>The logic is iron clad. If you don't agree, please explain where precisely is the breakdown in logic?
Here:
>It is CERTAINLY fair to assume that, had he destroyed it, he would have documented such destruction. Thus he still has it.
There's a lot of documentation... I could be wrong, but in the 11,000 pages of documents handed over, there must've been some documentation of weapons being destroyed, even if not everything was included.
I went too far by calling your reasoning "faulty logic", now that I think of it- but what you're providing would get you a search warrant in a court, but not a conviction.
The inspectors are executing that warrant. They're the cops. Maybe 300 cops aren't enough, but 10,000 could be...
Of course, no matter how many "cops" are sent in, they won't do anything about his human rights abuses.
I'm for this war, don't get me wrong.
-Z |
