What I stated in my post above requires no great unshakeable faith whatsoever - it is merely an outline of the situation with regard to Iraq's WMD and WMD programmes. The outline is provided by information gathered for, and reported to, the Security Council of the United Nations by teams of inspectors drawn from member states. I note that in detail you do not question, or refute any of the four points raised.
You state that: "A country that has significant weapons of mass destruction does not go down before a foreign invasion without using them. If Iraq had had such weapons they would have used them."
That is not bourne out historically - in 1991 Iraq, undeniably, did have a credible chemical and biological capability - They didn't use them then.
Your references to 9/11, Rudel and Imperial Rome are totally irrelevant to the subject under discussion. With regard to my own personal experience, during my time in the forces I have been on active service on three occasions, so please, you have no need to feel sorry for any lack of opportunity you feel I may, or may not, have missed out on.
Amergin:
You say that you are, "sure that before too long...they will plant evidence.... "
Why would they do that? - they simply just do not have to do that. What they do have to do is establish beyond doubt what happened to the items mentioned in the UNSCOM Report. For the second part of UNMOVIC and IAEA's remit, with the Ba'athist regime of Saddam Hussein gone, they can say with an extremely high degree of confidence that currently, Iraq is not pursuing any programme related to any WMD capability.