Quote:
Originally posted by Carrie@Apr 4 2003, 01:28 PM
Serge it's a useless cause.
Even if a picture of Saddam was released with him HOLDING the damn Ricin, people would say he had no knowledge of what was in the vial - or we can't prove what was in the vial, blah blah blah.
People will believe what they WANT to believe, and nothing else. 
|
Well, *I* want WMD"s to be found. Warehouses full of them. I thought about this before the war and decided for my personal analysis [for ME], I wouldn't consider WMD's found in terrorist camps in Kurd controlled [or non-Iraqi controled] areas to be evidence of Saddam's use of WMD. I thought that was likely that would occur, but didn't think that would be valid evidence.
I believe Saddam has WMD. I believe we will find them. I don't believe these count.
So in this case, you are wrong. I want WMD's to be found but this doesn't count without proof of a link to Saddam - which doesn't mean there isn't one.
There are chemical weapons in the US too but that doesn't mean they are under government control. There are people in the US with ties to al-Qaeda but that doesn't mean George Bush is collaborating with al-Qaeda.
This will be simple to prove in the end. There are hundreds of scientists in Iraq that will be interviewed after the fall of Iraq and will be able to conclusively prove Saddam's recent involvement in developing or storing WMD - assuming there has been. That something is found inside your borders is the weakest sign of evidence there is. Does the United States deal in cocaine because it is found inside our borders?