There was no evidence that Saddam had WMD. Therefore they stated this and said they would not back an attack on Iraq until there was evidence. If there was evidence, then they could not use the 'Lack of evidence' as reasoning for not going into Iraq now could they?
-Gel -----Original Message----- From: John Stanley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>1) LACK OF EVIDENCE was what was preventing the UN from unanimously >>deciding to attack Iraq. Are you positive of this? What are the odds that their own oil contracts with Iraq had nothing to do with their decision to do nothing? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Host with the leader in ColdFusion hosting. Voted #1 ColdFusion host by CF Developers. Offering shared and dedicated hosting options. www.cfxhosting.com/default.cfm?redirect=10481 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
