Well, I am not one of the pro-war crowd, I just want it to finally end.  If you want someone from the pro-war crowd you will have to
wait for an answer from France or Germany.

However, I can answer your question.  The first thing to do is to read UN resolution 1441.  It is quite explicit and detailed on
what needs to be done to prove that Iraq has no weapons of mass destruction.  You can also read the 16 other resolutions prior to
that one.

In an earlier post, I made allusion to how this process worked for South Africa in the 1990s.  They meticulously detailed their
inventory before starting the eradication process and then fully documented the destruction process and supplied all the information
to the UN inspectors.  The inspectors could go anywhere at any time, by themselves and talk to anybody.  They did not have to go on
a scavenger hunt while weapons were moved around.

I would urge you to read UN resolution 1441.  It's all in there.

Denys

-----Original Message-----
From: HP-3000 Systems Discussion [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Wayne R. Boyer
Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 3:09 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: OT: A Canadian View Point

In a message dated 3/17/03 10:05:02 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:


> Johnson replied, "I don't have to prove it. Now that I've said it he has to
> disprove
> it."
>

Kinda like how Saddam has to prove that he does NOT have WMDs?  A question
for the pro-war crowd: If you were Saddam and you did NOT have any WMDs - how
would you 'prove' it to Bush, etc?

Wayne

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *