No one argues that Iraq did not have! wmds and delivery systems and still to some respect have but the question is (and has been in other threads) was the accounts given by Powell & Co before the UN etc. correct? And I don´t mean semantically. I argue that the claims is not 95 percent true. And the missing bio and toxins are important. If stockpiles etc. are found I will admit I was wrong and shut up, but even Rice/Way etc. acknowlegdges that the claims might have been false (the reason is not the issue).
I am sorry, it is hard for me to understand your comments. It sounds like you are arguing with yourself and losing.
If I follow you correctly ...
On one hand, you acknowledge that Iraq had wmds, BUT on the other, you argue that Powell lied to the UN. YET you claim the missing bio and toxins are important and if found you will be quite BUT you point out that even Rice acknowledges that the claims might have been false AND the problem you see is that no one from the US dares to say, "ok so we were not completely wright in that respect but the war was just anyway."
That said...
While the UN resolutions place the burden on Iraq to prove that all of the wmds were destroyed, you would rather place the burden of proof of the existence of wmds on the United States and Britain. And if the United States and Britain cannot prove there are wmds, then they were lying all along. By that logic, that is akin to saying that for the period of time that we could not find him, saddam hussein did not exist. Moreover, to this day, bin laden does not exist because we have not found him.
Ok, I´ll be blunt. I believe the WMD claims made in the UN etc. just before the war was false (intelligence failure etc. does not matter - I have stated that the result of the war is positive).
Concerning the programs, WMDs; who can claim that Iraq did not have a programme after Halabja and the Iran war? or remains from that period?
But, the empty rusty shells etc. found the other week turned out to be old ones from that particular period. Saddam was a dictator but he never fired one scud armed with WMD against Israel or the Coalition in either of the wars, this is not incidental, he knew he would be nuked if he did.
Then the lying part, and maybe thats the crux of the matter. No one wants to step up and say hey we were wrong, but ... just because it will open up for people shouting liar liar...
My point since the beginning has been that painting yourself into a corner with the WMD argument only increases this risk.
About the burden of proof, yes that was put on the Iraqies by the UN and were they forthcoming? No one knows because that line was never followed through properly(earlier post).
How can that "aiken to saying that for the period of time that we could not find him, saddam hussein did not exist. Moreover, to this day, bin laden does not exist because we have not found him."?
To quote Blix:
"The noble art of losing face will one day save the human race"