| 
walts: You didn't address the factual things I mentioned (UN inspector, no records of biological weapons being used), and the fact that you took preventative pills doesn't indicate that anything biological was used. emerald: I agree, there are many many things that happened that we are not told about. However, it would be in the Bush administration's best interests to let us know that chemical/biological weapons were used in order to receive further support for the war. The fact that they have not openly said that biological or chemical weapons were used is proof intself that there is no way they were used, because that fact would probably push the UN (and other countries) to support the war. The reason most countries in the UN don't support the war is that there is no proof that Saddam has any biological or chemical weapons, and they don't consider him a threat because he has never used them in the past. Going into Iraq based on the assumption that there are weapons of mass descruction, and with the second assumption that Saddam will not co-operate with diss-armament does not seem like a logical or justified cause. If we can create wars based on the assumption that they have weapons (even though professional inspectors say there are not) we could push that assumption onto any country.
"Hating everyone protects me from elitism."
|