[Dr. Frank fan]

The U.S. and the U.K. claimed that the Iraqi government possessed weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein and the neighboring Arab countries claimed that they did not. Hence, the burden of proof is on the U.S. and the U.K.

This reasoning would be absolutely correct if Iraq were a defendant in a criminal trial (for the crime of: possessing weapons of mass destruction) and the U.S. and the U.K. were its prosecutors. That is not the situation, however. The situation is almost nothing like that, in any way.

I remember a time when anyone who thumbed his nose at the United Nations was seen as a champion of some of the principles that conservatives hold dear.

Me too. And, isn't that what we did, thumb our noses at the UN for disingenuously failing to enforce their own phony rules? At least, that's what leftists always tell me when they say we did it "unilaterally" etc.

Anyone who truly believes that the United States government would have placed thousands of U.S. military personnal in close proximity to Iraq if there was any chance in hell that Iraq possessed "weapons of mass destruction" is naive.

Then you must not believe the '91 Gulf War occurred. After all: we placed thousands of U.S. military personnel in Kuwait (at least), and: we knew that Iraq had various WMDs - at least, that's what leftists always tell me; in fact according to leftists we're the ones who supplied the WMDs to some extent. Right? Well, I believe the '91 Gulf War occurred in spite of all that. I guess that makes me "naive" and you know better.

[Alberta's Child]

This reasoning would be absolutely correct if Iraq were a defendant in a criminal trial (for the crime of: possessing weapons of mass destruction) and the U.S. and the U.K. were its prosecutors. That is not the situation, however. The situation is almost nothing like that, in any way.

So when some militant Islamic jackass from Yemen or Pakistan claims that the Mossad was behind the 9/11 attacks on the U.S., you'r telling me that the burden is on Israel to prove that they were not?

And, isn't that what we did, thumb our noses at the UN for disingenuously failing to enforce their own phony rules?

You can't complain about "phony rules" in this context, since they were put in place at the behest of the U.S. after the first Gulf War.

Then you must not believe the '91 Gulf War occurred. After all: we placed thousands of U.S. military personnel in Kuwait (at least), and: we knew that Iraq had various WMDs - at least, that's what leftists always tell me; in fact according to leftists we're the ones who supplied the WMDs to some extent. Right? Well, I believe the '91 Gulf War occurred in spite of all that. I guess that makes me "naive" and you know better.

The most current version of the events surrpounding the first Gulf War was that President Bush essentially laid out to Iraq all the elements of a U.S. response to a WMD attack. I hate to sound cynical, but I have a hard time taking anything like this seriously when it starts to smell like a staged event instead of a truly necessary military action.