Guest 282RA:

"Bruce. I've asked you and Teribus at least a dozen times now to produce the 1999 UN report authored by Blix and Ritter that said Iraq had 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin and you both not only failed to direct me to this report, you pretended like you didn't notice anyone was requesting it. That pretty much makes you a goner in my book. Two complete shit-talking idiots without a shred of credibility."

Now without looking back through my posts I do not believe that I have ever said that there was a report authored by Blix and Ritter that categorically stated that Iraq had 25,000 litres of Anthrax and 38,000 litres of botulinum toxin.

What I have previously referred to were the UNSCOM Reports to the United nations security Council of January 1999 and the later Report of March 1999 in which they Reported the status regarding WMD, WMD Research & Development programmes, stockpiles of WMD agents & precursors, munitions and missile inventory. It was those reports that detailed the discrepancies that existed between raw materials purchased and used, agents produced and weaponised, munitions made and used against what they could verify as having been destroyed. The information used was that supplied by the Iraqi Authorities, their suppliers, manufacturing records, etc. The UNSCOM Reports were careful to state that the shortfalls as detailed could only indicate what Iraq might possess. In my posts I have provided links to both those reports by way of substantiation.

The trouble with the anti-Bush camp is that they have fixated on the gross inaccuracy that the March 2003 invasion of Iraq was about any single issue, be it "WMD", or "Regime Change". The March 2003 invasion of Iraq was carried out to ensure beyond doubt that Iraq was placed in compliance with all the terms and conditions it signed up to at Safwan on 3rd March 1991 and formalised on 3rd April 1991 as United Nations Security Council Resolution 687. Note Guest 282RA compliance with all terms and conditions, there were quite a few of them, so please do not try to reduce the situation that existed to any "single" cause, that is deliberate misrepresentation.

With egard to WMD, the anti-Bush camp have fixated on the false premise that WMD had to be found to justify the invasion and make it alright with the world. The fallacy that there had to be a "smoking gun". The object of the exercise was to make sure that Iraq did not have any of these weapons, was not stockpiling materials that could be used for their manufacture, was not running any R&D programmes targeted at reviving WMD some time in the future once sanctions were lifted, was not designing weapons delivery systems that could threaten its neighbours near and far.

On "Regime Change" the anti-Bush camp seem reluctant to accept that the desirability of regime change in Iraq was enshrined as part of US Foreign Policy long before GWB came to office. That particular bit of meddling in another nations affairs was put in place by the previous administration - they were correct in doing so. Now back to events of summer 2002 to spring 2003, with regard to "Regime Change". Saddam Hussein, as previously stated, was given every single opportunity to co-operate and show the world that he and his government were being fully open and transparent in their dealings with the international community, he chose not to do so. Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to step down, he chose not to do so. Had he decided differently the war would not have happened.

Now Guest 282RA a question of mine that you have been assiduously ducking, since you brought it up:

Now how exactly did us Brits embarrass ourselves fighting a ragtag bunch of kids in the Falkland Islands? - the floor is yours