> > Luke, if you struggle to answer that question there is something
> amiss,
> > no? I fail to understand under what conditions the weapons
> inspections
> > were justifiable.
> >
> Zak, thanks for addressing me by name, which is a courtesy Carrol is
> unwilling to extend.
>
> As for weapons inspections, I happen to believe that the lower the
> number
> of states with weapons of mass destruction, the better.
>
I suspect we're addressing two different issuies here Luke. You're
addressing the number of states with weapons of mass destruction (a
whole 'nother debate*, yes?), whilst I am suggesting that Iraqi
non-compliance with the weapons inspectors is fine with me (not that
that counts, but hey).
* For what it's worth, I'd rather _not_ see only the US and allies with such weapons. It is too late though - all the guns are drawn and no-one is going to drop theirs first.
Cheers
Zak