>How can I be more specific?
>
>When pressed about Iraq, you leap to the Balkans as if that is relevant to invading Iraq.

You did not press me on Iraq. You wrote that you hoped I (or perhaps you meant the U.S. and it's coalition partners) had learned something. While I cannot speak for the administration and the coalition of course, I learned quite a bit about the U.N. before the war with Iraq. I was not aware until then of its failures in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Rwanda. So for those who preach how we should have waited for the U.N., and there have been many arguments here on the UT and elsewhere, I ask why? No one, here on the UT or anywhere else, has ever answered that question.

> Focusing on Iraq: there were no WMD to find, so the UN was actually doing a pretty good job of not finding them. Invading Iraq has not done a better job of finding the WMD that are not there. The situation in Kosovo, Viet Nam or Zimbabwe has nothing to do with this simple fact.

That is true, and I won't argue it. I am extremely disappointed that WMDs were not found because the administration all but guaranteed they would be found.

However, the alternative was the U.N. Had U.S. and British troops not massed on Kuwait's border, Iraq would not have complied with U.N. resolution 1441. As a matter of fact, as Hans Blix pointed out before the war started, Iraq was still not fully complying. Had the troops not massed, Iraq would have done the same thing they did for the 12 years before. Again, anyone who thinks Iraq's behavior would have changed is insane.

And in fact, we did find after the war that Iraq was trying to build missles that were beyond the range they were allowed. This was pointed out on the Frontline program. We also found after the war that Iraq did not declare everything they were supposed to, including vials of biological weapons. While the vials themselves were too small to be a threat, they weren't declared.

All of this was happening before the war, with U.N. inspectors in the country, and coalition troops massing at the border. How can you possibly say that Iraq's behavoir would have changed?

>I'm amazed to hear you say that possession of WMD was never actually claimed. Rather than quoting the references picked for you by apologists, just look up the various speeches and read them! here, let me help:

You need to go back and reread what I have written, because I never wrote anything like that.

>"There is already a mountain of evidence that Saddam Hussein is gathering weapons [of mass destruction] for the purpose of using them. And adding additional information is like adding a foot to Mount Everest."
>Ari Fleischer, Press Secretary Response to Question From Press 9/6/2002
>
>"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."
>George W. Bush, Radio Address 10/5/2002
>
>"The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
>George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002
>
>"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
>George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech 10/7/2002
>
>"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."
>George W. Bush, State of the Union Address 1/28/2003
>
>And this is fairly recent: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/US/01/27/sprj.nirq.bush/