Leo chimes in, fair question I think...

[waylon]

Assuming we believed the worlds intelligence agencies' claim that Iraq did possess WMD's, what if we had continued with the UN inspections and had not gone to war in Iraq?

Assuming no weapons will be found, what would we have thought after 6 months or a year of un inspections? In other words, would we have been comfortable relying on un inspections that found no weapons at all? Or would we have continued to feel that the un inspections were inept and unreliable? His point is that the administration would have been critized for relying on the UN to protect us and, without searching for the weapons ourselves, we would never be absolutely certain about their existence. And since Iraq had already violated UN resolutions, financed terrorists, and used WMD's in the past, would we feel the Iraq issue had been resolved or not?

[bryant69]

1. Tricky question

Well, one way of looking at is like in a court of law. Clinton and the UN felt they had enough evidence to require further investigation as well as sanctions to punish the Saddam Regime (I know the people bore the brunt of those sanctions, but that wasn't, presumably, the intent), and the occasional bombing run.

President Bush, however, instead of accepting lower, more acceptible charges, uped the ante to war with Iraq. Which should, in my mind, require a great deal more evidence/proof. As i say it's kind of like going for manslaughter because you don't have enough evidence to convict on murder one. President Bush evidently felt that he had enough evidence, now it is clear that he didn't.

Bryant
check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[waylon]

4. Thats a good analogy

Judge, jury and executioner...

[Punkingal]

2. Yes,

we could have felt it had been resolved, if we didn't have a lying administration telling us constantly about the threat posed by Iraq.

[Bandit]

3. financed terrorists,

Could you be more specific? If it is that Saddam gave money to some Palestinian families that suffered a loss I would say it was a very "Christian" thing he did and not supporting terrorist at all. And we really are not sure whether the Kurds were gassed by the Iranians or the Iraqis. It could have been either and in fact evidence has been produced to show it was indeed the Iranians. Bush* is asking for the Facts now after the fact. don't you find that just a bit peculiar?

[waylon]

5. Yes, that was what was meant by financing terrorism

Are you serious about that being a "christian" charitable act or were you being condescending? hehee, makes no difference i guess