snip
>
>In spite of all this, you prefer to believe Saddam, a man responsible for the following:
>
>http://web.amnesty.org/ai.nsf/Index/MDE140102001?OpenDocument&of=COUNTRIES%5CIRAQ
>
>I can't help you.

I suspect that there are chemical or biological weapons in Iraq.
The beauty of democracy is that we get to participate in our governance and our elected officials have some responsibility to keep us apprised of pertinent information. Some examples:
- President Kennedy showed photos of missiles in place in Cuba;
- The chaos in Sudan was visible to anyone with a TV set;
- The ugliness in Bosnia was evident to anyone with a TV set;
- The ethnic cleansing of Kosovo was evident by both television pictures and eye-witness reports of escapees;
- The attack on Kuwait was evident for all to see.

In EACH of those cases, with or without U.N. approval/sanction, the public was behind the actions. Why...because they were credibly informed.

This time we've got the word of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. Democracy merits and demands a little more than that.

So You're right, you can't help me. President Bush or Prime minister Blair could have. Now we can only hope that they do produce such UNUSED (only because that's way better than proof by use) weapons once they're in charge.
But that will only provide some relief and still do nothing towards convincing me on the next issue.