Of course since the US has never wanted the inspections to succeed in the 1st place.

When has that ever stopped you before?

Forget accurate and go with you feelings

I should have said more.

We know he had more chemical/bio weapons. However we also know that many had shelf lives of under ten years so they may really be gone now. But we have accurate records of what we help them get durring the Iraq/Iran war and we have not found all of this stuff. We have also never been told all what was given to Iraq. Bush may know that they have stuff that we help them get that we must get now.

Still its laughable how quickly the right here would discount the idea that this administration would use propaganda. Every administration at war has used propaganda.

We already had the nuclear story exposed as propaganda.

I am not suggesting there is anything wrong with it or that it is worth criticizing. But you can bet the farm and all your pennies that we will find lots of stuff (we have to).

I would but that mantra has already been taken by of most of the pro-war people.

There was never a chance for the inspectors to succeed in the first place. It was doomed to fail. The inspection process only works when you have cooperation from those that you are inspecting.

Cooperation will not be a problem in the "new Iraq."

My opinions:
WMD: George hasn't shown us hard proof before we go in. If he can't show us hard proof afterward, he is a one term President, and we have to eat crow at the UN for a decade or more. I consider this probability near zero. On the slight chance of it occuring though, George needs to realize how po'd the American people would be.
Fake: Honestly, if we find nothing, he might want to try. I believe someone would have the integrity to rat him out if this were the case. It would be too big to cover up.
Others: If there were a mushroom cloud over Paris, those French far enough away to survive will say "We need more proof" or "He didn't attack us."

It would be funny for the American soldiers to just stumble upon the stuff because the Iraqis didn't have time to move them around. I could see Mark Whalberg playing his character from Three Kings saying "What the heck did I just trip over?" "Oh, it's just some Anthrax and stuff." "I thought they didn't have this stuff and we were supposed to plant some evidence." "Oh well, makes our job easier."

All kidding aside I would be amazed if they could find no evidence of WMD. It would be scary if SH decided he had nothing to lose and went for an all out first strike attack using his WMD.

Yah, it was on 60 minutes.. and about 20 seconds after 60 minutes said that, they said they tried to trace the sources, and immediately found that the study was completely fabricated, and the sources were made up.

To answer the original question, we will still complete the objective which is to get SH out of power, and they will come up with something.. even if its just 'evidence' of WMD.

when the dust settles, if, all shocks of shocks, there happens NOT to be any weapons of mass destruction, will the US plant some in Iraq ?

cos if they don't, they will look like the biggest bullies and wallies in history!

As I said in this thread, no.

What if we find nothing in Iraq?

does someone hear an echo in here

Oh please.

The better question is that when we do what are those who said there wasn't any going to say ?

Hmmm.

What is France going to say when they are shown to have oil & weapon deals with Saddam ?

I think there are a few poeple here who think the US will do something like that.

Loony, if you ask me.

No chance of us looking like a bunch of Sheilas, mate.

Well, Iraq has already fired a SCUD missile at US troops in Kuwait so we know they were lying about that...

The most effective ones to plant would be pesticides, chainsaws, and tax reduction plans.

If the scud missiles that were used were really just large bouquets of love and harmony, will we plant scud missiles?

don't get me wrong, i hope there are weapns of MD to justify the war but i just think Bush should have been more honest and said he was going into Iraq for regime change mainly, sod the weapons, let's just get rid of Saddam !

i think we should plant flowers.

Huh? How do you know where those scuds were fired from? Basra, for example, is less than 100 KM from the Koweit border.

Bush never said the main reason was for regime change.
He has said all along the reasons we are going to war are disarm Iraq, regime change and liberate their people.

Although I don't put it past our government I'd say no in this instance.

(but that's just my gut)

Well, the Iraqis are firing Al Samouds and SCUDS at us. They're illegal, lord knows what else he has.

I don't think they'd plant anything. It'd be just as easy to say that they were destroyed and you'd just have to take their word for it.

I don't know how many people dispute that there might be chemical stockpiles or illegal weapons there. The dispute is if we really needed to go to war over it.