--- Mervyn Lobo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not only do you have serious comprehension skills but you also have strange propagation skills (that you do not seem to be aware of.) Nobody knows if you are serious when you write or if you write in jest!
Mario replies: As is usual with the cabal of anti-American Saddam supporters on Goanet, I looked in vain for some specific fact or serious analysis from Mervyn, but find only inchoate insults. Mervyn continues: > Saddam used the gas on the Kurds. In fact, it invaded Iraq only when it was sure that there was no gas left. That's the reason for the 10 year gap :-) > Mario responds: Finally some opinion. Unfortunately, it makes no sense. If, in fact, there were no WMDs left in Iraq, Saddam would have been able to establish this fact to the satisfaction of the UN inspectors, the UN sanctions would have been complied with, and there would have been no need for UN resolution 1441, which was the 17th UN resolution demanding that Saddam provide an accounting of his WMDs. Unlike the previous 16, this resolution threatened serious action, not just more economic sanctions. Even then, with the coalition massed on his border, Saddam was unable to show the UN inspectors that he had no WMDs, as his die-hard supporter, Mervyn, stlll stoutly insists. Mervyn and his tiny cabal of gullible anti-American Saddam supporters want us to believe that a brutal dictator like Saddam would risk and lose his cushy dictatorship, his torture chambers and rape rooms, after disposing off his WMDs, whereas he could have kept his dictatorship by just showing the UN inspectors that he had disposed off all his WMDs. Amazing logic, Mervyn, but it makes NO SENSE. What makes far more sense in the context of the facts, is that the WMDs are still hidden somewhere, either in Iraq or in Syria. If Iraq had no WMDs, Saddam would still be in power.
