[MMMMMM]

Of course the main disagreement is over what to do about it. But there are some who actually believe Saddam is "coming around" due to his dribbling out minor concessions, and more incredibly, there are some who think there is a reasonable possibility that he actually disarmed long ago and has no WMD now. Observe the calls for "proof"': these people appear unable to put the jigsaw puzzle together and to see that, in addition to recent circumstantial evidence, Saddam's actions over the years have all been geared towards preserving his WMD. In other words it is OBVIOUS that Saddam has WMD to anyone who can get a glimpse of the picture the incomplete jigsaw puzzle is building. Everything points in the same direction on this matter.

It also doesn't make sense to rule out the possibility of Saddam's WMD getting into the hands of terrorists--but some people do essentially rule that consideration out.

Regarding trust in the leaderships of governments, varying degrees of trustworthiness must be taken into consideration. I would tend to trust more of what the US government says than what Saddam says--and rightly so, I believe. I think it is essential in weighing such matters to pay attention to degree; not just make comparisons. I notice when debating with Chris Alger he frequently makes blanket comparisons without taking into account the sometimes profound effect of differences in degree.

Certainly some well-informed people who can solve jigsaw puzzles might still think war is not the best solution. But they won't think that because they erroneously believe that Saddam may well not have WMD, or because they think he is cooperating by dribbling out a few concessions which are no more than foot-dragging tactics, or because they erroneously eliminate the potentially disastrous possibility of Saddam's WMD finding their way into terrorists hands.