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.

By the bye where and when did I demonstrate

The depth of your ignorance is further proved by your statement further up this thread, that the way to comply would be to show the inspectors where he had hidden the weapons.

Are you possibly referring the hypothetical example I gave of someone demonsrating what full procative co-operation means. If so your powers of comprehension of the english language are sadly lacking, and it is little wonder that you swallow the utter tripe dished out to you in the press.

Bobert:

So, T, you think that 23 missles fired at Iraq by Clinton in response to a plot to kill Daddy Bush amounted to an attempt ar regime change???

Nope, not in the slightest, but you asked:

So what if "regime change" was official or even unofficil policy, T... If it meant going to war than why didn't Clinton do it??? Huh???

I gave you two instances where Bill Clinton did attack Iraq in a manner that would amount to constituting an "Act of War", both those attacks were made without Clinton seeking congressional approval and without going to the UN for authorisation. As the US IRAQ Act did not come into force until late summer 1998 the first attack in 1993 could not possibly have had anything to do with Regime Change could it??? Huh???

The second time I mentioned the missile attack of June 1993, the example was given in response to someone stating that Saddam was confining his activities to inside Iraq. The sponsorship of suicide bombers in the West Bank and the attempted assassination of Bush Snr both took place outside of Iraq. That good enough for you or would you like it explained just a little bit clearer than that.