Can you prove Iraq didn't have WMD's?

I think the OP is simply asking people to back up their assertions.

 

DELIBERATE CALCULATED LIES

 

True, but this is the reasoning used to assume Saddam had WMD, and having WMD was the justification for the invasion.

 

Who benefitted most from the crime?

 

Can you prove that you didn't eat a bag of poop the other day, loving and relishing the taste of the not-completely dissolved corn on your tongue?

 

The toxins were as potent as ever, only the casings were damaged.

As we saw in Japan, it's very easy to take a couple canisters and set them off in a busy location and cause mass murder.

Someone with zero skill could do that.

Not sure if you ever had a whiff of Sarin gas but I'm guessing not since you are still here.

 

Same way we "know" that little green elves don't exist: there is no evidence.

But "knowing" or not is not the issue. The "conspiracy" consisted in claiming that they did know... when, in fact, they didn't.

In any case, my comment is not about Iraq. It's about you not understanding the meaning of the idiom "conspiracy theory". From your post it looks like you still don't understand it.

 

We're not talking about the media. We're talking about the government. Pay attention, please.

 

Every government and every intelligence service -- including a couple of high level defectors from Iraq itself -- "knew" Saddam was actively working on nuclear WMDs. Hans Blix knew Saddam had WMDs and promised he would find them if he had "to search every kilometer." Everybody knew Saddam had other WMD and the propensity to use them. It was the latter that made Saddam a credible existential threat.

 

No, I was talking about the media. Pay attention please.

 

Disagree. Potentially having WMDs because UN weapons inspectors could no longer verify he didn't was the justification.

At the beginning of this thread, it was pointed out that you can't prove a negative. That's exactly what the critics of the US actions to remove Sadam from power expected.