I'm not sure what would suffice to prove WMDs existed when the U.S. attacked Iraq. We know they were there before - even Clinton acknolwedged it and so did inspections. The premise today is that they were there but after 1991 Saddam was pretty much stripped of his power to produce them. Most experts agree he wanted to produce WMDs and made attempts to do so but lacked the ability to carry it out. My personal opinion (which I will hold until proven otherwise) is that they did exist, they existed still or again after 1991, and were removed in the days preceding the attack. There is too much too suggest that it all went to Syria in trains to ignore it. On top of that, the 4th Infantry Division discovered in Iraq 55 gallon drums in an ammo dump containing chemicals that when mixed together form nerve gas. It was never listed as WMD because the chemicals weren't combined yet. How long would that take? 10 minutes? I can't remember my chemical warfare training anylonger - it has been too many years. These chemicals were stored next to some missiles that were configured to carry liquids. Uranium was also found in Iraq - some which was enriched. That is on the way to an atomic weapon. Not enriched, it's the materials for a dirty bomb. I thought both were classified as WMDs.


>>>>Given the average Joe's inability to really give a shit about Iraqi freedom, maybe lieing about the WMD was the right thing to do, at least inasfar as the world will be a better place for it?
>>>
>>>It's a good thing you put a question mark at the end of that. It indicates to me that you're pulling that out of your ass, or more far-fetchedly out of a conspiracy theory.. (e.g. "subliminimal" messages)
>>
>>The question mark should indicate that I'm asking you a question, and that it might be time to be some thought into that question.
>>
>
>But you are basically saying that the powers that be think we're all idiots ("we" = the average U.S. Citizen) that need to be treated like children, lied to because we cannot understand their reasons. Having a premise like the quest to Iraqi freedom would not have flied here or abroad, you are right about that. But maybe it is because it is even less probable (let alone plausible) as the real reason for the attack.
>
>>
>>>The way I see it is this: there was a struggle to come up with a reason to attack Iraq and the administration thought the more plausible was the WMD farce.
>>
>>That's the way I see it too.
>>
>>But why was the WMD scare tactic more plausible? Was it because of "average Joe's inability to really give a shit about Iraqi freedom" that made the well beings of Iraqis irrelevant?
>>
>>I think so. It was when the selfish American was interjected (ficticiously or not) into the danger that Iraqis lived with, that we suddenly became concerend.
>
>I want to believe that the U.S. went into Afghanistan and Iraq fighting 9/11 terrorists and their networks. Trumping Saddam might have been a goal or a byproduct of that. This is plausible and it was the line fed to us with the WMD excuse. I don't think you can brand the "average joe" as selfish for that.
>
>Staying there this long and pretending to know what's best for Iraqis.. (or even worse pretending to pretend) that's a different story, one we're all struggling with now.