Replies

When a country wages a "pre-emptive" war against another country like the U.S. has in this case, it is up to the U.S. to prove that the basis for that war was legitimate

I believe the weight of evidence supporting the war was based on Iraq's past actions, rather than on their potential actions.

Quite frankly, I think anyone who believes that a head of state would move his most effective means of defense outside his country -- while he himself crawled down a hole as an invading army toppled his regime -- is pretty damned naive.

I don't believe Saddam ever intended to use any WMDs against the US on a field of battle. Rather, their purpose was to establish his position locally as a major warlord and tribal chieftan, and perhaps to be used in terror acts at a time of his choosing. Indeed, he might have succeeded if Osama had not shot his wad on 9/11, as the world was leaning toward easing sanctions on Iraq based on the bribe-driven UN influence, after which time he could reconstitute the suspended nuke operations and recover his bio and chemical weapons from their hiding places. The events of 9/11 screwed that up for him, because it put the US into active mode against terrorists and thugs.

When Saddam hid his WMD and himself, I think he truly believed that the war would blow over and he would regain power. He still does believe that.

I'd also point out that this war was a dismal failure on the part of the U.S. if we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of U.S. lives over these WMDS -- only to have them spirited out of the country without our knowledge.

I do not consider it a dismal failure, since the goal of regime change has been accomplished, Saddam's nuclear ambitions have been foiled permanently, and the US has shown that as a nation it will indeed back up its words with actions.