hardheadjarhead said:How does one prove the non-existence of something that doesn't exist? Please show me how it is possible to prove a negative. You're claiming that Saddam should have proven the weapons didn't exist. We now know, post-invasion, that they don't exist and never did. How is he supposed to have proven this?
1) I don't know about the "never did." I believe ample evidence showed that it existed. They just now believe that Saddam did indeed destroy it.
2) I didn't make the rules to the game, the UN did. It said that Iraq was to disclose what they had and to show evidence of destruction. In many cases, those conditions weren't met. In the inspector's own words, the disclosure was wrought with problems and they had documents of materials that was on hand and required destruction, but Iraq didn't provide evidence to the destruction. There was also evidence of weapons found that weren't declared at all, weapons that they were hiding.
3) The inspectors had evidence of weapon materials purchased and delivered, but no documentation on their destruction. No negative to prove, if it was there it had to go somewhere, and it was the responsibility of Iraq to show the documentation, not the inspector's.
hardheadjarhead said:I spent a great deal of time debating you in another thread wherein I documented the administration's efforts to engineer a perception of threat regarding nuclear weapons.
My original intention of my involvement in this thread was not to argue whether the war was justified. The claim was made that the UN believed they had destroyed all of Iraq's weapons and I disputed that claim. Nothing about engineering data, these were the quotes from the inspectors themselves. Are you arguing those claims?
hardheadjarhead said:I honestly have to question if any amount of evidence would satisfy any of the apologists for the administration, or whether anybody would concede points on this issue.
Which was my point about not being able to PROVE either way whether the war was justified. There is contention on the evidence and contention on the legality. Until the "real" facts and intentions of those in power are known and not just guessed, we'll never know. And the argument of legality hasn't been heard in any court of law.
You can say things were engineered and people lied, but without a forum where all the evidence is presented and disputed by both sides, people will believe what they believe. I'm not one to rush that someone is guilty without adequate representation of the facts.
hardheadjarhead said:WMD was the administration's casus belli. Inspectors prior to the war, such as Scott Ritter, said they didn't exist.
That's what I dispute. The briefings to the security council by the Inspectors didn't say that, and in fact believed there was big chance they did.
hardheadjarhead said:As I indicated in the thread (above), the administration prior to 9-11 was on record stating that Saddam wasn't a threat--you can hear it in Powell and Rice's own words--and the National Intelligence Estimate of 2000 gave little indication that Iraq loomed as a dangerous entity.
All pre-9/11. That devastating strike made the government believe that its current policy of containment simply wasn't going to do the job. They believed that the only way to solve the problem was to resolve it quickly. Are you saying that they can't change their minds as conditions change or new information comes to light?