I'm not so sure I buy that because the weapons inspectors that went in before Bush invaded didn't find anything, indicating A. Saddam never had any WMDs or B. he destroyed them before the weapons inspectors came because of political pressure. Either way, Bush is still lying.

Now the reason we're there is for regime change. It's all PR to keep support up...either way, we're there now and we may as well finish it as expediently as possible.

Powell Doctrine would have been of some use here, imho. Oh well.

Switzerland

Actually, if you go by the definition of WMD's, most countries DO.

Oh yeah, I forgot that topic we had where someone (probably you) explained the real definition of WMDs. You are right my friend. My bad, but I think prescott and I were talking about the same thing. If he was talking along the line of nuclear and chemical weapons, my response was most countries in the world don't have them.

I know...

So we should trust the weapon inspectors 100% for the safety of America?? I don't think that's a very smart judgement.

If I have WMD's and i'm expecting weapon inspectors to come along and search my place, i'd hide them real good.

I think you have a good point. The only problem is how do you know Saddam was going to use a WMD against America? Bush thought the threat was so imminent and dangerous that he went to war over it. Do you believe that?

I don't for one second.

How were his WMDs ever a threat to America? This had nothing to do with the defense of America...

"Its the man with one I'm worried about" -- Morgan Freeman the Sum of all Fears. Even though quote comes from a movie it does make alot of sense. Iraq had to have had ATLEAST one chemical or nuclear weapon (you take your pick). The less you have the more purpose you have for them or the poorer you're organization/country is to produce them. The more you have the more you are using for scare.