From Universal Mind
I am not sure how we and five other governments gained that intelligence, but it is what we all gathered.
This article was very interesting. It's old news, but it still has relevant points to make. As usual, I encourage you to read the whole thing, but for brevity, here's a small part of it:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...6-intell_x.htm

From USAToday (September, 2002)
...Conversely, the CIA says the U.S. military should assume that Saddam would use chemical and biological weapons against American invaders if the survival of his regime were at stake. Bush's top advisers view this risk as manageable.


One of the administration's key arguments is that the intelligence on Iraqi weapons may be wrong.


Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recall that inspections after the 1991 Persian Gulf War found Iraq much closer to fielding a nuclear weapon than the CIA had estimated. Now the administration warns that the latest CIA estimates — that Iraq may be years away from building a nuclear weapon — could be based on incomplete intelligence and wishful thinking.
You've said that the US doubted the conclusions of the UN and the ability of the IAEA to do its job. What basis was there for the doubt of the UN's conclusions and the conclusions of the US intelligence agencies?

From Universal Mind
I was never sure about an imminent attack from the Hussein regime. I thought Bush was saying they could do it and not that they were planning on it. If he said the latter, I am not sure where he got the intelligence. Most likely from the CIA. My big concern, and one that Bush expressed, was that the regime could get their weapons into the hands of Al Qaeda (not a friend of the Hussein regime, but a group with a common enemy-- the U.S.-- and one that had met with Hussein representatives) or one of the terrorist groups the Hussein regime directly supported. That is serious business.
If Saddam had never disarmed, this threat was not new. Iraq was repeatedly bombed in the 90's for its failure to comply with international law. If Saddam had any WMD's, he had a decade to give them to a common enemy, and chose not to. On the other hand, going to war with Saddam certainly risked that the WMD's would be used on civilians or given to a common enemy, a scenario that you have said is likely.

From Universal Mind
The most powerful resistance is necessary.
You may have missed the second part of my response: If the most powerful forces of resistance are taken out of the equation, lesser forces of resistance tend to spring up because they can no longer depend on a powerful ally to do the work for them. Large, powerful forces of resistance only seem necessary when it is assumed that lesser forces of resistance do not exist at all.

The Persians were thwarted at Thermopylae, Britain in the American colonies, Soviet Russia in Afghanistan, and the US in Vietnam. Rome was even sacked by former slaves at one point. In other words, the largest, most advanced armies on the planet have historically fallen to much smaller forces. It is only in the 20th century that superpowers have battled each other over world domination, and even so, there are contemporary examples of the smallest, most primitive resistance thwarting the plans of the most powerful armies on the planet(Iraq).

Even in the absence of powerful enemies, would-be world conquerers are vulnerable. It is even more true today than it was centuries ago.

From Universal Mind
I think the embarrassment the U.S. has had over not being able to find the weapons gave Hussein much more glee than he would have experienced using the WMD's. He knew he couldn't come close to defeating us, even with the WMD's, so he did the next best thing. He fooled most of the world into thinking we attacked him for nothing.
It's convenient that he's dead, so your assertion cannot be challenged. I cannot disprove that or provide evidence to the contrary. If that is your position on the subject, it is a position grounded on faith and nothing else. I disagree with you, and the article referenced above stated that the CIA assumed Saddam would use them. That's all I can say without berating you for making wild(and bizarre) speculations as to Saddam's intentions.

From Universal Mind
If the weapons were buried in the desert or had been shipped off to another country at the time of the invasion, we did not know that. Hussein would have buried them after we gathered our intelligence on where they once were. Also, there has been a major search for the weapons.
I assume that there are no digging teams searching the deserts of Iraq for Saddam's WMD's(because doing so would be a complete waste of time). Is there any evidence of a major search in Syria or other countries? If so, what, if anything, was found?