I agree on the “never all the weapons”, but disagree on nearly all the rest.
So you agree with the fact that UN weapons inspectors will never find all the weapons? Then why are we wasting our time and implanting a false security into the rest of the world by using inspectors? Saddam will continue to develope these weapons even while inspectors are “inspecting” certain key facilities. His chemical weapons facilities are on mobile semi-trucks for crying out loud!
Plus, I think the proposal that Bush sent to the United Nations was not strictly focused on removing the weapons:
Are UN weapons inspectors going to free the 600+ POW’s that still are held captive in Iraq from Desert Storm?
Are UN weapons inspectors going to stop the persecution of the Kurds and the Sheaites? (sp?)
Are UN weapons inspectors going to stop the horrific crimes (and experiments) that Saddam currently inflicts upon people? Including acid baths and dis-memberment of body parts while the person is still alive!
UN weapons inspectors are a weak attempt to solve only one aspect of the broad range of issues that Saddam is guilty of. They don’t even do a good job at that.
3 Months? What have you been smoking? Give him 3 years, minumum.
According to the former Iraqi nuclear scientist who was under Saddam’s command.
For me, I don’t oppose the war because of the reasons for starting it. I oppose the war because we don’t have a clear plan for afterwards. If this war lasts awhile, meaning a long bombing campaign, hate is going to be brewed by the barrel. If we let happen to Iraq what we let happen to Afganistan, we’re in trouble. Going into Iraq as is right now, with no post-war plan, is a bigger folly than the Townshend Act by England in 1765.
I will lay money on the fact that the Bush team has multiple proposals on the table for a post-war Iraq. There’s a big difference between what you hear on CNN and what’s going on in the White House.