Originally Posted by Eric5273

Read the summary and conclusions of both reports. Even they say that nothing they found is any evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime was stockpiling or producing WMDs in violation of UN resolutions.

Are you going to take the position that finding any chemical or biological weapons inside of a country means that the government of that country is responsible and therefore guilty of violating international law?

We know that Iraq had chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs prior to 1991. When you have large numbers of people working on such programs, you are bound to have some security breaches and you are also bound to have mistakes in your records. We found this out with regard to the Anthrax attacks in October 2001, as the investigators have confirmed the anthrax samples came from Ford Detrick. Does that mean that our government is in violation of international law and is stockpiling or producing anthrax? It could mean that. But without any evidence of that, it simply means that at some point in time long before we destroyed our stockpiles of anthrax, some could have been stolen -- a much more likely possibility.

The conclusion that was reached with regard to Iraq is that those in charge of these WMD programs reported larger production numbers than what was actually being produced, perhaps in order to satisfy a ruthless government. They have found recordings of various cabinet meetings during the 1990s where Saddam and his advisors discuss that they have no more WMDs and they do not know what to do to satisfy the UN and get the sanctions removed.

It is quite obvious that while dangerous, these small and isolated amounts of weapons that have been found had nothing to do with the Iraqi government, and the overthrow of that government has done nothing to lessen the risk of those samples finding their way in to the hands of extremists. If anything, there are far more extremists running around Iraq now than before 2003.

Originally Posted by Lambeau

Would you rather have the extremists & terrorists running around Iraq or the United States???

Originally Posted by Lambeau

Would you rather have the extremists & terrorists running around Iraq or the United States???

Originally Posted by accella4.4

If there is a Mahatma Ghandi way out of this clash of civilizations, let me know where to sign up.

Originally Posted by Eric5273

There is. Simply bring home our troops from that part of the world and stop selling weapons to any countries in the Middle East.

There has always been extremism in that part of the world. But they did not bother us until we started sending our military over to their part of the world to fight wars.

I say let the extremists kill eachother and we can simply stay out of it.

Originally Posted by Lambeau

If we did that do you honestly think the terrorists would play nice & lose their desire to come here and kill us???

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Yes. There would have to be more than a simple disengagement. There would have to be a nice PR campaign with announcements that we are changing our ways and we are no longer going to be imperialistic, etc. We would have to be convincing. It would probably have to be something that would perhaps coinside with a new President taking office. I don't think the world would buy it if it came from George Bush.

Originally Posted by Eric5273

No, I would rather not have extremists and terrorists running around in Iraq or the United States.

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Yes. There would have to be more than a simple disengagement. There would have to be a nice PR campaign with announcements that we are changing our ways and we are no longer going to be imperialistic, etc. We would have to be convincing. It would probably have to be something that would perhaps coinside with a new President taking office. I don't think the world would buy it if it came from George Bush.