Teribus: By the bye, I note that that supercilious fuckwit Arne Langsetmo ducked the question asked of him and has not provided any evidence of Dr. Hans Blix declaring that Iraq possessed no WMD prior to 17th March 2003....

We'll ignore your terrible table manners for the moment. I didn't duck the question. I pointed out that you moved the friggin' goalposts, and demanded a statement from "Dr. Hans Blix, prior to 17th March 2003, that clearly and unequivocally states that that Iraq possesed no WMD, that Iraq held no precursor chemicals to produce WMD, that Iraq had no programmes running aimed at producing WMD." While Blix was stating that it was looking more and more like Saddam didn't have any more WoMD, and was asking for a couple of months more to finish off his job, you're demanding that he sign his firstborn son over on a "clear and unequivocal state[ment]", when it took the U.S. guys a freakin' year, while occupying and having the run of the country, to conclude their survey only to find the same damn thing. Of course, it didn't help Blix any that the U.S. refused for quote some time to even give him information to check out, and now you're demaning that he give you a rock-clad guarantee after just a couple months of searching without any U.S. help at all. Sounds like you're setting him up for failure ... or you are afraid of what he might actually find. More to the point, it looks like that is what Dubya was really afraid of (and seemingly for good reason. But that hardly changes the fact that everything that Blix checked out showed that the U.S. 'intelligence' was wrong, and that there weren't any WoMD. And that's what Blix and his inspectors did say.

But this all also ignores the burden of proof: It is the duty of the proponent of a claim to produce the evidence, not the burden of the doubters to prove it false (and in particular, the proving of a negative is a much more difficult thing to do, so the default is usually to require the proof of the positive assertion). But that's what Blix did check. The U.S. claims. And the claims were "garbage, garbage, and more garbage". Seems that ought to be enough for rational people, particularly when coupled with a general survey and other checks that seemed to show that the programs had been destroyed or halted. Which Blix also reported.

teribus continues: Arne neither provides any evidence to counter what Dr. Hans Blix repeatedly told the UNSC regarding Iraqi co-operation.

No, I covered that garbage. Please state for the record that you think that the loss of 2000 U.S. soldiers is a fair price to slake your ire that Saddam didn't tiptoe while singing "I'm a teapot, short and stout" to make you think you have a bigger phallus than you have. As I said previously, Saddam's lack of "co-operation" in itself is hardly a casus belli to me. But then, I maintain some vestiges of humanity. But feel free to differ ... and then explain this interesting rationale for the war to Cindy Sheehan and a couple thousand other mothers. Hop to it, my man.

More Teribus schlock: You Mr. Langsetmo are a Saddam apologist - ...

Nope. OTOH, I don't expect of him different behaviour than I would of Dubya under similar circumstances. I don't apologise for the behaviour (nor the deaths that either have caused, Saddam and Dubya), but at least I understand human nature, and am not surprised by the behaviour we saw.

Teribus goes on: ... are you by any chance Swedish or of Swedish descent?

Why? Are you going to get into argumentum ad hominem? Or are you just a freakin' bigot?

More crap from Teribus: By your arguements and your reasoning you are a shoddy excuse for a human being.

My, my, my, am I chagrined.... You know, if I thought a bit less of you, Teribus, I might be inclined to say precisely the same about you. Tell you what, Teribus, when I gave a damn about what you< thin of my "arguement" [sic] and reasoning, I'll be sure that you're the first to know, OK?

Teribus [apparently trying totell me what I think]: Peace at any price as long as I don't have to stir myself off my fat backside to do a damn thing to earn it.

Ummm, nope. Never said any such thing. You seem to be infested with a pernicious infection of binary thinking. OTOH, could this be true:

"War at any price as long as I don't have to stir myself off my fat backside to do a damn thing to earn it."

Are you one of the Fighting 101st Keyboarders, Teribus? I'm willing to pay the price of the "peace" that I've argued for. Which is not just giving Saddam ... or that dictator in Uzbekistan ... or the African strongman that bought an audience with Dubya ... or D'Aubissinion, Allende, the Guatemalan junta, etc., etc. ... or Musharraf, for that matter. But are you willing yourself to go fight and die for Dubya's lies? Why aren't you over in Iraq, eh? You see, I accept that terrorism, like plane crashes, lightning, car accidents, random shootings, etc., is not defeatable, but can be reduced. I refuse to institute such measures or commit such horrors as make for a worse situation than the original problem. Cost-benefit, you know. Saddam was bad, but what we have is worse, which makes the war a bad move by any account, and certainly not worth the moral price we pay for instituting an agressive war of choice (and against international opinion), and the human and ethical crime we commit in killing thousands of civilians ourselves.... But that's just me, YMMV.

Cheers,