[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Prog)

Saddam murdered his own people, hurt his own people, and has proven to be dangerous in the past (for example, by invading Kuwait). So, in that sense, can one logical try to reason why Saddam didn't use WMDs if he had them? He is obviously a very illogical person, or at least he is to me..

Nonsense, you named the list yourself, murder, invasion, genocide, torture ... No atrocity was too extreme for Saddam to stay in power, expand his influence, wreak his havoc or vengeance upon his enemies. Is this all cruel and inhuman? Ofcourse, but not illogical, the logic is that he always did whatever needed to stay in power, he wasn't a leader of the empty threat, he had no remorse about doing the unthinkable whenever it was required in his (granted) twisted mind, but that was the logic of his actions. You could depend on him doing that, just like he attacked Israel with scuds in the first gulf war, so if he truly would have had any WMD's he would have used them.

Quote: (Originally Posted by Prog)

And to Steve, you are very right. Russian Intelligence, Lord Butler's investigation in Britain, and our own intelligence concluded that Iraq had WMDs. And new evidence has even shown that Saddam's top generals thought he had WMDs. So, to say Bush lied is highly irresponsible, uniformed, and, well, hateful.

Well, I'm not in uniform , but I'm calling b.llsh.t in regard to Bush's pre-war statements. By now it is obvious that the American government disregarded and even set aside any possible intelligence that stated that Iraq might not have WMD's and they did state that they did have them as a matter of certainty, in my opinion that makes you a liar.