Originally posted by Toad
One less source is one less source. The rest will have to wait their turn.
Hmm... let's assume for a moment that Hussein is a source: where does it end? Will the US military eventually invade hardware stores and pharmacies? Ban X-rays, hospitals and medical research? The potential sources are really too numerous, and 9-11 shows the terrorists really don't need that much in the way of what we consider weapons to do the job. But back to the source assumption - is he really? I personally don't know, and I can't off hand recall any evidence that he is. And Hussein is certainly aware that if you give biological and chemical weapons to others they may be used against you later. After all, he himself has done exactly that to the West. Although that said, I'd be up for erring on the side of caution and assuming he is.
I will save my fingers. There is no proof that you will accept that would necessitate changing your mind. No security service from any country is going to expose all their sources and information down to the last detail in order to convince people that cannot be convinced. You, by admission, are one of those.
Everyone is lying everywhere and all the time...... except of course the sources YOU choose to believe.
You remind me of Boroda and the Katyn Forest culpability issue. 
Oh no I could be convinced, if there is solid evidence from third party or disinterested people. Find me a quote from someone in UNSCOM who has not worked for an espionage agency and has not spent most of his working life in the US State Department and I would be much more receptive. But anything coming from US government agencies or employees that backs up that government's statements has to be treated as being suspicious. I am, however, an equal opportunities paranoid - I believe anything coming from Iraqi government agencies or employees that backs up that government's statements has to be treated as being suspicious as well. I rather hoped you might avoid any risk of RSI typing out more evidence from US government sources, or sources that have just received fat US government contracts after helping out the pentagon. Perhaps your difficulty in comprehension of this concept stems from the old adage that it's always much easier to see the other side's propaganda. Certainly something that has been reinforced by many arguments involving Boroda I have seen. I remain eminently convincible and entirely unconvinced. As to your wonderful truism that I only believe sources that I choose to believe - welcome to reality - I think you'll find everyone does that, you included.
I'm sure it will be difficult without the input of France and Germany but I believe it will be the UN that plays the largest role in determining the nature of any "future" Iraq. That sainted UN the world so reveres.
Sorry I don't understand this bit - what will be difficult without the input of France and Germany? Why won't France and Germany be making inputs if it's to do with the UN? Hehe, I do believe the very mention of the dreadful UN makes you lose your train of thought.
If not, well you can rely on your belief that the US always has evil ulterior motives to harm the innocent. One of those would have to be to destablize the Gulf Arab dictatorships/monarchies by planting a successful democracy in their midst. 
Well as I said last post - I'll believe it when I see it, but the US track record since Germany and Japan has been pretty much all downhill from those two. Whether this is an insidious plot or not I don't know. Perhaps your view of the US as an altruistic state, a political fairy godmother if you will (waving it's magic military might and saying "you shall be a democracy") is correct. If so, however, the case histories seem to bear out the old phrase: "the path to hell is paved with good intentions." And by extension the US foreign policy of altruism since 45 has been so incompetently run that US foreign experts should probably not even be allowed to play with plastic scissors.
I personally think that US foreign policy is cobbled together ad hoc, by professional bureaucrats informed by information of varying reliability who are lead by well-meaning total amateurs who really aren't sure what they're doing. All these people are trying to protect US self-interest in the short term (4-8 years). Much the same as any other country. Of course the US has the extra complication of having a military that's larger than the next 6 militaries put together. The heads of the military realize that the military has to be used fairly often to justify the enormous expenditure that it incurs, and no doubt advise the government accordingly, as indeed they themselves are advised, because nobody likes to lose their toys or their jobs. Mix these elements plus US culture & business together and you come up with US foreign policy - no insidious plot, and no political fairy godmother either. And definitely open to all the usual human fallibilities and foibles.
