"Fly Guy" wrote in message ...
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

The Iraqis accepted the requirement to verify destruction of their
WMD prior to any destruction of them.

Any such requirement would have been rammed down their throat,
probably with no supporting adendums detailing what constitutes
acceptible verification.

For what reason would they destroy them but maintain the
appearance that they had not been destroyed?

How about to give surrounding hostile countries the reason to think
that Iraq just might have some shread of defensive capability?

Please explain why a shipment of 14 scud missles from North Korea was
allowed to be delivered to Yemen before the Iraq invasion started?
Yemen. You know, where the USS Cole was almost sunk? The country
filled with radicals and terrorists? Why did the US allow the
Yemenese to take possession of those WMD's?

FYI, a ballistic missile is not a WMD all by its lonesome. It requires the
fitting of a nuclear, biological, or chemical warhead before it meets the
generally accepted definition of "WMD". You are mistaking the effort to
control ballistic missile proliferation under the Missile Technology Control
Regime (MTCR) for WMD proliferation control, and the two ain't the same
thing.

Brooks

snip further misdirected rant