may have destroyed those
weapons, but the UN mandated that they be destroyed under UN
supervision so that it could be *verified* that they were destroyed.
That did *not* happen.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)


Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his
butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?


Actually Doug, it's worse than that.


Whether this is lack of knowledge or historical revisionism toward a
domestic political goal, I can't say.


What some folks are ignoring is that Saddam did _not_ dismantle his
WMD program after the Gulf War. He continued his biological weapons
programs under the noses of the UN inspectors, all the while swearing
up and down he had dismantled them.


Not true. See the timeline in the Duelfer report. Line 94,
"Unexpectedly robust UN inspections lead Iraq to start unilateral
destruction, as later claimed by regime." (July 1991). Line 96, "CW
and all BW munitions unilaterally destroyed, according to subsequent
Iraqi claims." (Mid July 1991). Line 103, "Destruction of Bulk Agents
at Al Hakam" (Sept 91).
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/



Odd. I searched the page with the quoted words and didn't
find those comments. However, you are still missing the point. The
Iraqi were to destroy their WMDs under UN inspector supervision.
Had they done that there have been no need to make any claims
at all. It would have been documented. Why you and some others
can't grasp that particular point is peculiar.