On Fri, 21 Mar 2003, Tyler Durden wrote: > "As the Iraqis themselves said, and I paraphrase (because the quote is not > handy): "If the U.S. says they know the locations of secret weapons > projects, of underground bunkers, etc., why don't they simply give the > locations to the U.N. weapons inspectors who can then go to those sites?" > > Come on now! The Iraqis should have proven that they DON'T have any nukular > weapons. They were unable to prove that they don't have any WMDs, so now > it's their fault they're getting invaded.
How do you prove non-existance of an item? (Especially when the other party is willing to lie and forge evidence to the contrary.) I don't believe that there was *anything* that Iraq could have done to stop the invasion. If Saddam left with all his sons, we would have gone in to "provide stability". If they had bent over and lubed up, we would have still claimed that they were hiding something on "mobile bases" or had it hidden underground or some other excuse. Because, in the end, all Bush wanted was an excuse. But don't think it stops here. As it has been said before: "Rome wasn't built in a day".
