Originally posted by: NetGuySC
One thing that always bugged me in the run up to war. If Iraq had destroyed the weapons like they said they had, but hadn't done it "properly", according to UN guidelines, how were they supposed to ever solidly prove they had destroyed them? It is sort of like if I burned a piece of paper, and then when you asked me if I had destroyed the paper, I would say yes. If you asked me to prove that however, short of recording myself do it or something, I would be unable....but the fact would remain I did it.
One way of proving it is to allow the United Nations to assist in their destruction. Kind of like the way Libya is doing now
Plenty of opportunity for the Un to assist for 13 years
I agree....but my point remains. If they had already done it, albeit improperly, what else could they have done to stop us from invading? That is all well and good if they had them there, and could have let the inspectors destroy them, or be present during their destruction, but if they were already destroyed...what should they have done? The fact remains the inspectors were on the ground, with full access, and wanted to keep doing their job, but we said there wasn't time, and war was our only choice...
Near the end, the countries like France, Germany, and Russia would have been on our side if we gave them another month or two to keep doing inspections, but we could not apparently....why? Because Iraq would have attacked in the meantime with the weapons they didn't have?