>>So you are saying that you would've been satisified with the weapons inspectors findings?
>>
>>The inspections were there in an attempt to prove that Saddam had weapons of mass-destruction, yet none were found, yet Bush was still convinced, in which case, why the hell send the inspectors out there in the first place? To prove Saddam was hiding them? Whose word do we take for that?
>
>A common mistake people make is assuming that the U.N. inspectors were there to find a smoking gun. As the inspectors themselves have pointed out, they were they to verify Iraqi cooperation with disarmament. Even Hans Blix has said that Iraq has not made a fundamental decision to disarm.

Well, I must have missed that, because whenever I heard the news on the subject it was all about "finding" weapsons of MD, but thanks for clarifying.

I've just noticed someone mention the 9/11, alot of it is going to boil down to that, which I can understand.

>As far as whose word to take, you have your choice between Tony Blair and George Bush or Saddam Hussein.

Heh, great isn't it, I get a choice of 3 people I wouldn't trust < g >

Kev