Post originally by Zoran Bekric at 2003-05-18 17:55:52
Converted from Phorums BB System



David Sinclair wrote:
---------------------------------------------------------
<i>So we could go the easy route and say that the book allows playing out both wars with Iraq. Another easy route would be to say that the books allows the presentation of what-if scenarios, as in "what if Iraq still had these weapons and used them"?</i>
---------------------------------------------------------

We could. And it would be a neat solution.

---------------------------------------------------------
<i>But since you're personal views...</i>
---------------------------------------------------------

"Personal views"? Independently verifiable evidence is neither "personal" nor a "view". Quite the opposite. It's the very essence of objectivity. As is the lack of such evidence.

---------------------------------------------------------
<i>Why would hunting for chemical and biological weapons in a similarly sized area be any easier when such materials are or were actively hidden away?</i>
---------------------------------------------------------

Because the searchers claimed to have proof positive based on reliable intelligence of the existence and location of such weapons and used that claim to justify an aggressive war?

Your quibbling suggests that the "proof" was less than "positive", the "intelligence" was less than "reliable" and the claim was less than honest.

---------------------------------------------------------
<i>Anyway, while we are busy nitpicking my statements, where did I say those weapons were developed _recently_?</i>
---------------------------------------------------------

From your blurb: <i>"Focuses on weapons used in the recent war in Iraq."</i>

Regards,

Zoran