WMD

There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq prior to the invasion, and no evidence that Saddam had produced any weapons since 1991. This is the conclusion of the Iraq Survey Group and to most, it would seem to vindicate those who were against the war, but I see it defferently.

The fact that no weapons have been found leads me to make to possible conclusions; Saddam was duped into thinking that he had WMD, or Saddam was to proud and even though he knew he had no WMD, he still did not want to prove to the world that he had none (I favor the latter). He was given numerous opportunities to prove that he had no WMD, and since he had none, one would think that the easiest thing for him to do would have been to, fully and categorically account for his past weapons (which everyone knows he had)and provide proof of their destruction (as was required under Security Council Resolution 687 and all the others dealing with the issue). One would think that an individual, backed into a corner (knowing the truth) would spill the beans, but he decided to lose his empire rather than provide the truth.

Now, some may argue that America would still have invaded even if he proved that he had no weapons, but imagine how more difficult there case would have been. The primary justification was that Saddam failed to disarm, had Saddam proved that he had indeed disarmed, the US would have been backed into a corner and forced to either provide another rationale, or give up.I say Saddam was foolish for not providing proof of his disarmament, he failed to call the US's bluff and we should not forget to blame him for the war. His stupidity cost him his country and maybe his life.