Originally Posted by XxNeXuSxX
It proves it beyond a reasonable doubt, yes. If you would understand how the US concluded through surveillance, they believed Saddam was manufacturing weapons; henceforth when one investigates and finds NO TRACES
of any kind of biological, chemical, or any other WMD, you must conclude they NEVER
I couldn't give less of a sh*t what they believed in 03. Since he never had any, it's irrelevant.
"we know where Saddam Hussein is hiding biological and chemical weapons
." He stressed, "We know exactly where they are
Just looking at things like Google earth can help one realize the visual capability sure. And it's a given that the US military equipment would be a lot more sophisticated.
The stockpiles of chemical and/or biological weapons would probably fit in the size of one small room. Nerve gas, mustard gas whatever.
So the question to me then is, do we have the capability to prevent all cargo from leaving every square perimeter mile of Iraq? To me that seems far fetched. The CIA world fact book shows Iraq has about 2270 miles of land boundary. And given months of advanced notice, I can't see how you would suggest that it's proof beyond a 'reasonable doubt' that (if they existed) they couldn't slip through.
And for the record, I'm not arguing whether he had them or not. Its just always bothered me that people say conclusively they never existed for the very reasons you've stated, ie. no traces of anything by the time we got there.
It's just easier to conclude that the US Millitary even looking for WMD's would then be just a front, rather then suggesting that it's not impossible for multiple small shipments to pass an Iraqi Border.
In addition, you can't say that "they NEVER existed", given the Kurds as the example. If Saddam was able to obtain chemical weapons in 1988 how can someone say he couldn't obtain them at some point later.
Did they exist? Probably not. I just don't buy the conclusive proof.
nice link btw, " He stressed, "We know exactly where they are."