""Don T - your hypothetical situation.

Solution: Taking into account that they have come to arrest someone they think is armed and connected to some sort of crime that they are investigating. Take note of the time the 5 minute warning is given then within that time get anything in your house that looks remotely like a gun wrap it up wait until 4 minutes 45 seconds has elapsed toss out the "gun" and come out with hands up and obey all instructions without hesitation.

Oh and for things such as would be required for programmes that cover such activities as:

- The manufacture of chemical and biological weapons
- A nuclear weapons programme
- The manufacture of ballistic missiles

With all the specialist equipment required and the forensic traces that the above activities leave behind. Provided that you did have those things at one point (As was known to be the case with Iraq) if you are being totally transparent and honest it should be easy to prove that you no longer have anything connected with those activities, especially as you are dealing with the same people who had been working on your disarmament programme previously. So please do not try the rather childish tactic of over simplifying a problem just to make it suit your argument or point of view.""

Facile, stupid, and ineffectual!

Facile because you are avoiding answering a serious question, by fabricating a nonsensical response.

Stupid, because you must be aware that any subterfuge purporting to give up a weapon, while failing to reveal said weapon would not be accepted.

Ineffectual, because it still doesn't deal with your obvious belief that a negative is susceptible of proof, something the rest of the world agrees is impossible.

Your second point, regarding the mythical Iraqi WMD, is ridiculous in the extreme, for the following good reasons.

1). Before the fighting, Hans Blix reported that the Iraqis were allowing his team access to anything they asked for, and allowing them to go wherever they chose, yet they didn't turn up any of these "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind"........WHY?

2). The fighting over, inspection teams went into Iraq, and assiduously searched for WMD, or evidence thereof, without turning up any of these "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind"........WHY?

If you were right, and Saddam had these weapons, why were there no "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind", either before, or after, the war.

Given that there were no "forensic traces that the above activities leave behind", it would seem that they did not exist.

Regarding your accusation of over simplification, I find it more effective to simplify explanations, when dealing with the "hard of understanding".

If this is too difficult for you, ask somebody else to explain it. I've had my fill of Bush/Blair apologists who would prefer to keep crooked leaders, rather than make any effort to understand WHY they should be brought to book.

Don T.