My point exactly. It's easy to dismiss someones argument by saying that he is only trying to make petty points to satisfy his ego. So much easier than addressing the question.
So I'll try again.
Why is it NOT OK that the Military has not found any WMDs yet, having been in country for a month, when it WAS ok to give the Inspectors "several months more" to try to find the said WMDs.
L.H. all the flummery about your feelings on the possession of WMDs is irrelevant to the question at hand. If you weren't going to address it, why did you get involved?
Kevin, you said,"And Troll the difference between now and when the inspections were being carried out, is that there is a crucial bit of fresh
evidence. We know that Iraqis invaded and Saddam's reguime destroyed, and there was not a single example of any of
these Weapons of Mass Destruction being used. That cannot easily be dismissed."
It is the 4easiest thing in the world to dismiss. Saddam Hussein was caught between a rock and a hard place. If on the one hand, he used WMDs to oppose the Coalition, he would be admitting to the world that the war was justified.
If on the other hand, he did >I?not he would be throwing away his only chance for a possible victory or at least a truce.
I think, personally, that his plan was to use them only as a last resort and then he was either killed or put out of commission in some way so that the necessary commands could not be given.
L.H., I assume that you can furnish definitive proof of this statement."Yes, because that was not the real reason for the war. Dead simple."
If you cannot, then it is idle speculation on your part and should be labeled as such.

troll