Walter
>The problem here is in reversing and bending the argument. AFAIK, each and every law works like "Anyone is not guilty until proven otherwise". And unless you're proven guilty, you cannot be punnished. It really is beyond me that Saddam had to prove its innocence rather than the UN had to prove its guilt.

That is lopsided quite a bit: first of all it has been "established" that Saddam had owned and used WMD during Iran/Iraq war. Secondly he was "on probation" from the terms of the first Iraq war after invading Kuwait: allowing inspections was one of the probation terms.

While Saddam had reasons for bluffing in the postition against his neighbours and the kurds living in the northern part (housing a large part of Iraqi oil reserves) I don't *think* he would have held his bluff to stop inspectors by force, as that would have clearly spelled "invasion" right before him giving the order. The question is, was the invasion occuring without such direct provocation meant to cut him off from backing down options.

my 0.0000000001 barrels of crude

thomas