I speculated not just about Syria, but about any of the sympathetic countries in the area... Syria just happens to be a more popular example. And the basis for this speculation has already been laid out. WMDs missing -- Blix and others in the *world community* thought this was the case, too. Why did they think this was the case? Are they really that bad at accounting? If not, then where did these weapons go?

Doesn't seem to make much sense to bury or hide them... they'd just be found eventually. Iraq is a fairly large country... something akin to California in square mileage, but I would think we would have run across *someone* who was a witness to WMD destruction, so that seems to be less likely. And if you think about it, why would you destroy them? Then you can't use them or trade them or barter with them as collateral. Moving them would be the best option. And they had plenty of time to do this before we got there; it's not like Iraq's borders were being guarded.

Sorry to be contrarian again, but this is not speculation based on what I want to believe. What I'd like to believe is that the evidence the *world community* had and trusted was factual... Saddam had WMDs... they're missing... he won't tell anyone what happened to them.

>Not true. I choose to speculate only on the basis that none were found - before or after. There is not concrete evidence that I've seen showing they were moved to Syria. If you have such evidence, show it. All I've seen is your belief that this happened. That is not evidence.